NP - Reductio ad absurdum on FB

[Keith Davis]

Here's the whole Palast video...https://vimeo.com/ondemand/bestdemocracy

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:48 AM, matthew cissell <mccissell at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It's about charisma, and Hillary doesn't have it (just do a search with
> 'Hilary lack Charisma' and see what you get). Look at those polling
> numbers. Why did those small but important percentages of latino or
> african-american or young voters  NOT line up behind Hilary as they did for
> Obama? (Of course the DNC and the rest of the bourgeoisie completely
> miscalculated the Latino vote.)  Sam Harris wants to convince people that
> the 'Left' failed because the real subject is "Islamism" (he is dead
> wrong), but that aint the case.
>
> The fact is that if you compare Hilary's ability to mobilze her base and
> reach out to the undecided with Donnie Duck-schmuck's, she could not beat
> Chump. That's why those swing-states that went to Obama went to D-Drumpf
> this time around.
>
> Electronic voting is a real concern but I don't remember anyone (except
> the white angry males and the rest of the neo-con nuts) complaining when
> Obama won twice.
>
> Let's hope the DNC develops better candidates this time, enough of letting
> the person with the most "juice" be the de facto candidate. They need
> someone that gets people out to vote.
>
> And Elizabeth Warren on her own can't do it, you need someone like ...
> Corey Booker? Maybe. Or Joaquin Castro. I dunno. Young blood that can reach
> out to the folks that Hilary couldn't rouse from the couch. They have four
> years to build a grass roots campaign and they will have to work at it.
>
> Maybe the coming pain and suffering will help get the electorate more
> passionate about a Dem next time. The Rust belt white boys aint getting the
> Industrial US back and when they become disillusioned with the Buffoon
> Elect, there will be the possibility of change.
>
> "Good night, and good luck"
> mc otis
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:46 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A FB sage (& P-lister) recently reasoned that Hillary's loss proved that
>> she was the "wrong candidate" for this election, presumably as a lesson to
>> be learned for the future.  I challenged that we had the "wrong
>> electorate," willing to vote for a clearly visible moral monster over a
>> qualified and rational human being.  His counter was that her loss was
>> proof of his thesis: She lost, therefore she was the wrong candidate.
>>
>> Beneath his logic was a belief that Trump voters first need to be
>> understood, and not destained.  Understanding is always useful, but it
>> doesn't follow that such understanding will become mutual. Nor should it
>> imply that opposition to those assholes should become less vehement.
>> Understanding a rapist doesn't make him sympathetic.
>>
>> Hillary's loss doesn't make her the wrong candidate. It only means she
>> lost.  By absurd logic she only became the wrong candidate at the moment of
>> her loss.  Before that we all knew she was winning.  And this absurd logic
>> is accepted as the premise for too much post-loss analysis.  Trumps voters
>> are a mix of deplorables, nihilists, racists, opportunists, religionists,
>> and a list of other "wrong" electorate qualities.  Our country is less
>> noble than many of us thought.
>>
>> Lesson learned?
>> David Morris
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
www.innergroovemusic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20161116/cbc33df3/attachment.html>