|
ITT: people calling Vietnam draft dodgers cowards 
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
zoux posted:http://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/945258..._source=twitter Two of the three things listed there for the Volcker rule require congressional action. All she can do is change the definition of a hedge fund. edit: on guns, all that she proposes by executive action is to tighten the definition of who is "in the business" of selling guns, the rest also requires legislation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Reminder that Hillary and Bernie have something like 95% commonality in voting records.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
zoux posted:Not in this case. Her primary competitor isn't even a Democrat. He effectively is, though. He's not a Democrat in the same way that Putin isn't a dictator - there's a thin veneer that allows each to pretend they aren't, but in every meaningful way they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Mr.Radar posted:Both Apple and Google now encrypt phones by default with no back doors. Yes. Let's believe this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Two of the three things listed there for the Volcker rule require congressional action. All she can do is change the definition of a hedge fund. Yeah, but I'm more interested in the demonstration of a plan to move policies forward realistically, rather than just promising insane things like trillion dollar infrastructure spending projects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Reminder that Hillary and Bernie have something like 95% commonality in voting records. Members of the same party have similar votes?! Next thing you're going to say is that McConnell and Graham have very similar voting records as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah, but I'm more interested in the demonstration of a plan to move policies forward realistically, rather than just promising insane things like trillion dollar infrastructure spending projects. What the American Society of Civil Engineers recommends is not an "insane thing" or "unrealistic". More importantly, these are things that actually have to happen or our infrastructure collapses. Waiting for the Republicans to get on board is no longer an option. I think all of the Democrats can agree with this. Just vote them out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:What the American Society of Civil Engineering recommends is not an "insane thing" or "unrealistic". Haha ok bud.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah, but I'm more interested in the demonstration of a plan to move policies forward realistically, rather than just promising insane things like trillion dollar infrastructure spending projects. poo poo fdr did to help the lower and middle classes: insane
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah, but I'm more interested in the demonstration of a plan to move policies forward realistically, rather than just promising insane things like trillion dollar infrastructure spending projects. I think No Butt Stuff's response is actually most correct here: the best way to get these sort of meaningful executive actions is Obama rather than any candidate who has to think about re-election. Obama is in full-on 'gently caress you all, executive actions 4 lyfe' mode because he doesn't need to care and has no reason to horse-trade as nothing's getting done without executive action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Compulsory drafts are immoral, especially when the war is as loving dumb as Vietnam was. What's to take issue with in his actions? He believed the war was a dumb war the US shouldn't be involved in, and didn't want to risk dying in it without any idea what he was dying for (because it sure as poo poo wasn't our freedom). Let's be honest here - the US soldiers that fought in Vietnam were brave, and tried their best to do their duty, but the lives lost there were lost for nothing, completely pointless deaths. We gained nothing out of Vietnam. People that knew what they were talking about knew it was a dumb war at the time, and we know it even more now. I take issue with anyone that takes issue with Vietnam War draft dodging. I have no problem with Vietnam draft dodgers. But it looks really bad when a draft dodger asks for the job of being the head of the military, which necessarily means they will be the head of an organization that routinely punishes service members who fail to do their duty or abandon their posts as well as ordering personnel into conflict, whether they agree with the conflict or not. In reality it's entirely possible that Bernie, commander in chief, would result in less service member hardship and lives lost. Doesn't mean it isn't hypocritical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:What the American Society of Civil Engineers recommends is not an "insane thing" or "unrealistic". More importantly, these are things that actually have to happen or our infrastructure collapses. Waiting for the Republicans to get on board is no longer an option. I think all of the Democrats can agree with this. Just vote them out. You and I are in a different country if you think that just because sensible people who are experts on the subject say something should be done, it is politically possible to get it through Congress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Did you miss the parts where she went after republicans and supported paid maternity leave. Which is good, but also not good enough. It should be both maternity and paternity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
This "Bernie's plans to give a poo poo about human beings and try to help them rather than condemn them to permanent poverty is unrealistic and stupid" business sounds a lot like the "strategic voters" that cost Canada our one and only chance to ever get a left-wing government in 2011.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:By no means should you guys believe that our country is any good, I'm pretty sure Harper's gonna end up with a majority in this election and be declared god-emperor for life at this rate. Canadian politics are currently a complete nightmare, which is why I'm paying attention to American politics, because as much as everyone here hates to admit it, what happens in America really does matter a lot to Canada. If America of all places can elect a socialist, then that at least sets a good example for my stupid rear end fellow countrymen. It looks like a Liberal or Conservative minority, actually. In either case, the Conservatives will probably not end up in power since it would be suicide for either of the other parties to prop them up. Also a big thanks to Mulcair for literally being the person Sander supporters think Hillary is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:poo poo fdr did to help the lower and middle classes: insane Thinking that a trillion dollar spending plan is possible in the current political climate is insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Congress is going to remain broken and obstructionist for the foreseeable future. Anything HRC could accomplish via executive action, Sanders, O'Malley, or Webb could as well. Pro tip: none of them will their first term though, because just like Obama, they want to be reelected in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You and I are in a different country if you think that just because sensible people who are experts on the subject say something should be done, it is politically possible to get it through Congress. we're never going to get these things if we only agitate for what is currently politically possible
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
zoux posted:Thinking that a trillion dollar spending plan is possible in the current political climate is insane. it never will be if you don't push for it. you can't change the political climate by refusing to go outside of it
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:Congress is going to remain broken and obstructionist for the foreseeable future. Anything HRC could accomplish via executive action, Sanders, O'Malley, or Webb could as well. Oh I agree but I prefer a candidate laying out a plan that recognizes the current political reality rather than just promising a bunch of stuff that, while true and great, is just not on the table. Condiv posted:it never will be if you don't push for it. you can't change the political climate by refusing to go outside of it Is this your first election?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:By no means should you guys believe that our country is any good, I'm pretty sure Harper's gonna end up with a majority in this election and be declared god-emperor for life at this rate. Canadian politics are currently a complete nightmare, which is why I'm paying attention to American politics, because as much as everyone here hates to admit it, what happens in America really does matter a lot to Canada. If America of all places can elect a socialist, then that at least sets a good example for my stupid rear end fellow countrymen.  My money's on a Liberal minority. Mitt Romney posted:Didn't Canada wanting to elect a far left wing candidate split the party vote and allow a conservative (Harper?) to be president for a while? That was America and Nader.  But if it helps the Canada's Natural Ruling Party™ party avoid coming to terms with their hubris and helps them sleep at night, more power to them. I voted NDP (and on Saturday too! Vote early you lurking  fucks!).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You and I are in a different country if you think that just because sensible people who are experts on the subject say something should be done, it is politically possible to get it through Congress. I think you're conflating realism with political expedience. Meanwhile our bridges are falling apart and the repair bills aren't getting smaller.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
You don't get to judge people's political knowledge when you don't even know what the powers of the loving president are gun grabber.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
At the moment, given her hard pivot to the left, I'm less worried about Clinton's politics now than I am the way she operates. Bernie Sanders is doing his job quite effectively. Like, she's going to be on record all over the place with liberal positions that'll be hard to walk back without considerable blowback. but the difference between this and when it happens in the Republican primary is that most of these positions generally poll well with the public at large. although, the data supports the idea that gun control is a giant loser with Democrats, and Sanders' position is one way in which he's more electable than Clinton (in other ways I'd have to concede he's definitely not). I believe we need to act on gun control as soon as we can, but that may not be for another two to six years, sad to say. It's something where Democrats need to really work on their messaging, and in the mean time dial back the rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:You don't get to judge people's political knowledge when you don't even know what the powers of the loving president are gun grabber. Hillarys gonna take guns but also make them kiss in front of the gun owners, making their guns gay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:we're never going to get these things if we only agitate for what is currently politically possible Agitating for it, and voting between candidates for the nomination in 2016 based on who will promise it, are two different things. There is nothing that Bernie can do as President to make that one bit more possible than Hillary can. It needs to be done, but you do that by agitating in local races to get a Democratic majority in your state by 2020, and trying to flip any Republican house/Senate seats you can. Bernie instead of Hillary does nothing for that particular issue. That it is not politically possible doesn't mean you shouldn't push for it, but you need to know what is making it impossible and push on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
The honest-to-god only thing promising about Clinton's campaign is that she can (theoretically, at least) cause enough of a D-wave to flip Congress towards a more favorable makeup. In this fantasyland scenario, if Congress has a much closer D:R split, there may be "moderate" R's siding with the D's on occasional legislation. Even in a best case scenario it is still going to be gridlock though, and nothing major will get done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:The honest-to-god only thing promising about Clinton's campaign is that she can (theoretically, at least) cause enough of a D-wave to flip Congress towards a more favorable makeup. I haven't seen much horse racing with respect to Congressional contests, is this even possible in the House?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
zoux posted:I haven't seen much horse racing with respect to Congressional contests, is this even possible in the House? No the House will remain firmly R, but ideally if Hillary gets enough of a wave it can flip some seats D that would otherwise have remained R
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
zoux posted:Hillarys gonna take guns but also make them kiss in front of the gun owners, making their guns gay. Gun owners gender identify their guns as female typically, so they'd be totally cool with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Agitating for it, and voting between candidates for the nomination in 2016 based on who will promise it, are two different things. There is nothing that Bernie can do as President to make that one bit more possible than Hillary can. It needs to be done, but you do that by agitating in local races to get a Democratic majority in your state by 2020, and trying to flip any Republican house/Senate seats you can. Bernie instead of Hillary does nothing for that particular issue. i'm voting for bernie based on the fact that he will push for it, and as president he will have a much louder voice than i do. hillary has made it clear she will not push for these things and therefore will be of no help making these policies politically realistic (until someone finally does the work for her and she finds the polls say she should take action).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:ITT: people calling Vietnam draft dodgers cowards Some draft dodgers are/were cowards, especially when they don't really mind the war but just don't want to serve and so their dad shacks them up in an ANG slot and they still gently caress off, or they space out deferments to run out the clock, or they just gently caress off to Europe after sassing actual anti-war protesters. Chickenhawks is a better term but it's more applicable for when those draft dodgers enter politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
greatn posted:Gun owners gender identify their guns as female typically, so they'd be totally cool with it. Which is weird given their role as penile extentions
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm voting for bernie based on the fact that he will push for it, and as president he will have a much louder voice than i do. hillary has made it clear she will not push for these things and therefore will be of no help making these policies politically realistic (until someone finally does the work for her and she finds the polls say she should take action). What things is she not pushing for, specifically, that you want?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Which is weird given their role as penile extentions Fun fact: in Freudian psychoanalysis, the phallus itself is female.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Which is weird given their role as penile extentions Less weird in context of the fetishization and awkward white-knighting though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Fun fact: in Freudian psychoanalysis, the phallus itself is female. So why is it gay when they touch?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:So why is it gay when they touch? Sapphic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Sapphic. So it's lesbian when they touch?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:13
|
|
