|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:No, you were talking about qualifications. Did you just arrive from DnD circa 2006? No, it's about ethics. If your qualifications are that you are an experienced war criminal, what kind of experience is that?
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
It's about ethics in American politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I guess our political system has been sick for about 190 years, then. The disease does not appear to be fatal. Well, at America's founding the vote was restricted to landowning white men. Any pretense of democracy in this oligarch republic may prove the passing disease, eventually burnt out, once looked back on in the fullness of a few hundred years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:What were his qualifications outside of keeping Reagan's Alzheimers in check and the Latin American deathsquads funded? Well that's half the job right there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:I don't have to look them up to know they were more important, more valuable, and more difficult to achieve than anything done by the governor of some podunk state. I bet you don't have to look them up to know it's true, ha. Truthiness ftw! quote:Clinton voted for the USA Patriot Act in October 2001. quote:Clinton voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq. quote:In 2005, Clinton called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate how hidden sex scenes showed up in the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act, intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games. quote:Clinton the proposed bailout of United States financial system, voting in favor of the$700 billion law that created the Troubled Asset Relief Program  Vienna Circlejerk posted:Go read her Wikipedia page if you care that much. I did, this is what I got from it: TEAYCHES posted:I expect that if she becomes president she will fill the shoes of the previous war criminal. I'm not saying she won't be light years better than the terrible GOP candidate, I'm saying we should demand better than another Bush vs Clinton election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Clinton's political record shows a history of good judgement. From the Patriot Act, to the Iraq War, to the surveillance state, this is a person of good character and inspiring leadership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I bet you don't have to look them up to know it's true, ha. Truthiness ftw! Let's keep shifting those goalposts. The discussion was qualifications for the job in the context of, "Gosh, why can't the Democrats find an equally qualified candidate who wasn't married to a previous President? America is obviously an oligarchy." She is really loving qualified for the job. That's not truthiness, and it's not an endorsement of what she's done or what she will do. This is some awesome pre-LF DnD style discussion we got going here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I guess our political system has been sick for about 190 years, then. The disease does not appear to be fatal. It may not be fatal - at least for the short time the country's been around - but neither is being a paraplegic. The American political system is basically that. The entire premise of a plurality voting system ensures that there is no adequate representation, and that there will only ever be two parties at any one time. Couple that with complications like the electoral college, gerrymandering, lobbying, and whatever other bullshit I missed and you've got a system that's practically just limbs sewn together in a hospital bed. "Democratic dynasties" probably aren't really a problem in their own right - since what really separates baby Bush from daddy Bush from Reagan from any other conservative anyway - but more like a symptom of a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Let's keep shifting those goalposts. The discussion was qualifications for the job in the context of, "Gosh, why can't the Democrats find an equally qualified candidate who wasn't married to a previous President? America is obviously an oligarchy." She is really loving qualified for the job. That's not truthiness, and it's not an endorsement of what she's done or what she will do. This is some awesome pre-LF DnD style discussion we got going here. 1.5 term Senator and unremarkable stint in Cabinet? There are plenty of Democrats who are equally qualified. The question is why is HRC the juggernaut that she is? (It's because of WJC. That's the answer.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I guess our political system has been sick for about 190 years, then. The disease does not appear to be fatal. To be fair, America's political system WAS in trouble during the period of Quincy Adams.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yes but you were claiming or appear to claim that because Hilary's last name is Clinton we are an oligarchy whereas this quoted post is a much stronger argument for such a point. If you're willing to trot out her time-in-grade as qualifications, why isn't Kerry running? He's got significantly more time in the Senate, he's got an equal amount of time as SoS. Why is he not the preferred candidate over Clinton? What about Clinton makes her stand out from the pack?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:If you're willing to trot out her time-in-grade as qualifications, why isn't Kerry running? He's got significantly more time in the Senate, he's got an equal amount of time as SoS. Why is he not the preferred candidate over Clinton? What about Clinton makes her stand out from the pack? Hmm, Kerry vs. Bush? Yes, yes, I want to relive that one. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Hmm, Kerry vs. Bush? Yes, yes, I want to relive that one. Well, hell. Hat's off to you, that is clearly the right answer to the question but I still can't tell if you're joking 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:If you're willing to trot out her time-in-grade as qualifications, why isn't Kerry running? He's got significantly more time in the Senate, he's got an equal amount of time as SoS. Why is he not the preferred candidate over Clinton? What about Clinton makes her stand out from the pack? also, unlike Kerry, she's running
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:If you're willing to trot out her time-in-grade as qualifications, why isn't Kerry running? He's got significantly more time in the Senate, he's got an equal amount of time as SoS. Why is he not the preferred candidate over Clinton? because, as much as we complain about Hillary's poor grasp of the theatricality of politics, and as much charisma as she gives up to her husband or Obama, she is still light-years ahead of John Kerry in that regard. "Communicating with the nation" is a part of the president's job, and you probably don't want to pick a guy who people instinctively and deeply dislike, even if he is better-qualified and would be better with policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:1.5 term Senator and unremarkable stint in Cabinet? There are plenty of Democrats who are equally qualified. The question is why is HRC the juggernaut that she is? Was WJC busy with some other project in 2008? Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a viable primary challenge to HRC, and I have no doubt there's all kinds of politicking behind her current status as presumptive nominee, but I really do believe that no amount of politicking would get her the nomination if she wasn't already very popular and widely perceived as being very qualified for the job. I'm not saying these things because I like her, because I definitely don't. But it does really annoy me when people attribute her success entirely or mostly to Bill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:If you're willing to trot out her time-in-grade as qualifications, why isn't Kerry running? He's got significantly more time in the Senate, he's got an equal amount of time as SoS. Why is he not the preferred candidate over Clinton? What about Clinton makes her stand out from the pack? She wants to and he doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Also Kerry hasn't completed the Nixon penance to be able to run again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Furthermore, Kerry running could convince Romney to run again, and we can have a 3rd place election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:look buddy just support Jill Stein's liberal protest campaign and quit flailing around like a dork. I voted for Jill Stein in the past two elections, and I'll admit that it feels good whenever Obama is busy blowing up people with drones, giving giant corporations breaks, or generally being the moderate that neither side wants to acknowledge he is. I mean sure, my vote didn't change anything, but I at least feel like I did my civic duty by voting while buying myself the right to complain about America's lovely conservative staces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. The ruling class is not Literally The Clintons and Bushes you colossal child. Nice goal post shifting. Reminder that you literally claimed we became an oligarchy because a Clinton and a Bush were in the running for president again! Delta-Wye posted:If you're willing to trot out her time-in-grade as qualifications, why isn't Kerry running? He's got significantly more time in the Senate, he's got an equal amount of time as SoS. Why is he not the preferred candidate over Clinton? What about Clinton makes her stand out from the pack? John Kerry is boring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:If you're willing to trot out her time-in-grade as qualifications, why isn't Kerry running? He's got significantly more time in the Senate, he's got an equal amount of time as SoS. Why is he not the preferred candidate over Clinton? What about Clinton makes her stand out from the pack? Well, Hillary didn't gently caress up and lose an election to one of the two or three worst Presidents in U.S. history while mired hip-deep in two losing wars. There is that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Clinton isn't especially qualified, she's just willing to run and not particularly boring! Clinton 2016!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:Well, Hillary didn't gently caress up and lose an election to one of the two or three worst Presidents in U.S. history while mired hip-deep in two losing wars. There is that. Bush still had solid approval ratings through 04, for some reason dems just thought bush was hated by everyone but it just wasn't true until about half a year post election when he started to dive as Iraq got worse. In general it's incredibly hard to unseat a 1 term president- HW had lovely approval ratings (down to 30%) throughout the last year and some claim Perot helped Clinton out (they're wrong). No new taxes just destroyed him though. Going beyond that Ford and Carter are the only other modern examples but I don't think it's a tough argument both had far bigger problems than Bush 2 going into their elections. I guess what I'm trying to say is the idea Kerry hosed up is largely born from dems that were incredibly overoptimistic for no real reason- a sitting president with >50% approval rating and a war going on is going to be incredibly tough to beat and Kerry only lost by a narrow margin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:Furthermore, Kerry running could convince Romney to run again, and we can have a 3rd place election. OMG can you imagine a Kerry vs. Romney election? Political cartoonists could just copy-paste the same head, with a palette swap on the hair. Ken Catalino's dream come true!! tsa posted:I guess what I'm trying to say is the idea Kerry hosed up is largely born from dems that were incredibly overoptimistic for no real reason- a sitting president with >50% approval rating and a war going on is going to be incredibly tough to beat and Kerry only lost by a narrow margin. Kerry lost because he forgot Poland. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Clinton isn't especially qualified, she's just willing to run and not particularly boring! Clinton 2016! Okay, who should run? Name someone who would have a chance at winning, and would be likely to run if it weren't for the Clinton machine pulling the strings or w/e.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Okay, who should run? Name someone who would have a chance at winning, and would be likely to run if it weren't for the Clinton machine pulling the strings or w/e. I think more importantly, name someone who WANTS to run in 2016, because as far as I can tell there's 2 others that want to run even if they don't have a shot. There's not many out there ready to step up and risk losing, 2020/2024 would be a different story. Clark fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:Michael Caine believes this! So, you know, have fun with that. Actually i disagree that Michael Caine believes this, at least from that article. This is a guy used to picking up pay cheques way higher than the 150K the top rate starts at, it reads to me he's just being hyperbolic while talking to a newspaper. Indeed as a star since the days when top rate taxes were vastly higher, who in fact went into tax exile in the 70's over tax rates. It would be astonishing if he didn't know precisely how tax rates work. Also I hadn't realised he was such a dick. Why yes Sir Michael why don't those lazy millions of people on the dole stop living the high life on your taxes and just walk into the many, many jobs just waiting for them. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I bet you don't have to look them up to know it's true, ha. Truthiness ftw! You left out that she (and Biden) was one of the biggest critics of Obama's statement that he was willing to go into Pakistan to get bin laden if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:1.5 term Senator and unremarkable stint in Cabinet? There are plenty of Democrats who are equally qualified. The question is why is HRC the juggernaut that she is? What part of "being good at politicking" did you think disqualified her from becoming a top level politician? To be perfectly honest, while I like Obama well enough, after years of his well intentioned but naive groping for bipartisanship, I'm looking forward to electing a dirty back-alley horse-trader like Hillary Rodham Clinton. Old Kentucky Shark fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:To be perfectly honest, while I like Obama well enough, after years of his well intentioned but naive groping for bipartisanship, I'm looking forward to electing a dirty back-alley horse-trader like Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not gonna lie, me too. A toxic political environment requires a toxic personality. If she's half as dirty as she's said to be, I don't think I'll be disappointed. 2008, hope. 2016, gently caress you assholes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:What were Clinton's signature breakthroughs and diplomatic accomplishments as Secretary of State? What were Condoleezza Rice's signature breakthroughs and diplomatic accomplishments as Secretary of State? Colin Powell? Madeline Allbright? It tends to be a quiet job with a lot of 'least bad' solutions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Give Hilary a gun and put her in the White House 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
A pretty interesting article on Hillary's capability: Hillary isn't running opposed. She's crushing the opposition. quote:Bernstein's argument is related to the "invisible primary" theory of presidential elections. Hillary Clinton, he says, "has earned the support of the bulk of Democratic party actors, and gained the acquiescence of other Democrats who aren’t as enthusiastic about her." The result is that the Democratic Party's "perfectly viable other candidates either dropped out or never seriously considered the race." http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8203605/hillary-clinton-isn-t-running-unopposed-she-s-just-crushing-the
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:What were Condoleezza Rice's signature breakthroughs and diplomatic accomplishments as Secretary of State? Colin Powell? Madeline Allbright? It tends to be a quiet job with a lot of 'least bad' solutions. I'm with you on this one, when the Secretary of State is doing they're job well they're not making the news. I would list her accomplishments as: No armed conflict in the south China Sea Opened Myanmar to the world No Russian expansion into Eastern Europe We didn't invade any countries with ground troops It doesn't sound like a lot of glitz and glamour but that's how Secretary of State is. If you're looking for them to bring peace in the Middle East you have to be loving joking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
I don't know, I feel like this is some weird inverse form of Obama derangement syndrome. I don't know if you were on the forums for the whole Obamatar thing, but there really was something weird and special about Obama rising to become President. When he hit the scene with his 2004 DNC speech, it blew everyone's fuckin socks off, even though it was just a speech. I think it spoiled us. I mean, when you're just in State government working out of Chicago, you can say a lot of really progressive sounding stuff, and if you're Obama, you can get up on that stage and put some SPANK on it. Despite all the good-natured voices urging people to see him as a moderate, Candidate Obama had a way of making all the people who felt massively embarrassed of Bush and angry at the ugly turn the country took feel like this black guy with the crazy name was going to be some kind of liberal messiah. I will freely admit that I let myself get caught up in that feeling, because god dammit, I did HOPE that it would be true. It's a lovely pun, but someone like Obama bouncing up from nowhere is a black swan event. It's not how any of this poo poo usually works. For all of you complaining about Hillary, and how grim and tainted and dynastic and bloodthirsty she and her man are, you have got to understand that this is way more like what we've seen in post-war presidents. They aren't fresh-faced, "clean and articulate" young black men who can speechify like angels and be the first black president. So, what do YOU want in your Democratic candidate? What are the issues that are most important to you? Now, tell me who it is that's just waiting in the wings to wade through the gigantic river of poo poo that is a presidential election with the kinds of qualities it takes to survive the fight that's coming: viciousness, ridiculous fund-raising ability, beltway connections, and not experience or qualifications, but CONNECTIONS? poo poo, I think every Democrat in America should be embarrassed as gently caress that they are dealing with a Hillary situation. You done hosed up. There's nothing democratic about a coronation for the wife of a former president who turned her fame into a political career where she's made vote after vote and deal after deal that shows her to be barely liberal at all: Someone above listed the Patriot Act, the Iraq War Vote, her lovely dealings with Wall Street, and that's just the biggest stuff. She's a hold-your-nose-and-vote candidate for anyone who really believes in liberal or progressive ideas and isn't a chain-smoking, cynical politico. But this is what you get when you gently caress up and allow the other side to keep defining the narrative. You see, we got our eight years of Obama, and his casual, implied campaign progressivism is coming to bite us in the rear end. You only get one chance to get up there and be Obama and promise a bunch of things that young, liberal people believe will lead us out of the Bush nightmare and toward a country we believe in. Obama has probably done the best that he can, but the truth is that the domestic spying and Guantanamo and the awful financial deals, and even Obamacare, with its capitulation to the insurance companies have taken the shine off the apple. It's like we've got a whole class of young people who are addicted to the idea that another Obama-type figure is just going to arise and finally slay the beast that is American FYGM conservatism and lead us to the promised land where the Tea Party dies and we get single-payer health care and infrastructure and no corruption and no lovely foreign policy and then, as a final gesture, the departing 2-term liberal messiah makes his last act in office a presidential decree of Full Communism. Well, you saw what happened when you got Obama; something middle-of-the-road. Now you're going to get more of the same, maybe even more authoritarian, but you don't get to have the comforting illusion that your candidate will be progressive. You get a loving battle axe in a pantsuit. So, if you really want to grow a crop of progressive candidates to be ready for 4, 8, maybe 12 years out, it's time to go out and get your rear end beat. I hope you were paying attention to the Selma anniversary. Our political system has developed all sorts of very powerful immune responses to young, radical, progressive protest and organization. We, in our lassitude, have let old people define us, weigh us down with student loan debt, made us afraid of their tear gas and secret prisons, but more afraid of their ability to control the media narrative and spy on every drat thing we do. If you want to grow a liberal candidate, you have to prepare your garden. We're not radical enough. We're not angry enough. We're not motivated enough. We're too addicted to our comforts. You'll get a liberal Presidential candidate if we riot in the schools like it was 1969, and maybe a few more of us take Kent State bullets, this time in 1080p. You'll get a liberal Presidential candidate if you secretly organize with every liberal person you can find, and organize a walk-out, a sit-in, a strike, and get yourself shot on camera. Chalets the Baka posted:Give Hilary a gun and put her in the White House 2016. Why don't WE all get guns and open carry them to the White House? Why is it only the Tea Party that feels it has the right to walk around Cliven Bundy style, with assault rifles in plain view? No, I don't have sources for any of this poo poo; it's just my opinion. But my whole point in DnD is that none of you are coming up with better solutions. The word "stimulus" comes from a Latin term for a sharp, pointy stick used to jab lazy-rear end livestock into moving. I don't give a poo poo if the stick is accelerationism or liberal rioting or strikes or walking around with guns, Black Panther style, you have GOT to do something different than what you have been doing if you want a different result. I'm simply not brave or reckless enough to gamble on just maintaining this flaccid course while waiting for the old people to die off. These are some scary, wealthy, ruthless, battle-hardened old white people, and if we're doing this right, these should be their death throes, and dying animals get really terrifying when they're trapped in a corner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:I'm with you on this one, when the Secretary of State is doing they're job well they're not making the news. I would list her accomplishments as: Also SecState accomplishments usually get credited to the President. Combine that with the diminished role and prestige State has had since the DoD was formed. Trying to downplay Hillary's experience because she didn't make a huge splash at State means you don't really know how things work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
I've got a rock that keeps away tigers. Are we supposed to understand that Putin has been angling for land grabs in Ukraine and the Baltic this whole time, but he was too terrified of HRC to move? And that now that it's Kerry in the SoS spot, that he saw his opportunity? That's asinine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Im glad we're finally at the point in American politics where both parties are electing purely out of spite
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I've got a rock that keeps away tigers. I don't think that she single handedly held Putin back with force of personality. I think that the Secretary of State's biggest job is a lack of war. Her tenure at state is a noticeable gap between the South Georgia conflict and the Ukraine conflict. It's not asinine to think that she would have handled Ukraine more forcefully. And that's not the only one I listed. No one who downplays her role at state ever has an answer for Myanmar and it actually was a big foreign policy win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 17:02
|
|