sums up the two parties precisely. one is the exact reverse of the other.
(including which end of their body they speak from)
{I’ll let the reader imagine which end I see Drumph using to speak}
Holmssays
Ah, I was wondering why the dialogue was so disjointed. And yeah pretty much.
dicksays
Ha ha! That’s very clever.
But it’s so sad that Bernie wasn’t nominated.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Very clever of the author.
But it’s so sad that Bernie wasn’t nominated.
Bernie’s name was put into nomination. But, he only got 45% of the primary votes. Why should he have received the nomination given that a majority of the democratic voters preferred Hillary?
They didn’t say he should have, just that it’s sad he wasn’t. It’s ok to express disappointment at how events turned out, even if you don’t buy into the ‘stolen nomination’ narrative.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
It’s ok to express disappointment at how events turned out, even if you don’t buy into the ‘stolen nomination’ narrative.
Why should it have been posted on this thread even? It’s about political narrative of the candidates, not the choice of the party for the nomination.
Many of us (me included) voted for Sander’s in the primary, but we aren’t bemoaning after the fact that he didn’t get the nomination.
Akira MacKenziesays
Yuppers! Everything is coming up roses!
(Just ignore the collapsing environment, the growing income inequality, corporate/religious/military influence on government, the racial injustice, diminishing resources, overpopulation, failing education, gutted social welfare system, student loans crisis, and just about everything else.)
unclefrogysays
I agree with the description of the 2 campaigns though the cartoon does not work so well for me my mind just gets to tangled up.
We are in an interesting election season this time. There are many ways to get the nomination for POTUS .
You can have some identifiable charisma that people respond to and you can come use base motivations of fear and resentment and win when no one expected you to.
You can come out of no where, without any great personality power or charisma and in a very short time carrying a message and a plan that people respond to and against the wisdom of the establishment come very close to wining.
The other way is to doggedly campaign for years and years to put in your time doing the best you can do while keeping your eyes on the goal win the nomination.
the contrast of the optimistic view and the negative view is interesting because they are looking at the same world and conditions and the problems. If those problems are not addressed in some way that is viewed as successful the winner will not easily likely be easily forgiven.
All the pundits seem to agree the people want some kind of change and there are very serious real problems facing us.
It does worry me when the pundits agree on anything that we might be missing something.
uncle frogy
Holmssays
#7
Your comment appears to be based on nothing said in this thread.
Akira MacKenziesays
Holmes @ 9
It was based upon the annoying, shiny-happy-people, everything-is-beautiful attitude held by American Center-Left that denies reality in favor of feel-good fantasy.
The Republicans are right about one thing: the world and human civilization IS going down the toilet. What they got wrong are the group’s who are doing the damage. There are horrible, terrible things happening in the world today. And all this talk of hope and (gag, spit) “optimism” only distracts us from what is. Happy thoughts and feelings aren’t going to fix them, that is, if we can fix them at all before they destroy us all.
Optimism won’t save us. Only government action. Of course, there will be no substantive, effective action taken. We need to be “pragmatic” and “compromise” in a spirt of “bipartisanship” with the right-wing, capitalist, religionist thugs who are fucking up the world.
The headline makes no sense. They’re *literally* saying the opposite of each other.
Vivecsays
@12
It was sarcasm.
Vivecsays
I also disagree about the US going down the drain swiftly. If you gave me a time machine and offered to let me live at any point in human history ever up to this point, I’d pick here and now. Unlike 99% of human history, I have rights, medicine, increasing social acceptance, and relative safety.
The idea that there was some halcyon age that we’ve since deviated from is laughable.
unclefrogysays
vivec @14
their might be some “halcyon” days in the future waiting for us that are better than we can imagine?
uncle frogy
Drawlersays
Clinton has indulged in pretty all of the rhetoric on the trump part of the image throughout her career, to varying degrees. But hey, she’s been giving some nice speeches full of insincere platitudes, so I guess we shouldn’t hold it against her or the Democrats.
Many of us (me included) voted for Sander’s in the primary
Hah of course you did. That’s why you jump down a guys throat for an making an innocent, wistful remark stating that he wished his preferred candidate (the very candidate you claimed to have backed) had won right ?
I’ve noticed throughout the campaign that many of the most servile Clinton apologists claim to have actually supported Sanders in the primary, probably because it makes their haranguing of Sanders supporters look like its coming from a position of good faith, rather than it being standard left-punching partisan hackery.
KGsays
Many of us (me included) voted for Sander’s in the primary – Nerd of redhead@6
Ah, well if a lot of people made the same mistake as you, and voted for Sander’s instead of Sanders, that could explain why he lost.
KGsays
Drawler@16,
Nerd of Redhead was consistent in his support for Sanders throughout the campaign. And you’re a ridiculous numpty.
chrislawsonsays
Drawler@16:
many of the most servile Clinton apologists claim to have actually supported Sanders in the primary, probably because it makes their haranguing of Sanders supporters look like its coming from a position of good faith, rather than it being standard left-punching partisan hackery.
Gee, an accusation of bad faith from someone assuming malice in others.
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem))says
Why do so many judge Clinton solely by the speeches she gives (and who she got paid to give one to). Instead of focusing on deriding her for “saying all the good stuff that all the empty people say”, look at her record of actions.
That is what all the speakers at DNC tried to highlight. That Hill doesn’t just speak, but acts. Works hard to achieve goals,even when it means reaching out to enemies as well as friends. That the goal takes precedence over relationships. Also works to maintain the goal after it has been achieved. Unlike many, who once a bridge is built will refuse to maintain it and let it crumble over time. (that metaphor is also literal, you know)
Sanders too speaks loudly, but actually achieved valuable goals. That’s why I voted for him in the Primary in my state, and her record of action is also why I will not refuse to vote for Clinton. Refusing to vote at this point is simply spite, out of disappointment. I would have preferred Sanders as well; Clinton is more than “good enough” or “worth holding my nose”. She is a valuable candidate. Do you “throw away nickels cuz you prefer dimes”?
She doesn’t just say pretty things to get elected. She actually achieves things to help people. “Walks the walk, and not just talks the talk”
[not paid for by Clinton PAC]
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
I’ve noticed throughout the campaign that many of the most servile Clinton apologists claim to have actually supported Sanders in the primary, probably because it makes their haranguing of Sanders supporters look like its coming from a position of good faith, rather than it being standard left-punching partisan hackery.
Gee, you are such a good political analyst, that Donald Trump makes more sense. What is your real problem?
Your guy lost fair and square, and even though I voted for him, I saw he would lose after New York, and accepted it. Evidently you can’t.
parasiteboysays
To bad the author didn’t draw a talking elephant and a donkey instead. This has been a major difference between the two parties for a while and looks like it will continue for the near future. I know some people who will reject this outright just because Hillary is on the cartoon.
Nepossays
Are things getting worse, though? Aside from climate change, which will probably screw us all over, is human civilization really, objectively worse than it was 50 years ago? 100 years ago?
You could, I suppose, argue that for certain groups (say, straight white men), things were better 50 years ago, in America at least. But for women? or gays? Sure, there are many places in the world where it sucks to be a woman, or gay–but more places than 50 years ago?
Saying that things are getting worse strikes me as unfair to the groups that have fought for, and won, major victories against oppression in the last century. Things are better than they were, and if people keep fighting, they will keep getting better. (Until the oceans drown us all…)
sums up the two parties precisely. one is the exact reverse of the other.
(including which end of their body they speak from)
{I’ll let the reader imagine which end I see Drumph using to speak}
Ah, I was wondering why the dialogue was so disjointed. And yeah pretty much.
Ha ha! That’s very clever.
But it’s so sad that Bernie wasn’t nominated.
Very clever of the author.
Bernie’s name was put into nomination. But, he only got 45% of the primary votes. Why should he have received the nomination given that a majority of the democratic voters preferred Hillary?
They didn’t say he should have, just that it’s sad he wasn’t. It’s ok to express disappointment at how events turned out, even if you don’t buy into the ‘stolen nomination’ narrative.
Why should it have been posted on this thread even? It’s about political narrative of the candidates, not the choice of the party for the nomination.
Many of us (me included) voted for Sander’s in the primary, but we aren’t bemoaning after the fact that he didn’t get the nomination.
Yuppers! Everything is coming up roses!
(Just ignore the collapsing environment, the growing income inequality, corporate/religious/military influence on government, the racial injustice, diminishing resources, overpopulation, failing education, gutted social welfare system, student loans crisis, and just about everything else.)
I agree with the description of the 2 campaigns though the cartoon does not work so well for me my mind just gets to tangled up.
We are in an interesting election season this time. There are many ways to get the nomination for POTUS .
You can have some identifiable charisma that people respond to and you can come use base motivations of fear and resentment and win when no one expected you to.
You can come out of no where, without any great personality power or charisma and in a very short time carrying a message and a plan that people respond to and against the wisdom of the establishment come very close to wining.
The other way is to doggedly campaign for years and years to put in your time doing the best you can do while keeping your eyes on the goal win the nomination.
the contrast of the optimistic view and the negative view is interesting because they are looking at the same world and conditions and the problems. If those problems are not addressed in some way that is viewed as successful the winner will not easily likely be easily forgiven.
All the pundits seem to agree the people want some kind of change and there are very serious real problems facing us.
It does worry me when the pundits agree on anything that we might be missing something.
uncle frogy
#7
Your comment appears to be based on nothing said in this thread.
Holmes @ 9
It was based upon the annoying, shiny-happy-people, everything-is-beautiful attitude held by American Center-Left that denies reality in favor of feel-good fantasy.
The Republicans are right about one thing: the world and human civilization IS going down the toilet. What they got wrong are the group’s who are doing the damage. There are horrible, terrible things happening in the world today. And all this talk of hope and (gag, spit) “optimism” only distracts us from what is. Happy thoughts and feelings aren’t going to fix them, that is, if we can fix them at all before they destroy us all.
Optimism won’t save us. Only government action. Of course, there will be no substantive, effective action taken. We need to be “pragmatic” and “compromise” in a spirt of “bipartisanship” with the right-wing, capitalist, religionist thugs who are fucking up the world.
sums up the two parties precisely. one is the exact reverse of the other.
Reminds me of old joke: Difference between communism and capitalism is under capitalism man exploits man, but under communism is just the opposite.
The headline makes no sense. They’re *literally* saying the opposite of each other.
@12
It was sarcasm.
I also disagree about the US going down the drain swiftly. If you gave me a time machine and offered to let me live at any point in human history ever up to this point, I’d pick here and now. Unlike 99% of human history, I have rights, medicine, increasing social acceptance, and relative safety.
The idea that there was some halcyon age that we’ve since deviated from is laughable.
vivec @14
their might be some “halcyon” days in the future waiting for us that are better than we can imagine?
uncle frogy
Clinton has indulged in pretty all of the rhetoric on the trump part of the image throughout her career, to varying degrees. But hey, she’s been giving some nice speeches full of insincere platitudes, so I guess we shouldn’t hold it against her or the Democrats.
Hah of course you did. That’s why you jump down a guys throat for an making an innocent, wistful remark stating that he wished his preferred candidate (the very candidate you claimed to have backed) had won right ?
I’ve noticed throughout the campaign that many of the most servile Clinton apologists claim to have actually supported Sanders in the primary, probably because it makes their haranguing of Sanders supporters look like its coming from a position of good faith, rather than it being standard left-punching partisan hackery.
Ah, well if a lot of people made the same mistake as you, and voted for Sander’s instead of Sanders, that could explain why he lost.
Drawler@16,
Nerd of Redhead was consistent in his support for Sanders throughout the campaign. And you’re a ridiculous numpty.
Drawler@16:
Gee, an accusation of bad faith from someone assuming malice in others.
Why do so many judge Clinton solely by the speeches she gives (and who she got paid to give one to). Instead of focusing on deriding her for “saying all the good stuff that all the empty people say”, look at her record of actions.
That is what all the speakers at DNC tried to highlight. That Hill doesn’t just speak, but acts. Works hard to achieve goals,even when it means reaching out to enemies as well as friends. That the goal takes precedence over relationships. Also works to maintain the goal after it has been achieved. Unlike many, who once a bridge is built will refuse to maintain it and let it crumble over time. (that metaphor is also literal, you know)
Sanders too speaks loudly, but actually achieved valuable goals. That’s why I voted for him in the Primary in my state, and her record of action is also why I will not refuse to vote for Clinton. Refusing to vote at this point is simply spite, out of disappointment. I would have preferred Sanders as well; Clinton is more than “good enough” or “worth holding my nose”. She is a valuable candidate. Do you “throw away nickels cuz you prefer dimes”?
She doesn’t just say pretty things to get elected. She actually achieves things to help people. “Walks the walk, and not just talks the talk”
[not paid for by Clinton PAC]
Gee, you are such a good political analyst, that Donald Trump makes more sense. What is your real problem?
Your guy lost fair and square, and even though I voted for him, I saw he would lose after New York, and accepted it. Evidently you can’t.
To bad the author didn’t draw a talking elephant and a donkey instead. This has been a major difference between the two parties for a while and looks like it will continue for the near future. I know some people who will reject this outright just because Hillary is on the cartoon.
Are things getting worse, though? Aside from climate change, which will probably screw us all over, is human civilization really, objectively worse than it was 50 years ago? 100 years ago?
You could, I suppose, argue that for certain groups (say, straight white men), things were better 50 years ago, in America at least. But for women? or gays? Sure, there are many places in the world where it sucks to be a woman, or gay–but more places than 50 years ago?
Saying that things are getting worse strikes me as unfair to the groups that have fought for, and won, major victories against oppression in the last century. Things are better than they were, and if people keep fighting, they will keep getting better. (Until the oceans drown us all…)