|
Business Gorillas posted:hillary is either a powerful juggernaut of a candidate that is going to approach reagan/mondale levels of asskicking that will usher in an entire generation of progressive thought or hillary is a candidate that is in such an amount of trouble a grumbling Zaide giving discussion points to an orange racist is a blow to her campaign No one said any of those things. 
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:But that ship sailed last week when he was personally on hand to watch the entire party line up behind Hillary and he publicly announced he'd work with her to beat Trump, no? So what the hell, Bernie? What's the plan? He is doing it publicly because he obviously has no more leverage against Hillary than Rubio did against Trump and the time for private deals has long past, but he still has a significant number of diehard supporters and is trying to draw her into publicly supporting some of his policies so that she can win over some of his supporters. All Bernie can do right now is try to support progressive downticket candidates and try to use his campaign/supporter's collective power as leverage for policy change. Trump is such a dumb candidate though that she doesn't even need the support of Bernouts to win so it will probably fall on deaf ears. If she was facing Kasich or Rubio she'd at least still feign care for some of Bernie's popular-but-anti-corporate progressive policies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Lid posted:Jim Hoft, a longtime hard-right blogger also known as the Gateway Pundit, thinks he has the answer. Yesterday, Hoft revealed that he was gay on Breitbart news and argued that it was time for gay people to “come home” to the conservative party. He wrote: “I can no longer remain silent as my gay brothers and sisters are being slaughtered at dance clubs. There is only one man who can lead this nation and protect all gays and all Americans. His name is Donald Trump.” I mean, genuinely good for him coming out in what I'm sure must not be in a friendly environment, but if we're going to take this apparent GOP-gay outreach with even a modicrum of seriousness they're going to have to repudiate most of their (very, very recent in some cases) rhetoric and policy. Start calling out and apologizing for some poo poo and maybe we'll talk. But the whole "a conservative SCOTUS passed gay marriage" bit shows exactly how disingenuous this all is. It's too bad, really, since ideologically there's no reason the Republican party couldn't have been able to genuinely support or even co-opt the gay rights movement. But culture wars, identity politics, Southern strategy, etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:hillary is either a powerful juggernaut of a candidate that is going to approach reagan/mondale levels of asskicking that will usher in an entire generation of progressive thought or hillary is a candidate that is in such an amount of trouble a grumbling Zaide giving discussion points to an orange racist is a blow to her campaign Who on earth is saying Hillary is literally going to lose because Sanders' is an entitled babyman? We're laughing at him, we're not tearing our hair out and wailing in horror, man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:keep his supporters engaged until the convention and try his best to yank the democratic party left, which was his plan all along I hear this a lot, but can anyone substantiate it with an official statement?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:I hear this a lot, but can anyone substantiate it with an official statement? and along with that, so all his 'we're gonna totally win this' and 'the superdelegates should flip to me' stuff was a lie then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:I hear this a lot, but can anyone substantiate it with an official statement? It's a proven strategy to trail at the first quarter, the half and then slip on your own laces, face planting for the rest of the game. And you can't prove otherwise!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Lessail posted:But he's giving Trump, the man who has members of his party fleeing questions on his remarks, talking points *shudder* Giving Trump ammo won't stop his meteoric descent, but it might make the eventual crater less impressive than it could be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Who on earth is saying Hillary is literally going to lose because Sanders' is an entitled babyman? Yeah, I seemed to be the most vocal critic and I just kind of thought it was weird and I'm kind of killing time before I leave work. For what its worth I think Hillary is a favorite on paper against a seemingly week opponent but nothing is certain, she has her flaws, and there's a lot of wildcards so I still care when and if something happens to hurt her or help Trump. But I don't really think this is that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
zoux posted:I hear this a lot, but can anyone substantiate it with an official statement? from the bernie sanders camp: WE'RE IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL. WE ARE IN IT FOR A POLITICAL REVOLUTION *camera zooms in on Sanders's face* teehee i'm only pretending 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:and along with that, so all his 'we're gonna totally win this' and 'the superdelegates should flip to me' stuff was a lie then? Super delegates are like eggs, they were bad but then good but then only the yolks/blacks were bad cause they are low info and in conservative red states so who cares about them let's concentrate on the whites, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
i mean i don't know that he's going to do that for sure because saying "lol this is all just a ruse to keep my people motivated" kind of defeats the entire point of doing it if he doesn't do what i think he's going to do at the convention then yeah he's an rear end in a top hat and i'll say that you're right
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:i mean i don't know that he's going to do that for sure because saying "lol this is all just a ruse to keep my people motivated" kind of defeats the entire point of doing it What exactly do you think he's going to do at the convention with not enough delegates to win any votes? Traditionally the work of using not-enough-delegates as leverage is in fact done before the convention, and happens alongside a concession and an endorsement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Fans posted:Can't you just point to literally any other country and go "See? Gun control works" "Those ones don't count for ~reasons~!" To be less flip, Mexico is like the D&D sarcasm voice interpretation of the 2nd amendment endgame. Citizens have a right to own guns, but there is one gun store in the entire country, in Mexico City, run by the Army, and the requirements to purchase are so strict that few people bother. Yet Mexico has a massive gun violence problem. Gun violence rises and falls independent of regulatory climate. Even if you only care about headline grabbing spree shootings, France checks every box of the Brady campaign platform, but they still had two massive spree shootings with illegal machine guns last year. The solution to curbing gun violence isn't gun control. Jarmak posted:This is been pretty much the argument I've been using since Orlando. Further, why should anyone on the pro-gun rights compromise, when the pro-control side has shown no willingness to stick to their compromises? California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, but after San Bernadio, the legislature is in the process of banning bullet buttons/magazine locks, devices specifically designed to bring guns into compliance with California's assault weapons ban, and previously grandfathered high capacity magazines. Keep in mind that grandfathering and mag locks were both trumpeted as reasonable compromises that gun owners should be happy to accept during the last round of legislation. The same thing happened in New York with the SAFE Act. Like proponents of abortion rights, proponents of gun rights have no reason to compromise when each compromise is really just the starting point for the next round of restriction. It's never enough. "Not one inch" worked out well after Sandy Hook, and compromise has never actually bought us a reprieve from ever-increasing restriction, so what's the incentive here? (Commie, I know you're already typing out "slippery slope!" but perhaps for once you could explain how one should interpret this pattern other than creeping incrementalism.) Trabisnikof posted:
The people who voted for Prop 8 in California, gay marriage bans in other states, bills discriminating against trans people, who vote Sheriff Joe into office again and again on the promise of a crackdown on Hispanics, are they not using the power of the ballot to strip rights from others? Yeah, you can take rights from others at the barrel of a gun, but that's already illegal. Conversely, my ownership of a gun (ok, several guns) doesn't deprive anyone of their rights. If you were so concerned about individual rights, you wouldn't be so quick to endorse prior restraint as a justification for taking them away in the name of safety. Or we could structure our laws around punishing offenders who actually harm others rather than trying to preemptively take away any means by which people might break the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Of course there is a connection. It is a vastly different connection between a hateful speech act inspiring someone to commit an act of violence and the connection between the weapon used and the act of violence. Speech is regulated in those cases and more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
you know a huge issue in Mexico is guns going TO Mexico FROM us, considering, ya know, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, all those places have famously lax gun laws?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:*points to Mexico and Brazil* Reasons like corruption, cartels... you really don't give a gently caress do you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning seems to be under the impression guns just form naturally in the world, and you just CAN'T stop them, it'd be like stopping crystals!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Or we could structure our laws around punishing offenders who actually harm others rather than trying to preemptively take away any means by which people might break the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:*points to Mexico and Brazil* Isn't Mexico also the country where anything used by the military at all is banned for civilians whether or not it's something particularly dangerous, powerful, or otherwise useful for crime, or am I thinking of somewhere else where the "weapons of war" rhetoric was taken to heart? Tatum Girlparts posted:you know a huge issue in Mexico is guns going TO Mexico FROM us, considering, ya know, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, all those places have famously lax gun laws? The ones that got shipped in by bulk US sales to Mexican LE and military before leaking into criminal hands? Or do you mean the ones that came originally from the US government supplying Central/South American militias for decades, then moved northward into Mexico more recently? Since that's the bulk of US guns in Mexico, not the fraction of a fraction that go through straw sellers in the civilian US market (which the federal government barely tried to stop despite plenty of laws allowing it). Hell, half of those are blinged up vanity pieces carried for show rather than the actual military gear used for shooting people. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Isn't Mexico also the country where anything used by the military at all is banned for civilians whether or not it's something particularly dangerous, powerful, or otherwise useful for crime, or am I thinking of somewhere else where the "weapons of war" rhetoric was taken to heart? yea I mean all of those, my dude. That's what makes Mexico a bit more of a unique issue than 'heh gun control doesn't work libtards, checkmate'! Like, we don't have a literal cartel that's functionally an insurgent army loving around with us, so I think we may have a little easier time saying 'hey, maybe you don't actually need an assault rifle or a pistol on-demand'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Old man yells at cloud with the primary over he doesn't have crowds to yell at anymore so now it's just him and the big Rorschach test in the sky.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:
He's been doing a spectacularly bad job of doing it. Jeff Weaver has nixed any idea of supporting any candidate that did not endorse him. This includes Russ Feingold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Yikes https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/742851028345860096
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
How the hell do you parse this? Surely the Democrats (or Republicans) don't have a rating of "1" in any reputable poll?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:How the hell do you parse this? I think Dems are just short of having positive favorably (-1 is better than -7) and the GOP is entering the uncanny valley of politics, people don't want to even look at them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:How the hell do you parse this? Surely the Democrats (or Republicans) don't have a rating of "1" in any reputable poll? -1, negative 1, this is net favorability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Isn't Mexico also the country where anything used by the military at all is banned for civilians whether or not it's something particularly dangerous, powerful, or otherwise useful for crime, or am I thinking of somewhere else where the "weapons of war" rhetoric was taken to heart? I am ninety percent certain that Ramzan Kadyrov, Literal Bond Villain, has killed one or more people with his ridiculous blingpistol. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Speech is regulated in those cases and more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions Oh I agree. I'm saying that there is no speech as directly capable of killing people as a gun is, and thus deserves a categorically different kind of regulation. All freedoms are regulated because they come into conflict. Choo Choo all aboard the Base Election Train!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
^^^^^ Thanks, she should probably get rid of that extraneous space before the 7 if she wants me to read it as "negative 7"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:How the hell do you parse this? Surely the Democrats (or Republicans) don't have a rating of "1" in any reputable poll? I'm not sure what you mean, but "net favorability" is favorable% - unfavorable% for each group. So the GOP could get a net favorability of -17 by having perhaps 41% favorable, 58% unfavorable. It means more people dislike them than like them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:How the hell do you parse this? Surely the Democrats (or Republicans) don't have a rating of "1" in any reputable poll? Not Favorability usually means the Positive Rating - Negative Rating. So a net Favorability of -1 corresponds to a favorability of 49%, unfavorability 51%. So for trump that means that He has a favorability of 35% and unfavorability of 65%, resulting in a net of -30. This is not good news for the GOP, and is slightlyu good news for Hillary as she has had some pretty high unfavorable numbers in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Lessail posted:But he's giving Trump, the man who has members of his party fleeing questions on his remarks, talking points *shudder* I mean it would be nice if he didn't actively provide assistance to the closest brush this country has had with fascism since the Business Plot, but I guess in the twilight years of his life he wants to be remembered for something more than 3 post office names and a pro-rape essay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Interesting. Not sure I agree with the breakdown. And I wouldn't give the Trump party the "populist" label https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/742858089771196417 26% of the country being social democrats might be a historical high.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders give Trump some talking points. He's not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
B B posted:Bernie needs to drop out, but he's not wrong about the Democratic Party. He's doing fine and he said he was going to do this from the very beginning. The contempt for him is strange to me. theblackw0lf posted:Interesting. Not sure I agree with the breakdown. That list is stupid since it's assuming Trump's policies are far right. He actually said things like not wanting to cut social security which is probably pretty hard for republican leadership to deal with. Also it's pretty funny they think Kasich is a centralist. What a wild ride of a political season.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
B B posted:He's not wrong. He's also not the presumptive nominee so there's a ring of sour grapes to it even if it's right. As nice as perfect-world beep-boop text debates might be, perception has an effect and calling for new leadership while being the guy who never had a chance harms one's perception. Even if they're right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I am ninety percent certain that Ramzan Kadyrov, Literal Bond Villain, has killed one or more people with his ridiculous blingpistol. I like to imagine bling pistol is reserved for snitches, traitors, and people who sleep with the bosses daughter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
This is loving amazing and worth the watch of it Anderson Cooper going after Attorney General Pam Bondi who fought against gay marriage in Florida. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XsIGCxT3Po
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Reasons like corruption, cartels... you really don't give a gently caress do you? If you have violence-ridden countries like Mexico and Brazil with weak institutions, high inequality, a low standard of living, & strong gun control, and European socialist paradises where nothing hurts with strong institutions, low inequality, a high standard of living, & strong gun control, trying to explain that the latter's success is due to strong gun control seems a bit silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:48
|
|