axeil posted:

Nah mostly in how she (rightfully) really loving hates Bernie and points out all the little insidious things he did that undermined her. To make an analogy he was basically a little kid holding his hand in front of your face saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" and people fell for that excuse/explanation. And also how she points out sexism was a major contributing factor to why she lost even though no one admits it.

gently caress Bernie Sanders

Instant Sunrise posted:

Haaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

Martin Shkreli jailed after Facebook post about Hillary Clinton

Caros posted:

That is, actually, how it works.

Self-defense isn't about reality in most states, which is why 'he was reaching for a knife' that he turns out not to have is often a defense.

It is about reasonable fears. In St. Louis it is reasonable for a police officer to be concerned that a heroin dealer who just led them on a high speed chase and who is refusing to exit the vehicle might, in fact, be armed.

The only parts of this whole thing that seem particularly egregious are the 'I'm going to kill that motherfucker' statement, and the planted weapon.

The judge seems to have chalked up the former to an excited utterance (80 mph car case and all) rather than a statement of intent. The latter wasn't proven to his satisfaction.

Is it a correct decision? Ehhh. From a legal perspective this judge has his head on a lot more straight than the jurors who refuse to convict someone who puts five warning shots in a fleeing suspect's back.

Rigel posted:

A bright spot in a sea of despair

https://twitter.com/gothicdogsclub/status/908370757713100806

Your Boy Fancy posted:

gently caress this guy.

I mean, we all know his name now, so good for him. But at no point, even in the last five seconds of the ad, does he say what the gently caress he's for. I bet he wants me to google his rear end, and let me tell you. I'm not gonna loving do that. And I'm a loving junkie. Imagine what regular people do.

Comstock should've gone down in flames last year, but her opponent was every centrist Clintonite/Blairite motherfucker rolled into one. She even skipped her COPE committee meeting (when labor meets you and decides whether to stump for you) and called in an hour late via Skype. We didn't spend a dime on her.

She's gonna live forever due to an endless army of bullshit centrists. gently caress Barbara Comstock.

Litteral loving cuck posted:

The United States is the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world, but our healthcare system fails to ensure that all of our citizens have access to the medical care they need. Our system is also excessively expensive. In Congress, Dan will consider all courses of action that would expand access and lower medical costs.

Taerkar posted:

The portion of this country that still thinks that bipartisanship is a thing?

Condiv posted:

so why help the republicans at all? if the republicans are pissing everyone off then let them?


i thought centrists voted not republican cause they were turned off by republicans' racism (and rightfully so). are you saying centrists would flock to republicans if dems didn't compromise on everything with the repubs?

theflyingorc posted:

Tons of people want bipartisanship - go watch the last SNL before the election, where Trump and Clinton "put away the nasty fighting" and just went and ran around New York. It isn't a thing among the politically informed, but it's a huge thing among the less informed population.

Taerkar posted:

You and your little circle of friends are not a representative slice of the American voting public.

The average American is a 'I don't care much about politics' type that likes to claim that they're a smart and critical thinker but really just wants to vote for the candidate that tells them the lies that make them the happiest, most of them know they're being lied to, they just don't care.

Or they are a "Both sides are the same"/"My vote doesn't matter anyways" type and doesn't vote because it takes too much effort, at least for non-presidential elections.

Condiv posted:

when have i ever called for genocide of any kind

Boon posted:

In a thread with a lot of lovely posts, this somehow manages to be the worst. Also, the best snub for Condiv is to put him on ignore like he himself suggested you do.

Also, also someone earlier asked what deals with Republicans could possibly be made - which is incredibly naive since even this hilariously unproductive and partisan Congress has passed bills on a bipartisan basis on unheralded things like mental health, workforce development, etc...

Condiv posted:

i mean, i'm of the opinion that people are really needing better healthcare right now, which is why singlepayer is polling so well. and so i don't think it's a bright move for dems like schumer to signal that they're willing to cut back on healthcare, even if it's political theater. dems have the wind at their back right now and they should be showing that they will not compromise on less people receiving healthcare or healthcare being worsened, and that republicans have to actually try to fix healthcare if they want an inch.

Boon posted:

Are you literally 12 years old?

Raskolnikov38 posted:

bipartisanship in its dictionary form does not exist among the public writ large, it's a stand in for "I want the other side to capitulate unconditionally to the program I support".

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Once upon a time I rather liked bipartisanship as a brake on excessively enthusiastic ill thought though ideas to force them to be more incrementalist, but have since concluded that at the best of times the Democratic Party does more than enough watering down and slowing down on its own.

The reason I support some effort for bipartisan work on obvious goods right now is that, uh, otherwise the job of the Dems consists entirely of screaming into the void and establishing messaging. If they judge they can crowbar something good through the only very evil establishment GOP because the establishment isn't in the mood for working with the howling death cultists that week, I'm open to seeing what they come up with (and whether they are willing to walk away if the final form of a deal is unacceptable).

GreyjoyBastard posted:

You're describing the symptoms more than the causes. The RWM bubble lasting decades is a big part of it, where we're getting a higher proportion of total lunatics who aren't just parroting proto Tea Party rationales to justify giving more money to the rich, but who actually believe em.

Thirty years ago we were in the Age of Reagan, sure, but we had more Murkowskis and fewer Mike Lees.

Hellblazer187 posted:

I'm just saying that there was once a bipartisanship that wasn't just "dems giving up" because there were things that both sides thought were OK. So some oldy who wants "bipartisanship" is probably thinking about those days and not realize they are part of the problem when they call Obama a socialist for pushing the the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan.

Niton posted:

It's not that you think the dems are worse than republicans, Condiv - just that you appear to hate them a whole lot more, based on how you spend your time and energy.

RaySmuckles posted:

lmao, what?

what is this other than a baseless personal attack?

i think the criticism of "why haven't you fixed the world then yet, idiot" is a pretty stupid one.

i must admit though, this response is pretty hilarious. as always, just viciously lashing out in hyperbolically stereotypical form

Mao posted:

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type (sic) of liberalism.

Koalas March posted:

If you want to argue Leftists vs Liberals/Democrats take it to the loving Dem thread.

Don't make me bother the other mods and admins to shut you dummies up.

Boon posted:

I think where you and I diverge is that I sincerely, truly, do not believe that the US can exist as a country if the Democrats do not attempt to maintain the order and the laws of our institutions and instead shift to a hyper-partisan mentality.

If you grant me that, then the question becomes what is better between a complete societal breakdown and what we have now. If we continue on this way, is there the chance that the pendulum swings back to a more orderly Congress? While John McCain is an utter poo poo, his speech to Congress before voting down the last healthcare bill was at least a moment of self-awareness - even if it isn't to be trusted to translate to policy.

Nevvy Z posted:

But her slaves.

Trabisnikof posted:

Right? People seemed to never utter a peep about the tens of thousands of slaves Obama owned then gave to Trump as an inauguration gift. Or the multitude of states that are keeping slaves right now.

It is good that we're finally accepting that prison labor is slavery, but the conversation can't end with "so Hillary is bad" we need to talk about the harms of prison slavery that are happening right now.

We need to realize prison slavery isn't limited to Arkansas in the 1990s and widen the discussion to the slaves in America here and now.

The Person who would have won posted:

"The goal is not for the United States to dominate the world," Sanders said. "Nor, on the other hand, is our goal to withdraw from the international community and shirk our responsibilities under the banner of 'America First.' Our goal should be global engagement based on partnership, rather than dominance. This is better for our security, better for global stability and better for facilitating the international cooperation necessary to meet shared challenges."

GoluboiOgon posted:

It's about class as well as race. Plenty of poor white folk in prison now for selling opiates, while the CEOs of pharma companies did the same thing x1000 and are enjoying their yachts.

gently caress Whitey posted:

What

GoluboiOgon posted:

The Chinese bureaucrats fought two wars against the British to keep them from selling opium in their country in the 19th century. In the 21st century, US officials merely asked for campaign contributions from companies that wanted to flood the market with opiates. Why was an autocratic bureaucracy better at protecting their people from being deliberately hooked on opiates than a nominally representative democracy?

The Kingfish posted:

Oh I figured it out. Had to press the percent column at the top of the chart. That is an insanely bad way to evaluate democratic politicians.

Condiv posted:

https://twitter.com/RoseAnnDeMoro/status/911418492955410432

i love nina turner and i'm glad she's the leader of ourrevolution

Kilroy posted:

I've got two Senators from my state occupying very safe, very blue seats. Neither of them bothered to co-sponsor or otherwise endorse the M4A bill, a bill which has no chance of passing anyway. It's nice that the topic has been more fully broached, but if you think it would get 16 cosponsors and brought to the floor with the Democrats in control of the Senate where it might actually have a chance of passing (or rather, no plausible bogeyman to point to when it didn't), then I think you have poor political instincts. To put it mildly. Exactly what happened in CA will happen on a national level with this thing unless the Democrats are forced to act otherwise, in the sense of kicking the bastards out and replacing them with representatives who aren't terrible.

The Democratic Party is not a waste. It is the vehicle through which democratic socialism has the most realistic chance of becoming a thing, in America. The Democrats currently running the party loving are a waste, as they will fight against that happening far more tenaciously and vindictively than they ever have against anything the GOP has ever done. There will be no adherence to decorum or tradition in that battle, for certain. That only thing to be done about that is to expedite their inevitable career change into the lobbying sector (then outlaw lobbying). In the meantime, unless I have a reason to think otherwise, on a case-by-case basis, I'll regard any overtures they make to the left for what they almost certainly are: hollow triangulation. Some of them might actually follow through if they feel they have no other choice - a lot of them won't. For the former we need to make sure they do feel they have no other choice, and you don't accomplish that by putting down the knives.

Bird in a Blender posted:

Oprah is like the anti trump. Took a local talk show gig and turned it into a media empire. She also at least appears to be an actual compassionate person, and a competent manager. Trump is neither of those things.

RuanGacho posted:

How much of the poo poo wrong in our country is because it's politically incorrect to tell hell fuckers they are bad people and their ideas are wrong?

RuanGacho posted:

Democrazy posted:

I don't understand how anyone can believe in employer arbitration is a good thing without the financial incentive of a politician. Who is stupid enough to buy that line intrinsically?

Trabisnikof posted:

That's ok, he didn't get the abortion so is her sin not his.

Instant Sunrise posted:

considering how common lead rounds still are, a shooting range has gotta end up kicking up a bunch of lead dust. even somebody going hunting with lead rounds, that lead is gonna end up in the meat from what you kill, take home and eat.

i wonder if that has some kind of effect on people...

Nevvy Z posted:

Lol someone wrote a great article about this thread.

On Ignorant Liberals and Their Clumsy Attempts at Gun Laws

And it's perfect.

SulphagneSocialist posted:

The workers have already been disarmed of jet fighters, bomber planes, grenade launchers, tanks, nukes and chemical weapons. We've let it happen and the state has the monopoly of violence forever whether we like it or not, the only way to fix it is within the state and hopefully by not killing reams of people.

JeffersonClay posted:

It's really important that gun violence, which is 14 times more likely to kill black men than white men, continue unabated so I can play at revolution out in the woods.

VitalSigns posted:

Obviously not the government Jews elites responsible for poisoning us with fluoride and vaccines.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Guys, we can't do anything to make society better because Crowsbeak can't imagine government ever doing something good, I'm really sorry, but mass murders and thousands of senseless gun deaths every year HAVE to happen because of his loving failure of a brain, I'm super, super sorry y'all

VitalSigns posted:

Why would we need to do that, that's not how regulations on anything else have ever worked.

When we banned trans fats, the po-po didn't go breaking down doors seizing everyone's Totinos pizza rolls, except in the fantasies of the same deranged libertarians who always predict these scenarios whenever we say "gee maybe we could improve public safety somewhat."