|
Mandy Thompson posted:
I have some bad news for you.... Raskolnikov38 posted:Yeah but who's gonna give it to him? Bush has his family's cronies to reward, Cruz and Paul hate him and Trump is just going to put Gary Busey and Dennis Rodman in every cabinet position . Neither Walker nor Rubio have the built-in connections of Bush, so I could see Graham making an appeal to them (I think it would work better with a colleague like Rubio than a dyed-in-the-wool yes-man like Walker). Franco Potente fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jun 27, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
In case anyone was wondering what Ronan Farrow has been doing since his annoying show was cancelled: https://twitter.com/SergioGor/status/614875231899942913 Three Olives fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
 #HACKFORRAND
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Feather posted:That's a great find, and one that can be used to summarize the primary so far: Sanders, to my knowledge, has always been a leader on gay rights. It's an area that meshes very nicely with employment, since that's one of the main areas where gays are discriminated against that, but beyond that, he held Obama's feet to the fire over it long before Obama started to change his stance on the issue. Doesn't change that Sanders can still learn quite a lot about minority issues. He doesn't hate them, though. Maybe you should stop conjuring up strawmen to attack, it makes you look kinda weak. By the way, you skipped past my last post where I explained how presidents appoint Supreme Court justices and why it's important for the decisions we just got that Obama was in office to appoint Sotomayor and Kagan, rather than McCain to appoint another Roberts and Alioto. Did you see that post, and have any substantial response to it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Who gives a poo poo? People change their minds and politically untenable positions become viable. The US changed for the better today, don't drag this into another "But why didn't they make it PERFECT, they're horrible cynical shills for only making a GOOD change, the sell-out frauds." She has actively hosed us over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:She has actively hosed us over. Like when she expanded partner benefits to Foreign Service officers, expanded State Department anti-discrimination language to include gender identity, and put LGBT rights issues at the center of a lot of State Department policy discussions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:She has actively hosed us over. Every candidate has, in one vote or another, hosed us. That's because we live in a system where a large portion of powers-that-be want to gently caress us, and to pass any legislation at all, people are going to get hosed. Thus, Sanders voting for the military appropriations bill. Is that a good bill? Nope. Do we spend far, far, far too much on the military? Yep. But voting against it would cost Sanders a lot, politically, so he votes for it so as not to waste political capital in an unwinnable fight. Doesn't make him the devil. Nobody is going to argue that Hillary out-progressives Sanders. What I will argue is that Hillary as president will be able to advance progressive causes more than Sanders will. Making sure she continues to want to depends not on her own soul, but on being forced to do so by her constituency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:She has actively hosed us over. How, exactly, did the woman who made one of her major State Department goals expanding coverage of benefits to LGBT people, actively gently caress us over?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Thus, Sanders voting for the military appropriations bill. Is that a good bill? Nope. Do we spend far, far, far too much on the military? Yep. But voting against it would cost Sanders a lot, politically, so he votes for it so as not to waste political capital in an unwinnable fight. Doesn't make him the devil. Bernie often votes against the Defense Appropriations bill. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Judging by how far to the left Hillary has 'evolved' in the past 15 years, I'm assuming she was an intern for the Wallace campaign while Sanders was writing that. Goldwater.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Bernie often votes against the Defense Appropriations bill. Often, but in my random search of military appropriations bill, I found him voting for it during the two years I looked. I assume that vote was for political reasons. My main point is we've got to stop hoping for some sort of purestrain candidate. The way to get more progressive legislation passed and more progressive candidates elected is to get the electorate to be more progressive. Without that, winning the presidency would at most get us some feel-good poo poo for awhile that got rolled back afterwards. The path to reform in the US is not 'get the most progressive person possible elected president'. No, as your link says, McGovern. 1972 is when the letter is from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
She switched allegiances pretty quickly if she went from Goldwater to McCarthy
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I could see Graham angling for Secretary of State/Defense, since his focus is mostly foreign policy/blood for the blood god. DCI. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:She switched allegiances pretty quickly if she went from Goldwater to McCarthy She would have been 21(Edit: 17, I am bad at math) when she supported Goldwater. When I was 21 I think I was 100% behind Jello Biafra. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
She was 17 when she was a Goldwater Girl and changed her politics during her college years at Wellesley.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Naked Lincoln posted:Like when she expanded partner benefits to Foreign Service officers, expanded State Department anti-discrimination language to include gender identity, and put LGBT rights issues at the center of a lot of State Department policy discussions? All valid points. Hillary has in the past stood in the way of LGBT efforts for equality, but she at least made some efforts during her tenure as SoS to remedy that. On a personal level I don't think she thinks, or even has ever thought LGBT individuals should be second class citizens; I just think she's a creature of politics and cares about one thing, similar to her male counterparts: obtaining power. Whatever motivated her (pandering) to do those things as SoS, the net result was a positive for the LGBT community. Whether she should get credit for that, and in what capacity, is debatable. But one thing isn't: she hasn't recently hosed LGBTs over; quite the opposite and it's not appropriate to not acknowledge that. But that brings up another point: her inconsistent (and frankly hypocritical) embracing of the past "good" achievements of others she associated with while distancing herself from past accomplishments that aren't "good". For example, she'd love everybody to her for her husband's stewardship of the bubble that made the 90s such a prosperous economic time, but she sure doesn't want people to make note of the welfare reform, criminal sentencing changes, and finance regulations changes her husband oversaw that really hosed minorities and the middle class in general over quite hard. That would be sexist, you see, since she's not Bill. Specifically to her time as SoS, she contributed to a large portion of the negotiation of the TPP, but now there is a strong sense from her campaign and supporters that she should be considered as simply having been doing her employer's (Obama's) bidding on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Feather posted:
OTOH, her entire biography is unapologetic towards her voting record in the Senate. And it's really simple if you feel uncomfortable about voting for her: Don't. No matter what Hillary supporters try to guilt you into doing, she should still be held accountable for anything past and present that she has done- just as any candidate should. Anyone in this thread should at least be somewhat self aware that the Democratic Party suffered horribly under third way politics and it would be better to let it die out than endorse that behavior any further. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:OTOH, her entire biography is unapologetic towards her voting record in the Senate. Most of which was during a Republican administration, with a conservative, if not Republican controlled, Congress,so that's unsurprising, since she is a conservative. Most of the overlap between her record and Sander's record shows that Hillary generally favored the less Democratic position possible (e.g. more hawkish, more wealthy-friendly) while Sanders generally took the opposite view.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Joementum posted:She was 17 when she was a Goldwater Girl and changed her politics during her college years at Wellesley. How come you know stuff ? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
bpower posted:How come you know stuff ? She's spoken openly about it a ton, during Bill's presidency she invoked that past a lot as an example that you shouldn't view the right as some eternal foe. Clinton has a lovely past but she mostly owns it at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:She's spoken openly about it a ton, during Bill's presidency she invoked that past a lot as an example that you shouldn't view the right as some eternal foe. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican up until the 90s, too--a lot of our politicians have unsavory pasts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:How, exactly, did the woman who made one of her major State Department goals expanding coverage of benefits to LGBT people, actively gently caress us over? By only doing so after it was politically expedient. E: this is like asking how Time-Warner could possibly be loving us over since they provide me with internet service. Miltank fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
And then Lindsey waved goodbye, turned to walk through the corn stalks, and disappeared forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Your unedited post was funnier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:OTOH, her entire biography is unapologetic towards her voting record in the Senate. Yeah inflicting Bush III upon the world is a great way to hold Hillary accountable for her actions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Yeah inflicting Bush III upon the world is a great way to hold Hillary accountable for her actions. Anyone lacking the good sense to bring an end to voting for the Clinton or Bush dynasties deserves of worst of what both of their dynasties could bring. It's 2015 and people are still backtracking from voting straight socialist because they're too loving terrified of their own beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Yeah inflicting Bush III upon the world is a great way to hold Hillary accountable for her actions. You see if we add another 4 years of Republican rule on, then finalyl everyone will vote full communism. The past 28 total years of Republican dominance since the racial realignment just wasn't enough, we need 32! Job Truniht posted:Anyone lacking the good sense to bring an end to voting for the Clinton or Bush dynasties deserves of worst of what both of their dynasties could bring. It's 2015 and people are still backtracking from voting straight socialist because they're too loving terrified of their own beliefs. First, Clintons ain't a dynasty. Second, there aren't nearly enough socialists in the country to get us 270 electoral votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Yeah inflicting Bush III upon the world is a great way to hold Hillary accountable for her actions. Yeah, and Nader gave us GWB.  That argument is just dumb. Nader didn't give us GWB, and people not voting for Hillary won't "inflict Bush III" on anything. Nobody who'd object to voting for Hillary thinks what you wrote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Here's in general how Hillary apologists will run their despicable little election: 1. Endorse particularly hawkish foreign policies 2. Accuse all politicians as being equally as corrupt if not moreso than her 3. Claim she can win because she has more money 4. Accuse her detractors of being sexist 5. Literally blame anyone and everyone else for her own political views
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Here's in general how Hillary apologists will run their despicable little election: 1. Vote in the primary for who I like better 2. Drink 3. Vote in general for the lessor of the 2 evils presented 4. Drink
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Here's in general how Hillary apologists will run their despicable little election: I'm not quite sure what "their" election is. This is an election which involves all Americans. That there is no viable candidate leftwards of Hillary and that there isn't a substantial Socialist block in either house of Congress is a long-term failure of the Left, and will not be resolved this election. You may want to chill out and enjoy the show, while doing more long-term planning and organizing, instead of focusing so much bile on these two races.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:First, Clintons ain't a dynasty. In her own words she called the Clintons a political dynasty. And the only person who deserves your vote is the person who suits your political views. Voting for someone in general is an endorsement of both their judgment and character. People don't like the idea of ever recognizing they could make a bad decision, so they continually defend any dumb poo poo their incumbents do down the line in full view of their own ideology. And if they don't perfectly align, that's a textbook example of delusional behavior we're so fond of within the Republican Party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Seriously though people there sure ain't 60 million voters to hand int he right states to elect an actual socialist, no matter how much you try to whine about silent majorities or whatever. Millions of Americans who might are so stupid or hateful that they'll refuse to support socialist policies because they might benefit minorities, or because they believe all the guns will be grabbed, or because they're still salty over the queers. And then you have millions and millions more who just straight up hate socialism.Job Truniht posted:In her own words she called the Clintons a political dynasty. And the only person who deserves your vote is the person who suits your political views. Voting for someone in general is an endorsement of both their judgment and character. People don't like the idea of ever recognizing they could make a bad decision, so they continually defend any dumb poo poo their incumbents do down the line in full view of their own ideology. And if they don't perfectly align, that's a textbook example of delusional behavior we're so fond of within the Republican Party. North Korea calls itself Democratic, it doesn't make it so. You can continue trying to vote your conscience and getting mad when there aren't nearly enough people who share your views to get your way if you want though!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:1. Vote in the primary for who I like better
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Or vote for the least evil. Which is probably Jill Stein. You can still drink, and know you didn't vote for Hillary when she invades Syria in 2017 and deregulates Wall Street.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Or vote for the least evil. Which is probably Jill Stein. You can still drink, and know you didn't vote for Hillary when she invades Syria in 2017 and deregulates Wall Street. The Greens are irrationally opposed to technologies which could help mitigate pollution, climate change, and malnutrition. I'm not sure how positive that is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The Greens are irrationally opposed to technologies which could help mitigate pollution, climate change, and malnutrition. I'm not sure how positive that is. They're also anti-nuclear power and have a strong anti-vax contingent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Here's in general how Wels apologists will run their despicable little election: 1. Endorse particularly hawkish foreign policies 2. Accuse all politicians as being equally as corrupt if not moreso than him 3. Claim he can win because he has more money 4. Accuse his detractors of being bigots 5. Literally blame anyone and everyone else for his own political views
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The Greens are irrationally opposed to technologies which could help mitigate pollution, climate change, and malnutrition. I'm not sure how positive that is. Yep, I'm very pro-genetic modification and nuclear energy. I like some things about the green party but in general I'd rather have a Democrat as president even if the greens had a chance at winning
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Only vote in local elections
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:37
|
|