Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
There are many reasons for this fiasco. They can be divided into 2 catgories.

1] Previous strategy decisions by the Repud Party.
. . . a] The Southern Strategy brought many white racists into the party, both in the North and in the South. These became Trump's core voters.
. . . b] After Bush had crashed the economy and got Obama elected with control of both houses of Congress, the Repuds turned their backs on the clearly indicated will of the American people to try a different way and instead blocked the measures necessary to dig the nation's and the world's economy out of the ditch that conservative economic policies had driven it into. Then, blamed it on the Dems.
. . In this they were somewhat successful. However, it had the secondary effect of creating a huge group of voters who were massively hurting economically [either personally or hurting for their young adult children]. These voters became another group of Trump's supporters because they want some sort of massive change in economic policy and Trump promised them just that.
. . . c] Others? You can add your thoughts to this list.

2] The rules for the Primaries, Caucuses, and the nomination process in general.
. . . a] The huge number of candidates who threw their hats into the ring had the effect of splitting the votes in the early primaries among too many people, almost all of whom dropped out fairly soon. This allowed Trump to look like he was doing well when he had only a very small following at first.
. . . b] During the early primaries there was a definite pattern -- each candidate became the front runner for a short time but as soon as the media spotlight was aimed at them the Repud voters would see why they were not "True Scotsmen" [i.e. they were seen as Rhinos] and then they were rejected.
. . . c] There was no system in place for the early Primary voters to get a 2nd chance to vote after they got to know the whole 'field' better. Some sort of ranked voting would move in this direction. How it might work when it could be several weeks later when a voter's 1st choice would drop out seems difficult to implement. Another way to do this would be to let candidates give all their votes to another candidate when they dropout (in exchange for a Cabinet or Sub-Cabinet post in the Admin.). This would let coalitions form later in the process to block people like Trump and let all the votes cast early on still matter later in the game.
. . . d] The "never speak ill of another Repud" rule had the effect of stopping the indepth research of the opposing candidates that would have found these video and audio tapes sooner in the process.
. . . e] The big tent of the Repud Party had become a very Small Tent somehow. Repuds are/were too fast to cast out anyone who deviated from the Party line even a little bit.
. . . f] Other thoughts from you all are welcome.

Of course the Repud Party has the basic problem that demographics are against them. Radicals can control the primary process and nominate people who have no chance in the General Election because women, Blacks, Hispanics, etc. will mostly vote against them. As long as Repuds can't find a way to bring at least one of these groups of voters into their Tent they are doomed in the long run.

I foresee a huge effort by the Dems to regain control at the state level in 2018 and 2020 to redraw the district boundary lines to favor Dems instead of Repuds. If this is successful the Repud Party will have a very hard time winning without major rethinks of its positions.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walking on eggshells is not my style
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Whoa. Lots of new analysis there. Thank you.

What's your take on the democrats nominating Hillary?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's a nice explanation and all but it's quite a bit simpler than that.

Hillary Clinton mind controlled Republicans to vote for him and to continue to be their choice so that she could be Supreme Overlord.

Occam's Razor says I'm right.

14 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Whoa. Lots of new analysis there. Thank you.

What's your take on the democrats nominating Hillary?


She's been a Senator, Secretary of State, First Lady and knows her shit in politics. Democrats generally prefer seasoned veterans over mistake prone rookies.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walking on eggshells is not my style
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mrspank wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Whoa. Lots of new analysis there. Thank you.

What's your take on the democrats nominating Hillary?


She's been a Senator, Secretary of State, First Lady and knows her shit in politics. Democrats generally prefer seasoned veterans over mistake prone rookies.


Like Obama, Clinton, and Carter, or like Kerry, Gore, Mondale?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Koldfoot wrote:
Whoa. Lots of new analysis there. Thank you.

What's your take on the democrats nominating Hillary?

I don't know how Hillary got nobody but Bernie to oppose her. If it were up to me all children and spouses of previous Presidents should be barred from the Presidency. Also, professional actors (i.e. people who would be excellent at lying).

As for my lack of "new analysis" -- when you get as old as me you will -resize- realize that it is rare indeed for a political opinion piece to have more than 1 new idea in it and most will not have any new ideas.
. . This is because in politics there is very little new possible. Just about every possible idea has already been published somewhere. The best opinion pieces just pull together the best ideas that others have already thought of with maybe just 1 new thought.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
mrspank wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Whoa. Lots of new analysis there. Thank you.

What's your take on the democrats nominating Hillary?


She's been a Senator, Secretary of State, First Lady and knows her shit in politics. Democrats generally prefer seasoned veterans over mistake prone rookies.


Like Obama, Clinton, and Carter, or like Kerry, Gore, Mondale?


Exactly! What? You don't think governors know their shit? Also, I said generally prefer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


I can't read all that.... I'm still laughing so hard at "Repuds" coming from someone who lets a tiny semantic non-insult become such a raging insult that he must come up with a playground insult.... laughing so hard the screen is blurring through the tears of laughter.



Oh, fuck... my sides... my sides are burning....



I mean, he's not even a millenial or something. He's what.... seventy?



Please forgive the typos. But like I said... blurry screen....

REPUDS!!!!!

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
GameCrossing wrote:

...
I can't read all that.... I'm still laughing so hard at "Repuds" coming from someone who lets a tiny semantic non-insult become such a raging insult that he must come up with a playground insult.... laughing so hard the screen is blurring through the tears of laughter.

...

Oh, fuck... my sides... my sides are burning....

...

I mean, he's not even a millenial or something. He's what.... seventy?

...

Please forgive the typos. But like I said... blurry screen....

REPUDS!!!!!

...

You told me this before.

It became obvious to me that my attempt at revenge was not insulting enough. So, I changed it a little. Your laughter is better than rolling over and letting the Repuds walk all over my Party. There is not that much I can do about it, but this I can do.

I notice that you still don't care about the original insult.

The out of power party is the "Loyal Opposition", as soon as it becomes seen as "traitorous opposition" democracy soon ends and tyranny replaces it. In polite society, which ought to include Congress in a democracy, it is customary to call people by the name they choose to be called by.

If everyone here took to calling those they didn't like by some insulting name they made up, this forum would degenerate into nothing but shit. Oh, wait ... it hasn't far to go to reach that level.

I don't give a flying fuck what a Repud of your sort thinks of my posts.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
In memorium. Bob Hoover died 25 Oct 2016 at 94. In WWII he was shot down in a Spitfire and stole an FW-190 to escape. He spent decades at air shows flying Ole Yeller, shown
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
There are many reasons for this fiasco. They can be divided into 2 catgories.

1] Previous strategy decisions by the Repud Party.
. . . a] The Southern Strategy brought many white racists into the party, both in the North and in the South. These became Trump's core voters.
. . . b] After Bush had crashed the economy and got Obama elected with control of both houses of Congress, the Repuds turned their backs on the clearly indicated will of the American people to try a different way and instead blocked the measures necessary to dig the nation's and the world's economy out of the ditch that conservative economic policies had driven it into. Then, blamed it on the Dems.
. . In this they were somewhat successful. However, it had the secondary effect of creating a huge group of voters who were massively hurting economically [either personally or hurting for their young adult children]. These voters became another group of Trump's supporters because they want some sort of massive change in economic policy and Trump promised them just that.
. . . c] Others? You can add your thoughts to this list.

(b) is pretty much them pandering to their extremist base, that is, the base that always volunteers. Without them, they don't have a "ground game" and Obama's ground game is what lost them the elections.

But also, any Republican has Fox News and the right wing radio shows hanging like a sword of Damocles over his head. The shows are all doing "story-news" with Obama as the villian, so if a Republican fights that, Fox and the radio shows have to attack them or they're giving the lie to their own story-news.

Plus, the Koch brothers and some others also require ideological "purity" and will punish defectors by donating to challengers, as we saw with the Tea Party movement. RINOs beware!

So, with their extemist volunteers and the story-news press and the big doners most important to them, in terms of winning the primary, they have to follow the extremist line. The general election doesn't matter because they're all Gerrymandered into safe seats.

[The GOP] "...definitely gives off the vibe of look-a-certain-way, act-a-certain-way. It’s not a party primarily for fiscal conservatives anymore..."--Clare Malone, 538

"The main fight for the Republican Party of the future, to me [Harry Enten, 538], is between cultural conservatives (Trump) and social conservatives (think Ted Cruz). The fiscal conservatives are a tiny faction. Someone like Ryan is lost, in my opinion."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-this-what-it-looks-li...

Steve1501 wrote:
2] The rules for the Primaries, Caucuses, and the nomination process in general.
. . . a] The huge number of candidates who threw their hats into the ring had the effect of splitting the votes in the early primaries among too many people, almost all of whom dropped out fairly soon. This allowed Trump to look like he was doing well when he had only a very small following at first.
. . . b] During the early primaries there was a definite pattern -- each candidate became the front runner for a short time but as soon as the media spotlight was aimed at them the Repud voters would see why they were not "True Scotsmen" [i.e. they were seen as Rhinos] and then they were rejected.
. . . c] There was no system in place for the early Primary voters to get a 2nd chance to vote after they got to know the whole 'field' better. Some sort of ranked voting would move in this direction. How it might work when it could be several weeks later when a voter's 1st choice would drop out seems difficult to implement. Another way to do this would be to let candidates give all their votes to another candidate when they dropout (in exchange for a Cabinet or Sub-Cabinet post in the Admin.). This would let coalitions form later in the process to block people like Trump and let all the votes cast early on still matter later in the game.

(a) shows the GOP doesn't have any party discipline any more. The Democratic Party was far more disciplined: pretty much everyone got out of the way of Hillary. I suspect part of the reason was that she'd earned it by toeing the party line even when it was personally painful for her: strong; committed; dependable. I'm not sure Sanders shows any lack of discipline: he was for the far left; not to say he would not be supported if he had defeated Hillary. But it wasn't likely.

All three are a consequence of First-Past-the-Post voting. If everyone had been able to say, #1 Christie, #2 Ryan... then they might have gotten to a good candidate--but there's still that extremist gauntlet to run.

Steve1501 wrote:
. . . d] The "never speak ill of another Repud" rule had the effect of stopping the indepth research of the opposing candidates that would have found these video and audio tapes sooner in the process.

Reagan's 11th Commandment went out with the arrival of the Neocons, in my estimation...so, late '90s. Look at the Tea Party, which mostly spoke ill of fellow Republicans. Again, lack of party discipline, and the party being blown by the winds of their volunteers, media, and kingmakers. And again, everyone's Gerrymandered into safe seats, so intra-party food-fights are completely safe in terms of Congressional seats.

Steve1501 wrote:
. . . e] The big tent of the Repud Party had become a very Small Tent somehow. Repuds are/were too fast to cast out anyone who deviated from the Party line even a little bit.

Well, it's the whole Ailes/radio/Koch machine forcing out fiscal conservatives and other "RINOs".

It's pretty sad for the GOP when the fiscally conservative choice is Hillary. (Trump's calls to cut taxes are the same mistake as Bush 2: you use good times to reduce the deficit, not make it bigger. No, these are not perfect times, but no times are.)

Steve1501 wrote:
Of course the Repud Party has the basic problem that demographics are against them. Radicals can control the primary process and nominate people who have no chance in the General Election because women, Blacks, Hispanics, etc. will mostly vote against them. As long as Repuds can't find a way to bring at least one of these groups of voters into their Tent they are doomed in the long run.

I think Trump has effectively killed those efforts. If he does his celebrity thing and has a continuing presence, they're going to stay dead. Every minority has to be thinking:
Quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

It's going to take a huge coalition just to stop Fox/radio/Koch from keeping the GOP painted into a corner. I can't see anyone on the sidelines prepared to take them on. Who's rich enough to take on the Koch brothers? Buffett isn't going to. Gates won't. Can the GOP survive longer than the Koch brothers? Rupert Murdoch and sons?

Steve1501 wrote:
I foresee a huge effort by the Dems to regain control at the state level in 2018 and 2020 to redraw the district boundary lines to favor Dems instead of Repuds. If this is successful the Repud Party will have a very hard time winning without major rethinks of its positions.

Totally agree. Unless the GOP can get its act together--away from its extremist, small-tent, take-no-prisoners haters, it's in deep trouble.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Whoa. Lots of new analysis there. Thank you.

What's your take on the democrats nominating Hillary?


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:


It became obvious to me that my attempt at revenge...


Whoa. Wait a minute. Revenge? Seriously?

Like... twirling-the-end-of-your-handlebar-mustache-every-time-you-type-Repuds revenge?

It's a good thing you don't care what others think, because every time you try to explain yourself on this, it gets harder and harder to not laugh at you.

But... since you will want to believe yourself worthy of serious thought....

You do a generic rehash of Politics 101 regarding the mechanics of primaries and such. Someone else points it out and you drop a "I know, but there's nothing new under the sun" on us. So if you know there's nothing new or deep in there... what are we left to assume about your tripe except it's just an excuse to type "Repuds" forty-seven times.

Okay, I've given your OP about as much serious thought as I am capable of giving it, and more than it is deserving of. Let's get back to the good stuff. This revenge you speak of.... who are you getting revenge against? And how will you know when the fruits of this revenge are ripe? Whose souls will be wracked with torment, who will feel thwarted every time they read the word "Repud?" Will they rue the day? Tell me that days will get rued. If there isn't some high-quality ruing going on when your revenge is complete, I'm gonna ask for my money back.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Brown
United States
North Adams
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:

The out of power party is the "Loyal Opposition", as soon as it becomes seen as "traitorous opposition" democracy soon ends and tyranny replaces it. In polite society, which ought to include Congress in a democracy, it is customary to call people by the name they choose to be called by.

If everyone here took to calling those they didn't like by some insulting name they made up, this forum would degenerate into nothing but shit. Oh, wait ... it hasn't far to go to reach that level.

I don't give a flying fuck what a Repud of your sort thinks of my posts.

You probably also don't give a tinker's cuss what I think of your posts either, but as a data point, if you acknowledge that some civility towards those who disagree with you is necessary for a functioning democracy, this non-Republican also thinks very little of your resorting to childish name-calling.

(And before you reply to point out that the Republicans did it first with "libtards" and whatnot, take a moment to think about how you feel when you point out awful things about Trump, and rather than refute them, your interlocutor says "Yeah, but Hillary did bad stuff too." If you think uncivil discourse is ruining democracy, be better.) (And if you can't be better, at least be funnier.)
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Osirus wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:

The out of power party is the "Loyal Opposition", as soon as it becomes seen as "traitorous opposition" democracy soon ends and tyranny replaces it. In polite society, which ought to include Congress in a democracy, it is customary to call people by the name they choose to be called by.

If everyone here took to calling those they didn't like by some insulting name they made up, this forum would degenerate into nothing but shit. Oh, wait ... it hasn't far to go to reach that level.

I don't give a flying fuck what a Repud of your sort thinks of my posts.

You probably also don't give a tinker's cuss what I think of your posts either, but as a data point, if you acknowledge that some civility towards those who disagree with you is necessary for a functioning democracy, this non-Republican also thinks very little of your resorting to childish name-calling.

(And before you reply to point out that the Republicans did it first with "libtards" and whatnot, take a moment to think about how you feel when you point out awful things about Trump, and rather than refute them, your interlocutor says "Yeah, but Hillary did bad stuff too." If you think uncivil discourse is ruining democracy, be better.)


Oh no no no... it's better than "libtard." It's "Democrat." Seriously. If someone mentions "the Democrat nominee" or something like that, rather than seeing it as a simple gaffe of the uninformed, he thinks of it as an intentional dig. So every time it gets stated on TV news or something, he has a tiny aneurysm over it. And his revenge? It is to type "Repuds."

Revenge is a dish best served cold. And it is very cold... in some backwater forum on a board game site. Oh, but revenge will be had.

Osirus wrote:
(And if you can't be better, at least be funnier.)


Damn skippy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think there's just a critical mass of republican voters who really do not care about what's real and care way more about emotions, specifically emotions of rage, fear and entitlement.

By playing to those feelings and completely ignoring reality, a candidate can win the nomination. Fortunately probably not the presidency. Yet.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think the importance of the rise of reality TV can be overstated, though it may be corollary not causal, but it definately works the feedback loop. People see emotional train wrecks and drama disasters billed as 'reality' over and over and all of it is consequence free, the people who behave that way are given rewards for doing so in TV land, so that's how it works, right?

I'd love to see polling about % of voters for each candidate who watch reality TV and how mich they watch.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Oh no no no... it's better than "libtard." It's "Democrat." Seriously. If someone mentions "the Democrat nominee" or something like that, rather than seeing it as a simple gaffe of the uninformed, he thinks of it as an intentional dig.

It is a well known dig used by right-wingers. That doesn't mean that others might use it too, unknowingly. Which was likely one of the goals.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
I think there's just a critical mass of liberal voters who really do not care about what's real and care way more about emotions, specifically emotions of rage, fear and entitlement.


Given the continued dependence of the "progressive movement" of slicing the electorate into smaller and ever more bizarre and freakier sub-cultures, telling them they are all (micro) aggressed and entitled to OUTRAGE, safe spaces, trigger warnings and that ultimately, they all can lay blame on rich (or wealthier than them) white males with guns (white privilege) and so forth, this line of dismissal lost cred a long, long time ago.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DJT is the Viagra that makes year long rage-boners medically possible.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Oh no no no... it's better than "libtard." It's "Democrat." Seriously. If someone mentions "the Democrat nominee" or something like that, rather than seeing it as a simple gaffe of the uninformed, he thinks of it as an intentional dig.

It is a well known dig used by right-wingers. That doesn't mean that others might use it too, unknowingly. Which was likely one of the goals.


Really? I hadn't heard of it as a dig of any sort until this guy had his epileptic seizure over it. I can't even look at it and see how it is a dig. How someone can get apoplectic over it just boggles my mind. It's a misspeak. What makes it a dig? I'll actually need to have it spelled out for me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tstone wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
I think there's just a critical mass of liberal voters who really do not care about what's real and care way more about emotions, specifically emotions of rage, fear and entitlement.


Given the continued dependence of the "progressive movement" of slicing the electorate into smaller and ever more bizarre and freakier sub-cultures, telling them they are all (micro) aggressed and entitled to OUTRAGE, safe spaces, trigger warnings and that ultimately, they all can lay blame on rich (or wealthier than them) white males with guns (white privilege) and so forth, this line of dismissal lost cred a long, long time ago.


Since all you seem to be doing is recycling the same old right wing memes,with no facts to back them up (but of course putting one in caps!).
You seem to be the last person on God's Green earth to decide "cred"
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tstone wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
I think there's just a critical mass of liberal voters who really do not care about what's real and care way more about emotions, specifically emotions of rage, fear and entitlement.


Given the continued dependence of the "progressive movement" of slicing the electorate into smaller and ever more bizarre and freakier sub-cultures, telling them they are all (micro) aggressed and entitled to OUTRAGE, safe spaces, trigger warnings and that ultimately, they all can lay blame on rich (or wealthier than them) white males with guns (white privilege) and so forth, this line of dismissal lost cred a long, long time ago.


Cute subtle quote-edit there. I bet your Stormfront buddies were all atwitter at your cleverness.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
jmilum wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Oh no no no... it's better than "libtard." It's "Democrat." Seriously. If someone mentions "the Democrat nominee" or something like that, rather than seeing it as a simple gaffe of the uninformed, he thinks of it as an intentional dig.

It is a well known dig used by right-wingers. That doesn't mean that others might use it too, unknowingly. Which was likely one of the goals.


Really? I hadn't heard of it as a dig of any sort until this guy had his epileptic seizure over it. I can't even look at it and see how it is a dig. How someone can get apoplectic over it just boggles my mind. It's a misspeak. What makes it a dig? I'll actually need to have it spelled out for me.

Here's a quick item on it (with links to other sources): http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/the-democratic-or-democrat-...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
jmilum wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Oh no no no... it's better than "libtard." It's "Democrat." Seriously. If someone mentions "the Democrat nominee" or something like that, rather than seeing it as a simple gaffe of the uninformed, he thinks of it as an intentional dig.

It is a well known dig used by right-wingers. That doesn't mean that others might use it too, unknowingly. Which was likely one of the goals.


Really? I hadn't heard of it as a dig of any sort until this guy had his epileptic seizure over it. I can't even look at it and see how it is a dig. How someone can get apoplectic over it just boggles my mind. It's a misspeak. What makes it a dig? I'll actually need to have it spelled out for me.

Here's a quick item on it (with links to other sources): http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/the-democratic-or-democrat-...


The unsubtle write it it DemocRAT party.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
It's a sair fecht fur a hauf loaf.
badge
Furry boots?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven
slatersteven
slatersteven
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.