|
Amergin posted:You still think facts matter in campaigns and debates? To democrats and independents yes, which is where you think the support for Cruz will come from. It's been a long standing reality that republicans don't give a poo poo about facts though.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
The saddest part was definitely when conservatives kept dragging vilerat's mom into the national spotlight
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
I'm expecting to see her trotted out again once Hillary is the lock.socialsecurity posted:What part of her Senate Career or time as Secretary of State lead you to believe she wouldn't be a good president? I support Bernie over her and all but pretending she isn't qualified or that she is somehow equal to Trump is delusional, this isn't "impotent rage" I'm literally just curious as to what facts/events lead to these conclusions. It does continue to be sad and depressing how many times I see attacks that originated from the right be treated as accurate and used against her by liberals. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:She's the democratic trump if you asked me. When someone says "She can take on the republicans" all i hear is "He tells it like it is", or when someone says "First woman president!" all i hear is "Successful businessman". People are riding her coattails because she's winning for no real reason, and defending her against every little slight with impotent rage. I've never missed a chance to vote for liberal policies since i turned 18, even the "unimportant" little local elections, but i really dont like her for president any more then i do trump. It makes me wish there was 17 democratic candidates running and she could have been squeezed out of politics by now. The reason why she's winning is that she's very good at what she does. You could not withstand the utter napalming the GOP has thrown at her for the past 25 years and still be a contender for President if you weren't good at it. Like poo poo, Bernie's getting flustered because Hillary said she's the only one to vote for the Auto Bailout. That's something that's technically true, if not entirely accurate to Bernie's motivations. Now imagine Bernie putting up with 25 years of utter lies, from people who demonstrably hate you. I don't think he could do it. computer parts fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:use this map http://www.270towin.com/maps/576dZ Chaos reigns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:The saddest part was definitely when conservatives kept dragging vilerat's mom into the national spotlight Don't worry, if/when Clinton gets the nomination it's pretty much guaranteed she'll be brought out a few more times. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:She's the democratic trump if you asked me. When someone says "She can take on the republicans" all i hear is "He tells it like it is", or when someone says "First woman president!" all i hear is "Successful businessman". People are riding her coattails because she's winning for no real reason, and defending her against every little slight with impotent rage. I've never missed a chance to vote for liberal policies since i turned 18, even the "unimportant" little local elections, but i really dont like her for president any more then i do trump. It makes me wish there was 17 democratic candidates running and she could have been squeezed out of politics by now. This really isn't the place for primary slapfights, but  at the idea that Hillary is a Democrat Donald Trump. It ignores so much context as to be laughable. She's winning because she's provided the better message to a majority of democratic voters. She has served as Secretary of State (one of the most senior positions in the Executive branch), Senator for 8 years (winning an election in a state she'd never lived in!), and for eight years, was one of the most policy engaged first ladies in since Eleanor Roosevelt. Before that she spent years working on liberal causes like justice reform and education. She is perhaps most responsible for the CHIPS program that ensures millions of kids have affordable, quality healthcare. So yeah, if you think people react to your statement incredulously, there's good reason for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Fiction posted:http://www.270towin.com/maps/576dZ Lord have mercy
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The reason why she's winning is that she's very good at what she does. You could not withstand the utter napalming the GOP has thrown at her for the past 25 years and still be a contender for President if you weren't good at it. Yeah this. She's been campaigning to be president as long or longer than most goons have been alive and throughout that time republicans have treated her and her family far worse on their best day than how they've treated obama on their worst. You don't survive for that long under the media spotlight without being stupidly good, and she was only denied the presidency by a once in a lifetime politician in 08.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:To democrats and independents yes, which is where you think the support for Cruz will come from. Or the fact that Bernie's math doesn't add up, or the fact that Hillary blames Snowden for not trying to go through "whistleblower channels" (which he did, and was denied like most whistleblowers), or the fact that both are staunchly pro-Israel and overlook Israel's human-rights abuses, or... EDIT: I mean if you think the Democratic party is "the party of facts" then you need to talk to more Bernouts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:She's the democratic trump if you asked me. When someone says "She can take on the republicans" all i hear is "He tells it like it is", or when someone says "First woman president!" all i hear is "Successful businessman". People are riding her coattails because she's winning for no real reason, and defending her against every little slight with impotent rage. I've never missed a chance to vote for liberal policies since i turned 18, even the "unimportant" little local elections, but i really dont like her for president any more then i do trump. It makes me wish there was 17 democratic candidates running and she could have been squeezed out of politics by now. Well if she's the Democratic Trump then she'd still be the likely nom despite a big field wouldn't she?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The reason why she's winning is that she's very good at what she does. You could not withstand the utter napalming the GOP has thrown at her for the past 25 years and still be a contender for President if you weren't good at it. But we have critical thinking skills, and can take in information from many sources we know to be biased and draw our own conclusions. I dont think she killed a white house spokesman or was involved in illegal land trading, but i do think she's an ambitious douchenozzle who will point wherever the political winds tell her to go, and that hasnt traditionally been in a high tax, big government direction. If you care to convince me otherwise, start by pointing at policy positions she took that made her politically unpopular, rather than being a part of (by marrage) an elected democratic administration. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Boon posted:drat McAlister, that was an effort. What open criticism has Bernie faced on his plan? The only mainstream criticism I've seen is pundits analyzing the funding proposals and saying that his proposed revenue streams fall well short of targets such that the payroll taxes needed for it would have to be significantly higher than he stated. Also some people argue that the employer part of the payroll tax will "come out of the employees pocket" so that the 6.7% they pay should be added to the 2.2% the employees pay. I find that assertion to unprovable to use as it lets people argue it rather than address substantive points. Chelsea and Hillary have also said on the campaign trail that it kills programs that work that the left fought long, hard, bloody, fights for when what we should be doing is expanding and improving on our successes. They can't get into details in the campaign format and have declined to go negative anyway so they have stuck mostly to process arguments over pointing out specific flaws with the law. Though Chelsea got her head ripped off in the media for saying his proposals gave to much control to state governors who couldn't be trusted to care about their people - see Medicaid expansion rejection. A criticism I agree with. The Bernie supporter response to these two things has been to insist that the money you save on insurance will more than pay for the increased taxes and to chastise the Clintons for "going negative". I haven't seen anyone really dig into the meat of the laws provisions. I'm sure the Clintons have but a lot of the legit criticisms of Berniecare echo invalid criticisms of Obamacare and I'm suspect they don't want to be quoted out of context in a way that attacks the ACA which rather hamstrings them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:But we have critical thinking skills, and can take in information from many sources we know to be biased and draw our own conclusions. I dont think she killed a white house spokesperson or was involved in illegal land trading, but i do think she's an ambitious douchenozzle who will point wherever the political winds tell her to go. If you care to convince me otherwise, start by pointing at policy positions she took that made her politically unpopular, rather than being a part of (by marrage) an elected democratic administration. Hillarycare was a loving disaster for the Clintons. You're using such a dumb filter for how to judge her (that you're clearly not using for other politicians) too. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Lord have mercy In a 4-4 decision, the Supreme Court awards the election win to Donald Trump, who then immediately starts his thousand year reign of blood and fire. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Or the fact that Bernie's math doesn't add up, or the fact that Hillary blames Snowden for not trying to go through "whistleblower channels" (which he did, and was denied, like most whistleblowers), or the fact that both are staunchly pro-Israel and overlook Israel's human-rights abuses, or... Israel? Are you loving serious? Name one loving republican running for the presidency that won't tongue netanyahu's taint on demand. Or won't be ordering our own troops to commit the same exact same human rights abuses or even outright war crimes. Or one that won't feed Snowden to loving Guantanamo and forget the key. This is low energy concern trolling and anyone with half a brain can see right through it. Amergin posted:EDIT: I mean if you think the Democratic party is "the party of facts" then you need to talk to more Bernouts. Fact: Global warming is real Fact: Deregulation is bad for the middle class Fact: Comprehensive sex ed reduces the need for abortion Fact: Republicans are against all three of those Fact: Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:
I was at the point where I didn't really give a poo poo about who won in 2012 amid growing apathy after Obama's first term. That loving smirk mittens had on his face as he walked away from that podium completely changed that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Fiction posted:http://www.270towin.com/maps/576dZ Hello darkness my old friend
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:What part of her Senate Career or time as Secretary of State lead you to believe she wouldn't be a good president? I am not wanting to start a Hillary/Bernie slapfight, I am just answering this specific question. The big one that sticks out is her choice to vote to give Bush authorization to enact regime change in Iraq based on the flimsiest evidence imaginable. She's on record stating that she firmly believed the vote was absolutely the right choice and that the war was justified. Given that Iraq was the biggest foreign policy disaster in our lifetimes and possibly US history, this is a huge mark on her credibility as a potential Commander in Chief. I'm happy to debate this specific point without having it spiral into a "Hillary sucks! No YOU suck!" type of derail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:I am not wanting to start a Hillary/Bernie slapfight, I am just answering this specific question. The big one that sticks out is her choice to vote to give Bush authorization to enact regime change in Iraq based on the flimsiest evidence imaginable. She's on record stating that she firmly believed the vote was absolutely the right choice and that the war was justified. Given that Iraq was the biggest foreign policy disaster in our lifetimes and possibly US history, this is a huge mark on her credibility as a potential Commander in Chief. I'm happy to debate this specific point without having it spiral into a "Hillary sucks! No YOU suck!" type of derail. Not defending anyone who voted for the Iraq war obviously, but weren't the "facts" that the Bush administration presented to the senate mostly bullshit and they were voting on those?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Thank you for this metaphor. I have stolen it for my own nefarious purposes. All I have to offer is that "The Monotonicity Criterion" needs to be the title of a tense espionage thriller.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:I am not wanting to start a Hillary/Bernie slapfight, I am just answering this specific question. The big one that sticks out is her choice to vote to give Bush authorization to enact regime change in Iraq based on the flimsiest evidence imaginable. She's on record stating that she firmly believed the vote was absolutely the right choice and that the war was justified. Given that Iraq was the biggest foreign policy disaster in our lifetimes and possibly US history, this is a huge mark on her credibility as a potential Commander in Chief. I'm happy to debate this specific point without having it spiral into a "Hillary sucks! No YOU suck!" type of derail. It was also a mistake that virtually the rest of the nation fell for, to be entirely fair. She was also the Senator for New York. I feel like Bernie's response on guns control is at least telling in how he might have voted if he were the Senator for NY. Most of the Anti-War folks had the luxury of not having to actually take that vote. It's again, one of those things we can judge in hindsight that wasn't as easy as it's made out to be in retrospect. Particularly when this criticism is often lobbed from people who were like 5 when that happened. To be more clear, for me, a vote for Iraq War isn't a disqualifier. It was a mistake. People make mistakes and the best people admit they made them and learn from them. A Winner is Jew posted:Not defending anyone who voted for the Iraq war obviously, but weren't the "facts" that the Bush administration presented to the senate mostly bullshit and they were voting on those? Yeah, the people who claim it was so easy to see the deception aren't really being honest. It wasn't. I say all of this as someone who did not support the Iraq War from Day 1. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Not defending anyone who voted for the Iraq war obviously, but weren't the "facts" that the Bush administration presented to the senate mostly bullshit and they were voting on those? That argument can be made, but there were plenty of people who questioned it at the time or thought that the move toward war was far too hasty. It's not like everyone was fooled- but Clinton was among those who were either too trusting of the administration, too lazy to look into it themselves, or unwilling to risk losing face by opposing a popular call to arms. Each of those are horrible for different reasons. I mean I know Lincoln Chafee gets laughed at a lot but you should read his account of the intel as it was relayed to him. It was an absolute joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Fiction posted:http://www.270towin.com/maps/576dZ Why must you dangle this in front of us (In case you don't remember your 12th Amendment, in the event of an Electoral College tie, the House votes for the President and the Senate votes for the Vice-President in December!  )
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:That argument can be made, but there were plenty of people who questioned it at the time or thought that the move toward war was far too hasty. It's not like everyone was fooled- but Clinton was among those who were either too trusting of the administration, too lazy to look into it themselves, or unwilling to risk losing face by opposing a popular call to arms. Each of those are horrible for different reasons. I bolded the silliest thing here: that's not really how intelligence works. Again, most of the people who were claiming it weren't really basing it off anything either, a lot of them were just anti-War to begin with. The fact was that, again, it was a mistake but people make mistakes, and Senators often have to vote for poo poo they don't particularly like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
The reasoning for the Iraq war was obvious bullshit from the start what are you talking about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:The reasoning for the Iraq war was obvious bullshit from the start what are you talking about. This is almost entirely hindsight bullshit thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:The saddest part was definitely when conservatives kept dragging vilerat's mom into the national spotlight Wasn't Vilerat specifically not on speaking terms with his mom because of the crazy poo poo she would constantly spout?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Wasn't Vilerat specifically not on speaking terms with his mom because of the crazy poo poo she would constantly spout? As I understand it, yep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Wasn't Vilerat specifically not on speaking terms with his mom because of the crazy poo poo she would constantly spout? I don't remember, but Vilerat routinely posted vile racists bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I bolded the silliest thing here: that's not really how intelligence works. You're going to need to expound on this. I don't mean that the intel agencies were lazy - I mean that people in Congress who actually cared enough about the issue to really dig into the findings were quite outspoken about the flaws in W's case. There is a great video of a journalist, I forget who, absolutely grilling Rumsfeld about the complete lack of a connection between al qaeda and Saddam. We're a nation big enough that we don't need to settle for "oh well most people fell for it she gets a pass". It wasn't just "a mistake". "A mistake" is when I put the wrong sock pair on or misspell something. A million people died.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Not defending anyone who voted for the Iraq war obviously, but weren't the "facts" that the Bush administration presented to the senate mostly bullshit and they were voting on those? I could tell they were bullshit lies at the time, why couldnt she? I was in massive anti-war protests, why wasnt she? Its not a case of "hindsight is 20-20", its "This woman clearly cant be trusted with important decisions". I know she apologized, i forgive her as a person if she's genuinely sorry, but you cant wipe stains like that off your record as a public servant, and that is just the most well known error. She was the most liberal "member" of the clinton administration, which still makes her basically a republican. This is the era of liberalism where we accepted that "liberal" was an insult and went back to saying "progressive", and we kept taxes reagen low and government spending even lower. The post-carter rightward shift in american politics isnt the fault of right-wing politicians, its the fault of the weak liberals from the late 70s to today. (Who have been promply been shouted out of the party and now an identity politics monster is wearing them as a buffalo bill skin-suit. MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This is almost entirely hindsight bullshit thinking. Oh yeah Saddam really could have posed a threat/had nukes/ launched an attack on the UK within 45 min.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:You're going to need to expound on this. I don't mean that the intel agencies were lazy - I mean that people in Congress who actually cared enough about the issue to really dig into the findings were quite outspoken about the flaws in W's case. There is a great video of a journalist, I forget who, absolutely grilling Rumsfeld about the complete lack of a connection between al qaeda and Saddam. We're a nation big enough that we don't need to settle for "oh well most people fell for it she gets a pass". Now you're being hyperbolic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:I could tell they were bullshit lies at the time, why couldnt she? I was in massive anti-war protests, why wasnt she? Its not a case of "hindsight is 20-20", its "This woman clearly cant be trusted with important decisions". What were your opinions of the Afghanistan invasion at the time? Not relative to Iraq, just in general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
I would like to find the land of unicorn presidential candidates that have never been on the wrong side of an issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:That argument can be made, but there were plenty of people who questioned it at the time or thought that the move toward war was far too hasty. It's not like everyone was fooled- but Clinton was among those who were either too trusting of the administration, too lazy to look into it themselves, or unwilling to risk losing face by opposing a popular call to arms. Each of those are horrible for different reasons. Again not defending it, but IIRC it wasn't just the administration but pretty much every intelligence agency outside of the CIA which had just spectacularly fail 2 years before because Bush appointed yes men to those positions and made sure there was as a united front as possible when he made the case. I mean yeah, that was a monumental gently caress-up and one that she has said countless times was the biggest mistake she ever made, but to me that means she'll want to avoid getting involved militarily to make sure she doesn't gently caress up again like that. Not only that, but probably the greatest domestic policy president since Lincoln was LBJ who had a rather infamous foreign policy gently caress up... and if we get even 1/2 of LBJ's domestic policy from Clinton I'll be happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The bigger, better news for Dems is that if Cruz or Trump are the nominee, it greatly imperils the Republican control of the Senate. They already had 5 very difficult re-elects (Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Pat Toomey, Rob Portman and Ron Johnson) but also have an open seat to defend in Florida, and four or five other contests that could now be in play. In the case of Ron Johnson, that fucker is definitely losing to Russ Feingold and WI will be sending two D Senators once again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:The reasoning for the Iraq war was obvious bullshit from the start what are you talking about. yeah seriously. there are democrats in this thread that bought into the iraq war?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
lizardman posted:All I have to offer is that "The Monotonicity Criterion" needs to be the title of a tense espionage thriller. Off-topic, but uh... What did you do to get that red title? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:49
|
|