|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
There are very real reasons to prefer a secret ballot and there are better ways to prove that an election result is valid. Hell, different colored marbles would work just fine.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And we're right back to "How dare they think they can tell us the truth? gently caress them forever!" Also lol now saying its fine to lie about keeping rights away from Gays because of cowardice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You know, you can keep pretending Republicans don't exist, but that doesn't mean were going to forget about them. "This is the best we can give you right now" would have been honest, but what say Hillary actually said was closer to "this is exactly what we always intended to give you and we don't think you deserve any better" Hillary Clinton, 2000 posted:Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship. Hillary Clinton, 2004 posted:I believe marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man & a women. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work & challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man & a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the foundational institutions of history & humanity & civilization, and that its primary role during those millennia has been raising & socializing children.  See a federal anti-gay marriage amendment is unnecessary because I would never ever even dream of supporting equal rights for everyone lol.Hillary Clinton, 2008 posted:Q: What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage? Barack Obama, 2008 posted:I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them. They never said "oh we believe in equal rights but the votes aren't there, we'll get you what we can now and keep pushing", that was never the justification offered, ever. They lied about gay people to try to get Republicans to support them. But Republicans didn't support them, Republicans hated them anyway and treated them exactly the same as they would have if liberals had just told the truth about gay people in the first place. Only ironically Republicans were able to use those lies to deflect from their own anti-gay agenda, "we're not hateful, see Hillary Clinton said marriage is for a man and a woman", and depress Democratic turnout by pushing "both sides both sides!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:"HOW DARE THE BASE EXPECT US TO KEEP OUR PROMISES" And it's good to know "doing what you can" is cowardice. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So you are appreciative that they never once promised single payer coverage knowing that it could never ever happen, and thus never broke their promise? When you have to get an opposition funded group to force your hand then no you're not actually doing what you can. You know like the LCR forcing Obama's hand.Loom I know to cancerous sociopaths like yourself letting people suffer is good. but for normal humans like me who make up 99% of the population that is terrible. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
And right on time we have the nazi propaganda spewer giving full credit for civil rights advances to Republicans. Wanna follow it up with "Lincoln was a Republican" next?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And right on time we have the nazi propaganda spewer giving full credit for civil rights advances to Republicans. Wanna follow it up with "Lincoln was a Republican" next? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States Hey I just tell it as it went down. Cancer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
So I've been peeping around the Democratic Party platform and found these two foreign policy gems:quote:Syria No mention of Obama's weapons going to Salafists and making matters worse. Also, which moderate opposition are the Democrats going to install? quote:Iran Why the gently caress am I voting for this party again? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:See I don't think of it as being against integration, I just see it as being very very positive about black schools!  wat quote:Playing down her flat Chicago accent, she told the school’s guidance counselor that her husband had just taken a job in Dothan, that they were a churchgoing family and that they were looking for a school for their son. bad analogy buckaroo
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
No it's a pretty good analogy. Hillary Clinton knew exactly how bad segregation and "separate but equal" were, yet borrowed the segregationists' arguments when it came to gay people. The Democrats' opposition to gay rights was never about telling hard truths to dumb leftist babies who believe in pie-in-the-sky nonsense that will never happen like equal rights, as Fulchrum claims. Liberal Democrats agreed with and argued for segregation either because they believed lies about gay people or they cynically believed that lying about gay people would trick Republicans into voting for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:So I've been peeping around the Democratic Party platform and found these two foreign policy gems: Domestic policies maybe? I mean, none of what you posted is surprising. It's the same drivel you could hear in any Obama White House press conference. American foreign has been bad for decades though, whether it was the Democrats or Republicans in charge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Smug personified See? Leftists will actively go looking for literally anything, including the platform not broadcasting their own presidents failures, as a reason to not support the Dems. And you still have the gall to still claim they don't do enough to try and appease you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it's a pretty good analogy. Well we should always love the liberals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it's a pretty good analogy. Show me quote containing the words "Gay marriage should and will never happen". Do it. Don't repost Dems saying their personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman, because that's just thought policing absent any active attempt to stop it. The Dems have been defined as the party who think you don't legislate according to your personal feelings on an issue but what the facts state, and you're attempting to claim that dem personal beliefs completely overrode that tendency and that they fought against gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
I was surprised to find out the biggest change in the Democratic party over the last decade has been how it become much less moderate and more (American) liberal. The change was largely subtractive, with the Blue Dogs of old being replaced with Republicans. I doubt this trend is likely to continue much longer, but I feel this is a strange and unsettled political moment we live in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:See? Leftists will actively go looking for literally anything, including the platform not broadcasting their own presidents failures, as a reason to not support the Dems. And you still have the gall to still claim they don't do enough to try and appease you. Hey rear end in a top hat. Middle East policy is incredibly important. And yeah, it's discouraging when the (D) is spewing the same bullshit as the (R). Also lol that you don't think I should "go looking" through their official platform. Democratic Party platform posted:and has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East. Frijolero fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Show me quote containing the words "Gay marriage should and will never happen". Do it. Don't repost Dems saying their personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman, because that's just thought policing absent any active attempt to stop it. The Dems have been defined as the party who think you don't legislate according to your personal feelings on an issue but what the facts state, and you're attempting to claim that dem personal beliefs completely overrode that tendency and that they fought against gay marriage. Nope they just claim something cannot be done because it won't solve all the problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG7w3Oey3xs Squalid posted:I was surprised to find out the biggest change in the Democratic party over the last decade has been how it become much less moderate and more (American) liberal. The change was largely subtractive, with the Blue Dogs of old being replaced with Republicans. I doubt this trend is likely to continue much longer, but I feel this is a strange and unsettled political moment we live in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay and Fulchrum have got to be the most effective advocates against the Democratic party I've ever heard of. I think I'd rather vote straight-ticket socialist for the rest of my miserable life and just let the GOP rule supreme forever, if it meant I wouldn't have to make the same mark on ballot as either of these two. For gently caress's sake - you're both just awful people, each in your own way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
i would loving love to live in the universe where "The Dems have been defined as the party who think you don't legislate according to your personal feelings on an issue but what the facts state" lmao. what a loving paradise that world must be
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Hey rear end in a top hat. (R) wants a ground war in loving both and to tear up any progress made diplomatically with Iran and pretend they have nuclear weapons. And you are trying to pretend they are even close to equivalent? You realize how stupid, short-sighted, inflammatory, and insulting that is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:JeffersonClay and Fulchrum have got to be the most effective advocates against the Democratic party I've ever heard of. I think I'd rather vote straight-ticket socialist for the rest of my miserable life and just let the GOP rule supreme forever, if it meant I wouldn't have to make the same mark on ballot as either of these two. For gently caress's sake - you're both just awful people, each in your own way. So you want the whole world to burn just to spite liberals. If I were as evil as you, I believe this is where I'm supposed to say, welcome to the Republican party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Show me quote containing the words "Gay marriage should and will never happen". Do it. Don't repost Dems saying their personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman, because that's just thought policing absent any active attempt to stop it. The Dems have been defined as the party who think you don't legislate according to your personal feelings on an issue but what the facts state, and you're attempting to claim that dem personal beliefs completely overrode that tendency and that they fought against gay marriage. "I am not in favor of gay marriage" -Barack Obama, 2008 And at this "oh it's just my personal belief that you shouldn't have equal rights, judging me for that is Orwellian thought police" Republican bullshit. The fuckin Milo defense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:i would loving love to live in the universe where "The Dems have been defined as the party who think you don't legislate according to your personal feelings on an issue but what the facts state" lmao. what a loving paradise that world must be What does that even mean though? "The facts state" Fulchrum posted:(R) wants a ground war in loving both and to tear up any progress made diplomatically with Iran and pretend they have nuclear weapons. And you are trying to pretend they are even close to equivalent? You realize how stupid, short-sighted, inflammatory, and insulting that is? Both parties voted for the Iraq War. Both parties are hawkish on Iran. Both parties support Saudi Arabia. These aren't opinions... It's not my intent to derail on ME foreign policy, but how is it "insulting" to compare the two parties on ME foreign policy when they are so loving similar? And why are you so goddamn offended that I would have a strong opinion on this? I have voted for the Democratic Party 95% of the time. I don't deserve to get called "smug" by a loving moron on the internet who seems hellbent on turning people away from the party. Frijolero fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So you want the whole world to burn just to spite liberals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:JeffersonClay and Fulchrum have got to be the most effective advocates against the Democratic party I've ever heard of. I think I'd rather vote straight-ticket socialist for the rest of my miserable life and just let the GOP rule supreme forever, if it meant I wouldn't have to make the same mark on ballot as either of these two. For gently caress's sake - you're both just awful people, each in your own way. I disagree. It is better we work the ground game. Tu purify the party, so that the cancers will vote for the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Both parties voted for the Iraq War. Both parties are hawkish on Iran. Both parties support Saudi Arabia. These aren't opinions... The Iraq War is funny because there was this same moderate contempt for noisy dumb anti-war protester snowflake babies at the time, fast-forward 13 years later and pro-war Democrats flipped around and told ridiculous lies that they voted for war because they thought Bush wouldn't really do it (why wouldn't you vote against it then, if there's nothing to lose, who knows!). Rather than just admitting the left was loving correct all along they were like "no see you're too stupid to realize we were just playing 11th-dimensional chess to stop the war all along, but oops we were incompetent!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:What does that even mean though? "The facts state" But they're both "hawkish" and acknowledge the official position of the government of Iran (true or loving false, the government of Iran officially denies the holocaust?), and the dems were lied to about Iraq. Oh no, clearly they're the exact same. They are only similar if you lose all perspective whatsoever and go with a binary pick of either er super isolationist or literally Hitler. Which is all kinds of insane. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:So I've been peeping around the Democratic Party platform and found these two foreign policy gems: Oh gently caress off with this, if you've been looking at Syria for the last four years and think Assad and what he represents isn't 99% of the reason the country is in such a disaster then you are a god damned fool. He probably has more blood on his hand than any political leader in power today and frankly the continued presence of despots like him will ensure the Middle East remains unstable for decades to come. They aren't even wrong about Iran in some ways, they have sent a vast amount of resources to prop up Assad's regime and have huge influence in Iraq (and to a lesser extent Yemen and Lebanon). In neither case have they really taken many steps to try and reel in the Shi'ite supremacism and violence that has helped make organisations like ISIS so appealing to disenfranchised Sunnis, and honestly why would they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Oh gently caress off with this, if you've been looking at Syria for the last four years and think Assad and what he represents isn't 99% of the reason the country is in such a disaster then you are a god damned fool. He probably has more blood on his hand than any political leader in power today and frankly the continued presence of despots like him will ensure the Middle East remains unstable for decades to come. Well then best we give guns to wahabist rebels aligned with AQ then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:What does that even mean though? "The facts state" presumably he means legislating in accordance w/ the immortal science of marxism-leninism
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:One party engages them in a nuclear treaty. One tore it up and is going to illegally reinstate the sanctions. Gee, wonder if there might be a difference. Nice godwin. Yes, nuclear treaty is good. But are you literate and did you read the platform? They are calling Iran a terrorist sponsor and blaming Iran for "almost every conflict" in the Middle East. Also did you ignore this gem: "We will continue the work of this administration to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon and will not hesitate to take military action if Iran races towards one." Your fact-loving, totally-not-ground-war party wants to invade Iran if they so much as try to acquire a nuke. khwarezm posted:despots like him will ensure the Middle East remains unstable for decades to come. Maybe bad foreign policy from both American parties shouldn't have destabilized the region to begin with. Maybe arming jihadis was a bad idea. Also, did you forget the Iraq War? Despot Saddam Hussein was stabilizing Iraq. We went in and hosed the whole thing up. Despot Qaddafi had one of the highest standards of living in Africa. Now Libya is in crisis. Did you two dunces learn nothing in the past 16 years? Frijolero fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well then best we give guns to wahabist rebels aligned with AQ then. I guess we can just say the W word and everybody loses their minds. In reality the US heavily vouched who they gave the arms to so that a PR disaster like that hopefully wouldn't happen, most of the resources went to the FSA, but it being a civil war guns and combatants tend to float around much more loosely than everyone wishes they would. As it was any arms and training provided against Assad was very constrained because of such political considerations, way too small to have a real impact on the war or seriously help the rebels. Most US assistance came in the form of food or medical aid. Then you had the emergence of ISIS and pretty much everything against Assad was abandoned and all efforts instead focused on crushing ISIS. Of course I doubt anyone here has a problem with that, especially when it involves the Kurds, even though US behavior didn't really change that much and some fighter and weapons still ended up in questionable places.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:One party engages them in a nuclear treaty. One tore it up and is going to illegally reinstate the sanctions. Gee, wonder if there might be a difference. The parties are obviously not the exact same, and voting straight-ticket D is unquestionably the rational choice. Hillary could have taken a poo poo on my living room floor, rubbed her crotch on my face and whispered "You know what I'll do as president, VitalSigns, whatever the gently caress I want because what are you gonna do about it, vote Republican?" and I would have pulled the lever for her even if the Texas GOP made me wrestle a bear to get a voter ID. But I know plenty of people who didn't because Hillary was against gay marriage, or Hillary voted for the war, and they didn't believe any of her promises and didn't trust someone who would lie to get into power. Was that irrational, yes, but irrational people's votes count just as much as yours and mine, and now a crazy cheeto man won a technical victory by a gnat's asshair in a couple of key states. If people were 100% perfectly-rational politics-bots you wouldn't even need to campaign. You'd just publish each party's platform on their website, with links to medical studies and economics papers and scientific data and whatever else you need to cite, and beep boop 100% of the population would turn out to vote for the platform that most aligns with their preferences, and if someone didn't you would just need to call them up and say "logically you're being an irrational baby with a poopy diaper, now implement game theory and vote in your best interest" and they'd be like "okay Hillary you're right." But that ain't the way the world works. And it's too bad too, because then your strategy of calling everyone stupid until they vote for pro-business liberalism over cryptofascist theocracy would be a smashing success. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:
American foreign policy doesn't mind control the people of the Middle East you jackass, Syria's instability has much deeper roots than American meddling or the Iraq war and the spark that set the whole thing off was the region wide Arab Spring which America had practically nothing to do with. Syria at that point was a critically unstable society since the Assad family had been in power, uninterrupted, for decades and the state violently stifled dissent while clearly favoring the Alawite minority in the country against the more numerous Sunni population. In 2011 things came to a head with serious problems stemming from major droughts and crop failures that threatened huge amounts of people with starvation and destitution, as well as vastly inflating the population in the cities beyond what could be supported. Combined with the sentiment of the wider Arab Spring unrest began, unrest which was made worse by the Assad regime's decision to turn the screws and not offer any real concession, they fired on protesters and the war began in earnest. The fact that its gone of for years and years, especially with the amount of assistance the Assad regime is receiving from the outside from Lebanon, Russia and Iran, even with the rebels so divided amongst themselves and with such a large advantage in terms of technology and resources shows that this whole thing is way, way deeper rooted than just some yankee meddling, and would probably look exactly the same today if the United States took absolutely no action at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:What's wrong with people finding a voice? The voice of the People isn't exactly how I'd describe the modern Democratic Party. . .
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Nice godwin. quote:Also did you ignore this gem: You mean that I'd Iran breaks the treaty in a way that requires direct and immediate action, they'd take direct and immediate action? Butchers!!! Newsflash - Iran having nukes is not good! You loving moron! The difference, because I know that your brain can't grasp this, is that Dems would do it as a last resort, while Republicans have it just for its own sake. But you think that because neither side refuses to even consider action under any circumstances ever, they're the same. quote:Also, did you forget the Iraq War? Despot Saddam Hussein was stabilizing Iraq. We went in and hosed the whole thing up. Despot Qaddafi had one of the highest standards of living in Africa. Now Libya is in crisis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The fact that its gone of for years and years, especially with the amount of assistance the Assad regime is receiving from the outside from Lebanon, Russia and Iran, even with the rebels so divided amongst themselves and with such a large advantage in terms of technology and resources shows that this whole thing is way, way deeper rooted than just some yankee meddling, and would probably look exactly the same today if the United States took absolutely no action at all. Nice omission of US, Turkish, Saudi support for FSA and jihadis. khwarezm posted:I guess we can just say the W word and everybody loses their minds. In reality the US heavily vouched who they gave the arms to so that a PR disaster like that hopefully wouldn't happen Where do you get your propaganda? Weapons shipped into Jordan by the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia intended for Syrian rebels have been systematically stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold to arms merchants on the black market, according to American and Jordanian officials. That's just one shipment. Think of all the money and weapons that have gone in willy-nilly since 2013. And you argue about "technology," did you forget that ISIS got a hold of all those TOW missiles that the US sent to the rebels? Fulchrum posted:Iran IS A sponsor of terrorists you loving idiot. So you're cool with the party pushing for ground war? Even though earlier you said they wouldn't resort to it like Republicans? You see how these aren't nitpicky things in the platform? The primary charge against Iran sponsoring terror is Hezbollah (whose terror org. status is pushed by US and the Saudis). Meanwhile, our pal Saudi Arabia sends funds to ISIS. Fulchrum posted:And of course, right on time, a mix of "Qaddafi did nothing wrong" and completely ignoring that Libya was a loving Nato action and pretending it was only America acting on its own again. We were talking about stability and despots, not whether Qaddafi was good. Can you honestly argue that Libya is more stable now than under Qaddafi? Frijolero fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You mean that I'd Iran breaks the treaty in a way that requires direct and immediate action, they'd take direct and immediate action? Butchers!!! Oh gently caress here we go. Are you going to carry the rifle and dodge mortars in the Zagros mountains? Should we invade North Korea too? Should we have kept rolling east in 1945? Should we have conquered India and Pakistan? And aren't you Australian or something anyway so there's zero chance that you'll suffer at all in this clusterfuck war that's getting you so hard? If we can bring Iran to the negotiating table with sanctions hey great, but if you think an invasion is a good idea then nah people like you should never have any influence or respect in any institution let alone the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Nice omission of US, Turkish, Saudi support for FSA and jihadis. None of those countries even approach the amount of assistance Assad has received from his friends, I mean really, to the best of my knowledge the US air force has not taken any deliberate combat action against his regime (and instead focused everything on defeating ISIS, along with a million other countries or paramilitaries, and yet still ISIS had recently been able to inflict humiliating reverses on Assad's forces with seemingly the weight of the world arrayed against them which ought to tell you something about the quality and enthusiasm of much of Assad's forces). By contrast the Russian air force is hammering rebel positions constantly, the Saudi's are much more tied up in Yemen and the Turks have been playing nice with the Russians for months. quote:
The rest of the sentence you decided to quote recognizes that guns and militants were bound to end up in some unsavory places but the point was that there was absolutely not any official policy to arm wahhabists like people pretend there was. Your very link talks about how the weapons were straight up stolen by intelligence operatives from another country, do you think that was part of the plan? In any event such support came too late to seriously affect the conflict, and was shifted away from focusing on Assad towards the Islamic State pretty much as soon as they forced their way onto the scene. The United States stance against Assad has mostly been rhetoric for years now. Frijolero posted:
Reminder: both Libya and Syria became unstable while Assad and Qaddafi were in power, so they actually didn't really maintain stability like people pretend. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
A lot of people voted for Trump because they saw Hillary as a warhawk. Looking at the party platform, and the rhetoric of you partisans, you really can't blame those voters. Trump is a dangerous fool, but it's extremely depressing when the opposition's policies are just as dangerous. And look at where all this stupid loving dangerous rhetoric came from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTBdFccqDns Hillary in 2008. "If I'm president, we will attack Iran." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM Democratic debate in 2008. Mike Gravel and Joe Biden stand-up to Hillary's hawkishness on Iran and compare her to Bush. Even John Edwards says Hillary should've learned from the Iraq War. The level-headed, diplomatic Democrats were shunned. 8 years later we still have an anti-Iran Democratic platform.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:31
|
|