|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Jim Webb lol
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
JT Jag posted:
France and Mexico aren't full of white folk. To get true blue blood, one needs to visit Habsburg dominion, which Obama has failed to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:
Yeah, he certainly came to Canada for the G20, and we're like 60% European-Canadian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Jim Webb The American Nigel Farage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The American Nigel Farage. How? I don't love Jim Webb but he'd be a decent candidate and I don't see how he's anything like Farage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:France and Mexico aren't full of white folk. To get true blue blood, one needs to visit Habsburg dominion, which Obama has failed to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
I was mulling over what it would mean to have a First Man as opposed to a First Lady under a Hillary presidency, and it occurred to me that I don't think there's anything legally preventing Chelsea from assuming the role. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:How? Jim Webb will be as terrible of a candidate as he was as a senator (really terrible) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb#Controversy_over_PAC_finances
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
saintonan posted:We thought Hillary was a lock in 2007 too. Unless Martin O'Malley is possessed of some campaigning panache I'm not aware of, there is no Obama to stop Hillary this time. She's getting his money, his email list, like all his high-level infrastructure, and (I hope) she has learned from 2008.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:I was mulling over what it would mean to have a First Man as opposed to a First Lady under a Hillary presidency, and it occurred to me that I don't think there's anything legally preventing Chelsea from assuming the role. Thoughts? She already has experience as the first lady, since Hillary had to abdicate the position while campaigning for Senate
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Joementum posted:"Let me be clear: We jammin'. I want to jam it with you." What dark spirit did you make a pact with to gain the wit that you have? I'm asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:I was mulling over what it would mean to have a First Man as opposed to a First Lady under a Hillary presidency, and it occurred to me that I don't think there's anything legally preventing Chelsea from assuming the role. Thoughts? Bill Clinton has already stated he want's to be referred to as "First Laddy".
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
I think Hillary won't run a particularly good campaign, misogyny will turn out to be more powerful than racism, and she'll lose to Rand Paul, attacking her from the left on foreign policy and criminal justice to siphon off enough youth vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
greatn posted:I think Hillary won't run a particularly good campaign, misogyny will turn out to be more powerful than racism, and she'll lose to Rand Paul, attacking her from the left on foreign policy and criminal justice to siphon off enough youth vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
greatn posted:I think Hillary won't run a particularly good campaign, misogyny will turn out to be more powerful than racism, and she'll lose to Rand Paul, attacking her from the left on foreign policy and criminal justice to siphon off enough youth vote. Hahahaha. Look out DIck Morris this guy's coming for your job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
I really, really do not want to vote for Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:I really, really do not want to vote for Hillary. Good news, you don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
greatn posted:I think Hillary won't run a particularly good campaign, misogyny will turn out to be more powerful than racism, and she'll lose to Rand Paul, attacking her from the left on foreign policy and criminal justice to siphon off enough youth vote. rand paul will never win an office outside of a wave year in an impoverished poo poo state that can be overwhelmed by far-flung libertarian dark money the man does not know how to interact with other human beings
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:Hahahaha. Look out DIck Morris this guy's coming for your job.  goon on goon violence
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
On one hand, I don't like Hillary. On the other hand, one or two of the conservative Supreme Court judges will probably die in the next 9 years. That's horribly reductionist but hey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:I really, really do not want to vote for Hillary. O'Malley / Sanders in primary. Hillary in general if you live in a swing state; otherwise write in Lizard People and pull D for all the down ticket races. You're welcome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
You could always vote GREEN PARTY ahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Is this like when libertarians say they don't vote straight ticket republican?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:On one hand, I don't like Hillary. This is basically 80% of the reason I vote for a democrat in the whitehouse. The other 20% is gently caress republicans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Ginsberg will be gone before any of the conservative justices, most likely. All the more reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
greatn posted:I think Hillary won't run a particularly good campaign, misogyny will turn out to be more powerful than racism, and she'll lose to Rand Paul, attacking her from the left on foreign policy and criminal justice to siphon off enough youth vote. Hey, dude, I think Bill Kristol stole your account...
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:You could always vote GREEN PARTY ahahahaha. vote for frank zeidler's ghost
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Alright, one last try since we haven't finished with this yet. 1.) Do you think that pregnant women should have access to quality medical care? 2.) If so, do you recognize that under the current US healthcare system that means having insurance or significant independent wealth? If you're not on board with those points, then we should be having an entirely different discussion. If you are, the question is essentially, should you harm someone and go against your belief in the interest of proving a point or following the rules? If you're arguing that she shouldn't get support because the vast majority of people in similar positions who don't happen to be married to cops wouldn't get care, then you're saying that it's more important to prove a point than to ensure proper care -speculation that "it'll work out" is irresponsible because you cannot know that it will. If this is your argument, do you honestly think that denying her healthcare will change people's opinions? Will people who hear this story and who are ardent opponents to UHC suddenly decide that it's a good an just thing? Do you believe that you will you achieve any outcome other than loving over an innocent woman? If you think it could change people's opinions, why would it be more effective than simply highlighting that her experience is outside of the norm and don't all those people currently being excluded also deserve care? If you're arguing that this is about following rules and making sure that everyone is treated the same no matter what, is it ethical to always follow the rules even when you believe the rules are wrong? I agree that this is made murky by the fact that some groups of people can get exceptions and others can't, but to be fair, this isn't a policy that we have in place. There's no law that says partners of police officers who are shitbag murderers get to keep their healthcare until they deliver their babies. This is a singular case that is being addressed on an individual basis. In essence, if we agree that in the abstract, allowing a pregnant woman to keep her healthcare until she delivers is a good thing to do. Are you doing more good by depriving her of it? It is certainly reasonable to use this case as a way to discuss the need for UHC - "isn't it great that she will have care? What about all the people who aren't that lucky?," but I'm highly skeptical that you can successfully achieve change by trying to gently caress over everyone until we all have it as bad as the lowest of us. I think you're better off recognizing inequity and trying to lift up from the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
zoux posted:Good news, you don't have to. Yes but I feel that if I don't someone worse will be in power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Yes but I feel that if I don't someone worse will be in power. what state you live in, bud?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:Alright, one last try since we haven't finished with this yet. No one cares.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
On what issues is Martin O'Malley significantly more progressive than Obama or Clinton? My brief research hasn't left me overly impressed. EDIT: gently caress this guy, I'd sooner vote Republican. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f58f_story.html MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Yes but I feel that if I don't someone worse will be in power. I assure you you are not the lynchpin on which the presidential election hinges. Vote in the confidence that you can vote for whoever you like and there will be no consequences whatsoever 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Phone posted:No one cares. Cool response, man! I mean, it's demonstrably false given that people are talking about it, but sure maybe we can move back to circle-jerk territory if it'll make you feel better. Hey everyone, those GOP candidates sure are dumb!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Ginsberg will be gone before any of the conservative justices, most likely. All the more reason. RBG will be the first human life ever recorded as sustained through sheer force of will
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcKurfXAVWM
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:Alright, one last try since we haven't finished with this yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:On what issues is Martin O'Malley significantly more progressive than Obama or Clinton? My brief research hasn't left me overly impressed. Well, he's been talking up tougher Wall Street regulation, but then again so did Obama before he won the Presidency, so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:On what issues is Martin O'Malley significantly more progressive than Obama or Clinton? My brief research hasn't left me overly impressed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Well, he's been talking up tougher Wall Street regulation, but then again so did Obama before he won the Presidency, so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 20:14
|
|
