clearly you’ve decided that the point of your OP is not defensible, so you’re going to make your stand on the grammar issue and refuse, on principle, no less, to defend your OP until us semantics nazis relent.
Fine, your use of the Queen’s English is impeccable.
Now please defend your original post by answering the clear questions posted just above.
Your move, dipshit.
stringbean
noun
(informal) a tall thin person.
thin
adjective
synonyms: unconvincing, inadequate, feeble, poor, weak, slight, shallow, insufficient, superficial, lame, scant, flimsy, scanty, unsubstantial
I would think the whole thing was planned if it didn’t require cleverness.
HRC has released exactly ONE commercial, kicking off a campaign that will run until November of next year (assuming she becomes the democratic nominee.) Based on that ONE ad, we’re supposed to conclude that she will be waging “demographic warfare,” whatever that idiotic phrase means. If anyone disagrees with that conclusion, they either “luuuurrve Hillary” or they have “drunk the Koolaid.”
Do you, Stringbean, not understand how fucking stupid that sounds?
As for the “deign” issue, everyone knows you used a word incorrectly. Jeez, grow a pair. It’s happened to everyone at some point.
Whatever those words may be, I’m pretty sure ‘deign’ isn’t one of them.
It’s “put up or shut up” time here at the Dope, Stringbean.
I can just imagine this exchange between Stringbean and his auto mechanic
“There’s something wrong with my exhaust”
" Can you elaborate? Is it bellowing smoke or something?"
“No, my left front exhaust seems flatter than the rest”
“That make no sense - what do you mean by exhaust?”
“The 4 round wheels on the car”
“Sir, so you mean the tires?”
“Tire, exhaust, my thesaurus says those two words mean the same thing.” Therefore the tires are also called the exhaust"
“No, sir, they really aren’t. I don’t think you know how to work your thesaurus”
Mounted next to the muffler bearings, but be careful not to impact the torsion valves.
She certainly is.
*“It gives me great pleasure indeed to see the stubbornness of an incorrigible nonconformist warmly acclaimed.” *
― Albert Einstein
On that note, some wonder about my use of the term “demographic fairy tales.” A fair point, so allow me to explain. The recession hit lower-class Americans the hardest. Among those lie the primary demographics Hillary is targeting—blacks, asians, and latinos. Yeah, whites were hurt too, but much less so. Hillary’s announcement video made a point of parading the stories of successful minorities. No mention that the recession has crushed minorities and how to affect that: a feast of happy-go-lucky-ism.
All, of course, a deliberate attempt to sharply contrast Hillary’s 2016 campaign (about the demographic coalition) from her failed 2008 campaign (about Hillary). The New York Times published an article analyzing the announcement video. Some snippets (bolding mine):
[Quote=NYT]
Pat: It’s definitely a hopeful, optimistic video — talking about spring, new jobs, new homes, a gay couple getting married. Very forward-looking — and no references to her own past, and certainly not to the Clinton era of the 1990s.
Maggie: Yes, absolutely. This video is very much about the Democratic coalition of today — as you say, a gay couple getting married as a campaign centerpiece would have been unimaginable even in the President Obama re-elect in 2012.
Maggie: She basically doesn’t show up in this video. Yes. I’d say this was a fairly effective way for someone who has been on the political scene for 30 years to reintroduce herself to the country.
Pat: Very effective, by focusing so much on different Americans and their stories. There was very little “I think” and “I want” and “I believe.” She led not with her brain or heart, but with people’s stories.”
Maggie: I thought it was interesting that someone is speaking Spanish in the video.
Pat: I think you’re right about the Obama coalition. I remember the night of the Iowa caucuses in 2008, when she lost to Obama and spoke before supporters — there were so many white and older people behind her on stage. This video, with the Spanish speaker and the diversity and age differences, seemed pure Obama than Hillary redux.
Maggie: Yes, absolutely. What’s interesting though is this video doesn’t focus on people steeped in poverty either. This is very much a middle class-centric video.
Maggie: But this is a very different video for a candidate who, in the final days of the 2008 primary, talked about the concerns of “white Americans” as she battled Obama. This video is the antithesis of that.
Pat: Absolutely.
[/quote]
So, in reading on the opinion of the “experts,” one notices them drawing essentially the same conclusions I have re-iterated numerous times: this campaign will be as separated from Hillary as an individual (her history, her policies, her personality) as possible, will not actively seek the white male vote as it did in 2008, and will be a smorgasbord of demographic pandering quite apart from the reality of life for most minorities. This is the campaign of “demographic fairy tales.”
^^
Perhaps you missed it the first time, as you were pre-occupied with false accusations of grammatical mishap.
You can offer your rebuttal along with the due apology for the above injustice.
You’re hilariously stupid.
I thought she was double Dutch.
Ohhh, I get it now! Stringbean’s just really really concerned about all the poor brown people having their feelings hurt because Hillary’s pandering to them! It all makes sense!
Oddly enough, Asian-Americans earn the most of any racial group in this country.
What does this do to your thesis that she’s targeting those groups, the “lower-class Americans…” to whom “among those lie the primary demographics Hillary is targeting”?
It’s not an economic argument you’re making… it’s a racial one. If your argument was based on statistics, economic statistics, you wouldn’t have made the claim. Even the article you quote say nothing about economics but instead focuses on the racial aspects of the video.
I mean, whatever dude. But don’t lie to yourself, and by extension us, by claiming you’re basing this upon economic factors.
Demographic warfare doesn’t seem to be supported by the lengthy quote, or anything else you’ve (incoherently) offered up. People keep asking…
In my re-posting of the OP this link was lost which shows how painful the Great Recession has been to Asian-American households as compared to the relatively minor impact on white American households.
The economic argument I am presenting is that Hillary’s pollyanna portrayal of minority lifestyle in the video is intentionally avoiding the reality of life for most minorities. She is presenting the “fairy tales,” knowing that a more accurate reflection of minority lifestyles doesn’t benefit her. She sees her victory paved on a road of demographic pandering with as little do to with Hillary-as-a-person as possible. Acknowledging that life sucks for most minorities reflects poorly on the Obama era, to which she is closely associated. This is, of course, an unfair association, but if she wishes to court the same voters that Obama did, showing them how shitty life under Obama has been is not exactly a winning strategy. She must maintain the uplifting optimism of the Obama campaigns.
This sentiment is precisely what was discussed in the New York Times article I extensively quoted. They mention how these (my words) demographic fairy tales are “pure Obama” and are quite distinct from the Hillary-centric campaign she ran in 2008.
Ultimately, I am just presenting my analysis of the video and what her campaign intends to do. “Demographic warfare” was very strong wording, and as such was inappropriate as a pure reaction to the video itself. I believe, in time, we will see the warfare unfold. That was a prediction on my part, and not a fair reflection of the insular content of the video. I firmly stand by the “fairy tale”-ism, but an explicit call to arms it was not. I believe the Hillary staff views this campaign as demographic warfare. But they certainly couldn’t expressly say or show it. That’s why digging deeper on these political ads is fun; the outer-crust must be punctured to get to the core.
She posted a video with happy non-white people on it. BURN THE WITCH!
If you’re trying to get white male votes, well, that’s good and expected. If you’re trying to get other votes, that’s demographic warfare.
If you have a video with smiling, happy minorities, those are demographic fairy tales. (I would guess that if the video had lots of unhappy minorities, that would be offensive, too. Probably more evidence for the demographic warfare!)
White people are supposed to be the chosen ones, the most valued, the most sought, so much that if anyone else is mentioned positively it’s uncomfortable and warfare and lies and pandering and fairy tales.
So deign it be. And burn the witch. That too.