|
Job Truniht posted:Xanax cannot fix an impending economic crisis. Anyone who comes into office POTUS will have to deal with one within the next four years. Are you genuinely interested in seeing the bailouts all over again, as they were exactly, seven years ago? You'd be amazed at what Xanax can fix. You aren't going to save the world and you are probably going to have your heart broken by this election. Go hog wild.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
Mordiceius posted:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/rick-perry-calls-charleston-church-shooting-accident/ Stick a fork in him. This will destroy his chances. Bill O called it a terror attack for Christ's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Stick a fork in him. This will destroy his chances. Bill O called it a terror attack for Christ's sake. Perry had chances?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Perry had chances? I know the answer is no, but I personally (I know stupid) think yes because of what the Republican field looks like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Stick a fork in him. This will destroy his chances. Bill O called it a terror attack for Christ's sake. He never had a chance, but I doubt this will finish him. The field will probably wait for an even better soundbyte to come along to really pile on him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Stick a fork in him. This will destroy his chances. Bill O called it a terror attack for Christ's sake. Nah, the first vote isn't until Feb 1st in the Iowa caucus. No one will remember or care about his oops moment by then. This won't sink him, because he never had a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Pohl posted:You'd be amazed at what Xanax can fix. You aren't going to save the world and you are probably going to have your heart broken by this election. We're all going to be losers this election. But go back to that book you're reading: How a Democrat Should Resolve Their Guilty Conscience After for Rich People
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Nah, the first vote isn't until Feb 1st in the Iowa caucus. No one will remember or care about his oops moment by then. Yeah this fuckup won't sink him but I hope he gets some poo poo thrown at him in the upcoming debate for blaming the attack on Prozac.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:America needs Robespierre Marat was the world's first LF poster. Charlotte Corday was that guy who posted mortar tables.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yeah this fuckup won't sink him but I hope he gets some poo poo thrown at him in the upcoming debate for blaming the attack on Prozac. We need better mental health care. Anti depressants make you a mass murderer. Tie everyone up and shoot them full of Haldol, I guess. What, that costs money? Heck boy, we can't raise taxes. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Marat was the world's first LF poster. Charlotte Corday was that guy who posted mortar tables. lf was definitely more Jacques Hébert than anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:I don't know if you've listened to any of Sanders' speeches or interviews, but he agrees with you. He literally says we need a political revolution. Overturning Citizens United and instituting public election financing are two of his talking points. Defeatist? No, the situation we're facing isn't that. There's no shame in being able to look at a situation and realizing that the idea solutions are an extreme longshot if not wholly impossible. And there's nothing wrong with trying for that longshot. My issue is taken with the idea that once it does come down to a two-person race after the primaries, the purity tests come out and people who swear to be liberal choose to sit on their thumbs and go "Well, we tried!". THAT is being defeatist - you take good enough instead of ideal. Take a step back instead of surrendering. That's the attitudes I've got a problem with. I don't particularly like Hillary either, but I'll take stagnation over damnation any day of the week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Defeatist? No, the situation we're facing isn't that. There's no shame in being able to look at a situation and realizing that the idea solutions are an extreme longshot if not wholly impossible. And there's nothing wrong with trying for that longshot. My issue is taken with the idea that once it does come down to a two-person race after the primaries, the purity tests come out and people who swear to be liberal choose to sit on their thumbs and go "Well, we tried!". THAT is being defeatist - you take good enough instead of ideal. Take a step back instead of surrendering. That's the attitudes I've got a problem with. I don't particularly like Hillary either, but I'll take stagnation over damnation any day of the week. Hillary supporters in this thread and elsewhere have unironically supported the idea that she should be elected because she could pack SCOTUS with liberals, even though any Democratic candidate would do that. That's not her feature. Her best political features are: 1. She has loads of money 2. Old money in the Democratic party like her 3. She's a woman, and will get their vote 4. She'll literally say anything to be liked
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:He never had a chance, but I doubt this will finish him. The field will probably wait for an even better soundbyte to come along to really pile on him. Pohl posted:Nah, the first vote isn't until Feb 1st in the Iowa caucus. No one will remember or care about his oops moment by then. I read it differently.  Then again I am a moron who thinks a Walker/Rubio candidacy could beat Hillary/whoever. I'm also a Bernie supporter. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:We're all going to be losers this election. No poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
I think a good outcome for Sanders campaign is at least to highlight a more left leaning wing of the democrat party primarily concerned with wealth inequality as the core issue like how the tea party in the republican party is essentially a single issue voter on shrinking the government. If this group gains enough momentum I think it will draw in younger voters dissafected with how badly occupy wall street ended and that they are trapped at the bottom of the economic system. A good outcome for Bernie probably is to ride this out challenge Clinton bring up left issues and build a cadre of fellow legislators within the democratic party who can influence legislature, especially if the republicans lose seats in the upcomming election and no longer control both houses (which while they will most likely control the house I think the democrats might win back the senate) simply because more people who don't usually vote actually vote in presidential election years. I don't think Sanders works well with minorities though because he is from a predominantly white state and is after all a old white man regardless of his personal views and platform. I think he would be well suited to finding some minority politicians who share his views on wealth inequality and can reach out to voters who might not be inclined to listen to him.
Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I think a good outcome for Sanders campaign is at least to highlight a more left leaning wing of the democrat party primarily concerned with wealth inequality as the core issue like how the tea party in the republican party is essentially a single issue voter on shrinking the government. If this group gains enough momentum I think it will draw in younger voters dissafected with how badly occupy wall street ended and that they are trapped at the bottom of the economic system. A good outcome for Bernie probably is to ride this out challenge Clinton bring up left issues and build a cadre of fellow legislators within the democratic party who can influence legislature, especially if the republicans lose seats in the upcomming election and no longer control both houses (which while they will most likely control the house I think the democrats might win back the senate) simply because more people who don't usually vote actually vote in presidential election years. I don't think Sanders works well with minorities though because he is from a predominantly white state and is after all a old white man regardless of his personal views and platform. I think he would be well suited to finding some minority politicians who share his views on wealth inequality and can reach out to voters who might not be inclined to listen to him. This is literally Bernie's plan I mean yeah he's actually going to try but he was pretty upfront about this being the whole point of his campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:This is literally Bernie's plan I mean yeah he's actually going to try but he was pretty upfront about this being the whole point of his campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Bernie Sanders could literally give a concession speech saying, "I pushed as hard as I could and I did what I meant to do; vote for Hillary Clinton, your drat rascals" and I expect the reaction would be to expel Bernie Sanders from the Bernie Sanders movement. Maybe replace him with a genetic clone combining him and Elizabeth Warren. Yes everyone is drat and irrational except for you rational man. Ugh this poo poo is getting old. People who support Sanders aren't doing it for purity tests ,People who support Hillary aren't naive pragmatists or the only adults in the room as a few of them seem to fancy themselves, there are *gasp* decent people who hold other ideological points from you some of them even Republicans gently caress grow up. And while I'm on the subject of purity. Sanders is a candidate running openly as a socialist in America and he has decent support this is a goddamn miracle. Yeah some of his positions are poo poo, have you looked at Castro or hell Maduro they have poo poo opinions too. I've seen some of you excuse way worse poo poo. He might not be your kind of socialist but he is one. Tired of seeing that poo poo too not gunna get Trotsky running as your candidate when the American socialist movement has been dead since the 30's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
The reason I support Bernie and urge others of similar ideology to mine to vote for him is not necessarily that I think he's got anything but a long shot to win. My hope is that by making the primary competitive and getting large numbers out there to support him, it shows the Democratic Party that there is a vocal, enthusiastic constituency out there that they should be listening to rather than assuming they'll just go with the flow because they're a captive constituency. When you concede from the start that you'll vote for whomever they throw in front of you, they have no incentive to recruit good candidates. Sure, you'll probably vote for them anyway because the alternative is letting a GOP candidate win, but making that too apparent from the start is showing your cards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:America needs Robespierre When Robespierre comes to America he will be wearing a "Don't Tread On Me" T-shirt and carrying a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
Pohl posted:God, I used to really enjoy reading Salon but I had to stop because it became total poo poo. I see it has only gotten worse. It was the 'New atheism' articles that did it for me. Dueling articles 'explaining' how Dawkins et al were hopelessly wrong/correct about everything. Often within 24 hours of each other. Oh that and the worst clickbaity headlines. Rule one of headline writing. Unless something is actually, physically, 'destroyed'. You'll no longer allowed to use that word in a headline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
Why do you think all the ronpaul.gif jokes are being made about Sanders supporters getting excited about polls and claiming he's doing as well as Obama was? It's just like the Ron Paul crowd in 2008, the left wanted an anti-war candidate and Paul provided that until the they projected an anti-war stance onto Obama. Also like Paul, Sanders is going to be a terrific addition to the primary debates, but there's no reason to get so excited that your heart is going to break when he inevitably fails to secure the nomination. Hell, if there was more than one other Dem candidate you wouldn't see Sanders polling about 10% and the media would be focusing more on O'Malley's abs, just like they did with Paul.SirKibbles posted:This is literally Bernie's plan I mean yeah he's actually going to try but he was pretty upfront about this being the whole point of his campaign. No kidding. It's one thing to support him in the primaries and hope that his presence has a positive effect on the nominee (Clinton), but this idea that a democratic socialist is going to get anywhere near the Presidency is ridiculous. On the other hand, just about everyone in D&D should be voting for Sanders in the primaries. It's important to show how much support he has amongst the left, but don't go on like Hillary is the anti-christ while getting your Bernmentum on. Pushing her to be a more progressive/liberal President is going to be a challenge, given the population of DC, and it's going to take the group that supported Sanders in the primaries to make it happen. We don't need another Obama situation where assholes like Larry Summers end up back in positions of power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Why do you think all the ronpaul.gif jokes are being made about Sanders supporters getting excited about polls and claiming he's doing as well as Obama was? It's just like the Ron Paul crowd in 2008, the left wanted an anti-war candidate and Paul provided that until the they projected an anti-war stance onto Obama. Also like Paul, Sanders is going to be a terrific addition to the primary debates, but there's no reason to get so excited that your heart is going to break when he inevitably fails to secure the nomination. Hell, if there was more than one other Dem candidate you wouldn't see Sanders polling about 10% and the media would be focusing more on O'Malley's abs, just like they did with Paul. If you think Bernie Sanders would appoint people like Larry Summers or would turn out like Obama in really any way it's you who is deluding yourself. On the other hand, there is no reason to think Hillary will deviate from the Obama administration in really any way, or to believe her sudden recent left wing turn this campaign is at all sincere when she's been a neoliberal her entire career. Also comparing Bernie to Ron Paul is tiring. Both are old men who are willing to be a bit non-mainstream and popular on the internet, we get it. They're not particularly equivalent in any other way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:They're not particularly equivalent in any other way. They'd both get obliterated in the general, they have that in common.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:New Republic has a solid read on New Hillary, Being Hillary as She Really Was If Hillary was 'more honest,' she would have used a seprate email for her State Department work and her Clinton Foundation work. Job Truniht posted:Hillary supporters in this thread and elsewhere have unironically supported the idea that she should be elected because she could pack SCOTUS with liberals, even though any Democratic candidate would do that. That's not her feature. Her best political features are: #4 is not a good thing!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:If you think Bernie Sanders would appoint people like Larry Summers or would turn out like Obama in really any way it's you who is deluding yourself. Really? Can you tell me how, exactly, Bernie Sanders would avoid becoming a part of the Washington establishment? History's pretty much proven that if you bring in a bunch of political neophytes who have no idea what the big stage is like, you end up with Jimmy Carter--where nothing gets done because no one knows how to talk to Congress. And that was back when Democrats actually had control of both houses. Now that Republicans dominate both chambers, the idea that Bernie Sanders would ride in like some far-left white knight and undo all the evil of the last 40 years is completely laughable. I like the fact that he's dragging the conversation to the left and forcing the field to talk about issues that wouldn't normally get any air time, but to pretend that he'd be the next FDR is naive in the extreme. Of COURSE he'd find himself hiring old Washington Democratic hands if elected, and of COURSE his Presidency would be paralyzed by gridlock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Okay, guys, I'm just spitballing here but I have an idea. Do you think it's possible that, maybe, in a hypothetical Clinton presidency, she would be inclined to support bills her constituents and party support? Like, say Bernie goes back to the Senate and gets passes even a watered down form of his paid leave bill (which | |=|>| also supports and had supported) she'd sign it into law? Like, Hillary isn't going to blow up Democratic policies. She'll sign almost any of Sanders' legislative proposals into law. And that's why this is a stupid argument and Strategic Voting is worthwhile. EDIT: Jeb!, Randall, Oops, and Scotty will blow up and burn down any progressive ideas. Search your cold, liquor-soaked hearts. You know this to be true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Really? Can you tell me how, exactly, Bernie Sanders would avoid becoming a part of the Washington establishment? History's pretty much proven that if you bring in a bunch of political neophytes who have no idea what the big stage is like, you end up with Jimmy Carter--where nothing gets done because no one knows how to talk to Congress. And that was back when Democrats actually had control of both houses. I didn't say any of that wouldn't happen, I was talking specifically about Larry Summers. Bernie's entire career, going back to when he was running for mayor, has focused on Wall Street and inequality, and while he would of course compromise on much if he somehow became President to say he'd have folded on his primary focus since the 70s is silly. Also Bernie has been in Congress and the Senate for 20+ years, this attack that he wouldn't know how to handle them is ridiculous. If anything he has much more experience with Congress than Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders would certainly have Wall Street well represented in his cabinet, or he would be found dead of a heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:
It isn't that he wouldn't know how to handle them. It's that the GOP congress is unhandleable, and that if the Democrats retake the Senate then he still has to compromise in order to get people confirmed. Yes, in areas where he required no confirmation he'd appoint less Wall-Streety people, but those positions are generally advisory and don't have actual power. Obama has put up a lot of great people for positions who haven't been confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:#4 is not a good thing!!!! I have it on good authority that Hillary is likable enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It isn't that he wouldn't know how to handle them. It's that the GOP congress is unhandleable, and that if the Democrats retake the Senate then he still has to compromise in order to get people confirmed. Yes, in areas where he required no confirmation he'd appoint less Wall-Streety people, but those positions are generally advisory and don't have actual power. Obama has put up a lot of great people for positions who haven't been confirmed. Yeah, the point is that the upper limit of tolerance for enacting policies in Congress is much farther to the right than anything Obama did. As a result, at best Bernie would just continue the system of gridlock we've had for the past few years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
sullat posted:I have it on good authority that Hillary is likable enough. Unlikeable +2: The Clinton Story
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Getting all het up about Sanders as President doesn't seem all that sustainable. If his "movement" really is a movement and not a bunch of people projecting their frustrations and excitement into one person and two races, then we'll see a push to primary out or pressure Democrats in local, State, House and Senate races, as well as run outsider socialists, and as has been said here before, I don't think Sanders expects any different. There's no point in having a McGovern repeat, either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Okay, guys, I'm just spitballing here but I have an idea. Whether a politician supports certain initiatives because of genuine belief or electoral pandering is incidental from a practical perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Getting all het up about Sanders as President doesn't seem all that sustainable. If his "movement" really is a movement and not a bunch of people projecting their frustrations and excitement into one person and two races, then we'll see a push to primary out or pressure Democrats in local, State, House and Senate races, as well as run outsider socialists, and as has been said here before, I don't think Sanders expects any different. There's no point in having a McGovern repeat, either. You would think so and yet anti-establishment (for lack of a better term) types tend to think that the Presidency is the only position that matters. The Green Party has less than half a dozen elected officials in any legislature in the nation. Federal, State, you name it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Getting all het up about Sanders as President doesn't seem all that sustainable. If his "movement" really is a movement and not a bunch of people projecting their frustrations and excitement into one person and two races, then we'll see a push to primary out or pressure Democrats in local, State, House and Senate races, as well as run outsider socialists, and as has been said here before, I don't think Sanders expects any different. There's no point in having a McGovern repeat, either. Who is the current day Nixon, in the McGovern analogy? Because I don't think any of them are in nearly as strong of a position as Nixon was in '72.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You would think so and yet anti-establishment (for lack of a better term) types tend to think that the Presidency is the only position that matters. I find most people lean towards this opinion whether they're anti establishment or not. Has a lot to do with the narrative on how legislation is passed. Full Battle Rattle posted:Who is the current day Nixon, in the McGovern analogy? Because I don't think any of them are in nearly as strong of a position as Nixon was in '72. None of them but someone has to be the eventual Republican candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
HRC's wrapping up a speech to the US Conference of Mayors. Laid out a dedication to "commonsense" gun control (specifically hitting on not selling guns to domestic abusers, the mentally-ill and people on the terrorist watch list) and talked about Charleston, noting that Racism Is not Over and talking about structural racism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 17:56
|
|
