|
freemandela posted:Anything Hillary will do is better than Iraq War II: Iranian Boogaloo. Do you not remember 2001-2009? Jeb has the same foreign policy advisors as his brother, and anything neoliberals can do to the economy with trade agreements is piss in the wind compared to what will happen if we attack Iran. Considering his foreign policy team, Jeb WILL put troops on the ground in Iraq. No matter what economic disagreements you and I have with the Democratic party, their neoliberal poo poo is infinitely preferable to a war with Iran. Buy three Iraqs and we'll throw in Syria for free! But wait there's more! If you buy now, we'll even add this limited edition Iran for the same price!
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Uhh, 2008. Grey Fox fucked around with this message at 16:42 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Feather posted:Or it was pandering then and the "mistake" rhetoric is also pandering today. In fact that's the simplest and most likely explanation. Uh, except healthcare. Also no president is on the bleeding edge of policy. Even Abraham Lincoln only approached emancipation cautiously, well after it had found a strong foothold in North. Not only that, but he was still allowing states to experiment with their own form of will they/won't they civil rights before he died and Andrew Johnson decided to swing his dick around.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Uh, except healthcare. Also no president is on the bleeding edge of policy. Even Abraham Lincoln only approached emancipation cautiously, well after it had found a strong foothold in North. Not only that, but he was still allowing states to experiment with their own form of will they/won't they civil rights before he died and Andrew Johnson decided to swing his dick around. That's certainly an interesting theory about Reconstruction and the end of the civil war. Probably not "accurate" or "well supported", but I do like trying to recast Andrew Johnson as the hero here. Don't gen many of his supporters around.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
sullat posted:That's certainly an interesting theory about Reconstruction and the end of the civil war. Probably not "accurate" or "well supported", but I do like trying to recast Andrew Johnson as the hero here. Don't gen many of his supporters around.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I thought it was generally held that Lincoln would have probably been much more gentle with the Southern states than Johnson was? Or is this more of a 'he probably would have managed it better due to being awesome, and also, he died, so we can blame the failure to keep Reconstruction going on that instead of fecklessness'? More gentle than the Radical Republicans in Congress.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I'm pretty sure both Rumsfield and Cheney worked for Ford and every Republican president after that. They were both hold-overs from the Nixon administration, where I trust you'll be just shocked to learn both were up to their elbows in Vietnam-era criminality.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I thought it was generally held that Lincoln would have probably been much more gentle with the Southern states than Johnson was? Or is this more of a 'he probably would have managed it better due to being awesome, and also, he died, so we can blame the failure to keep Reconstruction going on that instead of fecklessness'? Lincoln wanted to be gentler than congress did, Johnson was a southerner himself and wanted to be even gentlerer than Lincoln. Since Johnson had little political capital of his own (politician from the party that is out of power and had a lot of its supporters just lose a revolution, did not win election on his own and was from a portion of the country that had had its voting rights taken away) the radical Republicans in congress got to basically make policy on their own, overriding all his vetoes.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
From what I read, Johnson was from East Tennessee, a region which detested the planters in the west and central parts of the state. He was going to show the planter class what for, until a lot of their wives wrote to him begging mercy, and he relented.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:From what I read, Johnson was from East Tennessee, a region which detested the planters in the west and central parts of the state. He was going to show the planter class what for, until a lot of their wives wrote to him begging mercy, and he relented. Yeah, it's one of those odd things. During the war, Johnson rails on and on about how secession is treason and must be harshly punished, and came down hard on rebels real and suspected as military governor of Tennessee, but after the war changes his minds on the whole deal.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Seeing as though that goat looks to be shaping up as a generation of civil war and regional unrest in the levant which is directly attributable to that moment in that photograph, gently caress the rest of his career. Moreover, the fact that he was well-respected and did a lot of good work prior to that made it easier to sell. "Oh, Colin Powell's supporting it, guess it can't be all that bad an idea!"
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Uh, except healthcare. Also no president is on the bleeding edge of policy. Even Abraham Lincoln only approached emancipation cautiously, well after it had found a strong foothold in North. Not only that, but he was still allowing states to experiment with their own form of will they/won't they civil rights before he died and Andrew Johnson decided to swing his dick around. Uh, she hasn't been a leader on health care for 20 years and it really is debatable how much she was interested in leading in 1992/1993 . Her 2008 bit was just recycled and watered down and it doesn't seem like she's changed much in 8 years. Anything short of Medicare for All (or other single payer system or its equivalent) isn't leadership, it's the status quo or a step backward. Just like almost all her other positions.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Him running also allows Clinton to stake out a somewhat progressive stance while still appearing comparatively centrist. (Which is almost like a rephrasing of what you said but with a small difference that she's not being 'dragged') Seriously. Hillary has been pushing left for decades and learned the hard way what happens when you push to far to fast ... Ie nothing at all. Nothing being what happened on her first attempt at health care reform as First Lady. He's not dragging her. She is using him for political cover if anything. If he still has a large war chest that he passes on to her when he drops out then I'll go so far as to say they were actively colluding.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
sullat posted:That's certainly an interesting theory about Reconstruction and the end of the civil war. Probably not "accurate" or "well supported", but I do like trying to recast Andrew Johnson as the hero here. Don't gen many of his supporters around. Won't find me defending Andrew Johnson, here. Lincoln was allowing different states to experiment with different ways of governing during wartime reconstruction before he was going to settle on a final plan. Lincoln probably would have walked a really fine line between the Radicals and the conservatives during reconstruction. It's something he's quite well known for. There's a Lost Cause mythology that Lincoln would have wanted to be conciliatory and would have gone easy on former Confederates. That was his rhetoric but there's really no way to know. Lincoln, for his part, was very upset with the Confederates and probably wouldn't have immediately placed them in statewide offices. He probably also wouldn't have allowed the Freedmen's Bureau to languish and die on the vine. Johnson was from Tennessee and basically convinced that the Planter Class had dragged the southerners kicking and screaming into the war. He had no use for civil rights for blacks and was at best apathetic to their plight. He had no compunctions about letting Confederates back into the state governments. Unlike the other Republicans, especially the Radicals, he didn't feel that the Federal Government had much say in how the states handled their business. He shocked the Republicans by vetoing even simple measures and essentially letting the South do what they want. He drew a lot of support from Northern Democrats and conservatives and the Republicans rightly came to despise him. The next election, the Republicans won a veto proof majority and began giving Johnson what for. If you want a president on the bleeding edge, there you go. Johnson's policy wasn't particularly popular but he was arrogant and did what he wanted to do. On the other hand, you have a president who managed the bloodiest war in American history. His stances weren't always popular but they were always hedged and, in many ways, focus-grouped.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Seriously. Hillary has been pushing left for decades and learned the hard way what happens when you push to far to fast ... Ie nothing at all. Nothing being what happened on her first attempt at health care reform as First Lady. But, again, this. Hillary has a pretty solid liberal record and is pretty in tune with her base.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Unlike the other Republicans, especially the Radicals, he didn't feel that the Federal Government had much say in how the states handled their business.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Bernie's 404 page naturally features a wordy video explaining a 404 page. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk2j6StDR9g
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Bernie's 404 page naturally features a wordy video explaining a 404 page. This video is private.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
withak posted:This video is private.  Check again tomorrow. I'm guessing it's for a new site that will be launched post-announcement.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Joementum posted:
I saw it before it was taken down, and what I loved about it (Beyond the wordy-ness of it) was that he reintroduced himself at the start of the video. Not sure why that would be necessary, considering you were on his campaign page to start with. Doubt people would go "Who is this man, and why is he explaining 404s to me?"
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Drastic Actions posted:Not sure why that would be necessary, considering you were on his campaign page to start with. Doubt people would go "Who is this man, and why is he explaining 404s to me?" Have you seen his campaign slogan? Bernie Sanders posted:One percent of this country owns 38 percent of the wealth. The bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. We are essentially living in an oligarchy, one that is headed for the edge of the cliff if we do not address the social and economic inequalities that are propelling this downward spiral. How can we ever expect to reclaim the respect and support of the international community when we are starting wars in the name of democracy? When in our own country we are handing out $285 million-dollar severance packages while millions of Americans, even with the Affordable Care Act, remained uninsured? I’m telling you, the warning signs are here, and we must act. My name is Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Wait, is that actually his campaign slogan? I thought it was a running joke.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Feather posted:There isn't a single issue I can think of, except some components of women's rights, where Hillary actually is a leader. Then you haven't been paying attention. Hillary started pushing health care reform as First Lady and stated in 2007 that she was going to make it a central focus of her 2008 run purely to force all the other candidates to talk about it. I read her book so I know how important climate issues are to her and how she worked as Secretary of State to get other countries to enact environmental regulations but the internet is uninterested in talking about that directly ... for some reason ... and I just find offhand mentions buried in other articles like this one ( http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-hard-choices-energy ) to her accomplishment there. But she does a poo poo-ton of speaking and organizing with the league of conservation voters about energy independence and moving to renewable energy sources. It is pretty patriarchy.txt to call these activities leading when a man does it and cheerleading when a woman does it. And given that one in four American children live in a household with a single working mother universal daycare is hardly just a women's issue. I'll have you know that half those kids are male. Her reputation in the senate was "she's a workhorse, not a show horse" and that certainly seems to be well earned since even in a forum about politics people don't know much about her accomplishments. And that is the central problem with politics. Grandstanding gets you more attention than competence.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Morrow posted:Hillary Clinton lives my the maxim "These are my principles: if you don't like them, I have others". Are you are talking about the woman who pushed healthcare reform for nearly two decades, never giving up, never surrendering? The woman who ranked consistently among the absolutely most liberal senators during her time in the senate? That Hillary? I mean, our hearts may tell us that Obama is more liberal than Hillary, but their voting record shows that Hillary is to the left of Obama ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/12/hillary-clinton-more-liberal-than-obama-as-senator/?page=all ). Could it be that you are talking about the Hillary Clinton who worked tirelessly as First Lady of Arkansas, then First Lady of the U.S., then as the senator of New York, to expand access to college and increase tuition assistance? Not simply voting for them, but writing and sponsoring bills on the subject especially vis-a-vi outreach to marginalized populations so that they would know how to apply for financial aid/grants. http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-on-college-affordability/ And who as a presidential candidate is giving speeches about how saddling kids with college debt is ridiculous and that college should be debt-free http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5982928 . Surely you aren't talking about our Secretary of State with all her work on climate change treaties following a solid career as a senator supporting environmental regulation? The Hillary Clinton who put her money where her mouth is - when she became wealthy in her middle age since she was born the daughter of an enlisted man and a secretary - by founding a charity and giving it tens of millions of dollars of her own money to help the environment while providing people with health care and education? Just to be clear, you are calling this woman a flip flopper/ etch a sketch with no principles, Yes? Do you also think Paul Ryan is a numeric whiz kid and Mr. Rogers a vulgar man?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Dolash posted:Wait, is that actually his campaign slogan? I thought it was a running joke. I think it is from The Onion profile of Bernie Sanders as a candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Just to be clear, you are calling this woman a flip flopper/ etch a sketch with no principles, Yes? She voted for war once, so she doesn't pass the purity test. Death by guillotine.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Are you are talking about the woman who pushed healthcare reform for nearly two decades, never giving up, never surrendering? Be glad you didn't post this eight years ago, there would have been a wall of angry replies.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
I want to remind everyone that social change is a process and it happens far faster than economic change. Social change is the gift horse, if you will, that the elites allow us so we don't rebel. The elites don't care about social change because it doesn't affect them economically. Hell, women working actually gave them a huge advantage and a wider pool of cheap labor. Democrats are obviously better at social issues than Republicans, but if you are going to base your entire ideology on public issues, you are an idiot. Vote economics--social change happens regardless of party. I get that Republicans want to "talk" about the 50's, but that is not going to happen. The fact that they can gently caress a state or 30 up does not indicate that they can gently caress up the US constitution. Not at a national level anyway. I'm scared and sad when I read what they do in individual states, but I know that Nationally that poo poo isn't possible. We need to be smarter when we talk about social issues, and they sure as poo poo should not be our only barometer. Social change is a given. We don't need to stop thinking about it, but our goal should be economic change. Economic change is what we need to fight for. Social change is going to happen regardless.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
you intend to vote for a former member of Wal-Mart's board of directors to be president of the United States
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I want to remind everyone that social change is a process and it happens far faster than economic change. Social change is the gift horse, if you will, that the elites allow us so we don't rebel. yeah, but it's not like the Republicans aren't demonstrably worse by huge margins about economics. Obama has been making noise about minimum wage and I'd bet Hillary Clinton will continue that (especially since it's, sadly, really easy to turn Minimum wage into a women's issue).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
zeal posted:you intend to vote for a former member of Wal-Mart's board of directors to be president of the United States Choices are not made in a vacuum. Who in the Republican field would you vote for over Hillary right now?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
zeal posted:you intend to vote for a former member of Wal-Mart's board of directors to be president of the United States So?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
zeal posted:you intend to vote for a former member of Wal-Mart's board of directors to be president of the United States And your point is? ErIog posted:Choices are not made in a vacuum. Who in the Republican field would you vote for over Hillary right now? Heh, you see this time 40 million Americans will actually vote for a third party presidential candidate and one will win for the first time in American history. 
Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:40 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Heh, you see this time 40 million Americans will actually vote for a third party presidential candidate and one will win for the first time in American history. There's not enough data points to justify any kinds of conclusions or trends from presidential elections. :gb2statisticsclass:
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Jesus loving Christ there's a load of shittastic "embrace the inevitability of Our Lord and Saviour HRC" in this thread. I can't tell if McAlister is a gimmick poster or just autistic—it's like Deteriorata's schilling for Obama but somehow manages to be worse. How 'bout you guys actually push for a candidate that will defend your interests rather than a lifeless brand that's been honed by a million focus groups? Sure, vote your lesser-of-two-evils if it comes down to that in the national elections, but go balls to the wall in the loving primaries to actually shift the Democratic Party away from the monied interests that are sucking our country dry. Get out there and do something. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
I'd vote for Bernie Sanders if he gave me some of those ice cream burritos that Ben and Jerrys are doing now.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
there's no practical difference between hil-dawg and bernin honestly because the presidency itself doesn't matter that much as opposed to control over scotus nominations and the administrative state, of which there is likely not to be any real difference between anyone who would have a D after their name
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Jesus loving Christ there's a load of shittastic "embrace the inevitability of Our Lord and Saviour HRC" in this thread. I can't tell if McAlister is a gimmick poster or just autistic—it's like Deteriorata's schilling for Obama but somehow manages to be worse. How 'bout you guys actually push for a candidate that will defend your interests rather than a lifeless brand that's been honed by a million focus groups? Newsflash genius: Bernie Sanders can't institute democratic socialism from the Presidency outside of a clancy-level scenario. Also it's shilling, unless you meant that guy had an archaic Austrian coin.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
If Hillary Clinton isn't opportunistic, how are we meant to take her '08 primary campaign helping kick-start birtherism?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Everyone is so fatalistic in this thread. My general view is this: Unless something completely crazy happens (it won't), Hillary will be the Dem's nominee. Until the point when that happens, I will fly the Bernie flag high and show all the support I can. Once that happens though, I will move my support on to Hillary. Before that point, however, I hope others throw their weight behind Bernie as well, as that gives more freedom to Hillary and makes her a more powerful candidate in the end.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:27
|
|
