|
The only cool thing about the upcoming Hillary presidency will be her utterly laying waste to the GOP and straight up murdering conservative shitfuckers on national television. Bernie is one of the finest human beings in American politics at the moment, and should be supported massively, however the odds are heavily against him, and ending up with Hillary is far better than any goddamned conservative/trumpservative.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:howd it go ruined by moderators preventing anything fun from happening
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:
No. You can only have one guy in the position. You can't split a single seat proportionally. It's easy to have multiple legit chance parties for a proportionately split legislature though. Math Debater posted:In the last Mexican presidential election, there were 4 candidates participating in the general election presidential debates. Only 2 different parties have had the Presidency in Mexico since 1934. It don't matter if there's 4 candidates in debates when only two of them have any chance. Grouchio posted:Wait so...he isn't doomed? He's doomed unless Hillary literally dies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
troubled teen posted:This poll isn't tagged - where is it from? Just wondering. PPP! Check it out. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...ns-bi.html#more Fun fact: this is also the same poll that showed that Republicans support bombing Aladdin's home city. Also, enthusiasm is a very vague term for something that cannot be statistically substantiated or factored in to. It literally means nothing (see: Rand's cheering section)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Only 2 different parties have had the Presidency in Mexico since 1934. It don't matter if there's 4 candidates in debates when only two of them have any chance. Here is a list of the three (3) leading candidates in the 2012 Mexican Presidential Election, along with their respective political parties and percentages of the popular vote received: 1. Enrique Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (38.20% of the vote) 2. Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (31.60% of the vote) 3. Josefina Vázquez Mota of the National Action Party (25.39% of the vote) So it seems that there were three candidates with a serious chance of winning the race in the 2012 Mexican Presidential election. And the fact that a minor fourth candidate was allowed into the presidential debate is noteworthy. America is a dumb and bad and horrible imperial superpower, and this country deserves to be wracked with social and political instability. We're all doomed by the inevitability of our deaths. And, given her role in enacting and implementing American foreign policies, the literal death of Hillary Clinton will be welcomed by many people throughout the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Immortan posted:It should be noted that Trump would punish pedophiles instead of trying to "rehabilitate" them like Hillary and Bernie. He would also "punish" completely innocent people, and indeed is openly proud of this claim. Immortan posted:Poll numbers say otherwise, honey. Immortan posted:Embrace the inevitable Bernout, child. You really have no business condescending to anyone, guy who writes at a ~5th-grade level and possesses the misplaced arrogance of Paradol Ex. Concerned Citizen posted:Hillary Clinton owned the everloving poo poo out of that debate Vote Quimby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:He would also "punish" completely innocent people, and indeed is openly proud of this claim. Look at this guy pretending Bernie will win. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Look at this guy pretending Bernie will win. Believing something should be the case, and believing that it will aren't the same thing, but I'm not surprised the distinction is lost on the forum's dumbest, most obnoxious, and probably ugliest Trump supporter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:Believing something should be the case, and believing that it will aren't the same thing, but I'm not surprised the distinction is lost on the forum's dumbest, most obnoxious, and probably ugliest Trump supporter. You never made the distinction to begin with so naturally I assumed you were just another ideological purist in love with Bernie Panders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Clinton and Sanders both seemed pretty naive WRT Syria & ISIS, with both of them talking about leading an Arab coalition and Clinton openly advocating for taking on Assad and ISIS at the same time. Clinton's proposal might be bad, but it's still not apocalyptic like everyone at the GOP debates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:Also, enthusiasm is a very vague term for something that cannot be statistically substantiated or factored in to. It literally means nothing (see: Rand's cheering section) Enthusiasm doesn't mean nothing. Enthusiasm means "i have literally nothing else but I'm still optimistic". When someone says "but enthusiasm" they're admitting the thing in question has nothing going for them. Math Debater posted:Here is a list of the three (3) leading candidates in the 2012 Mexican Presidential Election, along with their respective political parties and percentages of the popular vote received: Here's a fact: the only ones who ever win are the PRI and the PAN. PRD has never won and probably won't ever win unless PRI or PAN goes extinct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Here's a fact: the only ones who ever win are the PRI and the PAN. PRD has never won and probably won't ever win unless PRI or PAN goes extinct. This is a fair and reasonable statement. Here in the U.S., it seems to me that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are both deserving of extinction. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:This is a fair and reasonable statement. there will never be a system of government that doesn't oppress complete degenerates, sorry about the brain problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
I'd be cool with a government that oppresses everyone and not just the proletariat, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Clinton and Sanders both seemed pretty naive WRT Syria & ISIS, with both of them talking about leading an Arab coalition and Clinton openly advocating for taking on Assad and ISIS at the same time. Clinton's proposal might be bad, but it's still not apocalyptic like everyone at the GOP debates. We're literally leading an arab coalition against ISIL right now. And good on Clinton for not bowing to Assad's brutality like Sanders was. Assad has killed hundreds of thousands, more than ISIL has or will. The only difference between the two is that the regime's brutality is codified and kept hidden in a death camp less than a kilometer from Assad's bedroom
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:17
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:We're literally leading an arab coalition against ISIL right now. We're leading a coalition of bomber pilots doing CAS for ethnic militias which aren't willing to go on the offensive in Sunni Arab territories. Not exactly what Hillary and Bernie were talking about. And yes, confronting Assad is problematic because Russia has already made a military commitment behind them, so Clinton is talking about making a direct confrontation against the Russians as much as Chris Christie did. Her claim that we could somehow get the Russians on our side was complete bullshit. Sanders wasn't "bowing to his brutality" or any other way you'd like to spin it. He explicitly stated that ISIS is the immediate threat and FP concern while dealing with Assad has to be put off for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
i feel like foreign policy points in primary debates are pretty much empty threats/promises. are there examples of this kind of detail being borne out in the policies of the president after election?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:We're leading a coalition of bomber pilots doing CAS for ethnic militias which aren't willing to go on the offensive in Sunni Arab territories. Not exactly what Hillary and Bernie were talking about. Not much CAS anymore now that Russian AA is painting our fighters, it's mostly been drones this past week. But we are supporting the SDF and anti-ISIL fighters with a few hundred tons of lethal aid, including MANPADS fairly regularly. And that was what Hillary and Sanders were talking about. With regards to Assad there's likely no immediate solution there, and of course we're not going to get Russia on our side, not when they're bombing CIA-linked anti-Assad forces rather than ISIL. Still, the Russian and Iranian supported SAA offenses in the past few weeks have stalled quite badly. Nevertheless, while ISIL is of course an immediate threat, I do not believe we can ignore Assad like we have under the Obama administration. We can, and we must, support the anti-Assad opposition even if that means our proxies are hitting Russian and IRGC/Quds force troops. Whether that involves a no fly zone or not is somewhat besides the point as I'm unconvinced on that matter, but we nevertheless bear a great deal of responsibility for failing to intervene in Syria before and the longer we wait the more will be butchered by the Assad regime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Not much CAS anymore now that Russian AA is painting our fighters, it's mostly been drones this past week. But we are supporting the SDF and anti-ISIL fighters with a few hundred tons of lethal aid, including MANPADS fairly regularly. And that was what Hillary and Sanders were talking about. Bernie and Hillary were talking about Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian, and etc. ground forces going on the offensive against ISIS. Also one way or the other, people are going to get butchered in a sectarian civil war. The onus isn't upon us to decide whether the people being massacred should be Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, Arab, or Alawi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Bernie and Hillary were talking about Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian, and etc. ground forces going on the offensive against ISIS. quote:Also one way or the other, people are going to get butchered in a sectarian civil war. The onus isn't upon us to decide whether the people being massacred should be Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, Arab, or Alawi. That may be somewhat likely, but it's cynical nonetheless. Personally I'd rather see a Syria aligned to USG interests that doesn't butcher civilians. In the absence of such a group, I'll take one that doesn't butcher civilians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:That may be somewhat likely, but it's cynical nonetheless. The only chance of that happening is if we invaded Syria to back the YPG, and reorganized each province as a series of direct democratic socialist cantons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:They both work for different nonprofits who would do much better under Bernie than Hillary neoliberalism, but they're too cynical to believe a good person could win the game of thrones. Lol cynicism is cool like game of thrones (very Grown Up show, IMO)believing in things is lame like my crazy cat lady aunt (she actually goes to church for the worship not the food and frisbee games)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Thump! posted:The only cool thing about the upcoming Hillary presidency will be her utterly laying waste to the GOP and straight up murdering conservative shitfuckers on national television. But what exactly has Hillary said that makes her this shining beacon? I mean nothing in that debate was anything interesting said by Hillary that made me go, "Wow I really wish Hillary was in a position where should could greatly influence my life." Mainly because under Hillary I feel like we'll keep going down the same path we already are. Higher poverty, stagnating wages, mountains of student loan and health care debt, and no real progress on even any sort of ideas for curbing climate change. Democrats rely on the existence of Republicans just as much as Republicans rely on the existence of Democrats and thats why your first paragraph will never happen. So long as they can together convince enough people that one of them is the lesser of two evils ain't nothin gonna change. Obama is the proof of this. Doorknob Slobber has issued a correction as of 03:28 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Reason posted:But what exactly has Hillary said that makes her this shining beacon? I mean nothing in that debate was anything interesting said by Hillary that made me go, "Wow I really wish Hillary was in a position where should could greatly influence my life." A good post
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:My post does not compare Bernie to Ron Paul as a candidate, I'm comparing how well they will be remembered all bernie supporters are dumb naive children compared to the Wise and Very Serious hillary acceptors, whose every post certainly can't be replaced with a  smilie
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:45
|
|
I will, however, compare Ron Paul supporters to Bernie Sanders supporters.
, feel as if you are under attack by the "establishment"/LAMESTREAMMEDIA, loudly proclaim your support for your candidate wherever comments are enabled, and then mistake the echoes coming back at you for widespread support for your candidate. You're all incredibly driven to be active for your candidate's campaign, yet by doing so are so hopelessly drowned in the Sanders bubble that you are incapable of comprehending why anybody wouldn't vote for him.
|
A Neurotic Jew posted:there will never be a system of government that doesn't oppress complete degenerates, sorry about the brain problems. Could you go post this in /pol/ instead?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Reason posted:So long as they can together convince enough people that one of them is the lesser of two evils ain't nothin gonna change. 2. Hillary has proposed a pretty cool plan to help especially poor communities affected by the transition to green. I'm not sure if Bernie has proposed something similar, but a. she seems to have done so completely unprompted and b. a poster who lives in the Appalachia region said that it sounds like exactly what the community needs. If so, this sounds like exactly the type of a workable plan that is needed also elsewhere in poor communities to improve on ecological justice. So this is a blueprint on how she intends to proceed on climate change - couple it with infrastructure repairs/stimulus. On an international scale, because a lot of the Paris agreement does not need Senate action, I imagine that whichever Democratic president will also work to honour that. It's sort of mainstream in the party now. 3. Finally, I think there are some issues on which you can sense that Hillary is actually empathetic. Reproductive justice seems to be one; it hasn't come up in *any* of the debates so far except when she brought it up. Gun control is another - according to all the Dem threads, it's a 'lost cause' and actually losing votes; there's been a quantity of posts with people wondering 'why does she keep bringing it up?' Especially since she and O'M have already pressured Bernie into changing his stance on it, to some extent. Well, it seems to me that if an otherwise so triangulated candidate keeps bringing a supposedly losing issue up, then she must actually feel for this issue - because, admittedly, as the primary frontrunner, she doesn't have to bring it up. (Disclaimer: obviously, this point is subject to verification - if she does stop bringing it up in the general, then it is just an anti-Bernie talking point and I'm naive. But we'll see.) And so on. These two may not be your particular issues, which is why you may not have noticed them, but they are there. Stop seeing the world in black and white. If you like Bernie, then work to make him strong, and to make his effect on the party lasting. But Hillary won't be terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
meristem posted:1. Things have changed under Obama. You just don't have the counterfactual. Try to imagine the last 8 years under McCain/Palin and/or Romney. Gay marriage? Obamacare? Funds for gun violence research? The Iran deal? The Paris deal? The China emissions-cut deal? Gone. A societal environment in which movements such as BLM, or, heck, Bernie, thrive? Gone. Welcome to self-deportation and whatever other regressive ideas were proposed in 2008/2012. Also the Supreme court would be 7-2 GOP right now instead of 5-4. If a GOP president gets elected in 2016 the 7-2 GOP court can still happen though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Coverage of the Saturday night Democratic debate has focused on Bernie Sanders’ apology to Hillary Clinton for his staff’s poor judgment in viewing her campaign’s proprietary data. But Clinton issued a “sorry’’ of her own — although for a far less serious matter. Clinton apologized to a live television audience for returning late from the ladies’ room after the break. The reason is one many women are familiar with: An unexpected line for the loo. While Clinton waited for the ladies’ room to clear out, time ticked down, and the debate organizers allowed the show to go on without her. What viewers didn’t know was the sole women’s bathroom was a little further than the men’s room from the stage. And when the debate went to a long commercial break Clinton lost out to Lis Smith, the caffeine-guzzling deputy campaign manager for former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who beat her to the restroom. Smith declined to comment for the story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Holding Her Watergate
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
meristem posted:1. Things have changed under Obama. I feel like because I don't buy in to either of the two parties message of "Vote for us because you really don't want the other guy!" I see the world less black and white. I really feel like a lot of the drive for gay marriage was done at the state level and very little was actually done by politicians, in fact Obama himself was pretty quiet on the issue until relatively recently. I feel like Obamacare, while it has helped a lot of very poor people who had no healthcare at all get help having any sort of healthcare it really didn't do much to address the actual costs of healthcare. Even if you have insurance and you are just making enough to pay for your basics (and therefore just have a very basic insurance) you are still pretty hosed if you end up having any serious medical illnesses. When you look at Hillary's voting record its pretty loving unimpressive. Voting to go to war, always voting to increase military spending. Voting to tighten border security with mexico, voting for the patriot act. Last I heard she was against marijuana legalization, another state issue that is gaining popular traction and a really big one if you care at all about income inequality and institutionalized racism. I feel like a Bernie presidency would be more likely if we'd had another eight years of a republican president. Why? Because things would have been run into the ground faster than they were and Bernie's populist anti-capitalist message would be more easily accepted. Do I think a Bernie presidency would change much more than a Hillary/Obama/Whoever presidency? Probably not. I do however think that a Bernie presidency would be louder and messier than a Hillary presidency and thats what gets people motivated to make change at the state level which is what drives the majority of changes in our country. Politicians in the US rarely have the balls to do anything until there is a tidal wave of popular opinion one way or the other. Edit - There are a lot of Hillary supporters that think that Hillary is going to actually DO something. Like people are saying in this very thread that Hillary is going to put the smack down on Republicans, but if you believe that you are voting for her for very wrong reasons. If what you want is a presidency probably slightly less progressive than Obama and probably very similar to Bill Clinton then yes, vote for Hillary, but sitting here claiming that Hillary is some kind of bastion of progressive liberal thought is silly. Or that she gains anything at all from pulling out her Katana and putting the GOP out of its racist, classist misery(or whatever people were having her cosplay in this very thread) then you're absolutely loving delusional. And if in the end all you care about is beating the Republicans or Democrats because they're your football team, then why not just follow sports instead? Doorknob Slobber has issued a correction as of 18:37 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Could you go post this in /pol/ instead? the person I was responding to is a literal pedophile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Coverage of the Saturday night Democratic debate has focused on Bernie Sanders’ apology to Hillary Clinton for his staff’s poor judgment in viewing her campaign’s proprietary data. But Clinton issued a “sorry’’ of her own — although for a far less serious matter. if i cant trust her to hold her bladder, how can i trust her to run are country?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton refuses to evacuate her bladder, much like she refused an evacuation on 9/11/12
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Reason posted:I feel like because I don't buy in to either of the two parties message of "Vote for us because you really don't want the other guy!" I see the world less black and white. It's not as complicated as you're making it Everything you expressed concerns about in your post just now will get dramatically worse if anybody but Hillary or Bernie gets elected. This is literally something every Republican has promised over and over again, and you didn't mention it but they're also going to get rid of social security too (but you'll still have to pay into it). If you actually do care about any of the things you're worried Hillary won't be strong enough on then you'll vote Democrat. If you don't then you're lying to yourself about all this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Immortan posted:You never made the distinction to begin with so naturally I assumed you were just another ideological purist in love with Bernie Panders. A: I've made it very clear, at least once even directly to YOU, that I'm at best cautiously optimistic about his chances, at this point, and you might say my enthusiasm is fairly curbed. YOUR tendency toward wildly exaggerated, unsupported, blanket assumptions about individuals based on your own irrational and often wrong beliefs about a group is not MY responsibility, though I suppose I could have fairly assumed (heh) as much from a Trump supporter. What can I say? Any argument between the two of us is that one Shmorky comic unironically, with you as the dumb and goddamn crazy guy. B: You're moving goal posts right off the bat, in a single-sentence reply! Beautiful.  "Pretending Bernie will win" neither means the same thing as "ideological purist in love with Bernie Panders [sic]," nor does either one necessarily follow from the other. And while I would make no claim to the latter when talking to you, because you've demonstrated that you don't know what words mean unless they're expressed in the most direct form with the fewest opportunities for misinterpretation, I would say that I do have some strong enough "ideological" beliefs that Sanders is closer to meeting than any other remotely viable candidates at this time. However, I'm not so concerned with "purity" that I would refuse to vote for Hillary (for example) to prevent Il Douche from coming within fewer than 500 yards of the White House, assuming it comes to that.Now, the reason I compared you to Paradol Ex isn't because "Bernie Panders" is as awkward as "Baquack Obamailures," or even less-clever, but rather because you have the exact same smug, poo poo-eating pride about it, a "joke" that was never clever enough for you be proud of it in the first place, let alone repeat. If it's so clever, ask yourself: why is it you're the only one saying it with any notable frequency? Why hasn't it caught on? Maybe it's just because everyone else hates you, too, and they'd rather not use an apt turn-of-phrase than give you the satisfaction, but I suspect the reason is more benign. If a joke wasn't funny the first time, it doesn't get funnier with each successive repetition. Even Paradol Ex was at least inadvertently funny at his own expense, sometimes, but I have yet to see you manage even that. So yeah, the only person who should be offended by me comparing you to Paradol Ex is Paradol Ex. Think about that. In short:  Reason posted:But what exactly has Hillary said that makes her this shining beacon? I mean nothing in that debate was anything interesting said by Hillary that made me go, "Wow I really wish Hillary was in a position where should could greatly influence my life." She has a well-documented history of holding and acting upon Nixonian grudges, and the entire Republican structure has spent the last ~25 years doing everything it could to earn one. It's logical to conclude she would at least be likely to deliver the harvest one should expect from what they've sowed, though of course it's not a certainty, and I think a lot of people are probably overestimating it. Deep Hurting has issued a correction as of 03:45 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Bernie will inevitably lose because he willingly cowers from Hillary, shithead. actually Bernie is the next president of the USa
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:My post does not compare Bernie to Ron Paul as a candidate, I'm comparing how well they will be remembered we dont give a drat
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:this forum is extremely male and thinks centrism is boring/evil, not a surprise that when you look around here you don't see many of the hillary people everyone knows the only thing in the middle of the road is a rotting animal
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Bernie is a golden god. My life for you! My life for you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:39
|
|
