|
Nonsense posted:Jeb. It's Jeb! actually.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
Condiv posted:and? i didn't come into this thread to proslytize sanders to hillary supporters, i came to bitch about hillary. it's bernie's job to convince hillary supporters to support him, not mine.  then. No one really is interested in hearing you whine?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's Jeb! actually. It connotes 4%.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and? i didn't come into this thread to proselytize sanders to hillary supporters, i came to bitch about hillary. it's bernie's job to convince hillary supporters to support him, not mine. so you're bitching to the people you think need to be convinced not to vote for the person you are bitching about something about dogs and trees
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
I think the crux of Bernie v hilldawg is do you believe one is more electable than the other? For my money, not particularly. There's not enough data that that is anything but a guy feeling on my part, currently in swing state general election polling he actually is doing just as good or better but I know such polling is useless at this time. For either's weaknesses I can't think of a Republican candidate that actually matches up favorably with them who is in any way plausible to be nominated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:ATT Room 641A is one of them. There were a number of whistleblowers before Snowden, but they didn't expose any classified info, and thus no one official believed them. This is an article about a few of them, but there were other leaks of NSA capacity before too. That's great and all, but the existence of fiber taps is such a small picture of what the NSA does, saying "there was evidence before hand" is basically useless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
What is the bolding about idgi
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just fyi, you actually can't change your vote after your state's primary date. yes, and i'll continue to watch and see until that time. i'm not going to change my support based on the republican menace a full 5 months before i need to
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:so you're bitching to the people you think need to be convinced not to vote for the person you are bitching about no i'm bitching because hillary sucks and i'm disappointed in her policies. am i not allowed to have opinions on politicians outside of the one who currently has my support?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
greatn posted:I think the crux of Bernie v hilldawg is do you believe one is more electable than the other? I think Hillary is a lot more cutthroat and will be more willing to use executive power (as detailed in those articles I linked that no on read) than Obama is, and certainly more than Bernie. I think she'll be better at massaging the system and sneaking a few policies by, or ramming them through. This is my unfounded Sanders-esque belief.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Yeah, Obama only too late into his second term realized "hey I'm the loving president" and got more poo poo done. Hillary knows this from the onset.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
gently caress off, i can talk about politics in the USPOL thread all i want
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Hillary is sneaky as hell and smart as a tack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Condiv posted:gently caress off, i can talk about politics in the USPOL thread all i want At least until the probe kicks in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:zoux won't have to once Sanders is forced to drop out. i hope that doesn't happen, but yes i'm voting hillary in that case (though i won't like it)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no i'm bitching because hillary sucks and i'm disappointed in her policies. am i not allowed to have opinions on politicians outside of the one who currently has my support? Youre allowed to think whatever you want, why do you think we want to hear about it? Youre not discussing, youre whining, bring something actually conversable to the table and people will converse with you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:
And that's kind of my point, Snowden was the first person to actually give the population of the US(as opposed to select Congresspeople) something beyond "well they're spying on us". Which goes back to the original point: Maarek posted:Before his leaks people ... suspected this was the case but his leaks proved the scale at which it was happening, and more importantly, moved it into the public's consciousness in a way that couldn't be ignored. And that's a very conservative reading of the whole issue, ignoring the way people who speculated about NSA spying were branding as conspiracy theorists or insane before Snowden.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
TheQat posted:What is the bolding about idgi I just find it really interesting that some people who hate Clinton, seem to only use her first name while referring to most men by their last names. Oh sure, they'll claim its because we'd confuse her with her husband, but come on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
zoux posted:I think Hillary is a lot more cutthroat and will be more willing to use executive power (as detailed in those articles I linked that no on read) than Obama is, and certainly more than Bernie. I think she'll be better at massaging the system and sneaking a few policies by, or ramming them through. I basically agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's interesting how debate reaction polls had Bernie as the clear winner, but the news headlines this morning all are "Clinton wins." Every last one. Are they based on their "experts" or some sort of polling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:youre allowed to think whatever you want, why do you think we want to hear about it? youre not discussing, youre whining, bring something actually conversable to the table and people will converse with you. i'm willing to discuss why i think these policies are a good idea. there's a difference between discussion and proselytizing though which for some reason you think should be a prereq to posting in the uspol thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Every last one. Are they based on their "experts" or some sort of polling? Its too soon for real polling to be out post-debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I just find it really interesting that some people who hate Clinton, seem to only use her first name while referring to most men by their last names. i don't hate hillary but if i call her clinton subconsciously i will keep thinking that i'm referring to bill
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Its too soon for real polling to be out post-debate. When do polls usually come out post-debate? A few days?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:When do polls usually come out post-debate? A few days? if you want to analyse the impact in any meaningful way give it a few weeks, anything you see in the next few days is going to be reactionary at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No. Nobody will know until they know how strong she is coming out of the primaries, and who the Republican candidate is. The Clintons being the Clintons though I would bet on a loyalist rather than a defeated rival. Terry McAuliffe 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
zoux posted:I think Hillary is a lot more cutthroat and will be more willing to use executive power (as detailed in those articles I linked that no on read) than Obama is, and certainly more than Bernie. I think she'll be better at massaging the system and sneaking a few policies by, or ramming them through. Is there any indication Sanders would be averse to executive action compared with Clinton? Or do you simply mean she has more understanding of executive authority having been in that branch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Terry McAuliffe No poo poo he actually is an amazing governor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah like when we elected a guy that wasn't socialist but everyone thought he was, how that made the country more progressive and liberal, which we enjoy today. Do you think republicans will not entrench if we vote for Hillary? Do you think she is going to excite the base to get out to vote for midterms? The difference between Bernie and Hillary is that he's not in this for himself. He's playing the long game. His plan is not "I get elected, game over." If you actually listen to him. He is saying, we need to "rise up and take back the entire government." We need to show up for every election and vote on what matters to the people. We need to take back congress from the billionaires. Hilary is not interested in that, she wants her rich investing/banking/media friends to be happy and to be president. She wants to be wealthy as gently caress. She will say whatever it takes to get elected, and her media friends will control the narrative the best they can to help her. zoux posted:Yes it does because he's promising impossible things. It's ridiculous when Republicans talk about impossible goals like repealing the ACA or getting rid of gay marriage and it's equally ridiculous when a Democrat promises progressive darling ideas. The reason he hasn't forwarded a strategy for implementation is that there isn't one. If only there was some sort of place where you could read his plans...
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
greatn posted:For either's weaknesses I can't think of a Republican candidate that actually matches up favorably with them who is in any way plausible to be nominated. Rubio. He's well-positioned to make a late surge and has big money backing him. Cruz is also surprisingly well-positioned to pick up the Carson/Trump/Fiorina crowd whenever those three chucklefucks finally implode, although I don't think that he's electable unless Chafee somehow gets the nod.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Yeah I'm so far pretty ok with T-Mac, more than I thought I'd be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
spunkshui posted:Do you think republicans will not entrench if we vote for Hillary? Do you think she is going to excite the base to get out to vote for midterms? I've found his stance on the issues, I haven't found out how he would implement them. Also lol at your hagiography of the Noble Sanders. greatn posted:Is there any indication Sanders would be averse to executive action compared with Clinton? Or do you simply mean she has more understanding of executive authority having been in that branch. Her policy platforms are a lot more detailed and specific about where she would and wouldn't use executive power. I don't know how Bernie would govern because he hasn't said. Rollofthedice posted:I basically agree. Caution: I also thought Barack Obama would be a transformative figure that would usher in a modern era of progressivism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:if you want to analyse the impact in any meaningful way give it a few weeks, anything you see in the next few days is going to be reactionary at best. zoux posted:Caution: I also thought Barack Obama would be a transformative figure that would usher in a modern era of progressivism. A hell of a lot of people thought the same, to be fair, so at least you weren't uniquely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
I don't know why I'm even bothering to say this but isn't it just a bit premature to be declaring that either Clinton or Sanders totally would/totally wouldn't tank in the general, given that it's over a year away and we have absolutely no idea who the other candidate will be?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
To my recollection, in 2008 there was a lot of Democratic candidate rhetoric about how they could unite the parties and work in a bipartisan manner. It's funny, and by funny I mean weeping openly funny not ha-ha funny, that there has been zero appeals to bipartisanship from the D's this time around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's funny, and by funny I mean weeping openly funny not ha-ha funny, that there has been zero appeals to bipartisanship from the D's this time around. And thank gently caress for that, at least
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Terry McAuliffe They wouldn't dare cut his single allowed governor term short for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
greatn posted:No poo poo he actually is an amazing governor. He'd be Biden 2.0 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
greatn posted:No poo poo he actually is an amazing governor. He's the Macker. He gets poo poo done. You don't want to know how, but you probably won't find out anyway. McDonnell was completely amateur hour in every way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
ChairMaster posted:That's literally all she does? She changes her position on anything she feels necessary to get more votes on, and the Republicans aren't going to play nice with her any more than they do with Obama, so what exactly are the positives with her in office? Here's a quick little secret for you - the bit about Hillary waffling with every slight breeze of a poll? Yeah, that's a GOP talking point. There's some truth in it (she's a career politician, they all do that, it's in the job description), but the vast, vast majority of it is only true in that the talk radio/right wing noise machine has been repeating it over and over and over for twenty-five years. It's mostly bullshit that's just ingrained itself and gets repeated by whoever her opponent is because it's a useful slur. After all, it lets them dismiss anything she says/does as purely cynical pretty easily. Yeah, you are right those that no matter who gets elected, if they have a D next to their name then the GOP isn't going to cooperate and will probably continue to be super-obstructionist. That's just the way of life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:16
|
|
