|
Business Gorillas posted:and you wonder why nobody could be bothered to vote for her You have a distinct lack of perspective. All wars are not equal. Which would you rather happen, a limited war in Syria or a nuclear hell conflict where the Earth is reduced to an uninhabitable wasteland? Because I'm getting the distinct impression you think the two are completely equivalent. And I thank God you are just some guy on a messageboard (PLEEEASE don't be Steve Bannon IRL)
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
LGD posted:Two of Trump's most consistent campaign themes were opposition to trade agreements and a related anti-immigration platform, and they were the basis of much of his support, he wasn't the last stand of market-fundamentalism at all (though that's not how he'll govern). It's fascism, how can you even doubt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Which would you rather happen, a limited war in Syria or a nuclear hell conflict where the Earth is reduced to an uninhabitable wasteland i'd rather not have either you dipshit. why can't the party that's supposedly anti-war stop blowing everyone up? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:i'd rather not have either you dipshit. why can't the party that's supposedly anti-war stop blowing everyone up? There I can agree with you! I wish the USA would stop bloody well starting wars. However, that's the world we live in. GWB lit the blue touch paper and didn't stand well back, and the Middle East is constantly bursting out in horrible little wars. The Democrats actually thought they were helping in Syria. They didn't think "How can we be evil and invade somewhere today?" They saw that the people were being oppressed and cheated of democracy. They wanted to help. But all they did was make things worse. It's like those choices in the Witcher 1 where you are a lovely person no matter what option you pick. If they had done nothing, I'm sure you'd right now be saying "Obama and Clinton stood back and laughed while Assad slaughtered his own people. How can I support these disgusting people?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The Democrats actually thought they were helping in Syria. They didn't think "How can we be evil and invade somewhere today?" They saw that the people were being oppressed and cheated of democracy. They wanted to help. But all they did was make things worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:There I can agree with you! I wish the USA would stop bloody well starting wars. i stopped reading right here because every time we approach something that's terrible that even you admit is happening on both sides of the aisle, my idea is "let's loving change it" whereas yours is "oh well there's nothing we can do  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:It's fascism, how can you even doubt. Because I'm trying to be sincere, and I genuinely believe no one is currently steering that ship in a way that'll stop increasing political instability. In those circumstances it's very difficult to tell where things will ultimately end up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:i stopped reading right here because every time we approach something that's terrible that even you admit is happening on both sides of the aisle, my idea is "let's loving change it" whereas yours is "oh well there's nothing we can do That's a shame because I was quite proud of the second part of my post. I'm definitely in support of changing the world for the better. However I'm also in support of not changing the world for the worse. And sometimes that's the only option we are given. You are acting like we were choosing between Clinton and some paragon of politics, a man/woman committed to peace, social justice, the environment, and honest dealings in politics. I don't know if you noticed, but that doesn't describe Donald Trump! I could see your arguments working if Clinton was running against some run-of-the-mill Republican like McCain or Romney who wouldn't destroy the country if elected. But that's not the choice we were given. And sometimes we have to work within that choice. If you break your back in a car accident and the doctors tell you that you either have to use a wheelchair or be stuck in bed for the rest of your life, would you say "gently caress that! If you can't make me walk again, I'm staying in bed! No half-measures!" I guarantee you that you will NEVER find a candidate to vote for that lives up to your standards, because all of them have done/supported shady or horrible poo poo at some point in their career. Every politician does. Not because they are all evil, but because they are HUMAN. Even if Bernie Sanders got elected, he'd have done something that bitterly disillusioned you, I guarantee. Maybe he'd have got suckered into a war. Maybe he'd have got very little done due to Republican obstruction. Whatever. You'd have ended up saying "He's just as bad as the rest of them!" BarbarianElephant fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
How hard is it to understand that people are tired of America's Forever Wars. Remember when Obama ran in reining those in and instead expanded them. Do we really have any idea how many nations the US is currently involved in bombing? How many are we sending Special Forces into to act as a hit squads? Hell do we even actually know how much money is being spent to wage these wars and related apparatus? gently caress Trump calls the CIA idiots, a let's face it true loving statement even if Trump is right about it for the wrong reasons. And Liberals jump to the defense of the C. I. loving A! Holy poo poo that's absurd and a few of them have jumped to the defense of the F-35. Yet these people can't be assed to jump to the defense of what little remains of our social safety net, of our infrastructure which is still crumbling and highly inadequate. The problem is that post Reagan the Democrats and Republicans have had a concensus, one that is pro-free market, with as little regulation as possible, that is Law and Order and that is hawkish on American foreign policy. Everything else is just dressing, that's why people complain about the two parties being the same because on a lot of issues it's a disagreement of how to proceed versus a disagreement on policy. And when it comes to the important things that divide the two, like human rights for minorities, all it ever amounts to is talk and the Democrats never deliver unless they know there is no other option. Just look at this election. Why wasn't Flint talked about, why wasn't the fact that Mike Pence directly caused a massive HIV outbreak in Indiana brought up all the time, or how the Republicans are failing the people of Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, etc, etc, etc. This should have been hammered on all loving summer. But instead they wanted to try and seduce Republicans. And good loving job you won the Upper West Side of Manhattan at the cost of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
LGD posted:Because I'm trying to be sincere, and I genuinely believe no one is currently steering that ship in a way that'll stop increasing political instability. In those circumstances it's very difficult to tell where things will ultimately end up. The problem here is that you believe reality is guided by principles and good intentions rather than a scrub playing Hearts of Iron V.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:How hard is it to understand that people are tired of America's Forever Wars. So tired that a lot of suckers started projecting being a peacenik onto Donald Trump
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:So tired that a lot of suckers started projecting being a peacenik onto Donald Trump Nah, they just sat at home instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Trump is not a maniac, he's a truly wild actor. No one can perceive his actions and as such he's just as likely to invade Russia over a twitter insult as he is to do nothing. The fact that ultimate military power rests in the presidential seat makes it impossible to predict what he might do. Even so he's now surrounded by absolute psychopaths who have been yearning their whole life to begin their personal pet war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Even so he's now surrounded by absolute psychopaths who have been yearning their whole life to begin their personal pet war. All hail death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:So tired that a lot of suckers started projecting being a peacenik onto Donald Trump That they actually believed he would be less of warmonger than Clinton. gently caress. Get that through your goddamn head. They believed his lies and the best we had was well Clinton is less likely to start wars than Trump. But even all that those were Republicans gently caress them who cares. Plenty of Democrats are tired of America's Forever Wars and the option of voting were people who would continue both and who calls Henry "I can't leave America because I'll be arrested for loving war crimes" Kissinger a mentor! Holy gently caress how do you not get this!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:That they actually believed he would be less of warmonger than Clinton. gently caress. Get that through your goddamn head. They believed his lies and the best we had was well Clinton is less likely to start wars than Trump. So basically, all we had was the truth? That was definitely a BIG Democrat weakness. Republicans didn't let themselves be constrained by the truth and lied their asses off, including about Trump being committed to peace (when talking to isolationists) or determined not to let America be insulted, using nuclear weapons if necessary (when talking to hawks.) I think a peacenik Democrat candidate would be wonderful thing, wake me up in 4 years to vote for him (if Trump hasn't destroyed us all in a nuclear conflagration by then.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
zegermans posted:It's pretty annoying how those black people that liked her don't live in the correct states but were allowed to vote regardless and derail St. Bernard. That turnout in the primary had no effect on the general. That is just a fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:So basically, all we had was the truth? That was definitely a BIG Democrat weakness. Republicans didn't let themselves be constrained by the truth and lied their asses off, including about Trump being committed to peace (when talking to isolationists) or determined not to let America be insulted, using nuclear weapons if necessary (when talking to hawks.) So you're just going to ignore the complete other half of what I wrote about how even with ask that those are Republican voters and they don't matter. It's the Democratic voters who were given two lovely choices and opted to stay home because they were both lovely options endorsed by loving war criminals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That turnout in the primary had no effect on the general. That is just a fact. Which states should be allowed to vote in the primary? Or should we include some sort of fraction modifier to correct for people living incorrectly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Which states should be allowed to vote in the primary? Or should we include some sort of fraction modifier to correct for people living incorrectly? Just own up that your faction put up a modern McGovern.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So you're just going to ignore the complete other half of what I wrote about how even with ask that those are Republican voters and they don't matter. It's the Democratic voters who were given two lovely choices and opted to stay home because they were both lovely options endorsed by loving war criminals. I'm not ignoring that, I'm responding to that. Churchill and Hitler are both war criminals; I know who I'd vote for. I wouldn't stay home because "both of them are horrible people."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Which states should be allowed to vote in the primary? Or should we include some sort of fraction modifier to correct for people living incorrectly? I'm not advocating for that but the fact remains that it was a major warning sign that was largely ignored by the DNC and her campaign. Another one of the reasons she lost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Which states should be allowed to vote in the primary? Or should we include some sort of fraction modifier to correct for people living incorrectly? You realize this actually already happens, right? The number of delegates a state receives is modified by things like presidential vote margin, size of congressional delegation, etc?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Which states should be allowed to vote in the primary? Or should we include some sort of fraction modifier to correct for people living incorrectly? Hey dumbass, Clinton didn't have the unconditional support of all black people. You might have been able to puzzle this one out yourself if you had literally any black friends. This guy: KomradeX posted:No, I'm calling bullshit on your insistence that Hiliary was beloved by black people. That I know plenty of black people that hated her for poo poo like "super predators" and didn't believe an ounce of the words she said on anything. And me, as the white guy trying to get them to vote for her anyway, repeating the same arguments I heard all summer from people like you on why they should support her feel on deaf ears. Maybe the take away is maybe she should have actually ran on social justice instead of trying to appeal to loving Republicans! When Democrats try and get Republicans to vote for them, the Republicans still vote republican and DEMOCRATS STAY HOME BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS! Will you loving get that all goddamn ready. was 100% correct. Lots of Black people (especially ones under 30) don't like Hillary Clinton. Some of them voted for her anyway out of fear of Donald Trump. Some voted third party. A lot of them just stayed home, like millions of other eligible voters who feel they have no actual control over their government and don't feel it necessary to participate in the charade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Which states should be allowed to vote in the primary? Or should we include some sort of fraction modifier to correct for people living incorrectly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I'm not ignoring that, I'm responding to that. Except Kissinger and "Mad Dog" Mattias are actually just as bad as each other, hell Kissinger might actually be even worse!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Except Kissinger and "Mad Dog" Mattias are actually just as bad as each other, hell Kissinger might actually be even worse! What post was Kissinger lined up for?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Kissinger actually had a left wing democratically elected government overthrown.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
I don't think he was going back into government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:What post was Kissinger lined up for? Having Kissinger endorse her should have (and I guess was) a kiss of loving death! Running on a platform of over of our most notorious war criminals has some good ideas is a real loving easy way to to turn off your nominally antiwar base! poo poo it nearly was the straw that broke the camel's back for me that after I really considered not voting for her. But I did anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Having Kissinger endorse her should have (and I guess was) a kiss of loving death! Running on a platform of over of our most notorious war criminals has some good ideas is a real loving easy way to to turn off your nominally antiwar base! poo poo it nearly was the straw that broke the camel's back for me that after I really considered not voting for her. But I did anyway I thought Kissinger didn't endorse her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:If the choices are between "compromise my values and lose" and "vote for third party but feel good about it (and lose)", I'm taking the latter. The principled opposition to the corrupt two party system and all they can find are Dat Boy Gary and WhiteFeminism.jpg? Even Gloria la Riva looked amazing compared to those two, and I knew absolutely zip about her aside from her party platform text was good. I just don't see how anyone can walk away with some sense of satisfaction with those offerings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:I thought Kissinger didn't endorse her. You're right, I got that mixed up. Kissinger didn't endorse Clinton. She just spoke very highly of him. Which is what made me consider not voting for her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Radish posted:Kissinger actually had a left wing democratically elected government overthrown. they were sexist bernie brocialists though
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:From a few back, but I'm not sure how the third party candidates were that much better than the D/R slate. I had to fix that, because she is...completely and utterly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Obama was not "the millenial candidate". He was a candidate who appealed to many groups, with young people being just one of them. That is a good thing, and there was a positive response. Now we are back at the status quo of "no candidate on the ticket gives a gently caress" so young people stayed home. Yes, this is my feeling as an independent millennial voter who used to have a HOPE poster on my wall. All I want is my dumb crazy opinions like "End the drug war" to be pandered to. You don't even need to implement it if it ends up too politically difficult. I understand other groups have politicians pandering to them too and it fucks stuff up. But if you aren't willing to even pander to me then you are saying you don't need my vote...but then you blame me for every loss? I thought the whole point of not pandering to me was you were going to pander to other people and they would elect you? What happen? BarbarianElephant posted:Get on yer bike and start volunteering for your favorite political party. What? They aren't 100% to your liking? Here is your chance to do your little bit to change that. I think the problem is most of the people who care about these issues are too busy working just to survive and don't have time for that bullshit. Every non-voter I know is in the restaurant and bar industry, they aren't going to have any time to get drunk if they have to work an extra shift to make sure Hillary Clinton supports their issues. Maybe Hillary Clinton should be working extra shifts to push forward the idea that this entire industry should be unionized? FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
I'm watching the MSNBC election night coverage and still laughing about Hillary losing. This poo poo will never get old.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
reagan posted:I'm watching the MSNBC election night coverage and still laughing about Hillary losing. This poo poo will never get old. Yeah all those smug bastards deserve everything coming their way, even though nothing will really affect them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Instead of joining the Democratic party in your area, worthless as they probably are, get you want your (white male) friends together and take over the local free mason's chapter or w/e they're called, liquidate the assets and use them in conjunction with with a bunch of other people around the country doing the same thing and start your own political party You might have to wait a few years for some of the old dudes to die off but w/e still a better idea than anything Larry lessig did
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSpOjj4YD8c
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:55
|
|