|
Ytlaya posted:The main issue people having with many anti-Clinton folks is that they rarely specify any actual policy they disagree with. It is a fact that Clinton is more left-leaning than the average Democrat. Granted, this is far from ideal and the average Democrat is not very left-leaning at all, but the problem is that people act like Clinton is more right-wing than most Democratic politicians, which is provably false. The impression that Clinton is notably right-wing seems to be entirely based on some vague perception created by the media, rather than reality. Idk the pro tpp thing should disqualify her from being considered progressive for me. Simply emulating a bunch of bernie policy after she comes to the late realization that the democratic base has swung very formally to the left should give you pause when considering her to be progressive. Her husband's legacy is her legacy, anyone who was around back then knows that was not a progressive time in American politics when welfare was being curtailed, prison populations were swelling, American empire was in full expansion and the corporate deregulation was the status quo. Along with her being an iraq hawk, interventionist in the wrong way (libya). There is a lot of progressive policy on her ticket now, but none of it will get past Congress so basing your choice on that is a bad idea. (Also lol at the amount of paid maternity leave she is offering, what a loving joke) American politics goes through polar swings an the progressive options after trump will likely be significantly better. If anything the US political culture is going to demographically shift permanently to a country made of different ethnic groups with a plurality of whites. Burn the Republicans for good in this new America an let them give trump a try. If anything he will present an opportunity for the country to curtail the insane erosion of checks and balances that American culture has permitted over the last 60 years. Sethex fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Oct 19, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Gotta say that while cutting off the house of Saud would feel good, they still have plenty of money to buy Eurofighters and so on with, so they're still gonna be supplying people with arms and propping up brutal dictatorships and inflaming civil wars. Also it's not like things will go peaceful with the US's involvement. It's far more likely that either Russia or China will move in to fill the influence vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Also it's not like things will go peaceful with the US's involvement. It's far more likely that either Russia or China will move in to fill the influence vacuum. I can't foresee a different country cutting them a cheque for more than a billion in military aid but maybe that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:I can't foresee a different country cutting them a cheque for more than a billion in military aid but maybe that's just me. It's not like Russia hasn't done it before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:I can't foresee a different country cutting them a cheque for more than a billion in military aid but maybe that's just me. I mean, the US doesn't prop up Saudi Arabia for shits and giggles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I mean, the US doesn't prop up Saudi Arabia for shits and giggles. Right, the US wants to secure their oil interest. I just figured other countries wouldn't be able to raise that amount of bling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's not like Russia hasn't done it before. For the Saudis, no I don't think so, they have largely been the British/American's monster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Right, the US wants to secure their oil interest. I just figured other countries wouldn't be able to raise that amount of bling. Well, heck, a quarter-billion still gets you plenty of guns and ammo to funnel to dickheads worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Most of y'all should look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04iWYEoW-JQ Basically a bunch of aaa doc's edited to speak to our reality. Vote based on sexually charged rhetoric, not on the details of American Empire. Sethex fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
-vote for a real progressive -vote trump, though -check out this adam curtis documentary it'll blow your unwole sheep minds Signed, a serious person
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:-vote for a real progressive So aside from demonstrating that the rules of D&D don't apply to you, what is your argument? or is signalling that I make you mad all you intend to do? Sethex fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Sethex posted:So aside from demonstrating that the rules of D&D don't apply to you, what is your argument? or is signalling that I make you mad all you intend to do? Maybe you should present something that is legitimately worth debate and discussion (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:Maybe you should present something that is legitimately worth debate and discussion
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Please stay out of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Most of y'all should look at this: Check this out! *posts dead link* 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:Please stay out of this thread. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
twodot posted:No you. You've made three posts, none of which had any substance, in a just forum you would be on probation. A classic example of the Just Forums Fallacy
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, heck, a quarter-billion still gets you plenty of guns and ammo to funnel to dickheads worldwide. Yes, though I would prefer it's not our quarter billion of tax dollars. It's possible that another state would simply start backing these sort of mercenary states if the US changed its policies. In that event, whatever military actions these mercenary states took on behalf of their backers or through their own behest could be dealt with through internationally led initiatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Check this out! Lol sorry man, my fault a dmca took it down since I posted it; but srsly please demonstrate more how you hate the things I say while simultaneously demonstrating that your moral urges are outside your ability to articulate. Look up hypernormalisation
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Lol It's less hate and more jovial bemusement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
"The joke is on all of you for caring that I'm an idiot" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
https://thoughtmaybe.com/hypernormalisation/?lang=en https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87au-Y0AaKQ One mirror is likely to stay up for awhile but is getting way above the normal traffic so might not work, an the other is a youtube mirror, works for now. Sethex fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:Maybe you should present something that is legitimately worth debate and discussion Hillary's political alignment; not worth debate or discussion. #D&D2016
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Unfounded conspiracy theories about Hillary's political alignment; not worth debate or discussion. #D&D2016 FTFY
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
I read the excerpts from the goldman sachs speeches and they imply a pretty right wing economic policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I read the excerpts from the goldman sachs speeches and they imply a pretty right wing economic policy. There's also her entire political career that implies a pretty right wing economic policy
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Hillary's political alignment; not worth debate or discussion. #D&D2016 When the discussion is being led by a useful idiot (you) who refuses to actually adress the gaping holes in his positions, with back-up from his forums Libertarian Cheer Squad, no it certainly isn't worthy of anyone else's time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I read the excerpts from the goldman sachs speeches and they imply a pretty right wing economic policy. My feeling about Clinton (and most Democrats for that matter, including Obama) is that they will definitely do stuff that helps the country economically, but there's a strict limit in the sense that they'll never do anything that investment banks like Goldman Sachs (and the wealthy in general by proxy) are strongly opposed to. I don't think this is due to any conspiracy; I think it's just because people like Obama and Clinton have spoken with firms like Goldman Sachs and think "these people look and sound professional and intelligent" and build a strong relationship as a result. This isn't exactly a condemnation; like I said, I think Clinton will be a good president and will help the country in various ways. But I definitely think that she won't do anything that has a significantly negative impact on the investment banks or wealthy Americans in general. This doesn't mean she won't increase taxes on the wealthy; that's possible since a large portion of wealthy are willing to accept some tax increases. It just means there's a strict line that she won't cross (and that line is when the banks and/or wealthy Americans says "no we don't want this"). In general, I think it's accurate to say that both Republicans and Democrats represent the interests of the wealthy, but they represent different subsets of the wealthy. Not all wealthy people have the same opinions, after all. Republicans represent the most greedy and bigoted rich people, while Democrats represent the "best" wealthy Americans (who are generally cool with minorities and don't want people to live in poverty). Despite this, voting Democrat is still important because there is a significant difference between the views of these two subsets of the wealthy, with one maliciously wanting to gently caress the poor and the other wanting to help the poor (as long as it doesn't have a significant negative impact on them).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:When the discussion is being led by a useful idiot (you) who refuses to actually adress the gaping holes in his positions, with back-up from his forums Libertarian Cheer Squad, no it certainly isn't worthy of anyone else's time. yeaaaah sorry you're going to have to do better than 'that argument has holes in it'
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:My feeling about Clinton (and most Democrats for that matter, including Obama) is that they will definitely do stuff that helps the country economically, but there's a strict limit in the sense that they'll never do anything that investment banks like Goldman Sachs (and the wealthy in general by proxy) are strongly opposed to. I don't think this is due to any conspiracy; I think it's just because people like Obama and Clinton have spoken with firms like Goldman Sachs and think "these people look and sound professional and intelligent" and build a strong relationship as a result. I agree with pretty much everything. But change comes with crisis and strain, a deviation from the status quo. You can choose to do your thing an that's cool but don't expect that path to lead to anything more than a continuation of the system that is essentially terrible. Democracy was largely meant to be a system to protect the majority from the powerful, now it is just about the continuation of stability? A retention of status quo? That's a bit defeatist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Sethex posted:yeaaaah sorry you're going to have to do better than 'that argument has holes in it' We actually don't, is the thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:We actually don't, is the thing. Barbed messages without substance is an interesting way to manifest your anxiety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Barbed messages without substance is an interesting way to manifest your anxiety. I agree, you should go pop a xanax for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Clinton just claimed that russia is plotting to destroy here. Clinton lool go vote for her guys, serious amazing progressive choice. Enjoy your cold war 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Clinton just claimed that russia is plotting to destroy here. Clinton lool go vote for her guys, serious amazing progressive choice. There assuredly would be no tensions between the USA and Russian Federation without the Demon KKKillary KKKlinton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
I don't like this Roosevelt guy who keeps saying Hitler is a bad dude, some "progressive". Now this Charles Lindbergh fellow, he's got some fresh ideas about world peace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
You know what's left-wing? Spheres of influence. Progressivism would consist of Russia having unquestioned dominion over the government and people of Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You know what's left-wing? Spheres of influence. Progressivism would consist of Russia having unquestioned dominion over the government and people of Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. Whoa, that's heresy. Only America is allowed that privilege.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't like this Roosevelt guy who keeps saying Hitler is a bad dude, some "progressive". Like Hitler and the Nazis are going to do anything. Germany was broken by The Great War.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 03:13
|
|