|
Continuing the "why Debbie Wasserman Shultz is awful" train: She's now co-sponsoring a bill that will undermine Payday Loan regulations. Because if there's one thing we've learned about Payday loans, the free market should decide.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:David Frum is attacking Clinton for supporting the Iraq War and saber-rattling at Iran. Meh, why should anyone give a poo poo what a CANADIAN thinks about AMERICA?? TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:I'm curious as to who you could possibly be mocking Probably whichever dipshit from the last thread who kept insisting they had never seen a substantive critique of DWS (of course ignoring the dozens that had been posted already).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Those of you with Facebook should go to Romney's page and check out the comments section under his speech announcement. Amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Man I'm sure glad to see another Bernie slapfight. Man it's almost as if all of these originate when Sanders supporters react to constantly being poo poo on and compared to the Tea Party in this thread. The same 3-4 shitheads just keep doing this schtick and when someone reacts, they act smug/indignant and the process starts all over. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:You skipped the part where you said that if your Perfect Jesus Candidate didn't win you're taking your ball and going home. In a thread full of threadshitting, you are the champion of poo poo. Anecdotal I know, but of the two dozen or so Bernie supporters I know personally, none have indicated that they won't vote for Clinton. I think many of you are seriously overestimating the number of Sanders supporters that will A. vote in the primary and B. not vote for Clinton in the general. I mean we have one or two in this thread who have indicated that mentality (out of a hundred or so posters), and this is a very left-leaning forum. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:
So what is the exact number of posts that need to go by before your individual poo poo posts expire and can no longer be addressed? I'm going to have to make a spreadsheet. Maybe you can tell us more about how DWS only gets criticized because she's a woman. That's one of the best threadshits you never ended up even trying to defend, but that's just the first one I could think of.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:
I watched the video and am still confused as to how a booger migrated to his lip. That's almost more gross than him eating it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Because it's just to delicious not to share.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The government isn't going to spend the time and resources tracking and striking an innocent 16 year old kid just because they didn't like his dead dad. Your entire argument rests upon this value judgment. Just take a step back, consider US foreign policy for the last 50 years, and reassess. Reminder before you start- we invaded Iraq and caused a million deaths because W was convinced that Gog and Magog were "at work" in the Middle East and he was still pissed that Saddam had supposedly tried to assassinate his father.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Boon posted:No stop. I worked in this area and his "value judgement" is correct. Your opinion, on the other hand, is open speculation based on what? Common perception of US foreign policy absent all form of an inside perspective? Tell us more about how you know better than Jacques Chirac what motivated Bush to go to war in Iraq.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Dude, saying "that's classified" as an explanation why you can't back up your claims is pretty weak poo poo. Yeah but someone else has "real world experience" that completely proves that the US never does anything with its one-sided military might that could be considered petty/immoral/absurd/a waste of resources. Chirac's version of the story includes Bush using that as a justification. Combined with W's very public admission that God personally ok'd his decision to invade, I think some people in the thread are recklessly ignoring Bush's own stated reasoning. I mean what more would it take to convince you that there was a huge religious component to this? The Pentagon's early operational slide decks were full of Old Testament verses and various other Biblical nonsense. VVVVV Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:didnt he get his mistress to do illegal poo poo for him Yeah after stating in his book that Obama's flawed views on morality came from his "serial philanderer" father. There are a lot of scumbag conservatives but he's probably the worst in my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Apraxin posted:There's an interesting compilation on Youtube of around an hour's worth of news reports on AIDS from the 80's, for those interested in what contemporary mainstream attitudes were like (spoiler alert: they were awful). I can still barely believe gay rights came so far in a single generation. The shitbag congressman who appears around 16.00 lived to see gay marriage legalized nationwide! Wow. This is a great link, thank you for posting it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Theris posted:That's my point. Just like primary turnout has zero correlation with general results, the number of Bernie supporters who would normally vote in the general but won't vote for Hillary is, to a first approximation, zero. But people won't stop Arzying about either. It lets Clinton supporters feel good about themselves since they can't bring themselves to get excited about her.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:What if the guy they put forward is Paul Ryan? At this point there's no one that could unite all the disparate factions, let alone someone like Ryan who's already loathed by the base for [insert dipshit reasons here]. It's hilarious to watch them squirm though. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I'm just going to start keeping tally of when you well... Unzip and Shitpost Please do. It will be entertaining to see how much of a weirdo stalker you want to be.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Soho Joe posted:Would Cruz be the likely nominee? Trump supporters would break for Cruz a lot more than they would Rubio, so yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
zoux posted:Normally I'd say yes but 1) lol this cycle and 2) the GOP establishment has personal animosity towards Cruz like nobody else so it's hard to say what wrenches they'd start throwing in. That's an interesting point - I don't know whether or not these tactics would work on Cruz. They don't work on Trump generally, but Cruz is, somehow, a lot less likable than Trump so you may very well be right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yeah. I don't think Hillary is going to go along with the cycle that Obama gave into for most of his presidency. I definitely don't think Hillary as the same "team of rivals" delusions of grandeur that Obama had. What worries me is whether or not she's actually committed to progressive causes enough to really push leftward, such as on naming non-Geitneresque people to positions of real authority or putting a full liberal on the Court. Only way to find out is to give her the chance though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:What part of her Senate Career or time as Secretary of State lead you to believe she wouldn't be a good president? I am not wanting to start a Hillary/Bernie slapfight, I am just answering this specific question. The big one that sticks out is her choice to vote to give Bush authorization to enact regime change in Iraq based on the flimsiest evidence imaginable. She's on record stating that she firmly believed the vote was absolutely the right choice and that the war was justified. Given that Iraq was the biggest foreign policy disaster in our lifetimes and possibly US history, this is a huge mark on her credibility as a potential Commander in Chief. I'm happy to debate this specific point without having it spiral into a "Hillary sucks! No YOU suck!" type of derail.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Not defending anyone who voted for the Iraq war obviously, but weren't the "facts" that the Bush administration presented to the senate mostly bullshit and they were voting on those? That argument can be made, but there were plenty of people who questioned it at the time or thought that the move toward war was far too hasty. It's not like everyone was fooled- but Clinton was among those who were either too trusting of the administration, too lazy to look into it themselves, or unwilling to risk losing face by opposing a popular call to arms. Each of those are horrible for different reasons. I mean I know Lincoln Chafee gets laughed at a lot but you should read his account of the intel as it was relayed to him. It was an absolute joke.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I bolded the silliest thing here: that's not really how intelligence works. You're going to need to expound on this. I don't mean that the intel agencies were lazy - I mean that people in Congress who actually cared enough about the issue to really dig into the findings were quite outspoken about the flaws in W's case. There is a great video of a journalist, I forget who, absolutely grilling Rumsfeld about the complete lack of a connection between al qaeda and Saddam. We're a nation big enough that we don't need to settle for "oh well most people fell for it she gets a pass". It wasn't just "a mistake". "A mistake" is when I put the wrong sock pair on or misspell something. A million people died.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Now you're being hyperbolic. Your case so far consists of "this is hindsight speaking" without anything to back it up. There were 23 votes against the Iraq resolution in the Senate- saying the whole country fell for W's bullshit and that criticism for the war is all based on hindsight is extreme historical revisionism. 23% of the Senate disagreed with the war resolution, so you saying that "virtually everyone" supported the war is bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
I'm not arguing the media narrative, I'm answering the specific question of "what criticisms of her time in the Senate do you have that would make you think she'd be a bad POTUS". Buying into the intel for Iraq, whether through ignorance or political calculus, casts her judgment into serious question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Uh, you're also trying to make the case that Hillary is personally and individually responsible for the deaths of "million" so glass houses mate on your historical rivisionism. So is spelling I suppose but yes, as one of the 100 people who got to decide whether or not the Iraq invasion would occur, she definitely shares a large portion of the blame for it. I guess representative government is too complex a concept for you to handle? And yes, the most reliable studies conducted on the death toll since '03 suggest that it's very likely over a million. Sorry if that dampens your spirits for Clinton '16 but maybe if you just tell yourself it was an honest mistake enough times, you'll eventually believe that load of poo poo. Regime change should be the very last resort for a power like the US and if you think the administration's case at the time was solid enough to back a land invasion, your judgment as CiC is dubious at best. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
I started this by saying that I'm answering a specific question with a specific response. You can't even handle one criticism without melting down and demanding a "perfect candidate" be named in Hillary's place. The absolute thinnest of skins.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So, most Americans. This is your bar for high office? Wow. I mean, most Americans can't name the 3 branches of government so how dare us demand the same of a Commander in Chief? Ivory Tower Liberals indeed!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Also you literally called her a murderer so, uh I think that's not exactly a "light criticism." Could be wrong! Quote where I called Hillary Clinton a murderer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I'm beginning to wonder how many posters were alive and politically conscious back then. Most every senator back then was absolutely representing the will of the people and probably would've been ousted had they voted against it. I served there in '03-'04. Also, doing what the polls say is not the job of a Senator. If that were so we'd just conduct foreign policy via referendum. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:"responsible for the death of over a million people" I said she bears some responsibility as an active leader of the State. Yeah same as a murder. Get hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:So yeah, 4% of the country were right about the war. And these Senators: Akaka, Daniel (D-HI) Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM) Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) Byrd, Robert (D-WV) Conrad, Kent (D-ND) Corzine, Jon (D-NJ) Dayton, Mark (D-MN) Durbin, Dick (D-IL) Feingold, Russ (D-WI) Graham, Bob (D-FL) Inouye, Daniel (D-HI) Kennedy, Edward (D-MA) Leahy, Patrick (D-VT) Levin, Carl (D-MI) Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD) Murray, Patty (D-WA) Reed, Jack (D-RI) Sarbanes, Paul (D-MD) Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) Wellstone, Paul (D-F-L-MN) Wyden, Ron (D-OR) Chafee (R-RI). Jeffords (I-VT) But yeah let's judge the quality of foreign policy decisions by pulled-out-of-rear end numbers of what the general populace believes. That's enlightened thinking right there. Jesus Christ you people. I mean poo poo, something like 60% plus still believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11. By that logic should we invade again? It blows my mind how far some people will go to deflect/ignore any and all criticism of their chosen candidate. Hillary herself admitted that it was a colossal error on her part and she regrets the vote. Even she isn't attempting to justify it. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:We already punished Hillary for this in 2008. It's 2016 you big dumb babies, loving move on. Really lovely judgment in situations of dire global impact have an expiration date now (5 years apparently). Incredible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Like I said, if this is your litmus test-- that's fine. I think it's misguided. Litmus test for what?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:For who you vote for. I will be voting for Clinton in the general. I wrestled with it a long time but that's what I will do. I'm not a one issue voter, though I do believe the Iraq vote casts serious doubts on whether or not Clinton will do the right thing if/when she's presented with another situation of that magnitude.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I tend to disagree because I think she learned from the mistake + pressure from her own party on it, but that's a valid point. I didn't mean to say your point wasn't valid, so I am sorry if it came off that way. Same. This is the one issue that gets me heated and I tend to get snarky when discussing it, so my apologies for that.  I really do hope Clinton has learned from the decision, and her statements on it do take responsibility so there's good reason to be optimistic. Doesn't "erase" the criticism, but it gives it a better context.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:No, it's just a really dumb argument to have now because that specific decision is not a salient issue in this election the way it was in 2008. You're pitching a morality argument but this is politics. Again, my post(s) were a response to "what specific decision as Senator makes you doubt her qualifications as POTUS". I'm not trying to convince anyone not to vote for her, I'm just outlining what I believe to be a very specific and very valid criticism of her biggest decision while in office. It doesn't go beyond that, it's not a purity test, and it's not the only issue I'll vote on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Oh wow several new pages I wonder what- 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:People saying Trump's a lovely business man are loving part of the problem. Despite what people say he has made a shitload of money which to me indicates some sort of success. He really hasn't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
as halfway crooks posted:lol *flies away in private 747* He was a decent businessman very early in his career when he made a pretty good return on a few investments (because he was born to a multimillionaire father, he isn't self-made at all). In the early 80's his supposed business acumen led him into multiple disastrous business ventures, and it's been shown that had he simply taken his money in 1982 and stuck it in a mutual fund instead of being "a businessman" with it, he'd be orders of magnitude wealthier than he is today. The myth of Trump has some business mastermind is pure bullshit. Oh wow he flipped some real estate with a few million dollars his daddy gave him as a graduation gift and then wasted the next 30 years pissing all the dividends away? Yeah a real Bill Gates this one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:You don't praise the kid on a bike with training wheels for not falling over. Valid analogy except that Trump basically did fall over by not investing well over the long run. At the very least he hasn't fallen over but he also hasn't managed to figure out how the bike works but still wants to be the President of a cycling club.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
McDowell posted:Given the choice of two Reaganists I'll go third party. Cool. Your vote is meaningless anyway so have fun.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 07:02
|
|