|
Sir Kodiak posted:People demanding a full public policy platform to back up a one sentence joke accusing me of absolutism is pretty rich. hey if you make a joke in the future maybe think about making it good
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
richardfun posted:Not sure if this has been posted yet (I'm a bit behind on the thread) but apparently, Rubio fancies himself a regular Captain America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf0d2Rx52wI
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:The dude is one of the most left-wing politicians in Congress and an independent to boot, do you really think that he could have that much sway over people who are to the right of him politically and not even in his party? Bernie is running on ideology, not on a strong record of pragmatic legislative rule. I don't really have an opinion, I just saw these posts: Sheng-ji Yang posted: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. Captain_Maclaine posted:A man with over two decades of experience serving in Congress: A political neophyte who clearly won't know how to engage with that body. You sure cracked the code on that one, ace. And so I ask what is the record of accomplishment that gives this confidence in Sanders' ability to handle/manage congress? Or other examples of Sanders getting good results from Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Yeah dude, Gore and Bush are basically the same. Republicrats. Demoblicans. Fact.  Good thing that's not what I said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
richardfun posted:Not sure if this has been posted yet (I'm a bit behind on the thread) but apparently, Rubio fancies himself a regular Captain America. . . . Who is passionate about Marco Rubio to the point that they'd buy and wear that shirt? I can see from a free shirt standpoint, but what kind of person cares about Rubio enough to say, "Yeah, I totally want that shirt, take my money!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
richardfun posted:Not sure if this has been posted yet (I'm a bit behind on the thread) but apparently, Rubio fancies himself a regular Captain America. The middle of the bullseye is called the double bull and that's what happens when he starts talking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:
You said they'd get what they want anyway. I mean, this is objectively true on any matter than isn't directly controlled by the federal bureaucracy at this point and will continue to be. At least there's a chance Clinton pulls some Senate seats over the finish line with her and gets control of appointments back. She's the only one who could possibly do anything about gaining congressional seats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The middle of the bullseye is called the double bull and that's what happens when he starts talking. When you hit the bullseye Rubio falls into a pool of water, from which he then proceeds to drink his fill. The water has to be replaced hourly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Wabbit posted:And so I ask what is the record of accomplishment that gives this confidence in Sanders' ability to handle/manage congress? Or other examples of Sanders getting good results from Congress. He doesn't really have one for two main reasons: 1) Historically, his staff leaks like a sieve. You wouldn't go to them on anything controversial because it would become public immediately, and if they came to you with something controversial, you would hem and haw because it was about to become public. 2) Having his name as a primary co sponsor was an excellent way of making sure Republicans wouldn't sign on to it (because "socialist"), which makes it difficult to get it out of committee and through the Senate. (Cruz suffers similar problems in reverse, as does Paul.) He's a super nice guy and has good positions, but wouldn't make a good executive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:It was the 'New atheism' articles that did it for me. But aren't you interested in what Jon Stewart said last night?!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:hey if you make a joke in the future maybe think about making it good Now this is a fair response 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
You guys do know that neither candidate who wins is going to be able to pass anything unless we get the house anytime soon right? The questions about what they will be able to pass are similar. This is about rhetoric it's effects,and a hypothetical future socialist movement vs liberals just moving a little left and hopefully being some sort of labor party *this would require them to be willing to risk not getting elected which some of them have issues with. It's a problem with the Democrats as a whole they've become so obsessed with keeping the Republicans out (rightfully so) that they avg candidate is viewed as trending towards generic Democrat this is not good on a lot of issues (guns) and super good on others (it's really a lot harder for a Dem to not get poo poo for being racist)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:. . . Who is passionate about Marco Rubio to the point that they'd buy and wear that shirt? I can see from a free shirt standpoint, but what kind of person cares about Rubio enough to say, "Yeah, I totally want that shirt, take my money!" But it's Limited Edition!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:First of all, Hillary actually does not have a personal record of that. There have been pragmatic legislative moves that did, in fact, cause these issues. Hillary has repudiated a lot of those votes. Also, the repudiation is horse poo poo. I got to see lots of friends' friends or families hosed over real nice and hard by welfare reform and poo poo like three-strikes. We (as in, those of us who were poor and growing in majority-minority neighborhoods) knew those policies would augment the structural racism that existed then, as it does now. Coming from Arkansas the chances the Clintons did not know that are slim to none. Her "repudiation" is naked, hypocritical pandering. quote:I was here, in a Midwest state, when the primary was heating up. It didn't take Hillary or any of her operatives to start race baiting. White Reagan democrats did a lot of it themselves. NY Times posted:“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” [Hillary Clinton] said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press. No, she wasn't deliberately stoking racial fires at all, no sir. Or perhaps you are misremembering. Or perhaps you're just wrong. Feather fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Feather posted:So her support and votes for "pragmatic" legislative moves aren't a reflection of what she believes are acceptable things? How does that work, exactly. Which animals' entrails did your haruspex use to determine which of her votes and policy positions are okay to put in her "personal record" column and which aren't? Or perhaps you can't separate her husband's policies from her own. Or you can't look back 25 years and recognize marked differences in the racial and political landscape today. Hillary and Bill have both said that their three strikes policies aren't effective. Welfare reform was bullshit but can you imagine it under a Republican president? Clinton was right, by the way. There was a broad coalition of white voters waiting for her in the late primary states. Odd that, despite the events around you, you can't see a politician speak in broad terms as anything other than race baiting. I literally saw the white coalition coming together. We're talking about states with smaller minority populations. I'm not sure what your issue is but you're blasting Hillary for things that would be exponentially worse under any conservative candidate O'Malley created the situation in Baltimore and he's pretty liberal so I'm not just attacking the "Government ni-," "in his heart," 47%, and "bleh people" conservatives. Please. Vote for Bernie. I am. But suffer no illusions that Bernie would have to forsake many of his principles as president. And try to see the world as an evolving, changing place where things are not set in stone and people can grow and learn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Wabbit posted:And so I ask what is the record of accomplishment that gives this confidence in Sanders' ability to handle/manage congress? Or other examples of Sanders getting good results from Congress. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357 Over on the right, it loads as you scroll down. Click on each bill to see it's status. (failed) Pohl fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:You said they'd get what they want anyway. Well yeah I'm not saying she's not the preferred option and won't have some major implications like further stacking the federal judiciary. Just saying the seemingly vanishing business class wing of the GOP knows her election doesn't spell the end of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:You guys do know that neither candidate who wins is going to be able to pass anything unless we get the house anytime soon right? The questions about what they will be able to pass are similar. This is about rhetoric it's effects,and a hypothetical future socialist movement vs liberals just moving a little left and hopefully being some sort of labor party *this would require them to be willing to risk not getting elected which some of them have issues with. The President would have to ability to block passage of legislation which I would trust Bernie with over Hillary. Regardless, the Presidency is not primarily about signing legislation- it's about managing the executive branch. The next POTUS is going to inherit more or less the same bureaucracy as the current one, but will still be able to impact this bureaucracy, (and therefor the nation) in a number of different ways. Clinton vs. Sanders is certainly not just a matter of rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:So when does Hillary get mad in the primary states and dig out the first hit on Sanders about what have to be some pretty wacked-out past associates. There's no socialist, democratic or otherwise, who hasn't at some point been in some front group with Trots or Maoists or other idiots. I think he needs to poll above 20% at the very least, probably higher since there's no third threat (I honestly have no idea what O'Malley thinks he can accomplish). What a lot of people forget when they make the (completely insane) Obama comparison is Hillary had another serious challenger in 2008 with John Edwards (jesus, what a douchebag, if he'd been nominated we'd be looking at this election in the wake of 8 years of McCain as president).
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:If Clinton had vetoed the appropriation bill over this, it would have cost him a ton of political capital and his veto would have been overridden. If he had neutered it through directives, congress would have rewritten it to un-neuter it. The way I know this is because Clinton tried to get a full repeal bill going and Congress rushed through the ban in the appropriations bill precisely because vetoing it over this issue would be pretty drat impossible. 1994 was the year that Gingrich and the GOP re-took congress. What would have stopped him from pulling a Truman and just integrating the military via executive order? "Political realities", or whatever else you want to call the triangulation and lack of confrontation that spanned his presidency?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
richardfun posted:Not sure if this has been posted yet (I'm a bit behind on the thread) but apparently, Rubio fancies himself a regular Captain America. This is so much better than his actual logo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
2008 wasn't 25 years ago. Hillary started that a lot of the racist attacks that came out of that cycle,yeah she's running and probably the nominee but don't forget that. Obdicut posted:If Clinton had vetoed the appropriation bill over this, it would have cost him a ton of political capital and his veto would have been overridden. If he had neutered it through directives, congress would have rewritten it to un-neuter it. The way I know this is because Clinton tried to get a full repeal bill going and Congress rushed through the ban in the appropriations bill precisely because vetoing it over this issue would be pretty drat impossible. 1994 was the year that Gingrich and the GOP re-took congress. Political capital is not a thing there are not imaginary points you can save. SirKibbles fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jun 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Keep in mind that with regard to Congress, Obama approaches the balance of power like a law school professor. He's not a big fan of an Imperial Presidency, and believes in a strong legislature. Quick, name one thing which Obama worked with Congress on after the 111th Congress. Yeah, yeah, there's TPA, in which Obama is testing using Boehner as Rahm demanded Obama use him to pass single-payer in ACA. We'll see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Political capital is not a thing there are not imaginary points you can save. Which is why nothing happened when Ford pardoned Nixon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Political capital is not a thing there are not imaginary points you can save. I don't think you've ever actually done politics, not even on the micro scale, otherwise you wouldn't say something like that. If you did you'd soon notice people gaining and losing it, and what the consequences are of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Which is why nothing happened when Ford pardoned Nixon. ex-presidents should not be prosecuted. it sets a very bad precedent which incentivizes presidents to hold onto power drat the cost
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What would have stopped him from pulling a Truman and just integrating the military via executive order? "Political realities", or whatever else you want to call the triangulation and lack of confrontation that spanned his presidency? The law that forbade that. SirKibbles posted:
Political capital isn't 'imaginary points', but it definitely is a thing, especially if you're trying to push through a policy against resistance and without strong popular support. I don't really know what to say to this, except that politics is very much about horse-trading, exchanging favors, quid-pro-quo, and all sorts of other stuff and 'political capital' is the phrase to describe that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Political capital isn't 'imaginary points', but it definitely is a thing, especially if you're trying to push through a policy against resistance and without strong popular support. I don't really know what to say to this, except that politics is very much about horse-trading, exchanging favors, quid-pro-quo, and all sorts of other stuff and 'political capital' is the phrase to describe that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:ex-presidents should not be prosecuted. I agree with this only because it sets a precedent that would almost certainly be used for partisan revenge. EDIT: Or, at least, there should be a stringent set of limits beyond standard prosecution. SirKibbles posted:2008 wasn't 25 years ago. Hillary started that a lot of the racist attacks that came out of that cycle,yeah she's running and probably the nominee but don't forget that. My point is that this whole line of reasoning between yourself and Feather is that the world is consistent and unchanging and people don't learn and grow. I sure as hell changed a lot after my kids were born. I became an unabashed democratic socialist. Plus, the "race baiting" just smacks of a lack of regional understanding. The quotes from Hillary are not at all out of place in the Midwest or border states. I can see that sort of thing being a huge dog whistle in the Deep South. But here, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
In which a subscriber to the Sarah Palin Channel notices there hasn't been much new content recently and draws the wrong conclusion.   
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:My point is that this whole line of reasoning between yourself and Feather is that the world is consistent and unchanging and people don't learn and grow. I sure as hell changed a lot after my kids were born. I became an unabashed democratic socialist. And you know what, I don't even think Hillary herself is consciously a racist. I doubt she harbors the same bigoted feelings that some of the people I had to grow up with did (and still do). I just think she has absolutely no problem whatever cynically exploiting that deep, rotten disease of racism for her own benefit, and that reinforces the structural and implicit racist culture we have. quote:Plus, the "race baiting" just smacks of a lack of regional understanding. The quotes from Hillary are not at all out of place in the Midwest or border states. I can see that sort of thing being a huge dog whistle in the Deep South. But here, not so much. What you're describing is the structural racism that exists in the midwest, and trying to pretend it isn't racism. "Hard working americans, white Americans" is a dog-whistle everywhere in this country, not just the south. See, the thing is with structural racism there is no 'regional' except perhaps in a very limited sense in terms of the magnitude of the effects. I mean, try telling Eric Garner that the system racism which allowed what happened to him to happen was "regional." Your comments smack of ignorance about how deeply rooted and widespread racism is in this country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Feather posted:Actually that isn't my point at all. My point is that Hillary has zero credibility. People can and do change. Even people who over the course of 10-15 years or so repeatedly engage in implicit and explicit racism can change. Why do you think she has support from black voters and leaders?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Does credibility even loving mean anything any more? Obama cuts a fart while he's eating lunch and suddenly it's a massive loss of credibility, bar de bar. It seems to be a thing that exists only to be rhetorically removed from one's enemies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
From an article on Vox.quote:Here's part of what she said on race. He goes on to compare this with the responses from the Republican candidates. No need to quote them here. Hilary isn't perfect but she's good enough and she's a slam dunk in the general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
bpower posted:From an article on Vox. Please quote them here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Joementum posted:In which a subscriber to the Sarah Palin Channel notices there hasn't been much new content recently and draws the wrong conclusion. I wonder what it's like to live in a fantasy world where all your dreams are but a day or two away. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Agnostalgia posted:Please quote them here. Compare what Clinton is saying in the wake of the Charleston massacre to what Republican candidates for the presidency have said when asked about racism and the availability of guns as factors in the horrific murders Dylann Roof is accused of committing. Here's Jeb Bush "I don't know what was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes" His spokesman, Tim Miller, later said that "of course" Bush thinks racism was a factor in the killings. Incongruously, Rand Paul made it an issue of failure to understand religious teachings and the size and scope of government. "What kind of person goes into church and shoots nine people? There’s a sickness in our country, there’s something terribly wrong, but it isn’t going to be fixed by your government. It’s people straying away, it’s people not understanding where salvation comes from. And I think that if we understand that, we’ll understand and have better expectations of what we get from our government." And Chris Christie, who hasn't yet declared a run for the presidency but is still considered a possible contender, said "laws can't change this." So, in the wake of Charleston, who is honest and trustworthy? It can't be these guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why do you think she has support from black voters and leaders? Same reason dog-whistle blowing racist Democrats and Republicans in the past have had it: they haven't got much of a choice. Black folks have to put up with a lot of racist bullshit, and most of their choices in this regard are choices between far-right lunatics like the Republicans or people who will at least offer soothing rhetoric as lube for the rear end-loving they're almost certainly going to get regardless of who's in office. I'd remind you that that support from black voters and leaders evaporated in '08, and it hasn't all returned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Feather posted:I'd remind you that that support from black voters and leaders evaporated in '08, and it hasn't all returned. I'm going to assume that 99% of it has returned until you prove otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
Feather posted:Same reason dog-whistle blowing racist Democrats and Republicans in the past have had it: they haven't got much of a choice. Black folks have to put up with a lot of racist bullshit, and most of their choices in this regard are choices between far-right lunatics like the Republicans or people who will at least offer soothing rhetoric as lube for the rear end-loving they're almost certainly going to get regardless of who's in office. No, I meant why are they supporting her over other potential Democratic candidates. quote:I'd remind you that that support from black voters and leaders evaporated in '08, and it hasn't all returned. It's almost completely returned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:28
|
|