|
Venom Snake posted:Like do you guys understand that this is essentially the same stupid "HE'S A RINO" poo poo FREEP and other Republicans do right? Self destructive in fighting isn't good in a 2 party system. Uh huh. At least just use this dead period for pointless fantasy conjecture. We know what a Clinton cabinet would look like (you're seeing it right now). What sort of democratic socialis cabinet would Sanders even be able to get through a GOP Senate?
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
Venom Snake posted:If she enacts progressive change and policy because of poll numbers does that make her evil? Because it feels like an incredibly bad faith argument against someone to say they are only doing what you want for personal reasons. First sentence strawman. Her stated beliefs are all poll number results and not the result of her personal convictions. She has concealed, spun, and fronted; who knows what she believes, who knows what she'll do. If you don't see how that is a problem, and if you also think anyone who disagrees with you just thinks she's "evil," then I don't need to tell you what you are. Venom Snake posted:If she enacts progressive change and policy because of poll numbers does that make her evil? Because it feels like an incredibly bad faith argument against someone to say they are only doing what you want for personal reasons. Doing what *someone* wants. Maybe you. Maybe not. VOTE HILLARY Martin Random fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:On the other hand, it's entirely valid to look at that kind of shift as undermining the likelihood that an officeholder will prioritize the issue to the extent that a voter prefers/requires or even a candidate espouses. This argument could be made for every candidate ever because times change and politicians will never not change with them. In fact; the reason why the modern Republican party is dying is that they refuse to change the message when before they just stopped talking about it and then quietly pushed it through then when in office. Hillary of 2016 will be far more left than Hillary of the 1990's because it's been 15 years since the last Clinton administration and a lot of poo poo has changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Uh huh. We will never know because he isn't going to get the nomination. And he would then probably nominate the same people as Hillary did because the party picks them anyway. Martin Random posted:First sentence strawman. We do know what she will do; she will toe the democrat party line of "Higher minimum wage; more restrictions on campaign finance, and more funding for the bureaucracy." Do you seriously think that having a fragmented ineffective party like the Republican currently do is a good thing? EDIT: Obama of 2008 policy wise was a lot less to the left than 2012 Obama was, do you hate him to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:This argument could be made for every candidate ever because times change and politicians will never not change with them. In fact; the reason why the modern Republican party is dying is that they refuse to change the message when before they just stopped talking about it and then quietly pushed it through then when in office. Yes, which is why "flip-flopping" and the perceived legitimacy of conversions/evolutions is pretty important to a candidate's prospects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Yes, which is why "flip-flopping" and the perceived legitimacy of conversions/evolutions is pretty important to a candidate's prospects. flip flopping within several months looks really bad, but Hillary has seen a more natural progression than most politicians have (be it left or right). Like it's unfair to compare Hillary 2016 to Romney 2012 were he would change is positions on issues within the very week he stated it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:We do know what she will do; she will toe the democrat party line of "Higher minimum wage; more restrictions on campaign finance, and more funding for the bureaucracy." Do you seriously think that having a fragmented ineffective party like the Republican currently do is a good thing? Remember when we had that razor thin 60 vote moment in the senate? When the ACA could have gone either way? Boy, she could have made a lot more loving difference in that moment, huh? Venom Snake posted:EDIT: Obama of 2008 policy wise was a lot less to the left than 2012 Obama was, do you hate him to? Do you hate freedom, too? Boom, checkmate. I don't hate Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
I dislike the pervasively negative attitude towards changing your opinion while holding office. Who here hasn't changed their minds on something? Something important? When the facts you have available to you change/are found to be false? Some people switch positions apparently based solely on public opinion/their next election cycle and you can see this any one of at least half a dozen cases of "all the sudden being against the Confederate Flag;" as if this was the first time it was used to incite racial hatred etc etc ~but~ penalizing politicians for changing views en masse really doesn't do anything positive. Flip-flopping is a useless pop-culture buzz word in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Hillary is literally "Democrat Establishment Candidate": The Candidate. The modern democrat party isn't going to gut financial laws. It isn't going to destroy America. It isn't going to enact FULL COMMUNISM now. It will do what it's done since the beginning of the Obama administration; be a "light" left party with centrist elements that styles itself as a foil to the retarded and evil GOP. Expecting more is less is silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:flip flopping within several months looks really bad, but Hillary has seen a more natural progression than most politicians have (be it left or right). And like anyone who has gone through a totally legitimate "natural progression," when asked to articulate some of the motivations behind her change in heart, she flips her poo poo. Here is the lovely Terry Gross of NPR's Fresh Air in a friendly interview trying to get Mrs. Clinton to talk a little bit about the process behind her change in views. http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321313477/hillary-clinton-the-fresh-air-interview Venom Snake, what do you think about how Hillary handled that interview? What does it tell you about the genuineness of her views, or her willingness to be forthright with the people if elected? I don't expect you'll answer me, because most of what you are doing in her defense is making ridiculous leaps of logic and spinning straw men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:And like anyone who has gone through a totally legitimate "natural progression," when asked to articulate some of the motivations behind her change in heart, she flips her poo poo. Her personal view is that she likes to tote the Democratic Party line; which makes sense because she is an establishment candidate. But to humor you Obama ran on gay people only being able to get Civil Unions back in 2008; this does not make his support for full marriages for gay people any less sincere now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Her personal view is that she likes to tote the Democratic Party line; which makes sense because she is an establishment candidate. Ok, so basically your point in this thread here is to say: "I'm voting for Hillary, because I believe her to be the establishment candidate, will enact the same reforms as any generic Democrat, but above that, she'll be effective at doing what she aims to." That's a totally reasonable position that does not require you to accuse me of hating Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:Ok, so basically your point in this thread here is to say: Agreed, I guess the crazy Bernie posters talking about how evil she is has made me bitter about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Bernie doesn't have the connections to get things done in the executive branch. Hillary does. Ignoring this is what makes the Bernie purity posters so aggravating. So how much is the Hillary campaign paying you, anyway? I haven't read a single post of yours in the last few pages that wasn't re-tread bullshit from the "Hillary is inevitable/a fighter/due for her turn" playbook. For example, quote:I guess the crazy Bernie posters talking about how evil she is has made me bitter about it. See, it's hard to take Hillary boosters seriously when pointing out policy problems that Hillary has by noting that, for example, she has supported (pre-Senator), voted for (Senator) or enacted (SoS) policies that have hurt lots of people is reacted to with this hyperbolic "meanie crazy Bernie fanatics called her evil" nonsense. "Stop talking about factual things my preferred candidate did! That's the same as calling her evil!" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Bernie has raised more money in the first half of 2015 than Ron Paul raised in the first half of 2011.quote:Mr. Sanders, the Vermont independent senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has raised at least $8.3 million online through June 17, according to Federal Election Commission records. His campaign won’t file its initial report until July 15, but filings by ActBlue, the online fund-raising committee that serves as a conduit for Democratic campaigns, show that Mr. Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, has brought in more money in May and the first half of June than any other Democratic candidate using ActBlue.* * Note: Hillary does not use ActBlue for fundraising. Martin O'Malley does and brought in only $330k in the last month.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
It's cool that we've recahed the point where people legit think the only reason there can be a disagreement is paid shills. That's totally not paranoia.Joementum posted:Bernie has raised more money in the first half of 2015 than Ron Paul raised in the first half of 2011. I guess it goes to show libertarians are always more tight fisted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Feather posted:So how much is the Hillary campaign paying you, anyway? I haven't read a single post of yours in the last few pages that wasn't re-tread bullshit from the "Hillary is inevitable/a fighter/due for her turn" playbook. How about we don't go down the road of accusing people we disagree with of being paid shills, unless we have actual evidence to back that up? Otherwise it's just an easy way to dismiss opinions without arguing against them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Feather posted:So how much is the Hillary campaign paying you, anyway? They really aren't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Feather posted:So how much is the Hillary campaign paying you, anyway? I haven't read a single post of yours in the last few pages that wasn't re-tread bullshit from the "Hillary is inevitable/a fighter/due for her turn" playbook. She's come out against a lot of the bad things that came out of the Clinton Administration for a big reason; she's towing the democratic party line which now apposes those things. Bill signed DOMA; the modern Democratic Party hates DOMA and supports gay marriage. Times have changed and saying that because she did those things then means it's impossible for her to change he stance on the issue (or toe the party line which has changed) is silly. I would be interested in what you think she did bad as SoS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Is it really productive to accuse politicians of flip-flopping based on public opinion, as though that in and of itself is reason to seriously condemn them? Like, isn't that literally the entire point of a democracy - to reward politicians who fall in line with popular sentiment with power on the assumption that they will use that power to enact policy in line with that sentiment? We can argue over whether a candidate's voting record and past policy can inspire optimism that future policy will fall in line with public statements, but wasting more than five seconds being angry that a candidate doesn't actually feel passionate about a given issue seems like an exercise in futility. I don't actually care beyond curiosity's sake what my president or my senator thinks of gay people or Iraq or whatever on a personal level so long as I feel they enact good policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
I can't wait to see what the #HackForRand crew comes up with. You know it's going to be some bitcoin thing. And while checking out the hashtag, I found this drawing someone made. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Is it really productive to accuse politicians of flip-flopping based on public opinion, as though that in and of itself is reason to seriously condemn them? Like, isn't that literally the entire point of a democracy - to reward politicians who fall in line with popular sentiment with power on the assumption that they will use that power to enact policy in line with that sentiment? We can argue over whether a candidate's voting record and past policy can inspire optimism that future policy will fall in line with public statements, but wasting more than five seconds being angry that a candidate doesn't actually feel passionate about a given issue seems like an exercise in futility. I don't actually care beyond curiosity's sake what my president or my senator thinks of gay people or Iraq or whatever on a personal level so long as I feel they enact good policy. The problem is if they agree with you now because it's politically expedient, they could disagree with you tomorrow if that's politically expedient too. Sure Hillary can say "invading Iraq was bad" now, but if some major event happens in 2017 and the very serious people are agitating for an invasion of somewhere, can you really trust that she would continue to share your opposition to wasteful and pointless military adventurism or will she cave to what can lazily be justified as "bipartisan consensus"? Ideally you want someone who shares not only your views, but the thought process that led to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:She's come out against a lot of the bad things that came out of the Clinton Administration for a big reason; she's towing the democratic party line which now apposes those things. Bill signed DOMA; the modern Democratic Party hates DOMA and supports gay marriage. Times have changed and saying that because she did those things then means it's impossible for her to change he stance on the issue (or toe the party line which has changed) is silly. For my part I haven't said anything about it being impossible for people to change their views, nor that changing one's views is a bad thing, or even that changing one's views in and of itself indicates anything negative. Hell, I've changed my views in the past, similar in fact to how Hillary's changed with respect to her "goldwater girl" years (in the early 90s when I was in high school I was a right-winger, thanks mainly to my parents' politics, but when I went to college I changed, quickly). However when one's views consistently change to catch up to the prevailing popular opinion that is, or can be, a problem. It's a very strong indicator of insincerity and pandering of the basest sort, in Hillary's case. quote:I would be interested in what you think she did bad as SoS. Feather fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Feather posted:For my part I haven't said anything about it being impossible for people to change their views. However when one's views consistently change to catch up to the prevailing popular opinion that is, or can be, a problem. It's a very strong indicator of insincerity and pandering of the basest sort. She didn't get us into any wars and she doesn't support TPP so uh....? And a politician that changes their views to jive with popular public opinion is much better in my book than one who stays in the past like a stick in the mud. If you want people who hate change and refuse to rethink their previous convictions the GOP is probably more your speed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Virginia narrowly (42-39) decided today to keep its Presidential primary election and set it on March 1. Super Tuesday is shaping up to be big this year, unlike 2012. So far we've got Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia. That's a big pool of Southern and border states, which could encourage candidates who perform poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire to hang on longer than they otherwise would.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Feather posted:
Uh, no, she really can't. Were you awake during 2001-2009? Honest to god I don't see how you think she was comparable, especially since John Kerry has been SoS during the time TPP has been a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:What sort of democratic socialist cabinet would Sanders even be able to get through a GOP Senate? I'll take a crack at it. Assuming a compliant Senate, it would probably be something like Warren at Treasury, Feingold at State, Preet Bharara for Attorney General, Raul Grijalva for Homeland Security, some Midwestern governor for Agriculture, etc. All reasonably leftist democrats, but nothing earth shaking, and most of them currently support Hillary. He's not going to appoint Kshama Sawant to Secretary of Defense or whatever the extremists here want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I'll take a crack at it. Assuming a compliant Senate, it would probably be something like Warren at Treasury, Feingold at State, Preet Bharara for Attorney General, Raul Grijalva for Homeland Security, some Midwestern governor for Agriculture, etc. This seems entirely realistic and not unfounded fantasy. Isn't Feingold running for Senate this year anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:She didn't get us into any wars and she doesn't support TPP so uh....? She was a vehement supporter of the TPP and only tepidly came out against it when popular opinion swayed against it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:She voted for the Iraq War. Bernie Sanders voted twice to continue the Iraq War.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Virginia narrowly (42-39) decided today to keep its Presidential primary election and set it on March 1. Wasn't the goal for Republicans to have a sane primary this time around? How has almost everything in, and outside, of their control completely spiralled?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
My cousin met Jeb today. Jeb is rapidly morphing into his dad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:This seems entirely realistic and not unfounded fantasy. It isn't supposed to be realistic, it's a Sanders cabinet. I just want to show that Sanders wouldn't be that different from Hillary. Grijalva would be crazy at DHS, I was trying to go out on a limb there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Wasn't the goal for Republicans to have a sane primary this time around? How has almost everything in, and outside, of their control completely spiralled? When the parties make changes to the nomination process they tend to try to fix the problems of the last cycle and then get surprised when the next cycle has totally different problems. Last time they only had one serious candidate who had to sit through twenty debates with the ex-CEO of a pizza restaurant and his nonsensical tax plan. So the RNC figured that the thing to do would be to limit the number of debates, but now it turns out that they have too many candidates and could really use more winnowing events early on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Bernie Sanders voted twice to continue the Iraq War.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Man, it's like our own little Scandinavia or something. We also spend a fair amount of time freezing to death, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Bernie Sanders voted against initiating the Iraq War. It's a consistent position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I'll take a crack at it. Assuming a compliant Senate, it would probably be something like Warren at Treasury, Feingold at State, Preet Bharara for Attorney General, Raul Grijalva for Homeland Security, some Midwestern governor for Agriculture, etc. Warren is quite insistent about staying in the Senate, she wants to keep building seniority for quite some time yet. comedyblissoption posted:She voted for the Iraq War. Why are you so opposed to a treaty that doesn't exist yet, again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Wouldn't this make Bernie a flip-flopper? If he was against it, why did he vote to continue it? If his vote would have been in no way decisive, why not do the right thing and vote "No"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why are you so opposed to a treaty that doesn't exist yet, again? A candidate's position historically and now on TPP is an important issue that separates candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:07
|
|