Seriously, he's taking a shit on "purist liberals"?

Remind me again, who was speaking up loud and clear about the danger of running another corporatist against a right-wing populist? Who was that again? Was it the strategists and consultants of the DNC? Was it all the celebrities who were „with her“?

Or was it maybe those liberal idiots whose candidate is, I don't know, the most popular politician in the country? Sanders gets cheers from Trump voters at townhalls in red states, and you're putting the blame for Trump's election at the feet of purist liberals?

Honestly, mate. You want to know what a neoliberal disaster looks like? Look at at the White House. Neoliberal policies are the breeding ground of right-wing populists. You think someone like Trump gets elected because of his convincing policy proposals? Right-wing populists are the answers to „centrist“ policies that enrich the few at the cost of the many. Everyone knows the effects, from widescale poverty, historic inequality, the opioid epidemic, all the way to the two-tiered justice system with fraudsters and torturers running free while not being able to pay a parking tickets gets you jailed.

Too abstract for you, Bill? Then look at Detroit. Look at Cleveland. Is that enough of a visual representation of what a neoliberal disaster looks like?

In this situation, they decided to run a corporatist, with the message „America is already great“. How was that supposed to resonate with the working stiff, Bill? The people whose despair is the main driver behind the opioid epidemic, as Case-Deaton has shows us in such detail. Who had the glorious idea to run exclusively on identity politics and ignore the economic plight of the lower class?

Was that the purist liberals, Bill?

Did the purist liberals run a campaign whose own people, if „Shattered“ contains any truth at all, described it as nothing short of a disaster? Even Clinton's own people didn't seem to know why she was running, and were toying with the idea of just going with „it's her turn“. Seriously, the way they describe Clinton's paranoia and refusal to interact with her own staff makes it sound like her campaign was not much less of a clusterfuck than Trump's presidency, from an organizing point of view.

But yeah, go ahead and blame the purist liberals. And Comey, while you're at it. And Russia. And Jill Stein. And fake news. And WikiLeaks. And sexism. Anything but the DNC and their corporate candidate.

Let me know when you're done, maybe then we can have a proper post-mortem of how the Democrats managed to lose the White House, Congress, most state legislatures and Governorships. And we'll start from the top, because we have a saying in German: „der Fisch stinkt vom Kopf her“. Maybe you can get an option to vote against Wall Street, against the war on drugs, against big pharma, against the MIC, and against the destruction of our biosphere. Because you sure as hell didn't have one this time.

how did this thread steer into climate change waters?
heh...god i love this site,and i love all you fuckers as well!

i don't really understand the rehashing of the election,trump is president.it is a done deal.

which is probably why i am struggling with the hillary diehards.politics is not a binary equation,so stop acting like it IS,and for the love of god stop with the condescension directed at people who did not vote YOUR way.ya'all are acting like we are your wayward dog who just took a giant dump on your carpet.

just LOOK at what you have done! LOOK at it! bad dog..baaaad dog.

@Stormsinger and @MilkmanDan were kind enough to share who they voted for,but they should not be put in a position to defend their vote.their vote,their choice and their right.

you may disagree,and that is fine,but to place all the blame on them,and their "like-minded compatriots" is arrogant,presumptuous and condescending.the reason hillary lost is not simply due to a few small holdouts.there are a myriad of reasons,and in my opinion,hillary should take most of the blame.

and what is this purity test @bareboards2 ?
do you mean a person standing by their principles?
remaining steadfast in their moral values?
showing us all that they would rather lose,than give up one ounce of integrity?

are you seriously criticizing people for holding to their own standards of morality and decency?

politics is not binary,there a many mitigating factors and political affilliation is only one aspect.

i have seen friends who voted for trump,and were extremely vocal about their support in the run up to election day,only to become eerily silent the further we got into trumps presidency.many of these people had voted for obama..TWICE..they wanted change.were desperate for change,and now they are finding out,that change may not be what they were expecting.

because the trump presidency is going to one helluva horror show,but there are also positives to consider.it is not a total loss.

i have the seen the very same people who have ridiculed and berated fundamentalist christians for being ideologically rigid,and philosophically immovable.turn around and express the exact same rigidity,and binary thought processes when it comes to their girl hillary clinton.

i was talking the other day with a man i highly respect and admire,who flippantly and casually called me a racist.
my crime?
i had the audacity to criticize obama.
which he doubled down and accused me of being sexist for not supporting hillary,and being critical of her as well.

how is this NOT ideological rigidity?
that to critically examine two prominent public figures automatically equates to:racism and sexism.

this is the metric that i see so many hillary supporters use when dealing with someone that they may disagree.this is a cheap,ill thought and ultimately WEAK counter to valid criticisms.

at what point do hillary supporters stop labeling other people the most vile of terms,simply because they did not step into line with THEIR thinking,and begin to examine the very REAL problems that both the hillary campaign,and the DNC,created for themselves?

or is everybody simply a racist and sexist?
that's it..no discussion.

this is akin to the fundamentalist christian labeling anybody who disagrees with their religion,or has brought up solid criticisms,as being an agent of satan.

" i do not like what you are saying about hillary,so therefore you must be a sexist".

the easiest,and most human,thing we do when faced with information and/or criticism that is in direct opposition to our long held beliefs.is to demonize the person making those claims,and therefore silence any further disruption to our own subjective belief system.

so when i talk about "insulated bubbles",and "echo chambers".that right there is what i am referring to,and it is dangerous.

i refuse to judge anybody on how they voted.they had their reasons,and i may even disagree with those reasons,but they have a right to their vote and who am i to judge them?

rehashing the election,or assigning blame based on ideological differences,accomplishes nothing.the REAL work starts now.trump is in office,and he is gearing up to be an unmitigated disaster.

so get involved.head to your next town hall meeting and speak your piece.start to connect with the political movements in your area and start to put pressure on your local representative.

i think we can all agree that trump is awful on so many levels,but to witness the american people become so politically engaged,so politically active,more active than they have been in decades.it really is inspiring,and all this is due to trump.

if hillary had won,would we see the same kind of newly energized,and politically active public?

i don't think so.

so let us stop with the rehashing.
stop with the blaming.
and get off our asses,step outside our own little,insulated echo chamber and start to engage.

don't know how to step outside your own bubble?
there is an app for that:
https://videosift.com/video/it-is-time-to-pop-your-social-media-echo-chamber-bubble

*oh,and even though i may have alluded to who i voted for.let me state clearly that i voted for hillary.i stick by my dislike of the "lesser of two evils" but come on...trump in the white house?

yeeesh....

I just want to point out that I posted this video because it reminded me of another classic show from many years ago, All in the Family.

As to my personal opinion, we need to get past words, guys and gals. I am a white male of Italian descent. In my life I have been called a lot of names, by people of all ethnic backgrounds. I have been called a wop, a dago, a greasy (wop/dago), a cracker, whitey, and many other things. As a kid, it definitely hurt sometimes, but I came to understand that it could only hurt me if "I" let the names define me as a person. The N word, the C word, whatever word, only can hurt you if you allow it to do so.

Now treating someone different, directly based on their ethnicity, that is something that needs to be addressed. It will ALWAYS need to be addressed because human nature is to shun differences. In the US, we have problems with racism and sexism, but out of all the countries I can think of, we are blended enough that it is actually (slowly) starting to work out. We definitely aren't the worst, even countries in Europe that pride themselves on being accepting of diversity are flipping their shit right now with the influx of so many strange people (refugees). Countries like Japan and states like Hawaii, that is where you need to visit if you want to see some hardcore cultural racism.

@iaui
i do not understand you defense of corporate media pundits,who most certainly failed to recognize the actual political climate of this country.

i am not saying EVERY pundit got it wrong.there were internet political shows that did address the rise of populism,and the reasons behind it,and that trump was a valid threat and not to be dismissed.

but for the most part,corporate media pundits all echoed each others sentiments in regards to this last election cycle.

there is a REASON why bernie sanders populist language resonated with the public,and many of those people were republicans.

there is a REASON why trumps populist language,which was vastly different than sanders,resonated with another sector of the population,and not all of those people were racist,sexist,misogynist homophobes.

and none of those REASONS were addressed by corporate media pundits.they preferred to talk about trumps bombastic speeches,his racism and sexism...total cult of celebrity,because it SOLD,it made them MONEY.

it is those very same corporate media pundits that actually facilitated the rise of donald trump,and his actual presidency,because they simply did not get the current political climate here in america.which is exactly what this video is addressing,that these highly paid,and richly rewarded,pundit class reside in their own tiny,little echo chambers,that happens to reside in close proximity to the very people they have been assigned to watch,criticize and report on.

they failed on an epic scale,and it is no surprise that the majority of americans have abandoned corporate media as if it had herpes,covered in aids.

and to make the argument that this video is suspect SIMPLY because bob posted it,is intellectually dishonest,because it does NOT address the video.i disagree with bob on pretty much everything,but to ignore or disregard this video based solely on the fact that you,or i,disagree with bob politically is just incredibly weak.

now if you wish to defend corporate media political pundits,and opinion makers,and have strong case where this video is wrong in regards to how the pundit class have failed,live in a bubble,and did not understand the underlying frustration and anger boiling underneath americas working class.i am all ears,because in my opinion they have utterly failed the american people.

and i am not dismissing your polling numbers,i am just saying they are not as relevant as you are making them out to be.polls can be manipulated to mean anything you want them to mean,and in my opinion are not a strong basis to formulate an argument to defend corporate media.

but i suspect your argument is more against bob than the video,and your skepticism is based solely on your disagreement with bob politically.not un-warranted i admit,bob has posted some extremely slanted videos,but so haven't we all in our own way.

but in this case?
this video is spot on,even though bob is the one who posted.

do not let your bob bias and prejudice cloud your judgment.

It's sad, but I remember my friends in high school making fun of any young woman who got pregnant early in life. Yeah, I found new friends.

Some men want to make this video seem like it's an attack on all men and that this is sexism directed at them. If you think that... well, you may be right, but not about it being an attack on all men -- it's an attack on bigots.

@worm
ha! touche'

i come from a different perspective.
i am the dude sitting on the bench watching the ultra left and ultra right collectively pee themselves,but over such inane,and partisan of political perfunctory reasons.

the ultra left are a gaggle of cry-babies who see racism,sexism and misogyny everywhere,and they openly seek to shut down conversations and discussions by accusation of the very thing they are supposedly fighting for.

the ultra right..however...

are equally detestable in their faux hyper-nationalism,super patriotism authoritarianism.jesus came to earth so you could drive a beamer...but ONLY if your american.

who wet their wee panties at even the slightest thought of a brown person coming to take away their god given right to be a gun toting,cheetos flavored,ignorant twat.

they just LOVE to take credit for accomplishments that they never had a part in,nor had the balls to even attempt.

i am ex-military,and every right winger..and i mean EVERY right winger i know..never served a day.

so i get your point mate.
it is rather hilarious in an existential way,how both the right and left and so unabashedly unaware of their own hypocrisy.

the ultra left have chosen to fight racism,sexism and misogyny by..../drum roll....

shutting down free speech by not only calling everyone who disagrees a :racist,sexist and misogynist,but by also attempting to legislate the very language we use...you know..to communicate.

whereas the ultra right have become such boot lickers due to their own xenophobic fears of everything:different,other and strange that they literally piss themselves at even the mention of brown people,and appear to be willing to sacrifice every civil right,just so they can feel "safe".

they hide behind the flag and hyper-patriotism but thats all bullshit...they are simply trying to hide the pee stains on their camos.they hate brown people with the same viciousness that they hate the godless liberals.

they band together under the banner of jesus,god and country and state..quite loudly..that they will FIGHT sharia law in america.

while seemingly noble,it belies the fact that nobody is trying to impose sharia law in the USA,but holy jesus on a fuck stick,do they drool over the thought of having a "christian" nation,with "christian" values and "christian" laws.

so DOWN with sharia law (which there is no evidence)
and UP with christian theocracy! (which there is AMPLE evidence of).

the hyper ultra political extensions have taken control of my countries political discussion.

a gaggle of bed wetting cry-babies who dominate this hyper-partisan narrative.

and i am just sitting over here laughing my ass off at the almost surreal absurdity of what has become of my nation.

if you still think the fight is between liberal vs conservative,then i submit you have not been paying attention.

you been taken.
you been had.
you have been sold a bill of bullshit goods that has more place on a daily soap opera than in our political discussion.

the simple fact is this:
liberals WON the moral argument,but they never got the memo.
and the conservatives forgot who they were and sought solace in the arms of a corporate jesus with the face of joel olsteen.

my country has now entered the stage of farce.
we are a fucking joke.

but feel free to keep on poking liberals..

and liberals..

keep on poking conservatives.

and i shall sit here feeding the pidgeons laughing my ass off at both of you.

I think choosing who you want to make sweet love to is the one area where it's completely fine to discriminate in whatever way you want. Having a sexual orientation isn't sexism, not dating the elderly isn't ageism. Even more shallow things like preferring certain body types or certain races is fine, because the alternative is to lie about what attracts you, which is not actually a kind thing to do.

What really pisses me off is guys who somehow feel entitled to dates from women who aren't interested. Just find someone you're compatible with, there is no "correcting" people's sexual preferences.

As for the better point of women being hypocritical because they don't want to be judged on their weight, I think they're smart enough to know that happens, but it does seem crass to ask for exact measurements. The main difference is women believe most men don't mind being asked their height, and men know most women do mind being asked their weight.

So men, own up to your height insecurity whenever possible so that women will be more sensitive in the future.
( Γ˚Д˚)Γ

@enoch

Here's the deal, my friend.

The internet does not come with a tone of voice. You might consider that the way you read my words are not the way they are said in my head (cue to your cafe analogy.)

And I can't read tone of voice either. I supply it. And I have bodily reactions to you, too, my friend.

We both do this because both of us are a bit difficult, and both of us are supplying tone of voice that makes the words on the page different.

I'm not going to apologize for what I wrote. I meant what I said. Every word. And there is nothing wrong with what I wrote. You didn't like it for your own reasons, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with anything I said.

I will say that you have supplied a context to gorillaman that he could have supplied himself with the sarcasm button. He didn't do that. So was he kidding? I don't know.

You assume that anyone who reads his post has the extensive knowledge of his motives and personality. Newcomers won't. And here is an embarrassing admission -- although I too have been on this site for ten years, I don't have a sense of who gorillaman is. Sorry, gorillaman. I just haven't been paying attention to you. This is a character flaw on my part, also, since you seem intent on listing my flaws. I am pretty much in my head, and until there have been repeated interactions, I don't really take in people. I am selfish that way.

About the Homeland Security remark. Gorillaman was given the benefit of the doubt for his motives, he was given context. I assumed that I would be accorded the same gift.

So let me give context.

I am repulsed by the term Homeland Security. I was repulsed the first time I heard it, I am repulsed every time I hear it.

So when I take on racism, homophobia, sexism, xenophoabia, or any garden variety hatred, I invoke Homeland Security to protect us from what is the real threat. Not scary brown skinned people. But the people amongst us who truly are a threat to our way of life.

My mistake -- and it was a mistake -- was to assume that people get the connection. Because of context. Which of course isn't good enough.

I like my jab at the concept of Homeland Security. But it obviously isn't working. I'll have to rework it, make it clear. give it context.

Because I agree with you there, my friend. Homeland Security evokes the Third Reich and it turns my stomach. Every time.

And how did Breitbart respond?

By attacking the messenger

So there are so many things wrong with those fucking nazi assholes stupid argument, I don't know where to start.

Let's see:
sexism? check! She's just a pretty girl....
Ad hominem? check!
Being completely wrong about climate change? check!

oh and my favourite part... they attempted to coin a new logical fallacy... in their words "argumentum ad puellam pulchram. (aka the Argument from a Pretty Girl)".

Except the fucking morons can't even get the latin right.

"Argumentum ad" is arguing TO not FROM, i.e. they are attacking a "pretty girl", not being attacked by.

They inadvertently exposed their own fallacy while trying to make up a new one.

Morons....

Bottom line, every single Trump voter made a clear statement that overt racism, sexism and bigotry was not a disqualifying event for the office of president.

It's fucking pathetic that this is still true.

*promote

i would like to say a few things.

first,
i would personally like to welcome my anti-war democrats back to the party.it appears it only took voting in the worlds most successful used car salesmen and professional internet troll to get you fuckers to get off the bench.

saved a seat for ya!../pats seat

second,
while i can admire this woman's passion and self righteous indignation,i refuse to accept her moral condescension,because for all her flowery and bombastic condemnation of anyone who voted for trump was a vote for:racism,sexism,bigotry and hatred,and implies she has deep understanding the motivations for voting trump.

i submit that she does not.
i submit that she is a hypocrite.

i submit that while she decries her anger and outrage at the moral ineptitude of her fellow americans for failing to rebuke an obviously unqualified candidate,who openly used racist and sexist rhetoric to appeal to our most base fears and anxieties.

she was missing the main point.the main reason.

so while she stood upon her ivory tower aghast at the horror unfolding in front of her on election night,she STILL did not get it.

she watched in horror as her fellow americans ignored trumps obvious racism.
ignored the sexism.
ignored the proto-fascist verbiage.
ignored the narcissism and petty tantrums.
ignored pretty much everything leading an election night into the surreal and absurd.

because she didn't get it,and obviously STILL doesn't get it.

because voting trump was not a vote for:racism,sexism,bigotry or hatred.
a vote for trump was a "fuck you" vote.
a trump vote was a "no confidence" vote.

now of course there are those who are racists,and sexist and are most certainly bigots and hateful fuckheads..of course.

and there are those who are diehard rightwing republicans...of course.

but the majority of those who voted trump are NOT those people.the majority of americans have..for forty fucking years..tried to utilize a system to counter correct the political establishment only to get fucked in the ass by the very same system they were trying to correct.

you can go look for yourselves.it looks like a clock pendulum.swinging dem and then back to repub and then back again.

and what did the american people get?
nothing.
nada.
zip.
zilch.

they got:
expanding wars.
stagnant wages and jobs.
higher taxes.
higher living costs.
drone strikes and secret prisons.
a two tiered justice system.
private prisons.
debt peonage.

and a government bought and paid for by:big banks,wall street,military industrial complex and multi-national corporations.

all this while the american middle class fell off the map into poverty and working poor.

so while those who voted trump may be politically unsophisticated,they are most certainly not dumb.

they got it.
and they finally understood that the system that they had been raised to believe was "by the people,for the people" no longer functioned at that capacity.

so the very same people who voted for obama and his "hope and change" campaign.
voted trump.
the people who had become politically engaged by the message that sanders brought to the table,either stayed home,or voted trump.

this was a protest vote.
plain and simple.

your fellow americans just nuked the system.
because it was the SYSTEM that was corrupt and no longer was functioning.

i find their choice just as terrifying as you do,but i have to admire the audacity to just nuke the entire system.

but can you really blame them?
they tried for decades to course correct,but the two party dictatorship had a stranglehold,and they served not 'we the people" but money and power.so our fellow americans utilized their one power given to them by the constitution.

and the hypocrisy here is that when bush was in office the left was losing their shit,and rightly so,but when obama was in office all we heard was crickets....and a disturbing silence from the left.(i realize this is an over generalization.there of course was some noise coming from the left).

and this woman is so out of touch that she is convinced that voting trump was a social issue matter?

i am sorry sweetheart,but some things are just not that simple,and condescending from your ivory tower,prattling on about social constructs as if you have been given some moral authority to judge others,only serves to solidify your own tiny and secluded echo chamber.where everybody can smell their own farts and pat themselves on the back for how clever they are,without ever having to critically examine ones own position.

which just means that she will never..ever..get it.

that is my .02 anyways.
take it for what it is worth.

I'm sorry, but there are some things that just aren't up for discussion.

If you want to discuss healthcare or taxes or foreign policy or corruption or infrastructure or any one of a hundred different issues... that's fine. We had those debates in the last few elections and sometimes there were outcomes I agreed with, sometimes not.

But on topics like racism, sexism and homophobia, liberals HAVE won the culture war AND WE SHOULD STOP FUCKING APOLOGISING FOR IT.

And that's the problem with Trump. You can't have a discussion with him or his supporters because you can't get past the fundamental problems outlined above. There is a minimum level of decency and knowledge required for a discussion, and Trump fails to meet that.

"Not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist or a sexist"... so fucking what? Who gives a shit if they are or aren't? They put one in the goddamn Whitehouse.

That path only leads to depression, my friend. If sexism and/or racism is the criteria, Berlusconi was in and out of office for 17 years. Victor Orban is in office right now. Marine Le Pen is a very real possibility next year. That's a lot of Trumpets if I may borrow Mark Blythe's term for it...

It's also a lot of people willing to overlook seemingly disqualifying characteristics. Which cuts to what truly fills me with sadness: just how pathetic of an alternative must the Left, of which I am a part, be providing these days if people prefer the right-wing alternative, no matter how ugly its face might be...

That is true, but I think a similar categorical statement can be made; everyone who voted for Trump was willing to overlook sexism and racism in a presidential candidate. That is very nearly as sad.

Interestingly enough, Paul Feig recently actually admitted in an interview that he understands a lot of the backlash at this point.


Not the sexism so much, but the fact that when the movie first came out, he was in film school. He went, he saw it as a comedy with great special effects, and that's what he was remaking.

What he didn't realize, that as much as the film itself was just a comedy to him, a lot of kids grew up watching it and idolizing the main characters, myself included. It's not necessarily the gender swap that was the issue, it was the remake in its entirety.

The honest trailer nails that aspect prettymuch.