|
I simply do not understand Bernies position on trade. He is and has been in reflexive opposition of TPP. Let's say that's fine. The follow up answer, however is just as vacuous as anything on the GOP side. He seems to imply that trade policies should not affect American jobs which is practically ludicrous on it's face. The proper answer would be to dissect what he dislikes about TPP (or NAFTA), acknowledge the inevitable weakness of ANY trade policy (which includes increased low-end manufacturing losses) and implement federal programs for training and reeducation to counter. He hasnt said that and it perplexes me Boon has issued a correction as of 01:45 on Mar 14, 2016 |
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
It seems to make sense to me that black families would overwhelmingly support voucher and charter programs. Still, it was a "huh" moment
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
I thought the answer was pretty good, actually. I'm not 100% against the death penalty either. Guy shoots up a school and is 100% clearly guilty? I'm totally down - there's no rehabilitating that. Restricted to the federal level only? I'm totally on board for that, states can get hosed. Boon has issued a correction as of 02:23 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:Nope. Oh right, well you told me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:She told an exonerated death row inmate that she does not fully oppose the death penalty because 9/11. That enough of an explanation for why her answer loving sucked? Well considering you removed the parts about : - Restricted to the federal level - Reserved for very specific instances So no. Because the question came from someone who got hosed in our lovely, lovely system, doesn't somehow mean the topic is verboten and you trying to paint it as such is ridiculous. If Adam Lanza had been taken alive, I'd be all on board the death penalty train.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:Because the federal government is so much better at not executing innocent people it deems "terrorists." It isn't murdering innocent people with drones RIGHT NOW, nope, nope, nope! This isn't a great argument given Hillary's stance of "restricted instances". Now granted, she MUST define that, however, your argument makes the assumption that it is not possible to ever 100% find someone guilty of a heinous crime. I'd argue that, that is false. When that is the case, I believe the death penalty is viable. I also don't agree that the states should have the right to the sentence. Boon has issued a correction as of 02:31 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:They don't just execute people who are undeniably guilty so it doesn't matter Very obviously, given the questioner. However, I refer again to the hypothetical (because that's what we discussing here, regardless of the position you're taking). If Adam Lanza had been taken alive, is the death penalty justifiable? My position is, yes. You may not agree, if htat's the case then we won't come to a conclusion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:"Well I can't change anything, so that's the breaks. Sorry kids!" Well, she is running to be president, not god.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Fidel Castronaut posted:That shooting was incomprehensible but Lanza was severely mentally and cognitively disabled and I don't feel comfortable killing the disabled. Much better idea to not have an arsenal in your home and take your son's illness more seriously. That makes sense and I can understand that position. However, I am on board with assisted suicide and fully on board in the case of Terry Schiavo. I don't see a philosophically different argument for either of those, and I feel my position is ideologically consistent. You might disagree, but that's probably best reserved for another conversation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Hillary is definitely outside reality on this gun manufacturer bullshit. But no loving way she's generally less practical than Bernie on many of these issues. She's definitely not as progressive, but she never pretended to be. Bernie on the other hand fully intended to shift the narrative and move Hillary to the left, and he has. It'll be interesting to see if he can actually win the nomination, but he is less practical. Further, we're all outside of reality if we think either one is going to get most of what they advocate actually accomplished. Case in point, my question about Bernies trade position that went fully ignored by every Bernie supporter in this tread that came out of the woodwork the moment Hillary took the stage (seriously, the thread grew by 400% since he left).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Tercio posted:If you aren't expecting a hard swing to the center-right once she's got the nom locked up then I've got some bad news. Okay, that's certainly possible... I get that Bernie will likely remain true to his word on a lot of what he says (though we said the same of Obama 7 years ago), but if you aren't expecting him to get very little accomplished, I have some bad news for you. My problem with this thread is that both of these candidates are extremely similar on their positions. It's how they approach them that varies here and there. Yet this thread is the equivalent of a general thread and it's very odd to me. Deep Hurting posted:Too bad there's absolutely no reason to believe she wouldn't run hard to the right as soon as the Primary were to end and become another Margaret Thatcher even if she were to survive the General, which she probably wouldn't. You're Boon has issued a correction as of 03:08 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Tercio posted:Neither Democratic candidate will get much accomplished. See: the past eight years. The best shot we have at the moment is to change the narrative; to present a case in terms of policies and proposals. I have no reason whatsoever to believe Clinton will genuinely put these kinds of things forward as a nominee. I have every reason to believe Bernie will, period. Great - start at the state and local level. Don't pound your head against a wall at the federal level, get nothing accomplished, and expect the nation to vote for your interests again. Bernie's biggest value is opening the conversation, not carrying out it and letting it fail for reasons outside his control.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
VR Native American posted:If you expect Republican opposition with both why not go with the person who's policies are more radical so when an enviable compromise is made you end up with more overall? If you go in fighting for $15 an hour you're more likely to get $12 an hour than by starting at $12. Check my edit on that original post. I don't believe that the federal level has EVER moved quickly. I don't believe that the federal level provides a basis for progressive policy without decades of work at the regional levels or some kind of trigger moment. The Great Recession, The Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 - those things cause rapid change. Even revolutions, however, were preceded by decades of strife. I think Bernie sticking true to his principles as president and failing because of reality only hurts his policy goals. Boon has issued a correction as of 03:15 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
HiHo ChiRho posted:So if the federal level doesn't matter and neither Bernie nor Hillary will not get anything done in the Oval Office , we should vote Trump, right? You shouldn't need this explained and are just being facetious and shitposting (because if you do you're a loving idiot). Nice bruh VVV Boon has issued a correction as of 03:30 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Having an rear end in a top hat in White House launched Bernie's career so Trump could be good for local democrats. And really bad for SCOTUS long-term; far worse for LGBT, minorities - especially muslims and immigrants generally, the poor, the environment, and the world near-term. So yeah, sure, let's roll the dice! Boon has issued a correction as of 03:36 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
I don't believe in accelerationism as a pragmatic or ideal concept for society. Nor do I accept your premise that we're slowly bleeding to death. This isn't even the worst state this country has been in, and socially we're far more progressed that we've ever been - I guess we'll have to disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 03:39
|
|