Poll
That's an honest Clinton vote, so falls under second option. The question is who you're voting for, regardless of who you prefer.
Write in for Trump is not Jaron enough for you?
He's about as socialist as a mainstream member of the Labour party, i.e. not much.
Just nominating those 2 would probably do the trick.
That same vote got Dubya and Obama elected, why not Saunders? No one who understands how the US works would vote for either of those guys, either. There's clearly a lot more people who don't understand how the US works than just college students and Europeans.
We don't really have any inspirational candidates this time around. I wish the Republicans would get their heads out of their asses and realize that, if you can't fins someone inspirational, you should at least look for someone competent. That would leave Kasich pretty much the only Republican candidate, and I think he'd beat either Hillary or Saunders in a general election, just because he lacks their negatives.
don't remember bush's campaign. obama was a bunch of hope, change, etc., nonsense. but was there much he said that was impossible? the closest I recall was his promise to shut down guantanamo, but that was more unfeasible rather than impossible. his campaign was full of wishy washy stuff -- that's different than what I'm saying about sanders.
Kasich has been my pick, but he won't survive the primaries. If I had to choose between Sanders and Clinton, it would be Clinton.
He made a lot of impossible promises, like a path to citizenship for illegal immigrant, creation of a Palestinian state, drastic reduction of oil consumption/CO2 emissions, etc, etc.
I have no idea what you are saying about Saunders. You just provide vague assertions that he is dumber than you thought and that most or all of his ideas are impossible to implement because of strawman.
Mastic?
That man is bad for business.
:rolleyes:
Kasich
Auto correct.
Haven't you been saying the same thing? I seem to recall you calling Sanders "a damn Red".
That's what I thought, but wanted to confirm.
That's not what I'm rolling my eyes at.
I'm a bit puzzled that O'Malley hasn't been doing better, if only because of the obvious negatives that Clinton and Sanders have.
He has his own negatives, as he is considered the chief inspiration for the character Tommy Carcetti on The Wire, who sells out all his campaign promises for political advancement.
Played by the same guy who plays Littlefinger. :D
And no one has answered my question about CdM.
maybe it's more that sanders bases his entire campaign around impossible-to-achieve goals. I don't remember obama doing that -- just vague hope, change, etc.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2774/here-are-bernie-sanders-top-10-wackiest-ideas-aaron-bandler
what are main ideas he has that would be possible/realistic to implement? honestly curious
Higher taxes on the rich.
What do mean? Sanders proposals that could pass in the current House and Senate? None.
So the same success rate as Obama?
So you are voting for anyone who will not give you a raise?
Don't know how it works in the US. But in Hong Kong, civil service pay is largely determined by a gigantic, annual survey. We ask the private companies how their wages/salaries changed in the past year. There is a really complex programme that computes the results. Of course, if the HK government faces deficits, they can simply ignore the results and say, civil service pay should be cut by xx% (happened a few years ago). Generally though, the government respect the survey. Who is in charge has little impact on civil service pay.
Freedom, the Hong Kong way. :cry:
Here, is does. I remember working at the Department of Revenue and having people bitching about taxes. I pointed out that we are paid by taxes. I was met with stunned looks of disbelief. I asked them what the hell do you think we do all day? Apparently nobody there had made the connection that the tax forms we process went to pay our wages. I suppose that's why state workers in Missouri are the lowest paid in the country, fulling 37% below the national average. We keep voting for fiscal conservatives, and they keep wages down. I suppose it's good that you live in a dictatorship, if you lived in a world were cause and effect were connected you might end up starving.
Okay.
So your evidence against Saunders consists of a single article from "the Daily Wire" in which some hack clickbaits you with the title "Here Are Bernie Sanders' Top 10 Wackiest Ideas?" I'm starting to understand why your posts here are so incoherent.
Universal single-payer health care is certainly possible, especially if implemented on the German model. Every other industrialized country has done it.
The tax increase stuff is just laughable. The Washington Examiner as an authority? Give me a break.
Breaking up the banks that are "too big to fail?" That wouldn't be very hard; it would just be returning to the status quo. Contracts are always being renegotiated.
I could go on, but it would insult the intelligence of languish users. Instead, I'd recommend that you read more widely and post less.
You nasty gerontophile. :lol:
I'd rather go to a real lemon party, where the lemon juice was squeezed into my eyes.
I'm not posting "evidence against sanders." I get that you're sad you lost the last argument, so you're looking to pick a fight. but this time, I was posting my opinion, not some long articulate argument trying to convince the "languish posters" why they shouldn't vote for sanders. I really don't give a fuck whether languish posters vote for sanders.
also, I asked if there was anything sanders was trying to push that could legit happen. you haven't given me a single thing.
Most Languish posters couldn't vote for Saunders if they wanted to. I don't think making this about who languish votes for is the logical approach. I get how you don't think that that "daily wire" piece is a hatchet piece against Saunders, but I don't think anyone else is foolish enough to believe that it is actual evidence of anything. I also get that you want to bluster past the fact that you got your fanny reddened the last time you tried to argue against the evidence, but, really, why even bring up that issue?
I gave you three things. You have given nothing except a cite you now seem to want to run away from.
If you want to have an adult debate, you have to introduce actual arguments, not just say that you don't understand things, and then attack those who explain the things you don't understand.
Well they were targeted but they missed and hit Dresden instead. Accuracy was not the WWII era USAF's strong suit.
The USAF didn't exist in WWII. :whistle:
Which is ironic being as that is one of the few times having a separate air service made any sense.
The legend of the 1980s is that Germany and Japan were able to leverage their 'being bombed into powder' status to reform their institutions on more rational lines and then out compete the victors. Another "fact" told to me as a child shown to be a lie :weep:
Private joke, between grumbler and himself.
That is ridiculous.
The Allies spent incredible amounts of money creating a greenfield for the Germans and Japanese to build on - it pains me to find out that they did not take full advantage of such a generous opportunity.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fic%2F544x306%2Fp01h145c.jpg&hash=bdd2a6436278ebc4f94b884ab382d7687635585a)
:unsure:
She'd get my vote.
As she is not on the ballot, I voted Clinton.
Are you talking about Hillary and Bernie, or grumbler and LaCroix?
Even if you thought so, why is that notable? :unsure:
What ever floats her boat. Just looks like one, something's off.
Answer: GFYS.
Really liked this one.
So who is the Saunders person?
Ab Fab :wub:
A fictional creature of grumbler's imagination; similar to the MicroSoft Metmork.
If only he wasn't running for political office . . .
:D
Her show was really popular with the gays. I think that's Marty's angle.
obama's campaign didn't revolve around freeing palestine or whatever else you posted. he might have said them, as all politicians say something, but obama's campaign revolved around hope, change, etc. his campaign was "i'm not bush." that was the substance that swept the nation. sanders's campaign is different -- its substance is impossible to achieve.
Interesting take on the word 'end'. :P
I thought the poverty rate had been rising. :hmm:
From 1962? No.
If you have an actual argument, spit it out. Otherwise, we're done.
Hey! He isn't dead yet.
Good thing you're not an accountant.
okay, if you think obama's campaign revolved around freeing palestine, then see ya until next time
:huh:
Obama's campaign was about a lot of things, some of which he accomplished despite a Republican party that thought preventing government from functioning was a virtue.
I don't get what you're saying. obama's campaign didn't have the same occupy wall street vibe that sander's campaign has. do you agree or?
Their platforms are different. But I certainly don't get an "occupy wall street vibe" from Sander's campaign. From the perspective of a Canadian watching your process from the outside, his policies reflect more or less what we already do in terms of subsidizing university education, health care etc. I suppose it only seems like a radical change because US politics have swung so far to the right in the last number of decades.
I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.
I am surprised you even responded to this straw man comprised entirely of smaller strawmen. The first time the phrase "obama's [sic] campaign revolved around freeing palestine [sic]" appears in this thread is when LaCroix writes it, and then he pretends that he didn't write it, but I did!
Obama made a lot of promises that he didn't keep. Some he probably knew he couldn't keep, but wanted in the campaign platform so he would have the mandate to work towards them. Others he probably misjudged because of his extremely limited experience in federal government.
LaCroix doesn't seem to have an argument, just a strawman and attacks on others' arguments. I'd let this one rest.
There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.
I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do. In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.
Anything? I think that's a bit extreme. And yeah, I'd say in general that I'm alright with our system. While it does mean that it can take longer for some good ideas to get implemented, it also leaves us less at the whim of the ruling party as it is far harder than many systems to implement drastic changes.
I agree. But the US was founded by people who were already well versed the in principles of the English system and so I don't think it was ever going to run the risk of going the way of the countries you listed. The US would likely have done quite well under a federal Parliamentary system but the Americans decided to create a new form of government. They did so for very good reasons. The idea that the crown should simply be a figurehead of a Westminster Parliamentary system had not yet been fully developed. I suppose one could argue that the American formulation helped that process along.
But despite the good intentions involved in creating the system, it is easily fouled up by people acting unreasonably. In theory the political process should fix such problems. I hope that occurs.
bernie sanders's site:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/
(literally impossible under constitution)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
(no quote really necessary, the link title says it all. don't really know how this could be implemented -- canada definitely doesn't have free tuition and debt free students)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/
(this is where sanders actually admits his goal is impossible under the constitution -- he says he will appoint supreme court justices who vow to overturn citizen's united and promises to try his best to amend the freaking constitution; also, some vague comment on eliminating super PACS (by overturning united?? I dunno))
https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-jobs-rebuilding-america/
(various infrastructure plans, $1 trillion over five years. this is technically possible, though not realistic whatsoever in this political climate)
that's the first few. I'm not spending time clicking on the rest. I did see this, though, and figured I'd toss this in as well
https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/
(literally impossible under the constitution)
basically, having checked his site, I don't think sanders's policies reflect canadian policies at all
While it is true that a Parliamentary majority can make its own decisions without further obstacles within Parliament itself, BB overstates the issue when he says there is no reason a majority shouldn't be able to implement everything they promised. As an example the Conservatives, in their 10 years in power in Canada, had a great deal of difficulty implementing all they had promised. Public support still matters to a government with a majority. Also, the Courts provide an important role in deciding whether legislation is constitutionally valid - and there were many instances where the Court struck down their legislation as being inconsistent with the Charter.
my original point before grumbler jumped in was that many of sanders's promises are impossible. not just in this political climate, but actually impossible to implement under the US constitution and/or/maybe budget. I exaggerated with all -- I hadn't read up on every single sanders promise.
basically, I don't think any candidate should promise the impossible. and if that candidate actually believes he can implement the impossible, then he's just not very bright.
Its literally impossible for the US government to introduce tax reform? That doesn't sound right. In any event the Liberals were elected on exactly that platform.
Canada does have heavily subsidized tuition both in forms of direct funding to universities which off sets the need to raise money through tuition and by direct assistance to students. You are correct that tuition levels in Canada have risen over the last two decades as governments have decreased funding but the government could, and some here argue should, do more including what Sander's proposes.
The Liberals were just elected on a platform of deficit spending to finance infrastructure spending. It was one of their main platforms that garnered a great deal of support for them.
Its literally impossible for the US government to regulate the financial sector? That also doesnt seem right to me. As I recall it prior to the crash people within the Clinton administration were advocating for greater regulation but that fell on deaf ears - including the ears belonging to Clinton. Canada has always had strong regulation in this area.
takings clause. legit government purpose (or whatever the test is). wealth redistribution, which is what "it's wrong that .1% owns equal to 90%" essentially suggests, doesn't fit that.
I know that canada has low, cheap tuition. we're talking ZERO tuition.
I don't understand your point re "Liberals were just elected on a platform of deficit spending to finance infrastructure spending." what I posted re infrastructure is bernie sanders's goal under a republican congress. not bernie sanders's goal under a canadian congress.
re: finance reform. again, takings clause. you can have finance reform, but when you're proposing that the government step in and strip assets from private businesses based on nothing but a wall street hate-boner? that's unconstitutional
I don't know about that. I'm not sure I agree with the overall narrative that things can't get accomplished. I think there are plenty of good substantive things happened during Obama's presidency even if overall I'd describe him as middling to weak.
I now see what Grumbler was talking about. You made the claim that Sander's policies were not similar to existing Canadian policies. My post was refuting your claim. Now you tell me you this?
If that is true then why wasn't the entire New Deal ruled unconstitutional between then and now? Besides I would imagine Sanders can find some legit government purposes to put that money to if he is planning on doing trillion dollar infrastructure investments.
I could have been wrong that gross over-taxation (designed to destroy/redistribute with seemingly no legitimate purpose) would fall under takings clause. it falls under something, though, and that would be unconstitutional. we're talking about a world where bernie sanders has congressional votes to pass a law that recreates america into the vision outlined in his policies. it's impossible to create that vision.
I didn't know which direction you were going with that point. you switched from talking about whether sanders policy could be implemented in the US to how similar a policy was to canadian policy. point #1 -> implement in US; point #2 -> similar to canada; #4 -> implement in US. #3, "Liberals were just elected..." could have gone either way, so I said "I don't understand your point" and went with implement in US rather than similar to canada angle. make sense?
nothing in American history has come close to wealth redistribution on the scale that OWS types suggest. we're talking about some gross high number like 70-80% taxation on wealthy. some real Victoria II shit
What were the highest tax brackets prior to the 60s again?
In any case the Constitution makes no such distinction that I am aware of. That doing something a little bit is Constitutional but doing it to some other amount is un-Constitutional. Things are either Constitutional or they are not.
no idea. are you making a statement by asking a question, or are you asking a question? I don't know tax history
??? makes no distinction on what? if congress tried to destroy an entire classification of people by stripping away their wealth, you can be damn sure it'd be ruled unconstitutional. and your last point is incorrect: "doing something a little bit is constitutional but doing it a lot is unconstitutional" is pretty much how constitutional law works in a lot of different con law topics. the very first example that comes to mind is police interrogation -- you can be a little aggressive, but you can't be extremely aggressive.
So, perhaps Bernie should stop fighting to end it.
You don't know tax history...yet you know for a fact nothing has come close to 70-80% taxes. Interesting. You would be wrong BTW.
Exactly what I said and you responded to in such a way as to suggest that you understood exactly what I was trying to say? :hmm:
A tax bracket with 70%-80% is not the same thing as confiscating 70%-80% of somebody's assets. :mellow: You are aware of that right?
Ok then why wasn't it in the past?
Well that is different. We are talking about tax rates not something with as much as a judgement call as law enforcement.
re: income tax bracket
interesting! I just looked it up
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-would-you-feel-about-a-94-tax-rate/
why were you such a prick about telling me this?
I guess when I was thinking 70-80% tax, I meant stripping away someone's assets. someone's wealth. that's what bernie sanders is getting at. .1% own as much wealth as 90%. not income, right? you seem to be attacking me more on semantics related to my ignorance on tax/financial stuff rather than the core of what I'm saying. that's a pretty dickish way of debate
Ah I see. No that is not what Bernie is getting at. I think he is saying there are structural injustice problems blah blah that cause that problem and he is going to fix them through noble socialist worst. Not that he is just going to take everybody's shit. Because that would be insane, like all his supporters would have to be certifiably crazy. Somehow I do not think Ank is a fucking sociopath so I do not think that is what Sanders is saying he would do. It would be unprecedented and impossible anyway. That is not a tax that is something else. I guess I did not get that you were suggesting he was suggesting such a thing because it would be Soviet Union-esque rather than Sweden-esque which is more what I thought Sanders was going for.
I am not attacking you on semantics at all. I thought you were saying a 70%-80% tax bracket was unconstitutional and I was saying it most certainly is, as we have had it before. So I misunderstood.
Wait so a tax bracket at 70% is ok so long as you don't say anything about redistribution?
And anyway I thought LaCroix just said he was not talking about taxes but confiscation of assets? :hmm:
Chavs don't understand the concept of people leaving before they vote?
These are caucuses. Often at peoples' homes. In a tight race. What is so mysterious about the idea that, in small groups, a handful of groups will have tied votes? In that case, delegates are distributed evenly and the odd delegate (where there is an odd number assigned) determined by coin flip. It sucks that some people don't understand the idea of tiebreaking.
Maybe they can rock-paper-scissors for it.
I disagree - it's more the function of timing between elections than the system itself. There is absolutely no reason why campaign promises are "merely aspirational", if in both the presidential and congress elections one side campaigns - and wins - on the same platform.
FWIW, neither Turkey nor Russia are Parliamentary democracies. Both have a very strong President.
But then we are starting to compare apples and oranges. If you take the British system as the template of a Parliamentary system, the power of some body (such as courts, or the constitutional tribunal of sorts) to declare acts of the Parliament as inconsistent with some sort of a higher act (usually a constitution) is a departure from that system.
I was making the point that there are other methods of government that have checks and balances without having to resort to the extreme of the American model.
NIMBY :rolleyes:
how have current policies greatly exacerbated the wealth gap?
Tax policies favor investments and penalize wage work. Free trade transfers middle class jobs overseas and they have been replaced by jobs that can no longer support a family. Illegal immigration driving wages down for the benefit of rich exploiters. Bail outs of the rich at tax payer expense. The rich sheltering their wealth so the tax burden falls on the rest...and so forth.
You know, the stuff people have been bitching about constantly for decades. That article Tim posted about why people like Trump talks about some of this. How legitimate those complaints are is something else.
I am not sure if you are being serious or not.
people complain all the time about stuff they don't know anything about, so I asked for clarification. maybe wealth gaps are inevitable in capitalism, and this current wealth gap was only slightly created by current policies. I dunno, I don't study this stuff - I ask to hear from people who do study it.
I know. So go read this: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13717.0.html
Some experts have predicted an overlap between Trump and Bernie supporters.
We've had a lengthy debate on the topic before.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10247.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10247.0.html)
Unfortunately, Berkut's link in the OP is broken, but I believe it was similar to this one:
http://equitablegrowth.org/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states/ (http://equitablegrowth.org/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states/)
not every "expert" is equal, though. that's a possible theory and not fact, right?
No not democrats. Can't be. Not shadiness and there's a Clinton somewhere in the wood pile. :lol:
Sounds to me like the accusations are most about lack of organization, not ballot stuffing.
:yes:
Of course, I like confused voters throne into the list of problems. That's all elections. :D
:yes: Hillary would have a much better chance if not those pesky voters. :P
That's why everybody should practise coin flips now :contract:
That was one of the most depressing discussions I've ever been a part of on Languish.
The ability of both ends of the spectrum to just willfully ignore that scope and bounds of the problem and potential solution set because they care so much more about their sides ideology than actually solving anything made me really start to understand just how intractable the problem actually is...
Poor Hillary. Just can't catch a break :(
Sure. Nothing is a fact until it happens.
Or her detractors can't. All those years of character assassination and she still is in contention to become President. Kind of makes you wonder what might have happened if those people had devoted their time to doing something useful.
You're being way too soft on Cubs fans.
She's doing pretty well, all told. But the amount of effort going in to flinging mud at her is quite monumental.
Well, not many politicians somehow become targets for the right wing mud squad AND the left one at the same time. My Facebook feed is full from anti-Hillary stuff from Bernie fans.
They've had a lot of practice. Like 25 years of practice. The bullshit in the 1990's was breathtaking in it's scope and craziness.
I admire their perseverance.
We shall see. Populism plays well in the South.
Until Iowa, Clinton had a big lead among minority voters in 2008. Most people haven't started to pay attention yet. There is still a good chance that Sanders is going to do quite well with minority voters - he was at the I have a Dream speech and was arrested during the civil rights movement. He has a story to tell.
I think what will undo Sanders is that he is too far to the left and has been too associated with radical politics. It will turn off some democrats, and scare others that they won't win the general election.
Which is the point at which I think Hillary wins (assuming the email scandal doesn't blow up). People may not love hillary, but she is the best candidate of the two.
Blacks are going to go for Hillary.
Iread somewhere that the best and worst things about Sanders is that he has been so remarkably consistent in his positions over the years. You can go look at speaches from 30 years ago and he sounds like he's talking today. That gets him some real credibility.
But it also means he can't pivot or change his views to try and appeal to other groups. He's incapable of trying to pick up the "black lives matter" mantle.
Another factor is personality. Sanders is without a doubt a much better human being than Hillary, there is just no way around that.
She's a bit old to be Evita, I think.
I don't think the "black lives matter" movement is at all out of line with this previous views (which I am not an expert on, however). I think he should be able to draw on a long career of supporting minority causes, and if he wants to play hardball, the 2008 primary between Clinton and Obama got a bit nasty on the racial front, in South Carolina in particular, and that can be pointed out.
Wake me up when someone asks what accountant things about social cues. :zzz:
I think that base image is the one that showed up in 2008.
As for "black lives matter" mantle, I think he's been wearing it all along. From what I understand he's been consistently a real social libertarian.
This is why I thought O'Malley would ultimately win or at least do well.
Anyway, right now the race is a referendum on Hillary, with the "no to Hillary" camp being an old guy that gives every indication of being a well meaning true believer. I'm not shocked she is losing that. However, eventually Sanders is going to get tough scrutiny, and he is a bad general election candidate.
What makes you say that?
Sanders is divorced, was a single dad who was not married to the boy's mother. He long-ago wrote an article somewhat sympathetic to rape.
I'm not saying he's a bad man. But I don't see how you can say one is morally a better person than the other (unless you believe Hillary murdered Vince Foster).
Social libertarian is not what "black lives matter" wants.
Here's Ta-Nehisi Coates on what's wrong with Bernie Sanders (spoiler - he doesn't support reparations).
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/
Wait, what?
Disagree. First because the no Hillary vote is not taking part in the Democratic primary IMO, and second because I think the Bernie vote is motivated by faith in the revolution, not animus towards Hillary.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained
Yeah he is kind of fixated on the reparations stuff. I mean I am all for reparations if it really would fix the race problem, but I just do not see how it would. It just seems kind of an odd way to go. Not to mention the fact it sounds like a nightmare logistically.
Except it would not be the whites paying, it would be everybody. And how do you give a cash payment to 'a people'? 'A people' does not have a bank account. We would have to give it to individuals. And is it supposed to be a symbolic act? Like an admission of guilt? Are we all supposed to be feel better, and that is the purpose...so every black person gets a few bucks as a symbolic gesture? Or is it supposed to be quantified somehow based on a historical study of 'plunder'? Or used to achieve a certain end, like say achieve some sort of bench mark of social progress? And what would that be? Sudden windfalls of cash do not have a great record as a tool of empowerment.
In Canada we had something like reparations - we paid out just under two billion dollars in compensation to survivors of indian residential schools. Apparently the average amount of the settlement was $20,000 paid to just under 80,000 people.
I doubt it will ever happen, but it would be interesting to see a survey to determine what the long term effects of such payments were to the recipients and their family, when compared to native families that did not receive benefits. I suspect there would be little difference.
What accounts are those? I found one from an ex-intern who wanted Bill's D, but are there any others? Hillary's an ambitious career woman; she doesn't have a meek personality, either. Of course people are going to call her unpleasant or a bitch. It's more acceptable for men to have those traits, so it tends to rub people the wrong way more than normal.
Also, someone can seem that way in her professional capacity but be an extremely nice person in her personal life. I don't know if that describes Hillary, but Bill chased her for years and genuinely seems to love her. I'm assuming she's got some good qualities unless there's concrete evidence beyond "she's just a bitch, you know?"
Yeah, we are so far removed from the event it would be difficult. Do you get money based on how black you are? If we did genetic testing and found someone was 10% black 40% Indian and 50% white, do they get money? What about people who are black but never had ancestors who were enslaved in the US. Or those who had ancestors who were slaves while in the British colony but not in the US? Do people who's last slave ancestor was liberated in 1865 get more money then those who's last slave ancestor was liberated in 1805? It's a real mess.
Yeah, with Native Americans it made more sense because they have their own communities and autonomies so the recipient of such reparations is much easier to identify.
Ok, you have frequently held out of touch bizarre views on this board, but this must be one of the weirdest. :huh:
I don't really think it as clean with Native Americans as you are suggesting - particularly given how many communities were destroyed during the existence of the U.S.
Really in both situations, you have many people who have been shafted because the federal gov't could have done something relevant for the people and their offspring who were directly impacted but for various reasons chose not to do so. Of course shit gets complicated down the line.
Not, mind you, that I think reparations makes sense today but I wouldn't be unsympathetic to the view that the government waited until it is all 'too difficult to untangle'.
This interesting phrasing seems to be suggesting that you think a basis of reparations should be sins of omission, as opposed to sins of commission.
Sorry, I don't know what you are suggesting.
That you think reparations are due not for bad things that were done, but for nice things that were not done.
My point is that I think reparations were once due for the bad that was done and the bad allowed to happen. Unfortunately because such didn't take place in a timely fashion, virtually impossible to do with any fairness and generally beneficial impact.
If the standard of culpability is "bad allowed to happen" then virtually everyone alive at the time is culpable. Which, of course, is what Yi was implying. So, who owed reparations to whom, and why, in your book?
Hell, you might get one. There are millions of white Americans who have a black slave ancestor. Most probably don't even know it.
I'm sure there is a darkie in my family's woodpile somewhere. They fucked anything that moved in ye olde times.
I don't see why this has to be the case. Even today we have tribes that seek federal recognition. I don't see why it would be impossible to gather as a group and say 'we are the descendants of xx' a slave who was documented to have worked for xx years without pay. Please certify our group as qualifying for slave reparations.'
Seems like that would be more sensible than qualifying for affirmative action based on a simple tick box.
Now certainly it wouldn't be easy gathering such a group but seems like it'd be a lawyers wet dream.
Fair enough.
Not to say that the practicalities wouldn't still be daunting. I'm pretty sure TNC doesn't just want to pay off a few octogenarians who couldn't get a mortgage back in the 1960s - but that "reparations" should be widely made to the descendants of such people.
One of those things is not like the others.
Well that is a complication but that is not why we cannot/should not give money. I am sure we could come up with a criteria if we decided we were going to do it.
If we are to compensate over Jim Crow or redlining that does sort of move a lot of the burden to the states. It also makes it more difficult to find a culpable party, since many practices were custom, or extra legal.
What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?
Passing a law that people in the future will consider a bad law is not actionable.
Pretty sure plenty of people in the past also considered it a bad law. Anyway I was thinking the action would not be 'this law is stinky and it sucks to!' but more that it violated their civil rights.
What do I look like, JR? It just seems hard to get money because all the real estate guys in the state colluded to keep blacks in one spot 60 years ago, or that a black guy was lynched in the 1950's and the court didn't find anyone guilty of the crime.
I'm pretty sure laws that get overturned on constititutional grounds never involve cash prizes.
It was meant to be an open question, not towards you specifically.
Even if there are real damages?
I certainly can't think of one that did.
Exactly. Hence my hypothetical.
I think that's why it's styled "reparations", rather than pressing a court action.
Such reparations certainly have historical precedent - Japanese internment survivors received such reparations, even if the internment was deemed to be legal at the time.
The history of "separate but equal" is kind of interesting, and a lot more complicated than most people realize. The basic narrative that the Supreme Court said that separate but equal was A-OK in Plessy v. Ferguson and then reversed itself in Brown v. Board of Education is a considerable over-simplification. There were lots of cases in between in which the federal courts ruled that a particular practice or situation was in fact not equal. The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board was the culmination of a long process in which the federal courts saw some states (mostly in, but not always, in the South) consistently provided separate facilities for whites and blacks, but put no (or almost no) effort into trying to make the facilities provided to blacks actually equal to those provided to whites. The Supreme Court finally got fed up with that, and ruled that segregated facilities were inherently unequal. If the states had actually tried to provide facilities that were equal as well as separate, "separate but equal" would have probably continued to be legal for a few more years.
Of course, the states that had segregation had no interest in providing equal facilities for blacks. The point of segregation wasn't so much to keep the races physically separated (for the most part, no one in the South minded being in the presence of a black person, so long as it was clear that the black person was in a subservient role, such as a maid or janitor); the point was to keep blacks down "in their place".
it's not about a political group. the indians are sovereign. they're their own nation within a nation. black people/groups have nothing similar, not even close. they're just as american as any white person, except they just kinda got fucked over for awhile. like the scots and irish, but more so
Poor guy. You know she's "in love" with 641 other people.
And that was down to governmental decisions in the past. I'm not even going to respond to the 'they just kinda got fucked over for awhile.' :rolleyes:
Okay? So government designed then?
To note, I really think this whole sovereign thing is a distraction (and I'm certainly not arguing that it would have been better for black people to be put on reservations!). Up thread there have been a few ways of noting who would be worthy of reparations with some change in difficult depending on what you are noting the reparations for. I just wanted to note that again the government decided who was sovereign, who was not. Who had political agency, who did not - so to use that all as as a coverage for why reparations no longer make sense seems like having one's nasty cake and eating it too. :D
This sounds like a soundbite history of slavery / discrimination in America so I'm not sure there is much use in unpacking it. I would note though that from your description sounds like slavery and the treatment of African-Americans has a fairly unique position/role in American history.
So government harms its own citizens (though I'm not sure were slaves really citizens? They certainly didn't have any rights), no harm, no foul?
So you have a paragraph about how much the history of African-Americans is woven across the American tapestry and then an oh btw dismissal is that the Chinese got screwed over? I don't think it is a compelling argument that the government screwed over lots of minorities in all different ways so therefore what makes black people shouldn't have reparations. After all what makes them so special? Particularly not when you laid a case for the injustices being done to black people special.
What is funny about this is that "separate but equal" was actually a *progressive* concept at some point.
It is kind of like "Don't ask, don't tell". It was eventually seen as this terrible injustice, yet when it came out it was actually a huge improvement over what came before.
Separate but equal sucks...except compared to separate and not equal. Of course, the reality was that it was never really equal (which is where the comparison to don't ask, don't tell breaks down), but the idea was an attempt to codify into law that you HAD to treat blacks equally, even if you insisted on treating them separately.
"Don't ask, don't tell" was a big step up from "We are kicking you out if we find out you are gay, and we are going to try to find out". It was basically a de facto tolerance of homosexuality in the military, which was a huge improvement over the blanket ban that existed previously. In that sense, it was actually an effective adjustment in that it did do what it purported to do - it let homosexuals serve without interference as long as they did not advertise their sexuality.
I remember Marty once blasting Clinton? Bush? whichever one it was who instituted the Don't ask policy as being homophobic, when in fact it was actually a pretty brilliant progressive political change.
I don't think that there was any legal theory before the Civil War that held that slaves were citizens. Being both would have pretty much been an contradiction. Certainly there were a good number of folks that thought that they ought to be citizens, but those folks also wanted slavery to end. Though it should be noted that even a lot of abolitionists didn't necessarily think that if slavery was ended, freed slaves should have equal rights.
Beyond that, according to Roger B Taney's majority opinion in the Dred Scot case, even free blacks weren't citizens. That overturned about 3/4 of a century of legal precedence, had no real basis on anything in the Constitution, and oh, BTW, the Court took the opportunity to rule the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Of course, that's part of why the case was so much like throwing gasoline on a bonfire as far as tensions over slavery were concerned. Even people outside the south who otherwise didn't really care about the slavery issue could see that pro-slavery forces were twisting the law to their own ends. and turn a lot of previously unconcerned northerners into abolitionists. Pretty much the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court. And I don't mean just morally wrong, but clearly incorrect as far as interpreting what the Constitution actually says as well.
BTW, at the time, the Dred Scot case was the longest-running legal case in American history. AFAIK, it's still the third longest, behind IIRC the telephone patent cases and the Microsoft anti-trust case.
Yep.
It was also the first nail in the coffin of the Democratic Party as it existed. Their 'popular sovereignty' solution was shown to be completely nonviable.
No, those Indians existed prior to the US government. The government simply recognized the rights of those polities.
I think black people existed prior to the US government too. :P
Indeed, and had those blacks wanted to return to their tribes like the Indians did, they could have... like the Indians did. :P
From the perspective of an non American doesnt seem far left at all on foreign policy - but YMMV
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Foreign_Policy.htm
Well, he pretty cleary is not a Chomsky disciple, so that is good.
But his "lets stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away" approach to dealing with islamic radicalism seems pretty terrible.
Also, not hawkish enough on Russia, imho.
Generally kind of a isolationist-lite. Which is terrible, I suppose, but not really safe in the world today, IMO.
Nah. Hardly anyone chooses war when their objectives can be reached by other means.
Yup. Alternative resorts are infinite.
Bernie didn't say anything about effective ones.
Are you arguing that it is impossible under any circumstances for any problem to boil down to "the last resort" because there are infinite alternative resorts in all problems, or are you arguing that only Bernie Sanders' military policy cannot ever reach the last resort, or something else? Right now, your comments and arguments seem to be purely rhetorical.
Now you're being silly. There's an infinite supply of alternatives, but everyone has one that they consider the last one whether it's "you're actively attacking our country and killing our citizens" or "we asked you once to change your government and you haven't."
I don't have a last resort in either of those situations.
Maybe I phrased my point poorly - it was that everyone bar extreme pacifists have a point where they think war is the only viable resort. Sanders' statement that he considers war a last resort means that there are relatively fewer situations where he'd consider war an appropriate response, not that there are none. And you know that.
I do not.
Obama distinguished between smart wars and dumb wars. Bernie does not. War is *always* the last resort. Those are his words.
Are you unaware that war of last resort is a pretty significant part of the ethics of war and the concept of the just war? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/lastresort.shtml & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
For example, stalwarts such as Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld used the concept as they justified the second Gulf War.
Is there a particular reason you're choosing to interpret Sanders' use of an established philosophical phrase outside of the context in which it is normally used?
Yes, but in the language of politics, when you say war is the last resort, you usually mean you are a pacifist.
I agree with this 100%. I think that anyone arguing that war was NOT the last resort would be widely seen as mentally or morally defective.
So we go back to what he has said about specific cases, and in that he seems very pacifist. Thinks that ISIS should be taken care of locally, for example, and wants the US to stay out.
Just because the specific meaning of particular words can be parsed to mean almost anything (or more often nothing at all) doesn't mean that we MUST do that. When someone asks a bunch of politicians what they think about a particular use of military power, you can contrast their responses to glean out where they stand, even if looking at those responses in isolation could be interpreted differently.
"Should we invade Iraq?"
A: Saddam has refused our demands, and we have no choice but to take immediate action!
B: War is always a measure of last resort!
Both of those responses looked at in isolation could be parsed to have completely overlapping meanings, but if we ask two politicians that question and get those two responses, it seems pretty clear one is in favor if war and one opposed.
:hug:
I agree that there are differences in the likelihood of each of the candidates being interventionist and/ or taking warlike actions; and I agree that Sanders is communicating where he sits on that spectrum. I just didn't agree that Sanders' words about war as a last resort indicated that he's an absolute pacifist.
But only as a last resort - which for Yi seems to have been the first option amongst infinite possibilities.
I've heard him say that ISIS must be defeated and that, while the US cannot be the military lead on that action, because it has to be Arab boots on the ground, the US still has a military role to play in defeating ISIS. That's not terribly pacifist.
Sanders may be a pacifist, but I don't think you will find the evidence for that in his policy on ISIS.
Agreed.
Well, I don't think he is a pacifist, more concerned that he seems to be something of an isolationist. Which is a much more rationally defensible position, but still problematic, IMO.
My impression is that yes, he is more isolationist than Obama. The Obama administration hasn't insisted that the US lead all coalitions in which it has part (a wise move, IMO), but it has certainly been front and center when it comes to the big geopolitical issues, particularly with regards to China and Russia. Sanders' position on Russia and China are that he should continue to scold those regimes for being naughty.
:cheers:
Or her. Or zer. Or zim.
I like that. :)
Betcha Bernie has eaten more pierogis.
I thought it was a reference to Poles making historically bad choices :hmm:
He's saying Hillary will be tougher on Russia. :hmm:
How do you arrest someone for resisting arrest? :huh:
You arrest them for failing. :D
You tackle them
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Democratic_presidential_primary%2C_2008.svg/350px-Democratic_presidential_primary%2C_2008.svg.png)
Oh please.
A criminal vs a communist?
Retard fight.
Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or I stay home.
Promise?
Spoken like a true Arab. An actual Jew is running for President and you won't consider him.
Good.
Eh you live in Utah. Who you vote for barely matters. I know the feeling :P
Needless to say I totally and completely agree with you. That name is insulting, degrading, and very limp making in a sexual sense.
By that logic only the voters in Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado matter. :rolleyes:
Utah is interesting. Everyone was going nuts for Romney in 2012 and now all the people I work with are kinda like 'Eh, Trump? Not interested." but would they vote for Trump over Hillary? Absolutely, but they wouldn't be happy about it.
By very accurate and true logic? Yes. Unfortunately. But I vote anyway. Civic duty and all that.
We will see. I have a feeling that state wins the award for most lopsided vote this side of DC as usual.
Cruz would do very well here. His values align well with the values of Utah.
Just turn on the Longhorn Network to get your erection back. :)
It better do that for you, since it is a major contributing factor to why some people are calling Texas an SEC state.
What the man said. The man who can't be bothered to do his job, or the man who does his job so badly he gets ordered out of the business. ;)
Oh FFS. Let me have my fun without trying to derail the thread into a College Football discussion by saying garbage like that. LHN or no LHN they were not going to remain in the league after 2010.
:P
Lots of good college QBs come from Texas. Matt Stafford, Johnny Manziel, RGIII, Andy Dalton, Bryce Petty, and Trevone Boykin.
His dad played for Texas.
Sounds like that even within individual families, Texas is recruiting the wrong QBs, is what I would say if I wanted to troll. :P
That would be a perfectly fair point. I do not have a problem with criticism against Texas I agree with :P
:secret: Nobody is suggesting we adopt Marxism.
They are upset with how the establishment has been running things and want people to smash the system. Besides it is not like they are voting for a Maoist or a Marxist-Leninist. Just a guy who thinks instead of 2% welfare there should be 4% welfare. Hardly a revolution.
I hate socialism myself but unfortunately there will always be an element of socialism in modern societies. If you think about it, things like fire and police services are both socialism, strictly speaking and they work very well. So is national defence. Trying to privatise those is insane. I'll even go further and say health service should largely be a public service as well. The alternative is what the US has right now, and that is an inefficient mess that is the worst of both worlds.
The whole socialism / capitalism thing is a wide spectrum, and everybody has elements of both. I strongly dislike guys like Bernie Sanders, but I don't think he is advocating adoption of communism. Plus, he seems much more reasonable than people like Ben Carson, who is like in lalaland.
Who cares about the platform?
I think Sanders needed to win Nevada. He is facing annihilation in the next couple of weeks.
Why? I have always maintained that I am a failure.
I agree Siege, it is pretty messed up.
Still - don't despair yet. There is still a chance Trump doesn't get the nomination.
Politicians care.
The higher the % over 25 that he can get the more he can demand, such as who gets certain cabinet positions, even who VP will be.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9807.msg951851.html#msg951851
I wonder if Siege considers the irony of adopting the loser's ideology from WWII
Wha? He tied with Hillary in Iowa, won NH and lost Nevada. How's that "annihilation"? :huh:
Correct me if I am wrong, but my reading is that Sanders need to convince the general electorate that he is a viable alternative. He is expected to win NH, so him winning it doesn't really help. He needs to win the other two to better establish his viability, yet he failed to do so. The upcoming states have demographics that are against him, so he will only go downhill from here.
Or at least, that's how I hope the destruction of Sanders will play out.
What does that even mean? He is winning by a higher margin in national polls than Clinton against pretty much every Republican candidate. Sure, it may change by November but the "he is not a viable candidate" narrative about Sanders is as contrived right now as it is about Trump.
Btw, Sanders is not a plural so that would be "Sanders needs". :contract:
Because Clinton is the clear front-runner and Sanders isn't. Sanders was considered a fringe candidate a few months ago. The majority still expect Clinton to win and it takes something significant to change that expectation. So far it hasn't happened.
My bad :blush:
National socialism is a collectivist ideology based on nationalism, as to opposed to international socialism.
The left has been very successful in playing the falsehood that the far right is national socialist, when in reality nazis are not far right, but another shade of collectivism.
Also, when you dig deep into the criticism of the free market economic system you realize all the criticism is actually against crony capitalism, a system in which the gruberment instead of being an impartial arbiter is a player and and /or a winner chooser.
Think of the economic system as a big slide in which the far left is collectivism and the far right is free market. No one system is purely in one of the ends, even in Soviet Russia there was some little leftovers of free market, but the closer you are to the free market wnd of the slide, the freer and richer your society is, creating wealth for everyone. A rising tide rises all boats, and it is better to be poor in a rich country and in a socialist hellhole.
Free market economy is a weak system because there isn't an ideology behind it. It has enemies everywhere, collectivists and especially crony capitalists, who a after succeeding in a free market environment want to pervert the system to eliminate their competition by achieving monopoly status.
There is a reason why every super rich dude is against a free market economic system.
Well pretty much. But we will be fine. Politicians are not what ultimately makes society function. They just cannot fuck it up too much.
Isn't this exactly what Bernie Sanders is saying? His "socialism" does not mean he wants to abolish free market.
To sum up the national democratic primary, Sanders and Clinton are probably roughly tied among the non black vote. The non black vote is overwhelmingly for Clinton. Unless that changes, Sanders does not have a winning hand.
We just had two white states vote, and a state with minorities but not huge number of black voters, and they have come out roughly tied in pledged delegates. The problem for Sanders is most the Southern states are scheduled to vote in the next few weeks, and in a democratic primary black voters make up about half the voters in many of those states.
So right now you see 3 states have voted, after which there is a tie, but in the next few weeks you are going to see something like a third of the race completed, and Clinton with a massive and dominant lead. He will have lost most of his chance to make up ground with black voters, because so many of them will already have voted, and he won't have much momentum to create a strong majority needed to win the non black vote. In fact he will start getting pressure to yield to the inevitable and drop out.
Cornel West: 'Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHc84VYALQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHc84VYALQ)
Clearly he is confused regarding Milli Vanilli, lip syncing and lip service. My first thought was that he thinks she is just a pretty face for fun policies. :D
http://www.blackagendareport.com/dyson-attacks-west-4-hillary (http://www.blackagendareport.com/dyson-attacks-west-4-hillary)
Heh, our far-lefties are pulling the same trick to build their economic proposals. "Only" 4% though.
Yeah, the CCP has a lot of economists at their disposal and take their input quite seriously as I understand it. Of course, that is somewhat mitigated by the overriding impulse to hang on to power (and thus massage messaging accordingly) and to skim whatever can be skimmed, but at least it's a reality based approach.
So....China?
:yes:
One doesn't need to believe in anything other than "I will go to school/work today and let somebody else deal with politics". As long as everybody's stance looks something like that, the mandate of heaven is secure :contract:
Damn, what took you so long? Surprised you weren't donning your own pantsuit and blonde wig to do door to door canvassing for Shrillary.
Jews are an acquired taste.
In 22 minute-long episodes, yes.
:hmm:
It's been a while.
What the fuck do you know about China? Raz has already delivered the definitive expert opinion on Chinese beliefs. He's been an expert for almost an hour now.
Effing traitor.
Shady Lady will win the democratic nom and the general election.
Feeling the Bern eh Siege?
What? What makes you think i would ever support a communist? Because he happened to be jewish?
Hell no.
He is a frigging communist.
I live by 3 societal principles :
Free market capitalism, small government, and our constitutional freedoms.
Because you called somebody a traitor for preferring Clinton over Sanders? :P
He is a Euro-weenie type guy. I have not even heard of him calling for nationalization of anything much less Communism.
Clinton is a free trader, which is getting her in real trouble in the Primary and probably in the General as well. Yet you support Trump who is calling for protectionism so what sort of Free Market Capitalism are you for? None I have ever heard of.
I know Irony is lost on you, but you were the one to start making a sweeping statements about China, based on a government form they haven't had in over a century.
I didn't know you were a Christian now.
Ah. Well if Cruz drops out and Trump wins then I naturally expect you to rally to Clintonian Free Trade policies then.
Tell me, if he gets rid of income taxes like he wants to, how do we afford to pay the military?
What? No way. Fuck. I can only hope she is lying. She is a Clinton so quite possible.
:lol:
If all the superdelegates defect from Hillary to Bernie, he has a good chance.
Holy shit. I knew that Hillary would get the black vote, but not by that much.
Lincoln did alright. It just took a long time for the black vote to come in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Colored_Troops
Time for Bernie to feel the burn :Evil:
Yeah, she U-turned on that during the primaries, I believe.
That's what I don't like about her. Sure, there's being flexible, and there's singing a different song whenever political expediency calls for it.
And I could see how that might be a problem if she sang 'a different song whenever political expediency calls for it.' Changing one's positions here and there is something everyone should do, not just politicians. Like how people/Hillary have changed their stance on gay marriage.
Yeah. I am reading it the same way.
Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?
Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble
What else? :hmm:
I don't have such a list. What I would like from a leader is that he is transparent about his political beliefs, and tries to convince the constituency of the reasons why - in his opinion - those beliefs are good for society. Not espousing the beliefs that he believes will get him elected.
No I don't think he is saying that at all. :huh:
So politicians who don't generally become president? :P
Or it could be that they simply didn't and don't give a damn about the issue one way or the other. Easy to be flexible on issues you don't really care about.
That's not a criticism, BTW. All of us have some issues that we care about more than others. I just want a politician to let us know which issues he's willing to compromise on (and to what degree), and which he's not. And it's not really entirely the politicians fault that they generally do a poor job of that--if someone says that they're willing to compromise on a particular issue, often all that does is get people on both sides of that issue unhappy with them. Plus, it requires nuance, which is tough to convey when most of our political discourse is conducted in sound bites.
I believe you are missing Celery's point, which is that Obama's position on gay marriage was another example of political expediency.
Depends on what issues the voter cares about. For instance, my family will be deeply suspicious of blue state Republicans who become pro-life when they decide to run for President(Romney, Trump).
Which is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.
it's more acceptable when a guy does it
It's a much better point than your other one, that people are allowed to change their minds.
I don't think it has to be a sexism thing - but I also don't think Hillary is uniquely special in the extent to which she says politically expedient things.
Well I think both are true. After all, why should one's opinion on something not change over the course of years?
You're arguing in the alternative. "Hillary did nothing wrong, and if she did, Obama did the same thing!"
depends on your definition of sexism.* last weekend, I saw a girl get criticized by a female judge for having a "shrill" voice. she was aggressive, that's it. when guys do it, they're applauded (and disliked by some). when girls do it, they're criticized (and disliked by more than some). a lot of the criticism I see leveled at hillary essentially boils down to "well, she's just, like, a bitch, you know?"
(edit) *stuff like "sexism" makes people get all defensive and really kills conversation, imo
I've never seen a guy getting applauded for having a shrill voice.
Hillary has an unpleasant speaking voice. So did George Bush Sr.
I wasn't analyzing hillary's speaking voice. wasn't making a comparison, just threw out an anecdote
the girl in the anecdote didn't have a shrill voice. she was aggressive, yet it was called "shrill." in my experience helping underclassmen with their public speaking and hearing other feedback, every time a guy has an aggressive-style approach, it's praised. when girls do it, it's criticized. I started picking up on this after reading a comment about how women are expected to be meek, while men are expected to be louder. it's just one example of many re: how women get the short straw in professional careers.
:( but that would lead to them only getting 70% of the same wage as a straight person.
I'm arguing that the real world is complex and that successful politicians do both. I also wouldn't call any of it 'wrong.'
I never pegged you for an optimist.
This is a better position than the one you took earlier, that all people should change their mind.
Were you serious when you said criticism of Hillary's flipping on trade is rooted in sexism?
I said changing one's positions here and there which sounds a little less monolithic, I would think.
Yeah, I've no idea where he was going with that.
Yes. Your current, "evolved" position is a much better one IMO.
Will be interesting to see if Hillary tries to walk this one back come the general.
If and when she does, it will be interesting to see how you defend her. :P
totality of the circumstances. some people seem to really, really dislike hillary. I think some of this dislike wouldn't exist if everything stayed the same except she were male
What does "totality of the circumstances" mean in English?
everything I've seen put together
Do you mean that either Celery or myself, or both, think Hillary flipped on trade because she is a woman?
no
no. I'm not talking about misogyny, and this is why I said I don't like using the word "sexism." what I referred to in my earlier posts is committed by women far more than men.
OK. And the rest is correct?
no. the comments I read today in this thread are the first I've heard about a flip flop issue over trade. I saw a discussion re: hillary changing views on a subject matter. this seemed like a minor thing given that every politician does this to some extent. "totality of circumstances" wasn't referring to this particular issue, but the totality of circumstances in some peoples' utter dislike for hillary.
I think I got it.
"Every politician flips once in a while. People I know, and I assume more people in the general population, judge Hillary on a double standard. I don't believe this to be true of any of the posters involved. This second thought is not related to the current discussion, but is rather a new tangent I was introducing."
Is that it?
correct :D
though, strikethrough might be arguable.
I don't know about that.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/09/bill-clinton-cautioned-that-hillarys-discomfort-around-gay-issues-would-hurt-her-political-ambitions/
Perhaps. Also indicates that Jon Schwarz is a bit of a douche.
If she were male, no one would have ever heard of her outside of Illinois, 'cause then she wouldn't have been married to Bill, and she(well, he) would be a successful but obscure lawyer in Chicago.
Too true! The idea that a Chicago lawyer could get elected President of the United States without having been married to a previous president is obviously absurd! It has never happpened.
Well that and the Watergate thing.
You prefer Trump instead?
No, not that it's at all relevant to the statement I was making.
Realistically, only Trump and Hillary have a chance to become the next president. Since you don't prefer Hillary, I must ask if you prefer the other one :contract:
That's not what I said. I don't think she's that talented as a politician/beauty pageant contestant/snake oil salesman, but that's not really a bad thing as far as how she would perform in office.
Yeah that is my thinking on the matter. Time for a veteran insider to run this ship for a bit.
You have been a Hillary voter for as long as I can remember. I think she'd do a good job.
A divisive character, for sure, but with more clout than Sanders.
I like Sanders' ideas and he's incredibly funny to watch go apeshit about something, but I am not sure he'd be a good president.
That he is in fact still in the race, is incredible if you ask me.
Do you mean DOB? :unsure:
What are the main things that make you consider her an SOB/DOB/B?
I mean, personally I have the impression that that reputation is primarily the result of a decades long smear campaign by political opponents and media discomfort with powerful women. It's just an impression though, so I'm curious about the specifics that led you to that conclusion.
You do try your best :hug:
Isn't that a positive thing?
If it stops being fun, try prune juice.
The problem with Mrs. Clinton quote was she assumed that Republicans might see fabricating evidence against her as a negative. As it happened, Republicans happily adopted the mantle of conspiracy and continued fabricating scandals against her and her husband. The average Republican was okay with it, sadly.
Of course. Has been since 1997. THANKS MEREDITH BROOKS
The problem with Raz is that he sees tongue-in-cheek comments as evidence of a conspiracy.
Interesting theory.
When they claimed Hillary Murder Vince Foster was that tongue in cheek? What about when Falwell produced the Clinton Chronicles was that tongue in cheek? Were all those Benghazi hearings tongue in cheek?
Who are they?
The same people you claimed were speaking tongue-in-cheek.
Interesting.
I just came across this the other day, written by a former speech writer of Obama's who was not a Hillary fan. It paints a rather different picture of Hillary, though it's obviously coming from a particular point of view:
The rest of the article is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/26/why-electing-hillary-in-16-is-more-important-than-electing-obama-in-08.html
Talking all kinds of heinous trash and then backing down with a "I was only kidding" is one of the oldest and weakest techniques in the book. Humour, and the somewhat related "I was only joking" fake humour can and often is wielded as a weapon.
Yep. In fact I broke the Vince Foster story.
I think there are some legitimate negative views on Hillary. Namely that she (and Bill) are squarely in the hip pocket of the big banks and other rich corporate sponsors. That she (and Bill) received millions and millions of dollars in speaking fees, and to the Clinton Foundation.
Question: Do you believe there people in the 1990's who paid money to tarnish the Clinton name?
Isn't getting millions from rich corporate sponsors par for the course to an extent for 'establishment' political types in the US, in both parties? How many haven't done so?
The real truth is that Republicans are simply not that good at subterfuge. They couldn't pull off any House of Cards style stuff without outing themselves as a comical Bond villain.
That sounds likely. Do you believe there were people who have paid money to tarnish the Bush name, the Reagan name, the McCain name, the Romney name, etc? I just kind of assume giant political figures have enemies.
We part ways when you say that most Republicans wanted them to make up lies about the Clintons. As far as Republicans were concerned, the truth was bad enough.
For most Republicans the lies were the truth. They really believed in "trooper gate", or "travel gate" or all the rest of the phony scandals. Most of this had it origin in one guy, Richard Mellon Scaife, who spent a lot of money "investigating" the Clinton's and from where you got all these "scandals".
Which truth are you talking about?
So far in this thread we've got BB's "she and Bill are in the pockets of Wall Street and the big corporations". What else is there?
Well, yes, of course - but she and Bill have perfected the art.
Bill has earned over $100 million in speaking fees since leaving office. Hillary has been in office so not able to earn such a large sum, but still demands hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. And companies aren't paying those fees because Hillary is a compelling public speaker.
Well yeah. They are insiders, part of the establishment, the man, etc...
But that is who I want in that office right now.
Why not King George while you're at it?
Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Impeachment of Bill Clinton was 1998 (note that the impeachment came out of the investigation of Whitewater). What were they talking about between 1992 and 1998?
Well he has been dead since 1952. And he is not Constitutionally eligible. And he is not a US insider. But besides that I might consider him. I understand he can give a hell of a speech.
We don't know that because we don't have Hillary's transcripts.
Fair enough - that's pretty much the truth. It's a bit of a journey to draw a line from that to Hillary being a cold evil bitch though.
:D
Gays in the military,ObamaHillaryCare, Bill's love life(starting with Jennifer Flowers in campaign), OJ, Rodney King, the Chicago Bulls, Boris Yeltsin...
I think that's mostly built on the belief that it was a marriage of opportunity for her and she didn't care about Bill's fidelity. Well, the cold part. Evil is automatic for anyone with a (D) attached to their name.
Seems like a reasonable analysis, though it also seems fairly insubstantial.
Don't forget the things she said about Bill's accusers.
It also leads to a bizarre place where one has to ask so was the right thing for Hillary to honor her vows and stay married or was she supposed to dishonor them and divorce Bill? What would she have done if she wasn't so cold and calculating?
Well, the description "cold evil bitch" isn't all that common. I don't think I'd heard it put so starkly before today.
Take that part away, and all you're left with is a money-grubbing shyster.
I don't know what she said about Bill's accusers... what did she say?
This is not intended as a defense of Hillary, but it was my impression that relatives of important politicians in the US tend to sit on boards and do well in various areas of business related to politics. F. ex. I would expect that plenty of Bushes sit on boards and have had opportunities to join companies that benefit from political contacts for example. I guess it's less common for it to be the wife rather than the sons, daughters, and siblings though.
... or is this perception off?
It'll be interesting to see where it goes... very curious to see what strategy Trump takes after he gets the nomination and to what degree he tacks to the centre (and how does so). I see some of you guys here on languish as a bit of a bellwether of the American political climate - IMO Trump will have to win back voters like you that he's alienated during the primaries to win - so I'll be very interested in following your view and if/ how it evolves during the campaign.
That doesn't sound particularly egregious to me :)
:hmm:
she's a yale law school grad, worked at rose law firm as an associate, and eventually became partner. though, wasn't able to find how long she was associate. also, the firm has 32 attorneys -- it's not very big, and it doesn't seem to be an elite boutique firm, either. this doesn't seem like "leveraged her position as first lady of Arkansas into a partnership." while I'm sure her family's connections helped, what else is a professional woman interested in her own career to do? take a mediocre job and haul ass for a decade out of principle?
C'mon, now. Let's not be coy. Clinton murdering people! Clinton stealing! Hillary Clinton is a practicing witch! Clinton was a drug kingpin! Clinton secret police! Clinton plot launch a Marxist coup! Sending Money to the Contras.
Yeah, I think she might have mention that the people who said her husband sent black helicopters after there were "crazy". How hurtful. :(
That was the sacrifice she made to marry Bill Clinton, leave the East Coast, and follow him to Arkansas. Hillary Rodham would have been quite successful on her own, but not world domination successful.
I think this is valid. Then what? I don't think anyone is claiming Hillary is the first person in American history to leverage family political connections.
That's been the rule throughout history. Most recently, it was not a coincidence that Michelle Obama got a ~$300K/yr Vice President of Community Affairs position right after Barack got elected to the U.S. Senate. She also got added to a major Walmart supplier's Board of Directors for an additional ~$50K/yr. :showoff:
she had no idea that the guy she married would become president... her sacrifice was, at the time, just that -- she sacrificed her own career for marriage, then did the best she could with the hand she was dealt. and she kept doing the best she could with each new hand, until now: presidency.
Not quite, but whatever.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/michelle-obamas-salary/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Law_Firm
My impression, supported by this wiki article is that Rose is *the* firm for big clients litigating issues with the state government.
All it says about her making partner is "soon."
What part are you disputing? "Right after Obama was elected state senator?" Your own link says she made 316K.
No. It has been well-documented via research and interviews that Bill was planning for the Presidency throughout his teens and college years, and Hillary told people he would be President before marrying him as people continually hassled her about why she was wasting her time with a womanizing Southern hick. Both their lives have been very well calculated, even with the sexual issues.
You don't get to be the youngest Governor in the nation and then one of the youngest Presidents ever by having no idea what you are doing and having a wife/partner who has no idea what you are doing.
He said she made 300/k a year. Not 300k in one year. There's a difference.
yeah, I saw the same wiki page. I'm sure this middling arkansas firm does well for itself, but that doesn't mean it's elite or the best in the state. besides, as mentioned, she had pretty great credentials given that she came from yale. the legal field is utterly obsessed with prestige. hell, some drunk harvard grad could maybe walk into the best north dakota firm and land a job.
actually, clinton's wiki page shows she joined in 1977 and was made partner in 1979 (after bill became governor). between graduating in 1973 until 1977, she had a pretty strong career (including being a law professor). makes sense that the partners would want to snatch her up and keep her with the firm -- she was very clearly on the rise. this is way different than "leverag[ing] her position as first lady of Arkansas."
@phil :D
So you read that Rose is "the ultimate establishment law firm" and conclude it's a middling firm, then you read she made partner after two years, in the same year Bill was elected governor, and conclude that's way different than leveraging her position.
Might it be time to cut your losses? And consider a different career field? Maybe criminal defense? :P
I think you may well be putting too much stock in a wiki article by some anonymous guy on the internet. I think LaCroix is overstating the chances that HRC would have made partner at Rose by 1878 had she not been married to the governor, but the "the ultimate establishment law firm" is from Carl Bernstein in a bio of HRC, not the evaluation of someone who would necessarily know an "ultimate establishment law firm" if it bit him in the ass. I bet AmScip could say with more assurance whether it was a step up or down for HRC in 1977.
I know Canadians would never tolerate a politician leveraging family connections to reach high office.
I would expect him to be able to give a couple paragraphs description of all the major Washington firms.
oh, I think the partners' decision to fast-track her to partner was absolutely influenced by bill's governorship. what I'm saying is that she definitely had credentials where that wasn't the craziest move ever. remember, the claim was that she leveraged her first ladyship to become partner.
Fair enough.
:lol:
Indeed - like many wiki articles about private businesses it reads like a PR piece. Which is basically what it is.
That may be one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Well done. :)
Well, mostly that holding leveraging family connections against Clinton is a perfectly fine point of view, but I'd expect it to also be held against Bush, Trump, and most of the rest of the US political class (in both parties) who play that game.
So, like, "I dislike Clinton because she's deeply enmeshed in the political system and has been adept at benefiting from it, as evidenced by the way she's leveraged family political connections" is perfectly legitimate IMO. "I think Clinton is singularly manipulative and dishonest because the way she leveraged her family political connections" makes less sense to me.
I'm not so much trying to make an argument here as trying to figure out the nature and the sources of the animus against Clinton, since it's not something I've followed through her career.
This is useful information.
How has Trump leveraged family connections?
IMO there is something slightly more creepy about deciding who you will marry (and not divorce) based on calculations about possible future benefits to your ambitions than there is to being born the son or daughter of a big shot.
So...most marriages in history?
It is true though. I don't get the demand for purity, especially from Yi of all people.
Thanks!
-_-
:lol:
Well done.
Inheriting and "borrowing" millions from your father and using that money to "buy" whatever politicians necessary to build his business empire. It's basically the other half of the symbiotic relationship that's considered the problem. In one instance, a person has political family connections and they help their career; in another the person has family money and uses it to buy political connections to help their career.
Ah, okay! I hadn't realized that this was the crux of it, but that makes sense. So the idea here is that the only (or primary) reason Hillary didn't divorce Bill after the whole Lewinsky debacle was to fuel her personal political ambition? And that their marriage was primarily about their ambition, even before that?
Is there a reasonable body of evidence to imply that that is the case? Personally, I find it very fraught to judge that sort of thing.
There's a signed affidavit? What does it say and how did it come about?
Not that I know of.
Might have been more poignant if I dropped the last bit with Sanders. You made a phenomenal joke in another thread, so I thought I'd try and reciprocate.
Cruz or Trump, I am building a bomb shelter or moving to Tahiti with PeeDee either way. They scare the beejebus out of me.
Oh I think I see what you're getting at.
I was wondering if there was any reason to suspect Hillary stayed with Bill for purely mercenary reasons beyond the very basics of the situation - that he had sex with other women, and that he was president at the time?
She clearly stayed with him after the Lewinsky affair - is there anything that suggests that she did so for coldly calculated self-serving reasons rather than, say, "for the children", or because they worked through their problems and she forgave him because she loves him, or because she genuinely didn't care that he slept around but had to pretend she did, or some other reason?
Is there anything that suggests she did it for the children, etc., etc?
She "stood by her man" at a time when the bimbo irruptions were threatening to scupper his campaign. He clearly benefited. Later she ran for office and clearly benefited from association with Bill as well as his active campaigning.
Sure. I'm not making an argument here, I'm just trying to understand what facts are being used to reach the conclusion.
Bottom line: it sounds to me the evidence we have for Hillary's motivation for staying in her marriage is that she didn't divorce him. We have no insight into what her actual motivations were, only conjecture.
We have more than that. We have a quid and we have a quo. We're only debating the pro.
I have a hunch you would be less concerned about distinguishing between "insight" and "conjecture" if we were having a similar discussion in a different context, such as, for example, why people are voting for Donald Trump or why Wubya invaded Iraq.
Seriously? We are comparing why people vote for Donald Trump and why we invaded Iraq to why a woman maintained her marriage?
You can if you want to. So far just Jacob and I are.
He's not saying there's the same answer for each question.
I think if this was an unusual occurrence then it would merit more investigation. It isn't that unusual for a woman to stick with their husband after infidelity, particularly if the husband is in a position of power. It could be to advance their own agenda, but so what? Good for them, they are taking a crappy situation and trying to make the best of it. I don't see it materially changing anything.
So the fact that it was better for Bill that they didn't divorce (not disputed), and that it would likely benefit her career (as it seems to have) means that it is not possible for her to have made the decision for personal reasons?
If we consider the hypothetical (however likely or unlikely) that Hillary decided to stay with Bill out of reasons of love/ forgiveness. What would Hillary have had to do in that scenario, what would have had to happen, for you to consider that she wasn't motivated for cynical careerist reasons?
What do you mean?
I mean, I get the part where you think I'm biased and everything I say is calibrated to disingenuously support "my side," but if you had a point beyond that I didn't get it.
For the record, I think G.W. Bush invaded Iraq because he was convinced by his advisors that it would show American strength and advance American interests (political and economical) in the region; and I think people are voting for Trump for a variety of individual reasons, but that a common theme is being sick of the prevailing political class and liking his personal style.
Nothing wrong with comparing things, IMO.
In fact, the only time I got banned from EUOT was because I defended comparing different things to highlight both the differences and the similarities. That's kind of the point. "Comparing" doesn't have to mean "saying they're pretty much the same thing", even if claiming that is frequently used as a rhetorical device to attack opponents in arguments.
Unless we're talking math or physics anything is possible.
Beats me.
I mean we discuss the motivations of public people all the time. Yet in this particular you seem to have an issue with it.
Yeah I raised that earlier that she was a bit damnew if she did and dawned if she didn't. Still fun to see in the wider world, conservatives saying she was terrible for honoring her marriage vows. :D
From the article looks like said aide pled the fifth even though campaign said, hey you should be open and cooperate with the investigation. Him getting immunity could simply just mean that such was his necessary precondition to cooperate, no?
Yes. Granting immunity is a way of neutralizing the right-against-self-incrimination refusal to testify. It doesn't mean that the Justice department believes that there was a crime to be immunized against. It could be purely procedural, to force him to testify.
Not really. Fundamentally I agree with MiM that it's not really any of my business.
However, Hillary Clinton is obviously a hot topic right now and as part of that there's the whole "she's a cold calculating shrew, as evidenced by her sham marriage" thing. Thus I'm interested in finding out exactly what the substance of this whole "sham marriage" allegation is; and it appears it's nothing but insinuations.
Ultimately, whether it's insinuations or there's some actual evidence that the marriage is purely based on political calculations, I don't think the sex and love lives of public figures are any of our business unless it involves underage prostitution, rape, or domestic abuse - and that holds across the entire political spectrum. But I'm still curious about the evidence if the subject is currently topical.
Fucker better not pull that shit. It might make me forget all the bad stuff he's said :angry:
I'M GOING TO SEND YOU TO SING SING! SING SING HILARY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBaZmYd3nsM)
Call him Charles Foster Trump. :bowler:
Sure. I'll make an exception here though ;)
If the FBI recommends indictment and Obama declines, it will definitely leak. Wouldn't that be even worse electorally for the Dems than throwing her to the wolves and going with Sanders or picking Biden or Warren at the convention.
The FBI's not gonna recommend indictment.
If the choice were Trump or Biden, it would be much easier for me to vote Democratic.
He can prosecute them all he wants it will not go anywhere. I mean that would be the end of Hillary's career anyway so it would be too late to benefit your party and she would walk. You know damn well they will always get away with it. It is what they do.
Man you are a shrill about this :lol:
After all the free trade deals and welfare reform the first Clinton regime did to. At least that makes it clear it is hysterical and personal.
I'd just enjoy seeing him threaten it.
:secret: He's playing the game. He's not being shrill about this at all, from what I can see. I've been rather surprised and pleased at the way he has passed on temptations to troll the shit out of this story.
Siege, not so much.
NAFTA and welfare reform were pretty much the only two times I supported Bill. Was nice while it lasted.
How about the surplus?
:secret: I am trolling him
Spicey's cool. Just giving him a hard time.
Still going strong. Pretty lasting legacies :contract:
He wanted them to get it right is all :P
From what I've read, the big stink is about certain aides cutting and pasting TS information from their classified government email accounts, creating new documents by scanning the info as a .pdf, and then moving it forward to "Ms. I Can't Be Bothered With Two Devices" Hillary.net account for her to read.
Absolutely :mad:. Share if you agree.
I Trump this:
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2016/451463-13-16094-16093.html
Um let's take a second to think about the unintended consequences of such a rule :P
I don't think they exist now. Sure maybe in '08, but now they definitely don't have a social media presence in the same manic fashion of Bernie Sanders supporters that lead to things like:
"A vote for Hillary is a vote for the continued slow-motion self-destruction of our nation, undermining of global security, and ruination of the planet itself. "Getting things done" maybe, within a tiny scope circumscribed by a runaway capitalist agenda."
Makes you want to vote for Trump.
How is breastfeeding in public viewed in Spain?
I guess it depends. I see it plenty but this is a pretty liberal town. I have even seen it in churches. It might be different in smaller places.
I lol'd. And then burped it back up.
You just can't control when a baby is going to get hungry, and it will be hungry plenty.
I don't see how this is a lower class issue by the way. If you want to breast feed your baby, you'll run into this issue unless you choose to stay at home all day long, no matter your income level.
Baby formula isn't very expensive - over here at least, particularly if you just want to use it while being in public. Breastfeeding is often a choice as some consider it a healthier way of raising your baby (I am not aware of the science backing or not backing that).
:hmm:
isn't pumping (or whatever it is) an alternative to baby formula? basically, if bottle + food (either formula or natural) is perfectly fine, then why would women ever breastfeed in public? aside from forgetting the bottle or whatever
I think people let mothers breastfeed their babies, don't they? most people are passive aggressive. if someone actually complains, treat that person like you would any other hall monitor
If it doesn't exist, it can't scream either.
Fixed your post. Or broke it, depending on your point of view.
If you are breasfeeding a child, then "puming" is not an alternative to breastfeeding at any particular moment, since the mom will have to pump at some point as well. The boobs fill with milk, and it has to be removed, either by pumping or feeding. If you thinking feeding a baby in public is a bit distracting, I can assure you that hooking mom up to a couple pumps in public is much more so.
If you are breastfeeding a child, then it is likely (hopefully) on some kind of feeding schedule. If you happen to be in public when the combination of baby + breasts + schedule means it is feeding time, then feeding is going to happen. Most women find somewhere non-public to do that - certainly my wife would never have done so in public under any circumstances, she would have found it mortifying.
But the idea that you can just forgo feeding by grabbing a bottle is not really (or always) accurate. Depending on the child and mother, formula may not be an option at all.
... so people in the US who'd like something similar to what you're used to are insufferable social warriors? Seems bit unfair, tbh.
I don't know. I just figure it is easier to be cool when people breastfeed their babies than commit mass genocide of everybody under the age of 2.
I don't object her aspiration, I object the preciousness and the whole "touched by Bernie made this the happiest day ever" thing. I would vote for Bernie if I were American, but I find the whole social media personality cult a tad irritating.
Meh, maybe I have a short fuse for this kind of thing.
It's the "Herod" school of politics. :D
they already have it though, don't they?
It's called "a blanket". :whistle:
Who said anything about murder?
Well, there certainly seems to be more public discourse about "should breastfeeding in public be allowed" than in the parts of Europe I'm aware of. It seems it's a bit of a thing.
Fair enough.
that's what I was wondering, what's exactly at issue when they already can do it.
so, I posted this
I think that's the point that they are theoretically trying to make. In practice, their point seems to be more, "I'm a better person than mothers who have their babies on the bottle, so instead of just discreetly feeding my child when it needs fed, I have to flaunt what I'm doing for everyone to see, because that way they'll also see how much of a better person I am".
Nah, I just basically see women who make a show of it as a bunch of dirty hippies. :p:
Ah. I guess I was unaware of another way to make all babies not exist :P
They do? I am pretty sure zero Democrats think the Republicans will never again control the Presidency.
Zero? I am pretty sure it's more than that.
They're loons.
Maybe among the most moronic of the rank and file but none of the party functionaries think that.
Brainwashed
Well someone is feeding him this stuff. He's gone from "tribal socialist" who thought the moon landing was a hoax to a freemarket fundmentalist who eagerly awaits the coming of God computers.
Well, people change for the better.
I have evolved my political opinions.
Tribal socialism is already a recognition that socialism doesn't work on a society at large, and it only have a chance if the people in it are blood related. Which also doesn't work because lazy people like me are going to let other do all the work in the family business and use my relative freedom to join foreign armies and trot the wold smashing moonslims.
Tis.
I blame languish.
But who told you all this nonsense?
What nonsense?
Everything i say is brilliant.
Fixed.
I stand against the uncultured majority. Herds are not for me. Your mindless support for suicidal democrat policies have provoked a response from my brilliant and unresting mind.
No need to insult the Brain
Now hold on. I don't support the suicidal ones.
So women breastfeeding in public are"flaunting how much better they are"? Sort of like how gay people holding hands in public are "flaunting their homosexuality"?
I don't think the people breastfeeding in public are in the least, but certainly some of the vibe I get from the breastfeeding activists in their online articles / social media posts.
Wow. The community you live in is certainly far different than the one I live in.
by occasional baby lover, I'm referring to something similar to dog lovers who are strangers to a dog owner. the strangers who actually come up to see the baby and interact with the parents.
I wasn't talking about women who breastfeed in public. I was talking about the ones who deliberately draw attention to the fact that they are breastfeeding in public--which, admittedly is only a small group. But they were the group we were discussing.
Are you some sort of alien?
no, I personally don't babies and am OK with public breastfeeding. but I'm also OK with public displays of affection. I can understand why people wouldn't like seeing that kinda stuff, though.
You don't personally babies? I see...
MIND babies?!!? You sure you're not an alien? :area52:
I think all that's fine - though I would say it is rhetorically cheap to compare to homosexuality. <_<
I don't like children in general but I have the serenity to accept things I cannot change. :)
I think others have already said it, but this is really bizarre.
Google's top hit for baby lover was this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEhL07UCkb4
why do you think people dislike public breastfeeding? other than awkwardness/grossness, what other reason makes sense?
you've got people posting on FB about how others report their breastfeeding pictures. you have public breastfeeding activists. and itt, you've got an anecdote of someone's wife being mortified at the thought of public breastfeeding. plus, if it was a normal, everyday thing, you'd probably see it happening way more often. maybe california/NYC are progressive enough where people honestly don't blink and stare a little bit at public breastfeeding, but I don't think the majority of the country is like that.
Because they're a bunch of weird uptight fuckers who can't think of women's bodies as anything but sinful sexual devices.
Yeah, fair enough... it was the "flaunting" thing that clinched it.
:(
a less extreme version of this is maybe part of it. but the whole act is pretty personal in general. typically, people don't like personal things displayed in public. best to find an excluded area somewhere, which is what most mothers do
when society rejects allowing women to do something, it's not always caused by sexism
Duh. Women are not people; they are devices built by our Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment.
Our Lord Jesus Christ should have built the devices with a better ability to drive a car.
Yeah, but that adds to entertainment, what with all the women driving jokes over the years.
Also btw in case anyone forgot: MEN DRIVE
Just don't shove it in my face.
He basically split the delegates with Clinton, and still trails her in the total count.
We can all be employees under a President Bloomberg
0% unemployment
Demographics. Non-hispanic whites are simply a smaller proportion of the electorate than it used to be.
Logically, the GOP would take advantage of the fact that white hispanics are assimilating quickly into the mainstream, and add them to their coalition. However that's clearly not happened.
If Trump is nominated he would literally have to rack up 70% of the non-hispanic white vote.
I said my wife would be mortified at the idea of HER doing so, not mortified at the idea of anyone else doing so - not the same thing at all.
She is just rather private, and would not at all be comfortable. But it has no bearing on her opinion about other women doing it, which she would support almost unequivocally.
Well sure but sometimes you have to breastfeed. Would you rather the baby just screamed its head off because it was hungry? And parents do have to leave their homes sometimes :P
True
Thanks for the image of Jaron breastfeeding :angry:
Jaron: in Deseret, are people really uptight about giving waiters or waitresses their credit cards, at least at diner/family restaurant kind of places? Because I had an awful weird experience in Ogden half a year back...
It is a beautiful natural thing Spicey. A beautiful natural thing that required lots of hormone treatments.
Actions have consequences! :angry:
Who knows, perhaps Jaron was the original that AR just copied and he has been trolling us about his real life the entire time that Languish has existed. :o
Eons ago a worked with a gal (had huge jugs btw) who came up to me and emphatically told me not to go into the room on our floor designated for breast pumping-- she went further and spelled it out for me that she would be pumping in that room. She was really weird about it, though. Almost as if she was telling me to go in there. I didn't :goodboy:
I think I subconsciously suspect that about 40% of Languish is trollish sockpuppets. Perhaps that's a defense mechanism.
Nothing so enticing or erotic as a woman with pump things attached to her breasts.
Maybe she just wanted some company, breast pumping can be kind of boring. My wife would always call me at work to chat when she was pumping insider her company's pumping room.
Oh I'm sure there is a small segment of guys turned on by that.
:lol: Yeah I'd be totally comfortable with that.
not staring help.
Anyways, there's nothing to see with breastfeading. Baby hugs all the boob.
Preibus went on TV, said it was totally wrong to say the suit was duplicative, and then went on to explain that it is duplicative.
Meh, cuffs and ball gags make it better.
Sometimes those breast pump rooms are like chick caves, man. Luxurious recliner chairs, throw pillows, stainless appliances, mood lighting, complementary snack items, soundproofed, but with wireless sound systems for soothing music.
Meanwhile, what do we get? Gotta share the shitter with Farooq, who's still getting used to the concept of indoor plumbing and doesn't understand why there's a seat that lifts, after all the ditch at the edge of the village never had that.
The RNC would be remiss if it wasn't working all election season, all the time.
I like how a Fox news anchor tore into him on this. He probably thought he was facing a soft interview. :D
Well, now I want to go out and hit Charles Pierce with a reasonably large stick.
I'll admit it's a bit crude, but I think me hitting this guy with a stick is not illogical.
It is an emotional response.
Don't you play coy with me buster.
Well I don't think the socialists really believe in socialism anymore. It is just the tiresome debate of whether taxes should be 5% or 6% or welfare should be one amount per month or another amount per month.
We already have the government helping out with college education, Bernie just wants to do so a bit more. Hardly a new economic system.
Of course I don't think we can afford to do any of those things, so I oppose him. But I don't think Capitalism is in danger. Even in European nations where it is a dirty word it still is the only system.
Not even the most radical gun control laws passed back when they enjoyed popular support actually involved confiscation. Buy back programs sometimes sure. They would, at best, be fighting to prevent criminals with a history of mental illness and gun violence from buying guns....very easily. I think you are safe.
Is that even a substance?
It seems so... insubstantial.
If it'll bloat, it'll float.
I drank the entirety of a twelve-pack of Miller Lite (12 x 355ml cans) over the course of a Raymond Chandler novel once, during some dark days, seven or eight years ago. Many bathroom breaks included. The point was 25% to test out light beer and 75% to get drunk, of course.
4% ABV is something like 5% ABW, so it's still stronger ethanol-wise than a lot of good English pale ale or stout.
Hillary has hinted that she wants to follow the Australian model of confiscation.
I drink pilsner when I'm trying to not get drunk. Yet somehow only strong ABV beers make it into my fridge somehow. As much as I love whiskey I usually get heartburn these days before I have enough to get me drunk :D
You mean by legislation?
lol "confiscation". Bullethead.
How did she hint that she'd implement this confiscation?
He's in the army, they aren't technically his guns. They belong to the government.
She said she favored the Australian plan, which involved confiscation.
Which would require the overwhelming popular support the Australians required and would still be overturned for being un-Constitutional so I think you are safe. :lol:
Again the first time the Clintons were in office there was significant support for this sort of thing yet it still didn't happen.
Of course even in the Australian example it was a program that involved people handing in their shit and getting compensated, hardly bans of minions searching every house.
She did? Where? When? The best I could find is she an buyback program like Australia had is worth considering.
If you were stupid enough to get caught.
Well don't get me wrong. Australia has just about the worse laws on anything in existence and wanting to strongly consider their ideas is always suspect, but there is basically zero chance any of that happens here. At least as far as things stand now.
Even if the Democrats sweep into majorities in both houses of Congress and re-capture the Presidency there is little chance of any substantial gun control legislation being passed...and certainly nothing even remotely close to the sledgehammer subtlety the Aussies seem to love.
Tell that all to your chosen candidate. Who is speaking right now :pinch: Like nails on a chalkboard.
She is kissing leftist ass right now. The Clintons, they lie.
You are not kidding about the speaking part. I cannot stand listening to her speak.
Ding dong the red is dead? We'll see.
I got news for you. We all belong to the gruberment.
Our freedoms are long gone, and only the wellbeing of the bureaucracy ruling DC and the elite who benefits from their rule is important.
Apparently she wants to end deportations.
Nonsense. Our freedoms are inalienable.
Look she is only referring to ethnic groups likely to vote for the Democrats.
I think at this point, we are doomed to have this continue on though we all know the inevitable conclusion.
Okay, but she didn't say she actually endorsed it.
Okay, but she didn't say she was willing to plunge the country into civil war in order to see it enacted. :contract:
True. So then we can agree she didn't bother to think through the implications, right?
There are plenty.
Dude you are cute. Hillary does not actually support doing that, should would never do such a radical un-Clinton thing in a million years. It is all bullshit for the leftists in this election. The woman is a corrupt political animal.
Boy you got that right.
Thing is, I don't recall New York fatties stockpiling Big Gulps before the 16-oz confiscation.
Fear of those damned dirty rapist negroes out to take all your stuff and rape it all rapey-like was being peddled long before the gun industry got into it.
I remember you preaching a similar line in 08. How do you determine which positions are sincere and which are cynical sops to the radical base?
And I was right. I know the Democrats. They are sell outs. At least the non-Sanders ones are. And at this point I find that stabilizing.
So everything a non-bernie Democratic candidate promises to do is a lie? :unsure:
You kidding? Obama has sold more guns than any gun industry marketing person could dream of.
THATS REAL RETARDED SIR
I know! Damn if only I had had some money to invest back in 2008.
Depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is.
Obviously it is not that simple. It is more like: I can count on them to be basically sensible.
:lmfao:
:yes: Well, I don't want to kick O'Malley when he's down.
Wish I had the liquid funds to start doing the same. I'm gambling on Hillary taking it in November, but the chance of Trump winning makes the proposition a little dicey.
It's been over since Super Tuesday.
Even as much as sanders would have been good for America (for the world though I'm unsure. All this talk of bringing jobs back to America..... fine when a small country says that sort of thing but when it's the country controlling so much of the global economy?) I think being able to have a little protest for him has to be a secondary priority to avoiding trump.
As naff as hilary is you can be sure with her it will be business as usual. Which. Isn't actually THAT bad
Ass.
So a vote not cast is a vote for Manson? :hmm:
This is also why I'm so upset that we're continuing to have the Bern drift along. He's already pushed Hillary to the left, now time to bow out as the next few months will only continue strife and lead to more Bern supporters adopting Mihali's juvenile* stance.
*and really it is as not voting/protesting voting in the two party system we have only serves to help the Republicans who are certainly much farther away policy-wise than Hillary is to Bernie.
The same kind of non-committal rhetorics coming from Trump is enough of an evidence he is a fascist so I am not sure why it is a different standard for Hillary. Is it because she is a woman and women usually do not think through their stances? :hmm:
This is the part I don't really get from your part of the left (the one that is pro-Sanders and vehemently anti-Trump). Sure, I have no problem with you preferring Sanders over Clinton. But if Trump is the evil incarnate and a racist fascist you claim him to be, surely one should hold their nose and vote for Clinton, right? That is the only moral stance to take - potentially contributing to a fascist victory because the counter-candidate is not ideologically pure enough is deeply unethical.
In political speak it means "I'm not actually going to do anything".
Not really, that is an underlying truth that does not depend upon the language used, as it is rarely explicitly stated.
You would have thought people learned their fucking lesson in 2000. Not voting out of principle is a shitty fucking principle.
Quite frankly, and I don't care how melodramatic people think it sounds, but far too many Americans have died and far more people on this planet die every day over the right to vote. I don't care if it's a vote for dog catcher or chancery judge, or even if it's as trivial a matter as making sure your vote cancels out Yi's, fucking vote.
You go ahead and vote for President Goldman and Vice-President Sachs. I'm done.
You sure you haven't turned into a gnome of Zurich, your Swiss neoliberalism is shining through. And I *never* make fun of you for this, but what's good for the British coal-mine goose isn't good for the American steel-mill gander?
And yes, business as usual really is that bad, just not for you or me because we're extraordinarily lucky.
:lol: So juvenile to think that just because I've voted for 95% (D) candidates in the past, a Presidential candidate -- even from the Democratic Party! -- has to earn my vote rather than just expect it? What's juvenile is refusing to believe we can ever have anything better than "the better of two evils" and smearing anyone who is foolish enough to vote their conscience, like a mere child shaking his rattle.
Of course we can never have perfect candidates; but at a certain point the things that make the candidates "evil" are pretty specific and pretty obvious, e.g. campaign contributions from the finance sector, not vague or petty distastes like "not sure we see eye-to-eye on the environment..." or "wears suits a size too big."
EDIT: Nevermind, wasn't a fair reading of your words.
I have been laughing at the people who think Trump is going to become a fascist dictator so why are you asking me to account for them? :hmm:
:lol: Marty calls me "vehemently anti-Trump," Raz says I defend Trump even when he calls for violence; which is it?
Raz at least has some discussion to back up his opinion. (Discussion that was misinterpreted, but at least based on some kind of statement of mine.) Yours is pulled out of thin air.
I'd go through the Languish routine of demanding you find a post where I say Trump is evil incarnate or claim he's as a racist fascist, but it's silly since there's evidently nothing like that to be found. This may come as a surprise, but I don't think either is true. (And my views on Trump aren't "mostly" trolling, unlike some of us.)
Guess I'm not a member of "[my] part of the left" after all. :( Just caught in that "part of the left" that you're currently having psychosexual reactionary fantasies about. Go back to the Zizek, Mart, it'll do you some good to dig into psychoanalysis. :console:
And unsure if his stance of promoting domestic industries would be good for the world. Hence the analogy to the situation of British coal industry in the 70s-80s: protecting the mines was good for Britain but it wasn't clear that it was good for the world, especially the other coal-producing parts of the world...
Nah. It's like when the British say that something is a "brave proposal". They mean you are crazy, not brave. Same thing with "we are looking into it" or "it's worth looking into" It means "we aren't taking this seriously, maybe we'll have a panel or some other busywork"
Christ, yes.
"Tired and emotional." Like me. :rolleyes:
In the race that we are discussing? Yes, an unqualified yes. Leaving the presidency open for Republicans isn't going to help matters and instead will do a lot to push more anti-leftist agendas. Clinton might not push as far left as you'd like but it is a hell of a lot more left than you'll get from any Republican candidate. Maybe juvenile was a bit harsh but it does seem to reflect a lack of critical thinking about the reality of politics in America.
I think that is a very odd definition of evil. I don't think, in a capitalist society, I would consider someone evil because they get campaign contributions from the financial sector.
:lol:
:showoff:
This class warfare and "we must fight Goldman-Sachs!", isn't really very helpful.
"Evil" was in quotes to represent its connection to the phrase "the better of two evils," which doesn't really mean two actually evil things are being compared, like "better the devil you know."
Why should I vote for a candidate I don't want to be President? Why is it my responsibility to use my vote to help the Democratic Party candidate win when they don't put forward a candidate I support?
This kind of "well if you don't like you can lump it, pick the least shittiest for 'our side' or GTFO" thinking seems much less in line with the duties of disposing of my sacred ballot, for which so much blood was shed, as CdM noted.
And we're not on the same side politically, a fundamental point that's much broader than just the two of us, and one that's been building and building for various reasons. My political priorities are entirely different than yours, even though we share certain policy preferences, and the Democratic Party is just not a big enough tent for me with Hillary Clinton as the candidate.
Well, I don't like to miss an Election Day, it's the only time of the year you get inside an elementary school gym without a lot of hassle from the cops. So I guess my write-in/defaced/Working Families Party ballot will have to be bold enough this year. :sleep:
Hear! Hear!
:lol: Income inequality's the same or worse as it was when Hillary took office? We're still entangled in senseless foreign conflicts? Still pouring billions into Israel while they "settle" the West Bank? Well, at least I didn't vote my conscience!
EDIT: In essence, you have it precisely backwards.
Your moral comfort comes from saying "Well, at least I did the most darned reasonable thing, under the circumstances, win or lose. Did my part to keep the system's welfare up." While totally disregarding the fact that "the circumstances" are not given by God, but just political structures that *we* are responsible for maintaining or abolishing. The system's welfare is just fine, but the system hasn't ensured the welfare of this country.
I guess it's more comfortable to accept the status quo as a permanent situation than to have to look at the damage it's doing and fight to change it.
Well I'm not even always a democrat, so certainly I was not trying to suggest we have the same political aims.
I do think though, correct me if I'm wrong, Hillary can actually check off more liberal leftist aims that you might support than Trump (or any other Republican) ever will. That would be why you would then vote for a candidate that you dislike because at least that candidate comes closer to the things you like and less likely to expand on things that you consider an anathema.
There's also, as DG sort of said, a bit about voting for the candidate who you think would be better for America and its citizens as a whole. Trump (and the current Republican crop) aren't really those people.
You have to sell people on your ideas to change things. Constantly presenting obviously stupid ideas that are proven failures is not likely to sway me.
I looked the other day at Stein's ideas and it reminded me why America is only a two party system. Chicken and egg problem but a third party really needs to not be batshit insane to garner support.
Hillary can check off more items on the liberal-left checklist, yes. If she chooses to. Some of her past checks on the checklist have been things I not only didn't/don't support, but oppose(d) passionately.
And I'm voting for a candidate, not a checklist. I find a number of things about Hillary Clinton's activities during and after the Bill Clinton presidency (even the governorship), during her tenure as Senator, and during and after her tenure as Secretary of State to have little faith in her integrity or compatibility with my political beliefs.
I'd find any number of things anathema about the polices of a Trump, let alone Cruz, presidency. So I won't for either of them either.
I will vote for the candidate who I think would be better for America. :) Luckily, there's nothing about our system of government or even the physical voting location that constrains me to two choices. So I'll vote for that candidate, but it won't be Hillary Clinton.
I mean, that's exactly what I'd expect from a Green candidate.
:unsure: ..... Okey-dokey. :thumbsup:
She's promoting green jobs FFS. What else can you ask for in a candidate?
Ok then. Lose and lecture people about their "comfort" then. Whatever.
:lol:
For the record, *I* was the one who got lectured for my "comfort" by DGuller! :D I just can't win with you guys. But you all obviously need a way of discharging the bad conscience you unconsciously feel about playing your appointed role in propping up the status quo as it takes us over a cliff, so I don't mind.
Yeah the problem though is in reality (in terms of who can actually win), you can pick any color you like as long as it is black or white. Sucks that is the case, but those are the breaks.
That was Marco Rubio's problem.
Why am I part of a DGuller hivemind? You talked about how you wanted to fight to change things. I was offering you advice. The solutions I tend to hear from the left strike me as more likely to throw us off cliffs more quickly than turn things around. And, again, I am not convinced that cliff falling is as inevitable as some of you political wonks seem to think it is so it takes a bit to convince me that we need to act in a radical manner. I think science and technology determine things more than political structures anyway and the changes coming are going to be so YUUGE that the results are unpredictable.
Donald Trump in 2016:
Siege quotes von Mises but backs the most anti-capitalist candidate.
No it was very clear in context she was talking about a voluntary buyback program. She compared it to cash for clunkers which was also voluntary. You've been breitbarted.
The introduction of "comfort" into the discussion was purely DGuller's, so I don't see how I can be chastised by you for chastisising people about it, that's how you joined his hivemind.
I have nothing to "sell" you, but it's clear that a lot of Americans right now are deeply unhappy with the political status quo -- "the way things are," "the breaks," "being realistic," etc. -- across the ideological spectrum.
And the unexpected success of the Sanders campaign, which I will gladly admit is pretty "single-issue," shows that a lot of people, and a lot of Democrats, don't like living in a country reaching new extremes in first-world wealth inequality daily.
I'm sure plenty of them will be "scared straight" by the type of thinking in this thread and vote Clinton, so don't worry. But some of us just don't have the strong stomachs for holding back the nausea inspired by voting for a candidate who made $675,000 giving mysterious speeches to Goldman Sachs since "that's what they offered." Was September 2008 really so long ago? Jesus, Obama must be the greatest President of the last 100 years to make people forget what the investment banks did to this country and to the world seven years ago...
But britain didn't control the world economy (and thus the flow of jobs) the way the us does.
If the us wanted to it could really do a lot of damage to others.
The catch-22 is that due to the structural issues of first-past-the-post voting combined with a winner-take-all electoral college a third party needs to be batshit insane to get attention in the first place. In order to get attention as a sane person you basically have to stick a "D" or "R" after your name.
The US is a two-party system because it is structured that way, not because the alternatives are insane.
Or perhaps the last eight years, to the extent they evinced any real desire to introduce regulatory restraint in the financial industry, were only so because enough voters in 2000 showed the Democratic Party that it cannot take its left wing for granted and the newly-elected President acted with this in mind?
And the eight years before that, the ones with a Democrat at the helm and the current candidate at his side influencing policy decisions, maybe they only repealed the Glass-Steagal Act because of all the anti-"establishment" voters who went for Perot?
Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.
Agreed. That's why I am talking history. We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that. That actually happened.
I said chicken and egg. :P
The Australian "buyback" program was mandatory (basically the Australian government was compensating you for seized property) and I don't see how it was analogous to Cash for Clunkers. Unless I totally misunderstood what Cash for Clunkers was all about.
Now if she wants to do a gun version of Cash for Clunkers I'll happily participate. $4,500 toward an ammo-efficient rifle for trading in one of my beat-up old Mosin Nagants? IN
And you've been motherjonesed? :unsure:
So long as you really cannot see a difference between a President Trump and a President Clinton, your reasoning is fine; neither party has earned your vote, and both have earned your abstinence.
If you are not indifferent to the result, though, and are merely expressing a fit of pique that your Quixote didn't knock down the windmill, then i hope you grow up before November, or you'll be doing yourself a serious disservice.
I tend to agree with Mihali, but I see your point. Now, I am not an American and couldn't vote even in Florida, but there's something refreshing about Sanders' campaign. Angry old Jewish guy throwing the book at the Pharaohs, almost. He's basically Moses. I think they went to high school together, by the way.
Trump is tapping into what European populists have done the past two decades at least. A feeling of disenfranchisement, of the "elites" just doing their thing, but mostly into anger and resentment in a predominantly white working class.
Elections no longer seem to be about who's more suitable to run a country, but rather "I don't want these people".
This also has contributed massively to the near-deaths of most of Europe's established socialist parties. They did very little to fight increasing inequality. In fact, most sat on their hands and let it happen up until 2009. Because growth was decent anyway, and the poor don't vote.
Go back to the original speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFNAEYHlCyQ
It is completely clear in context she is talking about a voluntary program.
The problem with Sanders is not what he says, it's what he's not saying considering the kind of people he admires and respect.
People like Olof Palme and Gro Harlem Brundtland? :unsure:
She might be, who knows. But she was very misleading, if not outright dishonest about what the Australians did. Or she's just totally misinformed on the Australian "buyback".
Throw all the "context" at me you want, the Australian example does not match up with a voluntary buyback program. And voluntary buyback programs are significantly different from Cash for Clunkers. At best, she did not think things through here.
Also she seems to misunderstand what an automatic weapon is. If you want to ban or restrict something, it helps to understand what it is you are banning/restricting.
:rolleyes:
There is a time and place for both options.
If you look at both realistic options and decide one is noticeably better, or at least one is noticeably worse, then you should probably pick between those two options.
But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice. And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.
I don't care for either candidate in this likely matchup. But Trump's so incoherent, so unpredictable I don't want him anywhere near the levers of power, so I'd rather a plain old corrupt candidate like Hillary take it.
Of course. But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.
True. I was trying to let Mihali come to that conclusion himself however. :shifty:
He appears to be 100% against both. :hmm:
We got 8 years of B. Clinton and it was Perot voters who swung that according to your logic, and those 8 years were as bad if not worse than the following 8 in creating the conditions for the '8 meltdown.
The Democratic Party and Al Gore failed to convince a number of people to vote for them instead of Nader. They lost the election, not the Nader voters. I feel like this is November 2000 all over again...
The fact that there are only two shitty choices and you have to choose the less shitty one for your vote to count -- that's every American's fault, not just those of us who'd rather not exercise our democratic prerogative for shittiness at all.
You're talking alt-history because you're imagining things would've been different under 8 years of Gore/Lieberman -- even typing that makes me cringe -- in such a way that the financial collapse of 2008 wouldn't have happened. Exactly like imagining "what-if" the South won the Civil War.
And like imagining that a victorious Confederacy would have carefully emancipated its slaves, there is no basis in reality for assuming that a Gore presidency would have exercised anymore control over the financial sector than the Bush presidency did.
Sanders is against NAFTA (he voted against most free trade agreements), just like Trump, so that's enough to discredit him in my eyes.
About free trade:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/opinion/what-trump-and-sanders-get-wrong-about-free-trade.html
Yes.
This'll get me accused of being drunk, too, and maybe thrown off the boat, but I am pretty close.
Working- and middle-class Americans stand to gain very little from either candidate. Who has the more entrenched ruling-class interests, Clinton or Trump? It's hard to say: Trump's richer, but not by that much, they have the same rich buddies, and while they're both swindlers, Trump might have made his fortune in a slightly more honest way. (Comparing him with Berlusconi gives Trump too much credit almost to the extent that comparing with Mussolini does.)
As far as the welfare of non-rich non-Americans goes, Clinton already has a terrible track record as Senator and Secretary of State from my perspective (e.g. the Iraq War vote, Syria, Libya). Could Trump fuck things up worse? Yes, certainly. He could also fuck them up better. Experience is a net negative when you're an experienced hand at fucking things up.
It would be an embarrassment to have Trump as President, but maybe the US is an embarrassment of a nation right now and we need to look in the mirror.
The only thing is Ruth Goddamn Bader Fucking Ginsberg, who's had nearly eight years to bow out gracefully. But I won't let her hold me hostage.
That's what I thought, thank you. :D
:huh: US-Israel policy is not my only issue, that should be clear now.
In a democracy, the people decide and the people are responsible for the consequences. It was an indisputable fact in 2000 that Nader would not and could not win. In the context of a non-PR plurality vote Presidential electoral system, those voters were saying that they were entirely indifferent as to the outcome of the election.
Putting that in the present context, my own view is that someone who claims to be indifferent or sees no difference between HC and Trump must be off their rocker.
Part of being a grown up in a democracy is making the right choice of between lousy choices. There can be pretty big differences between 2 evils and failing to get that choice correct can have very serious consequences.
Vote for Trump, Mihali. You know you want to. :cool:
That's absurd.
Being not as bad as Hitler is a very low bar. I would think a Pole of all people would understand that. It is possible to be far better than Hitler, and yet extremely bad. It is not only possible it is actually the case right now. The human brain is capable of comprehending qualitative gradations. 100 degrees is a lot less than 120 degrees. But it is still way too damn hot. 90 degrees is better.
As for this stuff about shutting down rallies and "poltical assassination" that is pure strawman. No one is doing any of that.
Re-read the definition of ad hominem.
I'll take this as a non-response.
But that would be throwing my vote away. :( You see, Washington State is solidly "blue" in 2016, so it's just juvenile to vote for anyone but the Democrat, because of the Electoral College.
And I'm sure the voter turnout rate will clear 54% this year too if more responsible adults set a good example and vote for their choice of either Approved Candidate. :lol: As James Brown put it: Livin' in America...
There is a reasonable argument to be made however that in this case, picking the worst solution might be dangerous and short term bad, but be necessary for a long term shift in US politics.
IE, Trump is probably going to be a "D" President, and might be a "F" President. At best he might surprise us and be a "C" President.
Clinton is probably going to be a "C" President, very unlikely to be a "D", and maybe a "B" at best.
However, electing Clinton just reinforces the status quo, and that status quo (the argument goes) is fucking things up badly because the systemic problem we have gotten ourselves into cannot be fixed without radical change. And Clinton is an agent to oppose that change.
So maybe it is better to risk the possible "F" President if necessary, to force the system to change in the long run.
I can't bring myself to come to that conclusion myself - Trump is just too terrible, and further, I don't actually think he would even try to make the systemic change anyway. For me, the potential payoff is nearly zero, and the risk very, very high.
But I can understand others who go through that same evaluation and come to a different conclusion.
I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.
While fair, I have to admit, I always wondered what it would be like if you channeled grumbler. :o :)
OK, I'll go re-read it (if the words aren't too big for me), while you think about how to tell me you didn't post a load of puerile alt-history up above.
Yeah, I don't really see that at all.
That it is getting better, or getting worse?
Indeed, and for those who think the system is broken may feel that it needs to be discredited first before a new one can be started. In that sense leftists may prefer a Trump presidency over a Clinton one as although it would incur short term pain, it would be worth it if a better system comes out of it. Of course, it could mean that the short term is much worse than envisioned before a better one comes along, just as Hitler and the Nazis discrediting the Weimar system in Germany did huge damage to Germans and Europe before a better system came along after the war.
Ok but that is still a choice between 2 evils. I.e. if you truly believe that, then you should vote Trump, not stay home or vote for Harold Stassen.
Thanks - before you look it up make sure the dictionary also has "puerile" in it. Just to save time. :)
Good point - if your evaluation is that Trump is the right choice under whatever metric, then yeah, go vote for him.
Not voting doesn't make any sense at all, IMO. Or voting for someone who cannot win, unless you actually believe that the establishment parties actually "hear" that message. I don't think that they do....
OK, but that is because each partisan group thinks their slightly less worse choice is the right incremental step.
It will *never* be the case that one party just dominates every election for a length of time long enough to enact that change in question, and what is more, if they did, the incentive for them to destroy the very system they are dominating would be gone!
Your system *cannot* work even if you managed to convince enough people to vote for Dems all the time. Only the threat of losing could theoretically force either party to buck the system, and if that threat exists, then it is the case that they will not consistently win enough for your incremental plan to take effect, since we will get that churn back and forth.
He'd be a shitty candidate even in Poland, M.
The example that came to my mind was the Communist disavowal of the "bourgeois socialists" and abandonment of the Popular Front strategy. That kind of strategy can be logically consistent but it is playing with fire.
I'll take this as a non-response.
I take issue with unproductive.
You missed my point. It is not that you should vote Trump if he is not Hitler - but if you think he is not Hitler, he can be more appealing to a Sanders supporter than Hillary.
It is quite clear that from your perspective (and mine, if I were an American and held a similar social and economic position in the American society as I hold in the Polish one), Clinton is vastly superior to Trump as a POTUS. But for many people it may not be so.
So we need to trash America to make it great again?
Productive in the cough sense of the word, certainly.
Yes, this is exactly my point. If Trump is Hitler, then choosing him over Clinton is immoral, as it plunges the US into too much pain. But if he is just a bad but not genocidal president, then perhaps it is worth it.
If a Sanders voter was really motivated by trade issues, to the exclusion of just about everything else, then maybe that could be case. b/c Trump is clearly taking a more protectionist line than Clinton. On every other issue Clinton is far closer to Sanders than Trump.
You are being catty. That's what we gays do. Stop this cultural appropriation. <_<
I'll take that one step further. What if Hitler were running against Hitler? Who would you vote for then???
I am not sure. Have you looked at our current President?
Another assumption is that parties are not going to change. If one party does stay in power for some length of time, the other party will have to decide how to adjust their agenda so that they would be more competitive. Some issues that just don't play well will have to be dropped, while other issues that the party in power is weak on will be emphasized more. The point is that the party in power should be threatened by the other party broadening its appeal rather than by voters' fatigue.
Look at the other thread, of course I'd vote Hitler.
Seriously: yes, the profundity of the difference there is Mariana Trench level of course, but Holocaust and innumerable other atrocities aside, we knew in 1932 that Candidate Hitler did not believe in democracy and was very likely to dissolve the institutions protecting it. I would use my democratic ballot in favor the candidate who endorsed democracy, whatever his or her views, policy programs, donors, background, etc.
In real life, Freud surprised his friends by remaining a Dollfuss supporter during all the excitement of Red Vienna, and even until the Anschluss was nigh. Why did this very intelligent and perceptive man support the Austrofascist? Well, to be a "grown up," since who knew what trouble the Communists would make, and sometimes you just have to pick the best of a bad lot.
Without a strong economy, the US will be unable to buy our exports. If there is no free trade, not only does it hurt the US, but it hurts us too. If the citizens of South Carolina want to commit mass economic suicide, I don't really care. But the entire country? That's hurtful to my economy, the foundation of everything.
Free trade is part of a good economy.
Sometimes a vote is just a vote.
:hmm: if you're willing to vote strategically in some situations, why not here?
Oh ho! :o I see you've been to law school!
It all makes sense now :lol:
No to the first, Yes to the second; why and when I'm willing to vote strategically is complex, and I don't vote "unstrategically" even now without some unresolved feelings. (And that's ignoring the whole relevant issue of the Electoral College.) But that's because it just isn't a simple question of being reasonable versus throwing a tantrum, as some would put it.
I hope I don't live to see the extremes in your hypotheticals, but odds are I end up on the side of the strategic status quo'ers, but mainly because I am in fact not a committed revolutionary or someone with nothing to lose...
I think it would be terrible for everyone in the long run.
In the long run, IMO free trade is very much a good thing (granted, in the short run, it can cause some problems). But Sanders seems to be at least as protectionist as Trump, so if you have doubts about protectionism, why are you such a strong Sanders supporter?
I understand exactly where you're coming from here, though from the other end of the political spectrum. The Republican Party isn't big enough a tent for me to vote for Donald Trump for President.
OTOH, I certainly will vote in November, if for no other reason that there are other offices besides the Presidency to vote on. And while at this point I'll probably vote for a 3rd party candidate if Trump and Clinton are the nominees, I am willing to vote strategically and pick Hilary if it seems possible that Trump could win and NC is close.
That's not an argument against voting for a 3rd party candidate, though, if you actually believe said candidate would be better for America than either Trump or Clinton would be.
Again, I find myself agreeing with Mihali here--there is no reason to believe that financial regulation under a Gore Administration would have been different to any significant degree than it was under the Bush Administration, because Gore was committed to continuing the policies of the Clinton Administration, which were about the same as Bush's when it came to financial regulation. Though I would probably disagree with Mihali as to what appropriate regulations for the finance industry should be, the fact is the economic collapse of 2008 followed a period of roughly 20 years, under Presidents from both parties, in which the financial regulations in place created exactly the wrong incentives and disincentives. Personally, I think the degree or amount of regulation in place was roughly appropriate, but the form or content of those regulations was all ass-backwards.
<sigh> Yeah.
Speaking as someone who voted for a 3rd party candidate in 2000 (certainly NOT Nader!) I can say that was pretty much how I felt--I figured both Gore and Bush II would be pretty much equally poor Presidents, though in different ways.
I wouldn't go that far, but I certainly don't see Trump and Clinton as equally poor choices. Well, I don't even see them as poor choices; I see them as absolutely terrible choices, but IMO Trump is clearly even more terrible than Clinton.
The system where corporate money buys political outcomes retail instead of wholesale.
Politics isn't about principle: it's about compromise--and yes, that sometimes includes your vote.
Did I stay home and not vote after the only political campaign I ever volunteered for collapsed, oh, by Tuesday? No. I took all the power and the glory and the bumper stickers that was General Alexander Haig, internalized it, and moved on to Senator Bob Dole's campaign. And then I did it again, lulz.
Did I decide not to vote because America always supports its troops except when they're Democrats named General Wesley Clark? Nope.
Am I going to stay home because the nation decided it wasn't worthy of the myriad complexities and beautiful nightmares that is Jim Webb? Nope.
No, I compromised. And perhaps if more pretentious Nader assclowns did the same in 2000, a lot of messes could have been avoided; but we'll never know, and that's the great thing about sanctimony. So go ahead and stay home and pout as somebody else puts Trump up +1. DerWeiß approves of that message.
Oh, and don't ever fucking lecture me on Wall Street and the damage done, Harvard.
Fucking Ivies. Christ.
You're such a radical.
I tired of the Berniebros a long time ago. A bunch of leeches wanting free shit.
What would "real" financial regulation look like?
And all this "said candidate would be better for America" is answering a wrong question to begin with. In the voting booth, you should not ask yourself who the best candidate for America would be. You should be asking yourself which vote would be best for America. In 2000, it didn't matter whether Nader or Gore would be better for America. It sure as hell mattered which vote was better for America.
to be fair, mono is absolutely correct that it doesn't matter whether mihali votes. there are no real world consequences, because a single person's vote has negligible impact in national and most state politics. but, I know you're arguing against the general principle :P
:hug:
Why are you so liberal?
Your liberal policies are destroying this country.
Shhh
blah blah blah Glass-steagall blah blah blah transactions tax blah blah blah
It was a joke.
"Financial regulation" is like a buzzword thrown out there from populists everywhere.
In Norway, the state has shareholder majority in Telenor and Statoil, both companies operating in places that encourage bribery and corruption like Brazil and the former Soviet -stans.
I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
They'd get the Comfy Chair.
What is the public policy problem, and how do reinstituting Glass-Steagall and enacting a financial transaction tax solve this problem(s)?
:o
What kind of transaction tax are you talking about?
And how do you make sure to target it only at the transaction you want to discourage, while maintaining the flexibility and agility in the system we certainly want?
These are honest questions, btw...not a set up.
I disagree with some of your underlying assumptions. First of all, as Joan (I think it was) pointed out long ago, the great majority of derivative contracts are for currency and interest rate swaps, which are legitimate hedging instruments. Second of all, any non-swap derivative such as a future or a stock option can and is used as a hedging instrument as well. A farmer selling soy beans forward or a pension fund buying stock puts or CDS is not engaged in a zero sum speculative game, they're giving up upside in exchange for reduced downside.
The blahs were intended to connote my skepticism of the usefulness of those particular measures.
Gotcha.
It would be administered at a national level. Again, also in the original Tobin article.
Any particular measures you're not skeptical of? An honest question (it's sad we always have to say this). Because your "blahs" answer would did a good job of anticipating what I would've said.
Although my interest is more in financial regulation as one means of changing the way the national wealth is distributed, rather than in maintaining the integrity of American high finance system as an end in itself.
Then why did you start this particular sequence of discussion by saying you objected to the revolving door between Wall Street and government?
And why would you not favor a more direct approach to transferring wealth, such as a wealth tax?
Which is again, at least one remove from the issue of people with finance experience working in government.
I don't think it's plausible. we can provide tools to allow people to lift themselves from poor to middle class, but beyond that? a lot of people are simply unwilling to figure out how to do things for themselves, so they remain in a slump. some families rise to middle class after a generation or two, while others (malthus) fall to lower class
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but honestly I can't remember the order of the characters either; it is the computer-language rendition of a barred equals sign, and it is used on Languish quite a bit to mean "does not equal."
I paid off my Jeep, and my credit score dropped 24 points two months later.
No, smarmy cockfuck douchebags on Wall Street trading imaginary dollars are only one piece of the problem. The whole system needs to be rebuilt, preferably from rubble, and that's Bigger Than Bernietm.
Capital regulation.
If a more radical approach would be desired then require all financial companies to operate through partnerships, as was traditionally done. That would help tame excessive risk-taking.
I'll read up. :) But having to put putting the investors' personal assets on the line in a partnership would indeed tame excessive risk-taking, I'd tend to think.
I wasn't being facetious. However, on re-reading your post I see I did not understand it. Why way does the causality run between revolving door and outsized sector?
Has it started falling apart yet? :(
10025 = Columbia University and all the other schools in the area. Fertile ground for Sanders. I mean, #2 for Sanders is Ithaca...
I lived in 10026, incidentally.
No. I take care of my vehicles.
But.. but.. it's paid for. And a Jeep.
:hmm:
That's because the Jew is keeping them down.
I've been enthusiastic since 2008! :)
You forgot wise and mature -_-
Too wise and mature to display any enthusiasm for their candidate, I suppose.
Enthusiasm doesn't have to be manifested as declarations that all other candidates are evil. :hmm:
I've come to believe that a certain distance from it is pretty healthy actually. People obsessed with politics seem to be chronically angry.
There's a big middle ground between apathetic and obsessed.
Let somebody else fill that ground then :contract:
I have found that not to be the case.
That's the point of the article. People may not be screaming in wild ecstasy but they sure are voting.
What can I say. Congrats for being the 0.01% :P
There is probably lots I could do to influence politics. I could make myself a real nuisance. But why? Sounds like a lot of work and I am not even sure what my cause would be.
The primary voters with a vested interested in the direction/success of the party sure are. Let's see if the whole country clears 54.9% voter turnout in November, let alone all the non-ecstatic HR Clinton devotees out there.
Small towns elect officials. Counties elect officials. School boards elect officials. At these levels not only does the average person can have an effect on politics, he may very well run for office. It's not that big a deal. Elected officials aren't "special". They can be pretty much anyone. And at these levels, important things occur things that can make a big difference in your life. Taxation, road building and repair, which companies decide to base themselves in your area.
Well pretty much everyone has a vested interest whether they want one or not.
Dunno, man. I fill in those squares on my ballot so dark they have to be weighted extra.
Well those do sound like things extremists of both varieties would like :hmm:
Same reason Kucinich was always allying with Ron Paul about stuff.
Yup, pretty much. I wonder if, assuming Clinton wins this one, this will go away or just get worse until the "outsider" candidate wins?
Oh it is only going to get more intense. 2020 will be a real freak show. I have no idea where this is going to take us. A major political re-alignment is coming.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwallpaperswide.com%2Fdownload%2Fgame_of_thrones_winter_is_coming-wallpaper-768x1024.jpg&hash=5b22b97c22dd595ca6d7c9dca591b986ea9a88af)
You're obviously a pretty bright guy; in fact your SAT scores were borderline acceptable. But this is a fairly tale characterization of both TARP and the Fed.
Tyrion is SOOO establishment though.
Yep. Policies decided at the municipal level often directly affect people far more than anything the Federal government does, and a single person's vote is far more likely to make a difference in a local election. Granted, that's less true in a local election in Hong Kong than in just about anywhere else.
Bingo
2 kinds of politician: those who figure out how to back that which is necessary but not always popular, and those who attack that which is necessary for cheap applause in the expectation that more responsible politicians will step up and take the heat for it anyways (Exhibit A: Ted Cruz)
Most of the morons on that list have the excuse of being morons. Bernie doesn't have that excuse.
Whatever you think about the big banks, TARP was necessary. When the hurricane is coming in to shore, that is not the time to pontificate about land use policy and zoning near the shore, you just have to pile up the sandbags.
Whatever you think about the Fed, it is very transparent in its current incarnation, maybe too much so. The "audit" bill has nothing to do with audit, it has to do about meddling in the monetary policy process, so that the goldbugs can push their 19th century monetary agenda.
It's one think to think on an intellectual level, that TARP was necessary. But it's quite another to think that the anger over it isn't real, or that it's just being created by cynical windbag politicians. They might seek to exploit the anger, but they didn't create it. Necessary or not, calling certain businesses "too big to fail" is absolutely not the way to sell to sell any economic program. It's going to be taken as a slap on the face or worse by any "little guy" who's struggling, and maybe even by the "little guys" who are doing OK.
"Too big to fail" was not sales pitch for TARP, it was the critique.
Oh, hells yeah. The GOP has been consistently doubling down on stupid for every election since 2008, just wait and see what they're going to be exasperated enough to trot out after 4 years of Clinton.
He's pretty much exactly the opposite. He's a bastard of the exiled royal family who was only reluctantly acknowledged as as the son of an establishment figure in order to avoid an anti-establishment backlash. He is as outsider as outsider gets.
Zombie Genghis Khan. Proven anti-establishment credentials and won't be bullied by China or Russia.
Yeah, except for the 99% of the population who aren't part of a royal family. They might be more of an outsider then that.
What do the highlighted phrases mean?
Sanders seems to repeat more platform - significant phrases than Clinton.
Well here is exactly what they said for Repubs. So I suppose what they think are core statements that say something about the candidate.
Question: Say you're at the Iowa Democratic caucus- who do you vote for?
Option 1: Sanders
votes: 31
Option 2: Clinton
votes: 25
Option 3: Littlefinger
votes: 5
Option 4: Sanders, but only to make it easier for GOP to win
votes: 2
Option 5: Clinton, but only to make it easier for GOP to win
votes: 0
Option 6: Write in for Biden 
votes: 1
votes: 1
Option 7: Write in for Trump 
votes: 3
votes: 3
Title: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 31, 2016, 05:47:52 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 31, 2016, 05:47:52 AM
The fate of the country is in your hands.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on January 31, 2016, 05:52:43 AM
Post by: celedhring on January 31, 2016, 05:52:43 AM
You're missing a "Clinton, but only to make it easier for the Dems to win". That would probably be my choice.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 31, 2016, 05:57:06 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 31, 2016, 05:57:06 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 31, 2016, 05:52:43 AM
You're missing a "Clinton, but only to make it easier for the Dems to win". That would probably be my choice.
That's an honest Clinton vote, so falls under second option. The question is who you're voting for, regardless of who you prefer.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on January 31, 2016, 06:08:36 AM
Post by: celedhring on January 31, 2016, 06:08:36 AM
Bah, voted Sanders. To the barricades!
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Josquius on January 31, 2016, 06:23:44 AM
Post by: Josquius on January 31, 2016, 06:23:44 AM
Sanders.
Seems actually rather genuine.
Sanders vs trump would be interesting. Such a contrast. ...and it would prove once and for all whether Americans are idiots
Seems actually rather genuine.
Sanders vs trump would be interesting. Such a contrast. ...and it would prove once and for all whether Americans are idiots
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Liep on January 31, 2016, 06:29:58 AM
Post by: Liep on January 31, 2016, 06:29:58 AM
Sanders in a landslide. I think maybe it's only Euros who are awake right now. :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Tonitrus on January 31, 2016, 06:38:05 AM
Post by: Tonitrus on January 31, 2016, 06:38:05 AM
I am abstaining for the lack of a "Jaron" option.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Liep on January 31, 2016, 06:38:51 AM
Post by: Liep on January 31, 2016, 06:38:51 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 31, 2016, 06:38:05 AM
I am abstaining for the lack of a "Jaron" option.
Write in for Trump is not Jaron enough for you?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Tamas on January 31, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
Post by: Tamas on January 31, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
Sanders does seem genuine and I don't think you could do worse than a genuine socialist. Apart from Trump.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on January 31, 2016, 09:57:05 AM
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on January 31, 2016, 09:57:05 AM
Is McNutty still a Littlefinger man?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 31, 2016, 10:01:59 AM
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 31, 2016, 10:01:59 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 31, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
Sanders does seem genuine and I don't think you could do worse than a genuine socialist. Apart from Trump.
He's about as socialist as a mainstream member of the Labour party, i.e. not much.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on January 31, 2016, 12:00:05 PM
Post by: dps on January 31, 2016, 12:00:05 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 31, 2016, 06:23:44 AM
Sanders vs trump would be interesting. Such a contrast. ...and it would prove once and for all whether Americans are idiots
Just nominating those 2 would probably do the trick.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 12:24:37 PM
Post by: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 12:24:37 PM
Bah they're both too old 68 and 74, They should have a mandatory retirement age for gov office.
Neither inspire.
Neither inspire.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on January 31, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
Post by: LaCroix on January 31, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
if sanders is genuine, then he's dumber than I thought. most (all?) of his ideas are impossible to implement. he might as well be saying, "if I'm elected, I'm going to make everyone rich! why 1%, why not 100%!" there's really no insight into how he would run the office, because he hasn't said anything. this coupled with (1) he would get torn apart in the general election and (2) he's just not presidential and lacks gravitas = why would anyone want to vote for him? you vote for him if you don't understand how the US works -- i.e., college students and europeans. :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 12:41:13 PM
Post by: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 12:41:13 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
if sanders is genuine, then he's dumber than I thought. most (all?) of his ideas are impossible to implement. he might as well be saying, "if I'm elected, I'm going to make everyone rich! why 1%, why not 100%!" there's really no insight into how he would run the office, because he hasn't said anything. this coupled with (1) he would get torn apart in the general election and (2) he's just not presidential and lacks gravitas = why would anyone want to vote for him? you vote for him if you don't understand how the US works -- i.e., college students and europeans. :P
That same vote got Dubya and Obama elected, why not Saunders? No one who understands how the US works would vote for either of those guys, either. There's clearly a lot more people who don't understand how the US works than just college students and Europeans.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 12:44:54 PM
Post by: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 12:44:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 12:24:37 PM
Bah they're both too old 68 and 74, They should have a mandatory retirement age for gov office.
Neither inspire.
We don't really have any inspirational candidates this time around. I wish the Republicans would get their heads out of their asses and realize that, if you can't fins someone inspirational, you should at least look for someone competent. That would leave Kasich pretty much the only Republican candidate, and I think he'd beat either Hillary or Saunders in a general election, just because he lacks their negatives.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on January 31, 2016, 12:48:37 PM
Post by: LaCroix on January 31, 2016, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 12:41:13 PMThat same vote got Dubya and Obama elected, why not Saunders? No one who understands how the US works would vote for either of those guys, either. There's clearly a lot more people who don't understand how the US works than just college students and Europeans.
don't remember bush's campaign. obama was a bunch of hope, change, etc., nonsense. but was there much he said that was impossible? the closest I recall was his promise to shut down guantanamo, but that was more unfeasible rather than impossible. his campaign was full of wishy washy stuff -- that's different than what I'm saying about sanders.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Zanza on January 31, 2016, 12:48:57 PM
Post by: Zanza on January 31, 2016, 12:48:57 PM
Clinton seems to be more compentent when it comes to foreign policy and as that's the policy area that matters most to me, I would vote for her over Sanders. The US president doesn't seem to have that much power domestically.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 01:13:43 PM
Post by: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 01:13:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 12:44:54 PMQuote from: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 12:24:37 PM
Bah they're both too old 68 and 74, They should have a mandatory retirement age for gov office.
Neither inspire.
We don't really have any inspirational candidates this time around. I wish the Republicans would get their heads out of their asses and realize that, if you can't fins someone inspirational, you should at least look for someone competent. That would leave Kasich pretty much the only Republican candidate, and I think he'd beat either Hillary or Saunders in a general election, just because he lacks their negatives.
Kasich has been my pick, but he won't survive the primaries. If I had to choose between Sanders and Clinton, it would be Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 01:49:12 PM
Post by: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2016, 12:48:37 PMQuote from: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 12:41:13 PMThat same vote got Dubya and Obama elected, why not Saunders? No one who understands how the US works would vote for either of those guys, either. There's clearly a lot more people who don't understand how the US works than just college students and Europeans.
don't remember bush's campaign. obama was a bunch of hope, change, etc., nonsense. but was there much he said that was impossible? the closest I recall was his promise to shut down guantanamo, but that was more unfeasible rather than impossible. his campaign was full of wishy washy stuff -- that's different than what I'm saying about sanders.
He made a lot of impossible promises, like a path to citizenship for illegal immigrant, creation of a Palestinian state, drastic reduction of oil consumption/CO2 emissions, etc, etc.
I have no idea what you are saying about Saunders. You just provide vague assertions that he is dumber than you thought and that most or all of his ideas are impossible to implement because of strawman.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 01:49:41 PM
Post by: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 01:49:41 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 01:13:43 PM
Mastic has been my pick, but he won't survive the primaries. If I had to choose between Sanders and Clinton, it would be Clinton.
Mastic?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on January 31, 2016, 03:01:11 PM
Post by: Valmy on January 31, 2016, 03:01:11 PM
Hilary is the only viable candidate out of the front runners.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on January 31, 2016, 03:27:52 PM
Post by: alfred russel on January 31, 2016, 03:27:52 PM
I really don't get why OMalley isn't doing better--he would have been my pick. That said I haven't been paying so much attention to anything aside from the trump circus, so maybe there is a reason he is going no where.
Of the two, I'd say Hillary.
Of the two, I'd say Hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on January 31, 2016, 03:31:07 PM
Post by: viper37 on January 31, 2016, 03:31:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 31, 2016, 05:47:52 AMClinton. Not because she's the brightest tool of the box, but because she's the only one who stands a chance against Trump's GOP.
The fate of the country is in your hands.
That man is bad for business.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Liep on January 31, 2016, 03:33:13 PM
Post by: Liep on January 31, 2016, 03:33:13 PM
How much do you guys actually care? I can't really get excited about this election since there's no Stewart or Zaltzman/Oliver to entertain me.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on January 31, 2016, 03:52:13 PM
Post by: Razgovory on January 31, 2016, 03:52:13 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 31, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
Sanders does seem genuine and I don't think you could do worse than a genuine socialist. Apart from Trump.
:rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 03:56:07 PM
Post by: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 03:56:07 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 01:49:41 PMQuote from: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 01:13:43 PM
Mastic has been my pick, but he won't survive the primaries. If I had to choose between Sanders and Clinton, it would be Clinton.
Mastic?
Kasich
Auto correct.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 31, 2016, 03:57:57 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 31, 2016, 03:57:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2016, 03:52:13 PMQuote from: Tamas on January 31, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
Sanders does seem genuine and I don't think you could do worse than a genuine socialist. Apart from Trump.
:rolleyes:
Haven't you been saying the same thing? I seem to recall you calling Sanders "a damn Red".
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 05:07:33 PM
Post by: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 05:07:33 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 03:56:07 PMQuote from: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 01:49:41 PMQuote from: 11B4V on January 31, 2016, 01:13:43 PM
Mastic has been my pick, but he won't survive the primaries. If I had to choose between Sanders and Clinton, it would be Clinton.
Mastic?
Kasich
Auto correct.
That's what I thought, but wanted to confirm.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on January 31, 2016, 05:21:44 PM
Post by: Razgovory on January 31, 2016, 05:21:44 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 31, 2016, 03:57:57 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2016, 03:52:13 PMQuote from: Tamas on January 31, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
Sanders does seem genuine and I don't think you could do worse than a genuine socialist. Apart from Trump.
:rolleyes:
Haven't you been saying the same thing? I seem to recall you calling Sanders "a damn Red".
That's not what I'm rolling my eyes at.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on January 31, 2016, 06:07:19 PM
Post by: dps on January 31, 2016, 06:07:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 31, 2016, 03:27:52 PM
I really don't get why OMalley isn't doing better--he would have been my pick. That said I haven't been paying so much attention to anything aside from the trump circus, so maybe there is a reason he is going no where.
Of the two, I'd say Hillary.
I'm a bit puzzled that O'Malley hasn't been doing better, if only because of the obvious negatives that Clinton and Sanders have.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 31, 2016, 06:38:31 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 31, 2016, 06:38:31 PM
Quote from: dps on January 31, 2016, 06:07:19 PM
I'm a bit puzzled that O'Malley hasn't been doing better, if only because of the obvious negatives that Clinton and Sanders have.
He has his own negatives, as he is considered the chief inspiration for the character Tommy Carcetti on The Wire, who sells out all his campaign promises for political advancement.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on January 31, 2016, 06:42:51 PM
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on January 31, 2016, 06:42:51 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 31, 2016, 06:38:31 PMQuote from: dps on January 31, 2016, 06:07:19 PM
I'm a bit puzzled that O'Malley hasn't been doing better, if only because of the obvious negatives that Clinton and Sanders have.
He has his own negatives, as he is considered the chief inspiration for the character Tommy Carcetti on The Wire, who sells out all his campaign promises for political advancement.
Played by the same guy who plays Littlefinger. :D
And no one has answered my question about CdM.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 31, 2016, 06:48:52 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 31, 2016, 06:48:52 PM
Well, I don't think he's said anything about who he's supporting. It's not as important as bashing my eating habits, which he does with every post. :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2016, 06:56:36 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2016, 06:56:36 PM
O'Malley is, as far as I can tell, a vanilla establishment Democrat. Hillary has every establishment voting bloc already locked up. She's a professional woman who married a black man. Only way O'Malley could pick up any votes is if he announced he was transgender.
Democratic primary voters don't care about emailgate.
Democratic primary voters don't care about emailgate.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 01, 2016, 12:38:36 AM
Post by: LaCroix on February 01, 2016, 12:38:36 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 31, 2016, 01:49:12 PMHe made a lot of impossible promises, like a path to citizenship for illegal immigrant, creation of a Palestinian state, drastic reduction of oil consumption/CO2 emissions, etc, etc.
I have no idea what you are saying about Saunders. You just provide vague assertions that he is dumber than you thought and that most or all of his ideas are impossible to implement because of strawman.
maybe it's more that sanders bases his entire campaign around impossible-to-achieve goals. I don't remember obama doing that -- just vague hope, change, etc.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2774/here-are-bernie-sanders-top-10-wackiest-ideas-aaron-bandler
what are main ideas he has that would be possible/realistic to implement? honestly curious
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 12:47:06 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 12:47:06 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 01, 2016, 12:38:36 AM
what are main ideas he has that would be possible/realistic to implement? honestly curious
Higher taxes on the rich.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 01, 2016, 01:06:43 AM
Post by: Monoriu on February 01, 2016, 01:06:43 AM
Of course, I won't vote under any circumstances. But hypothetically speaking, I'm in the anybody but Sanders crowd.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2016, 01:08:18 AM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2016, 01:08:18 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 01, 2016, 12:38:36 AM
what are main ideas he has that would be possible/realistic to implement? honestly curious
What do mean? Sanders proposals that could pass in the current House and Senate? None.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on February 01, 2016, 01:16:51 AM
Post by: Jaron on February 01, 2016, 01:16:51 AM
America is ready to #feelthebern
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 01:19:39 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 01:19:39 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2016, 01:08:18 AMQuote from: LaCroix on February 01, 2016, 12:38:36 AM
what are main ideas he has that would be possible/realistic to implement? honestly curious
What do mean? Sanders proposals that could pass in the current House and Senate? None.
So the same success rate as Obama?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 01:37:59 AM
Post by: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 01:37:59 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2016, 01:06:43 AM
Of course, I won't vote under any circumstances. But hypothetically speaking, I'm in the anybody but Sanders crowd.
So you are voting for anyone who will not give you a raise?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 01:41:11 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 01:41:11 AM
Mono is the Chinese Ron Swanson. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 01, 2016, 01:45:51 AM
Post by: Monoriu on February 01, 2016, 01:45:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 01:37:59 AMQuote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2016, 01:06:43 AM
Of course, I won't vote under any circumstances. But hypothetically speaking, I'm in the anybody but Sanders crowd.
So you are voting for anyone who will not give you a raise?
Don't know how it works in the US. But in Hong Kong, civil service pay is largely determined by a gigantic, annual survey. We ask the private companies how their wages/salaries changed in the past year. There is a really complex programme that computes the results. Of course, if the HK government faces deficits, they can simply ignore the results and say, civil service pay should be cut by xx% (happened a few years ago). Generally though, the government respect the survey. Who is in charge has little impact on civil service pay.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on February 01, 2016, 02:27:56 AM
Post by: Norgy on February 01, 2016, 02:27:56 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2016, 01:45:51 AMQuote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 01:37:59 AMQuote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2016, 01:06:43 AM
Of course, I won't vote under any circumstances. But hypothetically speaking, I'm in the anybody but Sanders crowd.
So you are voting for anyone who will not give you a raise?
Don't know how it works in the US. But in Hong Kong, civil service pay is largely determined by a gigantic, annual survey. We ask the private companies how their wages/salaries changed in the past year. There is a really complex programme that computes the results. Of course, if the HK government faces deficits, they can simply ignore the results and say, civil service pay should be cut by xx% (happened a few years ago). Generally though, the government respect the survey. Who is in charge has little impact on civil service pay.
Freedom, the Hong Kong way. :cry:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:37:41 AM
Post by: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:37:41 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2016, 01:45:51 AMQuote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 01:37:59 AMQuote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2016, 01:06:43 AM
Of course, I won't vote under any circumstances. But hypothetically speaking, I'm in the anybody but Sanders crowd.
So you are voting for anyone who will not give you a raise?
Don't know how it works in the US. But in Hong Kong, civil service pay is largely determined by a gigantic, annual survey. We ask the private companies how their wages/salaries changed in the past year. There is a really complex programme that computes the results. Of course, if the HK government faces deficits, they can simply ignore the results and say, civil service pay should be cut by xx% (happened a few years ago). Generally though, the government respect the survey. Who is in charge has little impact on civil service pay.
Here, is does. I remember working at the Department of Revenue and having people bitching about taxes. I pointed out that we are paid by taxes. I was met with stunned looks of disbelief. I asked them what the hell do you think we do all day? Apparently nobody there had made the connection that the tax forms we process went to pay our wages. I suppose that's why state workers in Missouri are the lowest paid in the country, fulling 37% below the national average. We keep voting for fiscal conservatives, and they keep wages down. I suppose it's good that you live in a dictatorship, if you lived in a world were cause and effect were connected you might end up starving.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2016, 03:46:11 AM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2016, 03:46:11 AM
FYI Raz, Bernie's web site says nothing about raising income taxes and increasing federal employee pay.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 04:03:06 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 04:03:06 AM
Do we really only have one person leaning toward the Republicans this election cycle, or were the Trump and strategic voting options just not acceptable to most of them? :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 04:40:38 AM
Post by: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 04:40:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2016, 03:46:11 AM
FYI Raz, Bernie's web site says nothing about raising income taxes and increasing federal employee pay.
Okay.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 05:40:58 AM
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 05:40:58 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 01, 2016, 12:38:36 AM
maybe it's more that sanders bases his entire campaign around impossible-to-achieve goals. I don't remember obama doing that -- just vague hope, change, etc.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2774/here-are-bernie-sanders-top-10-wackiest-ideas-aaron-bandler
what are main ideas he has that would be possible/realistic to implement? honestly curious
So your evidence against Saunders consists of a single article from "the Daily Wire" in which some hack clickbaits you with the title "Here Are Bernie Sanders' Top 10 Wackiest Ideas?" I'm starting to understand why your posts here are so incoherent.
Universal single-payer health care is certainly possible, especially if implemented on the German model. Every other industrialized country has done it.
The tax increase stuff is just laughable. The Washington Examiner as an authority? Give me a break.
Breaking up the banks that are "too big to fail?" That wouldn't be very hard; it would just be returning to the status quo. Contracts are always being renegotiated.
I could go on, but it would insult the intelligence of languish users. Instead, I'd recommend that you read more widely and post less.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Ed Anger on February 01, 2016, 09:35:13 AM
Post by: Ed Anger on February 01, 2016, 09:35:13 AM
I'd like them to be in a porno together.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 10:30:31 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 10:30:31 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2016, 09:35:13 AM
I'd like them to be in a porno together.
You nasty gerontophile. :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: frunk on February 01, 2016, 10:33:24 AM
Post by: frunk on February 01, 2016, 10:33:24 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2016, 09:35:13 AM
I'd like them to be in a porno together.
I'd rather go to a real lemon party, where the lemon juice was squeezed into my eyes.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 01, 2016, 11:08:11 AM
Post by: LaCroix on February 01, 2016, 11:08:11 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 05:40:58 AMQuote from: LaCroix on February 01, 2016, 12:38:36 AM
maybe it's more that sanders bases his entire campaign around impossible-to-achieve goals. I don't remember obama doing that -- just vague hope, change, etc.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2774/here-are-bernie-sanders-top-10-wackiest-ideas-aaron-bandler
what are main ideas he has that would be possible/realistic to implement? honestly curious
So your evidence against Saunders consists of a single article from "the Daily Wire" in which some hack clickbaits you with the title "Here Are Bernie Sanders' Top 10 Wackiest Ideas?" I'm starting to understand why your posts here are so incoherent.
Universal single-payer health care is certainly possible, especially if implemented on the German model. Every other industrialized country has done it.
The tax increase stuff is just laughable. The Washington Examiner as an authority? Give me a break.
Breaking up the banks that are "too big to fail?" That wouldn't be very hard; it would just be returning to the status quo. Contracts are always being renegotiated.
I could go on, but it would insult the intelligence of languish users. Instead, I'd recommend that you read more widely and post less.
I'm not posting "evidence against sanders." I get that you're sad you lost the last argument, so you're looking to pick a fight. but this time, I was posting my opinion, not some long articulate argument trying to convince the "languish posters" why they shouldn't vote for sanders. I really don't give a fuck whether languish posters vote for sanders.
also, I asked if there was anything sanders was trying to push that could legit happen. you haven't given me a single thing.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 01, 2016, 12:29:12 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 01, 2016, 12:29:12 PM
To play devil's advocate, what is possible without the support of the other branches of government? For years people said that meaningful health care reform is impossible in the US. But Obama took some steps in that direction. Eventually our neighbours to the South will realize that a single payor system is the way to go. But it takes someone like Bernie to forcefully make the argument first. He may not be successful, even if he is elected as president. But it is a step down road.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 12:34:20 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 12:34:20 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 01, 2016, 11:08:11 AM
I'm not posting "evidence against sanders." I get that you're sad you lost the last argument, so you're looking to pick a fight. but this time, I was posting my opinion, not some long articulate argument trying to convince the "languish posters" why they shouldn't vote for sanders. I really don't give a fuck whether languish posters vote for sanders.
Most Languish posters couldn't vote for Saunders if they wanted to. I don't think making this about who languish votes for is the logical approach. I get how you don't think that that "daily wire" piece is a hatchet piece against Saunders, but I don't think anyone else is foolish enough to believe that it is actual evidence of anything. I also get that you want to bluster past the fact that you got your fanny reddened the last time you tried to argue against the evidence, but, really, why even bring up that issue?
Quotealso, I asked if there was anything sanders was trying to push that could legit happen. you haven't given me a single thing.
I gave you three things. You have given nothing except a cite you now seem to want to run away from.
If you want to have an adult debate, you have to introduce actual arguments, not just say that you don't understand things, and then attack those who explain the things you don't understand.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 12:36:28 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 12:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 01, 2016, 12:29:12 PMIndeed. Single payer is not only not impossible, it is inevitable. A President Saunders may not get there, but he could make it possible for later presidents to get there.
To play devil's advocate, what is possible without the support of the other branches of government? For years people said that meaningful health care reform is impossible in the US. But Obama took some steps in that direction. Eventually our neighbours to the South will realize that a single payor system is the way to go. But it takes someone like Bernie to forcefully make the argument first. He may not be successful, even if he is elected as president. But it is a step down road.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: lustindarkness on February 01, 2016, 12:46:31 PM
Post by: lustindarkness on February 01, 2016, 12:46:31 PM
Cthulhu, would that be Trump write in option?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 01:03:09 PM
Post by: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 01:03:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 05:40:58 AMI don't think describing Germany's system as "single payer" is correct. We have about 200 different health insurance companies that can be clustered into "public-mandatory" and "private-voluntary". It's a very strange construct that consists of legal cartels, heavy state intervention and quota, budget and pricing rules that follow arcane reasonings that don't necessarily guarantee the best healthcare. You wouldn't build a system from scratch that way and I don't think it makes sense to use it as a blueprint for any other country as it has grown historically over the last 125 years or so.
Universal single-payer health care is certainly possible, especially if implemented on the German model. Every other industrialized country has done it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:06:34 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:06:34 PM
Huh. You didn't reform and overhaul the system when rebuilding it after WWII?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:20:15 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:20:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 01, 2016, 02:11:51 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:06:34 PM
Huh. You didn't reform and overhaul the system when rebuilding it after WWII?
Clearly not enough B-17s were targeted on the water coolers and barbecues of Cal's German compatriots.
Well they were targeted but they missed and hit Dresden instead. Accuracy was not the WWII era USAF's strong suit.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 02:21:25 PM
Post by: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 02:21:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:06:34 PMNo, why? We even kept some of the things the Nazis introduced. Germany didn't start on a green field in 1945, a lot of institutions were kept.
Huh. You didn't reform and overhaul the system when rebuilding it after WWII?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on February 01, 2016, 02:22:28 PM
Post by: Barrister on February 01, 2016, 02:22:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:20:15 PMQuote from: mongers on February 01, 2016, 02:11:51 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:06:34 PM
Huh. You didn't reform and overhaul the system when rebuilding it after WWII?
Clearly not enough B-17s were targeted on the water coolers and barbecues of Cal's German compatriots.
Well they were targeted but they missed and hit Dresden instead. Accuracy was not the WWII era USAF's strong suit.
The USAF didn't exist in WWII. :whistle:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 02:41:18 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 02:41:18 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 01:03:09 PMTrue, I was being sloppy in my wording. What I meant was that the German system allowed for opt-outs under certain very stringent conditions. I think a US system would probably have to have such an opt-out to get established.
I don't think describing Germany's system as "single payer" is correct. ...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:46:53 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:46:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2016, 02:22:28 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:20:15 PMQuote from: mongers on February 01, 2016, 02:11:51 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:06:34 PM
Huh. You didn't reform and overhaul the system when rebuilding it after WWII?
Clearly not enough B-17s were targeted on the water coolers and barbecues of Cal's German compatriots.
Well they were targeted but they missed and hit Dresden instead. Accuracy was not the WWII era USAF's strong suit.
The USAF didn't exist in WWII. :whistle:
Which is ironic being as that is one of the few times having a separate air service made any sense.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:48:13 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:48:13 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 02:21:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:06:34 PMNo, why? We even kept some of the things the Nazis introduced. Germany didn't start on a green field in 1945, a lot of institutions were kept.
Huh. You didn't reform and overhaul the system when rebuilding it after WWII?
The legend of the 1980s is that Germany and Japan were able to leverage their 'being bombed into powder' status to reform their institutions on more rational lines and then out compete the victors. Another "fact" told to me as a child shown to be a lie :weep:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Okay, am I the only one noticing that Grumbler keeps saying "Saunders" rather then "Sanders". Are we all talking about the same guy, or does he have another candidate in mind?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 03:01:58 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 03:01:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Okay, am I the only one noticing that Grumbler keeps saying "Saunders" rather then "Sanders". Are we all talking about the same guy, or does he have another candidate in mind?
Private joke, between grumbler and himself.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 03:05:54 PM
Post by: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 03:05:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:48:13 PMUnless it was specifically outlawed by the Allies as part of denazification and demilitarisation, chances are it was kept. In general laws enacted by the Nazis were still valid after the war and some of them are still around (e.g. certain tax rules, some parts of criminal law). A part of the Weimar Constitution also was included into our postwar constitution.
The legend of the 1980s is that Germany and Japan were able to leverage their 'being bombed into powder' status to reform their institutions on more rational lines and then out compete the victors. Another "fact" told to me as a child shown to be a lie :weep:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 03:32:21 PM
Post by: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 03:32:21 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/zvdzU3y.png)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on February 01, 2016, 03:48:50 PM
Post by: Berkut on February 01, 2016, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 03:05:54 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:48:13 PMUnless it was specifically outlawed by the Allies as part of denazification and demilitarisation, chances are it was kept. In general laws enacted by the Nazis were still valid after the war and some of them are still around (e.g. certain tax rules, some parts of criminal law). A part of the Weimar Constitution also was included into our postwar constitution.
The legend of the 1980s is that Germany and Japan were able to leverage their 'being bombed into powder' status to reform their institutions on more rational lines and then out compete the victors. Another "fact" told to me as a child shown to be a lie :weep:
That is ridiculous.
The Allies spent incredible amounts of money creating a greenfield for the Germans and Japanese to build on - it pains me to find out that they did not take full advantage of such a generous opportunity.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 01, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Post by: garbon on February 01, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2016, 03:01:58 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Okay, am I the only one noticing that Grumbler keeps saying "Saunders" rather then "Sanders". Are we all talking about the same guy, or does he have another candidate in mind?
Private joke, between grumbler and himself.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fic%2F544x306%2Fp01h145c.jpg&hash=bdd2a6436278ebc4f94b884ab382d7687635585a)
:unsure:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 05:22:23 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 05:22:23 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2016, 03:01:58 PMAnd I. Don't forget I!Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Okay, am I the only one noticing that Grumbler keeps saying "Saunders" rather then "Sanders". Are we all talking about the same guy, or does he have another candidate in mind?
Private joke, between grumbler and himself.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: MadBurgerMaker on February 01, 2016, 05:42:26 PM
Post by: MadBurgerMaker on February 01, 2016, 05:42:26 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette1.wikia.nocookie.net%2Ficehockey%2Fimages%2F2%2F2b%2FBerniesaunders.jpg&hash=0742c50d9285551d19d25886f90dc94c1b50c6c6)
?
While looking for a photo of this guy (Bernie Saunders), I found out ESPN's John Saunders is his brother.
?
While looking for a photo of this guy (Bernie Saunders), I found out ESPN's John Saunders is his brother.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 01, 2016, 05:45:37 PM
Post by: Martinus on February 01, 2016, 05:45:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2016, 04:25:52 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2016, 03:01:58 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Okay, am I the only one noticing that Grumbler keeps saying "Saunders" rather then "Sanders". Are we all talking about the same guy, or does he have another candidate in mind?
Private joke, between grumbler and himself.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fic%2F544x306%2Fp01h145c.jpg&hash=bdd2a6436278ebc4f94b884ab382d7687635585a)
:unsure:
She'd get my vote.
As she is not on the ballot, I voted Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on February 01, 2016, 05:54:30 PM
Post by: dps on February 01, 2016, 05:54:30 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2016, 09:35:13 AM
I'd like them to be in a porno together.
Are you talking about Hillary and Bernie, or grumbler and LaCroix?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 01, 2016, 07:35:21 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 01, 2016, 07:35:21 PM
Quote from: dps on February 01, 2016, 05:54:30 PMI assumed it was the latter. If it is, then I guess Berkut's curiosity can be satisfied for sure.Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2016, 09:35:13 AM
I'd like them to be in a porno together.
Are you talking about Hillary and Bernie, or grumbler and LaCroix?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 07:39:05 PM
Post by: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2016, 05:45:37 PMLooks like a tranny.Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2016, 04:25:52 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2016, 03:01:58 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Okay, am I the only one noticing that Grumbler keeps saying "Saunders" rather then "Sanders". Are we all talking about the same guy, or does he have another candidate in mind?
Private joke, between grumbler and himself.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fic%2F544x306%2Fp01h145c.jpg&hash=bdd2a6436278ebc4f94b884ab382d7687635585a)
:unsure:
She'd get my vote.
As she is not on the ballot, I voted Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 01, 2016, 07:40:14 PM
Post by: garbon on February 01, 2016, 07:40:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 07:39:05 PMQuote from: Martinus on February 01, 2016, 05:45:37 PMLooks like a tranny.Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2016, 04:25:52 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2016, 03:01:58 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Okay, am I the only one noticing that Grumbler keeps saying "Saunders" rather then "Sanders". Are we all talking about the same guy, or does he have another candidate in mind?
Private joke, between grumbler and himself.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fic%2F544x306%2Fp01h145c.jpg&hash=bdd2a6436278ebc4f94b884ab382d7687635585a)
:unsure:
She'd get my vote.
As she is not on the ballot, I voted Clinton.
Even if you thought so, why is that notable? :unsure:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 07:44:46 PM
Post by: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 07:44:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2016, 07:40:14 PMQuote from: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 07:39:05 PMQuote from: Martinus on February 01, 2016, 05:45:37 PMLooks like a tranny.Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2016, 04:25:52 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2016, 03:01:58 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Okay, am I the only one noticing that Grumbler keeps saying "Saunders" rather then "Sanders". Are we all talking about the same guy, or does he have another candidate in mind?
Private joke, between grumbler and himself.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fic%2F544x306%2Fp01h145c.jpg&hash=bdd2a6436278ebc4f94b884ab382d7687635585a)
:unsure:
She'd get my vote.
As she is not on the ballot, I voted Clinton.
Even if you thought so, why is that notable? :unsure:
What ever floats her boat. Just looks like one, something's off.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 01, 2016, 07:50:43 PM
Post by: garbon on February 01, 2016, 07:50:43 PM
So you aren't going to answer my question?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 08:05:23 PM
Post by: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 08:05:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2016, 07:50:43 PM
So you aren't going to answer my question?
Answer: GFYS.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 08:11:41 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 01, 2016, 03:32:21 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/zvdzU3y.png)
Really liked this one.
So who is the Saunders person?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Caliga on February 01, 2016, 08:35:21 PM
Post by: Caliga on February 01, 2016, 08:35:21 PM
Bernie for sure. I dislike the guy's political positions but I can't help but like him in every other respect.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on February 01, 2016, 09:06:10 PM
Post by: celedhring on February 01, 2016, 09:06:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2016, 04:25:52 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2016, 03:01:58 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Okay, am I the only one noticing that Grumbler keeps saying "Saunders" rather then "Sanders". Are we all talking about the same guy, or does he have another candidate in mind?
Private joke, between grumbler and himself.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fic%2F544x306%2Fp01h145c.jpg&hash=bdd2a6436278ebc4f94b884ab382d7687635585a)
:unsure:
Ab Fab :wub:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Habbaku on February 01, 2016, 09:21:09 PM
Post by: Habbaku on February 01, 2016, 09:21:09 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2016, 08:11:41 PM
So who is the Saunders person?
A fictional creature of grumbler's imagination; similar to the MicroSoft Metmork.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 09:35:03 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2016, 09:35:03 PM
I meant garbon's Saunders, but cel answered that one.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2016, 12:31:20 AM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2016, 12:31:20 AM
Quote from: Caliga on February 01, 2016, 08:35:21 PM
Bernie for sure. I dislike the guy's political positions but I can't help but like him in every other respect.
If only he wasn't running for political office . . .
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 02, 2016, 12:59:39 AM
Post by: Razgovory on February 02, 2016, 12:59:39 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 08:05:23 PMQuote from: garbon on February 01, 2016, 07:50:43 PM
So you aren't going to answer my question?
Answer: GFYS.
:D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on February 02, 2016, 01:11:49 AM
Post by: derspiess on February 02, 2016, 01:11:49 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 07:44:46 PMQuote from: garbon on February 01, 2016, 07:40:14 PMQuote from: 11B4V on February 01, 2016, 07:39:05 PMQuote from: Martinus on February 01, 2016, 05:45:37 PMLooks like a tranny.Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2016, 04:25:52 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2016, 03:01:58 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Okay, am I the only one noticing that Grumbler keeps saying "Saunders" rather then "Sanders". Are we all talking about the same guy, or does he have another candidate in mind?
Private joke, between grumbler and himself.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fic%2F544x306%2Fp01h145c.jpg&hash=bdd2a6436278ebc4f94b884ab382d7687635585a)
:unsure:
She'd get my vote.
As she is not on the ballot, I voted Clinton.
Even if you thought so, why is that notable? :unsure:
What ever floats her boat. Just looks like one, something's off.
Her show was really popular with the gays. I think that's Marty's angle.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on February 02, 2016, 01:36:02 AM
Post by: viper37 on February 02, 2016, 01:36:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2016, 02:20:15 PMit doesn't seem to have evolved much.
Accuracy was not the WWII era USAF's strong suit.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 02, 2016, 01:41:47 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 02, 2016, 01:41:47 AM
I saw this:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xla1/v/t1.0-9/12670463_10153570969644737_6052490002240763770_n.jpg?oh=0b359fc19c5e416e1f077e28e4215d43&oe=57387456&__gda__=1462884736_06a1ec823d6d21fd53712e16c342737c)
and thought "Gee, he hasn't been very successful over these 44 years..."
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xla1/v/t1.0-9/12670463_10153570969644737_6052490002240763770_n.jpg?oh=0b359fc19c5e416e1f077e28e4215d43&oe=57387456&__gda__=1462884736_06a1ec823d6d21fd53712e16c342737c)
and thought "Gee, he hasn't been very successful over these 44 years..."
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2016, 02:05:56 AM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2016, 02:05:56 AM
The Vietnam War is over - and Vietnam is now a US ally. Poverty is lower than it was in 1962. Racism is not as severe as it was in 1962. And love . . . well that's subjective, and 3 out of 4 ain't so bad anyways.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 02:07:53 AM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 02:07:53 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 01, 2016, 12:34:20 PMI gave you three things. You have given nothing except a cite you now seem to want to run away from.
If you want to have an adult debate, you have to introduce actual arguments, not just say that you don't understand things, and then attack those who explain the things you don't understand.
obama's campaign didn't revolve around freeing palestine or whatever else you posted. he might have said them, as all politicians say something, but obama's campaign revolved around hope, change, etc. his campaign was "i'm not bush." that was the substance that swept the nation. sanders's campaign is different -- its substance is impossible to achieve.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 02, 2016, 02:25:45 AM
Post by: garbon on February 02, 2016, 02:25:45 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2016, 02:05:56 AM
The Vietnam War is over - and Vietnam is now a US ally. Poverty is lower than it was in 1962. Racism is not as severe as it was in 1962. And love . . . well that's subjective, and 3 out of 4 ain't so bad anyways.
Interesting take on the word 'end'. :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 02:31:33 AM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 02:31:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2016, 02:05:56 AM
The Vietnam War is over - and Vietnam is now a US ally. Poverty is lower than it was in 1962. Racism is not as severe as it was in 1962. And love . . . well that's subjective, and 3 out of 4 ain't so bad anyways.
I thought the poverty rate had been rising. :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 02, 2016, 02:34:42 AM
Post by: Razgovory on February 02, 2016, 02:34:42 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 02:31:33 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2016, 02:05:56 AM
The Vietnam War is over - and Vietnam is now a US ally. Poverty is lower than it was in 1962. Racism is not as severe as it was in 1962. And love . . . well that's subjective, and 3 out of 4 ain't so bad anyways.
I thought the poverty rate had been rising. :hmm:
From 1962? No.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 07:19:21 AM
Post by: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 07:19:21 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 02:07:53 AMI have no idea what argument you are making, other than a vague "it's impossible because... well, just because." You also don't get to decide what Obama campaign pledges count and which ones don't.
obama's campaign didn't revolve around freeing palestine or whatever else you posted. he might have said them, as all politicians say something, but obama's campaign revolved around hope, change, etc. his campaign was "i'm not bush." that was the substance that swept the nation. sanders's campaign is different -- its substance is impossible to achieve.
If you have an actual argument, spit it out. Otherwise, we're done.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 09:56:16 AM
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 09:56:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 02, 2016, 02:25:45 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2016, 02:05:56 AM
The Vietnam War is over - and Vietnam is now a US ally. Poverty is lower than it was in 1962. Racism is not as severe as it was in 1962. And love . . . well that's subjective, and 3 out of 4 ain't so bad anyways.
Interesting take on the word 'end'. :P
Hey! He isn't dead yet.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 02, 2016, 11:16:13 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 02, 2016, 11:16:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 02, 2016, 01:41:47 AM
I saw this:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xla1/v/t1.0-9/12670463_10153570969644737_6052490002240763770_n.jpg?oh=0b359fc19c5e416e1f077e28e4215d43&oe=57387456&__gda__=1462884736_06a1ec823d6d21fd53712e16c342737c)
and thought "Gee, he hasn't been very successful over these 44 years..."
Good thing you're not an accountant.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 01:39:36 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 01:39:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 07:19:21 AMOtherwise, we're done.
okay, if you think obama's campaign revolved around freeing palestine, then see ya until next time
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 01:50:02 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 01:39:36 PMQuote from: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 07:19:21 AMOtherwise, we're done.
okay, if you think obama's campaign revolved around freeing palestine, then see ya until next time
:huh:
Obama's campaign was about a lot of things, some of which he accomplished despite a Republican party that thought preventing government from functioning was a virtue.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 01:57:10 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 01:57:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 01:50:02 PMObama's campaign was about a lot of things, some of which he accomplished despite a Republican party that thought preventing government from functioning was a virtue.
I don't get what you're saying. obama's campaign didn't have the same occupy wall street vibe that sander's campaign has. do you agree or?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 02, 2016, 02:04:44 PM
Post by: garbon on February 02, 2016, 02:04:44 PM
I think CC is also forgetting the obstructionism (in-fighting) on display when say Obama entered the oval office and Dems controlled both houses.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:10:41 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:10:41 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 01:57:10 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 01:50:02 PMObama's campaign was about a lot of things, some of which he accomplished despite a Republican party that thought preventing government from functioning was a virtue.
I don't get what you're saying. obama's campaign didn't have the same occupy wall street vibe that sander's campaign has. do you agree or?
Their platforms are different. But I certainly don't get an "occupy wall street vibe" from Sander's campaign. From the perspective of a Canadian watching your process from the outside, his policies reflect more or less what we already do in terms of subsidizing university education, health care etc. I suppose it only seems like a radical change because US politics have swung so far to the right in the last number of decades.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 02, 2016, 02:04:44 PM
I think CC is also forgetting the obstructionism (in-fighting) on display when say Obama entered the oval office and Dems controlled both houses.
I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:28:19 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 01:50:02 PMQuote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 01:39:36 PMQuote from: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 07:19:21 AMOtherwise, we're done.
okay, if you think obama's campaign revolved around freeing palestine, then see ya until next time
:huh:
Obama's campaign was about a lot of things, some of which he accomplished despite a Republican party that thought preventing government from functioning was a virtue.
I am surprised you even responded to this straw man comprised entirely of smaller strawmen. The first time the phrase "obama's [sic] campaign revolved around freeing palestine [sic]" appears in this thread is when LaCroix writes it, and then he pretends that he didn't write it, but I did!
Obama made a lot of promises that he didn't keep. Some he probably knew he couldn't keep, but wanted in the campaign platform so he would have the mandate to work towards them. Others he probably misjudged because of his extremely limited experience in federal government.
LaCroix doesn't seem to have an argument, just a strawman and attacks on others' arguments. I'd let this one rest.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:30:27 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:30:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.
There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on February 02, 2016, 02:33:17 PM
Post by: Barrister on February 02, 2016, 02:33:17 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:30:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.
There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.
I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do. In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:39:27 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2016, 02:33:17 PMQuite true. For good or ill.
I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do. In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Zanza on February 02, 2016, 02:48:53 PM
Post by: Zanza on February 02, 2016, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2016, 02:33:17 PMOur parties always enter coalition governments and there is a powerful obstructionist upper house, so the winning party almost never implements all it promised. So checks and balances also exist in parliamentarian democracies, maybe less so in Westminster systems where the lower house is extremely powerful and the winning party often commands an absolute majority.
I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do. In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 02, 2016, 03:03:24 PM
Post by: garbon on February 02, 2016, 03:03:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:11:56 PMQuote from: garbon on February 02, 2016, 02:04:44 PM
I think CC is also forgetting the obstructionism (in-fighting) on display when say Obama entered the oval office and Dems controlled both houses.
I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.
Anything? I think that's a bit extreme. And yeah, I'd say in general that I'm alright with our system. While it does mean that it can take longer for some good ideas to get implemented, it also leaves us less at the whim of the ruling party as it is far harder than many systems to implement drastic changes.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 03:07:46 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 03:07:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:30:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.
There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.
I agree. But the US was founded by people who were already well versed the in principles of the English system and so I don't think it was ever going to run the risk of going the way of the countries you listed. The US would likely have done quite well under a federal Parliamentary system but the Americans decided to create a new form of government. They did so for very good reasons. The idea that the crown should simply be a figurehead of a Westminster Parliamentary system had not yet been fully developed. I suppose one could argue that the American formulation helped that process along.
But despite the good intentions involved in creating the system, it is easily fouled up by people acting unreasonably. In theory the political process should fix such problems. I hope that occurs.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 03:22:47 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 03:22:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:10:41 PMTheir platforms are different. But I certainly don't get an "occupy wall street vibe" from Sander's campaign. From the perspective of a Canadian watching your process from the outside, his policies reflect more or less what we already do in terms of subsidizing university education, health care etc. I suppose it only seems like a radical change because US politics have swung so far to the right in the last number of decades.
bernie sanders's site:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/
QuoteThere is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
(literally impossible under constitution)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
(no quote really necessary, the link title says it all. don't really know how this could be implemented -- canada definitely doesn't have free tuition and debt free students)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/
(this is where sanders actually admits his goal is impossible under the constitution -- he says he will appoint supreme court justices who vow to overturn citizen's united and promises to try his best to amend the freaking constitution; also, some vague comment on eliminating super PACS (by overturning united?? I dunno))
https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-jobs-rebuilding-america/
(various infrastructure plans, $1 trillion over five years. this is technically possible, though not realistic whatsoever in this political climate)
that's the first few. I'm not spending time clicking on the rest. I did see this, though, and figured I'd toss this in as well
https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/
(literally impossible under the constitution)
basically, having checked his site, I don't think sanders's policies reflect canadian policies at all
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 03:25:20 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:39:27 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 02, 2016, 02:33:17 PMQuite true. For good or ill.
I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do. In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.
While it is true that a Parliamentary majority can make its own decisions without further obstacles within Parliament itself, BB overstates the issue when he says there is no reason a majority shouldn't be able to implement everything they promised. As an example the Conservatives, in their 10 years in power in Canada, had a great deal of difficulty implementing all they had promised. Public support still matters to a government with a majority. Also, the Courts provide an important role in deciding whether legislation is constitutionally valid - and there were many instances where the Court struck down their legislation as being inconsistent with the Charter.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 03:28:26 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 03:28:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2016, 02:33:17 PMI'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do. In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.
my original point before grumbler jumped in was that many of sanders's promises are impossible. not just in this political climate, but actually impossible to implement under the US constitution and/or/maybe budget. I exaggerated with all -- I hadn't read up on every single sanders promise.
basically, I don't think any candidate should promise the impossible. and if that candidate actually believes he can implement the impossible, then he's just not very bright.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 02, 2016, 03:29:14 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 02, 2016, 03:29:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 02, 2016, 03:03:24 PMBut it leaves with with the situation where the winning party has the responsibility without having power. That destroys feedback loop between actions and results, and incentives for good governance go away.
Anything? I think that's a bit extreme. And yeah, I'd say in general that I'm alright with our system. While it does mean that it can take longer for some good ideas to get implemented, it also leaves us less at the whim of the ruling party as it is far harder than many systems to implement drastic changes.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 03:32:37 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 03:32:37 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 03:22:47 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:10:41 PMTheir platforms are different. But I certainly don't get an "occupy wall street vibe" from Sander's campaign. From the perspective of a Canadian watching your process from the outside, his policies reflect more or less what we already do in terms of subsidizing university education, health care etc. I suppose it only seems like a radical change because US politics have swung so far to the right in the last number of decades.
bernie sanders's site:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/QuoteThere is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
(literally impossible under constitution)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
(no quote really necessary, the link title says it all. don't really know how this could be implemented -- canada definitely doesn't have free tuition and debt free students)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/
(this is where sanders actually admits his goal is impossible under the constitution -- he says he will appoint supreme court justices who vow to overturn citizen's united and promises to try his best to amend the freaking constitution; also, some vague comment on eliminating super PACS (by overturning united?? I dunno))
https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-jobs-rebuilding-america/
(various infrastructure plans, $1 trillion over five years. this is technically possible, though not realistic whatsoever in this political climate)
that's the first few. I'm not spending time clicking on the rest. I did see this, though, and figured I'd toss this in as well
https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/
(literally impossible under the constitution)
basically, having checked his site, I don't think sanders's policies reflect canadian policies at all
Its literally impossible for the US government to introduce tax reform? That doesn't sound right. In any event the Liberals were elected on exactly that platform.
Canada does have heavily subsidized tuition both in forms of direct funding to universities which off sets the need to raise money through tuition and by direct assistance to students. You are correct that tuition levels in Canada have risen over the last two decades as governments have decreased funding but the government could, and some here argue should, do more including what Sander's proposes.
The Liberals were just elected on a platform of deficit spending to finance infrastructure spending. It was one of their main platforms that garnered a great deal of support for them.
Its literally impossible for the US government to regulate the financial sector? That also doesnt seem right to me. As I recall it prior to the crash people within the Clinton administration were advocating for greater regulation but that fell on deaf ears - including the ears belonging to Clinton. Canada has always had strong regulation in this area.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 03:39:46 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 03:32:37 PMQuote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 03:22:47 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:10:41 PMTheir platforms are different. But I certainly don't get an "occupy wall street vibe" from Sander's campaign. From the perspective of a Canadian watching your process from the outside, his policies reflect more or less what we already do in terms of subsidizing university education, health care etc. I suppose it only seems like a radical change because US politics have swung so far to the right in the last number of decades.
bernie sanders's site:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/QuoteThere is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
(literally impossible under constitution)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
(no quote really necessary, the link title says it all. don't really know how this could be implemented -- canada definitely doesn't have free tuition and debt free students)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/
(this is where sanders actually admits his goal is impossible under the constitution -- he says he will appoint supreme court justices who vow to overturn citizen's united and promises to try his best to amend the freaking constitution; also, some vague comment on eliminating super PACS (by overturning united?? I dunno))
https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-jobs-rebuilding-america/
(various infrastructure plans, $1 trillion over five years. this is technically possible, though not realistic whatsoever in this political climate)
that's the first few. I'm not spending time clicking on the rest. I did see this, though, and figured I'd toss this in as well
https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/
(literally impossible under the constitution)
basically, having checked his site, I don't think sanders's policies reflect canadian policies at all
Its literally impossible for the US government to introduce tax reform? That doesn't sound right.
Canada does have heavily subsidized tuition both in forms of direct funding to universities which off sets the need to raise money through tuition and by direct assistance to students. You are correct that tuition levels in Canada have risen over the last two decades as governments have decreased funding but that government could, and some here argue should, do more including what Sander's proposes.
The Liberals were just elected on a platform of deficit spending to finance infrastructure spending. It was one of their main platforms that garnered a great deal of support for them.
Its literally impossible for the US government to regulate the financial sector? That also doesnt seem right to me. As I recall it prior to the crash people within the Clinton administration were advocating for greater regulation but that fell on deaf ears - including the ears belonging to Clinton.
takings clause. legit government purpose (or whatever the test is). wealth redistribution, which is what "it's wrong that .1% owns equal to 90%" essentially suggests, doesn't fit that.
I know that canada has low, cheap tuition. we're talking ZERO tuition.
I don't understand your point re "Liberals were just elected on a platform of deficit spending to finance infrastructure spending." what I posted re infrastructure is bernie sanders's goal under a republican congress. not bernie sanders's goal under a canadian congress.
re: finance reform. again, takings clause. you can have finance reform, but when you're proposing that the government step in and strip assets from private businesses based on nothing but a wall street hate-boner? that's unconstitutional
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 02, 2016, 03:40:49 PM
Post by: garbon on February 02, 2016, 03:40:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2016, 03:29:14 PMQuote from: garbon on February 02, 2016, 03:03:24 PMBut it leaves with with the situation where the winning party has the responsibility without having power. That destroys feedback loop between actions and results, and incentives for good governance go away.
Anything? I think that's a bit extreme. And yeah, I'd say in general that I'm alright with our system. While it does mean that it can take longer for some good ideas to get implemented, it also leaves us less at the whim of the ruling party as it is far harder than many systems to implement drastic changes.
I don't know about that. I'm not sure I agree with the overall narrative that things can't get accomplished. I think there are plenty of good substantive things happened during Obama's presidency even if overall I'd describe him as middling to weak.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 04:16:40 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 04:16:40 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 03:39:46 PM
I don't understand your point re "Liberals were just elected on a platform of deficit spending to finance infrastructure spending." what I posted re infrastructure is bernie sanders's goal under a republican congress. not bernie sanders's goal under a canadian congress.
I now see what Grumbler was talking about. You made the claim that Sander's policies were not similar to existing Canadian policies. My post was refuting your claim. Now you tell me you this?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 04:21:07 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 04:21:07 PM
LaCroix, I didn't see anything unconstitutional in Bernie's proposals. Taxing is not taking. Though arguably the distinction is semantic.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 04:31:49 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 04:31:49 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 03:39:46 PM
takings clause. legit government purpose (or whatever the test is). wealth redistribution, which is what "it's wrong that .1% owns equal to 90%" essentially suggests, doesn't fit that.
If that is true then why wasn't the entire New Deal ruled unconstitutional between then and now? Besides I would imagine Sanders can find some legit government purposes to put that money to if he is planning on doing trillion dollar infrastructure investments.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 04:35:17 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 04:21:07 PM
LaCroix, I didn't see anything unconstitutional in Bernie's proposals. Taxing is not taking. Though arguably the distinction is semantic.
I could have been wrong that gross over-taxation (designed to destroy/redistribute with seemingly no legitimate purpose) would fall under takings clause. it falls under something, though, and that would be unconstitutional. we're talking about a world where bernie sanders has congressional votes to pass a law that recreates america into the vision outlined in his policies. it's impossible to create that vision.
Quote from: crazy canuckNow you tell me you this?
I didn't know which direction you were going with that point. you switched from talking about whether sanders policy could be implemented in the US to how similar a policy was to canadian policy. point #1 -> implement in US; point #2 -> similar to canada; #4 -> implement in US. #3, "Liberals were just elected..." could have gone either way, so I said "I don't understand your point" and went with implement in US rather than similar to canada angle. make sense?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 04:37:26 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 04:37:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 04:31:49 PMIf that is true then why wasn't the entire New Deal ruled unconstitutional between then and now? Besides I would imagine Sanders can find some legit government purposes to put that money to if he is planning on doing trillion dollar infrastructure investments.
nothing in American history has come close to wealth redistribution on the scale that OWS types suggest. we're talking about some gross high number like 70-80% taxation on wealthy. some real Victoria II shit
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 04:42:05 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 04:42:05 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 04:37:26 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 04:31:49 PMIf that is true then why wasn't the entire New Deal ruled unconstitutional between then and now? Besides I would imagine Sanders can find some legit government purposes to put that money to if he is planning on doing trillion dollar infrastructure investments.
nothing in American history has come close to wealth redistribution on the scale that OWS types suggest. we're talking about some gross high number like 70-80% taxation on wealthy. some real Victoria II shit
What were the highest tax brackets prior to the 60s again?
In any case the Constitution makes no such distinction that I am aware of. That doing something a little bit is Constitutional but doing it to some other amount is un-Constitutional. Things are either Constitutional or they are not.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 04:47:16 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 04:47:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 04:42:05 PMQuote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 04:37:26 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 04:31:49 PMIf that is true then why wasn't the entire New Deal ruled unconstitutional between then and now? Besides I would imagine Sanders can find some legit government purposes to put that money to if he is planning on doing trillion dollar infrastructure investments.
nothing in American history has come close to wealth redistribution on the scale that OWS types suggest. we're talking about some gross high number like 70-80% taxation on wealthy. some real Victoria II shit
What were the highest tax brackets prior to the 60s again?
In any case the Constitution makes no such distinction that I am aware of. That doing something a little bit is Constitutional but doing it to some other amount is un-Constitutional. Things are either Constitutional or they are not.
no idea. are you making a statement by asking a question, or are you asking a question? I don't know tax history
??? makes no distinction on what? if congress tried to destroy an entire classification of people by stripping away their wealth, you can be damn sure it'd be ruled unconstitutional. and your last point is incorrect: "doing something a little bit is constitutional but doing it a lot is unconstitutional" is pretty much how constitutional law works in a lot of different con law topics. the very first example that comes to mind is police interrogation -- you can be a little aggressive, but you can't be extremely aggressive.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on February 02, 2016, 04:54:08 PM
Post by: dps on February 02, 2016, 04:54:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2016, 02:05:56 AM
The Vietnam War is over
So, perhaps Bernie should stop fighting to end it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 05:03:08 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 05:03:08 PM
Quoteno idea. are you making a statement by asking a question, or are you asking a question? I don't know tax history
You don't know tax history...yet you know for a fact nothing has come close to 70-80% taxes. Interesting. You would be wrong BTW.
Quote
??? makes no distinction on what?
Exactly what I said and you responded to in such a way as to suggest that you understood exactly what I was trying to say? :hmm:
Quoteif congress tried to destroy an entire classification of people by stripping away their wealth
A tax bracket with 70%-80% is not the same thing as confiscating 70%-80% of somebody's assets. :mellow: You are aware of that right?
Quoteyou can be damn sure it'd be ruled unconstitutional
Ok then why wasn't it in the past?
Quoteand your last point is incorrect: "doing something a little bit is constitutional but doing it a lot is unconstitutional" is pretty much how constitutional law works in a lot of different con law topics. the very first example that comes to mind is police interrogation -- you can be a little aggressive, but you can't be extremely aggressive.
Well that is different. We are talking about tax rates not something with as much as a judgement call as law enforcement.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 05:09:53 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 05:09:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 05:03:08 PMQuoteno idea. are you making a statement by asking a question, or are you asking a question? I don't know tax history
You don't know tax history...yet you know for a fact nothing has come close to 70-80% taxes. Interesting. You would be wrong BTW.
Quote
??? makes no distinction on what?
Exactly what I said and you responded to in such a way as to suggest that you understood exactly what I was trying to say? :hmm:Quoteif congress tried to destroy an entire classification of people by stripping away their wealth
A tax bracket with 70%-80% is not the same thing as confiscating 70%-80% of somebody's assets. :mellow: You are aware of that right?Quoteyou can be damn sure it'd be ruled unconstitutional
Ok then why wasn't it in the past?Quoteand your last point is incorrect: "doing something a little bit is constitutional but doing it a lot is unconstitutional" is pretty much how constitutional law works in a lot of different con law topics. the very first example that comes to mind is police interrogation -- you can be a little aggressive, but you can't be extremely aggressive.
Well that is different. We are talking about tax rates not something with as much as a judgement call as law enforcement.
re: income tax bracket
interesting! I just looked it up
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-would-you-feel-about-a-94-tax-rate/
why were you such a prick about telling me this?
I guess when I was thinking 70-80% tax, I meant stripping away someone's assets. someone's wealth. that's what bernie sanders is getting at. .1% own as much wealth as 90%. not income, right? you seem to be attacking me more on semantics related to my ignorance on tax/financial stuff rather than the core of what I'm saying. that's a pretty dickish way of debate
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 05:11:28 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 05:11:28 PM
A much less insane way of framing the issue LC is trying to get at is that redistribution for the sake of redistribution has never been a stated policy objective in the US. Tax the rich to provide a safety net: yes. Tax the rich to lift people out of poverty: yes. Tax the rich because they have more and we want some: hasn't been done.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 05:14:02 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 05:14:02 PM
:D (edit) I absolutely admit that I don't always explain myself on languish in the best way possible
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 05:21:05 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 05:21:05 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2016, 05:09:53 PM
I guess when I was thinking 70-80% tax, I meant stripping away someone's assets. someone's wealth. that's what bernie sanders is getting at. .1% own as much wealth as 90%. not income, right?
Ah I see. No that is not what Bernie is getting at. I think he is saying there are structural injustice problems blah blah that cause that problem and he is going to fix them through noble socialist worst. Not that he is just going to take everybody's shit. Because that would be insane, like all his supporters would have to be certifiably crazy. Somehow I do not think Ank is a fucking sociopath so I do not think that is what Sanders is saying he would do. It would be unprecedented and impossible anyway. That is not a tax that is something else. I guess I did not get that you were suggesting he was suggesting such a thing because it would be Soviet Union-esque rather than Sweden-esque which is more what I thought Sanders was going for.
Quoteyou seem to be attacking me more on semantics related to my ignorance on tax/financial stuff rather than the core of what I'm saying. that's a pretty dickish way of debate
I am not attacking you on semantics at all. I thought you were saying a 70%-80% tax bracket was unconstitutional and I was saying it most certainly is, as we have had it before. So I misunderstood.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 05:23:37 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 05:23:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 05:11:28 PM
A much less insane way of framing the issue LC is trying to get at is that redistribution for the sake of redistribution has never been a stated policy objective in the US. Tax the rich to provide a safety net: yes. Tax the rich to lift people out of poverty: yes. Tax the rich because they have more and we want some: hasn't been done.
Wait so a tax bracket at 70% is ok so long as you don't say anything about redistribution?
And anyway I thought LaCroix just said he was not talking about taxes but confiscation of assets? :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on February 02, 2016, 05:25:44 PM
Post by: Phillip V on February 02, 2016, 05:25:44 PM
Sanders refuses to concede defeat in Iowa due to the coin tosses.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-218643
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-218643
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 02, 2016, 05:49:53 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 02, 2016, 05:49:53 PM
Speaking about the constitutionality of issues that aren't completely black and white, justices are people appointed by politicians. What is considered unconstitutional now isn't what was considered unconstitutional in the past, and vice versa. The difference is the attitudes of the people on the court, and those people are appointed by presidents. Which makes me think twice when someone says in a presidential election, "he couldn't do that anyway, it is unconstitutional."
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 02, 2016, 05:58:11 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 02, 2016, 05:58:11 PM
LaCroix, do you have any evidence that Sanders is planning on introducing a wealth tax? Pointing out that current policies have greatly exacerbated the wealth gap doesn't count as such.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Josquius on February 02, 2016, 06:02:59 PM
Post by: Josquius on February 02, 2016, 06:02:59 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 02, 2016, 05:25:44 PMWell that sucks if they are doing things that way. Iowans can't count?
Sanders refuses to concede defeat in Iowa due to the coin tosses.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-218643
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 06:29:59 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2016, 06:29:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 02, 2016, 06:02:59 PM
Well that sucks if they are doing things that way. Iowans can't count?
Chavs don't understand the concept of people leaving before they vote?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 06:45:20 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 06:45:20 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 02, 2016, 06:02:59 PMQuote from: Phillip V on February 02, 2016, 05:25:44 PMWell that sucks if they are doing things that way. Iowans can't count?
Sanders refuses to concede defeat in Iowa due to the coin tosses.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-218643
These are caucuses. Often at peoples' homes. In a tight race. What is so mysterious about the idea that, in small groups, a handful of groups will have tied votes? In that case, delegates are distributed evenly and the odd delegate (where there is an odd number assigned) determined by coin flip. It sucks that some people don't understand the idea of tiebreaking.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 11:20:04 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2016, 11:20:04 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 02, 2016, 05:25:44 PM
Sanders refuses to concede defeat in Iowa due to the coin tosses.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-218643
Maybe they can rock-paper-scissors for it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 03, 2016, 01:43:02 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 03, 2016, 01:43:02 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2016, 02:33:17 PMQuote from: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:30:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.
There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.
I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do. In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.
I disagree - it's more the function of timing between elections than the system itself. There is absolutely no reason why campaign promises are "merely aspirational", if in both the presidential and congress elections one side campaigns - and wins - on the same platform.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 03, 2016, 01:48:22 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 03, 2016, 01:48:22 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:30:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.
There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.
FWIW, neither Turkey nor Russia are Parliamentary democracies. Both have a very strong President.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 03, 2016, 01:54:43 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 03, 2016, 01:54:43 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 03:25:20 PMQuote from: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:39:27 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 02, 2016, 02:33:17 PMQuite true. For good or ill.
I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do. In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.
While it is true that a Parliamentary majority can make its own decisions without further obstacles within Parliament itself, BB overstates the issue when he says there is no reason a majority shouldn't be able to implement everything they promised. As an example the Conservatives, in their 10 years in power in Canada, had a great deal of difficulty implementing all they had promised. Public support still matters to a government with a majority. Also, the Courts provide an important role in deciding whether legislation is constitutionally valid - and there were many instances where the Court struck down their legislation as being inconsistent with the Charter.
But then we are starting to compare apples and oranges. If you take the British system as the template of a Parliamentary system, the power of some body (such as courts, or the constitutional tribunal of sorts) to declare acts of the Parliament as inconsistent with some sort of a higher act (usually a constitution) is a departure from that system.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 03, 2016, 12:07:20 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 03, 2016, 12:07:20 PM
I don't like his plan to tax Wall Street. It's a pretty small street and these days there's a lot of Grade B space. The yield isn't going to be that impressive.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 03, 2016, 10:40:05 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 03, 2016, 10:40:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 03, 2016, 01:54:43 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2016, 03:25:20 PMQuote from: grumbler on February 02, 2016, 02:39:27 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 02, 2016, 02:33:17 PMQuite true. For good or ill.
I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do. In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.
While it is true that a Parliamentary majority can make its own decisions without further obstacles within Parliament itself, BB overstates the issue when he says there is no reason a majority shouldn't be able to implement everything they promised. As an example the Conservatives, in their 10 years in power in Canada, had a great deal of difficulty implementing all they had promised. Public support still matters to a government with a majority. Also, the Courts provide an important role in deciding whether legislation is constitutionally valid - and there were many instances where the Court struck down their legislation as being inconsistent with the Charter.
But then we are starting to compare apples and oranges. If you take the British system as the template of a Parliamentary system, the power of some body (such as courts, or the constitutional tribunal of sorts) to declare acts of the Parliament as inconsistent with some sort of a higher act (usually a constitution) is a departure from that system.
I was making the point that there are other methods of government that have checks and balances without having to resort to the extreme of the American model.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 03, 2016, 10:40:43 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 03, 2016, 10:40:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 03, 2016, 12:07:20 PM
I don't like his plan to tax Wall Street. It's a pretty small street and these days there's a lot of Grade B space. The yield isn't going to be that impressive.
NIMBY :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 03, 2016, 11:14:21 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 03, 2016, 11:14:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 02, 2016, 05:58:11 PM
LaCroix, do you have any evidence that Sanders is planning on introducing a wealth tax? Pointing out that current policies have greatly exacerbated the wealth gap doesn't count as such.
how have current policies greatly exacerbated the wealth gap?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 03, 2016, 11:20:13 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 03, 2016, 11:20:13 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 03, 2016, 11:14:21 PM
how have current policies greatly exacerbated the wealth gap?
Tax policies favor investments and penalize wage work. Free trade transfers middle class jobs overseas and they have been replaced by jobs that can no longer support a family. Illegal immigration driving wages down for the benefit of rich exploiters. Bail outs of the rich at tax payer expense. The rich sheltering their wealth so the tax burden falls on the rest...and so forth.
You know, the stuff people have been bitching about constantly for decades. That article Tim posted about why people like Trump talks about some of this. How legitimate those complaints are is something else.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 04, 2016, 12:23:51 AM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 04, 2016, 12:23:51 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 03, 2016, 11:14:21 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 02, 2016, 05:58:11 PM
LaCroix, do you have any evidence that Sanders is planning on introducing a wealth tax? Pointing out that current policies have greatly exacerbated the wealth gap doesn't count as such.
how have current policies greatly exacerbated the wealth gap?
I am not sure if you are being serious or not.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 04, 2016, 08:50:56 AM
Post by: LaCroix on February 04, 2016, 08:50:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2016, 11:20:13 PMYou know, the stuff people have been bitching about constantly for decades. That article Tim posted about why people like Trump talks about some of this. How legitimate those complaints are is something else.
people complain all the time about stuff they don't know anything about, so I asked for clarification. maybe wealth gaps are inevitable in capitalism, and this current wealth gap was only slightly created by current policies. I dunno, I don't study this stuff - I ask to hear from people who do study it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 04, 2016, 09:02:07 AM
Post by: Valmy on February 04, 2016, 09:02:07 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 04, 2016, 08:50:56 AMQuote from: Valmy on February 03, 2016, 11:20:13 PMYou know, the stuff people have been bitching about constantly for decades. That article Tim posted about why people like Trump talks about some of this. How legitimate those complaints are is something else.
people complain all the time about stuff they don't know anything about, so I asked for clarification. maybe wealth gaps are inevitable in capitalism, and this current wealth gap was only slightly created by current policies. I dunno, I don't study this stuff - I ask to hear from people who do study it.
I know. So go read this: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13717.0.html
Some experts have predicted an overlap between Trump and Bernie supporters.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on February 04, 2016, 07:34:49 PM
Post by: Phillip V on February 04, 2016, 07:34:49 PM
Des Moines Register calls for audit of Iowa results: 'Something smells in the Democratic Party'
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/des-moines-register-audit-iowa-results-218731
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/des-moines-register-audit-iowa-results-218731
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 04, 2016, 08:20:39 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 04, 2016, 08:20:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2016, 09:02:07 AMQuote from: LaCroix on February 04, 2016, 08:50:56 AMQuote from: Valmy on February 03, 2016, 11:20:13 PMYou know, the stuff people have been bitching about constantly for decades. That article Tim posted about why people like Trump talks about some of this. How legitimate those complaints are is something else.
people complain all the time about stuff they don't know anything about, so I asked for clarification. maybe wealth gaps are inevitable in capitalism, and this current wealth gap was only slightly created by current policies. I dunno, I don't study this stuff - I ask to hear from people who do study it.
I know. So go read this: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13717.0.html
We've had a lengthy debate on the topic before.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10247.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10247.0.html)
Unfortunately, Berkut's link in the OP is broken, but I believe it was similar to this one:
http://equitablegrowth.org/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states/ (http://equitablegrowth.org/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states/)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 04, 2016, 08:36:15 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 04, 2016, 08:36:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2016, 09:02:07 AMI know. So go read this: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13717.0.html
Some experts have predicted an overlap between Trump and Bernie supporters.
not every "expert" is equal, though. that's a possible theory and not fact, right?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on February 04, 2016, 08:39:06 PM
Post by: 11B4V on February 04, 2016, 08:39:06 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 04, 2016, 07:34:49 PM
Des Moines Register calls for audit of Iowa results: 'Something smells in the Democratic Party'
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/des-moines-register-audit-iowa-results-218731
No not democrats. Can't be. Not shadiness and there's a Clinton somewhere in the wood pile. :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2016, 09:48:17 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2016, 09:48:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 04, 2016, 08:39:06 PM
No not democrats. Can't be. Not shadiness and there's a Clinton somewhere in the wood pile. :lol:
Sounds to me like the accusations are most about lack of organization, not ballot stuffing.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:48:18 AM
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:48:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2016, 09:48:17 PMQuote from: 11B4V on February 04, 2016, 08:39:06 PM
No not democrats. Can't be. Not shadiness and there's a Clinton somewhere in the wood pile. :lol:
Sounds to me like the accusations are most about lack of organization, not ballot stuffing.
:yes:
Of course, I like confused voters throne into the list of problems. That's all elections. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 05, 2016, 03:01:29 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 05, 2016, 03:01:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:48:18 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2016, 09:48:17 PMQuote from: 11B4V on February 04, 2016, 08:39:06 PM
No not democrats. Can't be. Not shadiness and there's a Clinton somewhere in the wood pile. :lol:
Sounds to me like the accusations are most about lack of organization, not ballot stuffing.
:yes:
Of course, I like confused voters throne into the list of problems. That's all elections. :D
:yes: Hillary would have a much better chance if not those pesky voters. :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on February 05, 2016, 03:20:48 AM
Post by: Jaron on February 05, 2016, 03:20:48 AM
Hillary will win and be the worst president.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 05, 2016, 03:33:18 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 05, 2016, 03:33:18 AM
Wrong, she will lose and be the best President!
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: frunk on February 05, 2016, 07:57:11 AM
Post by: frunk on February 05, 2016, 07:57:11 AM
Wrong, it'll be an exact tie and the co-presidents will be middling!
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 05, 2016, 08:00:04 AM
Post by: Monoriu on February 05, 2016, 08:00:04 AM
Quote from: frunk on February 05, 2016, 07:57:11 AM
Wrong, it'll be an exact tie and the co-presidents will be middling!
That's why everybody should practise coin flips now :contract:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2016, 08:03:36 AM
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2016, 08:03:36 AM
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-terrible-things-hillary-clinton-has-done-in-one-big-list-2016-02-04
QuoteAll the terrible things Hillary Clinton has done — in one big list
I have a confession to make: I can't keep up.
Am I supposed to hate Hillary Rodham Clinton because she's too left-wing, or too right-wing? Because she's too feminist, or not feminist enough? Because she's too clever a politician, or too clumsy?
Am I supposed to be mad that she gave speeches to rich bankers, or that she charged them too much money?
I'm up here in New Hampshire watching her talk to a group of supporters, and I realized that I have been following this woman's career for more than half my life. No, not just my adult life: the whole shebang. She came onto the national scene when I was a young man.
And for all that time, there has been a deafening chorus of critics telling me that she's just the most wicked, evil, Machiavellian, nefarious individual in American history. She has "the soul of an East German border guard," in the words of that nice Grover Norquist. She's a "bitch," in the words of that nice Newt Gingrich. She's a "dragon lady." She's "Elena Ceaușescu." She's "the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock."
Long before "Benghazi" and her email server, there was "Whitewater" and "the Rose Law Firm" and "Vince Foster." For those of us following her, we were promised scandal after scandal after scandal. And if no actual evidence ever turned up, well, that just proved how deviously clever she was.
So today I'm performing a public service on behalf of all the voters. I went back and re-read all the criticisms and attacks and best-selling "exposes" leveled at Hillary Rodham Clinton over the past quarter century. And I've compiled a list of all her High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Here they are:
1. When she was first lady, she murdered White House lawyer Vince Foster and then dumped his body in a park.
2. She drove Vince Foster to commit suicide through her temper tantrums.
3. She was having an affair with Vince Foster.
4. She's a lesbian.
5. Chelsea isn't Bill Clinton's child.
6. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up that she once bought a tract of undeveloped land in Arkansas and lost money.
7. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up her role in firing the White House travel department.
8. After she murdered Vince Foster, she ransacked his office in the middle of the night and stole all the documents proving her guilt.
9. When Bill was governor of Arkansas, she was a partner in the state's top law firm, and it sometimes did work involving the state government.
10. She once invested in commodities futures on the advice of a friend and made $100,000, proving she's a crook.
11. She once invested in real estate on the advice of another friend and lost $100,000, also proving she's a crook.
12. Unnamed and unverifiable sources have told Peggy Noonan things about the Clintons that are simply too terrible to repeat.
13. The personnel murdered at Benghazi make her the first secretary of state to lose overseas personnel to terrorism — apart from Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Schultz, Dean Rusk and some others.
14. Four State Department staff were murdered at Benghazi, compared with only 119 others murdered overseas under every secretary of state combined since World War II.
15. She illegally sent classified emails from her personal server, except that apparently they weren't classified at the time.
16. She may have cynically wriggled around the email law by "technically" complying with it.
17. She once signed a lucrative book contract when she was a private citizen.
18. Donald Trump says she "should be in jail," and he's a serial bankrupt casino developer in Atlantic City, so he should know.
19. Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay says his "law-enforcement sources" tell him she is "about to be indicted" — and if a man once convicted of money laundering and conspiracy doesn't have good law-enforcement sources, who does?
20. She's a hard-left radical who wants to break up the nuclear family.
21. She's a conservative "mousewife" who refused to break up her own family.
22. She's in favor of single moms.
23. She refused to be a single mom.
24. When she was first lady of Arkansas, she pandered to conservative voters by dyeing her hair.
25. Before that, she totally insulted them by refusing to.
26. She's a frump.
27. She spends too much money on designer dresses.
28. She has "cankles."
29. She has a grating voice.
30. She yells into the microphone.
31. She spent 18 years in Arkansas and some of the people she knew turned out to be crazy rednecks and crooks.
32. She's in the pay of the mafia.
33. She's in the pay of the Chinese government.
34. She's in the pay of the Wall Street banks.
35. In order to suppress the billing records from her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, she cleverly packed them up and took them to the White House rather than shredding them.
36. When she handed over the documents to public officials, they couldn't find any evidence she'd committed any crimes, so she must have doctored them.
37. Congress spent tens of millions of dollars and six years investigating her investment in the "Whitewater" real estate project, and while they didn't actually find anything, they wouldn't have spent all that money if there weren't something there.
38. By cleverly hiding all evidence of her crimes in the "Whitewater" affair, she caused Congress to waste all that taxpayers' money.
39. When she ran for senator of New York, she was still a fan of the Chicago Cubs.
40. She once said the Clintons were thinking of adopting a child, and they didn't follow through.
41. She was photographed holding her hand near her mouth during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
42. She's got brain damage.
43. She's old.
44. She's really ambitious and calculating, unlike all the other people running for president.
45. She secretly supported Palestinian terrorists, Puerto Rican terrorists and Guatemalan terrorists.
46. She secretly supported a group that wants to give Maine back to the Indians.
47. She's a secret follower of "radical prophet" Saul Alinsky.
48. She did her law degree at Yale, and it's a well-known "socialist finishing school."
49. When she was young, she did things to build up her resume rather than just for their own good.
50. When Bill was president, she "allowed" him to keep people waiting.
51. She's married to a sex addict.
52. She's an enemy of traditional marriage.
53. She didn't divorce her husband.
54. His philandering is her fault because she is too strong, and too weak, and too frumpy, and too fat, and too cold.
55. She's hostile to women who fool around with her husband.
56. A divorced taxi driver in Florida told me that if Hillary is elected president, "women will take over everything."
57. She insulted Tammy Wynette.
58. When they left the White House, she and Bill bought a big house in New York that they couldn't afford.
59. She sometimes calls her staff during dinner, even when they're out at a restaurant.
60. She claimed there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband, and turned out there was nothing but a bunch of tycoons financing private investigators, and some fake think-tanks and books and news sites and stuff.
61. When she got married, she didn't "stay at home and bake cookies."
62. She supported the Iraq War because she's a secret foreign-policy conservative.
63. She's a secret foreign-policy radical with a plan to impose worldwide "radical social experimentation" through the World Bank.
64. She is secretly plotting to let children sue their parents for making them take out the garbage.
65. She looked bored during the Benghazi hearings.
66. Oh, yeah — and she totally has a vagina.
It's clear: Hillary must be stopped. Hearings now!
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 05, 2016, 11:01:57 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 05, 2016, 11:01:57 AM
The cankles are enough for me. Go Bernie!
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on February 05, 2016, 11:02:55 AM
Post by: Berkut on February 05, 2016, 11:02:55 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 04, 2016, 08:20:39 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 04, 2016, 09:02:07 AMQuote from: LaCroix on February 04, 2016, 08:50:56 AMQuote from: Valmy on February 03, 2016, 11:20:13 PMYou know, the stuff people have been bitching about constantly for decades. That article Tim posted about why people like Trump talks about some of this. How legitimate those complaints are is something else.
people complain all the time about stuff they don't know anything about, so I asked for clarification. maybe wealth gaps are inevitable in capitalism, and this current wealth gap was only slightly created by current policies. I dunno, I don't study this stuff - I ask to hear from people who do study it.
I know. So go read this: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13717.0.html
We've had a lengthy debate on the topic before.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10247.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10247.0.html)
Unfortunately, Berkut's link in the OP is broken, but I believe it was similar to this one:
http://equitablegrowth.org/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states/ (http://equitablegrowth.org/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states/)
That was one of the most depressing discussions I've ever been a part of on Languish.
The ability of both ends of the spectrum to just willfully ignore that scope and bounds of the problem and potential solution set because they care so much more about their sides ideology than actually solving anything made me really start to understand just how intractable the problem actually is...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on February 05, 2016, 11:06:14 AM
Post by: derspiess on February 05, 2016, 11:06:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2016, 08:03:36 AM
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-terrible-things-hillary-clinton-has-done-in-one-big-list-2016-02-04QuoteAll the terrible things Hillary Clinton has done — in one big list
I have a confession to make: I can't keep up.
Am I supposed to hate Hillary Rodham Clinton because she's too left-wing, or too right-wing? Because she's too feminist, or not feminist enough? Because she's too clever a politician, or too clumsy?
Am I supposed to be mad that she gave speeches to rich bankers, or that she charged them too much money?
I'm up here in New Hampshire watching her talk to a group of supporters, and I realized that I have been following this woman's career for more than half my life. No, not just my adult life: the whole shebang. She came onto the national scene when I was a young man.
And for all that time, there has been a deafening chorus of critics telling me that she's just the most wicked, evil, Machiavellian, nefarious individual in American history. She has "the soul of an East German border guard," in the words of that nice Grover Norquist. She's a "bitch," in the words of that nice Newt Gingrich. She's a "dragon lady." She's "Elena Ceaușescu." She's "the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock."
Long before "Benghazi" and her email server, there was "Whitewater" and "the Rose Law Firm" and "Vince Foster." For those of us following her, we were promised scandal after scandal after scandal. And if no actual evidence ever turned up, well, that just proved how deviously clever she was.
So today I'm performing a public service on behalf of all the voters. I went back and re-read all the criticisms and attacks and best-selling "exposes" leveled at Hillary Rodham Clinton over the past quarter century. And I've compiled a list of all her High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Here they are:
1. When she was first lady, she murdered White House lawyer Vince Foster and then dumped his body in a park.
2. She drove Vince Foster to commit suicide through her temper tantrums.
3. She was having an affair with Vince Foster.
4. She's a lesbian.
5. Chelsea isn't Bill Clinton's child.
6. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up that she once bought a tract of undeveloped land in Arkansas and lost money.
7. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up her role in firing the White House travel department.
8. After she murdered Vince Foster, she ransacked his office in the middle of the night and stole all the documents proving her guilt.
9. When Bill was governor of Arkansas, she was a partner in the state's top law firm, and it sometimes did work involving the state government.
10. She once invested in commodities futures on the advice of a friend and made $100,000, proving she's a crook.
11. She once invested in real estate on the advice of another friend and lost $100,000, also proving she's a crook.
12. Unnamed and unverifiable sources have told Peggy Noonan things about the Clintons that are simply too terrible to repeat.
13. The personnel murdered at Benghazi make her the first secretary of state to lose overseas personnel to terrorism — apart from Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Schultz, Dean Rusk and some others.
14. Four State Department staff were murdered at Benghazi, compared with only 119 others murdered overseas under every secretary of state combined since World War II.
15. She illegally sent classified emails from her personal server, except that apparently they weren't classified at the time.
16. She may have cynically wriggled around the email law by "technically" complying with it.
17. She once signed a lucrative book contract when she was a private citizen.
18. Donald Trump says she "should be in jail," and he's a serial bankrupt casino developer in Atlantic City, so he should know.
19. Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay says his "law-enforcement sources" tell him she is "about to be indicted" — and if a man once convicted of money laundering and conspiracy doesn't have good law-enforcement sources, who does?
20. She's a hard-left radical who wants to break up the nuclear family.
21. She's a conservative "mousewife" who refused to break up her own family.
22. She's in favor of single moms.
23. She refused to be a single mom.
24. When she was first lady of Arkansas, she pandered to conservative voters by dyeing her hair.
25. Before that, she totally insulted them by refusing to.
26. She's a frump.
27. She spends too much money on designer dresses.
28. She has "cankles."
29. She has a grating voice.
30. She yells into the microphone.
31. She spent 18 years in Arkansas and some of the people she knew turned out to be crazy rednecks and crooks.
32. She's in the pay of the mafia.
33. She's in the pay of the Chinese government.
34. She's in the pay of the Wall Street banks.
35. In order to suppress the billing records from her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, she cleverly packed them up and took them to the White House rather than shredding them.
36. When she handed over the documents to public officials, they couldn't find any evidence she'd committed any crimes, so she must have doctored them.
37. Congress spent tens of millions of dollars and six years investigating her investment in the "Whitewater" real estate project, and while they didn't actually find anything, they wouldn't have spent all that money if there weren't something there.
38. By cleverly hiding all evidence of her crimes in the "Whitewater" affair, she caused Congress to waste all that taxpayers' money.
39. When she ran for senator of New York, she was still a fan of the Chicago Cubs.
40. She once said the Clintons were thinking of adopting a child, and they didn't follow through.
41. She was photographed holding her hand near her mouth during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
42. She's got brain damage.
43. She's old.
44. She's really ambitious and calculating, unlike all the other people running for president.
45. She secretly supported Palestinian terrorists, Puerto Rican terrorists and Guatemalan terrorists.
46. She secretly supported a group that wants to give Maine back to the Indians.
47. She's a secret follower of "radical prophet" Saul Alinsky.
48. She did her law degree at Yale, and it's a well-known "socialist finishing school."
49. When she was young, she did things to build up her resume rather than just for their own good.
50. When Bill was president, she "allowed" him to keep people waiting.
51. She's married to a sex addict.
52. She's an enemy of traditional marriage.
53. She didn't divorce her husband.
54. His philandering is her fault because she is too strong, and too weak, and too frumpy, and too fat, and too cold.
55. She's hostile to women who fool around with her husband.
56. A divorced taxi driver in Florida told me that if Hillary is elected president, "women will take over everything."
57. She insulted Tammy Wynette.
58. When they left the White House, she and Bill bought a big house in New York that they couldn't afford.
59. She sometimes calls her staff during dinner, even when they're out at a restaurant.
60. She claimed there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband, and turned out there was nothing but a bunch of tycoons financing private investigators, and some fake think-tanks and books and news sites and stuff.
61. When she got married, she didn't "stay at home and bake cookies."
62. She supported the Iraq War because she's a secret foreign-policy conservative.
63. She's a secret foreign-policy radical with a plan to impose worldwide "radical social experimentation" through the World Bank.
64. She is secretly plotting to let children sue their parents for making them take out the garbage.
65. She looked bored during the Benghazi hearings.
66. Oh, yeah — and she totally has a vagina.
It's clear: Hillary must be stopped. Hearings now!
Poor Hillary. Just can't catch a break :(
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 11:12:59 AM
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 11:12:59 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 04, 2016, 08:36:15 PM
not every "expert" is equal, though. that's a possible theory and not fact, right?
Sure. Nothing is a fact until it happens.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 11:13:45 AM
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 11:13:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2016, 11:06:14 AM
Poor Hillary. Just can't catch a break :(
Or her detractors can't. All those years of character assassination and she still is in contention to become President. Kind of makes you wonder what might have happened if those people had devoted their time to doing something useful.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2016, 12:11:29 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2016, 12:11:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 05, 2016, 11:01:57 AM
The cankles are enough for me. Go Bernie!
You're being way too soft on Cubs fans.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 05, 2016, 12:35:36 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 05, 2016, 12:35:36 PM
They forgot the throwing kids in front of trains part. Also killing Rob Brown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DSzcdCv8_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DSzcdCv8_s
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 12:43:13 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 12:43:13 PM
According to one poll, Bernie and Hillary are tied. Nationally. Holy crap.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/national-poll-republicans-democrats-218807
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/national-poll-republicans-democrats-218807
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on February 05, 2016, 12:49:12 PM
Post by: Jacob on February 05, 2016, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2016, 11:06:14 AM
Poor Hillary. Just can't catch a break :(
She's doing pretty well, all told. But the amount of effort going in to flinging mud at her is quite monumental.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 12:56:28 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2016, 12:49:12 PMThe amount of crap she is getting is 10 times what she deserves. But the amount of crap that she does deserve is still a rather gigantic quantity.Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2016, 11:06:14 AM
Poor Hillary. Just can't catch a break :(
She's doing pretty well, all told. But the amount of effort going in to flinging mud at her is quite monumental.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on February 05, 2016, 12:56:54 PM
Post by: celedhring on February 05, 2016, 12:56:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2016, 12:49:12 PMQuote from: derspiess on February 05, 2016, 11:06:14 AM
Poor Hillary. Just can't catch a break :(
She's doing pretty well, all told. But the amount of effort going in to flinging mud at her is quite monumental.
Well, not many politicians somehow become targets for the right wing mud squad AND the left one at the same time. My Facebook feed is full from anti-Hillary stuff from Bernie fans.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 05, 2016, 12:58:47 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 05, 2016, 12:58:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2016, 12:49:12 PMQuote from: derspiess on February 05, 2016, 11:06:14 AM
Poor Hillary. Just can't catch a break :(
She's doing pretty well, all told. But the amount of effort going in to flinging mud at her is quite monumental.
They've had a lot of practice. Like 25 years of practice. The bullshit in the 1990's was breathtaking in it's scope and craziness.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 05, 2016, 01:11:46 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 05, 2016, 01:11:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2016, 12:11:29 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 05, 2016, 11:01:57 AM
The cankles are enough for me. Go Bernie!
You're being way too soft on Cubs fans.
I admire their perseverance.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Josquius on February 05, 2016, 01:48:42 PM
Post by: Josquius on February 05, 2016, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 12:43:13 PMGiven what happened in Iowa...... in other words Hillary will win.
According to one poll, Bernie and Hillary are tied. Nationally. Holy crap.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/national-poll-republicans-democrats-218807
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 05, 2016, 02:03:03 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 05, 2016, 02:03:03 PM
I strongly suspect that Clinton will clean up in the South.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 02:16:07 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 02:16:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2016, 02:03:03 PM
I strongly suspect that Clinton will clean up in the South.
We shall see. Populism plays well in the South.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 05, 2016, 02:19:42 PM
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 05, 2016, 02:19:42 PM
Nate Silver says Bernie has like a 4% chance to win in South Carolina and he still heavily favors HRC to win the nomination.
It'll be crushing to Bernie's momentum when he loses like 6 of the 7 primaries after NH, not to mention it'll also generate a significant delegate lead for Clinton. Also not to mention, the 15% of delegates who are superdelegates, almost all of whom are pledged to Hillary, won't jump off her ship in a close delegate race. They'll only jump to Bernie if he clearly has the weight of voters behind them (like they did for Obama in 2008 when it was obvious he was going to rack up more pledged delegates than HRC.)
Silver's key point is Bernie has yet to show any real effort to attract minority votes. Class based populism, for whatever reason, doesn't resonate with darkie.
It'll be crushing to Bernie's momentum when he loses like 6 of the 7 primaries after NH, not to mention it'll also generate a significant delegate lead for Clinton. Also not to mention, the 15% of delegates who are superdelegates, almost all of whom are pledged to Hillary, won't jump off her ship in a close delegate race. They'll only jump to Bernie if he clearly has the weight of voters behind them (like they did for Obama in 2008 when it was obvious he was going to rack up more pledged delegates than HRC.)
Silver's key point is Bernie has yet to show any real effort to attract minority votes. Class based populism, for whatever reason, doesn't resonate with darkie.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:30:26 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:30:26 PM
The danger for Hillary is that she may lose the aura of invincibility. For most of the Democratic race the feeling was that primaries were a formality, and those were were aware of Sanders assumed he was just a debate sparring partner to keep Hillary in shape. If the aura goes, then people will start paying a lot of attention to Sanders in a way they haven't previously.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 02:33:51 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 02:33:51 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 05, 2016, 02:19:42 PM
Nate Silver says Bernie has like a 4% chance to win in South Carolina and he still heavily favors HRC to win the nomination.
It'll be crushing to Bernie's momentum when he loses like 6 of the 7 primaries after NH, not to mention it'll also generate a significant delegate lead for Clinton. Also not to mention, the 15% of delegates who are superdelegates, almost all of whom are pledged to Hillary, won't jump off her ship in a close delegate race. They'll only jump to Bernie if he clearly has the weight of voters behind them (like they did for Obama in 2008 when it was obvious he was going to rack up more pledged delegates than HRC.)
Silver's key point is Bernie has yet to show any real effort to attract minority votes. Class based populism, for whatever reason, doesn't resonate with darkie.
Until Iowa, Clinton had a big lead among minority voters in 2008. Most people haven't started to pay attention yet. There is still a good chance that Sanders is going to do quite well with minority voters - he was at the I have a Dream speech and was arrested during the civil rights movement. He has a story to tell.
I think what will undo Sanders is that he is too far to the left and has been too associated with radical politics. It will turn off some democrats, and scare others that they won't win the general election.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 02:35:34 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 02:35:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:30:26 PM
If the aura goes, then people will start paying a lot of attention to Sanders in a way they haven't previously.
Which is the point at which I think Hillary wins (assuming the email scandal doesn't blow up). People may not love hillary, but she is the best candidate of the two.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 05, 2016, 02:41:23 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 05, 2016, 02:41:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 02:16:07 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2016, 02:03:03 PM
I strongly suspect that Clinton will clean up in the South.
We shall see. Populism plays well in the South.
Blacks are going to go for Hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 02:47:35 PM
Post by: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 02:33:51 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 05, 2016, 02:19:42 PM
Nate Silver says Bernie has like a 4% chance to win in South Carolina and he still heavily favors HRC to win the nomination.
It'll be crushing to Bernie's momentum when he loses like 6 of the 7 primaries after NH, not to mention it'll also generate a significant delegate lead for Clinton. Also not to mention, the 15% of delegates who are superdelegates, almost all of whom are pledged to Hillary, won't jump off her ship in a close delegate race. They'll only jump to Bernie if he clearly has the weight of voters behind them (like they did for Obama in 2008 when it was obvious he was going to rack up more pledged delegates than HRC.)
Silver's key point is Bernie has yet to show any real effort to attract minority votes. Class based populism, for whatever reason, doesn't resonate with darkie.
Until Iowa, Clinton had a big lead among minority voters in 2008. Most people haven't started to pay attention yet. There is still a good chance that Sanders is going to do quite well with minority voters - he was at the I have a Dream speech and was arrested during the civil rights movement. He has a story to tell.
I think what will undo Sanders is that he is too far to the left and has been too associated with radical politics. It will turn off some democrats, and scare others that they won't win the general election.
Iread somewhere that the best and worst things about Sanders is that he has been so remarkably consistent in his positions over the years. You can go look at speaches from 30 years ago and he sounds like he's talking today. That gets him some real credibility.
But it also means he can't pivot or change his views to try and appeal to other groups. He's incapable of trying to pick up the "black lives matter" mantle.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:53:19 PM
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:53:19 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2Fevita1-660x330.gif&hash=e0ccd95fb93452ad5a621e7046f1c71a8fc15cba)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:53:45 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 02:35:34 PMProblem is that she's not a good candidate, as in campaigner. In politics, someone with ideas is more appealing than someone without ideas. Even if those ideas are fairly bad. Hillary, fairly or not, does not appear to be a person with ideas, at least not ones deeply held.Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:30:26 PM
If the aura goes, then people will start paying a lot of attention to Sanders in a way they haven't previously.
Which is the point at which I think Hillary wins (assuming the email scandal doesn't blow up). People may not love hillary, but she is the best candidate of the two.
Another factor is personality. Sanders is without a doubt a much better human being than Hillary, there is just no way around that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Syt on February 05, 2016, 02:55:02 PM
Post by: Syt on February 05, 2016, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:53:19 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2Fevita1-660x330.gif&hash=e0ccd95fb93452ad5a621e7046f1c71a8fc15cba)
She's a bit old to be Evita, I think.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 02:55:34 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 02:55:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 02:47:35 PM
But it also means he can't pivot or change his views to try and appeal to other groups. He's incapable of trying to pick up the "black lives matter" mantle.
I don't think the "black lives matter" movement is at all out of line with this previous views (which I am not an expert on, however). I think he should be able to draw on a long career of supporting minority causes, and if he wants to play hardball, the 2008 primary between Clinton and Obama got a bit nasty on the racial front, in South Carolina in particular, and that can be pointed out.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:57:15 PM
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:57:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:53:45 PMQuote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 02:35:34 PMProblem is that she's not a good candidate, as in campaigner. In politics, someone with ideas is more appealing than someone without ideas. Even if those ideas are fairly bad. Hillary, fairly or not, does not appear to be a person with ideas, at least not ones deeply held.Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:30:26 PM
If the aura goes, then people will start paying a lot of attention to Sanders in a way they haven't previously.
Which is the point at which I think Hillary wins (assuming the email scandal doesn't blow up). People may not love hillary, but she is the best candidate of the two.
Another factor is personality. Sanders is without a doubt a much better human being than Hillary, there is just no way around that.
Wake me up when someone asks what accountant things about social cues. :zzz:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:57:43 PM
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:57:43 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 05, 2016, 02:55:02 PMQuote from: garbon on February 05, 2016, 02:53:19 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joemygod.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2Fevita1-660x330.gif&hash=e0ccd95fb93452ad5a621e7046f1c71a8fc15cba)
She's a bit old to be Evita, I think.
I think that base image is the one that showed up in 2008.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:59:52 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:59:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 02:47:35 PMThat doesn't at all jive with what I've read on him (which admittedly is not that much). My understanding is that he actually mellowed quite a bit. He started out as a real socialist and over time became essentially a social democrat. He's also been quite a pragmatic mayor, which is not at all what you would expect from an ideologue.
Iread somewhere that the best and worst things about Sanders is that he has been so remarkably consistent in his positions over the years. You can go look at speaches from 30 years ago and he sounds like he's talking today. That gets him some real credibility.
But it also means he can't pivot or change his views to try and appeal to other groups. He's incapable of trying to pick up the "black lives matter" mantle.
As for "black lives matter" mantle, I think he's been wearing it all along. From what I understand he's been consistently a real social libertarian.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 03:00:11 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 03:00:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:53:45 PM
Problem is that she's not a good candidate, as in campaigner. In politics, someone with ideas is more appealing than someone without ideas. Even if those ideas are fairly bad. Hillary, fairly or not, does not appear to be a person with ideas, at least not ones deeply held.
Another factor is personality.
This is why I thought O'Malley would ultimately win or at least do well.
Anyway, right now the race is a referendum on Hillary, with the "no to Hillary" camp being an old guy that gives every indication of being a well meaning true believer. I'm not shocked she is losing that. However, eventually Sanders is going to get tough scrutiny, and he is a bad general election candidate.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:01:58 PM
Post by: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:01:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:53:45 PM
Another factor is personality. Sanders is without a doubt a much better human being than Hillary, there is just no way around that.
What makes you say that?
Sanders is divorced, was a single dad who was not married to the boy's mother. He long-ago wrote an article somewhat sympathetic to rape.
I'm not saying he's a bad man. But I don't see how you can say one is morally a better person than the other (unless you believe Hillary murdered Vince Foster).
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:04:04 PM
Post by: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:04:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:59:52 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 02:47:35 PMThat doesn't at all jive with what I've read on him (which admittedly is not that much). My understanding is that he actually mellowed quite a bit. He started out as a real socialist and over time became essentially a social democrat. He's also been quite a pragmatic mayor, which is not at all what you would expect from an ideologue.
Iread somewhere that the best and worst things about Sanders is that he has been so remarkably consistent in his positions over the years. You can go look at speaches from 30 years ago and he sounds like he's talking today. That gets him some real credibility.
But it also means he can't pivot or change his views to try and appeal to other groups. He's incapable of trying to pick up the "black lives matter" mantle.
As for "black lives matter" mantle, I think he's been wearing it all along. From what I understand he's been consistently a real social libertarian.
Social libertarian is not what "black lives matter" wants.
Here's Ta-Nehisi Coates on what's wrong with Bernie Sanders (spoiler - he doesn't support reparations).
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 03:04:20 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 03:04:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:01:58 PM
He long-ago wrote an article somewhat sympathetic to rape.
Wait, what?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2016, 03:07:00 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2016, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 03:00:11 PM
This is why I thought O'Malley would ultimately win or at least do well.
Anyway, right now the race is a referendum on Hillary, with the "no to Hillary" camp being an old guy that gives every indication of being a well meaning true believer. I'm not shocked she is losing that. However, eventually Sanders is going to get tough scrutiny, and he is a bad general election candidate.
Disagree. First because the no Hillary vote is not taking part in the Democratic primary IMO, and second because I think the Bernie vote is motivated by faith in the revolution, not animus towards Hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:09:12 PM
Post by: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:09:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2016, 03:04:20 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:01:58 PM
He long-ago wrote an article somewhat sympathetic to rape.
Wait, what?
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 03:15:04 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:01:58 PMBy all accounts he was genuinely liked (as opposed to settled for) by his electorate, in every position he held. Once people get to know him, apparently they hold very positive opinion of him. Hillary, not so much. I'll vote for her if I have to, but I'll be feeling a little dirty doing that.
What makes you say that?
QuoteSanders is divorced, was a single dad who was not married to the boy's mother.:hmm: Okay, moving on.
QuoteHe long-ago wrote an article somewhat sympathetic to rape.Well, that part I definitely never read about.
QuoteHillary is by most accounts a very unpleasant person, in person. And I think that for politicians, a "speaking circuit" is a bribery tour, for past or future favors.
I'm not saying he's a bad man. But I don't see how you can say one is morally a better person than the other (unless you believe Hillary murdered Vince Foster).
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 03:46:58 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 03:46:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:04:04 PM
Here's Ta-Nehisi Coates on what's wrong with Bernie Sanders (spoiler - he doesn't support reparations).
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/
Yeah he is kind of fixated on the reparations stuff. I mean I am all for reparations if it really would fix the race problem, but I just do not see how it would. It just seems kind of an odd way to go. Not to mention the fact it sounds like a nightmare logistically.
QuoteIt is the indispensable tool against white supremacy. One cannot propose to plunder a people, incur a moral and monetary debt, propose to never pay it back, and then claim to be seriously engaging in the fight against white supremacy.
Except it would not be the whites paying, it would be everybody. And how do you give a cash payment to 'a people'? 'A people' does not have a bank account. We would have to give it to individuals. And is it supposed to be a symbolic act? Like an admission of guilt? Are we all supposed to be feel better, and that is the purpose...so every black person gets a few bucks as a symbolic gesture? Or is it supposed to be quantified somehow based on a historical study of 'plunder'? Or used to achieve a certain end, like say achieve some sort of bench mark of social progress? And what would that be? Sudden windfalls of cash do not have a great record as a tool of empowerment.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 04:09:34 PM
Post by: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 04:09:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 03:46:58 PM
Except it would not be the whites paying, it would be everybody. And how do you give a cash payment to 'a people'? 'A people' does not have a bank account. We would have to give it to individuals. And is it supposed to be a symbolic act? Like an admission of guilt? Are we all supposed to be feel better, and that is the purpose...so every black person gets a few bucks as a symbolic gesture? Or is it supposed to be quantified somehow based on a historical study of 'plunder'? Or used to achieve a certain end, like say achieve some sort of bench mark of social progress? And what would that be? Sudden windfalls of cash do not have a great record as a tool of empowerment.
In Canada we had something like reparations - we paid out just under two billion dollars in compensation to survivors of indian residential schools. Apparently the average amount of the settlement was $20,000 paid to just under 80,000 people.
I doubt it will ever happen, but it would be interesting to see a survey to determine what the long term effects of such payments were to the recipients and their family, when compared to native families that did not receive benefits. I suspect there would be little difference.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 04:17:02 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 04:17:02 PM
I am reminded a bit of that Indian official...Tharoor I think?...who made the point that India did not need the money but he would like the Brits to pay reparations just to cleanse everybody's soul. 1 pound a year would be fine. Or something like that. But I don't think that is what Coates is saying that this is supposed to achieve some kind of social progress.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 05, 2016, 06:17:20 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 05, 2016, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 03:15:04 PMHillary is by most accounts a very unpleasant person, in person. And I think that for politicians, a "speaking circuit" is a bribery tour, for past or future favors.
What accounts are those? I found one from an ex-intern who wanted Bill's D, but are there any others? Hillary's an ambitious career woman; she doesn't have a meek personality, either. Of course people are going to call her unpleasant or a bitch. It's more acceptable for men to have those traits, so it tends to rub people the wrong way more than normal.
Also, someone can seem that way in her professional capacity but be an extremely nice person in her personal life. I don't know if that describes Hillary, but Bill chased her for years and genuinely seems to love her. I'm assuming she's got some good qualities unless there's concrete evidence beyond "she's just a bitch, you know?"
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Brain on February 05, 2016, 06:27:33 PM
Post by: The Brain on February 05, 2016, 06:27:33 PM
Bill seems to love her? Bill is poly? :x
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 06, 2016, 07:29:40 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 06, 2016, 07:29:40 PM
man i type all fancy to appease dguller and he doesn't even respond smh
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 06, 2016, 10:12:43 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 06, 2016, 10:12:43 PM
I'm not sure I buy that "Hillary is an unpleasant person", most of what we "know" about her personalty is stuff people said about her in the Clinton era. Typically people who didn't like her. She seems to have earned quite a bit of respect in the US senate.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 06, 2016, 10:34:20 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 06, 2016, 10:34:20 PM
Her RL personality matters less than her public persona. Which is kind of stiff and awkward for someone who's been facing cameras for thirty years.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 06, 2016, 11:30:33 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 06, 2016, 11:30:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 03:46:58 PM
Except it would not be the whites paying, it would be everybody. And how do you give a cash payment to 'a people'? 'A people' does not have a bank account. We would have to give it to individuals. And is it supposed to be a symbolic act? Like an admission of guilt? Are we all supposed to be feel better, and that is the purpose...so every black person gets a few bucks as a symbolic gesture? Or is it supposed to be quantified somehow based on a historical study of 'plunder'? Or used to achieve a certain end, like say achieve some sort of bench mark of social progress? And what would that be? Sudden windfalls of cash do not have a great record as a tool of empowerment.
Yeah, we are so far removed from the event it would be difficult. Do you get money based on how black you are? If we did genetic testing and found someone was 10% black 40% Indian and 50% white, do they get money? What about people who are black but never had ancestors who were enslaved in the US. Or those who had ancestors who were slaves while in the British colony but not in the US? Do people who's last slave ancestor was liberated in 1865 get more money then those who's last slave ancestor was liberated in 1805? It's a real mess.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on February 07, 2016, 01:06:46 PM
Post by: viper37 on February 07, 2016, 01:06:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:01:58 PMhow would that make him less of a human being than the married Hillary?Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2016, 02:53:45 PM
Another factor is personality. Sanders is without a doubt a much better human being than Hillary, there is just no way around that.
What makes you say that?
Sanders is divorced, was a single dad who was not married to the boy's mother.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 07, 2016, 04:30:42 PM
Post by: Martinus on February 07, 2016, 04:30:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2016, 11:30:33 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 03:46:58 PM
Except it would not be the whites paying, it would be everybody. And how do you give a cash payment to 'a people'? 'A people' does not have a bank account. We would have to give it to individuals. And is it supposed to be a symbolic act? Like an admission of guilt? Are we all supposed to be feel better, and that is the purpose...so every black person gets a few bucks as a symbolic gesture? Or is it supposed to be quantified somehow based on a historical study of 'plunder'? Or used to achieve a certain end, like say achieve some sort of bench mark of social progress? And what would that be? Sudden windfalls of cash do not have a great record as a tool of empowerment.
Yeah, we are so far removed from the event it would be difficult. Do you get money based on how black you are? If we did genetic testing and found someone was 10% black 40% Indian and 50% white, do they get money? What about people who are black but never had ancestors who were enslaved in the US. Or those who had ancestors who were slaves while in the British colony but not in the US? Do people who's last slave ancestor was liberated in 1865 get more money then those who's last slave ancestor was liberated in 1805? It's a real mess.
Yeah, with Native Americans it made more sense because they have their own communities and autonomies so the recipient of such reparations is much easier to identify.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 07, 2016, 04:32:45 PM
Post by: Martinus on February 07, 2016, 04:32:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:01:58 PMSanders is divorced, was a single dad who was not married to the boy's mother.
Ok, you have frequently held out of touch bizarre views on this board, but this must be one of the weirdest. :huh:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 07, 2016, 04:50:19 PM
Post by: garbon on February 07, 2016, 04:50:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2016, 04:30:42 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2016, 11:30:33 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 05, 2016, 03:46:58 PM
Except it would not be the whites paying, it would be everybody. And how do you give a cash payment to 'a people'? 'A people' does not have a bank account. We would have to give it to individuals. And is it supposed to be a symbolic act? Like an admission of guilt? Are we all supposed to be feel better, and that is the purpose...so every black person gets a few bucks as a symbolic gesture? Or is it supposed to be quantified somehow based on a historical study of 'plunder'? Or used to achieve a certain end, like say achieve some sort of bench mark of social progress? And what would that be? Sudden windfalls of cash do not have a great record as a tool of empowerment.
Yeah, we are so far removed from the event it would be difficult. Do you get money based on how black you are? If we did genetic testing and found someone was 10% black 40% Indian and 50% white, do they get money? What about people who are black but never had ancestors who were enslaved in the US. Or those who had ancestors who were slaves while in the British colony but not in the US? Do people who's last slave ancestor was liberated in 1865 get more money then those who's last slave ancestor was liberated in 1805? It's a real mess.
Yeah, with Native Americans it made more sense because they have their own communities and autonomies so the recipient of such reparations is much easier to identify.
I don't really think it as clean with Native Americans as you are suggesting - particularly given how many communities were destroyed during the existence of the U.S.
Really in both situations, you have many people who have been shafted because the federal gov't could have done something relevant for the people and their offspring who were directly impacted but for various reasons chose not to do so. Of course shit gets complicated down the line.
Not, mind you, that I think reparations makes sense today but I wouldn't be unsympathetic to the view that the government waited until it is all 'too difficult to untangle'.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2016, 05:14:28 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2016, 05:14:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2016, 04:50:19 PM
Really in both situations, you have many people who have been shafted because the federal gov't could have done something relevant for the people and their offspring who were directly impacted but for various reasons chose not to do so.
This interesting phrasing seems to be suggesting that you think a basis of reparations should be sins of omission, as opposed to sins of commission.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 07, 2016, 05:19:04 PM
Post by: garbon on February 07, 2016, 05:19:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2016, 05:14:28 PMQuote from: garbon on February 07, 2016, 04:50:19 PM
Really in both situations, you have many people who have been shafted because the federal gov't could have done something relevant for the people and their offspring who were directly impacted but for various reasons chose not to do so.
This interesting phrasing seems to be suggesting that you think a basis of reparations should be sins of omission, as opposed to sins of commission.
Sorry, I don't know what you are suggesting.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2016, 05:24:40 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2016, 05:24:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2016, 05:19:04 PM
Sorry, I don't know what you are suggesting.
That you think reparations are due not for bad things that were done, but for nice things that were not done.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 07, 2016, 05:27:17 PM
Post by: garbon on February 07, 2016, 05:27:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2016, 05:24:40 PMQuote from: garbon on February 07, 2016, 05:19:04 PM
Sorry, I don't know what you are suggesting.
That you think reparations are due not for bad things that were done, but for nice things that were not done.
My point is that I think reparations were once due for the bad that was done and the bad allowed to happen. Unfortunately because such didn't take place in a timely fashion, virtually impossible to do with any fairness and generally beneficial impact.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 07, 2016, 08:51:58 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 07, 2016, 08:51:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2016, 05:27:17 PM
My point is that I think reparations were once due for the bad that was done and the bad allowed to happen. Unfortunately because such didn't take place in a timely fashion, virtually impossible to do with any fairness and generally beneficial impact.
If the standard of culpability is "bad allowed to happen" then virtually everyone alive at the time is culpable. Which, of course, is what Yi was implying. So, who owed reparations to whom, and why, in your book?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 07, 2016, 09:00:01 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 07, 2016, 09:00:01 PM
Reparations is an interesting idea, (though as I pointed out one with lots of problems), but I think Valmy really hits the nail on the head. Would it really help race relations in the US?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Ed Anger on February 07, 2016, 09:08:59 PM
Post by: Ed Anger on February 07, 2016, 09:08:59 PM
I want a check.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 07, 2016, 09:19:41 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 07, 2016, 09:19:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 07, 2016, 09:08:59 PM
I want a check.
Hell, you might get one. There are millions of white Americans who have a black slave ancestor. Most probably don't even know it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Ed Anger on February 07, 2016, 09:27:58 PM
Post by: Ed Anger on February 07, 2016, 09:27:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2016, 09:19:41 PMQuote from: Ed Anger on February 07, 2016, 09:08:59 PM
I want a check.
Hell, you might get one. There are millions of white Americans who have a black slave ancestor. Most probably don't even know it.
I'm sure there is a darkie in my family's woodpile somewhere. They fucked anything that moved in ye olde times.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on February 07, 2016, 11:55:57 PM
Post by: viper37 on February 07, 2016, 11:55:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2016, 04:32:45 PMwe might have just misunderstood him :)Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2016, 03:01:58 PMSanders is divorced, was a single dad who was not married to the boy's mother.
Ok, you have frequently held out of touch bizarre views on this board, but this must be one of the weirdest. :huh:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 08, 2016, 12:36:42 AM
Post by: LaCroix on February 08, 2016, 12:36:42 AM
reparations to blacks makes sense in the immediate post-ACW. but #politics and war ravaged nation made that difficult. today, it doesn't make sense. indians are different because they're an established sovereignty within the US. money goes to those sovereigns. blacks have nothing similar -- they're american like any other without any exceptional circumstances. marty's point is pretty spot on
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:32:07 PM
Post by: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:32:07 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 08, 2016, 12:36:42 AM
reparations to blacks makes sense in the immediate post-ACW. but #politics and war ravaged nation made that difficult. today, it doesn't make sense. indians are different because they're an established sovereignty within the US. money goes to those sovereigns. blacks have nothing similar -- they're american like any other without any exceptional circumstances. marty's point is pretty spot on
I don't see why this has to be the case. Even today we have tribes that seek federal recognition. I don't see why it would be impossible to gather as a group and say 'we are the descendants of xx' a slave who was documented to have worked for xx years without pay. Please certify our group as qualifying for slave reparations.'
Seems like that would be more sensible than qualifying for affirmative action based on a simple tick box.
Now certainly it wouldn't be easy gathering such a group but seems like it'd be a lawyers wet dream.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:34:50 PM
Post by: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:34:50 PM
Otherwise the logic is a bit circular. We can't give money because there is no distinct political group to disperse funds to. Never you mind that we prevented your ancestors from exercising any political power.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 01:44:51 PM
Post by: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 01:44:51 PM
If you go back to TNC's article "The Case for Reparations", he's not really asking for reparations due to slavery.
He's asking for reparations from Jim Crow laws, legal segregation, redlining. All things that there are living people who were subject to those practices. So determining who might be entitled to such reparations is somewhat easier than trying to trace descendants of slaves from 1865.
He's asking for reparations from Jim Crow laws, legal segregation, redlining. All things that there are living people who were subject to those practices. So determining who might be entitled to such reparations is somewhat easier than trying to trace descendants of slaves from 1865.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:51:13 PM
Post by: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:51:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 01:44:51 PM
If you go back to TNC's article "The Case for Reparations", he's not really asking for reparations due to slavery.
He's asking for reparations from Jim Crow laws, legal segregation, redlining. All things that there are living people who were subject to those practices. So determining who might be entitled to such reparations is somewhat easier than trying to trace descendants of slaves from 1865.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
Post by: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:51:13 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 01:44:51 PM
If you go back to TNC's article "The Case for Reparations", he's not really asking for reparations due to slavery.
He's asking for reparations from Jim Crow laws, legal segregation, redlining. All things that there are living people who were subject to those practices. So determining who might be entitled to such reparations is somewhat easier than trying to trace descendants of slaves from 1865.
Fair enough.
Not to say that the practicalities wouldn't still be daunting. I'm pretty sure TNC doesn't just want to pay off a few octogenarians who couldn't get a mortgage back in the 1960s - but that "reparations" should be widely made to the descendants of such people.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:59:32 PM
Post by: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:59:32 PM
Certainly, I think even what he's asking for isn't something I'd support doing. But just agreeing that yeah it would make it 'relatively' easier than tracing to slavery.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 08, 2016, 02:56:04 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 08, 2016, 02:56:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 01:44:51 PM
He's asking for reparations from Jim Crow laws, legal segregation, redlining.
One of those things is not like the others.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 03:11:31 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 03:11:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:34:50 PM
Otherwise the logic is a bit circular. We can't give money because there is no distinct political group to disperse funds to. Never you mind that we prevented your ancestors from exercising any political power.
Well that is a complication but that is not why we cannot/should not give money. I am sure we could come up with a criteria if we decided we were going to do it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Brain on February 08, 2016, 04:16:57 PM
Post by: The Brain on February 08, 2016, 04:16:57 PM
Fight oppression shaming. :angry:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 04:25:54 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 04:25:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 03:11:31 PMQuote from: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:34:50 PM
Otherwise the logic is a bit circular. We can't give money because there is no distinct political group to disperse funds to. Never you mind that we prevented your ancestors from exercising any political power.
Well that is a complication but that is not why we cannot/should not give money. I am sure we could come up with a criteria if we decided we were going to do it.
If we are to compensate over Jim Crow or redlining that does sort of move a lot of the burden to the states. It also makes it more difficult to find a culpable party, since many practices were custom, or extra legal.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:28:43 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:28:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 04:25:54 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 03:11:31 PMQuote from: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:34:50 PM
Otherwise the logic is a bit circular. We can't give money because there is no distinct political group to disperse funds to. Never you mind that we prevented your ancestors from exercising any political power.
Well that is a complication but that is not why we cannot/should not give money. I am sure we could come up with a criteria if we decided we were going to do it.
If we are to compensate over Jim Crow or redlining that does sort of move a lot of the burden to the states. It also makes it more difficult to find a culpable party, since many practices were custom, or extra legal.
What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 04:44:36 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 04:44:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:28:43 PM
What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?
Passing a law that people in the future will consider a bad law is not actionable.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:51:14 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:51:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 04:44:36 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:28:43 PM
What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?
Passing a law that people in the future will consider a bad law is not actionable.
Pretty sure plenty of people in the past also considered it a bad law. Anyway I was thinking the action would not be 'this law is stinky and it sucks to!' but more that it violated their civil rights.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 04:57:30 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 04:57:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:28:43 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 04:25:54 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 03:11:31 PMQuote from: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:34:50 PM
Otherwise the logic is a bit circular. We can't give money because there is no distinct political group to disperse funds to. Never you mind that we prevented your ancestors from exercising any political power.
Well that is a complication but that is not why we cannot/should not give money. I am sure we could come up with a criteria if we decided we were going to do it.
If we are to compensate over Jim Crow or redlining that does sort of move a lot of the burden to the states. It also makes it more difficult to find a culpable party, since many practices were custom, or extra legal.
What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?
What do I look like, JR? It just seems hard to get money because all the real estate guys in the state colluded to keep blacks in one spot 60 years ago, or that a black guy was lynched in the 1950's and the court didn't find anyone guilty of the crime.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 04:59:34 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 04:59:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:51:14 PM
Anyway I was thinking the action would not be 'this law is stinky and it sucks to!' but more that it violated their civil rights.
I'm pretty sure laws that get overturned on constititutional grounds never involve cash prizes.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 05:00:08 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 05:00:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 04:57:30 PM
What do I look like, JR? It just seems hard to get money because all the real estate guys in the state colluded to keep blacks in one spot 60 years ago, or that a black guy was lynched in the 1950's and the court didn't find anyone guilty of the crime.
It was meant to be an open question, not towards you specifically.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 05:01:47 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 05:01:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 04:59:34 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:51:14 PM
Anyway I was thinking the action would not be 'this law is stinky and it sucks to!' but more that it violated their civil rights.
I'm pretty sure laws that get overturned on constititutional grounds never involve cash prizes.
Even if there are real damages?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 05:06:12 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 05:06:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 05:01:47 PM
Even if there are real damages?
I certainly can't think of one that did.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 05:12:48 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 05:12:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 05:06:12 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 05:01:47 PM
Even if there are real damages?
I certainly can't think of one that did.
Exactly. Hence my hypothetical.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 05:36:38 PM
Post by: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 04:44:36 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:28:43 PM
What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?
Passing a law that people in the future will consider a bad law is not actionable.
I think that's why it's styled "reparations", rather than pressing a court action.
Such reparations certainly have historical precedent - Japanese internment survivors received such reparations, even if the internment was deemed to be legal at the time.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 06:43:54 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 06:43:54 PM
Yeah, but the Japanese internees could point to a single act during a short period of time, that was relatively localized. Blacks suffered under a crazy quilt of laws, customs and extralegal action. The experience of a Black family in 1930's Wisconsin would be very different then a similar family living in Mississippi. It would seem unfair to treat them the same. It also opens the door to pretty much everyone who was ever snubbed by government, or custom. Hispanics, East Asians, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, etc.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on February 08, 2016, 06:52:07 PM
Post by: dps on February 08, 2016, 06:52:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 05:36:38 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 04:44:36 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:28:43 PM
What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?
Passing a law that people in the future will consider a bad law is not actionable.
I think that's why it's styled "reparations", rather than pressing a court action.
Such reparations certainly have historical precedent - Japanese internment survivors received such reparations, even if the internment was deemed to be legal at the time.
The history of "separate but equal" is kind of interesting, and a lot more complicated than most people realize. The basic narrative that the Supreme Court said that separate but equal was A-OK in Plessy v. Ferguson and then reversed itself in Brown v. Board of Education is a considerable over-simplification. There were lots of cases in between in which the federal courts ruled that a particular practice or situation was in fact not equal. The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board was the culmination of a long process in which the federal courts saw some states (mostly in, but not always, in the South) consistently provided separate facilities for whites and blacks, but put no (or almost no) effort into trying to make the facilities provided to blacks actually equal to those provided to whites. The Supreme Court finally got fed up with that, and ruled that segregated facilities were inherently unequal. If the states had actually tried to provide facilities that were equal as well as separate, "separate but equal" would have probably continued to be legal for a few more years.
Of course, the states that had segregation had no interest in providing equal facilities for blacks. The point of segregation wasn't so much to keep the races physically separated (for the most part, no one in the South minded being in the presence of a black person, so long as it was clear that the black person was in a subservient role, such as a maid or janitor); the point was to keep blacks down "in their place".
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 07:46:42 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 07:46:42 PM
Well, that and the real fear that their daughters might knock boots with a black man.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 09, 2016, 12:57:41 AM
Post by: LaCroix on February 09, 2016, 12:57:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:32:07 PMI don't see why this has to be the case. Even today we have tribes that seek federal recognition. I don't see why it would be impossible to gather as a group and say 'we are the descendants of xx' a slave who was documented to have worked for xx years without pay. Please certify our group as qualifying for slave reparations.'
Seems like that would be more sensible than qualifying for affirmative action based on a simple tick box.
Now certainly it wouldn't be easy gathering such a group but seems like it'd be a lawyers wet dream.
Quote from: garbonOtherwise the logic is a bit circular. We can't give money because there is no distinct political group to disperse funds to. Never you mind that we prevented your ancestors from exercising any political power.
it's not about a political group. the indians are sovereign. they're their own nation within a nation. black people/groups have nothing similar, not even close. they're just as american as any white person, except they just kinda got fucked over for awhile. like the scots and irish, but more so
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on February 09, 2016, 01:08:12 AM
Post by: Jaron on February 09, 2016, 01:08:12 AM
#ImWithHer
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 09, 2016, 01:24:09 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 09, 2016, 01:24:09 AM
Quote from: Jaron on February 09, 2016, 01:08:12 AM
#ImWithHer
Poor guy. You know she's "in love" with 641 other people.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 09, 2016, 02:55:03 AM
Post by: garbon on February 09, 2016, 02:55:03 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 09, 2016, 12:57:41 AMQuote from: garbon on February 08, 2016, 01:32:07 PMI don't see why this has to be the case. Even today we have tribes that seek federal recognition. I don't see why it would be impossible to gather as a group and say 'we are the descendants of xx' a slave who was documented to have worked for xx years without pay. Please certify our group as qualifying for slave reparations.'
Seems like that would be more sensible than qualifying for affirmative action based on a simple tick box.
Now certainly it wouldn't be easy gathering such a group but seems like it'd be a lawyers wet dream.Quote from: garbonOtherwise the logic is a bit circular. We can't give money because there is no distinct political group to disperse funds to. Never you mind that we prevented your ancestors from exercising any political power.
it's not about a political group. the indians are sovereign. they're their own nation within a nation. black people/groups have nothing similar, not even close. they're just as american as any white person, except they just kinda got fucked over for awhile. like the scots and irish, but more so
And that was down to governmental decisions in the past. I'm not even going to respond to the 'they just kinda got fucked over for awhile.' :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 09, 2016, 03:05:06 AM
Post by: LaCroix on February 09, 2016, 03:05:06 AM
indian sovereignty is hard-coded in the nation, though, via literally worded into the constitution. it's stuck there for god knows how long.
I dunno what else you'd call slavery. an entire war was fought over the issue. hundreds of thousands died, all essentially to end a horrific practice. just as some kept blacks enslaved, many others fought and died to free them. just as they were fucked over, the nation split itself in half over them. then, entire political parties basically swapped ideologies over them. blacks are 10% of the nation, and they are firmly part of this country as any white ethnic group.
also, re: fucked over minorities, we can toss in the chinese, too
I dunno what else you'd call slavery. an entire war was fought over the issue. hundreds of thousands died, all essentially to end a horrific practice. just as some kept blacks enslaved, many others fought and died to free them. just as they were fucked over, the nation split itself in half over them. then, entire political parties basically swapped ideologies over them. blacks are 10% of the nation, and they are firmly part of this country as any white ethnic group.
also, re: fucked over minorities, we can toss in the chinese, too
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 09, 2016, 03:39:30 AM
Post by: garbon on February 09, 2016, 03:39:30 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 09, 2016, 03:05:06 AM
indian sovereignty is hard-coded in the nation, though, via literally worded into the constitution. it's stuck there for god knows how long.
Okay? So government designed then?
To note, I really think this whole sovereign thing is a distraction (and I'm certainly not arguing that it would have been better for black people to be put on reservations!). Up thread there have been a few ways of noting who would be worthy of reparations with some change in difficult depending on what you are noting the reparations for. I just wanted to note that again the government decided who was sovereign, who was not. Who had political agency, who did not - so to use that all as as a coverage for why reparations no longer make sense seems like having one's nasty cake and eating it too. :D
Quote from: LaCroix on February 09, 2016, 03:05:06 AMI dunno what else you'd call slavery. an entire war was fought over the issue. hundreds of thousands died, all essentially to end a horrific practice. just as some kept blacks enslaved, many others fought and died to free them. just as they were fucked over, the nation split itself in half over them. then, entire political parties basically swapped ideologies over them.
This sounds like a soundbite history of slavery / discrimination in America so I'm not sure there is much use in unpacking it. I would note though that from your description sounds like slavery and the treatment of African-Americans has a fairly unique position/role in American history.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 09, 2016, 03:05:06 AMblacks are 10% of the nation, and they are firmly part of this country as any white ethnic group.
So government harms its own citizens (though I'm not sure were slaves really citizens? They certainly didn't have any rights), no harm, no foul?
Quote from: LaCroix on February 09, 2016, 03:05:06 AM
also, re: fucked over minorities, we can toss in the chinese, too
So you have a paragraph about how much the history of African-Americans is woven across the American tapestry and then an oh btw dismissal is that the Chinese got screwed over? I don't think it is a compelling argument that the government screwed over lots of minorities in all different ways so therefore what makes black people shouldn't have reparations. After all what makes them so special? Particularly not when you laid a case for the injustices being done to black people special.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on February 09, 2016, 03:19:03 PM
Post by: Berkut on February 09, 2016, 03:19:03 PM
Quote from: dps on February 08, 2016, 06:52:07 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 05:36:38 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 04:44:36 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 04:28:43 PM
What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?
Passing a law that people in the future will consider a bad law is not actionable.
I think that's why it's styled "reparations", rather than pressing a court action.
Such reparations certainly have historical precedent - Japanese internment survivors received such reparations, even if the internment was deemed to be legal at the time.
The history of "separate but equal" is kind of interesting, and a lot more complicated than most people realize. The basic narrative that the Supreme Court said that separate but equal was A-OK in Plessy v. Ferguson and then reversed itself in Brown v. Board of Education is a considerable over-simplification. There were lots of cases in between in which the federal courts ruled that a particular practice or situation was in fact not equal. The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board was the culmination of a long process in which the federal courts saw some states (mostly in, but not always, in the South) consistently provided separate facilities for whites and blacks, but put no (or almost no) effort into trying to make the facilities provided to blacks actually equal to those provided to whites. The Supreme Court finally got fed up with that, and ruled that segregated facilities were inherently unequal. If the states had actually tried to provide facilities that were equal as well as separate, "separate but equal" would have probably continued to be legal for a few more years.
Of course, the states that had segregation had no interest in providing equal facilities for blacks. The point of segregation wasn't so much to keep the races physically separated (for the most part, no one in the South minded being in the presence of a black person, so long as it was clear that the black person was in a subservient role, such as a maid or janitor); the point was to keep blacks down "in their place".
What is funny about this is that "separate but equal" was actually a *progressive* concept at some point.
It is kind of like "Don't ask, don't tell". It was eventually seen as this terrible injustice, yet when it came out it was actually a huge improvement over what came before.
Separate but equal sucks...except compared to separate and not equal. Of course, the reality was that it was never really equal (which is where the comparison to don't ask, don't tell breaks down), but the idea was an attempt to codify into law that you HAD to treat blacks equally, even if you insisted on treating them separately.
"Don't ask, don't tell" was a big step up from "We are kicking you out if we find out you are gay, and we are going to try to find out". It was basically a de facto tolerance of homosexuality in the military, which was a huge improvement over the blanket ban that existed previously. In that sense, it was actually an effective adjustment in that it did do what it purported to do - it let homosexuals serve without interference as long as they did not advertise their sexuality.
I remember Marty once blasting Clinton? Bush? whichever one it was who instituted the Don't ask policy as being homophobic, when in fact it was actually a pretty brilliant progressive political change.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 09, 2016, 03:31:07 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 09, 2016, 03:31:07 PM
Allowing Gays to serve in the military was a major plank in the 1992 campaign for Clinton. So once he became President he wanted the military to do that and after lots of hand wringing by the brass 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was the compromise.
The military was not so good at the 'Don't Ask' part is what I gathered.
The military was not so good at the 'Don't Ask' part is what I gathered.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 09, 2016, 03:33:15 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 09, 2016, 03:33:15 PM
It reminds me of Vicky 2, where liberals get tired of oppression and demand "harassed parties" political reform.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on February 09, 2016, 04:43:29 PM
Post by: dps on February 09, 2016, 04:43:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 09, 2016, 03:39:30 AM
I'm not sure were slaves really citizens? They certainly didn't have any rights
I don't think that there was any legal theory before the Civil War that held that slaves were citizens. Being both would have pretty much been an contradiction. Certainly there were a good number of folks that thought that they ought to be citizens, but those folks also wanted slavery to end. Though it should be noted that even a lot of abolitionists didn't necessarily think that if slavery was ended, freed slaves should have equal rights.
Beyond that, according to Roger B Taney's majority opinion in the Dred Scot case, even free blacks weren't citizens. That overturned about 3/4 of a century of legal precedence, had no real basis on anything in the Constitution, and oh, BTW, the Court took the opportunity to rule the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Of course, that's part of why the case was so much like throwing gasoline on a bonfire as far as tensions over slavery were concerned. Even people outside the south who otherwise didn't really care about the slavery issue could see that pro-slavery forces were twisting the law to their own ends. and turn a lot of previously unconcerned northerners into abolitionists. Pretty much the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court. And I don't mean just morally wrong, but clearly incorrect as far as interpreting what the Constitution actually says as well.
BTW, at the time, the Dred Scot case was the longest-running legal case in American history. AFAIK, it's still the third longest, behind IIRC the telephone patent cases and the Microsoft anti-trust case.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 09, 2016, 04:47:20 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 09, 2016, 04:47:20 PM
Quote from: dps on February 09, 2016, 04:43:29 PMEven people outside the south who otherwise didn't really care about the slavery issue could see that pro-slavery forces were twisting the law to their own ends. and turn a lot of previously unconcerned northerners into abolitionists.
Quote from: Abraham LincolnPut this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. ...We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.
Yep.
It was also the first nail in the coffin of the Democratic Party as it existed. Their 'popular sovereignty' solution was shown to be completely nonviable.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 09, 2016, 04:49:26 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 09, 2016, 04:49:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 09, 2016, 03:39:30 AM
Okay? So government designed then?
No, those Indians existed prior to the US government. The government simply recognized the rights of those polities.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 09, 2016, 05:10:54 PM
Post by: garbon on February 09, 2016, 05:10:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2016, 04:49:26 PMQuote from: garbon on February 09, 2016, 03:39:30 AM
Okay? So government designed then?
No, those Indians existed prior to the US government. The government simply recognized the rights of those polities.
I think black people existed prior to the US government too. :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 09, 2016, 07:51:46 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 09, 2016, 07:51:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 09, 2016, 05:10:54 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2016, 04:49:26 PMQuote from: garbon on February 09, 2016, 03:39:30 AM
Okay? So government designed then?
No, those Indians existed prior to the US government. The government simply recognized the rights of those polities.
I think black people existed prior to the US government too. :P
Indeed, and had those blacks wanted to return to their tribes like the Indians did, they could have... like the Indians did. :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 12:25:51 AM
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 12:25:51 AM
When it comes to Bernie, do we know anything at all about his foreign policy stance?
He seems pretty far left in general, is he of the Noam Chomsky, America is the worst thing that ever happened to the world crowd that seems so popular in the left these days?
He seems pretty far left in general, is he of the Noam Chomsky, America is the worst thing that ever happened to the world crowd that seems so popular in the left these days?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 15, 2016, 11:30:42 AM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 15, 2016, 11:30:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 12:25:51 AM
When it comes to Bernie, do we know anything at all about his foreign policy stance?
He seems pretty far left in general, is he of the Noam Chomsky, America is the worst thing that ever happened to the world crowd that seems so popular in the left these days?
From the perspective of an non American doesnt seem far left at all on foreign policy - but YMMV
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Foreign_Policy.htm
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 11:39:49 AM
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 11:39:49 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2016, 11:30:42 AMQuote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 12:25:51 AM
When it comes to Bernie, do we know anything at all about his foreign policy stance?
He seems pretty far left in general, is he of the Noam Chomsky, America is the worst thing that ever happened to the world crowd that seems so popular in the left these days?
From the perspective of an non American doesnt seem far left at all on foreign policy - but YMMV
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Foreign_Policy.htm
Well, he pretty cleary is not a Chomsky disciple, so that is good.
But his "lets stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away" approach to dealing with islamic radicalism seems pretty terrible.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 15, 2016, 11:40:46 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 15, 2016, 11:40:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 11:39:49 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2016, 11:30:42 AMQuote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 12:25:51 AM
When it comes to Bernie, do we know anything at all about his foreign policy stance?
He seems pretty far left in general, is he of the Noam Chomsky, America is the worst thing that ever happened to the world crowd that seems so popular in the left these days?
From the perspective of an non American doesnt seem far left at all on foreign policy - but YMMV
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Foreign_Policy.htm
Well, he pretty cleary is not a Chomsky disciple, so that is good.
But his "lets stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away" approach to dealing with islamic radicalism seems pretty terrible.
Also, not hawkish enough on Russia, imho.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 11:43:43 AM
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 11:43:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2016, 11:40:46 AMQuote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 11:39:49 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2016, 11:30:42 AMQuote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 12:25:51 AM
When it comes to Bernie, do we know anything at all about his foreign policy stance?
He seems pretty far left in general, is he of the Noam Chomsky, America is the worst thing that ever happened to the world crowd that seems so popular in the left these days?
From the perspective of an non American doesnt seem far left at all on foreign policy - but YMMV
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Foreign_Policy.htm
Well, he pretty cleary is not a Chomsky disciple, so that is good.
But his "lets stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away" approach to dealing with islamic radicalism seems pretty terrible.
Also, not hawkish enough on Russia, imho.
Generally kind of a isolationist-lite. Which is terrible, I suppose, but not really safe in the world today, IMO.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on February 15, 2016, 11:44:34 AM
Post by: celedhring on February 15, 2016, 11:44:34 AM
He seems to be a bit of an isolationist. Being "tame" on Islam and Russia stems from that.
EDIT: What Berkut said, weird that I didn't get the usual "somebody has posted" warning.
EDIT: What Berkut said, weird that I didn't get the usual "somebody has posted" warning.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 11:49:23 AM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 11:49:23 AM
"War is always a last resort" is basically another way of saying no war ever.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 15, 2016, 12:38:24 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 15, 2016, 12:38:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 11:49:23 AM
"War is always a last resort" is basically another way of saying no war ever.
Nah. Hardly anyone chooses war when their objectives can be reached by other means.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:41:34 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:41:34 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2016, 12:38:24 PM
Nah. Hardly anyone chooses war when their objectives can be reached by other means.
Yup. Alternative resorts are infinite.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 15, 2016, 12:44:13 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 15, 2016, 12:44:13 PM
Effective ones aren't.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:45:29 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:45:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2016, 12:44:13 PM
Effective ones aren't.
Bernie didn't say anything about effective ones.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 12:48:57 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 12:48:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:41:34 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2016, 12:38:24 PM
Nah. Hardly anyone chooses war when their objectives can be reached by other means.
Yup. Alternative resorts are infinite.
Are you arguing that it is impossible under any circumstances for any problem to boil down to "the last resort" because there are infinite alternative resorts in all problems, or are you arguing that only Bernie Sanders' military policy cannot ever reach the last resort, or something else? Right now, your comments and arguments seem to be purely rhetorical.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 12:49:37 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 12:49:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:45:29 PM:huh: Seriously? This is going to be your argument?Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2016, 12:44:13 PM
Effective ones aren't.
Bernie didn't say anything about effective ones.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 12:49:45 PM
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:41:34 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2016, 12:38:24 PM
Nah. Hardly anyone chooses war when their objectives can be reached by other means.
Yup. Alternative resorts are infinite.
Now you're being silly. There's an infinite supply of alternatives, but everyone has one that they consider the last one whether it's "you're actively attacking our country and killing our citizens" or "we asked you once to change your government and you haven't."
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:52:15 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 12:49:45 PM
Now you're being silly. There's an infinite supply of alternatives, but everyone has one that they consider the last one whether it's "you're actively attacking our country and killing our citizens" or "we asked you once to change your government and you haven't."
I don't have a last resort in either of those situations.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 15, 2016, 12:54:53 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 15, 2016, 12:54:53 PM
Yi has declared war on the "last resort" phrase.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:52:15 PMQuote from: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 12:49:45 PM
Now you're being silly. There's an infinite supply of alternatives, but everyone has one that they consider the last one whether it's "you're actively attacking our country and killing our citizens" or "we asked you once to change your government and you haven't."
I don't have a last resort in either of those situations.
Maybe I phrased my point poorly - it was that everyone bar extreme pacifists have a point where they think war is the only viable resort. Sanders' statement that he considers war a last resort means that there are relatively fewer situations where he'd consider war an appropriate response, not that there are none. And you know that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
Maybe I phrased my point poorly - it was that everyone bar extreme pacifists have a point where they think war is the only viable resort. Sanders' statement that he considers war a last resort means that there are relatively fewer situations where he'd consider war an appropriate response, not that there are none. And you know that.
I do not.
Obama distinguished between smart wars and dumb wars. Bernie does not. War is *always* the last resort. Those are his words.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 01:19:39 PM
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 01:19:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
I do not.
Obama distinguished between smart wars and dumb wars. Bernie does not. War is *always* the last resort. Those are his words.
Are you unaware that war of last resort is a pretty significant part of the ethics of war and the concept of the just war? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/lastresort.shtml & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
For example, stalwarts such as Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld used the concept as they justified the second Gulf War.
Quote from: Colin Powell"War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support."http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/colinpowel169242.html
(Secretary of State, former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Quote from: Donald RumsfeldRumsfeld: Sure. Exactly. But war has to be the last resort and I was hopeful to the very end that the president and the United States and the coalition would be successful in getting Saddam Hussein to either acquiesce and agree with the United Nations or leave the country, or that he could be killed at Dora farms in that first attack... He wasn't there.http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/war-should-be-the-last-resort-donald-rumsfeld/
Is there a particular reason you're choosing to interpret Sanders' use of an established philosophical phrase outside of the context in which it is normally used?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 01:40:07 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 01:40:07 PM
I concede.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 15, 2016, 01:45:32 PM
Post by: Martinus on February 15, 2016, 01:45:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 12:56:14 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 12:52:15 PMQuote from: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 12:49:45 PM
Now you're being silly. There's an infinite supply of alternatives, but everyone has one that they consider the last one whether it's "you're actively attacking our country and killing our citizens" or "we asked you once to change your government and you haven't."
I don't have a last resort in either of those situations.
Maybe I phrased my point poorly - it was that everyone bar extreme pacifists have a point where they think war is the only viable resort. Sanders' statement that he considers war a last resort means that there are relatively fewer situations where he'd consider war an appropriate response, not that there are none. And you know that.
Yes, but in the language of politics, when you say war is the last resort, you usually mean you are a pacifist.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 15, 2016, 01:52:39 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 15, 2016, 01:52:39 PM
On the contrary, it's a platitude that even hawks like Rumsfeld agree with.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2016, 01:52:39 PM
On the contrary, it's a platitude that even hawks like Rumsfeld agree with.
I agree with this 100%. I think that anyone arguing that war was NOT the last resort would be widely seen as mentally or morally defective.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 02:32:41 PM
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 02:32:41 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2016, 01:52:39 PM
On the contrary, it's a platitude that even hawks like Rumsfeld agree with.
So we go back to what he has said about specific cases, and in that he seems very pacifist. Thinks that ISIS should be taken care of locally, for example, and wants the US to stay out.
Just because the specific meaning of particular words can be parsed to mean almost anything (or more often nothing at all) doesn't mean that we MUST do that. When someone asks a bunch of politicians what they think about a particular use of military power, you can contrast their responses to glean out where they stand, even if looking at those responses in isolation could be interpreted differently.
"Should we invade Iraq?"
A: Saddam has refused our demands, and we have no choice but to take immediate action!
B: War is always a measure of last resort!
Both of those responses looked at in isolation could be parsed to have completely overlapping meanings, but if we ask two politicians that question and get those two responses, it seems pretty clear one is in favor if war and one opposed.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 02:40:36 PM
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 02:40:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 01:40:07 PM
I concede.
:hug:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 02:42:31 PM
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 02:42:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 02:32:41 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2016, 01:52:39 PM
On the contrary, it's a platitude that even hawks like Rumsfeld agree with.
So we go back to what he has said about specific cases, and in that he seems very pacifist. Thinks that ISIS should be taken care of locally, for example, and wants the US to stay out.
Just because the specific meaning of particular words can be parsed to mean almost anything (or more often nothing at all) doesn't mean that we MUST do that. When someone asks a bunch of politicians what they think about a particular use of military power, you can contrast their responses to glean out where they stand, even if looking at those responses in isolation could be interpreted differently.
"Should we invade Iraq?"
A: Saddam has refused our demands, and we have no choice but to take immediate action!
B: War is always a measure of last resort!
Both of those responses looked at in isolation could be parsed to have completely overlapping meanings, but if we ask two politicians that question and get those two responses, it seems pretty clear one is in favor if war and one opposed.
I agree that there are differences in the likelihood of each of the candidates being interventionist and/ or taking warlike actions; and I agree that Sanders is communicating where he sits on that spectrum. I just didn't agree that Sanders' words about war as a last resort indicated that he's an absolute pacifist.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 15, 2016, 02:56:07 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 15, 2016, 02:56:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2016, 12:54:53 PM
Yi has declared war on the "last resort" phrase.
But only as a last resort - which for Yi seems to have been the first option amongst infinite possibilities.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 03:04:43 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 03:04:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 02:32:41 PM
So we go back to what he has said about specific cases, and in that he seems very pacifist. Thinks that ISIS should be taken care of locally, for example, and wants the US to stay out.
I've heard him say that ISIS must be defeated and that, while the US cannot be the military lead on that action, because it has to be Arab boots on the ground, the US still has a military role to play in defeating ISIS. That's not terribly pacifist.
Sanders may be a pacifist, but I don't think you will find the evidence for that in his policy on ISIS.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 03:30:30 PM
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 03:30:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 02:42:31 PMQuote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 02:32:41 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2016, 01:52:39 PM
On the contrary, it's a platitude that even hawks like Rumsfeld agree with.
So we go back to what he has said about specific cases, and in that he seems very pacifist. Thinks that ISIS should be taken care of locally, for example, and wants the US to stay out.
Just because the specific meaning of particular words can be parsed to mean almost anything (or more often nothing at all) doesn't mean that we MUST do that. When someone asks a bunch of politicians what they think about a particular use of military power, you can contrast their responses to glean out where they stand, even if looking at those responses in isolation could be interpreted differently.
"Should we invade Iraq?"
A: Saddam has refused our demands, and we have no choice but to take immediate action!
B: War is always a measure of last resort!
Both of those responses looked at in isolation could be parsed to have completely overlapping meanings, but if we ask two politicians that question and get those two responses, it seems pretty clear one is in favor if war and one opposed.
I agree that there are differences in the likelihood of each of the candidates being interventionist and/ or taking warlike actions; and I agree that Sanders is communicating where he sits on that spectrum. I just didn't agree that Sanders' words about war as a last resort indicated that he's an absolute pacifist.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 03:31:14 PM
Post by: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 03:31:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 03:04:43 PMQuote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 02:32:41 PM
So we go back to what he has said about specific cases, and in that he seems very pacifist. Thinks that ISIS should be taken care of locally, for example, and wants the US to stay out.
I've heard him say that ISIS must be defeated and that, while the US cannot be the military lead on that action, because it has to be Arab boots on the ground, the US still has a military role to play in defeating ISIS. That's not terribly pacifist.
Sanders may be a pacifist, but I don't think you will find the evidence for that in his policy on ISIS.
Well, I don't think he is a pacifist, more concerned that he seems to be something of an isolationist. Which is a much more rationally defensible position, but still problematic, IMO.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: PJL on February 15, 2016, 04:04:04 PM
Post by: PJL on February 15, 2016, 04:04:04 PM
But is Sanders's position on foreign policy really much more isolationist than Obama's? After all, Obama has pretty much let others take the lead on various issues (Britain & France on the Libyan situation being the best example).
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Brain on February 15, 2016, 04:08:06 PM
Post by: The Brain on February 15, 2016, 04:08:06 PM
War isn't a resort at all, and I find it bizarre to think of it that way.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 04:39:05 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2016, 04:39:05 PM
Quote from: PJL on February 15, 2016, 04:04:04 PM
But is Sanders's position on foreign policy really much more isolationist than Obama's? After all, Obama has pretty much let others take the lead on various issues (Britain & France on the Libyan situation being the best example).
My impression is that yes, he is more isolationist than Obama. The Obama administration hasn't insisted that the US lead all coalitions in which it has part (a wise move, IMO), but it has certainly been front and center when it comes to the big geopolitical issues, particularly with regards to China and Russia. Sanders' position on Russia and China are that he should continue to scold those regimes for being naughty.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 05:42:10 PM
Post by: Jacob on February 15, 2016, 05:42:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2016, 03:30:30 PM
Agreed.
:cheers:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on February 15, 2016, 07:42:44 PM
Post by: Norgy on February 15, 2016, 07:42:44 PM
It will probably be Hillary this time.
Sanders, while lovably Jewy and socialist is about as a viable candidate as Truz.
I'd vote for him. Heck, I've voted for far worse.
Sanders, while lovably Jewy and socialist is about as a viable candidate as Truz.
I'd vote for him. Heck, I've voted for far worse.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on February 15, 2016, 08:54:37 PM
Post by: Jaron on February 15, 2016, 08:54:37 PM
Woe unto he who underestimates the #Bern.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 08:59:24 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 08:59:24 PM
Woe unto him. :nerd:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 16, 2016, 07:38:29 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 16, 2016, 07:38:29 AM
Personally, while I would kinda like Sanders to win on a human level, from the Polish perspective, Hillary would be a much more preferable choice.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 16, 2016, 07:42:27 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 16, 2016, 07:42:27 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2016, 08:59:24 PM
Woe unto him. :nerd:
Or her. Or zer. Or zim.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 16, 2016, 09:58:42 AM
Post by: alfred russel on February 16, 2016, 09:58:42 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 15, 2016, 07:42:44 PM
Truz.
I like that. :)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2016, 12:37:38 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2016, 12:37:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 16, 2016, 07:38:29 AM
Personally, while I would kinda like Sanders to win on a human level, from the Polish perspective, Hillary would be a much more preferable choice.
Betcha Bernie has eaten more pierogis.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 16, 2016, 12:42:41 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 16, 2016, 12:42:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2016, 12:37:38 PMQuote from: Martinus on February 16, 2016, 07:38:29 AM
Personally, while I would kinda like Sanders to win on a human level, from the Polish perspective, Hillary would be a much more preferable choice.
Betcha Bernie has eaten more pierogis.
I thought it was a reference to Poles making historically bad choices :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 16, 2016, 12:44:36 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 16, 2016, 12:44:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2016, 12:42:41 PM
I thought it was a reference to Poles making historically bad choices :hmm:
He's saying Hillary will be tougher on Russia. :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 16, 2016, 12:47:55 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 16, 2016, 12:47:55 PM
He's saying that Bernie is a Jew.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2016, 01:03:52 AM
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2016, 01:03:52 AM
Cool
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-old-video-shows-bernie-sanders-arrest-article-1.2533704?utm_content=buffer75d5e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-old-video-shows-bernie-sanders-arrest-article-1.2533704?utm_content=buffer75d5e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
QuoteAmazing archival video appears to show the arrest of a young Bernie Sanders as a student activist in Chicago
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 17, 2016, 01:07:22 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 17, 2016, 01:07:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 16, 2016, 12:47:55 PM:D
He's saying that Bernie is a Jew.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 17, 2016, 01:07:31 AM
Post by: garbon on February 17, 2016, 01:07:31 AM
What a funny 'article.'
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 17, 2016, 01:10:04 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 17, 2016, 01:10:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2016, 01:03:52 AM
Cool
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-old-video-shows-bernie-sanders-arrest-article-1.2533704?utm_content=buffer75d5e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTwQuoteAmazing archival video appears to show the arrest of a young Bernie Sanders as a student activist in Chicago
How do you arrest someone for resisting arrest? :huh:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Malthus on February 17, 2016, 11:02:44 AM
Post by: Malthus on February 17, 2016, 11:02:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2016, 01:10:04 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2016, 01:03:52 AM
Cool
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-old-video-shows-bernie-sanders-arrest-article-1.2533704?utm_content=buffer75d5e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTwQuoteAmazing archival video appears to show the arrest of a young Bernie Sanders as a student activist in Chicago
How do you arrest someone for resisting arrest? :huh:
You arrest them for failing. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 17, 2016, 12:59:57 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 17, 2016, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2016, 01:10:04 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2016, 01:03:52 AM
Cool
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-old-video-shows-bernie-sanders-arrest-article-1.2533704?utm_content=buffer75d5e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTwQuoteAmazing archival video appears to show the arrest of a young Bernie Sanders as a student activist in Chicago
How do you arrest someone for resisting arrest? :huh:
You tackle them
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 17, 2016, 01:05:10 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 17, 2016, 01:05:10 PM
:lmfao:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on February 18, 2016, 11:36:59 PM
Post by: Phillip V on February 18, 2016, 11:36:59 PM
Sanders has closed the gap seriously with Clinton in national polls, leading in one for the first time.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 19, 2016, 01:53:22 PM
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 19, 2016, 01:53:22 PM
Yeah, I still think Clinton wins because there's a positive feedback loop in the media and for voters with success; Bernie might win or tie Nevada, but will still likely lose almost every Super Tuesday state. That will decrease the number of media stories on "is Bernie dethroning Hillary", which should have follow on hits to his support. Like any candidate Bernie has a core of diehards (who are a larger portion of his voters than Hillary's diehards) and then people who are supporting him lightly. Some of those non-diehards will go away after a string of defeats.
But national polls are important, and show a genuine movement. But the demographics of Super Tuesday still hurt him tremendously, and to me if he has any real chance he has to still be polling well nationally after losing 75% of Super Tuesday states.
Mind Obama won South Carolina and all the SEC states, it's not a coincidence he became the nominee--it's hard for any Democrat to get through the primary process with no southern support. Clinton did well in the rust belt and several of the larger states like California and New York, but it wasn't enough to offset Obama's delegate wins in the other states.
But national polls are important, and show a genuine movement. But the demographics of Super Tuesday still hurt him tremendously, and to me if he has any real chance he has to still be polling well nationally after losing 75% of Super Tuesday states.
Mind Obama won South Carolina and all the SEC states, it's not a coincidence he became the nominee--it's hard for any Democrat to get through the primary process with no southern support. Clinton did well in the rust belt and several of the larger states like California and New York, but it wasn't enough to offset Obama's delegate wins in the other states.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on February 19, 2016, 03:34:53 PM
Post by: Phillip V on February 19, 2016, 03:34:53 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 19, 2016, 01:53:22 PM2008 Dem primary/caucus results map:
Yeah, I still think Clinton wins because there's a positive feedback loop in the media and for voters with success; Bernie might win or tie Nevada, but will still likely lose almost every Super Tuesday state. That will decrease the number of media stories on "is Bernie dethroning Hillary", which should have follow on hits to his support. Like any candidate Bernie has a core of diehards (who are a larger portion of his voters than Hillary's diehards) and then people who are supporting him lightly. Some of those non-diehards will go away after a string of defeats.
But national polls are important, and show a genuine movement. But the demographics of Super Tuesday still hurt him tremendously, and to me if he has any real chance he has to still be polling well nationally after losing 75% of Super Tuesday states.
Mind Obama won South Carolina and all the SEC states, it's not a coincidence he became the nominee--it's hard for any Democrat to get through the primary process with no southern support. Clinton did well in the rust belt and several of the larger states like California and New York, but it wasn't enough to offset Obama's delegate wins in the other states.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Democratic_presidential_primary%2C_2008.svg/350px-Democratic_presidential_primary%2C_2008.svg.png)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 19, 2016, 03:47:12 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 19, 2016, 03:47:12 PM
Couldn't you have picked a larger image?
Looking at that map, you would think Hillary won. NY, CA, TX, FL, PA, MI...
Looking at that map, you would think Hillary won. NY, CA, TX, FL, PA, MI...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 19, 2016, 05:15:16 PM
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 19, 2016, 05:15:16 PM
It looks like I forgot the outcomes in KY/Tennessee (but I also somewhat forget they're in the SEC), Texas wasn't an SEC state in 2008 and Florida wasn't contested in '08 since the state broke the DNC rules and wasn't allowed to seat delegates (at least initially, the DNC caved and let them seat a reduced number at the very end.)
But wasn't part of why this map produced a win for Obama because of the margins?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.svg
Shows that Barry won harder in more states, Hillary won lightly in the big states so the delegate difference wasn't huge in those, but Barry won some huge margins in states Hillary didn't campaign in very hard. Hillary actually mismanaged her campaign pretty badly in 2008, she wasn't playing a delegate game because she assumed if she won enough big states everything would just "coalesce" around her as the rightful nominee. Obama was playing a delegate grind (i.e. following the actual rules of the game.)
But wasn't part of why this map produced a win for Obama because of the margins?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.svg
Shows that Barry won harder in more states, Hillary won lightly in the big states so the delegate difference wasn't huge in those, but Barry won some huge margins in states Hillary didn't campaign in very hard. Hillary actually mismanaged her campaign pretty badly in 2008, she wasn't playing a delegate game because she assumed if she won enough big states everything would just "coalesce" around her as the rightful nominee. Obama was playing a delegate grind (i.e. following the actual rules of the game.)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on February 20, 2016, 04:28:36 PM
Post by: Phillip V on February 20, 2016, 04:28:36 PM
With over a quarter of the results in, Clinton and Sanders are about tied in Nevada.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/nevada
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/nevada
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 20, 2016, 05:22:42 PM
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 20, 2016, 05:22:42 PM
MSNBC and Fox call it for HRC. She's up by 2% with 65% in, and most of the remaining precincts are in Clark County, where she is leading by 10% in the precincts already reporting. Due to Clark County's large population relative to the rest of the State she could end up winning by 5-6% if her margin in Clark County holds for the rest of the precincts.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on February 20, 2016, 05:28:08 PM
Post by: Phillip V on February 20, 2016, 05:28:08 PM
I am going to write off Bernie Sanders now. The perfect storm he needed were upset wins in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada to possibly make a dent in South Carolina and beyond.
Clinton is slightly bruised, but it seems to be smooth sailing from here.
Clinton is slightly bruised, but it seems to be smooth sailing from here.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 20, 2016, 06:57:35 PM
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 20, 2016, 06:57:35 PM
Yeah, my projected "death of Bernie" involved him winning New Hampshire, losing Nevada and South Carolina, then getting creamed in Super Tuesday. South Carolina was never in doubt, but Nevada is the kind of state that's represents other states throughout the country that will be "competitive for both sides" much moreso than Iowa (where Hillary ground out a narrow victory.) Bernie is going to end up losing by 4-6% in Nevada.
That bodes poorly for lots of big states with mixed electorates like California, Texas, Florida etc. Since Hillary is going to win by huge margins in the high black population states (most of the Southeast and a few scattered states like Michigan where blacks are a large portion of the Democratic primary electorate) if she wins by moderate 3-6% margins in "big competitive states" there really is no math that doesn't have her winning outright, probably with 70% of the pledged delegates.
That bodes poorly for lots of big states with mixed electorates like California, Texas, Florida etc. Since Hillary is going to win by huge margins in the high black population states (most of the Southeast and a few scattered states like Michigan where blacks are a large portion of the Democratic primary electorate) if she wins by moderate 3-6% margins in "big competitive states" there really is no math that doesn't have her winning outright, probably with 70% of the pledged delegates.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on February 20, 2016, 10:01:58 PM
Post by: Siege on February 20, 2016, 10:01:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 31, 2016, 05:47:52 AM
The fate of the country is in your hands.
Oh please.
A criminal vs a communist?
Retard fight.
Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or I stay home.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 20, 2016, 10:03:28 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 20, 2016, 10:03:28 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 20, 2016, 10:01:58 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on January 31, 2016, 05:47:52 AM
The fate of the country is in your hands.
Oh please.
A criminal vs a communist?
Retard fight.
Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or I stay home.
Promise?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 20, 2016, 10:13:31 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 20, 2016, 10:13:31 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 20, 2016, 10:01:58 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on January 31, 2016, 05:47:52 AM
The fate of the country is in your hands.
Oh please.
A criminal vs a communist?
Retard fight.
Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or I stay home.
Spoken like a true Arab. An actual Jew is running for President and you won't consider him.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 21, 2016, 04:49:48 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 21, 2016, 04:49:48 AM
I would vote for Trump if he promised to send Siegy back to Arabland.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Josquius on February 21, 2016, 05:22:10 AM
Post by: Josquius on February 21, 2016, 05:22:10 AM
Seems pretty certain Clinton will win with even draws putting her significantly ahead
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:30:27 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:30:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 21, 2016, 05:22:10 AM
Seems pretty certain Clinton will win with even draws putting her significantly ahead
Good.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on February 21, 2016, 09:33:20 PM
Post by: Jaron on February 21, 2016, 09:33:20 PM
I would vote for Sanders.
I would vote for Clinton over Trump, but Rubio over Clinton.
I would vote for Clinton over Trump, but Rubio over Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:39:08 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:39:08 PM
Quote from: Jaron on February 21, 2016, 09:33:20 PM
I would vote for Sanders.
I would vote for Clinton over Trump, but Rubio over Clinton.
Eh you live in Utah. Who you vote for barely matters. I know the feeling :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on February 21, 2016, 09:44:26 PM
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on February 21, 2016, 09:44:26 PM
I finally looked up "SEC Primary" because I was wondering what the Super Tuesday states had to do with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Turns out the actual reason for the name is at least equally dumb. <_<
Turns out the actual reason for the name is at least equally dumb. <_<
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:45:18 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:45:18 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 21, 2016, 09:44:26 PM
I finally looked up "SEC Primary" because I was wondering what the Super Tuesday states had to do with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Turns out the actual reason for the name is at least equally dumb. <_<
Needless to say I totally and completely agree with you. That name is insulting, degrading, and very limp making in a sexual sense.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on February 21, 2016, 09:46:33 PM
Post by: Jaron on February 21, 2016, 09:46:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:39:08 PMQuote from: Jaron on February 21, 2016, 09:33:20 PM
I would vote for Sanders.
I would vote for Clinton over Trump, but Rubio over Clinton.
Eh you live in Utah. Who you vote for barely matters. I know the feeling :P
By that logic only the voters in Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado matter. :rolleyes:
Utah is interesting. Everyone was going nuts for Romney in 2012 and now all the people I work with are kinda like 'Eh, Trump? Not interested." but would they vote for Trump over Hillary? Absolutely, but they wouldn't be happy about it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:48:46 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:48:46 PM
Quote from: Jaron on February 21, 2016, 09:46:33 PM
By that logic only the voters in Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado matter. :rolleyes:
By very accurate and true logic? Yes. Unfortunately. But I vote anyway. Civic duty and all that.
QuoteUtah is interesting. Everyone was going nuts for Romney in 2012 and now all the people I work with are kinda like 'Eh, Trump? Not interested." but would they vote for Trump over Hillary? Absolutely, but they wouldn't be happy about it.
We will see. I have a feeling that state wins the award for most lopsided vote this side of DC as usual.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on February 21, 2016, 09:54:16 PM
Post by: Jaron on February 21, 2016, 09:54:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:48:46 PMQuote from: Jaron on February 21, 2016, 09:46:33 PM
By that logic only the voters in Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado matter. :rolleyes:
By very accurate and true logic? Yes. Unfortunately. But I vote anyway. Civic duty and all that.QuoteUtah is interesting. Everyone was going nuts for Romney in 2012 and now all the people I work with are kinda like 'Eh, Trump? Not interested." but would they vote for Trump over Hillary? Absolutely, but they wouldn't be happy about it.
We will see. I have a feeling that state wins the award for most lopsided vote this side of DC as usual.
Cruz would do very well here. His values align well with the values of Utah.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 10:16:01 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 10:16:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 09:45:18 PMQuote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 21, 2016, 09:44:26 PM
I finally looked up "SEC Primary" because I was wondering what the Super Tuesday states had to do with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Turns out the actual reason for the name is at least equally dumb. <_<
Needless to say I totally and completely agree with you. That name is insulting, degrading, and very limp making in a sexual sense.
Just turn on the Longhorn Network to get your erection back. :)
It better do that for you, since it is a major contributing factor to why some people are calling Texas an SEC state.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DontSayBanana on February 21, 2016, 10:19:23 PM
Post by: DontSayBanana on February 21, 2016, 10:19:23 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 20, 2016, 10:01:58 PM
Retard fight.
Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or I stay home.
What the man said. The man who can't be bothered to do his job, or the man who does his job so badly he gets ordered out of the business. ;)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 10:32:20 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 10:32:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 10:16:01 PM
Just turn on the Longhorn Network to get your erection back. :)
It better do that for you, since it is a major contributing factor to why some people are calling Texas an SEC state.
Oh FFS. Let me have my fun without trying to derail the thread into a College Football discussion by saying garbage like that. LHN or no LHN they were not going to remain in the league after 2010.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 10:38:54 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 10:38:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 10:32:20 PMQuote from: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 10:16:01 PM
Just turn on the Longhorn Network to get your erection back. :)
It better do that for you, since it is a major contributing factor to why some people are calling Texas an SEC state.
Oh FFS. Let me have my fun without trying to derail the thread into a College Football discussion by saying garbage like that. LHN or no LHN they were not going to remain in the league after 2010.
:P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 10:53:36 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 10:53:36 PM
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 21, 2016, 11:04:33 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 21, 2016, 11:04:33 PM
Matt Stafford went to high school in Tx. :alberta:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 11:14:46 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 11:14:46 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2016, 11:04:33 PM
Matt Stafford went to high school in Tx. :alberta:
Lots of good college QBs come from Texas. Matt Stafford, Johnny Manziel, RGIII, Andy Dalton, Bryce Petty, and Trevone Boykin.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 11:15:11 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 11:15:11 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2016, 11:04:33 PM
Matt Stafford went to high school in Tx. :alberta:
His dad played for Texas.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 11:35:42 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 11:35:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 11:15:11 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2016, 11:04:33 PM
Matt Stafford went to high school in Tx. :alberta:
His dad played for Texas.
Sounds like that even within individual families, Texas is recruiting the wrong QBs, is what I would say if I wanted to troll. :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 21, 2016, 11:57:36 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 21, 2016, 11:57:36 PM
Sanders is gonna stay in as long as he has the money to do so.
If he gets 25% or more of the pledged delegates, he can make all sorts of demands with regard to the platform, and the closer he gets to 50% the more demands he can make.
Hell, Ron Paul got all sorts of ridiculous shit passed in 2012 and he only had like 10% of the delegates.
If he gets 25% or more of the pledged delegates, he can make all sorts of demands with regard to the platform, and the closer he gets to 50% the more demands he can make.
Hell, Ron Paul got all sorts of ridiculous shit passed in 2012 and he only had like 10% of the delegates.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 22, 2016, 08:05:53 AM
Post by: Valmy on February 22, 2016, 08:05:53 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 21, 2016, 11:35:42 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 21, 2016, 11:15:11 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2016, 11:04:33 PM
Matt Stafford went to high school in Tx. :alberta:
His dad played for Texas.
Sounds like that even within individual families, Texas is recruiting the wrong QBs, is what I would say if I wanted to troll. :P
That would be a perfectly fair point. I do not have a problem with criticism against Texas I agree with :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on February 22, 2016, 09:32:13 PM
Post by: Siege on February 22, 2016, 09:32:13 PM
I am chocked so many Americans consider socialism to be viable option.
What gives?
Isn't ironic winning the Cold War and then adopting the loser's ideology?
I mean seriously, what is going on here?
What gives?
Isn't ironic winning the Cold War and then adopting the loser's ideology?
I mean seriously, what is going on here?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 22, 2016, 09:45:04 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 22, 2016, 09:45:04 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 22, 2016, 09:32:13 PM
I am chocked so many Americans consider socialism to be viable option.
What gives?
Isn't ironic winning the Cold War and then adopting the loser's ideology?
I mean seriously, what is going on here?
:secret: Nobody is suggesting we adopt Marxism.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 22, 2016, 09:46:27 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 22, 2016, 09:46:27 PM
Siege's cold war was fought against Sweden & Israel.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 22, 2016, 09:48:35 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 22, 2016, 09:48:35 PM
His father shot up the USS Liberty.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 22, 2016, 10:22:10 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 22, 2016, 10:22:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 22, 2016, 09:32:13 PM
I am chocked so many Americans consider socialism to be viable option.
What gives?
Isn't ironic winning the Cold War and then adopting the loser's ideology?
I mean seriously, what is going on here?
They are upset with how the establishment has been running things and want people to smash the system. Besides it is not like they are voting for a Maoist or a Marxist-Leninist. Just a guy who thinks instead of 2% welfare there should be 4% welfare. Hardly a revolution.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 22, 2016, 10:32:14 PM
Post by: Monoriu on February 22, 2016, 10:32:14 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 22, 2016, 09:32:13 PM
I am chocked so many Americans consider socialism to be viable option.
What gives?
Isn't ironic winning the Cold War and then adopting the loser's ideology?
I mean seriously, what is going on here?
I hate socialism myself but unfortunately there will always be an element of socialism in modern societies. If you think about it, things like fire and police services are both socialism, strictly speaking and they work very well. So is national defence. Trying to privatise those is insane. I'll even go further and say health service should largely be a public service as well. The alternative is what the US has right now, and that is an inefficient mess that is the worst of both worlds.
The whole socialism / capitalism thing is a wide spectrum, and everybody has elements of both. I strongly dislike guys like Bernie Sanders, but I don't think he is advocating adoption of communism. Plus, he seems much more reasonable than people like Ben Carson, who is like in lalaland.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 22, 2016, 10:35:49 PM
Post by: alfred russel on February 22, 2016, 10:35:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 21, 2016, 11:57:36 PM
Sanders is gonna stay in as long as he has the money to do so.
If he gets 25% or more of the pledged delegates, he can make all sorts of demands with regard to the platform, and the closer he gets to 50% the more demands he can make.
Hell, Ron Paul got all sorts of ridiculous shit passed in 2012 and he only had like 10% of the delegates.
Who cares about the platform?
I think Sanders needed to win Nevada. He is facing annihilation in the next couple of weeks.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 22, 2016, 10:42:01 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 22, 2016, 10:42:01 PM
It's amusing that the two socialism haters live off the government dime.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 22, 2016, 10:48:16 PM
Post by: Monoriu on February 22, 2016, 10:48:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2016, 10:42:01 PM
It's amusing that the two socialism haters live off the government dime.
Why? I have always maintained that I am a failure.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 22, 2016, 10:58:41 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 22, 2016, 10:58:41 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 22, 2016, 09:32:13 PM
I am chocked so many Americans consider socialism to be viable option.
What gives?
Isn't ironic winning the Cold War and then adopting the loser's ideology?
I mean seriously, what is going on here?
I agree Siege, it is pretty messed up.
Still - don't despair yet. There is still a chance Trump doesn't get the nomination.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 22, 2016, 11:04:25 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 22, 2016, 11:04:25 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 22, 2016, 10:48:16 PMI think he meant Hans and Siege.Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2016, 10:42:01 PM
It's amusing that the two socialism haters live off the government dime.
Why? I have always maintained that I am a failure.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 23, 2016, 12:00:49 AM
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 23, 2016, 12:00:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2016, 10:35:49 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on February 21, 2016, 11:57:36 PM
Sanders is gonna stay in as long as he has the money to do so.
If he gets 25% or more of the pledged delegates, he can make all sorts of demands with regard to the platform, and the closer he gets to 50% the more demands he can make.
Hell, Ron Paul got all sorts of ridiculous shit passed in 2012 and he only had like 10% of the delegates.
Who cares about the platform?
I think Sanders needed to win Nevada. He is facing annihilation in the next couple of weeks.
Politicians care.
The higher the % over 25 that he can get the more he can demand, such as who gets certain cabinet positions, even who VP will be.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9807.msg951851.html#msg951851
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 23, 2016, 12:47:20 AM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 23, 2016, 12:47:20 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 22, 2016, 10:58:41 PMQuote from: Siege on February 22, 2016, 09:32:13 PM
I am chocked so many Americans consider socialism to be viable option.
What gives?
Isn't ironic winning the Cold War and then adopting the loser's ideology?
I mean seriously, what is going on here?
I agree Siege, it is pretty messed up.
Still - don't despair yet. There is still a chance Trump doesn't get the nomination.
I wonder if Siege considers the irony of adopting the loser's ideology from WWII
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 01:27:50 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 01:27:50 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2016, 10:35:49 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on February 21, 2016, 11:57:36 PM
Sanders is gonna stay in as long as he has the money to do so.
If he gets 25% or more of the pledged delegates, he can make all sorts of demands with regard to the platform, and the closer he gets to 50% the more demands he can make.
Hell, Ron Paul got all sorts of ridiculous shit passed in 2012 and he only had like 10% of the delegates.
Who cares about the platform?
I think Sanders needed to win Nevada. He is facing annihilation in the next couple of weeks.
Wha? He tied with Hillary in Iowa, won NH and lost Nevada. How's that "annihilation"? :huh:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 23, 2016, 01:36:01 AM
Post by: Monoriu on February 23, 2016, 01:36:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 01:27:50 AM
Wha? He tied with Hillary in Iowa, won NH and lost Nevada. How's that "annihilation"? :huh:
Correct me if I am wrong, but my reading is that Sanders need to convince the general electorate that he is a viable alternative. He is expected to win NH, so him winning it doesn't really help. He needs to win the other two to better establish his viability, yet he failed to do so. The upcoming states have demographics that are against him, so he will only go downhill from here.
Or at least, that's how I hope the destruction of Sanders will play out.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 01:44:17 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 01:44:17 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 23, 2016, 01:36:01 AMQuote from: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 01:27:50 AM
Wha? He tied with Hillary in Iowa, won NH and lost Nevada. How's that "annihilation"? :huh:
Correct me if I am wrong, but my reading is that Sanders need to convince the general electorate that he is a viable alternative. He is expected to win NH, so him winning it doesn't really help. He needs to win the other two to better establish his viability, yet he failed to do so. The upcoming states have demographics that are against him, so he will only go downhill from here.
Or at least, that's how I hope the destruction of Sanders will play out.
What does that even mean? He is winning by a higher margin in national polls than Clinton against pretty much every Republican candidate. Sure, it may change by November but the "he is not a viable candidate" narrative about Sanders is as contrived right now as it is about Trump.
Btw, Sanders is not a plural so that would be "Sanders needs". :contract:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 23, 2016, 01:48:54 AM
Post by: Monoriu on February 23, 2016, 01:48:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 01:44:17 AM
What does that even mean? He is winning by a higher margin in national polls than Clinton against pretty much every Republican candidate. Sure, it may change by November but the "he is not a viable candidate" narrative about Sanders is as contrived right now as it is about Trump.
Because Clinton is the clear front-runner and Sanders isn't. Sanders was considered a fringe candidate a few months ago. The majority still expect Clinton to win and it takes something significant to change that expectation. So far it hasn't happened.
Quote from: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 01:44:17 AM
Btw, Sanders is not a plural so that would be "Sanders needs". :contract:
My bad :blush:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on February 23, 2016, 07:35:40 AM
Post by: Siege on February 23, 2016, 07:35:40 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2016, 12:47:20 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on February 22, 2016, 10:58:41 PMQuote from: Siege on February 22, 2016, 09:32:13 PM
I am chocked so many Americans consider socialism to be viable option.
What gives?
Isn't ironic winning the Cold War and then adopting the loser's ideology?
I mean seriously, what is going on here?
I agree Siege, it is pretty messed up.
Still - don't despair yet. There is still a chance Trump doesn't get the nomination.
I wonder if Siege considers the irony of adopting the loser's ideology from WWII
National socialism is a collectivist ideology based on nationalism, as to opposed to international socialism.
The left has been very successful in playing the falsehood that the far right is national socialist, when in reality nazis are not far right, but another shade of collectivism.
Also, when you dig deep into the criticism of the free market economic system you realize all the criticism is actually against crony capitalism, a system in which the gruberment instead of being an impartial arbiter is a player and and /or a winner chooser.
Think of the economic system as a big slide in which the far left is collectivism and the far right is free market. No one system is purely in one of the ends, even in Soviet Russia there was some little leftovers of free market, but the closer you are to the free market wnd of the slide, the freer and richer your society is, creating wealth for everyone. A rising tide rises all boats, and it is better to be poor in a rich country and in a socialist hellhole.
Free market economy is a weak system because there isn't an ideology behind it. It has enemies everywhere, collectivists and especially crony capitalists, who a after succeeding in a free market environment want to pervert the system to eliminate their competition by achieving monopoly status.
There is a reason why every super rich dude is against a free market economic system.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on February 23, 2016, 07:37:59 AM
Post by: Siege on February 23, 2016, 07:37:59 AM
Sorry for the typos. I am using my phone.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on February 23, 2016, 07:46:02 AM
Post by: Siege on February 23, 2016, 07:46:02 AM
A successful free market system requires a government willing to protect it and enforce anti monopolistic laws and regulations, while limiting itself from over regulation and collectivism.
However our political class is in the pocket of the donor classes, which include everything from the super rich to the big unions.
And the political system cannot be reformed because no politician will vote for limited terms of political service or for limting political donations.
Even worst, if we were to limit donations even further, nobody si going to limit the media and then the media would become the choosers of our politicians even more than they are today.
We are pretty much fucked.
However our political class is in the pocket of the donor classes, which include everything from the super rich to the big unions.
And the political system cannot be reformed because no politician will vote for limited terms of political service or for limting political donations.
Even worst, if we were to limit donations even further, nobody si going to limit the media and then the media would become the choosers of our politicians even more than they are today.
We are pretty much fucked.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 23, 2016, 09:32:22 AM
Post by: DGuller on February 23, 2016, 09:32:22 AM
Reading Siege is like reading a random page from Flowers for Algernon. Well, usually it's page 1, but somehow today he managed to flip to the middle of the book.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 09:34:18 AM
Post by: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 09:34:18 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2016, 07:46:02 AM
A successful free market system requires a government willing to protect it and enforce anti monopolistic laws and regulations, while limiting itself from over regulation and collectivism.
However our political class is in the pocket of the donor classes, which include everything from the super rich to the big unions.
And the political system cannot be reformed because no politician will vote for limited terms of political service or for limting political donations.
Even worst, if we were to limit donations even further, nobody si going to limit the media and then the media would become the choosers of our politicians even more than they are today.
We are pretty much fucked.
Well pretty much. But we will be fine. Politicians are not what ultimately makes society function. They just cannot fuck it up too much.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 09:42:40 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 09:42:40 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2016, 07:46:02 AM
A successful free market system requires a government willing to protect it and enforce anti monopolistic laws and regulations, while limiting itself from over regulation and collectivism.
However our political class is in the pocket of the donor classes, which include everything from the super rich to the big unions.
And the political system cannot be reformed because no politician will vote for limited terms of political service or for limting political donations.
Even worst, if we were to limit donations even further, nobody si going to limit the media and then the media would become the choosers of our politicians even more than they are today.
We are pretty much fucked.
Isn't this exactly what Bernie Sanders is saying? His "socialism" does not mean he wants to abolish free market.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 09:43:04 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 09:43:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 23, 2016, 09:32:22 AM:lol:
Reading Siege is like reading a random page from Flowers for Algernon. Well, usually it's page 1, but somehow today he managed to flip to the middle of the book.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 23, 2016, 10:15:41 AM
Post by: alfred russel on February 23, 2016, 10:15:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 23, 2016, 01:27:50 AMQuote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2016, 10:35:49 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on February 21, 2016, 11:57:36 PM
Sanders is gonna stay in as long as he has the money to do so.
If he gets 25% or more of the pledged delegates, he can make all sorts of demands with regard to the platform, and the closer he gets to 50% the more demands he can make.
Hell, Ron Paul got all sorts of ridiculous shit passed in 2012 and he only had like 10% of the delegates.
Who cares about the platform?
I think Sanders needed to win Nevada. He is facing annihilation in the next couple of weeks.
Wha? He tied with Hillary in Iowa, won NH and lost Nevada. How's that "annihilation"? :huh:
To sum up the national democratic primary, Sanders and Clinton are probably roughly tied among the non black vote. The non black vote is overwhelmingly for Clinton. Unless that changes, Sanders does not have a winning hand.
We just had two white states vote, and a state with minorities but not huge number of black voters, and they have come out roughly tied in pledged delegates. The problem for Sanders is most the Southern states are scheduled to vote in the next few weeks, and in a democratic primary black voters make up about half the voters in many of those states.
So right now you see 3 states have voted, after which there is a tie, but in the next few weeks you are going to see something like a third of the race completed, and Clinton with a massive and dominant lead. He will have lost most of his chance to make up ground with black voters, because so many of them will already have voted, and he won't have much momentum to create a strong majority needed to win the non black vote. In fact he will start getting pressure to yield to the inevitable and drop out.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: MadImmortalMan on February 23, 2016, 10:50:14 AM
Post by: MadImmortalMan on February 23, 2016, 10:50:14 AM
Sanders could probably win every primary and still lose. None of them are winner take all, and he'd need to take a more than 500 delegate lead over Hillary to compensate for the superdelegates.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 23, 2016, 11:01:16 AM
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 23, 2016, 11:01:16 AM
Yeah, it's questionable what would happen if Sanders won by say 150 pledged delegates. In 2008 not that many Clinton endorsing superdelegates actually "switched" to Obama. Instead, near the end when it was obvious Obama was going to finish with about a 100 pledged delegate lead, 60 previously uncommitted superdelegates endorsed Obama on the same day (obviously the announcement was coordinated with the campaign.) A few jumped ship from Clinton--> Obama, but most didn't. Instead Clinton a) never had such a massive superdelegate lead as she does in this race against Obama, and b) more stayed uncommitted longer, and many of those went for Obama when he had won the pledged delegates.
It'd be unprecedented for all 400 of hers to jump ship if Bernie beats her by say, 100 pledged delegates.
But the reality is that won't happen. To expand on what dorsey said, basically if Hillary wins the heavily black states by 10-20% (and she's polling better than that in many of them) and basically runs 50/50 with Bernie in the rest of the states (it doesn't matter who gets the W, say Bernie gets some, she gets some) she ends up with a big time delegate lead and an outright majority. There's only a few states left where Bernie is expected to win big, he's polling like 70%+ in Vermont, which while a small state with few delegates, that does help, and then he's up 5-10% in a couple other states, but not enough to counter the large number of states where Hillary is up by double digits.
It'd be unprecedented for all 400 of hers to jump ship if Bernie beats her by say, 100 pledged delegates.
But the reality is that won't happen. To expand on what dorsey said, basically if Hillary wins the heavily black states by 10-20% (and she's polling better than that in many of them) and basically runs 50/50 with Bernie in the rest of the states (it doesn't matter who gets the W, say Bernie gets some, she gets some) she ends up with a big time delegate lead and an outright majority. There's only a few states left where Bernie is expected to win big, he's polling like 70%+ in Vermont, which while a small state with few delegates, that does help, and then he's up 5-10% in a couple other states, but not enough to counter the large number of states where Hillary is up by double digits.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 23, 2016, 11:18:12 AM
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 23, 2016, 11:18:12 AM
Something else to keep in mind is I'm being conservative when I talk about Hillary winning southern states by 10-20%. In some she is up monstrously, in Georgia a poll by Landmark of 700 likely voters showed her up 72%-20%. This is a reflection not just of the huge black vote in Georgia, but also that white Democrats throughout the Deep South are much more conservative than the white democrats in States where Bernie has a fighting chance/will win, like Mass, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont etc.
A big state like Georgia winning by 50% is a serious delegate margin created. Some analyses have showed it would only take about a 100 delegate lead over Sanders after Super Tuesday for it to be "functionally impossible" for Sanders to ever catch Hillary. She's up 25 in Arkansas, 26 in Tennessee, 23 in Texas, 22 in Virginia. Some of the "competitive for Bernie" states on Super Tuesday, Oklahoma Hillary is up 2, Massachusetts is shown as a tie in aggregate polling. It's not just the delegate margin after Super Tuesday either, there's going to be a major media reaction in a negative way when Sanders loses say, all but 2-3 of the Super Tuesday states, and loses large states like Texas or Georgia or Virginia by 20 pts, that makes him seem "gravely unelectable" and the media will be talking about how his campaign is now one to "advocate for issues" and no longer a serious threat to HRC.
A big state like Georgia winning by 50% is a serious delegate margin created. Some analyses have showed it would only take about a 100 delegate lead over Sanders after Super Tuesday for it to be "functionally impossible" for Sanders to ever catch Hillary. She's up 25 in Arkansas, 26 in Tennessee, 23 in Texas, 22 in Virginia. Some of the "competitive for Bernie" states on Super Tuesday, Oklahoma Hillary is up 2, Massachusetts is shown as a tie in aggregate polling. It's not just the delegate margin after Super Tuesday either, there's going to be a major media reaction in a negative way when Sanders loses say, all but 2-3 of the Super Tuesday states, and loses large states like Texas or Georgia or Virginia by 20 pts, that makes him seem "gravely unelectable" and the media will be talking about how his campaign is now one to "advocate for issues" and no longer a serious threat to HRC.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 23, 2016, 11:28:00 AM
Post by: garbon on February 23, 2016, 11:28:00 AM
I was just thinking that I fall into the group they keep talking about as young black voters who lean for Clinton. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on February 23, 2016, 11:56:20 AM
Post by: crazy canuck on February 23, 2016, 11:56:20 AM
Do you still qualify as young?
:P
:P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: citizen k on February 23, 2016, 04:30:43 PM
Post by: citizen k on February 23, 2016, 04:30:43 PM
Cornel West: 'Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHc84VYALQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHc84VYALQ)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 23, 2016, 04:35:43 PM
Post by: garbon on February 23, 2016, 04:35:43 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 23, 2016, 04:30:43 PM
Cornel West: 'Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHc84VYALQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHc84VYALQ)
Clearly he is confused regarding Milli Vanilli, lip syncing and lip service. My first thought was that he thinks she is just a pretty face for fun policies. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: citizen k on February 23, 2016, 04:52:49 PM
Post by: citizen k on February 23, 2016, 04:52:49 PM
http://www.blackagendareport.com/dyson-attacks-west-4-hillary (http://www.blackagendareport.com/dyson-attacks-west-4-hillary)
Quote
Seeking Hillary's Favor: Dyson Attacks Cornel West
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
Michael Eric Dyson has never produced even a few words of substantive critique of President Obama's wars, his "Grand Bargain" with the GOP, or his role in the economic collapse of Black America. Instead, Dyson has written a hit-piece on Dr. Cornel West. "The true purpose of his elongated smear of Dr. West is to demonstrate to Hillary Clinton's camp that Dyson remains a loyal Democratic Party operative who is available for service to the new regime."
"Dyson has resorted to icon assassination because West's highly visible critique of Obama's domestic and foreign policy is an embarrassment to the administration."
As the clock unwinds on the nation's first Black presidency, much of the Black political class is scrambling to rewrite the history of their own behavior over the past six or seven years. Suddenly, all of them claim to have been "constructive critics" of the Obama administration, despite the absence of any public record of such criticism when it might have made a difference. In 21 months, the First Black President will leave office having overseen a federal retrenchment more brutal than under Ronald Reagan, a "bipartisan" austerity regime forged in 2010 as Obama pursued his long-sought "Grand Bargain" with the GOP.
Before even taking office, back in early January, 2009, Obama had loudly proclaimed his intentions to plunge directly into austerity mode, once the banks had been rescued from insolvency, by putting all entitlement programs "on the table [5]" for chopping, including Social Security. He spent his first two years in office, when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, creating a model for austerity through his hand-picked Deficit Reduction Commission, which recommended $4 trillion in cuts – virtually the same as demanded by the Republicans. When the GOP won control of the House in 2010, Obama bragged [6] that he had already reduced domestic discretionary spending to "its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was president. That level of spending is lower than it was under the last three administrations, and it will be lower than it was under Ronald Reagan."
In 2011, Obama outdid George W. Bush in unilateral war making, claiming the War Powers Act did not apply to the US/NATO bombing campaign against Libya because no Americans were killed and, therefore, no war – or even "hostilities" – had existed. A new era of proliferating "humanitarian" and proxy wars was inaugurated under the man who ran as a peace candidate in 2008.
"Dyson thinks this is an auspicious time to unleash a bloated, mean-spirited and politically flatulent assault on a Black public intellectual who risked his 'icon' status by breaking with Obama early in the president's first term."
Black America has plummeted to such economic depths under Obama's watch that there is no possibility of ever reaching economic parity with whites absent a social revolution, the beginnings of which we may be witnessing in the growing mobilization against brutal police enforcement of the oppressive social order.
It is no wonder that so many members of the Black political class, especially those that style themselves as "progressives," are now anxious to revise their Obama-era political histories to put a false distance between themselves and the outgoing administration. Which is why I found it curious that Georgetown University professor and preacher Michael Eric Dyson thinks this is an auspicious time to unleash a bloated, mean-spirited and politically flatulent assault on Dr. Cornel West, a Black public intellectual who risked his "icon" status by breaking with Obama early in the president's first term, when the center-right nature of his corporation-serving administration became manifest.
Dyson is clearly haunted by "The Ghost of Cornel West [7]," as The New Republic article is titled. In Georgia, the older country folks used to say that when a "haint" (a ghost) got on top of you in your sleep, you became temporarily paralyzed – a condition sometimes called "being rode by a witch." Dyson's obsession with West seems to have paralyzed those parts of his brain that process political facts and issues. In almost 10,000 words, Dyson makes no reference to any substantive political issues that divide he and West, and offers only the slimmest assessment of Obama's stance on the burning issues of the day. Given such a dirth of actual political analysis of either the Obama presidency or Cornel West's critique of that presidency, the article is a soaring testament to Dyson's enormous capacity for bloviation.
But, of course, there is method to Dyson's meanness. The true purpose of his elongated smear of Dr. West is to demonstrate to Hillary Clinton's camp that Dyson remains a loyal Democratic Party operative who is available for service to the new regime. Having observed how hugely Al Sharpton prospered as President Obama's pit bull against Black dissent, Dyson offers unto Caesarius Hillarius ("We came, we saw, he died," as she said of Gaddafi) the iconic head of the nation's best known Black dissident.
Dyson's article is as dishonest as it is long and draining. Dyson is not mad at West because the Union Theological Seminary professor has supposedly turned out a "paucity of serious and fresh intellectual work" over the last several years. He was not driven to write a hit piece because his former "friend" is "not quite up to the high scholarly standard West set for himself long ago." Dyson has resorted to icon assassination because West's highly visible critique of Obama's domestic and foreign policy is an embarrassment to the administration, to the Democratic Party as an institution, and to the sycophantic Black Misleadership Class that has been more loyal to Obama than to Black people as a group. Mostly, Dyson is mad because Dr. West called him out, personally. Dyson wrote:
"It was during an appearance with Tavis Smiley on Democracy Now, shortly after Obama's reelection. 'I love Brother Mike Dyson,' West said. 'But we're living in a society where everybody is up for sale. Everything is up for sale. And he and Brother Sharpton and Sister Melissa and others, they have sold their souls for a mess of Obama pottage. And we invite them back to the black prophetic tradition after Obama leaves. But at the moment, they want insider access, and they want to tell those kinds of lies. They want to turn their back to poor and working people. And it's a sad thing to see them as apologists for the Obama administration in that way, given the kind of critical background that all of them have had at some point.'"
Dyson attempts to draw the reader into a discussion of the definition of a "prophet," and who is, or is not, one. But that's just a long-winded way of asserting that West has no right to criticize Dyson, Harris, Sharpton and the other Black-notables-for-hire. Dyson attempts to turn the "access" tables on West, noting that West was known to hang with celebrities like Warren Beatty, Sean "Diddy" Combs, Johnny Cochran, Snoop Dogg and Mexican beauty Salma Hayek. As if Warren Beatty has ever maintained a "Kill List," Sean Combs has plans to bomb Africa, and Snoop Dogg is actively engaged in turning the U.S. government over to Wall Street.
"Dyson not only sells himself, he tries to defame Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a sell-out, access-monger, too."
Dyson claims West lives by a double standard. Attempting sarcasm, Dyson writes: "West offers himself a benefit that he refuses to extend to others: He can go to the White House without becoming a presidential apologist or losing his prophetic cool. He can spend an evening with the president, the first of many such evenings, without selling his soul."
Well, apparently, West can. And, just as clearly, after 19 or more visits to the White House [8], Dyson cannot. He not only sells himself, he tries to defame Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a sell-out, access-monger, too. Without shame, honor, or a logical leg to stand on, Dyson writes:
"King was arguably more beneficial to the folk he loved when he swayed power with his influence and vision. When West begrudges Sharpton his closeness to Obama, he ignores the fact that King had similar access." Dyson continues, "Sharpton and Jackson moved in the opposite prophetic direction of King. While King kissed the periphery with courageous vigor after enjoying his role as a central prophet, Jackson, and especially Sharpton, started on the periphery before coming into their own on the inside. Jackson's transition was smoothed by the gulf left by King's assassination, and while forging alliances with other outsiders on the black left, he easily adapted to the role of the inside-outsider who identified with the downcast while making his way to the heart of the Democratic Party."
Dr. King and other members of the so-called "Big Six" organizations enjoyed some access to Lyndon Johnson's White House because of the power of the movements they led. Dr. King did not become influential because he got invitations to the White House; he got invited to the White House because he was influential among millions of Black people. MLK made the principled, and possibly fatal, decision to break with Lyndon Johnson's White House on April 4, 1967, with his "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break the Silence [9]" speech. He effectively severed ties with an administration that had, at times, been an ally in the civil rights struggle. Singling out the U.S. as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, today," Dr. King said:
"I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such."
Obscenely, Michael Eric Dyson attempts to depict Dr. King as of his own ilk of boot-licking, access-begging, job-seeking, misleaders in his attack on Cornel West, who made his own break with Obama's wars at home and abroad, early on.
"MLK made the principled, and possibly fatal, decision to break with Lyndon Johnson's White House."
Dyson has for years peppered his talks with references to his nonexistent substantive critiques of Obama, and does the same in The New Republic. "No matter how vehemently I disagree with Obama, I respect him as a man wrestling with an incredibly difficult opportunity to shape history," he writes. "Throughout his presidency I have offered what I consider principled support and sustained criticism of Obama, a posture that didn't mirror West's black-or-white views—nor satisfy the Obama administration's expectation of unqualified support." Yet, there is no evidence of "sustained criticism," in his current attack-piece or anywhere – only sustained opportunism. The only paragraph in the entire 9,600-word piece with any substantive statement on Obama policies, is a boilerplate pitch straight from the White House:
"Obama believes the blessed should care for the unfortunate, a hallmark of his My Brother's Keeper initiative. West and Obama both advocate intervention for our most vulnerable citizens, but while West focuses on combating market forces that 'edge out nonmarket values—love, care, service to others—handed down by preceding generations,' Obama, as Alter contends, is more practical, offering Pell grants; stimulus money that saved the jobs of hundreds of thousands of black state and local workers; the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the disparity of sentences for powdered and crack cocaine; the extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which kept millions of working poor blacks from sliding into poverty; and the extension of unemployment insurance and food stamps, which helped millions of blacks."
In my own two debates with Dyson on Democracy Now! in January, 2008 [10], and September, 2012 [11], I found it best to ignore the bulk of his "wall of words." The torrent of syllables is mostly show, much of it pure nonsense designed to dazzle churchgoers. In cold print, Dyson is revealed as a rank careerist in the army of personal upward mobility.
Dr. West has nothing to worry about from such quarters. But, Dyson's bosses will kill you.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 09:27:05 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 23, 2016, 09:27:05 PM
Wait Obama had a 'Grand Bargain' with the GOP? Huh.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 23, 2016, 09:45:55 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 23, 2016, 09:45:55 PM
A Corrupt Bargain maybe.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 24, 2016, 10:58:02 AM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 24, 2016, 10:58:02 AM
Bernie Sanders economic proposals assume an increase in the long term GDP growth rate to 4.5%. This is basically the left wing demand side equivalent of the Arthur Laffer supply side magic wand. I like Bernie but this is an embarrassment. The Democrats have spent decades combatting this fairy economics BS.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on February 24, 2016, 11:04:04 AM
Post by: celedhring on February 24, 2016, 11:04:04 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 24, 2016, 10:58:02 AM
Bernie Sanders economic proposals assume an increase in the long term GDP growth rate to 4.5%. This is basically the left wing demand side equivalent of the Arthur Laffer supply side magic wand. I like Bernie but this is an embarrassment. The Democrats have spent decades combatting this fairy economics BS.
Heh, our far-lefties are pulling the same trick to build their economic proposals. "Only" 4% though.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 24, 2016, 11:06:18 AM
Post by: DGuller on February 24, 2016, 11:06:18 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 24, 2016, 10:58:02 AMThis is the biggest mark against him for me as well. There is a difference between regulating free market forces to rein in market failures and avoiding unsustainable outcomes, and reviving leftist economics that everyone else is trying to reform away from. There is a functional middle ground there, and it's actually a pretty wide sweet spot, there is no need to bounce from one extreme to the other.
Bernie Sanders economic proposals assume an increase in the long term GDP growth rate to 4.5%. This is basically the left wing demand side equivalent of the Arthur Laffer supply side magic wand. I like Bernie but this is an embarrassment. The Democrats have spent decades combatting this fairy economics BS.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: MadImmortalMan on February 24, 2016, 01:49:42 PM
Post by: MadImmortalMan on February 24, 2016, 01:49:42 PM
I wouldn't say they are trying to reform away from them, but that they have been forced to. That we can't bring back 1955 by returning to the policies of 1955 isn't necessarily something that western electorates or politicians have yet given up on. Ironically, the CCP seems to have figured it out.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on February 24, 2016, 01:59:01 PM
Post by: Jacob on February 24, 2016, 01:59:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 24, 2016, 01:49:42 PM
I wouldn't say they are trying to reform away from them, but that they have been forced to. That we can't bring back 1955 by returning to the policies of 1955 isn't necessarily something that western electorates or politicians have yet given up on. Ironically, the CCP seems to have figured it out.
Yeah, the CCP has a lot of economists at their disposal and take their input quite seriously as I understand it. Of course, that is somewhat mitigated by the overriding impulse to hang on to power (and thus massage messaging accordingly) and to skim whatever can be skimmed, but at least it's a reality based approach.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: PJL on February 24, 2016, 02:52:37 PM
Post by: PJL on February 24, 2016, 02:52:37 PM
So really what we need is an enlightened/pragmatic one party state that at least listens to economists and other technocrats and governs in a reasonable manner economically (and even there can listen to constructive criticism in that regard).
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 24, 2016, 02:57:28 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 24, 2016, 02:57:28 PM
Quote from: PJL on February 24, 2016, 02:52:37 PM
So really what we need is an enlightened/pragmatic one party state that at least listens to economists and other technocrats and governs in a reasonable manner economically (and even there can listen to constructive criticism in that regard).
So....China?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 24, 2016, 02:59:53 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 24, 2016, 02:59:53 PM
I don't want to get eaten by an escalator. :o
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 24, 2016, 07:13:49 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 24, 2016, 07:13:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2016, 02:57:28 PMChina isn't particularly good at listening to constructive criticism. The CCP does understand the Mandate of Heaven, though, and has wisely shifted from picking winners and losers and instead spent that government money on infrastructure to make sure that the winners are successful. In China, government legitimacy is conferred by prosperity, not by a mandate from the people.Quote from: PJL on February 24, 2016, 02:52:37 PM
So really what we need is an enlightened/pragmatic one party state that at least listens to economists and other technocrats and governs in a reasonable manner economically (and even there can listen to constructive criticism in that regard).
So....China?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 24, 2016, 07:18:27 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 24, 2016, 07:18:27 PM
I don't think the Chinese believe in the mandate of heaven anymore. It's 2016 not 1816. You might need to adjust your calendar Grumbles.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 24, 2016, 07:46:54 PM
Post by: Monoriu on February 24, 2016, 07:46:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2016, 07:13:49 PM
In China, government legitimacy is conferred by prosperity, not by a mandate from the people.
:yes:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 24, 2016, 07:50:53 PM
Post by: Monoriu on February 24, 2016, 07:50:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2016, 07:18:27 PM
I don't think the Chinese believe in the mandate of heaven anymore. It's 2016 not 1816. You might need to adjust your calendar Grumbles.
One doesn't need to believe in anything other than "I will go to school/work today and let somebody else deal with politics". As long as everybody's stance looks something like that, the mandate of heaven is secure :contract:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Finally voted in this poll. Voted Clinton.
Not that I don't like Bernie--I thoroughly enjoy one or two of his talking points--but I don't think I can deal with 4 years of sending back brisket.
Not that I don't like Bernie--I thoroughly enjoy one or two of his talking points--but I don't think I can deal with 4 years of sending back brisket.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on February 24, 2016, 08:21:31 PM
Post by: derspiess on February 24, 2016, 08:21:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Finally voted in this poll. Voted Clinton.
Not that I don't like Bernie--I thoroughly enjoy one or two of his talking points--but I don't think I can deal with 4 years of sending back brisket.
Damn, what took you so long? Surprised you weren't donning your own pantsuit and blonde wig to do door to door canvassing for Shrillary.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: katmai on February 24, 2016, 08:23:06 PM
Post by: katmai on February 24, 2016, 08:23:06 PM
Why do you think it DID take him so long to vote in poll?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:24:31 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:24:31 PM
No shit. These heels are murder.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on February 24, 2016, 08:25:16 PM
Post by: 11B4V on February 24, 2016, 08:25:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Finally voted in this poll. Voted Clinton.
Not that I don't like Bernie--I thoroughly enjoy one or two of his talking points--but I don't think I can deal with 4 years of sending back brisket.
Jews are an acquired taste.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:27:26 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:27:26 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 24, 2016, 08:25:16 PM
Jews are an acquired taste.
In 22 minute-long episodes, yes.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on February 24, 2016, 08:28:11 PM
Post by: derspiess on February 24, 2016, 08:28:11 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 24, 2016, 08:25:16 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Finally voted in this poll. Voted Clinton.
Not that I don't like Bernie--I thoroughly enjoy one or two of his talking points--but I don't think I can deal with 4 years of sending back brisket.
Jews are an acquired taste.
:hmm:
It's been a while.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 24, 2016, 08:43:12 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 24, 2016, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 24, 2016, 07:46:54 PMQuote from: grumbler on February 24, 2016, 07:13:49 PM
In China, government legitimacy is conferred by prosperity, not by a mandate from the people.
:yes:
What the fuck do you know about China? Raz has already delivered the definitive expert opinion on Chinese beliefs. He's been an expert for almost an hour now.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on February 24, 2016, 08:58:59 PM
Post by: 11B4V on February 24, 2016, 08:58:59 PM
Man, Wikipedia kicks pass.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on February 24, 2016, 10:08:14 PM
Post by: Siege on February 24, 2016, 10:08:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Finally voted in this poll. Voted Clinton.
Not that I don't like Bernie--I thoroughly enjoy one or two of his talking points--but I don't think I can deal with 4 years of sending back brisket.
Effing traitor.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on February 24, 2016, 10:14:19 PM
Post by: 11B4V on February 24, 2016, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2016, 10:08:14 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Finally voted in this poll. Voted Clinton.
Not that I don't like Bernie--I thoroughly enjoy one or two of his talking points--but I don't think I can deal with 4 years of sending back brisket.
Effing traitor.
Shady Lady will win the democratic nom and the general election.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 24, 2016, 10:21:47 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 24, 2016, 10:21:47 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2016, 10:08:14 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Finally voted in this poll. Voted Clinton.
Not that I don't like Bernie--I thoroughly enjoy one or two of his talking points--but I don't think I can deal with 4 years of sending back brisket.
Effing traitor.
Feeling the Bern eh Siege?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on February 27, 2016, 08:27:34 PM
Post by: Siege on February 27, 2016, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2016, 10:21:47 PMQuote from: Siege on February 24, 2016, 10:08:14 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Finally voted in this poll. Voted Clinton.
Not that I don't like Bernie--I thoroughly enjoy one or two of his talking points--but I don't think I can deal with 4 years of sending back brisket.
Effing traitor.
Feeling the Bern eh Siege?
What? What makes you think i would ever support a communist? Because he happened to be jewish?
Hell no.
He is a frigging communist.
I live by 3 societal principles :
Free market capitalism, small government, and our constitutional freedoms.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 27, 2016, 08:33:34 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 27, 2016, 08:33:34 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 27, 2016, 08:27:34 PM
What? What makes you think i would ever support a communist? Because he happened to be jewish?
Hell no.
Because you called somebody a traitor for preferring Clinton over Sanders? :P
QuoteHe is a frigging communist.
I live by 3 societal principles :
Free market capitalism, small government, and our constitutional freedoms.
He is a Euro-weenie type guy. I have not even heard of him calling for nationalization of anything much less Communism.
Clinton is a free trader, which is getting her in real trouble in the Primary and probably in the General as well. Yet you support Trump who is calling for protectionism so what sort of Free Market Capitalism are you for? None I have ever heard of.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on February 27, 2016, 08:48:55 PM
Post by: Siege on February 27, 2016, 08:48:55 PM
Ted Cruz
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 27, 2016, 08:57:35 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 27, 2016, 08:57:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2016, 08:43:12 PMQuote from: Monoriu on February 24, 2016, 07:46:54 PMQuote from: grumbler on February 24, 2016, 07:13:49 PM
In China, government legitimacy is conferred by prosperity, not by a mandate from the people.
:yes:
What the fuck do you know about China? Raz has already delivered the definitive expert opinion on Chinese beliefs. He's been an expert for almost an hour now.
I know Irony is lost on you, but you were the one to start making a sweeping statements about China, based on a government form they haven't had in over a century.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 27, 2016, 08:59:31 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 27, 2016, 08:59:31 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 27, 2016, 08:48:55 PM
Ted Cruz
I didn't know you were a Christian now.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 27, 2016, 09:03:12 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 27, 2016, 09:03:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 27, 2016, 08:48:55 PM
Ted Cruz
Ah. Well if Cruz drops out and Trump wins then I naturally expect you to rally to Clintonian Free Trade policies then.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 27, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 27, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 27, 2016, 08:48:55 PM
Ted Cruz
Tell me, if he gets rid of income taxes like he wants to, how do we afford to pay the military?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2016, 09:23:29 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2016, 09:23:29 PM
I believe Clinton is on record now as opposing the TPP.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 27, 2016, 09:25:41 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 27, 2016, 09:25:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2016, 09:23:29 PM
I believe Clinton is on record now as opposing the TPP.
What? No way. Fuck. I can only hope she is lying. She is a Clinton so quite possible.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 27, 2016, 10:12:53 PM
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 27, 2016, 10:12:53 PM
Lost South Carolina by 47 points, time for Bernie to get his bitch ass out of here.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 27, 2016, 10:15:49 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 27, 2016, 10:15:49 PM
Lincoln lost SC by more than that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 27, 2016, 10:25:36 PM
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on February 27, 2016, 10:25:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 27, 2016, 10:15:49 PM
Lincoln lost SC by more than that.
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on February 27, 2016, 10:43:25 PM
Post by: Jaron on February 27, 2016, 10:43:25 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 27, 2016, 10:12:53 PM
Lost South Carolina by 47 points, time for Bernie to get his bitch ass out of here.
If all the superdelegates defect from Hillary to Bernie, he has a good chance.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 27, 2016, 11:07:07 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 27, 2016, 11:07:07 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 27, 2016, 10:12:53 PM
Lost South Carolina by 47 points, time for Bernie to get his bitch ass out of here.
Holy shit. I knew that Hillary would get the black vote, but not by that much.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on February 28, 2016, 12:17:36 AM
Post by: alfred russel on February 28, 2016, 12:17:36 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 27, 2016, 10:15:49 PM
Lincoln lost SC by more than that.
Lincoln did alright. It just took a long time for the black vote to come in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Colored_Troops
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 28, 2016, 01:16:53 AM
Post by: Monoriu on February 28, 2016, 01:16:53 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 27, 2016, 10:12:53 PM
Lost South Carolina by 47 points, time for Bernie to get his bitch ass out of here.
Time for Bernie to feel the burn :Evil:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Habbaku on February 28, 2016, 02:31:41 AM
Post by: Habbaku on February 28, 2016, 02:31:41 AM
I think a lot of Bernie supporters are going to be very disillusioned after Tuesday.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 28, 2016, 02:49:20 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 28, 2016, 02:49:20 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/planned-parenthood-hillary-clinton-ad-buy-219767
Wow, if I was a donor of Planned Parenthood, I would be outraged. Aren't they constantly complaining they need more funds, yet fund one of two candidates in a primary (where both candidates support them)? :huh:
Wow, if I was a donor of Planned Parenthood, I would be outraged. Aren't they constantly complaining they need more funds, yet fund one of two candidates in a primary (where both candidates support them)? :huh:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:30:16 AM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:30:16 AM
Darling, when aren't you outraged? ;)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 28, 2016, 03:46:41 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 28, 2016, 03:46:41 AM
When I'm having sex... oh my god, wait a minute! :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 04:35:59 AM
Post by: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 04:35:59 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2016, 09:23:29 PM
I believe Clinton is on record now as opposing the TPP.
Yeah, she U-turned on that during the primaries, I believe.
That's what I don't like about her. Sure, there's being flexible, and there's singing a different song whenever political expediency calls for it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:43:58 AM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:43:58 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 04:35:59 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2016, 09:23:29 PM
I believe Clinton is on record now as opposing the TPP.
Yeah, she U-turned on that during the primaries, I believe.
That's what I don't like about her. Sure, there's being flexible, and there's singing a different song whenever political expediency calls for it.
And I could see how that might be a problem if she sang 'a different song whenever political expediency calls for it.' Changing one's positions here and there is something everyone should do, not just politicians. Like how people/Hillary have changed their stance on gay marriage.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 05:21:22 AM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 05:21:22 AM
Did she change her mind on gay marriage during the primaries too?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:27:44 AM
Post by: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:27:44 AM
It is my belief - and I certainly can't prove it - that both Obama, Hillary, and other politicians were in favor of gay marriage from the start, but it wasn't politically adequate to express such views at the time, so they went with the civil union thingie.
But regarding TPP, it's what Yi says - she changed her tune during a Democrat primary. It was pretty transparent she said that to protect herself from attacks from the left, while running against a left-leaning rival that was climbing in the polls.
But regarding TPP, it's what Yi says - she changed her tune during a Democrat primary. It was pretty transparent she said that to protect herself from attacks from the left, while running against a left-leaning rival that was climbing in the polls.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 28, 2016, 05:41:58 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 28, 2016, 05:41:58 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:27:44 AM
It is my belief - and I certainly can't prove it - that both Obama, Hillary, and other politicians were in favor of gay marriage from the start, but it wasn't politically adequate to express such views at the time, so they went with the civil union thingie.
But regarding TPP, it's what Yi says - she changed her tune during a Democrat primary. It was pretty transparent she said that to protect herself from attacks from the left, while running against a left-leaning rival that was climbing in the polls.
Yeah. I am reading it the same way.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 05:46:07 AM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 05:46:07 AM
Wiki says that Obama was originally in favor of gay marriage but then tacked away from that during his political career. So that's pretty naked following of political expediency.
As far as free trade goes, she's had quite a mish and mash of positions over her career. Strangely enough as the WaPo article notes, Obama was big against NAFTA on campaign trail but now big proponent of TPP.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/17/tracking-the-many-hillary-clinton-positions-on-trade/
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-singh-grewal/why-hillary-clinton-is-ri_b_8295420.html
Of course, on a personal note, it probably doesn't help that while I thought (think?) the TPP sounds like a worthwhile endeavor the leak last year on some of the copyright stuff had me wondering. -_-
As far as free trade goes, she's had quite a mish and mash of positions over her career. Strangely enough as the WaPo article notes, Obama was big against NAFTA on campaign trail but now big proponent of TPP.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/17/tracking-the-many-hillary-clinton-positions-on-trade/
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-singh-grewal/why-hillary-clinton-is-ri_b_8295420.html
QuoteIn fact, since leaving her position as Secretary of State, she has been offering frequent, subtle warnings that she would not unconditionally support the TPP. In public speeches and in her memoir Hard Choices, Clinton praised the agreement in principle, but always with some reservations. As delicately as she could, given the decorum demanded of someone who was a former member of the sitting administration, she signaled to the Obama White House that her support for the TPP was contingent on the final deal meeting her requirements for trade in the twenty-first century. Foremost among these requirements are that new trade deals should help American workers and not hurt national security.
It was entirely appropriate for Clinton to withhold judgment on the TPP until the final deal was concluded, and she was under no obligation to endorse any final deal simply because she had once hoped for a good one. Clinton's opposition to the TPP is not a flip-flop but a perfectly reasonable stance. In fact, many more Americans may now follow Clinton in concluding, once they see the final details of the TPP, that while they may not be against trade in general, they are certainly against this deal in particular.
Of course, on a personal note, it probably doesn't help that while I thought (think?) the TPP sounds like a worthwhile endeavor the leak last year on some of the copyright stuff had me wondering. -_-
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 05:49:40 AM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 05:49:40 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:27:44 AM
It is my belief - and I certainly can't prove it - that both Obama, Hillary, and other politicians were in favor of gay marriage from the start, but it wasn't politically adequate to express such views at the time, so they went with the civil union thingie.
Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?
Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble
What else? :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:57:09 AM
Post by: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:57:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 05:49:40 AMQuote from: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:27:44 AM
It is my belief - and I certainly can't prove it - that both Obama, Hillary, and other politicians were in favor of gay marriage from the start, but it wasn't politically adequate to express such views at the time, so they went with the civil union thingie.
Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?
Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble
What else? :hmm:
I don't have such a list. What I would like from a leader is that he is transparent about his political beliefs, and tries to convince the constituency of the reasons why - in his opinion - those beliefs are good for society. Not espousing the beliefs that he believes will get him elected.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on February 28, 2016, 06:18:02 AM
Post by: Martinus on February 28, 2016, 06:18:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 05:49:40 AMQuote from: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:27:44 AM
It is my belief - and I certainly can't prove it - that both Obama, Hillary, and other politicians were in favor of gay marriage from the start, but it wasn't politically adequate to express such views at the time, so they went with the civil union thingie.
Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?
Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble
What else? :hmm:
No I don't think he is saying that at all. :huh:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 06:24:14 AM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 06:24:14 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:57:09 AMQuote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 05:49:40 AMQuote from: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:27:44 AM
It is my belief - and I certainly can't prove it - that both Obama, Hillary, and other politicians were in favor of gay marriage from the start, but it wasn't politically adequate to express such views at the time, so they went with the civil union thingie.
Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?
Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble
What else? :hmm:
I don't have such a list. What I would like from a leader is that he is transparent about his political beliefs, and tries to convince the constituency of the reasons why - in his opinion - those beliefs are good for society. Not espousing the beliefs that he believes will get him elected.
So politicians who don't generally become president? :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 28, 2016, 09:54:48 AM
Post by: DGuller on February 28, 2016, 09:54:48 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:27:44 AMIt could be, but I'm not sure. Gay marriage is one of those issues where you may start out having a strong opinion grounded in inertia and tradition, but then have it dissolve in a debate and then wonder what all the hubbub was about.
It is my belief - and I certainly can't prove it - that both Obama, Hillary, and other politicians were in favor of gay marriage from the start, but it wasn't politically adequate to express such views at the time, so they went with the civil union thingie.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on February 28, 2016, 10:15:32 AM
Post by: Siege on February 28, 2016, 10:15:32 AM
I am still solid against gay marriage.
It will be the end of western superiority.
It will be the end of western superiority.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on February 28, 2016, 01:53:26 PM
Post by: dps on February 28, 2016, 01:53:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2016, 09:54:48 AMQuote from: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:27:44 AMIt could be, but I'm not sure. Gay marriage is one of those issues where you may start out having a strong opinion grounded in inertia and tradition, but then have it dissolve in a debate and then wonder what all the hubbub was about.
It is my belief - and I certainly can't prove it - that both Obama, Hillary, and other politicians were in favor of gay marriage from the start, but it wasn't politically adequate to express such views at the time, so they went with the civil union thingie.
Or it could be that they simply didn't and don't give a damn about the issue one way or the other. Easy to be flexible on issues you don't really care about.
That's not a criticism, BTW. All of us have some issues that we care about more than others. I just want a politician to let us know which issues he's willing to compromise on (and to what degree), and which he's not. And it's not really entirely the politicians fault that they generally do a poor job of that--if someone says that they're willing to compromise on a particular issue, often all that does is get people on both sides of that issue unhappy with them. Plus, it requires nuance, which is tough to convey when most of our political discourse is conducted in sound bites.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 02:57:53 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 02:57:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 05:49:40 AM
Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?
Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble
What else? :hmm:
I believe you are missing Celery's point, which is that Obama's position on gay marriage was another example of political expediency.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 28, 2016, 03:22:58 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 28, 2016, 03:22:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 05:49:40 AM
Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?
Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble
What else? :hmm:
Depends on what issues the voter cares about. For instance, my family will be deeply suspicious of blue state Republicans who become pro-life when they decide to run for President(Romney, Trump).
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:26:32 PM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:26:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 02:57:53 PMQuote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 05:49:40 AM
Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?
Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble
What else? :hmm:
I believe you are missing Celery's point, which is that Obama's position on gay marriage was another example of political expediency.
Which is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 03:28:19 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 03:28:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:26:32 PMWhich is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.
it's more acceptable when a guy does it
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 03:29:26 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:26:32 PM
Which is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.
It's a much better point than your other one, that people are allowed to change their minds.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:29:50 PM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 03:28:19 PMQuote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:26:32 PMWhich is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.
it's more acceptable when a guy does it
I don't think it has to be a sexism thing - but I also don't think Hillary is uniquely special in the extent to which she says politically expedient things.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:30:35 PM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:30:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 03:29:26 PMQuote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:26:32 PM
Which is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.
It's a much better point than your other one, that people are allowed to change their minds.
Well I think both are true. After all, why should one's opinion on something not change over the course of years?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on February 28, 2016, 03:35:36 PM
Post by: Jaron on February 28, 2016, 03:35:36 PM
If gays really cared about civil rights, they'd defer their own plight for about 20-30 more years until we can get race relations in America figured out.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 03:35:56 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 03:35:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:30:35 PM
Well I think both are true. After all, why should one's opinion on something not change over the course of years?
You're arguing in the alternative. "Hillary did nothing wrong, and if she did, Obama did the same thing!"
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 03:37:19 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 03:37:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:29:50 PMI don't think it has to be a sexism thing - but I also don't think Hillary is uniquely special in the extent to which she says politically expedient things.
depends on your definition of sexism.* last weekend, I saw a girl get criticized by a female judge for having a "shrill" voice. she was aggressive, that's it. when guys do it, they're applauded (and disliked by some). when girls do it, they're criticized (and disliked by more than some). a lot of the criticism I see leveled at hillary essentially boils down to "well, she's just, like, a bitch, you know?"
(edit) *stuff like "sexism" makes people get all defensive and really kills conversation, imo
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 03:41:11 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 03:37:19 PM
depends on your definition of sexism.* last weekend, I saw a girl get criticized by a female judge for having a "shrill" voice. she was aggressive, that's it. when guys do it, they're applauded (and disliked by some). when girls do it, they're criticized (and disliked by more than some). a lot of the criticism I see leveled at hillary essentially boils down to "well, she's just, like, a bitch, you know?"
(edit) *stuff like "sexism" makes people get all defensive and really kills conversation, imo
I've never seen a guy getting applauded for having a shrill voice.
Hillary has an unpleasant speaking voice. So did George Bush Sr.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 03:46:55 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 03:46:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 03:41:11 PMI've never seen a guy getting applauded for having a shrill voice.
Hillary has an unpleasant speaking voice. So did George Bush Sr.
I wasn't analyzing hillary's speaking voice. wasn't making a comparison, just threw out an anecdote
the girl in the anecdote didn't have a shrill voice. she was aggressive, yet it was called "shrill." in my experience helping underclassmen with their public speaking and hearing other feedback, every time a guy has an aggressive-style approach, it's praised. when girls do it, it's criticized. I started picking up on this after reading a comment about how women are expected to be meek, while men are expected to be louder. it's just one example of many re: how women get the short straw in professional careers.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: PDH on February 28, 2016, 04:05:44 PM
Post by: PDH on February 28, 2016, 04:05:44 PM
Quote from: Jaron on February 28, 2016, 03:35:36 PM
If gays really cared about civil rights, they'd defer their own plight for about 20-30 more years until we can get race relations in America figured out.
:( but that would lead to them only getting 70% of the same wage as a straight person.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:09:04 PM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:09:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 03:35:56 PMQuote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 03:30:35 PM
Well I think both are true. After all, why should one's opinion on something not change over the course of years?
You're arguing in the alternative. "Hillary did nothing wrong, and if she did, Obama did the same thing!"
I'm arguing that the real world is complex and that successful politicians do both. I also wouldn't call any of it 'wrong.'
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:10:12 PM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:10:12 PM
Quote from: Jaron on February 28, 2016, 03:35:36 PM
If gays really cared about civil rights, they'd defer their own plight for about 20-30 more years until we can get race relations in America figured out.
I never pegged you for an optimist.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:11:11 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:11:11 PM
mormons are pretty optimistic tbh
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:12:02 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:09:04 PM
I'm arguing that the real world is complex and that successful politicians do both. I also wouldn't call any of it 'wrong.'
This is a better position than the one you took earlier, that all people should change their mind.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:13:02 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 03:46:55 PM
I wasn't analyzing hillary's speaking voice. wasn't making a comparison, just threw out an anecdote
the girl in the anecdote didn't have a shrill voice. she was aggressive, yet it was called "shrill." in my experience helping underclassmen with their public speaking and hearing other feedback, every time a guy has an aggressive-style approach, it's praised. when girls do it, it's criticized. I started picking up on this after reading a comment about how women are expected to be meek, while men are expected to be louder. it's just one example of many re: how women get the short straw in professional careers.
Were you serious when you said criticism of Hillary's flipping on trade is rooted in sexism?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:14:41 PM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:14:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:12:02 PMQuote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:09:04 PM
I'm arguing that the real world is complex and that successful politicians do both. I also wouldn't call any of it 'wrong.'
This is a better position than the one you took earlier, that all people should change their mind.
I said changing one's positions here and there which sounds a little less monolithic, I would think.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:13:02 PMQuote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 03:46:55 PM
I wasn't analyzing hillary's speaking voice. wasn't making a comparison, just threw out an anecdote
the girl in the anecdote didn't have a shrill voice. she was aggressive, yet it was called "shrill." in my experience helping underclassmen with their public speaking and hearing other feedback, every time a guy has an aggressive-style approach, it's praised. when girls do it, it's criticized. I started picking up on this after reading a comment about how women are expected to be meek, while men are expected to be louder. it's just one example of many re: how women get the short straw in professional careers.
Were you serious when you said criticism of Hillary's flipping on trade is rooted in sexism?
Yeah, I've no idea where he was going with that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:18:18 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:18:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2016, 04:14:41 PM
I said changing one's positions here and there which sounds a little less monolithic, I would think.
Yes. Your current, "evolved" position is a much better one IMO.
Will be interesting to see if Hillary tries to walk this one back come the general.
If and when she does, it will be interesting to see how you defend her. :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:18:47 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:18:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:13:02 PMWere you serious when you said criticism of Hillary's flipping on trade is rooted in sexism?
totality of the circumstances. some people seem to really, really dislike hillary. I think some of this dislike wouldn't exist if everything stayed the same except she were male
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:20:25 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:20:25 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:18:47 PM
totality of the circumstances. some people seem to really, really dislike hillary. I think some of this dislike wouldn't exist if everything stayed the same except she were male
What does "totality of the circumstances" mean in English?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:28:59 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:28:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:20:25 PMWhat does "totality of the circumstances" mean in English?
everything I've seen put together
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:39:37 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:39:37 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:28:59 PM
everything I've seen put together
Do you mean that either Celery or myself, or both, think Hillary flipped on trade because she is a woman?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:43:58 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:43:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:39:37 PMDo you mean that either Celery or myself, or both, think Hillary flipped on trade because she is a woman?
no
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:59:20 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:59:20 PM
Do you mean you know one or two guys in North Dakota who, if asked what they think about Hillary's changed position on trade, would say it's a bad thing because they dislike women?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 05:05:10 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 05:05:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 04:59:20 PM
Do you mean you know one or two guys in North Dakota who, if asked what they think about Hillary's changed position on trade, would say it's a bad thing because they dislike women?
no. I'm not talking about misogyny, and this is why I said I don't like using the word "sexism." what I referred to in my earlier posts is committed by women far more than men.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 05:07:13 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 05:07:13 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 05:05:10 PM
no. I'm not talking about misogyny, and this is why I said I don't like using the word "sexism." what I referred to in my earlier posts is committed by women far more than men.
OK. And the rest is correct?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 05:12:50 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 05:12:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 05:07:13 PMOK. And the rest is correct?
no. the comments I read today in this thread are the first I've heard about a flip flop issue over trade. I saw a discussion re: hillary changing views on a subject matter. this seemed like a minor thing given that every politician does this to some extent. "totality of circumstances" wasn't referring to this particular issue, but the totality of circumstances in some peoples' utter dislike for hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 05:45:29 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 05:45:29 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 05:12:50 PM
no. the comments I read today in this thread are the first I've heard about a flip flop issue over trade. I saw a discussion re: hillary changing views on a subject matter. this seemed like a minor thing given that every politician does this to some extent. "totality of circumstances" wasn't referring to this particular issue, but the totality of circumstances in some peoples' utter dislike for hillary.
I think I got it.
"Every politician flips once in a while. People I know, and I assume more people in the general population, judge Hillary on a double standard. I don't believe this to be true of any of the posters involved. This second thought is not related to the current discussion, but is rather a new tangent I was introducing."
Is that it?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 06:08:15 PM
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2016, 06:08:15 PM
What a jerk. :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 06:52:13 PM
Post by: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 06:52:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2016, 05:45:29 PMI think I got it.
"Every politician flips once in a while.People I know, andI assume more people in the general population, judge Hillary on a double standard. I don't believe this to be true of any of the posters involved. This second thought is not related to the current discussion, but is rather a new tangent I was introducing."
Is that it?
correct :D
though, strikethrough might be arguable.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 28, 2016, 07:11:20 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 28, 2016, 07:11:20 PM
It was always a long shot for Bernie to win, but I think there's definitely a chance that he well end up influencing the party long term in the same way that Goldwater influenced the GOP.
Given how leftwing the younger generation is, the liberal insurgents are likely to grow stronger and stronger in the election cycles to come until they eventually win.
The actual poll
http://static.politico.com/bc/7c/c808106e44eaa8855a3a12553bb7/snapchat-generation-release.pdf
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/top-gop-pollster-young-americans-are-terrifyingly-liberal/
Given how leftwing the younger generation is, the liberal insurgents are likely to grow stronger and stronger in the election cycles to come until they eventually win.
The actual poll
http://static.politico.com/bc/7c/c808106e44eaa8855a3a12553bb7/snapchat-generation-release.pdf
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/top-gop-pollster-young-americans-are-terrifyingly-liberal/
Quote
Top GOP Pollster: Young Americans Are Terrifyingly Liberal
Jon Schwarz
Feb. 25 2016, 3:27 a.m.
According to new polling by right-wing political consultant Frank Luntz, Americans 18 to 26 are extremely liberal — so liberal that "the hostility of young Americans to the underpinnings of the American economy and the American government" should "frighten every business and political leader" and "excite activists for Sanders and, to a lesser degree, Clinton activists."
Luntz's poll found that young Americans are optimistic about both the country's future and their own: 61 percent say the best days of the United States are still ahead of us rather than behind us, and 88 percent are somewhat, very, or extremely optimistic about their economic prospects. But they have concerns, too. Their biggest, in order, are "corruption," "greed," and "inequality."
President Obama is not their favorite political figure — Bernie Sanders is. Indeed, 31 percent said Bernie Sanders is the major political figure they "like and respect the most" — more than Obama (18 percent) and Hillary Clinton (11 percent). Fewer young people like and respect Republican politicians, with just 9 percent choosing Donald Trump, 5 percent George W. Bush, and 5 percent Ted Cruz. Bill Clinton has been nearly forgotten, with only 3 percent choosing him. Elizabeth Warren also has low visibility, chosen by just 2 percent. All in all, 66 percent of young Americans chose a Democratic political figure.
Admiration of Sanders is especially strong among the younger half of respondents, with 40 percent of 18- to 21-year-olds saying he's the political figure they most like and respect.
In addition, more 18- to 21-year-olds chose Sanders as the person they'd most like to have dinner with than anyone else, ahead of Obama, Jennifer Lawrence, Ellen DeGeneres, Bill Gates, Taylor Swift, and Beyoncé.
They aren't nationalistic: 58 percent of respondents said they agreed more with the statement "America isn't better or worse than most other countries" than with "America is exceptional. It's better than every other country in the world." In fact, 35 percent of 18- to 26-year-olds, including 42 percent of 18- to 21-year-olds, said they considered themselves more a citizen of the world than of the U.S.
In response to the question, "Which type of political system do you think is the most compassionate?", 58 percent said socialism and 9 percent said communism. Just 33 percent chose capitalism. Sixty-six percent of the poll's respondents said corporate America "embodies everything that is wrong about America."
Finally, more young Americans declared that the "most pressing issue facing America today" is income inequality than anything else. Income inequality was followed by education — specifically its cost. Respondents said they most respect nurses and doctors, followed by teachers and soldiers. The least-respected professions are bankers (2 percent), real estate agents (2 percent), elected officials (4 percent), and business leaders (6 percent). Wisely, just 7 percent of young Americans respect journalists.
The poll, conducted February 11 to 14, surveyed 1,000 18- to 26-year-olds. In the introduction to his polling memo, Luntz dubs young Americans "the Snapchat Generation," which indicates that he is very, very old.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 28, 2016, 07:16:41 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 28, 2016, 07:16:41 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 28, 2016, 05:27:44 AM
It is my belief - and I certainly can't prove it - that both Obama, Hillary, and other politicians were in favor of gay marriage from the start, but it wasn't politically adequate to express such views at the time, so they went with the civil union thingie.
But regarding TPP, it's what Yi says - she changed her tune during a Democrat primary. It was pretty transparent she said that to protect herself from attacks from the left, while running against a left-leaning rival that was climbing in the polls.
I don't know about that.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/09/bill-clinton-cautioned-that-hillarys-discomfort-around-gay-issues-would-hurt-her-political-ambitions/
QuoteBill Clinton warned a close friend in 2000 that Hillary's New York Senate run could suffer because she was not "comfortable around gay people who were kind of acting out, or pushing her to the limit," and that she had a "general discomfort" around gay rights issues.
That close friend, as it happens, was author and historian Taylor Branch, who conducted dozens of late-night interviews with Bill from the early '90s to 2000 to write a book chronicling the Clinton White House.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 28, 2016, 07:19:32 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 28, 2016, 07:19:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 28, 2016, 07:11:20 PM
In the introduction to his polling memo, Luntz dubs young Americans "the Snapchat Generation," which indicates that he is very, very old.
Perhaps. Also indicates that Jon Schwarz is a bit of a douche.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on February 29, 2016, 06:18:12 PM
Post by: dps on February 29, 2016, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:18:47 PM
I think some of this dislike wouldn't exist if everything stayed the same except she were male
If she were male, no one would have ever heard of her outside of Illinois, 'cause then she wouldn't have been married to Bill, and she(well, he) would be a successful but obscure lawyer in Chicago.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on February 29, 2016, 06:23:58 PM
Post by: garbon on February 29, 2016, 06:23:58 PM
:yawn:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on February 29, 2016, 07:38:16 PM
Post by: grumbler on February 29, 2016, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: dps on February 29, 2016, 06:18:12 PMQuote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:18:47 PM
I think some of this dislike wouldn't exist if everything stayed the same except she were male
If she were male, no one would have ever heard of her outside of Illinois, 'cause then she wouldn't have been married to Bill, and she(well, he) would be a successful but obscure lawyer in Chicago.
Too true! The idea that a Chicago lawyer could get elected President of the United States without having been married to a previous president is obviously absurd! It has never happpened.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on February 29, 2016, 08:17:54 PM
Post by: DGuller on February 29, 2016, 08:17:54 PM
:face:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 29, 2016, 08:22:05 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 29, 2016, 08:22:05 PM
Hillary might have made a good whip or even speaker by himself, but doesn't have the on camera presence for the White House.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on February 29, 2016, 08:43:50 PM
Post by: Razgovory on February 29, 2016, 08:43:50 PM
Quote from: dps on February 29, 2016, 06:18:12 PMQuote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:18:47 PM
I think some of this dislike wouldn't exist if everything stayed the same except she were male
If she were male, no one would have ever heard of her outside of Illinois, 'cause then she wouldn't have been married to Bill, and she(well, he) would be a successful but obscure lawyer in Chicago.
Well that and the Watergate thing.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 29, 2016, 08:44:35 PM
Post by: Monoriu on February 29, 2016, 08:44:35 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 29, 2016, 08:22:05 PM
Hillary might have made a good whip or even speaker by himself, but doesn't have the on camera presence for the White House.
You prefer Trump instead?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 29, 2016, 09:07:02 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 29, 2016, 09:07:02 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 29, 2016, 08:44:35 PM
You prefer Trump instead?
No, not that it's at all relevant to the statement I was making.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on February 29, 2016, 09:14:07 PM
Post by: Monoriu on February 29, 2016, 09:14:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 29, 2016, 09:07:02 PMQuote from: Monoriu on February 29, 2016, 08:44:35 PM
You prefer Trump instead?
No, not that it's at all relevant to the statement I was making.
Realistically, only Trump and Hillary have a chance to become the next president. Since you don't prefer Hillary, I must ask if you prefer the other one :contract:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 29, 2016, 09:20:56 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 29, 2016, 09:20:56 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 29, 2016, 09:14:07 PM
Realistically, only Trump and Hillary have a chance to become the next president. Since you don't prefer Hillary, I must ask if you prefer the other one :contract:
That's not what I said. I don't think she's that talented as a politician/beauty pageant contestant/snake oil salesman, but that's not really a bad thing as far as how she would perform in office.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2016, 09:43:41 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2016, 09:43:41 PM
Quite frankly, after 8 years of overly-idealistic naivete preceded by 8 years of vapidly smirking fratboy towelsnapping, I could use a coolly efficient and cynically realistic professional political operative in the Oval Office not named Dick Cheney for a change.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on February 29, 2016, 09:45:53 PM
Post by: Valmy on February 29, 2016, 09:45:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2016, 09:43:41 PM
Quite frankly, after 8 years of overly-idealistic naivete preceded by 8 years of vapidly smirking fratboy towelsnapping, I could use a coolly efficient and cynically realistic professional political operative in the Oval Office not named Dick Cheney for a change.
Yeah that is my thinking on the matter. Time for a veteran insider to run this ship for a bit.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 01:59:05 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 01:59:05 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 29, 2016, 07:38:16 PM:lol:Quote from: dps on February 29, 2016, 06:18:12 PMQuote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2016, 04:18:47 PM
I think some of this dislike wouldn't exist if everything stayed the same except she were male
If she were male, no one would have ever heard of her outside of Illinois, 'cause then she wouldn't have been married to Bill, and she(well, he) would be a successful but obscure lawyer in Chicago.
Too true! The idea that a Chicago lawyer could get elected President of the United States without having been married to a previous president is obviously absurd! It has never happpened.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 01, 2016, 02:40:02 AM
Post by: Norgy on March 01, 2016, 02:40:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2016, 09:43:41 PM
Quite frankly, after 8 years of overly-idealistic naivete preceded by 8 years of vapidly smirking fratboy towelsnapping, I could use a coolly efficient and cynically realistic professional political operative in the Oval Office not named Dick Cheney for a change.
You have been a Hillary voter for as long as I can remember. I think she'd do a good job.
A divisive character, for sure, but with more clout than Sanders.
I like Sanders' ideas and he's incredibly funny to watch go apeshit about something, but I am not sure he'd be a good president.
That he is in fact still in the race, is incredible if you ask me.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 06:49:48 AM
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 06:49:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2016, 09:43:41 PMNever been sold on her "coolly efficiency". Jusr because you're an SOB doesn't mean you're efficient.
Quite frankly, after 8 years of overly-idealistic naivete preceded by 8 years of vapidly smirking fratboy towelsnapping, I could use a coolly efficient and cynically realistic professional political operative in the Oval Office not named Dick Cheney for a change.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2016, 07:15:49 AM
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2016, 07:15:49 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 06:49:48 AMQuote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2016, 09:43:41 PMNever been sold on her "coolly efficiency". Jusr because you're an SOB doesn't mean you're efficient.
Quite frankly, after 8 years of overly-idealistic naivete preceded by 8 years of vapidly smirking fratboy towelsnapping, I could use a coolly efficient and cynically realistic professional political operative in the Oval Office not named Dick Cheney for a change.
Do you mean DOB? :unsure:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:19:11 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:19:11 PM
Or just B.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 01:33:35 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 01:33:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 06:49:48 AM
Never been sold on her "coolly efficiency". Jusr because you're an SOB doesn't mean you're efficient.
What are the main things that make you consider her an SOB/DOB/B?
I mean, personally I have the impression that that reputation is primarily the result of a decades long smear campaign by political opponents and media discomfort with powerful women. It's just an impression though, so I'm curious about the specifics that led you to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:36:21 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:36:21 PM
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 01:43:20 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 01:43:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:36:21 PM
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
You do try your best :hug:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:46:54 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:46:54 PM
It's fun to conspire.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2016, 01:48:06 PM
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2016, 01:48:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:19:11 PM
Or just B.
Isn't that a positive thing?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 01:49:07 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 01:49:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:46:54 PM
It's fun to conspire.
If it stops being fun, try prune juice.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:00:14 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:00:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:36:21 PM
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
The problem with Mrs. Clinton quote was she assumed that Republicans might see fabricating evidence against her as a negative. As it happened, Republicans happily adopted the mantle of conspiracy and continued fabricating scandals against her and her husband. The average Republican was okay with it, sadly.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 02:29:26 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 02:29:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2016, 01:48:06 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:19:11 PM
Or just B.
Isn't that a positive thing?
Of course. Has been since 1997. THANKS MEREDITH BROOKS
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 02:35:33 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 01:33:35 PMCan't point to anything specific now, but my view centered around the inside stories from the failed 2008 campaign. The picture drawn rather consistently was of her being an ineffective manager who is rather unpleasant to deal with personally, and that this mismanagement style played into the failure of campaign to recognize fatal flaws in their strategy. Basically, Hillary was the boss you don't dare deliver bad news to, you just don't.
I mean, personally I have the impression that that reputation is primarily the result of a decades long smear campaign by political opponents and media discomfort with powerful women. It's just an impression though, so I'm curious about the specifics that led you to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 02:36:54 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 02:36:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:00:14 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:36:21 PM
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
The problem with Mrs. Clinton quote was she assumed that Republicans might see fabricating evidence against her as a negative. As it happened, Republicans happily adopted the mantle of conspiracy and continued fabricating scandals against her and her husband. The average Republican was okay with it, sadly.
The problem with Raz is that he sees tongue-in-cheek comments as evidence of a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:45:19 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:45:19 PM
Drawn by who?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:00:14 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:36:21 PM
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
The problem with Mrs. Clinton quote was she assumed that Republicans might see fabricating evidence against her as a negative. As it happened, Republicans happily adopted the mantle of conspiracy and continued fabricating scandals against her and her husband. The average Republican was okay with it, sadly.
Interesting theory.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:47:15 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:47:15 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 02:36:54 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:00:14 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 01:36:21 PM
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
The problem with Mrs. Clinton quote was she assumed that Republicans might see fabricating evidence against her as a negative. As it happened, Republicans happily adopted the mantle of conspiracy and continued fabricating scandals against her and her husband. The average Republican was okay with it, sadly.
The problem with Raz is that he sees tongue-in-cheek comments as evidence of a conspiracy.
When they claimed Hillary Murder Vince Foster was that tongue in cheek? What about when Falwell produced the Clinton Chronicles was that tongue in cheek? Were all those Benghazi hearings tongue in cheek?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 02:50:14 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 02:50:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:47:15 PM
When they claimed Hillary Murder Vince Foster was that tongue in cheek?
Who are they?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:56:28 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:56:28 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 02:50:14 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 02:47:15 PM
When they claimed Hillary Murder Vince Foster was that tongue in cheek?
Who are they?
The same people you claimed were speaking tongue-in-cheek.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 02:57:49 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 02:57:49 PM
Derspiess then.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 02:58:42 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 02:58:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 02:35:33 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 01:33:35 PMCan't point to anything specific now, but my view centered around the inside stories from the failed 2008 campaign. The picture drawn rather consistently was of her being an ineffective manager who is rather unpleasant to deal with personally, and that this mismanagement style played into the failure of campaign to recognize fatal flaws in their strategy. Basically, Hillary was the boss you don't dare deliver bad news to, you just don't.
I mean, personally I have the impression that that reputation is primarily the result of a decades long smear campaign by political opponents and media discomfort with powerful women. It's just an impression though, so I'm curious about the specifics that led you to that conclusion.
Interesting.
I just came across this the other day, written by a former speech writer of Obama's who was not a Hillary fan. It paints a rather different picture of Hillary, though it's obviously coming from a particular point of view:
QuoteI hear you're still not Ready for Hillary.
I get it. I didn't start off as her biggest fan either. During the 2008 campaign, I wrote plenty of less-than-complimentary words about Hillary Clinton in my role as Barack Obama's speechwriter. Then, a few weeks after the election, I had a well-documented run-in with a piece of cardboard that bore a striking resemblance to the incoming Secretary of State.
It was one of the stupider, more disrespectful mistakes I've made, and one that could have cost me a job if Hillary hadn't accepted my apology, which she did with grace and humor. As a result, I had the chance to serve in the Obama administration with someone who was far different than the caricature I had helped perpetuate.
The most famous woman in the world would walk through the White House with no entourage, casually chatting up junior staffers along the way. She was by far the most prepared, impressive person at every Cabinet meeting. She worked harder and logged more miles than anyone in the administration, including the president. And she'd spend large amounts of time and energy on things that offered no discernible benefit to her political future—saving elephants from ivory poachers, listening to the plight of female coffee farmers in Timor-Leste, defending LGBT rights in places like Uganda.
Most of all—and you hear this all the time from people who've worked for her—Hillary Clinton is uncommonly warm and thoughtful. She surprises with birthday cakes. She calls when a grandparent passes away. She once rearranged her entire campaign schedule so a staffer could attend her daughter's preschool graduation. Her husband charms by talking to you; Hillary does it by listening to you—not in a head-nodding, politician way; in a real person way.
This same story has repeated itself throughout Clinton's career: those who initially view her as distrustful and divisive from afar find her genuine and cooperative in person. It was the case with voters in New York, Republicans in the Senate, Obama people in the White House, and heads of state all over the world. There's a reason being America's chief diplomat was the specific job Obama asked Hillary to do—she has the perfect personality for it.
The rest of the article is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/26/why-electing-hillary-in-16-is-more-important-than-electing-obama-in-08.html
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 03:00:58 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 02:36:54 PM
The problem with Raz is that he sees tongue-in-cheek comments as evidence of a conspiracy.
Talking all kinds of heinous trash and then backing down with a "I was only kidding" is one of the oldest and weakest techniques in the book. Humour, and the somewhat related "I was only joking" fake humour can and often is wielded as a weapon.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 03:04:07 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 03:04:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 02:57:49 PM
Derspiess then.
Yep. In fact I broke the Vince Foster story.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 03:06:28 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 03:06:28 PM
That Jon Favreau needs to change his name so we don't confuse him with the cool one.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 03:08:39 PM
Post by: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 03:08:39 PM
My outsider's impression is that the negative view of Hillary is all based on innuendo and deliberate malice, and gets its legs because she isn't an easy or natural public speaker, coming off as stiff, insincere and uncomfortable ... which is not to say she isn't horrible to deal with: I have no idea, never having dealt with her, but the sheer volume of excrement flung in her direction makes it practically impossible to get a grip on what she is "really" like.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 03:12:02 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 03:12:02 PM
I heard she is fun.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 03:12:18 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 03:12:18 PM
In this case, all the "heinous trash" needed to support Raz's broad conspiracy was the exclamation "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!"
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 03:13:42 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 03:13:42 PM
:punk: I don't do trigger warnings.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on March 01, 2016, 03:33:47 PM
Post by: Barrister on March 01, 2016, 03:33:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 03:08:39 PM
My outsider's impression is that the negative view of Hillary is all based on innuendo and deliberate malice, and gets its legs because she isn't an easy or natural public speaker, coming off as stiff, insincere and uncomfortable ... which is not to say she isn't horrible to deal with: I have no idea, never having dealt with her, but the sheer volume of excrement flung in her direction makes it practically impossible to get a grip on what she is "really" like.
I think there are some legitimate negative views on Hillary. Namely that she (and Bill) are squarely in the hip pocket of the big banks and other rich corporate sponsors. That she (and Bill) received millions and millions of dollars in speaking fees, and to the Clinton Foundation.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 03:40:58 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 03:40:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 03:12:18 PM
In this case, all the "heinous trash" needed to support Raz's broad conspiracy was the exclamation "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!"
Question: Do you believe there people in the 1990's who paid money to tarnish the Clinton name?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 03:52:34 PM
Post by: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 03:52:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2016, 03:33:47 PMQuote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 03:08:39 PM
My outsider's impression is that the negative view of Hillary is all based on innuendo and deliberate malice, and gets its legs because she isn't an easy or natural public speaker, coming off as stiff, insincere and uncomfortable ... which is not to say she isn't horrible to deal with: I have no idea, never having dealt with her, but the sheer volume of excrement flung in her direction makes it practically impossible to get a grip on what she is "really" like.
I think there are some legitimate negative views on Hillary. Namely that she (and Bill) are squarely in the hip pocket of the big banks and other rich corporate sponsors. That she (and Bill) received millions and millions of dollars in speaking fees, and to the Clinton Foundation.
Isn't getting millions from rich corporate sponsors par for the course to an extent for 'establishment' political types in the US, in both parties? How many haven't done so?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2016, 04:09:13 PM
Post by: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2016, 04:09:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 03:04:07 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 02:57:49 PM
Derspiess then.
Yep. In fact I broke the Vince Foster story.
The real truth is that Republicans are simply not that good at subterfuge. They couldn't pull off any House of Cards style stuff without outing themselves as a comical Bond villain.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 04:11:08 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 03:40:58 PM
Question: Do you believe there people in the 1990's who paid money to tarnish the Clinton name?
That sounds likely. Do you believe there were people who have paid money to tarnish the Bush name, the Reagan name, the McCain name, the Romney name, etc? I just kind of assume giant political figures have enemies.
We part ways when you say that most Republicans wanted them to make up lies about the Clintons. As far as Republicans were concerned, the truth was bad enough.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 04:14:56 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 04:14:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 02:58:42 PMI'm willing to be proved wrong on this one. Given the amount of vile misinformation out there, it's easy to consume second-hand shit even if you try not to.Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 02:35:33 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 01:33:35 PMCan't point to anything specific now, but my view centered around the inside stories from the failed 2008 campaign. The picture drawn rather consistently was of her being an ineffective manager who is rather unpleasant to deal with personally, and that this mismanagement style played into the failure of campaign to recognize fatal flaws in their strategy. Basically, Hillary was the boss you don't dare deliver bad news to, you just don't.
I mean, personally I have the impression that that reputation is primarily the result of a decades long smear campaign by political opponents and media discomfort with powerful women. It's just an impression though, so I'm curious about the specifics that led you to that conclusion.
Interesting.
I just came across this the other day, written by a former speech writer of Obama's who was not a Hillary fan. It paints a rather different picture of Hillary, though it's obviously coming from a particular point of view:QuoteI hear you're still not Ready for Hillary.
I get it. I didn't start off as her biggest fan either. During the 2008 campaign, I wrote plenty of less-than-complimentary words about Hillary Clinton in my role as Barack Obama's speechwriter. Then, a few weeks after the election, I had a well-documented run-in with a piece of cardboard that bore a striking resemblance to the incoming Secretary of State.
It was one of the stupider, more disrespectful mistakes I've made, and one that could have cost me a job if Hillary hadn't accepted my apology, which she did with grace and humor. As a result, I had the chance to serve in the Obama administration with someone who was far different than the caricature I had helped perpetuate.
The most famous woman in the world would walk through the White House with no entourage, casually chatting up junior staffers along the way. She was by far the most prepared, impressive person at every Cabinet meeting. She worked harder and logged more miles than anyone in the administration, including the president. And she'd spend large amounts of time and energy on things that offered no discernible benefit to her political future—saving elephants from ivory poachers, listening to the plight of female coffee farmers in Timor-Leste, defending LGBT rights in places like Uganda.
Most of all—and you hear this all the time from people who've worked for her—Hillary Clinton is uncommonly warm and thoughtful. She surprises with birthday cakes. She calls when a grandparent passes away. She once rearranged her entire campaign schedule so a staffer could attend her daughter's preschool graduation. Her husband charms by talking to you; Hillary does it by listening to you—not in a head-nodding, politician way; in a real person way.
This same story has repeated itself throughout Clinton's career: those who initially view her as distrustful and divisive from afar find her genuine and cooperative in person. It was the case with voters in New York, Republicans in the Senate, Obama people in the White House, and heads of state all over the world. There's a reason being America's chief diplomat was the specific job Obama asked Hillary to do—she has the perfect personality for it.
The rest of the article is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/26/why-electing-hillary-in-16-is-more-important-than-electing-obama-in-08.html
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 04:30:53 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 04:30:53 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 04:11:08 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 03:40:58 PM
Question: Do you believe there people in the 1990's who paid money to tarnish the Clinton name?
That sounds likely. Do you believe there were people who have paid money to tarnish the Bush name, the Reagan name, the McCain name, the Romney name, etc? I just kind of assume giant political figures have enemies.
We part ways when you say that most Republicans wanted them to make up lies about the Clintons. As far as Republicans were concerned, the truth was bad enough.
For most Republicans the lies were the truth. They really believed in "trooper gate", or "travel gate" or all the rest of the phony scandals. Most of this had it origin in one guy, Richard Mellon Scaife, who spent a lot of money "investigating" the Clinton's and from where you got all these "scandals".
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2016, 04:33:52 PM
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2016, 04:33:52 PM
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/db3f8e08141f3a62049bb9678a4b1f1b7e5e32f4/0_0_5184_3456/master/5184.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=484acc78190324e9399c4a263de80e36)
Free Bernie tatoos in Vermont!
Free Bernie tatoos in Vermont!
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 04:34:29 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 04:34:29 PM
Would you care to enlighten me on the truth about troopergate and travelgate Raz?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 04:35:59 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 04:35:59 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 04:11:08 PM
We part ways when you say that most Republicans wanted them to make up lies about the Clintons. As far as Republicans were concerned, the truth was bad enough.
Which truth are you talking about?
So far in this thread we've got BB's "she and Bill are in the pockets of Wall Street and the big corporations". What else is there?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 04:40:03 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 04:40:03 PM
Bill cheated on his wife, committed perjury, possibly suborned perjury, and worst of all, he was a liveral.
I was never interested in Whitewater, so no idea what the truth is there.
I was never interested in Whitewater, so no idea what the truth is there.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on March 01, 2016, 04:45:53 PM
Post by: Barrister on March 01, 2016, 04:45:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 03:52:34 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 01, 2016, 03:33:47 PMQuote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 03:08:39 PM
My outsider's impression is that the negative view of Hillary is all based on innuendo and deliberate malice, and gets its legs because she isn't an easy or natural public speaker, coming off as stiff, insincere and uncomfortable ... which is not to say she isn't horrible to deal with: I have no idea, never having dealt with her, but the sheer volume of excrement flung in her direction makes it practically impossible to get a grip on what she is "really" like.
I think there are some legitimate negative views on Hillary. Namely that she (and Bill) are squarely in the hip pocket of the big banks and other rich corporate sponsors. That she (and Bill) received millions and millions of dollars in speaking fees, and to the Clinton Foundation.
Isn't getting millions from rich corporate sponsors par for the course to an extent for 'establishment' political types in the US, in both parties? How many haven't done so?
Well, yes, of course - but she and Bill have perfected the art.
Bill has earned over $100 million in speaking fees since leaving office. Hillary has been in office so not able to earn such a large sum, but still demands hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. And companies aren't paying those fees because Hillary is a compelling public speaker.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 04:49:08 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 04:49:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2016, 04:45:53 PM
Well, yes, of course - but she and Bill have perfected the art.
Bill has earned over $100 million in speaking fees since leaving office. Hillary has been in office so not able to earn such a large sum, but still demands hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. And companies aren't paying those fees because Hillary is a compelling public speaker.
Well yeah. They are insiders, part of the establishment, the man, etc...
But that is who I want in that office right now.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Brain on March 01, 2016, 04:49:57 PM
Post by: The Brain on March 01, 2016, 04:49:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 04:49:08 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 01, 2016, 04:45:53 PM
Well, yes, of course - but she and Bill have perfected the art.
Bill has earned over $100 million in speaking fees since leaving office. Hillary has been in office so not able to earn such a large sum, but still demands hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. And companies aren't paying those fees because Hillary is a compelling public speaker.
Well yeah. They are insiders, part of the establishment, the man, etc...
But that is who I want in that office right now.
Why not King George while you're at it?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 04:50:15 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 04:50:15 PM
It's a lot more dignified than the way Sarah Palin has monetized her brush with political fame.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 04:51:24 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 04:51:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 04:40:03 PM
Bill cheated on his wife, committed perjury, possibly suborned perjury, and worst of all, he was a liveral.
I was never interested in Whitewater, so no idea what the truth is there.
Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Impeachment of Bill Clinton was 1998 (note that the impeachment came out of the investigation of Whitewater). What were they talking about between 1992 and 1998?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 04:53:00 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 04:53:00 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2016, 04:49:57 PM
Why not King George while you're at it?
Well he has been dead since 1952. And he is not Constitutionally eligible. And he is not a US insider. But besides that I might consider him. I understand he can give a hell of a speech.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 04:53:10 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 04:50:15 PM
It's a lot more dignified than the way Sarah Palin has monetized her brush with political fame.
We don't know that because we don't have Hillary's transcripts.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 04:53:47 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 04:53:47 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 04:40:03 PM
Bill cheated on his wife, committed perjury, possibly suborned perjury, and worst of all, he was a liveral.
I was never interested in Whitewater, so no idea what the truth is there.
Fair enough - that's pretty much the truth. It's a bit of a journey to draw a line from that to Hillary being a cold evil bitch though.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2016, 04:57:03 PM
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2016, 04:57:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 04:53:00 PMQuote from: The Brain on March 01, 2016, 04:49:57 PM
Why not King George while you're at it?
Well he has been dead since 1952. And he is not Constitutionally eligible. And he is not a US insider. But besides that I might consider him. I understand he can give a hell of a speech.
:D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 04:59:06 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 04:59:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 04:51:24 PM
Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Impeachment of Bill Clinton was 1998 (note that the impeachment came out of the investigation of Whitewater). What were they talking about between 1992 and 1998?
Gays in the military,
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 05:01:44 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 05:01:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 04:53:47 PM
Fair enough - that's pretty much the truth. It's a bit of a journey to draw a line from that to Hillary being a cold evil bitch though.
I think that's mostly built on the belief that it was a marriage of opportunity for her and she didn't care about Bill's fidelity. Well, the cold part. Evil is automatic for anyone with a (D) attached to their name.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 05:05:07 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 05:05:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 05:01:44 PM
I think that's mostly built on the belief that it was a marriage of opportunity for her and she didn't care about Bill's fidelity. Well, the cold part. Evil is automatic for anyone with a (D) attached to their name.
Seems like a reasonable analysis, though it also seems fairly insubstantial.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 05:06:41 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 05:06:41 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 05:01:44 PM
I think that's mostly built on the belief that it was a marriage of opportunity for her and she didn't care about Bill's fidelity. Well, the cold part. Evil is automatic for anyone with a (D) attached to their name.
Don't forget the things she said about Bill's accusers.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2016, 05:11:27 PM
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2016, 05:11:27 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 05:05:07 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 05:01:44 PM
I think that's mostly built on the belief that it was a marriage of opportunity for her and she didn't care about Bill's fidelity. Well, the cold part. Evil is automatic for anyone with a (D) attached to their name.
Seems like a reasonable analysis, though it also seems fairly insubstantial.
It also leads to a bizarre place where one has to ask so was the right thing for Hillary to honor her vows and stay married or was she supposed to dishonor them and divorce Bill? What would she have done if she wasn't so cold and calculating?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 05:12:29 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 05:12:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 05:05:07 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 05:01:44 PM
I think that's mostly built on the belief that it was a marriage of opportunity for her and she didn't care about Bill's fidelity. Well, the cold part. Evil is automatic for anyone with a (D) attached to their name.
Seems like a reasonable analysis, though it also seems fairly insubstantial.
Well, the description "cold evil bitch" isn't all that common. I don't think I'd heard it put so starkly before today.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:16:50 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:16:50 PM
There's also the fact that she leveraged her position as first lady of Arkansas into a partnership in a locally important law firm.
I'll probably end up voting for her too, but all the parlaying she did of her marriage is the least appealing part of her to me.
I'll probably end up voting for her too, but all the parlaying she did of her marriage is the least appealing part of her to me.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 05:37:07 PM
Post by: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 05:37:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:16:50 PMH. Clinton was also given a seat on Walmart's Board of Directors for 6 years as First Lady of Arkansas until 1992. Good deal. ;)
There's also the fact that she leveraged her position as first lady of Arkansas into a partnership in a locally important law firm.
I'll probably end up voting for her too, but all the parlaying she did of her marriage is the least appealing part of her to me.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on March 01, 2016, 05:37:07 PM
Post by: dps on March 01, 2016, 05:37:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:16:50 PM
There's also the fact that she leveraged her position as first lady of Arkansas into a partnership in a locally important law firm.
I'll probably end up voting for her too, but all the parlaying she did of her marriage is the least appealing part of her to me.
Take that part away, and all you're left with is a money-grubbing shyster.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 05:53:19 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 05:53:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 05:06:41 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 05:01:44 PM
I think that's mostly built on the belief that it was a marriage of opportunity for her and she didn't care about Bill's fidelity. Well, the cold part. Evil is automatic for anyone with a (D) attached to their name.
Don't forget the things she said about Bill's accusers.
I don't know what she said about Bill's accusers... what did she say?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 05:57:45 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 05:57:45 PM
Oh, never mind then.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 06:09:13 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 06:09:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:16:50 PM
There's also the fact that she leveraged her position as first lady of Arkansas into a partnership in a locally important law firm.
This is not intended as a defense of Hillary, but it was my impression that relatives of important politicians in the US tend to sit on boards and do well in various areas of business related to politics. F. ex. I would expect that plenty of Bushes sit on boards and have had opportunities to join companies that benefit from political contacts for example. I guess it's less common for it to be the wife rather than the sons, daughters, and siblings though.
... or is this perception off?
QuoteI'll probably end up voting for her too, but all the parlaying she did of her marriage is the least appealing part of her to me.
It'll be interesting to see where it goes... very curious to see what strategy Trump takes after he gets the nomination and to what degree he tacks to the centre (and how does so). I see some of you guys here on languish as a bit of a bellwether of the American political climate - IMO Trump will have to win back voters like you that he's alienated during the primaries to win - so I'll be very interested in following your view and if/ how it evolves during the campaign.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 06:09:41 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 06:09:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 05:57:45 PM
Oh, never mind then.
That doesn't sound particularly egregious to me :)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 06:10:17 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 06:10:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:16:50 PM
There's also the fact that she leveraged her position as first lady of Arkansas into a partnership in a locally important law firm.
I'll probably end up voting for her too, but all the parlaying she did of her marriage is the least appealing part of her to me.
:hmm:
she's a yale law school grad, worked at rose law firm as an associate, and eventually became partner. though, wasn't able to find how long she was associate. also, the firm has 32 attorneys -- it's not very big, and it doesn't seem to be an elite boutique firm, either. this doesn't seem like "leveraged her position as first lady of Arkansas into a partnership." while I'm sure her family's connections helped, what else is a professional woman interested in her own career to do? take a mediocre job and haul ass for a decade out of principle?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 06:13:11 PM
Post by: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 06:13:11 PM
Yeah, it is absolutely par for the course (so to speak) for a law firm to take someone's significant connections into account, because connections are how law firms get clients, and getting clients is how firms make money. Not really remarkable - that's just the way of the world.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 06:32:57 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 06:32:57 PM
not to mention hillary's ambitious were absolutely shot down in the early years. yale law grad who ended up at some middling arkansas firm? good god. it's not even the best firm in the state
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2016, 06:34:15 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2016, 06:34:15 PM
Webster Hubbell was partner at Rose. So not the highest of bars. Pretty confident she could have made that on her own had that been her life's amibition
Edit: yeah what LC said.
Edit: yeah what LC said.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 06:50:46 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 04:59:06 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 04:51:24 PM
Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Impeachment of Bill Clinton was 1998 (note that the impeachment came out of the investigation of Whitewater). What were they talking about between 1992 and 1998?
Gays in the military,ObamaHillaryCare, Bill's love life(starting with Jennifer Flowers in campaign), OJ, Rodney King, the Chicago Bulls, Boris Yeltsin...
C'mon, now. Let's not be coy. Clinton murdering people! Clinton stealing! Hillary Clinton is a practicing witch! Clinton was a drug kingpin! Clinton secret police! Clinton plot launch a Marxist coup! Sending Money to the Contras.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 06:51:54 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 06:51:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2016, 05:06:41 PMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2016, 05:01:44 PM
I think that's mostly built on the belief that it was a marriage of opportunity for her and she didn't care about Bill's fidelity. Well, the cold part. Evil is automatic for anyone with a (D) attached to their name.
Don't forget the things she said about Bill's accusers.
Yeah, I think she might have mention that the people who said her husband sent black helicopters after there were "crazy". How hurtful. :(
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 06:52:54 PM
Post by: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 06:52:54 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 06:32:57 PM
not to mention hillary's ambitious were absolutely shot down in the early years. yale law grad who ended up at some middling arkansas firm? good god. it's not even the best firm in the state
That was the sacrifice she made to marry Bill Clinton, leave the East Coast, and follow him to Arkansas. Hillary Rodham would have been quite successful on her own, but not world domination successful.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 06:53:38 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 06:53:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 06:09:13 PM
This is not intended as a defense of Hillary, but it was my impression that relatives of important politicians in the US tend to sit on boards and do well in various areas of business related to politics. F. ex. I would expect that plenty of Bushes sit on boards and have had opportunities to join companies that benefit from political contacts for example. I guess it's less common for it to be the wife rather than the sons, daughters, and siblings though.
... or is this perception off?
I think this is valid. Then what? I don't think anyone is claiming Hillary is the first person in American history to leverage family political connections.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 06:58:59 PM
Post by: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 06:09:13 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:16:50 PM
There's also the fact that she leveraged her position as first lady of Arkansas into a partnership in a locally important law firm.
This is not intended as a defense of Hillary, but it was my impression that relatives of important politicians in the US tend to sit on boards and do well in various areas of business related to politics. F. ex. I would expect that plenty of Bushes sit on boards and have had opportunities to join companies that benefit from political contacts for example. I guess it's less common for it to be the wife rather than the sons, daughters, and siblings though.
... or is this perception off?
That's been the rule throughout history. Most recently, it was not a coincidence that Michelle Obama got a ~$300K/yr Vice President of Community Affairs position right after Barack got elected to the U.S. Senate. She also got added to a major Walmart supplier's Board of Directors for an additional ~$50K/yr. :showoff:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 07:00:56 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 07:00:56 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 06:52:54 PMThat was the sacrifice she made to marry Bill Clinton, leave the East Coast, and follow him to Arkansas. Hillary Rodham would have been quite successful on her own, but not world domination successful.
she had no idea that the guy she married would become president... her sacrifice was, at the time, just that -- she sacrificed her own career for marriage, then did the best she could with the hand she was dealt. and she kept doing the best she could with each new hand, until now: presidency.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 07:03:40 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 07:03:40 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 06:58:59 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 01, 2016, 06:09:13 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:16:50 PM
There's also the fact that she leveraged her position as first lady of Arkansas into a partnership in a locally important law firm.
This is not intended as a defense of Hillary, but it was my impression that relatives of important politicians in the US tend to sit on boards and do well in various areas of business related to politics. F. ex. I would expect that plenty of Bushes sit on boards and have had opportunities to join companies that benefit from political contacts for example. I guess it's less common for it to be the wife rather than the sons, daughters, and siblings though.
... or is this perception off?
That's been the rule throughout history. Most recently, it was not a coincidence that Michelle Obama got a ~$300K/yr Vice President of Community Affairs position right after Barack got elected to the U.S. Senate. She also got added to a major Walmart supplier's Board of Directors for an additional ~$50K/yr. :showoff:
Not quite, but whatever.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/michelle-obamas-salary/
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 07:04:09 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 06:10:17 PM
:hmm:
she's a yale law school grad, worked at rose law firm as an associate, and eventually became partner. though, wasn't able to find how long she was associate. also, the firm has 32 attorneys -- it's not very big, and it doesn't seem to be an elite boutique firm, either. this doesn't seem like "leveraged her position as first lady of Arkansas into a partnership." while I'm sure her family's connections helped, what else is a professional woman interested in her own career to do? take a mediocre job and haul ass for a decade out of principle?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Law_Firm
My impression, supported by this wiki article is that Rose is *the* firm for big clients litigating issues with the state government.
All it says about her making partner is "soon."
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 07:08:59 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 07:08:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 07:03:40 PM
Not quite, but whatever.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/michelle-obamas-salary/
What part are you disputing? "Right after Obama was elected state senator?" Your own link says she made 316K.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 07:12:57 PM
Post by: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 07:00:56 PMQuote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2016, 06:52:54 PMThat was the sacrifice she made to marry Bill Clinton, leave the East Coast, and follow him to Arkansas. Hillary Rodham would have been quite successful on her own, but not world domination successful.
she had no idea that the guy she married would become president... her sacrifice was, at the time, just that -- she sacrificed her own career for marriage, then did the best she could with the hand she was dealt. and she kept doing the best she could with each new hand, until now: presidency.
No. It has been well-documented via research and interviews that Bill was planning for the Presidency throughout his teens and college years, and Hillary told people he would be President before marrying him as people continually hassled her about why she was wasting her time with a womanizing Southern hick. Both their lives have been very well calculated, even with the sexual issues.
You don't get to be the youngest Governor in the nation and then one of the youngest Presidents ever by having no idea what you are doing and having a wife/partner who has no idea what you are doing.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 07:19:15 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 07:19:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 07:08:59 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 07:03:40 PM
Not quite, but whatever.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/michelle-obamas-salary/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/michelle-obamas-salary/)
What part are you disputing? "Right after Obama was elected state senator?" Your own link says she made 316K.
He said she made 300/k a year. Not 300k in one year. There's a difference.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 07:20:50 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 07:20:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 07:04:09 PMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Law_Firm
My impression, supported by this wiki article is that Rose is *the* firm for big clients litigating issues with the state government.
All it says about her making partner is "soon."
yeah, I saw the same wiki page. I'm sure this middling arkansas firm does well for itself, but that doesn't mean it's elite or the best in the state. besides, as mentioned, she had pretty great credentials given that she came from yale. the legal field is utterly obsessed with prestige. hell, some drunk harvard grad could maybe walk into the best north dakota firm and land a job.
actually, clinton's wiki page shows she joined in 1977 and was made partner in 1979 (after bill became governor). between graduating in 1973 until 1977, she had a pretty strong career (including being a law professor). makes sense that the partners would want to snatch her up and keep her with the firm -- she was very clearly on the rise. this is way different than "leverag[ing] her position as first lady of Arkansas."
@phil :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 07:31:12 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 07:31:12 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 01, 2016, 07:20:50 PM
yeah, I saw the same wiki page. I'm sure this middling arkansas firm does well for itself, but that doesn't mean it's elite or the best in the state. besides, as mentioned, she had pretty great credentials given that she came from yale. the legal field is utterly obsessed with prestige. hell, some drunk harvard grad could maybe walk into the best north dakota firm and land a job.
actually, clinton's wiki page shows she joined in 1977 and was made partner in 1979 (after bill became governor). between graduating in 1973 until 1977, she had a pretty strong career (including being a law professor). makes sense that the partners would want to snatch her up and keep her with the firm -- she was very clearly on the rise. this is way different than "leverag[ing] her position as first lady of Arkansas."
@phil :D
So you read that Rose is "the ultimate establishment law firm" and conclude it's a middling firm, then you read she made partner after two years, in the same year Bill was elected governor, and conclude that's way different than leveraging her position.
Might it be time to cut your losses? And consider a different career field? Maybe criminal defense? :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 08:03:13 PM
Post by: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 08:03:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 07:31:12 PM
So you read that Rose is "the ultimate establishment law firm" and conclude it's a middling firm, then you read she made partner after two years, in the same year Bill was elected governor, and conclude that's way different than leveraging her position.
Might it be time to cut your losses? And consider a different career field? Maybe criminal defense? :P
I think you may well be putting too much stock in a wiki article by some anonymous guy on the internet. I think LaCroix is overstating the chances that HRC would have made partner at Rose by 1878 had she not been married to the governor, but the "the ultimate establishment law firm" is from Carl Bernstein in a bio of HRC, not the evaluation of someone who would necessarily know an "ultimate establishment law firm" if it bit him in the ass. I bet AmScip could say with more assurance whether it was a step up or down for HRC in 1977.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 08:10:02 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 08:10:02 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 08:03:13 PM:hmm: I guess when you live long enough, centuries just all blend together.
I think LaCroix is overstating the chances that HRC would have made partner at Rose by 1878 had she not been married to the governor,
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 08:36:32 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 08:36:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 06:13:11 PM
Yeah, it is absolutely par for the course (so to speak) for a law firm to take someone's significant connections into account, because connections are how law firms get clients, and getting clients is how firms make money. Not really remarkable - that's just the way of the world.
I know Canadians would never tolerate a politician leveraging family connections to reach high office.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 08:37:59 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2016, 08:37:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 08:03:13 PM
I think you may well be putting too much stock in a wiki article by some anonymous guy on the internet. I think LaCroix is overstating the chances that HRC would have made partner at Rose by 1878 had she not been married to the governor, but the "the ultimate establishment law firm" is from Carl Bernstein in a bio of HRC, not the evaluation of someone who would necessarily know an "ultimate establishment law firm" if it bit him in the ass. I bet AmScip could say with more assurance whether it was a step up or down for HRC in 1977.
I would expect him to be able to give a couple paragraphs description of all the major Washington firms.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on March 01, 2016, 11:19:39 PM
Post by: viper37 on March 01, 2016, 11:19:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 08:36:32 PMyes, we're totally not like that.Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 06:13:11 PM
Yeah, it is absolutely par for the course (so to speak) for a law firm to take someone's significant connections into account, because connections are how law firms get clients, and getting clients is how firms make money. Not really remarkable - that's just the way of the world.
I know Canadians would never tolerate a politician leveraging family connections to reach high office.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 02, 2016, 12:47:19 AM
Post by: LaCroix on March 02, 2016, 12:47:19 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 08:03:13 PMI think LaCroix is overstating the chances that HRC would have made partner at Rose by 1878 had she not been married to the governor
oh, I think the partners' decision to fast-track her to partner was absolutely influenced by bill's governorship. what I'm saying is that she definitely had credentials where that wasn't the craziest move ever. remember, the claim was that she leveraged her first ladyship to become partner.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on March 02, 2016, 06:00:11 AM
Post by: grumbler on March 02, 2016, 06:00:11 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 02, 2016, 12:47:19 AMQuote from: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 08:03:13 PMI think LaCroix is overstating the chances that HRC would have made partner at Rose by 1878 had she not been married to the governor
oh, I think the partners' decision to fast-track her to partner was absolutely influenced by bill's governorship. what I'm saying is that she definitely had credentials where that wasn't the craziest move ever. remember, the claim was that she leveraged her first ladyship to become partner.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Malthus on March 02, 2016, 10:25:08 AM
Post by: Malthus on March 02, 2016, 10:25:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 08:36:32 PMQuote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 06:13:11 PM
Yeah, it is absolutely par for the course (so to speak) for a law firm to take someone's significant connections into account, because connections are how law firms get clients, and getting clients is how firms make money. Not really remarkable - that's just the way of the world.
I know Canadians would never tolerate a politician leveraging family connections to reach high office.
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 08:03:13 PM
I think you may well be putting too much stock in a wiki article by some anonymous guy on the internet.
Indeed - like many wiki articles about private businesses it reads like a PR piece. Which is basically what it is.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2016, 01:46:51 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2016, 01:46:51 PM
I looked up some Arkansas law firms and the only name I recognized was Kutak Rock, a national firm focusing on heartland cities.
Rose is almost certainly one of the top firms in the state, but at the risk of sounding a bit snotty, the phrase "elite Arkansas law firm" is a contradiction in terms. Arkansas is not a high-powered legal mecca, not even on a regional basis. Even the top firms in Little Rock don't draw many top flight Yale Law grads and absent some personality problem, it would be a no brainer hire.
Rose is almost certainly one of the top firms in the state, but at the risk of sounding a bit snotty, the phrase "elite Arkansas law firm" is a contradiction in terms. Arkansas is not a high-powered legal mecca, not even on a regional basis. Even the top firms in Little Rock don't draw many top flight Yale Law grads and absent some personality problem, it would be a no brainer hire.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 01:49:12 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2016, 08:36:32 PMQuote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 06:13:11 PM
Yeah, it is absolutely par for the course (so to speak) for a law firm to take someone's significant connections into account, because connections are how law firms get clients, and getting clients is how firms make money. Not really remarkable - that's just the way of the world.
I know Canadians would never tolerate a politician leveraging family connections to reach high office.
That may be one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Well done. :)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2016, 01:52:40 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2016, 01:52:40 PM
The other thing to understand about firms like Rose is that they don't follow the highly competitive and leveraged "Cravath system" where associates are brutally winnowed out on the track to partner. Their partner:associate ratio is something like 2:1. The model is that you of there and you don't screw up, you make partner.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 01:57:09 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 01:57:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 06:53:38 PM
I think this is valid. Then what? I don't think anyone is claiming Hillary is the first person in American history to leverage family political connections.
Well, mostly that holding leveraging family connections against Clinton is a perfectly fine point of view, but I'd expect it to also be held against Bush, Trump, and most of the rest of the US political class (in both parties) who play that game.
So, like, "I dislike Clinton because she's deeply enmeshed in the political system and has been adept at benefiting from it, as evidenced by the way she's leveraged family political connections" is perfectly legitimate IMO. "I think Clinton is singularly manipulative and dishonest because the way she leveraged her family political connections" makes less sense to me.
I'm not so much trying to make an argument here as trying to figure out the nature and the sources of the animus against Clinton, since it's not something I've followed through her career.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 03:26:54 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 03:26:54 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2016, 01:52:40 PM
The other thing to understand about firms like Rose is that they don't follow the highly competitive and leveraged "Cravath system" where associates are brutally winnowed out on the track to partner. Their partner:associate ratio is something like 2:1. The model is that you of there and you don't screw up, you make partner.
This is useful information.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 04:01:36 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 01:57:09 PM
Well, mostly that holding leveraging family connections against Clinton is a perfectly fine point of view, but I'd expect it to also be held against Bush, Trump, and most of the rest of the US political class (in both parties) who play that game.
So, like, "I dislike Clinton because she's deeply enmeshed in the political system and has been adept at benefiting from it, as evidenced by the way she's leveraged family political connections" is perfectly legitimate IMO. "I think Clinton is singularly manipulative and dishonest because the way she leveraged her family political connections" makes less sense to me.
I'm not so much trying to make an argument here as trying to figure out the nature and the sources of the animus against Clinton, since it's not something I've followed through her career.
How has Trump leveraged family connections?
IMO there is something slightly more creepy about deciding who you will marry (and not divorce) based on calculations about possible future benefits to your ambitions than there is to being born the son or daughter of a big shot.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:04:03 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:04:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 04:01:36 PM
IMO there is something slightly more creepy about deciding who you will marry (and not divorce) based on calculations about possible future benefits to your ambitions
So...most marriages in history?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 04:21:45 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 04:21:45 PM
The Hillary vote has infected Valmy's brain :(
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:23:29 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:23:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 04:21:45 PM
The Hillary vote has infected Valmy's brain :(
It is true though. I don't get the demand for purity, especially from Yi of all people.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 04:24:56 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 04:24:56 PM
Happy Independence Day btw :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:27:47 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:27:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 04:24:56 PM
Happy Independence Day btw :D
Thanks!
QuoteThe Unanimous
Declaration of Independence
made by the
Delegates of the People of Texas
in General Convention
at the town of Washington
on the 2nd day of March 1836.
When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.
When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the everready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants.
When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.
When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness.
Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken, of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth.
The Mexican government, by its colonization laws, invited and induced the Anglo-American population of Texas to colonize its wilderness under the pledged faith of a written constitution, that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America.
In this expectation they have been cruelly disappointed, inasmuch as the Mexican nation has acquiesced in the late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers us the cruel alternative, either to abandon our homes, acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood.
It has sacrificed our welfare to the state of Coahuila, by which our interests have been continually depressed through a jealous and partial course of legislation, carried on at a far distant seat of government, by a hostile majority, in an unknown tongue, and this too, notwithstanding we have petitioned in the humblest terms for the establishment of a separate state government, and have, in accordance with the provisions of the national constitution, presented to the general Congress a republican constitution, which was, without just cause, contemptuously rejected.
It incarcerated in a dungeon, for a long time, one of our citizens, for no other cause but a zealous endeavor to procure the acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state government.
It has failed and refused to secure, on a firm basis, the right of trial by jury, that palladium of civil liberty, and only safe guarantee for the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.
It has failed to establish any public system of education, although possessed of almost boundless resources, (the public domain,) and although it is an axiom in political science, that unless a people are educated and enlightened, it is idle to expect the continuance of civil liberty, or the capacity for self government.
It has suffered the military commandants, stationed among us, to exercise arbitrary acts of oppression and tyrrany, thus trampling upon the most sacred rights of the citizens, and rendering the military superior to the civil power.
It has dissolved, by force of arms, the state Congress of Coahuila and Texas, and obliged our representatives to fly for their lives from the seat of government, thus depriving us of the fundamental political right of representation.
It has demanded the surrender of a number of our citizens, and ordered military detachments to seize and carry them into the Interior for trial, in contempt of the civil authorities, and in defiance of the laws and the constitution.
It has made piratical attacks upon our commerce, by commissioning foreign desperadoes, and authorizing them to seize our vessels, and convey the property of our citizens to far distant ports for confiscation.
It denies us the right of worshipping the Almighty according to the dictates of our own conscience, by the support of a national religion, calculated to promote the temporal interest of its human functionaries, rather than the glory of the true and living God.
It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.
It has invaded our country both by sea and by land, with intent to lay waste our territory, and drive us from our homes; and has now a large mercenary army advancing, to carry on against us a war of extermination.
It has, through its emissaries, incited the merciless savage, with the tomahawk and scalping knife, to massacre the inhabitants of our defenseless frontiers.
It hath been, during the whole time of our connection with it, the contemptible sport and victim of successive military revolutions, and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of a weak, corrupt, and tyrranical government.
These, and other grievances, were patiently borne by the people of Texas, untill they reached that point at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. We then took up arms in defence of the national constitution. We appealed to our Mexican brethren for assistance. Our appeal has been made in vain. Though months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been heard from the Interior. We are, therefore, forced to the melancholy conclusion, that the Mexican people have acquiesced in the destruction of their liberty, and the substitution therfor of a military government; that they are unfit to be free, and incapable of self government.
The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation.
We, therefore, the delegates with plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resolve and declare, that our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, Sovereign, and independent republic, and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently commit the issue to the decision of the Supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations.
Richard Ellis, President
of the Convention and Delegate
from Red River.
Charles B. Stewart
Tho. Barnett
John S. D. Byrom
Francis Ruis
J. Antonio Navarro
Jesse B. Badgett
Wm D. Lacy
William Menifee
Jn. Fisher
Matthew Caldwell
William Motley
Lorenzo de Zavala
Stephen H. Everett
George W. Smyth
Elijah Stapp
Claiborne West
Wm. B. Scates
M. B. Menard
A. B. Hardin
J. W. Burton
Thos. J. Gazley
R. M. Coleman
Sterling C. Robertson
James Collinsworth
Edwin Waller
Asa Brigham
Geo. C. Childress
Bailey Hardeman
Rob. Potter
Thomas Jefferson Rusk
Chas. S. Taylor
John S. Roberts
Robert Hamilton
Collin McKinney
Albert H. Latimer
James Power
Sam Houston
David Thomas
Edwd. Conrad
Martin Parmer
Edwin O. Legrand
Stephen W. Blount
Jms. Gaines
Wm. Clark, Jr.
Sydney O. Pennington
Wm. Carrol Crawford
Jno. Turner
Benj. Briggs Goodrich
G. W. Barnett
James G. Swisher
Jesse Grimes
S. Rhoads Fisher
John W. Moore
John W. Bower
Saml. A. Maverick (from Bejar)
Sam P. Carson
A. Briscoe
J. B. Woods
H. S. Kimble, Secretary
-_-
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 04:42:23 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 04:42:23 PM
I miss when you guys elected real and honest people like Kennedys and Roosevelts and not these corrupt Clintons and Sanderseseses.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:47:08 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:47:08 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 04:42:23 PM
I miss when you guys elected real and honest people like Kennedys and Roosevelts and not these corrupt Clintons and Sanderseseses.
:lol:
Well done.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: FunkMonk on March 02, 2016, 05:02:16 PM
Post by: FunkMonk on March 02, 2016, 05:02:16 PM
:D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 05:10:46 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 05:10:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 04:01:36 PM
How has Trump leveraged family connections?
Inheriting and "borrowing" millions from your father and using that money to "buy" whatever politicians necessary to build his business empire. It's basically the other half of the symbiotic relationship that's considered the problem. In one instance, a person has political family connections and they help their career; in another the person has family money and uses it to buy political connections to help their career.
QuoteIMO there is something slightly more creepy about deciding who you will marry (and not divorce) based on calculations about possible future benefits to your ambitions than there is to being born the son or daughter of a big shot.
Ah, okay! I hadn't realized that this was the crux of it, but that makes sense. So the idea here is that the only (or primary) reason Hillary didn't divorce Bill after the whole Lewinsky debacle was to fuel her personal political ambition? And that their marriage was primarily about their ambition, even before that?
Is there a reasonable body of evidence to imply that that is the case? Personally, I find it very fraught to judge that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 05:12:13 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 05:12:13 PM
Like a signed affadavit?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 05:13:20 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 05:13:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 05:12:13 PM
Like a signed affadavit?
There's a signed affidavit? What does it say and how did it come about?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 05:17:41 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 05:17:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 05:13:20 PM
There's a signed affidavit? What does it say and how did it come about?
Not that I know of.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 05:21:25 PM
Post by: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 05:21:25 PM
I hope Hitlary becomes president. :)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: MadImmortalMan on March 02, 2016, 05:23:56 PM
Post by: MadImmortalMan on March 02, 2016, 05:23:56 PM
I predict that whoever becomes president, it will not benefit me in any significant way.
But, if it's Trump, I might get nuked. :lol:
But, if it's Trump, I might get nuked. :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 05:35:24 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 05:35:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:47:08 PMQuote from: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 04:42:23 PM
I miss when you guys elected real and honest people like Kennedys and Roosevelts and not these corrupt Clintons and Sanderseseses.
:lol:
Well done.
Might have been more poignant if I dropped the last bit with Sanders. You made a phenomenal joke in another thread, so I thought I'd try and reciprocate.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 06:49:19 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 06:49:19 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 02, 2016, 05:23:56 PM
I predict that whoever becomes president, it will not benefit me in any significant way.
But, if it's Trump, I might get nuked. :lol:
Cruz or Trump, I am building a bomb shelter or moving to Tahiti with PeeDee either way. They scare the beejebus out of me.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 07:05:41 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 07:05:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 05:17:41 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 05:13:20 PM
There's a signed affidavit? What does it say and how did it come about?
Not that I know of.
Oh I think I see what you're getting at.
I was wondering if there was any reason to suspect Hillary stayed with Bill for purely mercenary reasons beyond the very basics of the situation - that he had sex with other women, and that he was president at the time?
She clearly stayed with him after the Lewinsky affair - is there anything that suggests that she did so for coldly calculated self-serving reasons rather than, say, "for the children", or because they worked through their problems and she forgave him because she loves him, or because she genuinely didn't care that he slept around but had to pretend she did, or some other reason?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 07:28:37 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 07:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 07:05:41 PM
Oh I think I see what you're getting at.
I was wondering if there was any reason to suspect Hillary stayed with Bill for purely mercenary reasons beyond the very basics of the situation - that he had sex with other women, and that he was president at the time?
She clearly stayed with him after the Lewinsky affair - is there anything that suggests that she did so for coldly calculated self-serving reasons rather than, say, "for the children", or because they worked through their problems and she forgave him because she loves him, or because she genuinely didn't care that he slept around but had to pretend she did, or some other reason?
Is there anything that suggests she did it for the children, etc., etc?
She "stood by her man" at a time when the bimbo irruptions were threatening to scupper his campaign. He clearly benefited. Later she ran for office and clearly benefited from association with Bill as well as his active campaigning.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 07:50:13 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 07:50:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 07:28:37 PM
Is there anything that suggests she did it for the children, etc., etc?
She "stood by her man" at a time when the bimbo irruptions were threatening to scupper his campaign. He clearly benefited. Later she ran for office and clearly benefited from association with Bill as well as his active campaigning.
Sure. I'm not making an argument here, I'm just trying to understand what facts are being used to reach the conclusion.
Bottom line: it sounds to me the evidence we have for Hillary's motivation for staying in her marriage is that she didn't divorce him. We have no insight into what her actual motivations were, only conjecture.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 08:03:04 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 07:50:13 PM
Sure. I'm not making an argument here, I'm just trying to understand what facts are being used to reach the conclusion.
Bottom line: it sounds to me the evidence we have for Hillary's motivation for staying in her marriage is that she didn't divorce him. We have no insight into what her actual motivations were, only conjecture.
We have more than that. We have a quid and we have a quo. We're only debating the pro.
I have a hunch you would be less concerned about distinguishing between "insight" and "conjecture" if we were having a similar discussion in a different context, such as, for example, why people are voting for Donald Trump or why Wubya invaded Iraq.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: MadImmortalMan on March 02, 2016, 08:07:09 PM
Post by: MadImmortalMan on March 02, 2016, 08:07:09 PM
I think speculating about their reasons for not divorcing is rather distasteful. In a none of my business sort of way.
Sure, it might be a mercenary deal with the devil. But still. None of my business.
Sure, it might be a mercenary deal with the devil. But still. None of my business.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 08:10:17 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 08:10:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 08:03:04 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 07:50:13 PM
Sure. I'm not making an argument here, I'm just trying to understand what facts are being used to reach the conclusion.
Bottom line: it sounds to me the evidence we have for Hillary's motivation for staying in her marriage is that she didn't divorce him. We have no insight into what her actual motivations were, only conjecture.
We have more than that. We have a quid and we have a quo. We're only debating the pro.
I have a hunch you would be less concerned about distinguishing between "insight" and "conjecture" if we were having a similar discussion in a different context, such as, for example, why people are voting for Donald Trump or why Wubya invaded Iraq.
Seriously? We are comparing why people vote for Donald Trump and why we invaded Iraq to why a woman maintained her marriage?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 08:11:18 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 08:11:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 08:10:17 PM
Seriously? We are comparing why people vote for Donald Trump and why we invaded Iraq to why a woman maintained her marriage?
You can if you want to. So far just Jacob and I are.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2016, 08:13:19 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2016, 08:13:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 08:10:17 PM
Seriously? We are comparing why people vote for Donald Trump and why we invaded Iraq to why a woman maintained her marriage?
He's not saying there's the same answer for each question.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: frunk on March 02, 2016, 08:17:00 PM
Post by: frunk on March 02, 2016, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 08:03:04 PM
We have more than that. We have a quid and we have a quo. We're only debating the pro.
I have a hunch you would be less concerned about distinguishing between "insight" and "conjecture" if we were having a similar discussion in a different context, such as, for example, why people are voting for Donald Trump or why Wubya invaded Iraq.
I think if this was an unusual occurrence then it would merit more investigation. It isn't that unusual for a woman to stick with their husband after infidelity, particularly if the husband is in a position of power. It could be to advance their own agenda, but so what? Good for them, they are taking a crappy situation and trying to make the best of it. I don't see it materially changing anything.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 08:23:00 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 08:23:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 08:03:04 PM
We have more than that. We have a quid and we have a quo. We're only debating the pro.
So the fact that it was better for Bill that they didn't divorce (not disputed), and that it would likely benefit her career (as it seems to have) means that it is not possible for her to have made the decision for personal reasons?
If we consider the hypothetical (however likely or unlikely) that Hillary decided to stay with Bill out of reasons of love/ forgiveness. What would Hillary have had to do in that scenario, what would have had to happen, for you to consider that she wasn't motivated for cynical careerist reasons?
QuoteI have a hunch you would be less concerned about distinguishing between "insight" and "conjecture" if we were having a similar discussion in a different context, such as, for example, why people are voting for Donald Trump or why Wubya invaded Iraq.
What do you mean?
I mean, I get the part where you think I'm biased and everything I say is calibrated to disingenuously support "my side," but if you had a point beyond that I didn't get it.
For the record, I think G.W. Bush invaded Iraq because he was convinced by his advisors that it would show American strength and advance American interests (political and economical) in the region; and I think people are voting for Trump for a variety of individual reasons, but that a common theme is being sick of the prevailing political class and liking his personal style.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 08:26:15 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 08:26:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 08:10:17 PM
Seriously? We are comparing why people vote for Donald Trump and why we invaded Iraq to why a woman maintained her marriage?
Nothing wrong with comparing things, IMO.
In fact, the only time I got banned from EUOT was because I defended comparing different things to highlight both the differences and the similarities. That's kind of the point. "Comparing" doesn't have to mean "saying they're pretty much the same thing", even if claiming that is frequently used as a rhetorical device to attack opponents in arguments.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 09:20:39 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 09:20:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2016, 08:23:00 PM
So the fact that it was better for Bill that they didn't divorce (not disputed), and that it would likely benefit her career (as it seems to have) means that it is not possible for her to have made the decision for personal reasons?
Unless we're talking math or physics anything is possible.
QuoteIf we consider the hypothetical (however likely or unlikely) that Hillary decided to stay with Bill out of reasons of love/ forgiveness. What would Hillary have had to do in that scenario, what would have had to happen, for you to consider that she wasn't motivated for cynical careerist reasons?
Beats me.
QuoteWhat do you mean?
I mean, I get the part where you think I'm biased and everything I say is calibrated to disingenuously support "my side," but if you had a point beyond that I didn't get it.
I mean we discuss the motivations of public people all the time. Yet in this particular you seem to have an issue with it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on March 02, 2016, 09:25:45 PM
Post by: Monoriu on March 02, 2016, 09:25:45 PM
The good news is that Sanders can be written off. He merely met expectations when he needed to beat expectations on Super Tuesday. The timing of his decision to drop out does not matter any more.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2016, 09:33:01 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2016, 09:33:01 PM
Frank Sinatra banged Nancy Reagan at the old Cap Center during the Inauguration Gala, 1981. #InauguralBalls
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 09:47:15 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 09:47:15 PM
Well, keep in mind that dogma of Hillary Clinton being a cold calculating bitch-queen long predates the impeachment. If she had divorced Clinton she would have done so for cold, calculating political reasons as well.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 03, 2016, 02:29:57 AM
Post by: garbon on March 03, 2016, 02:29:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 09:47:15 PM
Well, keep in mind that dogma of Hillary Clinton being a cold calculating bitch-queen long predates the impeachment. If she had divorced Clinton she would have done so for cold, calculating political reasons as well.
Yeah I raised that earlier that she was a bit damnew if she did and dawned if she didn't. Still fun to see in the wider world, conservatives saying she was terrible for honoring her marriage vows. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 03, 2016, 02:36:33 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 03, 2016, 02:36:33 AM
I like that early in the discussion BB thought it casts aspersion on Bernie's moral character that he is divorced. Now, it is a point against Clinton that she did not divorce. Sure, not exactly the same people are making those points but it is still funny.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 03, 2016, 07:49:34 AM
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 03, 2016, 07:49:34 AM
This seems like a bad sign for Clinton
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
Quote
Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server
By Adam Goldman March 2 at 8:20 PM
The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton's private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.
The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.
As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.
[Clinton personally paid State Department staffer to maintain server]
The inquiry comes against a political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
So far, there is no indication that prosecutors have convened a grand jury in the email investigation to subpoena testimony or documents, which would require the participation of a U.S. attorney's office.
Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano's attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said: "As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Department of Justice's security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed."
He also said the campaign is "pleased" that Pagliano, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before a congressional panel in September, is now cooperating with prosecutors. The campaign had encouraged Pagliano to testify before Congress.
As part of the inquiry, law enforcement officials will look at the potential damage had the classified information in the emails been exposed. The Clinton campaign has described the probe as a security review. But current and former officials in the FBI and at the Justice Department have said investigators are trying to determine whether a crime was committed.
"There was wrongdoing," said a former senior law enforcement official. "But was it criminal wrongdoing?"
Clinton has since apologized for what happened: "Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I'm sorry about it, and I take full responsibility."
Any decision to charge someone would involve Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who told Congress when asked last month about the email inquiry: "That matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents, as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate."
She added, "We will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as how to best handle it."
Current and former officials said the conviction of retired four-star general and CIA director David H. Petraeus for mishandling classified information is casting a shadow over the email investigation.
The officials said they think that Petraeus's actions were more egregious than those of Clinton and her aides because he lied to the FBI, and classified information he shared with his biographer contained top secret code words, identities of covert officers, war strategy and intelligence capabilities. Prosecutors initially threatened to charge him with three felonies, including conspiracy, violating the Espionage Act and lying to the FBI. But after negotiations, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
[Why the Clinton email scandal and Petraeus leak are not really alike]
He was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years of probation. FBI officials were angered by the deal and predicted it would affect the outcome of other cases involving classified information.
Petraeus "was handled so lightly for his offense there isn't a whole lot you can do," said a former U.S. law enforcement official who oversaw counterintelligence investigations and described the email controversy as "a lesser set of circumstances."
The State Department has been analyzing the contents of Clinton's correspondence, as it has prepared 52,000 pages of Clinton's emails for public release in batches, a process that began in May and concluded Monday. The State Department has said 2,093 of Clinton's released emails were redacted in all or part because they contained classified material, the vast majority of them rated "confidential," the lowest level of sensitivity in the classification system.
Clinton and the State Department have said that none of the material was marked classified at the time it was sent. However, it is the responsibility of individual government officials to properly handle sensitive material.
The email investigation is being conducted by FBI counterintelligence agents and supervised by the Justice Department's National Security Division.
In a letter filed last month in federal court as part of ongoing civil litigation over Clinton's emails, the FBI confirmed that it was "working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server." The agency declined to publicly detail the investigation's "specific focus, scope or potential targets."
On Tuesday, FBI Director James B. Comey said he was "very close" to the investigation.
Former federal prosecutor Glen Kopp said it is not surprising that agents want to interview Clinton and her aides.
"They are within the zone of interest of the investigation," he said.
A request to interview her would have to be reviewed by top level officials at both the FBI and the Justice Department, a former official said.
As part of those interviews, the FBI would also seek to establish that Clinton and her aides understood the policies and protocols for handling classified information, former officials said.
Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, declined to comment.
Kendall, who also has represented President Bill Clinton and Petraeus, has navigated similar issues in other cases. During the investigation of President Clinton by independent counsel Ken Starr, for instance, Kendall rebuffed several requests for interviews.
[Hillary Clinton's incomplete timeline on her personal e-mail account]
The president was then subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. In a deal brokered by Kendall, the subpoena was withdrawn and Clinton testified voluntarily in 1998.
Former prosecutors said investigators were probably feeling the pressure of time because of the election. Take action before the election, they said, and you risk being perceived as trying to influence the result. Take action after and face criticism for not letting voters know there was an issue with their preferred candidate.
"The timing is terrible whether you do it before or after," Kopp said.
The issue of Clinton's use of a private email server was referred to the FBI in July after the Office of the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community determined that some of the emails that traversed Clinton's server contained classified material.
Emails that contain material now deemed classified were authored by Clinton but also by many of her top aides, including Jacob Sullivan, who was her director of policy planning and her deputy chief of staff. He is now advising Clinton's campaign on foreign policy and is thought to be a likely candidate for national security adviser if she is elected president.
The State Department has said that, at the request of intelligence agencies, it has classified 22 Clinton emails as "top secret" and will not release those emails, even in redacted form. "Top secret" is the highest level of classification, reserved for material whose release could cause "exceptionally grave damage to the national security."
I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, has indicated that some of the material intelligence officials have reviewed contained information that was classified at the time it was sent; the State Department has indicated that it has not analyzed whether the material should have been marked classified when it was sent, only whether it requires classification before being released now.
Rosalind S. Helderman, Julie Tate and Matt Zapotosky contributed to this report.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 03, 2016, 08:01:59 AM
Post by: garbon on March 03, 2016, 08:01:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 03, 2016, 07:49:34 AM
This seems like a bad sign for Clinton
From the article looks like said aide pled the fifth even though campaign said, hey you should be open and cooperate with the investigation. Him getting immunity could simply just mean that such was his necessary precondition to cooperate, no?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 10:47:14 AM
Post by: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 10:47:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2016, 08:01:59 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on March 03, 2016, 07:49:34 AM
This seems like a bad sign for Clinton
From the article looks like said aide pled the fifth even though campaign said, hey you should be open and cooperate with the investigation. Him getting immunity could simply just mean that such was his necessary precondition to cooperate, no?
Yes. Granting immunity is a way of neutralizing the right-against-self-incrimination refusal to testify. It doesn't mean that the Justice department believes that there was a crime to be immunized against. It could be purely procedural, to force him to testify.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 03, 2016, 04:31:22 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 03, 2016, 04:31:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2016, 09:20:39 PMI mean we discuss the motivations of public people all the time. Yet in this particular you seem to have an issue with it.
Not really. Fundamentally I agree with MiM that it's not really any of my business.
However, Hillary Clinton is obviously a hot topic right now and as part of that there's the whole "she's a cold calculating shrew, as evidenced by her sham marriage" thing. Thus I'm interested in finding out exactly what the substance of this whole "sham marriage" allegation is; and it appears it's nothing but insinuations.
Ultimately, whether it's insinuations or there's some actual evidence that the marriage is purely based on political calculations, I don't think the sex and love lives of public figures are any of our business unless it involves underage prostitution, rape, or domestic abuse - and that holds across the entire political spectrum. But I'm still curious about the evidence if the subject is currently topical.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 04:36:14 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 04:36:14 PM
Gotta agree with grabon and grumbler here. Nothing to get excited over. There is no way the Obama Justice Dept. is going to indict Hillary. I'd very happily eat my words later, but no matter how guilty she may be, it just ain't happening.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on March 03, 2016, 05:00:54 PM
Post by: alfred russel on March 03, 2016, 05:00:54 PM
Trump is promising to prosecute Hillary. How interesting the debate will be. "I'm going to have you thrown in jail."
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:22:14 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:22:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2016, 05:00:54 PM
Trump is promising to prosecute Hillary. How interesting the debate will be. "I'm going to have you thrown in jail."
Fucker better not pull that shit. It might make me forget all the bad stuff he's said :angry:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Savonarola on March 03, 2016, 05:26:07 PM
Post by: Savonarola on March 03, 2016, 05:26:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2016, 05:00:54 PM
Trump is promising to prosecute Hillary. How interesting the debate will be. "I'm going to have you thrown in jail."
I'M GOING TO SEND YOU TO SING SING! SING SING HILARY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBaZmYd3nsM)
Call him Charles Foster Trump. :bowler:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on March 03, 2016, 05:28:00 PM
Post by: alfred russel on March 03, 2016, 05:28:00 PM
Derspiess, you have some experience with less than fully mature democracies. Don't you see problems with parties running on platforms of putting their opponents in jail?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:39:07 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2016, 05:28:00 PM
Derspiess, you have some experience with less than fully mature democracies. Don't you see problems with parties running on platforms of putting their opponents in jail?
Sure. I'll make an exception here though ;)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on March 03, 2016, 05:41:54 PM
Post by: Monoriu on March 03, 2016, 05:41:54 PM
Aren't "cold and calculating" desirable qualities in a president? I mean, it isn't like a hot headed president is preferable.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 03, 2016, 05:47:10 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 03, 2016, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 04:36:14 PM
Gotta agree with grabon and grumbler here. Nothing to get excited over. There is no way the Obama Justice Dept. is going to indict Hillary. I'd very happily eat my words later, but no matter how guilty she may be, it just ain't happening.
If the FBI recommends indictment and Obama declines, it will definitely leak. Wouldn't that be even worse electorally for the Dems than throwing her to the wolves and going with Sanders or picking Biden or Warren at the convention.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 03, 2016, 05:49:07 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 03, 2016, 05:49:07 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 03, 2016, 05:47:10 PM
If the FBI recommends indictment and Obama declines, it will definitely leak. Wouldn't that be even worse electorally for the Dems than throwing her to the wolves and going with Sanders or picking Biden or Warren at the convention.
The FBI's not gonna recommend indictment.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on March 03, 2016, 05:58:59 PM
Post by: dps on March 03, 2016, 05:58:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 03, 2016, 05:47:10 PM
picking Biden or Warren at the convention.
If the choice were Trump or Biden, it would be much easier for me to vote Democratic.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 09:30:18 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 09:30:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:22:14 PMQuote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2016, 05:00:54 PM
Trump is promising to prosecute Hillary. How interesting the debate will be. "I'm going to have you thrown in jail."
Fucker better not pull that shit. It might make me forget all the bad stuff he's said :angry:
He can prosecute them all he wants it will not go anywhere. I mean that would be the end of Hillary's career anyway so it would be too late to benefit your party and she would walk. You know damn well they will always get away with it. It is what they do.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 09:31:55 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 09:31:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:39:07 PMQuote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2016, 05:28:00 PM
Derspiess, you have some experience with less than fully mature democracies. Don't you see problems with parties running on platforms of putting their opponents in jail?
Sure. I'll make an exception here though ;)
Man you are a shrill about this :lol:
After all the free trade deals and welfare reform the first Clinton regime did to. At least that makes it clear it is hysterical and personal.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 09:42:03 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 09:30:18 PM
He can prosecute them all he wants it will not go anywhere. I mean that would be the end of Hillary's career anyway so it would be too late to benefit your party and she would walk. You know damn well they will always get away with it. It is what they do.
I'd just enjoy seeing him threaten it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 09:42:51 PM
Post by: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 09:42:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 09:31:55 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:39:07 PMQuote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2016, 05:28:00 PM
Derspiess, you have some experience with less than fully mature democracies. Don't you see problems with parties running on platforms of putting their opponents in jail?
Sure. I'll make an exception here though ;)
Man you are a shrill about this :lol:
:secret: He's playing the game. He's not being shrill about this at all, from what I can see. I've been rather surprised and pleased at the way he has passed on temptations to troll the shit out of this story.
Siege, not so much.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 09:47:40 PM
Post by: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 09:47:40 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but do they actually have anything on Hilary's email bit that is actually documented beyond the one case where a staffer appeared to say "remove the markings and send via unclass email?" I mean, the ex post facto classification of NYT stories isn't going to sway a jury to convict.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 10:09:51 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 10:09:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 09:31:55 PM
After all the free trade deals and welfare reform the first Clinton regime did to. At least that makes it clear it is hysterical and personal.
NAFTA and welfare reform were pretty much the only two times I supported Bill. Was nice while it lasted.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2016, 10:11:42 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2016, 10:11:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 10:09:51 PM
NAFTA and welfare reform were pretty much the only two times I supported Bill. Was nice while it lasted.
How about the surplus?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 10:21:10 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 10:21:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 09:42:51 PM
:secret: He's playing the game. He's not being shrill about this at all, from what I can see. I've been rather surprised and pleased at the way he has passed on temptations to troll the shit out of this story.
Siege, not so much.
:secret: I am trolling him
Spicey's cool. Just giving him a hard time.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 10:21:34 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 10:21:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 10:09:51 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 09:31:55 PM
After all the free trade deals and welfare reform the first Clinton regime did to. At least that makes it clear it is hysterical and personal.
NAFTA and welfare reform were pretty much the only two times I supported Bill. Was nice while it lasted.
Still going strong. Pretty lasting legacies :contract:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 03, 2016, 10:43:33 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 03, 2016, 10:43:33 PM
It is kind of ironic his legacy is a bill that Republicans drafted after he had vetoed two similar bills.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 10:59:37 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2016, 10:59:37 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 03, 2016, 10:43:33 PM
It is kind of ironic his legacy is a bill that Republicans drafted after he had vetoed two similar bills.
He wanted them to get it right is all :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 11:34:53 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 11:34:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 09:47:40 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but do they actually have anything on Hilary's email bit that is actually documented beyond the one case where a staffer appeared to say "remove the markings and send via unclass email?" I mean, the ex post facto classification of NYT stories isn't going to sway a jury to convict.
From what I've read, the big stink is about certain aides cutting and pasting TS information from their classified government email accounts, creating new documents by scanning the info as a .pdf, and then moving it forward to "Ms. I Can't Be Bothered With Two Devices" Hillary.net account for her to read.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 04, 2016, 12:20:33 AM
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 04, 2016, 12:20:33 AM
^_^
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbiZUlP3.jpg%3F1&hash=f5c787ed6d3c44f69948048512d3809ea650a484)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbiZUlP3.jpg%3F1&hash=f5c787ed6d3c44f69948048512d3809ea650a484)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 04, 2016, 12:23:40 AM
Post by: Valmy on March 04, 2016, 12:23:40 AM
:thumbsup:
We are coming mother Hillary three hundred million strong.
We are coming mother Hillary three hundred million strong.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 04, 2016, 01:48:04 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 04, 2016, 01:48:04 AM
The one about Bernie was also good. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Syt on March 04, 2016, 07:45:30 AM
Post by: Syt on March 04, 2016, 07:45:30 AM
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/s851x315/11165243_1127441510602154_8283238183351134597_n.jpg?oh=02f026355495d2dfaf18c239121c461b&oe=5750A570)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 07:46:42 AM
Post by: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 07:46:42 AM
If I see one more "share if you agree" thingie in my Facebook news feed, I fear my head will explode.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Syt on March 04, 2016, 07:47:32 AM
Post by: Syt on March 04, 2016, 07:47:32 AM
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 04, 2016, 07:54:55 AM
Post by: celedhring on March 04, 2016, 07:54:55 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 07:46:42 AM
If I see one more "share if you agree" thingie in my Facebook news feed, I fear my head will explode.
Absolutely :mad:. Share if you agree.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 07:55:22 AM
Post by: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 07:55:22 AM
BOOM! Mind. Blown.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2016, 12:22:42 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2016, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 04, 2016, 07:45:30 AM
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/s851x315/11165243_1127441510602154_8283238183351134597_n.jpg?oh=02f026355495d2dfaf18c239121c461b&oe=5750A570)
I Trump this:
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2016/451463-13-16094-16093.html
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on March 04, 2016, 12:48:26 PM
Post by: alfred russel on March 04, 2016, 12:48:26 PM
But isnt' that a civil case?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 04, 2016, 12:54:22 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 04, 2016, 12:54:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 04, 2016, 07:45:30 AM
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/s851x315/11165243_1127441510602154_8283238183351134597_n.jpg?oh=02f026355495d2dfaf18c239121c461b&oe=5750A570)
Um let's take a second to think about the unintended consequences of such a rule :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 01:12:18 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 01:12:18 PM
Thinking sounds like work. Not gonna happen on a Friday night. I'll just offer unsolicited opinion instead.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 05:43:07 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 05:43:07 AM
So who are the Clintonite equivalents of Bernie Bros? Hillary Hags? Clinton Cunts?
Edit: Hillary Hoes, Duh.
Edit: Hillary Hoes, Duh.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 05, 2016, 06:55:01 AM
Post by: garbon on March 05, 2016, 06:55:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 05:43:07 AM
So who are the Clintonite equivalents of Bernie Bros? Hillary Hags? Clinton Cunts?
Edit: Hillary Hoes, Duh.
I don't think they exist now. Sure maybe in '08, but now they definitely don't have a social media presence in the same manic fashion of Bernie Sanders supporters that lead to things like:
"A vote for Hillary is a vote for the continued slow-motion self-destruction of our nation, undermining of global security, and ruination of the planet itself. "Getting things done" maybe, within a tiny scope circumscribed by a runaway capitalist agenda."
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 05, 2016, 06:59:26 AM
Post by: celedhring on March 05, 2016, 06:59:26 AM
As you know I do like Bernie Sanders quite a bit, but certainly his social warriors are all kinds of insufferable. This one just popped up.
(https://scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlt1/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/12799170_543732499141115_2007852946285365920_n.jpg?oh=526a1d17384a8501022b7863a9e939ce&oe=575F3340)
(https://scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlt1/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/12799170_543732499141115_2007852946285365920_n.jpg?oh=526a1d17384a8501022b7863a9e939ce&oe=575F3340)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 05, 2016, 07:56:56 AM
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 05, 2016, 07:56:56 AM
Real social warriors would never support another cishet white male. Why don't you Bernie brocialists understand how revolutionary another Clinton administration would be?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 05, 2016, 08:11:44 AM
Post by: garbon on March 05, 2016, 08:11:44 AM
I don't think any of the candidates will be leading a revolution. :huh:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 06, 2016, 02:21:51 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 06, 2016, 02:21:51 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu41CPQw0hg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu41CPQw0hg)
Not all black people love Hillary, it seems.
Not all black people love Hillary, it seems.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 06, 2016, 09:30:51 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 06, 2016, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 06, 2016, 02:21:51 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu41CPQw0hg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu41CPQw0hg)
Not all black people love Hillary, it seems.
Makes you want to vote for Trump.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2016, 10:49:44 AM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2016, 10:49:44 AM
Makes me want to keep ignoring Louis Farrakhan, actually.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 01:45:58 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 01:45:58 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 05, 2016, 06:59:26 AMAs you know I do like Bernie Sanders quite a bit, but certainly his social warriors are all kinds of insufferable. This one just popped up.
How is breastfeeding in public viewed in Spain?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 07, 2016, 02:05:52 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 07, 2016, 02:05:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 01:45:58 PMIntently?Quote from: celedhring on March 05, 2016, 06:59:26 AMAs you know I do like Bernie Sanders quite a bit, but certainly his social warriors are all kinds of insufferable. This one just popped up.
How is breastfeeding in public viewed in Spain?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 02:11:02 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 02:11:02 PM
for a lower class woman who has to occasionally bring her baby out in public, is it easy to avoid public breastfeeding or is it sometimes necessary?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 02:44:56 PM
Post by: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 02:44:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 01:45:58 PMQuote from: celedhring on March 05, 2016, 06:59:26 AMAs you know I do like Bernie Sanders quite a bit, but certainly his social warriors are all kinds of insufferable. This one just popped up.
How is breastfeeding in public viewed in Spain?
I guess it depends. I see it plenty but this is a pretty liberal town. I have even seen it in churches. It might be different in smaller places.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2016, 03:26:20 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2016, 03:26:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2016, 02:05:52 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 01:45:58 PMIntently?
How is breastfeeding in public viewed in Spain?
I lol'd. And then burped it back up.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 03:28:46 PM
Post by: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 03:28:46 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 02:11:02 PM
for a lower class woman who has to occasionally bring her baby out in public, is it easy to avoid public breastfeeding or is it sometimes necessary?
You just can't control when a baby is going to get hungry, and it will be hungry plenty.
I don't see how this is a lower class issue by the way. If you want to breast feed your baby, you'll run into this issue unless you choose to stay at home all day long, no matter your income level.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 03:58:41 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 03:58:41 PM
aren't there ways to feed a baby in public without resorting to breastfeeding? referenced poor people in case alternative methods were expensive
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 04:11:41 PM
Post by: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 04:11:41 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 03:58:41 PM
aren't there ways to feed a baby in public without resorting to breastfeeding? referenced poor people in case alternative methods were expensive
Baby formula isn't very expensive - over here at least, particularly if you just want to use it while being in public. Breastfeeding is often a choice as some consider it a healthier way of raising your baby (I am not aware of the science backing or not backing that).
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:11:59 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:11:59 PM
People just need to let people freaking breastfeed their babies. FFS people. Just remember if the baby has a boob in its mouth it cannot scream.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 04:22:42 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 04:22:42 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 04:11:41 PMBaby formula isn't very expensive - over here at least, particularly if you just want to use it while being in public. Breastfeeding is often a choice as some consider it a healthier way of raising your baby (I am not aware of the science backing or not backing that).
:hmm:
isn't pumping (or whatever it is) an alternative to baby formula? basically, if bottle + food (either formula or natural) is perfectly fine, then why would women ever breastfeed in public? aside from forgetting the bottle or whatever
Quote from: ValmyPeople just need to let people freaking breastfeed their babies. FFS people. Just remember if the baby has a boob in its mouth it cannot scream.
I think people let mothers breastfeed their babies, don't they? most people are passive aggressive. if someone actually complains, treat that person like you would any other hall monitor
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 07, 2016, 04:26:04 PM
Post by: garbon on March 07, 2016, 04:26:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:11:59 PM
People just need to let people freaking breastfeed their babies. FFS people. Just remember if the baby has a boob in its mouth it cannot scream.
If it doesn't exist, it can't scream either.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: alfred russel on March 07, 2016, 04:29:35 PM
Post by: alfred russel on March 07, 2016, 04:29:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 04:26:04 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:11:59 PM
People just need to let people freaking breastfeed their babies. FFS people. Just remember if the baby has a boob in its mouth it cannot scream.
Ifitthey doesn't exist,itthey can't scream either.
Fixed your post. Or broke it, depending on your point of view.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 04:30:29 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 04:30:29 PM
I guess what I'm getting at is this: are modern day breastfeed-in-public campaigns essentially "stop seeing this beautiful act as being awkward as fuck/gross"?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 07, 2016, 04:33:40 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 07, 2016, 04:33:40 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 04:22:42 PMQuote from: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 04:11:41 PMBaby formula isn't very expensive - over here at least, particularly if you just want to use it while being in public. Breastfeeding is often a choice as some consider it a healthier way of raising your baby (I am not aware of the science backing or not backing that).
:hmm:
isn't pumping (or whatever it is) an alternative to baby formula? basically, if bottle + food (either formula or natural) is perfectly fine, then why would women ever breastfeed in public? aside from forgetting the bottle or whatever
If you are breasfeeding a child, then "puming" is not an alternative to breastfeeding at any particular moment, since the mom will have to pump at some point as well. The boobs fill with milk, and it has to be removed, either by pumping or feeding. If you thinking feeding a baby in public is a bit distracting, I can assure you that hooking mom up to a couple pumps in public is much more so.
If you are breastfeeding a child, then it is likely (hopefully) on some kind of feeding schedule. If you happen to be in public when the combination of baby + breasts + schedule means it is feeding time, then feeding is going to happen. Most women find somewhere non-public to do that - certainly my wife would never have done so in public under any circumstances, she would have found it mortifying.
But the idea that you can just forgo feeding by grabbing a bottle is not really (or always) accurate. Depending on the child and mother, formula may not be an option at all.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 04:49:05 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 04:49:05 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 02:44:56 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 01:45:58 PMQuote from: celedhring on March 05, 2016, 06:59:26 AMAs you know I do like Bernie Sanders quite a bit, but certainly his social warriors are all kinds of insufferable. This one just popped up.
How is breastfeeding in public viewed in Spain?
I guess it depends. I see it plenty but this is a pretty liberal town. I have even seen it in churches. It might be different in smaller places.
... so people in the US who'd like something similar to what you're used to are insufferable social warriors? Seems bit unfair, tbh.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:56:44 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:56:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 04:26:04 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:11:59 PM
People just need to let people freaking breastfeed their babies. FFS people. Just remember if the baby has a boob in its mouth it cannot scream.
If it doesn't exist, it can't scream either.
I don't know. I just figure it is easier to be cool when people breastfeed their babies than commit mass genocide of everybody under the age of 2.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 04:58:23 PM
Post by: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 04:49:05 PMQuote from: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 02:44:56 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 01:45:58 PMQuote from: celedhring on March 05, 2016, 06:59:26 AMAs you know I do like Bernie Sanders quite a bit, but certainly his social warriors are all kinds of insufferable. This one just popped up.
How is breastfeeding in public viewed in Spain?
I guess it depends. I see it plenty but this is a pretty liberal town. I have even seen it in churches. It might be different in smaller places.
... so people in the US who'd like something similar to what you're used to are insufferable social warriors? Seems bit unfair, tbh.
I don't object her aspiration, I object the preciousness and the whole "touched by Bernie made this the happiest day ever" thing. I would vote for Bernie if I were American, but I find the whole social media personality cult a tad irritating.
Meh, maybe I have a short fuse for this kind of thing.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Malthus on March 07, 2016, 04:59:19 PM
Post by: Malthus on March 07, 2016, 04:59:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:56:44 PMQuote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 04:26:04 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:11:59 PM
People just need to let people freaking breastfeed their babies. FFS people. Just remember if the baby has a boob in its mouth it cannot scream.
If it doesn't exist, it can't scream either.
I don't know. I just figure it is easier to be cool when people breastfeed their babies than commit mass genocide of everybody under the age of 2.
It's the "Herod" school of politics. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 05:02:01 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 05:02:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 04:49:05 PM... so people in the US who'd like something similar to what you're used to are insufferable social warriors? Seems bit unfair, tbh.
they already have it though, don't they?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2016, 05:02:09 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2016, 05:02:09 PM
My sister had some kind of clothing attachment that basically hid the baby and the breast. She had to use it once when we were at a restaurant and it was barely noticeable.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on March 07, 2016, 05:07:16 PM
Post by: Barrister on March 07, 2016, 05:07:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 07, 2016, 05:02:09 PM
My sister had some kind of clothing attachment that basically hid the baby and the breast. She had to use it once when we were at a restaurant and it was barely noticeable.
It's called "a blanket". :whistle:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2016, 05:09:08 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2016, 05:09:08 PM
It was specialized though, something made for exactly that purpose.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 07, 2016, 05:13:57 PM
Post by: garbon on March 07, 2016, 05:13:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:56:44 PMQuote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 04:26:04 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 04:11:59 PM
People just need to let people freaking breastfeed their babies. FFS people. Just remember if the baby has a boob in its mouth it cannot scream.
If it doesn't exist, it can't scream either.
I don't know. I just figure it is easier to be cool when people breastfeed their babies than commit mass genocide of everybody under the age of 2.
Who said anything about murder?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 06:08:18 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 06:08:18 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 05:02:01 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 04:49:05 PM... so people in the US who'd like something similar to what you're used to are insufferable social warriors? Seems bit unfair, tbh.
they already have it though, don't they?
Well, there certainly seems to be more public discourse about "should breastfeeding in public be allowed" than in the parts of Europe I'm aware of. It seems it's a bit of a thing.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 06:08:39 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 06:08:39 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 07, 2016, 04:58:23 PM
I don't object her aspiration, I object the preciousness and the whole "touched by Bernie made this the happiest day ever" thing. I would vote for Bernie if I were American, but I find the whole social media personality cult a tad irritating.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 08:11:36 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 08:11:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 06:08:18 PMWell, there certainly seems to be more public discourse about "should breastfeeding in public be allowed" than in the parts of Europe I'm aware of. It seems it's a bit of a thing.
that's what I was wondering, what's exactly at issue when they already can do it.
so, I posted this
Quoteare modern day breastfeed-in-public campaigns essentially "stop seeing this beautiful act as being awkward as fuck/gross"?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on March 07, 2016, 08:44:33 PM
Post by: dps on March 07, 2016, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 08:11:36 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2016, 06:08:18 PMWell, there certainly seems to be more public discourse about "should breastfeeding in public be allowed" than in the parts of Europe I'm aware of. It seems it's a bit of a thing.
that's what I was wondering, what's exactly at issue when they already can do it.
so, I posted thisQuoteare modern day breastfeed-in-public campaigns essentially "stop seeing this beautiful act as being awkward as fuck/gross"?
I think that's the point that they are theoretically trying to make. In practice, their point seems to be more, "I'm a better person than mothers who have their babies on the bottle, so instead of just discreetly feeding my child when it needs fed, I have to flaunt what I'm doing for everyone to see, because that way they'll also see how much of a better person I am".
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2016, 08:46:59 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2016, 08:46:59 PM
And you resent that because your breasts are barren? :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on March 07, 2016, 08:56:19 PM
Post by: dps on March 07, 2016, 08:56:19 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 07, 2016, 08:46:59 PM
And you resent that because your breasts are barren? :hmm:
Nah, I just basically see women who make a show of it as a bunch of dirty hippies. :p:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 09:26:23 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 09:26:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 05:13:57 PM
Who said anything about murder?
Ah. I guess I was unaware of another way to make all babies not exist :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Ed Anger on March 07, 2016, 09:28:13 PM
Post by: Ed Anger on March 07, 2016, 09:28:13 PM
I ventured into commie territory today, yellow springs Ohio, and the amount of Bearnie bumper stickers made me sick.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 07, 2016, 10:31:16 PM
Post by: Siege on March 07, 2016, 10:31:16 PM
Question: why do Democrats assume the Republicans will never again control the Presidency?
What's going on?
What is their calculation for this?
I don't see why they would be so confident, especially when so many polls claim most Americans are right of center.
What's going on?
What is their calculation for this?
I don't see why they would be so confident, especially when so many polls claim most Americans are right of center.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 10:36:30 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 10:36:30 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 07, 2016, 10:31:16 PM
Question: why do Democrats assume the Republicans will never again control the Presidency?
What's going on?
What is their calculation for this?
I don't see why they would be so confident, especially when so many polls claim most Americans are right of center.
They do? I am pretty sure zero Democrats think the Republicans will never again control the Presidency.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2016, 10:38:38 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2016, 10:38:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 10:36:30 PM
They do? I am pretty sure zero Democrats think the Republicans will never again control the Presidency.
Zero? I am pretty sure it's more than that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on March 07, 2016, 11:01:01 PM
Post by: 11B4V on March 07, 2016, 11:01:01 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 07, 2016, 10:31:16 PM
Question: why do Democrats assume the Republicans will never again control the Presidency?
What's going on?
What is their calculation for this?
I don't see why they would be so confident, especially when so many polls claim most Americans are right of center.
They're loons.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 11:01:48 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 11:01:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 07, 2016, 10:38:38 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 10:36:30 PM
They do? I am pretty sure zero Democrats think the Republicans will never again control the Presidency.
Zero? I am pretty sure it's more than that.
Maybe among the most moronic of the rank and file but none of the party functionaries think that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2016, 11:08:58 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2016, 11:08:58 PM
Right now, there's a statistically non-zero chance the Republicans implode during this or the next election cycle. The party that emerges may be significantly different if that happens.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 11:13:41 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 11:13:41 PM
A better question: What provokes Siege to say such strange things?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on March 08, 2016, 12:16:15 AM
Post by: 11B4V on March 08, 2016, 12:16:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 11:13:41 PM
A better question: What provokes Siege to say such strange things?
Brainwashed
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 08, 2016, 01:11:05 AM
Post by: Razgovory on March 08, 2016, 01:11:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2016, 12:16:15 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 11:13:41 PM
A better question: What provokes Siege to say such strange things?
Brainwashed
Well someone is feeding him this stuff. He's gone from "tribal socialist" who thought the moon landing was a hoax to a freemarket fundmentalist who eagerly awaits the coming of God computers.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 08, 2016, 06:39:34 AM
Post by: DGuller on March 08, 2016, 06:39:34 AM
Have you ever noticed how the bigger the article of clothing is, the less frequently it gets washed?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:02:59 AM
Post by: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:02:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2016, 01:11:05 AMQuote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2016, 12:16:15 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 11:13:41 PM
A better question: What provokes Siege to say such strange things?
Brainwashed
Well someone is feeding him this stuff. He's gone from "tribal socialist" who thought the moon landing was a hoax to a freemarket fundmentalist who eagerly awaits the coming of God computers.
Well, people change for the better.
I have evolved my political opinions.
Tribal socialism is already a recognition that socialism doesn't work on a society at large, and it only have a chance if the people in it are blood related. Which also doesn't work because lazy people like me are going to let other do all the work in the family business and use my relative freedom to join foreign armies and trot the wold smashing moonslims.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:04:11 AM
Post by: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:04:11 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2016, 12:16:15 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 11:13:41 PM
A better question: What provokes Siege to say such strange things?
Brainwashed
Tis.
I blame languish.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 08, 2016, 09:18:15 AM
Post by: Razgovory on March 08, 2016, 09:18:15 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:02:59 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2016, 01:11:05 AMQuote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2016, 12:16:15 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 11:13:41 PM
A better question: What provokes Siege to say such strange things?
Brainwashed
Well someone is feeding him this stuff. He's gone from "tribal socialist" who thought the moon landing was a hoax to a freemarket fundmentalist who eagerly awaits the coming of God computers.
Well, people change for the better.
I have evolved my political opinions.
Tribal socialism is already a recognition that socialism doesn't work on a society at large, and it only have a chance if the people in it are blood related. Which also doesn't work because lazy people like me are going to let other do all the work in the family business and use my relative freedom to join foreign armies and trot the wold smashing moonslims.
But who told you all this nonsense?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:24:04 AM
Post by: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:24:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2016, 09:18:15 AMQuote from: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:02:59 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2016, 01:11:05 AMQuote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2016, 12:16:15 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 11:13:41 PM
A better question: What provokes Siege to say such strange things?
Brainwashed
Well someone is feeding him this stuff. He's gone from "tribal socialist" who thought the moon landing was a hoax to a freemarket fundmentalist who eagerly awaits the coming of God computers.
Well, people change for the better.
I have evolved my political opinions.
Tribal socialism is already a recognition that socialism doesn't work on a society at large, and it only have a chance if the people in it are blood related. Which also doesn't work because lazy people like me are going to let other do all the work in the family business and use my relative freedom to join foreign armies and trot the wold smashing moonslims.
But who told you all this nonsense?
What nonsense?
Everything i say is brilliant.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 08, 2016, 10:59:34 AM
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 08, 2016, 10:59:34 AM
Siege, have you been radicalized by an online forum?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Grey Fox on March 08, 2016, 11:08:11 AM
Post by: Grey Fox on March 08, 2016, 11:08:11 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 08, 2016, 10:59:34 AM
Siege, have you been radicalized by another online forum?
Fixed.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: 11B4V on March 08, 2016, 12:01:10 PM
Post by: 11B4V on March 08, 2016, 12:01:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:04:11 AM:lol:Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2016, 12:16:15 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 11:13:41 PM
A better question: What provokes Siege to say such strange things?
Brainwashed
Tis.
I blame languish.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 08, 2016, 12:43:16 PM
Post by: Siege on March 08, 2016, 12:43:16 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 08, 2016, 11:08:11 AMQuote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 08, 2016, 10:59:34 AM
Siege, have you been radicalized by another online forum?
Fixed.
I stand against the uncultured majority. Herds are not for me. Your mindless support for suicidal democrat policies have provoked a response from my brilliant and unresting mind.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: crazy canuck on March 08, 2016, 12:45:27 PM
Post by: crazy canuck on March 08, 2016, 12:45:27 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2016, 12:43:16 PM
Herds are not for me.
No need to insult the Brain
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 08, 2016, 12:50:38 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 08, 2016, 12:50:38 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2016, 12:43:16 PM
Your mindless support for suicidal democrat policies have provoked a response from my brilliant and unresting mind.
Now hold on. I don't support the suicidal ones.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 01:30:33 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: dps on March 07, 2016, 08:44:33 PM
I think that's the point that they are theoretically trying to make. In practice, their point seems to be more, "I'm a better person than mothers who have their babies on the bottle, so instead of just discreetly feeding my child when it needs fed, I have to flaunt what I'm doing for everyone to see, because that way they'll also see how much of a better person I am".
So women breastfeeding in public are"flaunting how much better they are"? Sort of like how gay people holding hands in public are "flaunting their homosexuality"?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 01:40:59 PM
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 01:40:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 01:30:33 PMQuote from: dps on March 07, 2016, 08:44:33 PM
I think that's the point that they are theoretically trying to make. In practice, their point seems to be more, "I'm a better person than mothers who have their babies on the bottle, so instead of just discreetly feeding my child when it needs fed, I have to flaunt what I'm doing for everyone to see, because that way they'll also see how much of a better person I am".
So women breastfeeding in public are"flaunting how much better they are"? Sort of like how gay people holding hands in public are "flaunting their homosexuality"?
I don't think the people breastfeeding in public are in the least, but certainly some of the vibe I get from the breastfeeding activists in their online articles / social media posts.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 08, 2016, 03:53:22 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 08, 2016, 03:53:22 PM
I think it is a fair complaint, and I think people flaunting their homosexuality is kind of annoying as well.
However, I also think that homophobia is a much bigger problem, and I assume that a good chunk of the people bitching about gay people flaunting their sexuality is really about them, not about the gay people. And since gay people have had to fight and struggle for their rights, I am happy to err on their side.
I do think that women should be free to breast feed in public. I also think that it is natural to view that as a somewhat intimate activity, that I would expect most women would want to engage in discretely, to the extent that is reasonable. If the circumstances are such that it isn't reasonable, oh well.
And if there are women who want to make a point of the fact that breastfeeding in public is fine, and want to do so in as an indiscrete manner as they can manage...shrug. Whatever. I can certainly appreciate the disdain though that people have for anyone who feels a need to draw attention to themselves, especially over something like this.
However, I also think that homophobia is a much bigger problem, and I assume that a good chunk of the people bitching about gay people flaunting their sexuality is really about them, not about the gay people. And since gay people have had to fight and struggle for their rights, I am happy to err on their side.
I do think that women should be free to breast feed in public. I also think that it is natural to view that as a somewhat intimate activity, that I would expect most women would want to engage in discretely, to the extent that is reasonable. If the circumstances are such that it isn't reasonable, oh well.
And if there are women who want to make a point of the fact that breastfeeding in public is fine, and want to do so in as an indiscrete manner as they can manage...shrug. Whatever. I can certainly appreciate the disdain though that people have for anyone who feels a need to draw attention to themselves, especially over something like this.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 04:02:58 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 04:02:58 PM
public displays of affection aren't usually attempts to flaunt love. it's more that the people are really engrossed with one another. that's kinda what mothers are to their babies. they and their friends/family might care about the baby, but nobody else does except for the occasional baby lover. it's an annoyance to the rest, like public displays of affection, because it's awkward and/or gross.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 04:17:25 PM
Post by: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 04:17:25 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 04:02:58 PM
public displays of affection aren't usually attempts to flaunt love. it's more that the people are really engrossed with one another. that's kinda what mothers are to their babies. they and their friends/family might care about the baby, but nobody else does except for the occasional baby lover. it's an annoyance to the rest, like public displays of affection, because it's awkward and/or gross.
Wow. The community you live in is certainly far different than the one I live in.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 04:21:59 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 04:21:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 04:17:25 PMWow. The community you live in is certainly far different than the one I live in.
by occasional baby lover, I'm referring to something similar to dog lovers who are strangers to a dog owner. the strangers who actually come up to see the baby and interact with the parents.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on March 08, 2016, 04:40:38 PM
Post by: dps on March 08, 2016, 04:40:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 01:30:33 PMQuote from: dps on March 07, 2016, 08:44:33 PM
I think that's the point that they are theoretically trying to make. In practice, their point seems to be more, "I'm a better person than mothers who have their babies on the bottle, so instead of just discreetly feeding my child when it needs fed, I have to flaunt what I'm doing for everyone to see, because that way they'll also see how much of a better person I am".
So women breastfeeding in public are"flaunting how much better they are"? Sort of like how gay people holding hands in public are "flaunting their homosexuality"?
I wasn't talking about women who breastfeed in public. I was talking about the ones who deliberately draw attention to the fact that they are breastfeeding in public--which, admittedly is only a small group. But they were the group we were discussing.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 05:51:29 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 04:02:58 PM
public displays of affection aren't usually attempts to flaunt love. it's more that the people are really engrossed with one another. that's kinda what mothers are to their babies. they and their friends/family might care about the baby, but nobody else does except for the occasional baby lover. it's an annoyance to the rest, like public displays of affection, because it's awkward and/or gross.
Are you some sort of alien?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 05:58:38 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 05:58:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 05:51:29 PMAre you some sort of alien?
no, I personally don't babies and am OK with public breastfeeding. but I'm also OK with public displays of affection. I can understand why people wouldn't like seeing that kinda stuff, though.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 05:59:56 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 05:59:56 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 05:58:38 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 05:51:29 PMAre you some sort of alien?
no, I personally don't babies and am OK with public breastfeeding. but I'm also OK with public displays of affection. I can understand why people wouldn't like seeing that kinda stuff, though.
You don't personally babies? I see...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:00:52 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:00:52 PM
mind babies*
they're OK
they're OK
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 06:06:06 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 06:06:06 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:00:52 PM
mind babies*
they're OK
MIND babies?!!? You sure you're not an alien? :area52:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 08, 2016, 06:12:29 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 08, 2016, 06:12:29 PM
I don't like babies, especially ones not related to me. :scrooge:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:16:11 PM
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2016, 03:53:22 PM
I think it is a fair complaint, and I think people flaunting their homosexuality is kind of annoying as well.
However, I also think that homophobia is a much bigger problem, and I assume that a good chunk of the people bitching about gay people flaunting their sexuality is really about them, not about the gay people. And since gay people have had to fight and struggle for their rights, I am happy to err on their side.
I do think that women should be free to breast feed in public. I also think that it is natural to view that as a somewhat intimate activity, that I would expect most women would want to engage in discretely, to the extent that is reasonable. If the circumstances are such that it isn't reasonable, oh well.
And if there are women who want to make a point of the fact that breastfeeding in public is fine, and want to do so in as an indiscrete manner as they can manage...shrug. Whatever. I can certainly appreciate the disdain though that people have for anyone who feels a need to draw attention to themselves, especially over something like this.
I think all that's fine - though I would say it is rhetorically cheap to compare to homosexuality. <_<
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:19:08 PM
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:19:08 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 08, 2016, 06:12:29 PM
I don't like babies, especially ones not related to me. :scrooge:
I don't like children in general but I have the serenity to accept things I cannot change. :)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:20:01 PM
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:20:01 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 04:02:58 PM
public displays of affection aren't usually attempts to flaunt love. it's more that the people are really engrossed with one another. that's kinda what mothers are to their babies. they and their friends/family might care about the baby, but nobody else does except for the occasional baby lover. it's an annoyance to the rest, like public displays of affection, because it's awkward and/or gross.
I think others have already said it, but this is really bizarre.
Google's top hit for baby lover was this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEhL07UCkb4
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:23:11 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:20:01 PMI think others have already said it, but this is really bizarre.
why do you think people dislike public breastfeeding? other than awkwardness/grossness, what other reason makes sense?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:24:02 PM
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:24:02 PM
I don't think that most people dislike it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:27:07 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:27:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:24:02 PM
I don't think that most people dislike it.
you've got people posting on FB about how others report their breastfeeding pictures. you have public breastfeeding activists. and itt, you've got an anecdote of someone's wife being mortified at the thought of public breastfeeding. plus, if it was a normal, everyday thing, you'd probably see it happening way more often. maybe california/NYC are progressive enough where people honestly don't blink and stare a little bit at public breastfeeding, but I don't think the majority of the country is like that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 06:32:36 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 06:32:36 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:23:11 PMwhy do you think people dislike public breastfeeding? other than awkwardness/grossness, what other reason makes sense?
Because they're a bunch of weird uptight fuckers who can't think of women's bodies as anything but sinful sexual devices.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 06:34:09 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 06:34:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:16:11 PM
I think all that's fine - though I would say it is rhetorically cheap to compare to homosexuality. <_<
Yeah, fair enough... it was the "flaunting" thing that clinched it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:34:28 PM
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:34:28 PM
Apart from when I was a child, the only time I took issue with public breastfeeding is when I was sitting on the subway and a woman sat down partially on me and then with her baby partially on me started breastfeeding. I didn't really want to participate. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Habbaku on March 08, 2016, 06:36:39 PM
Post by: Habbaku on March 08, 2016, 06:36:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 06:32:36 PMQuote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:23:11 PMwhy do you think people dislike public breastfeeding? other than awkwardness/grossness, what other reason makes sense?
Because they're a bunch of weird uptight fuckers who can't think of women's bodies as anything but sinful sexual devices.
:(
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:38:29 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:38:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 06:32:36 PMBecause they're a bunch of weird uptight fuckers who can't think of women's bodies as anything but sinful sexual devices.
a less extreme version of this is maybe part of it. but the whole act is pretty personal in general. typically, people don't like personal things displayed in public. best to find an excluded area somewhere, which is what most mothers do
when society rejects allowing women to do something, it's not always caused by sexism
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 08, 2016, 09:47:18 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 08, 2016, 09:47:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 06:32:36 PMQuote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:23:11 PMwhy do you think people dislike public breastfeeding? other than awkwardness/grossness, what other reason makes sense?
Because they're a bunch of weird uptight fuckers who can't think of women's bodies as anything but sinful sexual devices.
Duh. Women are not people; they are devices built by our Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 09:50:53 PM
Post by: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 09:50:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2016, 09:47:18 PM
Duh. Women are not people; they are devices built by our Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment.
Our Lord Jesus Christ should have built the devices with a better ability to drive a car.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 08, 2016, 10:06:07 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 08, 2016, 10:06:07 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 09:50:53 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 08, 2016, 09:47:18 PM
Duh. Women are not people; they are devices built by our Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment.
Our Lord Jesus Christ should have built the devices with a better ability to drive a car.
Yeah, but that adds to entertainment, what with all the women driving jokes over the years.
Also btw in case anyone forgot: MEN DRIVE
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 08, 2016, 10:15:27 PM
Post by: Siege on March 08, 2016, 10:15:27 PM
I flaunt my masculinity.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 08, 2016, 10:21:27 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 08, 2016, 10:21:27 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2016, 10:15:27 PM
I flaunt my masculinity.
Just don't shove it in my face.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on March 08, 2016, 11:36:28 PM
Post by: Phillip V on March 08, 2016, 11:36:28 PM
Bernie Sanders Declared Winner of Michigan In Huge Upset
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 08, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 08, 2016, 11:37:15 PM
God damn America.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on March 08, 2016, 11:46:39 PM
Post by: Monoriu on March 08, 2016, 11:46:39 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 08, 2016, 11:36:28 PM
Bernie Sanders Declared Winner of Michigan In Huge Upset
He basically split the delegates with Clinton, and still trails her in the total count.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on March 08, 2016, 11:47:58 PM
Post by: Phillip V on March 08, 2016, 11:47:58 PM
Bloomberg abandoned his presidential campaign yesterday because he thought Clinton had locked up the nomination. Too bad. Check out his unfinished campaign ad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOqJ5zq7SfU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOqJ5zq7SfU
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 09, 2016, 12:13:45 AM
Post by: Razgovory on March 09, 2016, 12:13:45 AM
It has the feel of an employee orientation video.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on March 09, 2016, 12:20:46 AM
Post by: Phillip V on March 09, 2016, 12:20:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 09, 2016, 12:13:45 AM
It has the feel of an employee orientation video.
We can all be employees under a President Bloomberg
0% unemployment
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on March 09, 2016, 12:44:10 AM
Post by: Jaron on March 09, 2016, 12:44:10 AM
Bernie Sanders defiant!
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 09, 2016, 12:48:13 AM
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 09, 2016, 12:48:13 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 07, 2016, 10:31:16 PM
Question: why do Democrats assume the Republicans will never again control the Presidency?
What's going on?
What is their calculation for this?
I don't see why they would be so confident, especially when so many polls claim most Americans are right of center.
Demographics. Non-hispanic whites are simply a smaller proportion of the electorate than it used to be.
Logically, the GOP would take advantage of the fact that white hispanics are assimilating quickly into the mainstream, and add them to their coalition. However that's clearly not happened.
If Trump is nominated he would literally have to rack up 70% of the non-hispanic white vote.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:33:39 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:33:39 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:27:07 PMQuote from: garbon on March 08, 2016, 06:24:02 PM
I don't think that most people dislike it.
you've got people posting on FB about how others report their breastfeeding pictures. you have public breastfeeding activists. and itt, you've got an anecdote of someone's wife being mortified at the thought of public breastfeeding. plus, if it was a normal, everyday thing, you'd probably see it happening way more often. maybe california/NYC are progressive enough where people honestly don't blink and stare a little bit at public breastfeeding, but I don't think the majority of the country is like that.
I said my wife would be mortified at the idea of HER doing so, not mortified at the idea of anyone else doing so - not the same thing at all.
She is just rather private, and would not at all be comfortable. But it has no bearing on her opinion about other women doing it, which she would support almost unequivocally.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:36:28 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:36:28 PM
I actually kind of suspect that the entire "opposition to breastfeeding" is kind of like the entire "war on Christmas".
Sort of a fake thing invented by people who want something to feel beset upon over.
I don't know anyone who would actually berate someone for breastfeeding in public, personally, just like I don't actually know anyone who would actually get offended if someone said "Merry Christmas" to them.
Sort of a fake thing invented by people who want something to feel beset upon over.
I don't know anyone who would actually berate someone for breastfeeding in public, personally, just like I don't actually know anyone who would actually get offended if someone said "Merry Christmas" to them.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on March 09, 2016, 12:38:22 PM
Post by: Jaron on March 09, 2016, 12:38:22 PM
I don't know. It certainly has the capacity to make one feel uncomfortable. Personally, it seems like the kind of thought that ought to be done in a private space for both mother and child's comfort.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:39:32 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:39:32 PM
I can assure you that the child could not care less, at least.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:40:09 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 09, 2016, 12:38:22 PM
I don't know. It certainly has the capacity to make one feel uncomfortable. Personally, it seems like the kind of thought that ought to be done in a private space for both mother and child's comfort.
Well sure but sometimes you have to breastfeed. Would you rather the baby just screamed its head off because it was hungry? And parents do have to leave their homes sometimes :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:40:46 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:40:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:39:32 PM
I can assure you that the child could not care less, at least.
True
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 09, 2016, 12:47:42 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 09, 2016, 12:47:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:36:28 PMhttp://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/politics/trump-breast-pump-statement/
I actually kind of suspect that the entire "opposition to breastfeeding" is kind of like the entire "war on Christmas".
Sort of a fake thing invented by people who want something to feel beset upon over.
I don't know anyone who would actually berate someone for breastfeeding in public, personally, just like I don't actually know anyone who would actually get offended if someone said "Merry Christmas" to them.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 12:50:59 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 12:50:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:40:09 PM
Well sure but sometimes you have to breastfeed. Would you rather the baby just screamed its head off because it was hungry? And parents do have to leave their homes sometimes :P
Thanks for the image of Jaron breastfeeding :angry:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:51:17 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:51:17 PM
OK, I would object to someone wanting to pump in the middle of a meeting. That would definitely be fucking weird.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 09, 2016, 12:51:46 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 09, 2016, 12:51:46 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 09, 2016, 12:38:22 PM
I don't know. It certainly has the capacity to make one feel uncomfortable. Personally, it seems like the kind of thought that ought to be done in a private space for both mother and child's comfort.
Jaron: in Deseret, are people really uptight about giving waiters or waitresses their credit cards, at least at diner/family restaurant kind of places? Because I had an awful weird experience in Ogden half a year back...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:53:15 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:53:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 12:50:59 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:40:09 PM
Well sure but sometimes you have to breastfeed. Would you rather the baby just screamed its head off because it was hungry? And parents do have to leave their homes sometimes :P
Thanks for the image of Jaron breastfeeding :angry:
It is a beautiful natural thing Spicey. A beautiful natural thing that required lots of hormone treatments.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 09, 2016, 12:55:16 PM
Post by: garbon on March 09, 2016, 12:55:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:40:09 PMQuote from: Jaron on March 09, 2016, 12:38:22 PM
I don't know. It certainly has the capacity to make one feel uncomfortable. Personally, it seems like the kind of thought that ought to be done in a private space for both mother and child's comfort.
Well sure but sometimes you have to breastfeed. Would you rather the baby just screamed its head off because it was hungry? And parents do have to leave their homes sometimes :P
Actions have consequences! :angry:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 09, 2016, 12:56:25 PM
Post by: garbon on March 09, 2016, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:53:15 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 12:50:59 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:40:09 PM
Well sure but sometimes you have to breastfeed. Would you rather the baby just screamed its head off because it was hungry? And parents do have to leave their homes sometimes :P
Thanks for the image of Jaron breastfeeding :angry:
It is a beautiful natural thing Spicey. A beautiful natural thing that required lots of hormone treatments.
Who knows, perhaps Jaron was the original that AR just copied and he has been trolling us about his real life the entire time that Languish has existed. :o
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 12:59:12 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 12:59:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:51:17 PM
OK, I would object to someone wanting to pump in the middle of a meeting. That would definitely be fucking weird.
Eons ago a worked with a gal (had huge jugs btw) who came up to me and emphatically told me not to go into the room on our floor designated for breast pumping-- she went further and spelled it out for me that she would be pumping in that room. She was really weird about it, though. Almost as if she was telling me to go in there. I didn't :goodboy:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 01:01:49 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 01:01:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2016, 12:56:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:53:15 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 12:50:59 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 12:40:09 PM
Well sure but sometimes you have to breastfeed. Would you rather the baby just screamed its head off because it was hungry? And parents do have to leave their homes sometimes :P
Thanks for the image of Jaron breastfeeding :angry:
It is a beautiful natural thing Spicey. A beautiful natural thing that required lots of hormone treatments.
Who knows, perhaps Jaron was the original that AR just copied and he has been trolling us about his real life the entire time that Languish has existed. :o
I think I subconsciously suspect that about 40% of Languish is trollish sockpuppets. Perhaps that's a defense mechanism.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 01:02:26 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 01:02:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 12:59:12 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 09, 2016, 12:51:17 PM
OK, I would object to someone wanting to pump in the middle of a meeting. That would definitely be fucking weird.
Eons ago a worked with a gal (had huge jugs btw) who came up to me and emphatically told me not to go into the room on our floor designated for breast pumping-- she went further and spelled it out for me that she would be pumping in that room. She was really weird about it, though. Almost as if she was telling me to go in there. I didn't :goodboy:
Nothing so enticing or erotic as a woman with pump things attached to her breasts.
Maybe she just wanted some company, breast pumping can be kind of boring. My wife would always call me at work to chat when she was pumping insider her company's pumping room.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 09, 2016, 01:04:28 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 09, 2016, 01:04:28 PM
There's no way to just lock it in place and run in for a pack of smokes or a Gatorade? :(
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 01:11:01 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 09, 2016, 01:11:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 01:02:26 PM
Nothing so enticing or erotic as a woman with pump things attached to her breasts.
Oh I'm sure there is a small segment of guys turned on by that.
QuoteMaybe she just wanted some company, breast pumping can be kind of boring.
:lol: Yeah I'd be totally comfortable with that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 09, 2016, 02:28:56 PM
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 09, 2016, 02:28:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2016, 06:32:36 PMQuote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 06:23:11 PMwhy do you think people dislike public breastfeeding? other than awkwardness/grossness, what other reason makes sense?
Because they're a bunch of weird uptight, fuckers who can't think of women's bodies as anything but sinful sexual devices.
not staring help.
Anyways, there's nothing to see with breastfeading. Baby hugs all the boob.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 09, 2016, 05:14:32 PM
Post by: garbon on March 09, 2016, 05:14:32 PM
Yay the RNC has now sued State Dept over Clinton emails...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 09, 2016, 07:32:04 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 09, 2016, 07:32:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2016, 05:14:32 PM
Yay the RNC has now sued State Dept over Clinton emails...
Preibus went on TV, said it was totally wrong to say the suit was duplicative, and then went on to explain that it is duplicative.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2016, 08:21:28 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2016, 08:21:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 01:02:26 PM
Nothing so enticing or erotic as a woman with pump things attached to her breasts.
Meh, cuffs and ball gags make it better.
QuoteMaybe she just wanted some company, breast pumping can be kind of boring. My wife would always call me at work to chat when she was pumping insider her company's pumping room.
Sometimes those breast pump rooms are like chick caves, man. Luxurious recliner chairs, throw pillows, stainless appliances, mood lighting, complementary snack items, soundproofed, but with wireless sound systems for soothing music.
Meanwhile, what do we get? Gotta share the shitter with Farooq, who's still getting used to the concept of indoor plumbing and doesn't understand why there's a seat that lifts, after all the ditch at the edge of the village never had that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2016, 08:22:57 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2016, 08:22:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2016, 05:14:32 PM
Yay the RNC has now sued State Dept over Clinton emails...
The RNC would be remiss if it wasn't working all election season, all the time.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 10, 2016, 02:20:01 AM
Post by: garbon on March 10, 2016, 02:20:01 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 09, 2016, 07:32:04 PMQuote from: garbon on March 09, 2016, 05:14:32 PM
Yay the RNC has now sued State Dept over Clinton emails...
Preibus went on TV, said it was totally wrong to say the suit was duplicative, and then went on to explain that it is duplicative.
I like how a Fox news anchor tore into him on this. He probably thought he was facing a soft interview. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: citizen k on March 11, 2016, 03:59:29 PM
Post by: citizen k on March 11, 2016, 03:59:29 PM
Quote
Bernie Sanders Said Something We Weren't Ready to Hear Last Night
Esquire By Charles P. Pierce
Well, at least I lived long enough to hear a presidential candidate from one of the major parties refer to "the so-called Monroe Doctrine."
It came during the most interesting passage in the debate Wednesday night between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders was asked if he regretted having once supported the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and having once paid some compliments to the Castro regime in Cuba.
Well, let me just answer that. What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government-democratically elected government of Guatemala. Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we've operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration's efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the-to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile. I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments. That's what that was about.
A few minutes later, as an addendum to an answer about her solution to Puerto Rico's crippling economic crisis, HRC pounced and pandered.
And I just want to add one thing to the question you were asking Senator Sanders. I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves. I just couldn't disagree more. You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.
OK, I wanted to yell, "What about the Saudis/Chinese?" at my TV, too, and it did occur to me that HRC might want to ask her lunch buddy Henry Kissinger about his human-rights record some time. But what most struck me is the depth of the denial still about the profound costs of U.S. intervention in the affairs of our closest neighbors, and our easiest proxies, in the various Great Games. The Monroe Doctrine might have made sense when England, France, Spain, and even Portugal still had imperial ambitions. But that was a very limited space in time. By the mid-1800's, the Monroe Doctrine, and the philosophy behind it, was an excuse for land-grabbing. As one prominent American politician once put it,
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable-a most sacred right-a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such a minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."
Of course, as we know, those remarks cost that Lincoln rube his seat in the House and ended his political career.
The 20th century was even worse. We insistently meddled in Cuba throughout it, even though our meddling came dangerously close to blowing up the entire world. Within our own hemisphere, we backed dictator after dictator, oligarch after oligarch. We armed terrorists. We financed coups. We allowed bombings and drug smuggling. We sold missiles to the mullahs in order to finance our terrorists. Somoza. Pincochet. Batista. Rios-Montt. To paraphrase John Quincy Adams, we did not go far abroad to find monsters to support.
These are just some of the people who did not live long enough to rebut HRC's presumption of American innocence:
The 68 passengers of Cubana Airlines Flight 455.
(But one of the architects of this atrocity, Orlando Bosch, died in a nice bed in Miami thanks to the intervention of influential Americans, including Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Jeb -!- Bush.)
The 900 citizens of El Mozote, El Salvador.
(But one of the architects of the cover-up, the unspeakable Elliott Abrams, now has a cushy gig advising Young Marco Rubio's crumbling presidential campaign.)
Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, Dorothy Kazel, and Jean Donovan, slaughtered by the US-backed Salvadoran national guard.
(But one of the architects of that cover-up, the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Ronald Reagan.)
Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt.
(Pinochet, of course, died under "house arrest." And the boss of his Caravan of Death went straight to the depths of hell in a nursing home on Wednesday.)
Eight Jesuit priests and their housekeeper and her son, gunned to ribbons in El Salvador.
(Abrams, again)
Blessed Oscar Romero.
(But Roberto DeAubisson, the American-trained death-squad jefe who ordered the assassination, lived to die of cancer in what I am sure was a very nice hospital. He was a beloved figure among the Reagan foreign policy elite, until he became inconvenient and, yeah, Abrams again.)
This is only a partial list, of course. It doesn't include the thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, and citizens of other countries who got caught in the gears of the so-called Monroe Doctrine down through the centuries. (Hola,Vera Cruz!) The pundits are right that Sanders' statements back in the 1980s are fertile ground for conservative ratfcking-look how easy it was for HRC to turn them around on him-and likely would be used to make a meal out of him in a general election. The biggest problem that Sanders has here, though, is that he told a truth that we're still not prepared to hear. That Elliott Abrams has not been fitted with a leper's bell yet is proof enough of that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2016, 09:21:21 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2016, 09:21:21 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/2d/fe/2b/2dfe2b360f0bfa6fe51cf69bec85a2a2.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2016, 09:21:47 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2016, 09:21:47 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/54/73/6f/54736f862eb87e02c829c1329c3bec3b.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2016, 09:23:25 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2016, 09:23:25 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/df/ee/9d/dfee9d4ca685033e7f9c8a17e9aa688a.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 11, 2016, 09:26:46 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 11, 2016, 09:26:46 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 11, 2016, 03:59:29 PMQuote
Bernie Sanders Said Something We Weren't Ready to Hear Last Night
Esquire By Charles P. Pierce
Well, at least I lived long enough to hear a presidential candidate from one of the major parties refer to "the so-called Monroe Doctrine."
It came during the most interesting passage in the debate Wednesday night between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders was asked if he regretted having once supported the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and having once paid some compliments to the Castro regime in Cuba.
Well, let me just answer that. What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government-democratically elected government of Guatemala. Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we've operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration's efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the-to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile. I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments. That's what that was about.
A few minutes later, as an addendum to an answer about her solution to Puerto Rico's crippling economic crisis, HRC pounced and pandered.
And I just want to add one thing to the question you were asking Senator Sanders. I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves. I just couldn't disagree more. You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.
OK, I wanted to yell, "What about the Saudis/Chinese?" at my TV, too, and it did occur to me that HRC might want to ask her lunch buddy Henry Kissinger about his human-rights record some time. But what most struck me is the depth of the denial still about the profound costs of U.S. intervention in the affairs of our closest neighbors, and our easiest proxies, in the various Great Games. The Monroe Doctrine might have made sense when England, France, Spain, and even Portugal still had imperial ambitions. But that was a very limited space in time. By the mid-1800's, the Monroe Doctrine, and the philosophy behind it, was an excuse for land-grabbing. As one prominent American politician once put it,
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable-a most sacred right-a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such a minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."
Of course, as we know, those remarks cost that Lincoln rube his seat in the House and ended his political career.
The 20th century was even worse. We insistently meddled in Cuba throughout it, even though our meddling came dangerously close to blowing up the entire world. Within our own hemisphere, we backed dictator after dictator, oligarch after oligarch. We armed terrorists. We financed coups. We allowed bombings and drug smuggling. We sold missiles to the mullahs in order to finance our terrorists. Somoza. Pincochet. Batista. Rios-Montt. To paraphrase John Quincy Adams, we did not go far abroad to find monsters to support.
These are just some of the people who did not live long enough to rebut HRC's presumption of American innocence:
The 68 passengers of Cubana Airlines Flight 455.
(But one of the architects of this atrocity, Orlando Bosch, died in a nice bed in Miami thanks to the intervention of influential Americans, including Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Jeb -!- Bush.)
The 900 citizens of El Mozote, El Salvador.
(But one of the architects of the cover-up, the unspeakable Elliott Abrams, now has a cushy gig advising Young Marco Rubio's crumbling presidential campaign.)
Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, Dorothy Kazel, and Jean Donovan, slaughtered by the US-backed Salvadoran national guard.
(But one of the architects of that cover-up, the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Ronald Reagan.)
Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt.
(Pinochet, of course, died under "house arrest." And the boss of his Caravan of Death went straight to the depths of hell in a nursing home on Wednesday.)
Eight Jesuit priests and their housekeeper and her son, gunned to ribbons in El Salvador.
(Abrams, again)
Blessed Oscar Romero.
(But Roberto DeAubisson, the American-trained death-squad jefe who ordered the assassination, lived to die of cancer in what I am sure was a very nice hospital. He was a beloved figure among the Reagan foreign policy elite, until he became inconvenient and, yeah, Abrams again.)
This is only a partial list, of course. It doesn't include the thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, and citizens of other countries who got caught in the gears of the so-called Monroe Doctrine down through the centuries. (Hola,Vera Cruz!) The pundits are right that Sanders' statements back in the 1980s are fertile ground for conservative ratfcking-look how easy it was for HRC to turn them around on him-and likely would be used to make a meal out of him in a general election. The biggest problem that Sanders has here, though, is that he told a truth that we're still not prepared to hear. That Elliott Abrams has not been fitted with a leper's bell yet is proof enough of that.
Well, now I want to go out and hit Charles Pierce with a reasonably large stick.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2016, 09:47:09 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2016, 09:47:09 PM
That is some dumbass logic there.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 11, 2016, 09:55:11 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 11, 2016, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2016, 09:47:09 PM
That is some dumbass logic there.
I'll admit it's a bit crude, but I think me hitting this guy with a stick is not illogical.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 11, 2016, 11:05:29 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 11, 2016, 11:05:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2016, 09:55:11 PM
I'll admit it's a bit crude, but I think me hitting this guy with a stick is not illogical.
It is an emotional response.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2016, 02:38:42 AM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2016, 02:38:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2016, 09:55:11 PM
I'll admit it's a bit crude, but I think me hitting this guy with a stick is not illogical.
Don't you play coy with me buster.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 12, 2016, 04:48:11 AM
Post by: Norgy on March 12, 2016, 04:48:11 AM
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 12, 2016, 05:42:47 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 12, 2016, 05:42:47 AM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/2d/51/4d/2d514d7ec6f4e44a58dfa115b757679c.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 12, 2016, 08:04:57 AM
Post by: Norgy on March 12, 2016, 08:04:57 AM
:cry:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 14, 2016, 04:25:38 AM
Post by: Siege on March 14, 2016, 04:25:38 AM
I can't believe people still believe in socialism.
Why do they want the small folk be even poorer and have less to consume?
Why do they want the small folk be even poorer and have less to consume?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 14, 2016, 04:33:11 AM
Post by: Siege on March 14, 2016, 04:33:11 AM
Ludwig Von Mises wrote in 1947:
" The characteristic mark of this age of dictators, wars and revolutions is its anti-capitalistic bias. Most governments and political parties are eager to restrict the sphere of private initiative and free enterprise. It is an almost unchallenged dogma that capitalism is done for and that the coming of all-round regimentation of economic activities is both inescapable and highly desirable.
E.2
None the less capitalism is still very vigorous in the Western Hemisphere. Capitalist production has made very remarkable progress even in these last years. Methods of production were greatly improved. Consumers have been supplied with better and cheaper goods and with many new articles unheard of a short time ago. Many countries have expanded the size and improved the quality of their manufacturing. In spite of the anti-capitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is in many countries still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better and cheaper goods.
E.3
It is certainly not a merit of governments, politicians and labour union officers that the standard of living is improving in the countries committed to the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motor car and a radio set. The increase in per capita consumption in America as compared with conditions a quarter of a century ago is not an achievement of laws and executive orders. It is an accomplishment of business men who enlarged the size of their factories or built new ones.
E.4
One must stress this point because our contemporaries are inclined to ignore it. Entangled in the superstitions of statism and government omnipotence, they are exclusively preoccupied with governmental measures. They expect everything from authoritarian action and very little from the initiative of enterprising citizens. Yet, the only means to increase well-being is to increase the quantity of products. This is what business aims at.
E.5
It is grotesque that there is much more talk about the achievements of the Tennessee Valley Authority than about all the unprecedented and unparalleled achievements of American privately operated processing industries. However, it was only the latter which enabled the United Nations to win the war and today enables the United States to come to the aid of the Marshall Plan countries.
E.6
The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolatry are no less fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain.
E.7
History will call our age the age of the dictators and tyrants. We have witnessed in the last years the fall of two of these inflated supermen. But the spirit which raised these knaves to autocratic power survives. It permeates textbooks and periodicals, it speaks through the mouths of teachers and politicians, it manifests itself in party programmes and in plays and novels. As long as this spirit prevails there cannot be any hope of durable peace, of democracy, of the preservation of freedom or of a steady improvement in the nation's economic well-being."
" The characteristic mark of this age of dictators, wars and revolutions is its anti-capitalistic bias. Most governments and political parties are eager to restrict the sphere of private initiative and free enterprise. It is an almost unchallenged dogma that capitalism is done for and that the coming of all-round regimentation of economic activities is both inescapable and highly desirable.
E.2
None the less capitalism is still very vigorous in the Western Hemisphere. Capitalist production has made very remarkable progress even in these last years. Methods of production were greatly improved. Consumers have been supplied with better and cheaper goods and with many new articles unheard of a short time ago. Many countries have expanded the size and improved the quality of their manufacturing. In spite of the anti-capitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is in many countries still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better and cheaper goods.
E.3
It is certainly not a merit of governments, politicians and labour union officers that the standard of living is improving in the countries committed to the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motor car and a radio set. The increase in per capita consumption in America as compared with conditions a quarter of a century ago is not an achievement of laws and executive orders. It is an accomplishment of business men who enlarged the size of their factories or built new ones.
E.4
One must stress this point because our contemporaries are inclined to ignore it. Entangled in the superstitions of statism and government omnipotence, they are exclusively preoccupied with governmental measures. They expect everything from authoritarian action and very little from the initiative of enterprising citizens. Yet, the only means to increase well-being is to increase the quantity of products. This is what business aims at.
E.5
It is grotesque that there is much more talk about the achievements of the Tennessee Valley Authority than about all the unprecedented and unparalleled achievements of American privately operated processing industries. However, it was only the latter which enabled the United Nations to win the war and today enables the United States to come to the aid of the Marshall Plan countries.
E.6
The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolatry are no less fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain.
E.7
History will call our age the age of the dictators and tyrants. We have witnessed in the last years the fall of two of these inflated supermen. But the spirit which raised these knaves to autocratic power survives. It permeates textbooks and periodicals, it speaks through the mouths of teachers and politicians, it manifests itself in party programmes and in plays and novels. As long as this spirit prevails there cannot be any hope of durable peace, of democracy, of the preservation of freedom or of a steady improvement in the nation's economic well-being."
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2016, 12:08:18 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2016, 12:08:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 14, 2016, 04:25:38 AM
I can't believe people still believe in socialism.
Why do they want the small folk be even poorer and have less to consume?
Well I don't think the socialists really believe in socialism anymore. It is just the tiresome debate of whether taxes should be 5% or 6% or welfare should be one amount per month or another amount per month.
We already have the government helping out with college education, Bernie just wants to do so a bit more. Hardly a new economic system.
Of course I don't think we can afford to do any of those things, so I oppose him. But I don't think Capitalism is in danger. Even in European nations where it is a dirty word it still is the only system.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 14, 2016, 02:03:03 PM
Post by: Siege on March 14, 2016, 02:03:03 PM
Well, they both want to take my guns.
Hell, but hell no.
You want my guns, come and take them.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4a/4e/38/4a4e380d4749f2ddde6b9323e1b7487f.jpg)
Hell, but hell no.
You want my guns, come and take them.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4a/4e/38/4a4e380d4749f2ddde6b9323e1b7487f.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on March 14, 2016, 02:22:13 PM
Post by: viper37 on March 14, 2016, 02:22:13 PM
is this the girl that got shot by her 4 year old son last week? :)
Also, could you explain to me how the Federal government is going to take your guns?
Also, could you explain to me how the Federal government is going to take your guns?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 01:21:38 AM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 01:21:38 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 14, 2016, 02:03:03 PM
Well, they both want to take my guns.
Not even the most radical gun control laws passed back when they enjoyed popular support actually involved confiscation. Buy back programs sometimes sure. They would, at best, be fighting to prevent criminals with a history of mental illness and gun violence from buying guns....very easily. I think you are safe.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 15, 2016, 01:30:06 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 15, 2016, 01:30:06 AM
Uhm, Siegy has mental illness and a history of gun violence...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 15, 2016, 01:35:36 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 15, 2016, 01:35:36 AM
And substance abuse. Albeit with Miller Lite.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 06:51:01 AM
Post by: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 06:51:01 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 15, 2016, 01:35:36 AM
And substance abuse. Albeit with Miller Lite.
Is that even a substance?
It seems so... insubstantial.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 15, 2016, 07:01:22 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 15, 2016, 07:01:22 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 06:51:01 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 15, 2016, 01:35:36 AM
And substance abuse. Albeit with Miller Lite.
Is that even a substance?
It seems so... insubstantial.
If it'll bloat, it'll float.
I drank the entirety of a twelve-pack of Miller Lite (12 x 355ml cans) over the course of a Raymond Chandler novel once, during some dark days, seven or eight years ago. Many bathroom breaks included. The point was 25% to test out light beer and 75% to get drunk, of course.
4% ABV is something like 5% ABW, so it's still stronger ethanol-wise than a lot of good English pale ale or stout.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 01:43:17 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 01:43:17 PM
When I was drinking, I drank pilsner and whiskey. Good for getting blotto quickly and falling asleep in an ashtray.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 02:05:11 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 02:05:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 14, 2016, 02:22:13 PM
is this the girl that got shot by her 4 year old son last week? :)
Also, could you explain to me how the Federal government is going to take your guns?
Hillary has hinted that she wants to follow the Australian model of confiscation.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 01:43:17 PM
When I was drinking, I drank pilsner and whiskey. Good for getting blotto quickly and falling asleep in an ashtray.
I drink pilsner when I'm trying to not get drunk. Yet somehow only strong ABV beers make it into my fridge somehow. As much as I love whiskey I usually get heartburn these days before I have enough to get me drunk :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 05:40:56 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 05:40:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 02:05:11 PM
Hillary has hinted that she wants to follow the Australian model of confiscation.
You mean by legislation?
lol "confiscation". Bullethead.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 05:58:28 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 05:58:28 PM
Yes, confiscation.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 15, 2016, 06:23:45 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 15, 2016, 06:23:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 05:58:28 PM
Yes, confiscation.
How did she hint that she'd implement this confiscation?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 15, 2016, 06:24:02 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 15, 2016, 06:24:02 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 14, 2016, 02:22:13 PM
is this the girl that got shot by her 4 year old son last week? :)
Also, could you explain to me how the Federal government is going to take your guns?
He's in the army, they aren't technically his guns. They belong to the government.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 06:25:26 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2016, 06:23:45 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 05:58:28 PM
Yes, confiscation.
How did she hint that she'd implement this confiscation?
She said she favored the Australian plan, which involved confiscation.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 06:50:28 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 06:25:26 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 15, 2016, 06:23:45 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 05:58:28 PM
Yes, confiscation.
How did she hint that she'd implement this confiscation?
She said she favored the Australian plan, which involved confiscation.
Which would require the overwhelming popular support the Australians required and would still be overturned for being un-Constitutional so I think you are safe. :lol:
Again the first time the Clintons were in office there was significant support for this sort of thing yet it still didn't happen.
Of course even in the Australian example it was a program that involved people handing in their shit and getting compensated, hardly bans of minions searching every house.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 15, 2016, 07:15:03 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 15, 2016, 07:15:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 06:25:26 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 15, 2016, 06:23:45 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 05:58:28 PM
Yes, confiscation.
How did she hint that she'd implement this confiscation?
She said she favored the Australian plan, which involved confiscation.
She did? Where? When? The best I could find is she an buyback program like Australia had is worth considering.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 07:26:32 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 07:26:32 PM
Yeah, they "bought" them back but if you didn't do it by a certain date you faced jail time. Which is the same as confiscation.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 07:48:24 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 07:48:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 07:26:32 PM
Yeah, they "bought" them back but if you didn't do it by a certain date you faced jail time. Which is the same as confiscation.
If you were stupid enough to get caught.
Well don't get me wrong. Australia has just about the worse laws on anything in existence and wanting to strongly consider their ideas is always suspect, but there is basically zero chance any of that happens here. At least as far as things stand now.
Even if the Democrats sweep into majorities in both houses of Congress and re-capture the Presidency there is little chance of any substantial gun control legislation being passed...and certainly nothing even remotely close to the sledgehammer subtlety the Aussies seem to love.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on March 15, 2016, 07:55:42 PM
Post by: Phillip V on March 15, 2016, 07:55:42 PM
#feelthebern looks to be over and dead after tonight.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 08:02:54 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 08:02:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 07:48:24 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 07:26:32 PM
Yeah, they "bought" them back but if you didn't do it by a certain date you faced jail time. Which is the same as confiscation.
If you were stupid enough to get caught.
Well don't get me wrong. Australia has just about the worse laws on anything in existence and wanting to strongly consider their ideas is always suspect, but there is basically zero chance any of that happens here. At least as far as things stand now.
Even if the Democrats sweep into majorities in both houses of Congress and re-capture the Presidency there is little chance of any substantial gun control legislation being passed...and certainly nothing even remotely close to the sledgehammer subtlety the Aussies seem to love.
Tell that all to your chosen candidate. Who is speaking right now :pinch: Like nails on a chalkboard.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:05:53 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:05:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 08:02:54 PM
Tell that all to your chosen candidate. Who is speaking right now :pinch: Like nails on a chalkboard.
She is kissing leftist ass right now. The Clintons, they lie.
You are not kidding about the speaking part. I cannot stand listening to her speak.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:07:19 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:07:19 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 15, 2016, 07:55:42 PM
#feelthebern looks to be over and dead after tonight.
Ding dong the red is dead? We'll see.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 15, 2016, 08:12:10 PM
Post by: Siege on March 15, 2016, 08:12:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2016, 06:24:02 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 14, 2016, 02:22:13 PM
is this the girl that got shot by her 4 year old son last week? :)
Also, could you explain to me how the Federal government is going to take your guns?
He's in the army, they aren't technically his guns. They belong to the government.
I got news for you. We all belong to the gruberment.
Our freedoms are long gone, and only the wellbeing of the bureaucracy ruling DC and the elite who benefits from their rule is important.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 08:13:07 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 08:13:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:05:53 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 08:02:54 PM
Tell that all to your chosen candidate. Who is speaking right now :pinch: Like nails on a chalkboard.
She is kissing leftist ass right now. The Clintons, they lie.
You are not kidding about the speaking part. I cannot stand listening to her speak.
Apparently she wants to end deportations.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:13:32 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:13:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2016, 08:12:10 PM
I got news for you. We all belong to the gruberment.
Our freedoms are long gone, and only the wellbeing of the bureaucracy ruling DC and the elite who benefits from their rule is important.
Nonsense. Our freedoms are inalienable.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:16:07 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:16:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 08:13:07 PM
Apparently she wants to end deportations.
Look she is only referring to ethnic groups likely to vote for the Democrats.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 15, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
Post by: garbon on March 15, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:07:19 PMQuote from: Phillip V on March 15, 2016, 07:55:42 PM
#feelthebern looks to be over and dead after tonight.
Ding dong the red is dead? We'll see.
I think at this point, we are doomed to have this continue on though we all know the inevitable conclusion.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2016, 08:35:17 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2016, 08:35:17 PM
Seems the polls are off again this week, but in the other direction. Ohio called for Hillary really early.
Meanwhile, Trump is doubling up the competition in Ill. If he keeps that up he'll sweep the delegates and make up for losing Ohio. He's killing it in Cook County and there are 24 delegates up for grabs there.
Meanwhile, Trump is doubling up the competition in Ill. If he keeps that up he'll sweep the delegates and make up for losing Ohio. He's killing it in Cook County and there are 24 delegates up for grabs there.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Phillip V on March 15, 2016, 08:39:10 PM
Post by: Phillip V on March 15, 2016, 08:39:10 PM
Sanders finally leading somewhere: Missouri. Race also close in Illinois.
#feelthebern might get solace in a moral victory or two tonight.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results
#feelthebern might get solace in a moral victory or two tonight.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 15, 2016, 09:11:32 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 15, 2016, 09:11:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 07:26:32 PM
Yeah, they "bought" them back but if you didn't do it by a certain date you faced jail time. Which is the same as confiscation.
Okay, but she didn't say she actually endorsed it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:13:42 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:13:42 PM
I said she favored it. Her words were that the Australian system was "worth looking at". In politician speak, that means she favors it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:18:08 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:18:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:13:42 PM
I said she favored it. Her words were that the Australian system was "worth looking at". In politician speak, that means she favors it.
Okay, but she didn't say she was willing to plunge the country into civil war in order to see it enacted. :contract:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:19:13 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:19:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:18:08 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:13:42 PM
I said she favored it. Her words were that the Australian system was "worth looking at". In politician speak, that means she favors it.
Okay, but she didn't say she was willing to plunge the country into civil war in order to see it enacted. :contract:
True. So then we can agree she didn't bother to think through the implications, right?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:19:58 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:19:58 PM
There's no over-the-top panic quite like gun nutter over-the-top panic.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:20:48 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:20:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:19:58 PM
There's no over-the-top panic quite like gun nutter over-the-top panic.
There are plenty.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:21:04 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:21:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:19:13 PM
True. So then we can agree she didn't bother to think through the implications, right?
Dude you are cute. Hillary does not actually support doing that, should would never do such a radical un-Clinton thing in a million years. It is all bullshit for the leftists in this election. The woman is a corrupt political animal.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:21:25 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:21:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:20:48 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:19:58 PM
There's no over-the-top panic quite like gun nutter over-the-top panic.
There are plenty.
Boy you got that right.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:25:49 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:25:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:21:25 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:20:48 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:19:58 PM
There's no over-the-top panic quite like gun nutter over-the-top panic.
There are plenty.
Boy you got that right.
Thing is, I don't recall New York fatties stockpiling Big Gulps before the 16-oz confiscation.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:26:36 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:26:36 PM
The gun industry has the greatest marketing scam ever going on. I really have to admire them.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:29:17 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:29:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:26:36 PM
The gun industry has the greatest marketing scam ever going on. I really have to admire them.
Fear of those damned dirty rapist negroes out to take all your stuff and rape it all rapey-like was being peddled long before the gun industry got into it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:32:48 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:32:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:21:04 PM
Dude you are cute. Hillary does not actually support doing that, should would never do such a radical un-Clinton thing in a million years. It is all bullshit for the leftists in this election. The woman is a corrupt political animal.
I remember you preaching a similar line in 08. How do you determine which positions are sincere and which are cynical sops to the radical base?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:33:21 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:33:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:32:48 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:21:04 PM
Dude you are cute. Hillary does not actually support doing that, should would never do such a radical un-Clinton thing in a million years. It is all bullshit for the leftists in this election. The woman is a corrupt political animal.
I remember you preaching a similar line in 08. How do you determine which positions are sincere and which are cynical sops to the radical base?
And I was right. I know the Democrats. They are sell outs. At least the non-Sanders ones are. And at this point I find that stabilizing.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:35:02 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:35:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:33:21 PM
And I was right. I know the Democrats. They are sell outs. At least the non-Sanders ones are. And at this point I find that stabilizing.
So everything a non-bernie Democratic candidate promises to do is a lie? :unsure:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:37:57 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:37:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:26:36 PM
The gun industry has the greatest marketing scam ever going on. I really have to admire them.
You kidding? Obama has sold more guns than any gun industry marketing person could dream of.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:38:29 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:29:17 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:26:36 PM
The gun industry has the greatest marketing scam ever going on. I really have to admire them.
Fear of those damned dirty rapist negroes out to take all your stuff and rape it all rapey-like was being peddled long before the gun industry got into it.
THATS REAL RETARDED SIR
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:40:33 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:40:33 PM
Anyway I have decided to start stockpiling. If Hillary wins in November I could probably double or triple my money.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:43:18 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:43:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:37:57 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:26:36 PM
The gun industry has the greatest marketing scam ever going on. I really have to admire them.
You kidding? Obama has sold more guns than any gun industry marketing person could dream of.
I know! Damn if only I had had some money to invest back in 2008.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:44:44 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:44:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:35:02 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:33:21 PM
And I was right. I know the Democrats. They are sell outs. At least the non-Sanders ones are. And at this point I find that stabilizing.
So everything a non-bernie Democratic candidate promises to do is a lie? :unsure:
Depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is.
Obviously it is not that simple. It is more like: I can count on them to be basically sensible.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 15, 2016, 10:48:58 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 15, 2016, 10:48:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:25:49 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:21:25 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:20:48 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2016, 10:19:58 PM
There's no over-the-top panic quite like gun nutter over-the-top panic.
There are plenty.
Boy you got that right.
Thing is, I don't recall New York fatties stockpiling Big Gulps before the 16-oz confiscation.
:lmfao:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 15, 2016, 10:50:22 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 15, 2016, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:35:02 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:33:21 PM
And I was right. I know the Democrats. They are sell outs. At least the non-Sanders ones are. And at this point I find that stabilizing.
So everything a non-bernie Democratic candidate promises to do is a lie? :unsure:
:yes: Well, I don't want to kick O'Malley when he's down.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Habbaku on March 16, 2016, 12:22:29 AM
Post by: Habbaku on March 16, 2016, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:40:33 PM
Anyway I have decided to start stockpiling. If Hillary wins in November I could probably double or triple my money.
Wish I had the liquid funds to start doing the same. I'm gambling on Hillary taking it in November, but the chance of Trump winning makes the proposition a little dicey.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Josquius on March 16, 2016, 01:50:03 AM
Post by: Josquius on March 16, 2016, 01:50:03 AM
Sanders has lost. Well that's unfortunate.
Though I guess boring old Clinton has a better chance against drumpf
Though I guess boring old Clinton has a better chance against drumpf
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 04:43:26 AM
Post by: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 04:43:26 AM
I have a lot of time for the Bern and think it's sad that his campaign seems to falter now.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 05:11:16 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 05:11:16 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 04:43:26 AM
I have a lot of time for the Bern and think it's sad that his campaign seems to falter now.
It's been over since Super Tuesday.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:03:05 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:03:05 AM
But I doubt he'll stop until the bitter end...and then the Convention will be interesting to see. As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Josquius on March 16, 2016, 06:22:07 AM
Post by: Josquius on March 16, 2016, 06:22:07 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:03:05 AMI've heard a few people say this.
But I doubt he'll stop until the bitter end...and then the Convention will be interesting to see. As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.
Even as much as sanders would have been good for America (for the world though I'm unsure. All this talk of bringing jobs back to America..... fine when a small country says that sort of thing but when it's the country controlling so much of the global economy?) I think being able to have a little protest for him has to be a secondary priority to avoiding trump.
As naff as hilary is you can be sure with her it will be business as usual. Which. Isn't actually THAT bad
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 06:43:55 AM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 06:43:55 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:03:05 AM
As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.
Ass.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Tamas on March 16, 2016, 06:45:19 AM
Post by: Tamas on March 16, 2016, 06:45:19 AM
When you don't vote, you are in fact supporting the candidate with the most determined and fanatical group of supporters.
So, Mihali will be voting on Trump, it seems.
So, Mihali will be voting on Trump, it seems.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 06:50:10 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 06:50:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 16, 2016, 06:45:19 AM
When you don't vote, you are in fact supporting the candidate with the most determined and fanatical group of supporters.
So a vote not cast is a vote for Manson? :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 07:01:16 AM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 07:01:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 06:43:55 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:03:05 AM
As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.
Ass.
This is also why I'm so upset that we're continuing to have the Bern drift along. He's already pushed Hillary to the left, now time to bow out as the next few months will only continue strife and lead to more Bern supporters adopting Mihali's juvenile* stance.
*and really it is as not voting/protesting voting in the two party system we have only serves to help the Republicans who are certainly much farther away policy-wise than Hillary is to Bernie.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 07:18:18 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 07:18:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:21:04 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:19:13 PM
True. So then we can agree she didn't bother to think through the implications, right?
Dude you are cute. Hillary does not actually support doing that, should would never do such a radical un-Clinton thing in a million years. It is all bullshit for the leftists in this election. The woman is a corrupt political animal.
The same kind of non-committal rhetorics coming from Trump is enough of an evidence he is a fascist so I am not sure why it is a different standard for Hillary. Is it because she is a woman and women usually do not think through their stances? :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 07:22:35 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 07:22:35 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:03:05 AM
But I doubt he'll stop until the bitter end...and then the Convention will be interesting to see. As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.
This is the part I don't really get from your part of the left (the one that is pro-Sanders and vehemently anti-Trump). Sure, I have no problem with you preferring Sanders over Clinton. But if Trump is the evil incarnate and a racist fascist you claim him to be, surely one should hold their nose and vote for Clinton, right? That is the only moral stance to take - potentially contributing to a fascist victory because the counter-candidate is not ideologically pure enough is deeply unethical.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 07:31:55 AM
Post by: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 07:31:55 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:13:42 PM
I said she favored it. Her words were that the Australian system was "worth looking at". In politician speak, that means she favors it.
In political speak it means "I'm not actually going to do anything".
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 07:39:51 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 07:39:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 07:31:55 AMQuote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:13:42 PM
I said she favored it. Her words were that the Australian system was "worth looking at". In politician speak, that means she favors it.
In political speak it means "I'm not actually going to do anything".
Not really, that is an underlying truth that does not depend upon the language used, as it is rarely explicitly stated.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 07:43:09 AM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 07:43:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 07:01:16 AM
This is also why I'm so upset that we're continuing to have the Bern drift along. He's already pushed Hillary to the left, now time to bow out as the next few months will only continue strife and lead to more Bern supporters adopting Mihali's juvenile* stance.
*and really it is as not voting/protesting voting in the two party system we have only serves to help the Republicans who are certainly much farther away policy-wise than Hillary is to Bernie.
You would have thought people learned their fucking lesson in 2000. Not voting out of principle is a shitty fucking principle.
Quite frankly, and I don't care how melodramatic people think it sounds, but far too many Americans have died and far more people on this planet die every day over the right to vote. I don't care if it's a vote for dog catcher or chancery judge, or even if it's as trivial a matter as making sure your vote cancels out Yi's, fucking vote.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:41:32 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:41:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 06:43:55 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:03:05 AM
As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.
Ass.
You go ahead and vote for President Goldman and Vice-President Sachs. I'm done.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 08:44:28 AM
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 08:44:28 AM
Boom.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:46:00 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:46:00 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 16, 2016, 06:22:07 AM\
Even as much as sanders would have been good for America (for the world though I'm unsure. All this talk of bringing jobs back to America..... fine when a small country says that sort of thing but when it's the country controlling so much of the global economy?)
You sure you haven't turned into a gnome of Zurich, your Swiss neoliberalism is shining through. And I *never* make fun of you for this, but what's good for the British coal-mine goose isn't good for the American steel-mill gander?
And yes, business as usual really is that bad, just not for you or me because we're extraordinarily lucky.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:55:58 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:55:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 07:01:16 AMQuote from: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 06:43:55 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:03:05 AM
As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.
Ass.
This is also why I'm so upset that we're continuing to have the Bern drift along. He's already pushed Hillary to the left, now time to bow out as the next few months will only continue strife and lead to more Bern supporters adopting Mihali's juvenile* stance.
*and really it is as not voting/protesting voting in the two party system we have only serves to help the Republicans who are certainly much farther away policy-wise than Hillary is to Bernie.
:lol: So juvenile to think that just because I've voted for 95% (D) candidates in the past, a Presidential candidate -- even from the Democratic Party! -- has to earn my vote rather than just expect it? What's juvenile is refusing to believe we can ever have anything better than "the better of two evils" and smearing anyone who is foolish enough to vote their conscience, like a mere child shaking his rattle.
Of course we can never have perfect candidates; but at a certain point the things that make the candidates "evil" are pretty specific and pretty obvious, e.g. campaign contributions from the finance sector, not vague or petty distastes like "not sure we see eye-to-eye on the environment..." or "wears suits a size too big."
EDIT: Nevermind, wasn't a fair reading of your words.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 08:57:50 AM
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 08:57:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 07:18:18 AM
The same kind of non-committal rhetorics coming from Trump is enough of an evidence he is a fascist so I am not sure why it is a different standard for Hillary. Is it because she is a woman and women usually do not think through their stances? :hmm:
I have been laughing at the people who think Trump is going to become a fascist dictator so why are you asking me to account for them? :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Josquius on March 16, 2016, 09:04:56 AM
Post by: Josquius on March 16, 2016, 09:04:56 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:46:00 AM:mellow: I specifically said he seemed good for America.Quote from: Tyr on March 16, 2016, 06:22:07 AM\
Even as much as sanders would have been good for America (for the world though I'm unsure. All this talk of bringing jobs back to America..... fine when a small country says that sort of thing but when it's the country controlling so much of the global economy?)
You sure you haven't turned into a gnome of Zurich, your Swiss neoliberalism is shining through. And I *never* make fun of you for this, but what's good for the British coal-mine goose isn't good for the American steel-mill gander?
And yes, business as usual really is that bad, just not for you or me because we're extraordinarily lucky.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 16, 2016, 09:06:22 AM
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 16, 2016, 09:06:22 AM
The garish, colossal architecture will be a sight to behold. Mussolini eat your heart out.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:11:56 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 07:22:35 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:03:05 AM
But I doubt he'll stop until the bitter end...and then the Convention will be interesting to see. As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.
This is the part I don't really get from your part of the left (the one that is pro-Sanders and vehemently anti-Trump). Sure, I have no problem with you preferring Sanders over Clinton. But if Trump is the evil incarnate and a racist fascist you claim him to be, surely one should hold their nose and vote for Clinton, right? That is the only moral stance to take - potentially contributing to a fascist victory because the counter-candidate is not ideologically pure enough is deeply unethical.
:lol: Marty calls me "vehemently anti-Trump," Raz says I defend Trump even when he calls for violence; which is it?
Raz at least has some discussion to back up his opinion. (Discussion that was misinterpreted, but at least based on some kind of statement of mine.) Yours is pulled out of thin air.
I'd go through the Languish routine of demanding you find a post where I say Trump is evil incarnate or claim he's as a racist fascist, but it's silly since there's evidently nothing like that to be found. This may come as a surprise, but I don't think either is true. (And my views on Trump aren't "mostly" trolling, unlike some of us.)
Guess I'm not a member of "[my] part of the left" after all. :( Just caught in that "part of the left" that you're currently having psychosexual reactionary fantasies about. Go back to the Zizek, Mart, it'll do you some good to dig into psychoanalysis. :console:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:16:28 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:16:28 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 16, 2016, 09:04:56 AM
:mellow: I specifically said he seemed good for America.
And unsure if his stance of promoting domestic industries would be good for the world. Hence the analogy to the situation of British coal industry in the 70s-80s: protecting the mines was good for Britain but it wasn't clear that it was good for the world, especially the other coal-producing parts of the world...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 09:18:38 AM
Post by: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 09:18:38 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 16, 2016, 07:39:51 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 07:31:55 AMQuote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:13:42 PM
I said she favored it. Her words were that the Australian system was "worth looking at". In politician speak, that means she favors it.
In political speak it means "I'm not actually going to do anything".
Not really, that is an underlying truth that does not depend upon the language used, as it is rarely explicitly stated.
Nah. It's like when the British say that something is a "brave proposal". They mean you are crazy, not brave. Same thing with "we are looking into it" or "it's worth looking into" It means "we aren't taking this seriously, maybe we'll have a panel or some other busywork"
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 09:19:58 AM
Post by: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 09:19:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 07:43:09 AMQuote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 07:01:16 AM
This is also why I'm so upset that we're continuing to have the Bern drift along. He's already pushed Hillary to the left, now time to bow out as the next few months will only continue strife and lead to more Bern supporters adopting Mihali's juvenile* stance.
*and really it is as not voting/protesting voting in the two party system we have only serves to help the Republicans who are certainly much farther away policy-wise than Hillary is to Bernie.
You would have thought people learned their fucking lesson in 2000. Not voting out of principle is a shitty fucking principle.
Quite frankly, and I don't care how melodramatic people think it sounds, but far too many Americans have died and far more people on this planet die every day over the right to vote. I don't care if it's a vote for dog catcher or chancery judge, or even if it's as trivial a matter as making sure your vote cancels out Yi's, fucking vote.
Christ, yes.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:20:58 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:20:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 09:18:38 AM
Nah. It's like when the British say that something is a "brave proposal". They mean you are crazy, not brave. Same thing with "we are looking into it" or "it's worth looking into" It means "we aren't taking this seriously, maybe we'll have a panel or some other busywork"
"Tired and emotional." Like me. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 09:22:19 AM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 09:22:19 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:55:58 AM
:lol: So juvenile to think that just because I've voted for 95% (D) candidates in the past, a Presidential candidate -- even from the Democratic Party! -- has to earn my vote rather than just expect it? What's juvenile is refusing to believe we can ever have anything better than "the better of two evils" and smearing anyone who is foolish enough to vote their conscience, like a mere child shaking his rattle.
In the race that we are discussing? Yes, an unqualified yes. Leaving the presidency open for Republicans isn't going to help matters and instead will do a lot to push more anti-leftist agendas. Clinton might not push as far left as you'd like but it is a hell of a lot more left than you'll get from any Republican candidate. Maybe juvenile was a bit harsh but it does seem to reflect a lack of critical thinking about the reality of politics in America.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:55:58 AMOf course we can never have perfect candidates; but at a certain point the things that make the candidates "evil" are pretty specific and pretty obvious, e.g. campaign contributions from the finance sector, not vague or petty distastes like "not sure we see eye-to-eye on the environment..." or "wears suits a size too big."
I think that is a very odd definition of evil. I don't think, in a capitalist society, I would consider someone evil because they get campaign contributions from the financial sector.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:26:56 AM
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:26:56 AM
You guys lay off Mihali. If he decides not to vote next November, respect his decision. Not voting is a bold political statement in itself.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 09:27:46 AM
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 09:27:46 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:26:56 AM
You guys lay off Mihali. If he decides not to vote next November, respect his decision. Not voting is a bold political statement in itself.
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 09:30:12 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 09:30:12 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:26:56 AM
You guys lay off Mihali. If he decides not to vote next November, respect his decision. Not voting is a bold political statement in itself.
:showoff:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 09:34:22 AM
Post by: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 09:34:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 09:22:19 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:55:58 AM
:lol: So juvenile to think that just because I've voted for 95% (D) candidates in the past, a Presidential candidate -- even from the Democratic Party! -- has to earn my vote rather than just expect it? What's juvenile is refusing to believe we can ever have anything better than "the better of two evils" and smearing anyone who is foolish enough to vote their conscience, like a mere child shaking his rattle.
In the race that we are discussing? Yes, an unqualified yes. Leaving the presidency open for Republicans isn't going to help matters and instead will do a lot to push more anti-leftist agendas. Clinton might not push as far left as you'd like but it is a hell of a lot more left than you'll get from any Republican candidate. Maybe juvenile was a bit harsh but it does seem to reflect a lack of critical thinking about the reality of politics in America.Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:55:58 AMOf course we can never have perfect candidates; but at a certain point the things that make the candidates "evil" are pretty specific and pretty obvious, e.g. campaign contributions from the finance sector, not vague or petty distastes like "not sure we see eye-to-eye on the environment..." or "wears suits a size too big."
I think that is a very odd definition of evil. I don't think, in a capitalist society, I would consider someone evil because they get campaign contributions from the financial sector.
This class warfare and "we must fight Goldman-Sachs!", isn't really very helpful.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:37:50 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:37:50 AM
Quote from: garbon
"Evil" was in quotes to represent its connection to the phrase "the better of two evils," which doesn't really mean two actually evil things are being compared, like "better the devil you know."
Why should I vote for a candidate I don't want to be President? Why is it my responsibility to use my vote to help the Democratic Party candidate win when they don't put forward a candidate I support?
This kind of "well if you don't like you can lump it, pick the least shittiest for 'our side' or GTFO" thinking seems much less in line with the duties of disposing of my sacred ballot, for which so much blood was shed, as CdM noted.
And we're not on the same side politically, a fundamental point that's much broader than just the two of us, and one that's been building and building for various reasons. My political priorities are entirely different than yours, even though we share certain policy preferences, and the Democratic Party is just not a big enough tent for me with Hillary Clinton as the candidate.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 09:38:36 AM
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 09:38:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 09:22:19 AMAs I said in the other thread, one of the big problems lefties have is prioritizing their own moral comfort over the welfare of the system as a whole. Have to call Trump "Mr. President"? Well, at least I didn't violate my principles, I can feel good about myself, Hillary had to earn my vote. :mad:Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:55:58 AM
:lol: So juvenile to think that just because I've voted for 95% (D) candidates in the past, a Presidential candidate -- even from the Democratic Party! -- has to earn my vote rather than just expect it? What's juvenile is refusing to believe we can ever have anything better than "the better of two evils" and smearing anyone who is foolish enough to vote their conscience, like a mere child shaking his rattle.
In the race that we are discussing? Yes, an unqualified yes. Leaving the presidency open for Republicans isn't going to help matters and instead will do a lot to push more anti-leftist agendas. Clinton might not push as far left as you'd like but it is a hell of a lot more left than you'll get from any Republican candidate. Maybe juvenile was a bit harsh but it does seem to reflect a lack of critical thinking about the reality of politics in America.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:41:24 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:41:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:26:56 AM
You guys lay off Mihali. If he decides not to vote next November, respect his decision. Not voting is a bold political statement in itself.
Well, I don't like to miss an Election Day, it's the only time of the year you get inside an elementary school gym without a lot of hassle from the cops. So I guess my write-in/defaced/Working Families Party ballot will have to be bold enough this year. :sleep:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on March 16, 2016, 09:42:12 AM
Post by: Monoriu on March 16, 2016, 09:42:12 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:26:56 AM
You guys lay off Mihali. If he decides not to vote next November, respect his decision. Not voting is a bold political statement in itself.
Hear! Hear!
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:44:13 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 09:38:36 AM
As I said in the other thread, one of the big problems lefties have is prioritizing their own moral comfort over the welfare of the system as a whole. Have to call Trump "Mr. President"? Well, at least I didn't violate my principles, I can feel good about myself, Hillary had to earn my vote. :mad:
:lol: Income inequality's the same or worse as it was when Hillary took office? We're still entangled in senseless foreign conflicts? Still pouring billions into Israel while they "settle" the West Bank? Well, at least I didn't vote my conscience!
EDIT: In essence, you have it precisely backwards.
Your moral comfort comes from saying "Well, at least I did the most darned reasonable thing, under the circumstances, win or lose. Did my part to keep the system's welfare up." While totally disregarding the fact that "the circumstances" are not given by God, but just political structures that *we* are responsible for maintaining or abolishing. The system's welfare is just fine, but the system hasn't ensured the welfare of this country.
I guess it's more comfortable to accept the status quo as a permanent situation than to have to look at the damage it's doing and fight to change it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 09:46:42 AM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 09:46:42 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:37:50 AMQuote from: garbon
"Evil" was in quotes to represent its connection to the phrase "the better of two evils," which doesn't really mean two actually evil things are being compared, like "better the devil you know."
Why should I vote for a candidate I don't want to be President? Why is it my responsibility to use my vote to help the Democratic Party candidate win when they don't put forward a candidate I support?
This kind of "well if you don't like you can lump it, pick the least shittiest for 'our side' or GTFO" thinking seems much less in line with the duties of disposing of my sacred ballot, for which so much blood was shed, as CdM noted.
And we're not on the same side politically, a fundamental point that's much broader than just the two of us, and one that's been building and building for various reasons. My political priorities are entirely different than yours, even though we share certain policy preferences, and the Democratic Party is just not a big enough tent for me with Hillary Clinton as the candidate.
Well I'm not even always a democrat, so certainly I was not trying to suggest we have the same political aims.
I do think though, correct me if I'm wrong, Hillary can actually check off more liberal leftist aims that you might support than Trump (or any other Republican) ever will. That would be why you would then vote for a candidate that you dislike because at least that candidate comes closer to the things you like and less likely to expand on things that you consider an anathema.
There's also, as DG sort of said, a bit about voting for the candidate who you think would be better for America and its citizens as a whole. Trump (and the current Republican crop) aren't really those people.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:50:19 AM
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:50:19 AM
I think Jill Stein would make a great alternative to Hillary in the general. She's not owned by Wall Street, won't let Bibi dictate our foreign policy, and was a physician.
I may send her a few bucks this summer. I admire her moxie.
I may send her a few bucks this summer. I admire her moxie.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
Clearly derspiess needs higher taxes.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 10:03:03 AM
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 10:03:03 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:44:13 AM
I guess it's more comfortable to accept the status quo as a permanent situation than to have to look at the damage it's doing and fight to change it.
You have to sell people on your ideas to change things. Constantly presenting obviously stupid ideas that are proven failures is not likely to sway me.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:50:19 AM
I think Jill Stein would make a great alternative to Hillary in the general. She's not owned by Wall Street, won't let Bibi dictate our foreign policy, and was a physician.
I may send her a few bucks this summer. I admire her moxie.
I looked the other day at Stein's ideas and it reminded me why America is only a two party system. Chicken and egg problem but a third party really needs to not be batshit insane to garner support.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 09:46:42 AM
Well I'm not even always a democrat, so certainly I was not trying to suggest we have the same political aims.
I do think though, correct me if I'm wrong, Hillary can actually check off more liberal leftist aims that you might support than Trump (or any other Republican) ever will. That would be why you would then vote for a candidate that you dislike because at least that candidate comes closer to the things you like and less likely to expand on things that you consider an anathema.
Hillary can check off more items on the liberal-left checklist, yes. If she chooses to. Some of her past checks on the checklist have been things I not only didn't/don't support, but oppose(d) passionately.
And I'm voting for a candidate, not a checklist. I find a number of things about Hillary Clinton's activities during and after the Bill Clinton presidency (even the governorship), during her tenure as Senator, and during and after her tenure as Secretary of State to have little faith in her integrity or compatibility with my political beliefs.
I'd find any number of things anathema about the polices of a Trump, let alone Cruz, presidency. So I won't for either of them either.
Quote
There's also, as DG sort of said, a bit about voting for the candidate who you think would be better for America and its citizens as a whole. Trump (and the current Republican crop) aren't really those people.
I will vote for the candidate who I think would be better for America. :) Luckily, there's nothing about our system of government or even the physical voting location that constrains me to two choices. So I'll vote for that candidate, but it won't be Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 16, 2016, 10:09:56 AM
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 16, 2016, 10:09:56 AM
QuoteJill Stein advocated a "Green New Deal", in which renewable energy jobs would be created to address climate change and environmental issues; the objective would be to employ "every American willing and able to work". Stein noted the successful economic effects of the 1930s' New Deal projects, and said she would fund the start-up costs of the plan with a 30% reduction in the U.S. military budget, returning US troops home, and increasing taxes on areas such as speculation in stock markets, offshore tax havens, and multimillion-dollar real estate. She says, based on the research of Phillip Harvey, Professor of Law & Economics at Rutgers University, that the multiplier economic effects of this Green New Deal would later recoup most of the start-up costs
I mean, that's exactly what I'd expect from a Green candidate.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:11:01 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:11:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 10:03:03 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:44:13 AM
I guess it's more comfortable to accept the status quo as a permanent situation than to have to look at the damage it's doing and fight to change it.
You have to sell people on your ideas to change things. Constantly presenting obviously stupid ideas that are proven failures is not likely to sway me.
:unsure: ..... Okey-dokey. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 10:15:29 AM
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 10:15:29 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 16, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
Clearly derspiess needs higher taxes.
She's promoting green jobs FFS. What else can you ask for in a candidate?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 10:17:17 AM
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:11:01 AM
:unsure: ..... Okey-dokey. :thumbsup:
Ok then. Lose and lecture people about their "comfort" then. Whatever.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:22:34 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:22:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 10:17:17 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:11:01 AM
:unsure: ..... Okey-dokey. :thumbsup:
Ok then. Lose and lecture people about their "comfort" then. Whatever.
:lol:
For the record, *I* was the one who got lectured for my "comfort" by DGuller! :D I just can't win with you guys. But you all obviously need a way of discharging the bad conscience you unconsciously feel about playing your appointed role in propping up the status quo as it takes us over a cliff, so I don't mind.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 10:28:00 AM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 10:28:00 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
I will vote for the candidate who I think would be better for America. :) Luckily, there's nothing about our system of government or even the physical voting location that constrains me to two choices. So I'll vote for that candidate, but it won't be Hillary Clinton.
Yeah the problem though is in reality (in terms of who can actually win), you can pick any color you like as long as it is black or white. Sucks that is the case, but those are the breaks.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 10:29:40 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 10:29:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 10:28:00 AM
you can pick any color you like as long as it is black or white.
That was Marco Rubio's problem.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 10:32:53 AM
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 10:32:53 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:22:34 AM
:lol:
For the record, *I* was the one who got lectured for my "comfort" by DGuller! :D I just can't win with you guys. But you all obviously need a way of discharging the bad conscience you unconsciously feel about playing your appointed role in propping up the status quo as it takes us over a cliff, so I don't mind.
Why am I part of a DGuller hivemind? You talked about how you wanted to fight to change things. I was offering you advice. The solutions I tend to hear from the left strike me as more likely to throw us off cliffs more quickly than turn things around. And, again, I am not convinced that cliff falling is as inevitable as some of you political wonks seem to think it is so it takes a bit to convince me that we need to act in a radical manner. I think science and technology determine things more than political structures anyway and the changes coming are going to be so YUUGE that the results are unpredictable.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:39:57 AM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:39:57 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 14, 2016, 04:33:11 AM
Ludwig Von Mises wrote in 1947:
". .. In spite of the anti-capitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is in many countries still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better and cheaper goods.
. . .Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motor car and a radio set. The increase in per capita consumption in America as compared with conditions a quarter of a century ago is not an achievement of laws and executive orders. It is an accomplishment of business men who enlarged the size of their factories or built new ones.
. . .But the spirit which raised these knaves to autocratic power survives. It permeates textbooks and periodicals, it speaks through the mouths of teachers and politicians, it manifests itself in party programmes and in plays and novels. As long as this spirit prevails there cannot be any hope of durable peace, of democracy, of the preservation of freedom or of a steady improvement in the nation's economic well-being."
Donald Trump in 2016:
QuoteWe're going to get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries
Siege quotes von Mises but backs the most anti-capitalist candidate.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 10:46:33 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 10:46:33 AM
I thought Siege liked Cruz.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2016, 10:13:42 PM
I said she favored it. Her words were that the Australian system was "worth looking at". In politician speak, that means she favors it.
No it was very clear in context she was talking about a voluntary buyback program. She compared it to cash for clunkers which was also voluntary. You've been breitbarted.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:55:34 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 10:55:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy
The introduction of "comfort" into the discussion was purely DGuller's, so I don't see how I can be chastised by you for chastisising people about it, that's how you joined his hivemind.
I have nothing to "sell" you, but it's clear that a lot of Americans right now are deeply unhappy with the political status quo -- "the way things are," "the breaks," "being realistic," etc. -- across the ideological spectrum.
And the unexpected success of the Sanders campaign, which I will gladly admit is pretty "single-issue," shows that a lot of people, and a lot of Democrats, don't like living in a country reaching new extremes in first-world wealth inequality daily.
I'm sure plenty of them will be "scared straight" by the type of thinking in this thread and vote Clinton, so don't worry. But some of us just don't have the strong stomachs for holding back the nausea inspired by voting for a candidate who made $675,000 giving mysterious speeches to Goldman Sachs since "that's what they offered." Was September 2008 really so long ago? Jesus, Obama must be the greatest President of the last 100 years to make people forget what the investment banks did to this country and to the world seven years ago...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:59:13 AM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:59:13 AM
2008 wasn't that long ago. It followed 8 years of regulatory lenity for the financial industry. 8 years that might not have played out the same way had some people held their noses and voted for the "establishment" PAC-funded candidate Al Gore instead of Nader. Is that something you are that eager to repeat?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 11:03:51 AM
Post by: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 11:03:51 AM
Mihali is exactly what I am talking about when I try to convince people that Trump (or rather the problem that he is a symptom of) is NOT a "Republican" problem.
The GOP has created the most fertile ground for someone like him to thrive in with their xenophobia and intolerance and embrace of the stupid, but Trump is getting votes from Republicans and a lot of independents who recognize that the system itself is broken, and people like Clinton cannot be a solution, since they are actually the problem.
Now, IMO here the solution is considerably worse than the problem. Or rather, the solution cannot solve the problem anyway, and hence all the incredibly negative baggage he carries with him cannot possibly be worth it.
But I completely understand where he is coming from, and fundamentally agree with his stance - at least in theory.
The GOP has created the most fertile ground for someone like him to thrive in with their xenophobia and intolerance and embrace of the stupid, but Trump is getting votes from Republicans and a lot of independents who recognize that the system itself is broken, and people like Clinton cannot be a solution, since they are actually the problem.
Now, IMO here the solution is considerably worse than the problem. Or rather, the solution cannot solve the problem anyway, and hence all the incredibly negative baggage he carries with him cannot possibly be worth it.
But I completely understand where he is coming from, and fundamentally agree with his stance - at least in theory.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Josquius on March 16, 2016, 11:08:26 AM
Post by: Josquius on March 16, 2016, 11:08:26 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:16:28 AMNo doubt.Quote from: Tyr on March 16, 2016, 09:04:56 AM
:mellow: I specifically said he seemed good for America.
And unsure if his stance of promoting domestic industries would be good for the world. Hence the analogy to the situation of British coal industry in the 70s-80s: protecting the mines was good for Britain but it wasn't clear that it was good for the world, especially the other coal-producing parts of the world...
But britain didn't control the world economy (and thus the flow of jobs) the way the us does.
If the us wanted to it could really do a lot of damage to others.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 16, 2016, 11:08:45 AM
Post by: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 16, 2016, 11:08:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 10:06:34 AMQuote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:50:19 AM
I think Jill Stein would make a great alternative to Hillary in the general. She's not owned by Wall Street, won't let Bibi dictate our foreign policy, and was a physician.
I may send her a few bucks this summer. I admire her moxie.
I looked the other day at Stein's ideas and it reminded me why America is only a two party system. Chicken and egg problem but a third party really needs to not be batshit insane to garner support.
The catch-22 is that due to the structural issues of first-past-the-post voting combined with a winner-take-all electoral college a third party needs to be batshit insane to get attention in the first place. In order to get attention as a sane person you basically have to stick a "D" or "R" after your name.
The US is a two-party system because it is structured that way, not because the alternatives are insane.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:15:33 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:15:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:59:13 AM
2008 wasn't that long ago. It followed 8 years of regulatory lenity for the financial industry. 8 years that might not have played out the same way had some people held their noses and voted for the "establishment" PAC-funded candidate Al Gore instead of Nader. Is that something you are that eager to repeat?
Or perhaps the last eight years, to the extent they evinced any real desire to introduce regulatory restraint in the financial industry, were only so because enough voters in 2000 showed the Democratic Party that it cannot take its left wing for granted and the newly-elected President acted with this in mind?
And the eight years before that, the ones with a Democrat at the helm and the current candidate at his side influencing policy decisions, maybe they only repealed the Glass-Steagal Act because of all the anti-"establishment" voters who went for Perot?
Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 11:27:53 AM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 11:27:53 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:15:33 AM
Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.
Agreed. That's why I am talking history. We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that. That actually happened.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 11:38:33 AM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 11:38:33 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 16, 2016, 11:08:45 AMQuote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 10:06:34 AMQuote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 09:50:19 AM
I think Jill Stein would make a great alternative to Hillary in the general. She's not owned by Wall Street, won't let Bibi dictate our foreign policy, and was a physician.
I may send her a few bucks this summer. I admire her moxie.
I looked the other day at Stein's ideas and it reminded me why America is only a two party system. Chicken and egg problem but a third party really needs to not be batshit insane to garner support.
The catch-22 is that due to the structural issues of first-past-the-post voting combined with a winner-take-all electoral college a third party needs to be batshit insane to get attention in the first place. In order to get attention as a sane person you basically have to stick a "D" or "R" after your name.
The US is a two-party system because it is structured that way, not because the alternatives are insane.
I said chicken and egg. :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 11:46:06 AM
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
No it was very clear in context she was talking about a voluntary buyback program. She compared it to cash for clunkers which was also voluntary.
The Australian "buyback" program was mandatory (basically the Australian government was compensating you for seized property) and I don't see how it was analogous to Cash for Clunkers. Unless I totally misunderstood what Cash for Clunkers was all about.
Now if she wants to do a gun version of Cash for Clunkers I'll happily participate. $4,500 toward an ammo-efficient rifle for trading in one of my beat-up old Mosin Nagants? IN
QuoteYou've been breitbarted.
And you've been motherjonesed? :unsure:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on March 16, 2016, 11:52:13 AM
Post by: grumbler on March 16, 2016, 11:52:13 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:37:50 AM
Why should I vote for a candidate I don't want to be President? Why is it my responsibility to use my vote to help the Democratic Party candidate win when they don't put forward a candidate I support?
So long as you really cannot see a difference between a President Trump and a President Clinton, your reasoning is fine; neither party has earned your vote, and both have earned your abstinence.
If you are not indifferent to the result, though, and are merely expressing a fit of pique that your Quixote didn't knock down the windmill, then i hope you grow up before November, or you'll be doing yourself a serious disservice.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 12:56:41 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 12:56:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 11:27:53 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:15:33 AM
Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.
Agreed. That's why I am talking history. We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that. That actually happened.
I tend to agree with Mihali, but I see your point. Now, I am not an American and couldn't vote even in Florida, but there's something refreshing about Sanders' campaign. Angry old Jewish guy throwing the book at the Pharaohs, almost. He's basically Moses. I think they went to high school together, by the way.
Trump is tapping into what European populists have done the past two decades at least. A feeling of disenfranchisement, of the "elites" just doing their thing, but mostly into anger and resentment in a predominantly white working class.
Elections no longer seem to be about who's more suitable to run a country, but rather "I don't want these people".
This also has contributed massively to the near-deaths of most of Europe's established socialist parties. They did very little to fight increasing inequality. In fact, most sat on their hands and let it happen up until 2009. Because growth was decent anyway, and the poor don't vote.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 01:21:19 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 01:21:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 11:46:06 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
No it was very clear in context she was talking about a voluntary buyback program. She compared it to cash for clunkers which was also voluntary.
The Australian "buyback" program was mandatory (basically the Australian government was compensating you for seized property) and I don't see how it was analogous to Cash for Clunkers. Unless I totally misunderstood what Cash for Clunkers was all about.
Now if she wants to do a gun version of Cash for Clunkers I'll happily participate. $4,500 toward an ammo-efficient rifle for trading in one of my beat-up old Mosin Nagants?
Go back to the original speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFNAEYHlCyQ
It is completely clear in context she is talking about a voluntary program.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 01:27:22 PM
Post by: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 01:27:22 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 12:56:41 PMTrump and Sanders use the same rethoric but so far, Sanders has refrained from the promotion of violence. Both target the "establishment", "Wall Street bankers", "the elites disconnected with the people". Sanders was and still is a fan of Castro. He is a fan of Corbyn (UK).Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 11:27:53 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:15:33 AM
Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.
Agreed. That's why I am talking history. We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that. That actually happened.
I tend to agree with Mihali, but I see your point. Now, I am not an American and couldn't vote even in Florida, but there's something refreshing about Sanders' campaign. Angry old Jewish guy throwing the book at the Pharaohs, almost. He's basically Moses. I think they went to high school together, by the way.
Trump is tapping into what European populists have done the past two decades at least. A feeling of disenfranchisement, of the "elites" just doing their thing, but mostly into anger and resentment in a predominantly white working class.
Elections no longer seem to be about who's more suitable to run a country, but rather "I don't want these people".
This also has contributed massively to the near-deaths of most of Europe's established socialist parties. They did very little to fight increasing inequality. In fact, most sat on their hands and let it happen up until 2009. Because growth was decent anyway, and the poor don't vote.
The problem with Sanders is not what he says, it's what he's not saying considering the kind of people he admires and respect.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Viper are you drunk?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 01:42:35 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 01:42:35 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 01:27:22 PM
The problem with Sanders is not what he says, it's what he's not saying considering the kind of people he admires and respect.
People like Olof Palme and Gro Harlem Brundtland? :unsure:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 01:43:17 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 01:43:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 01:21:19 PMQuote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 11:46:06 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
No it was very clear in context she was talking about a voluntary buyback program. She compared it to cash for clunkers which was also voluntary.
The Australian "buyback" program was mandatory (basically the Australian government was compensating you for seized property) and I don't see how it was analogous to Cash for Clunkers. Unless I totally misunderstood what Cash for Clunkers was all about.
Now if she wants to do a gun version of Cash for Clunkers I'll happily participate. $4,500 toward an ammo-efficient rifle for trading in one of my beat-up old Mosin Nagants?
Go back to the original speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFNAEYHlCyQ
It is completely clear in context she is talking about a voluntary program.
She might be, who knows. But she was very misleading, if not outright dishonest about what the Australians did. Or she's just totally misinformed on the Australian "buyback".
Throw all the "context" at me you want, the Australian example does not match up with a voluntary buyback program. And voluntary buyback programs are significantly different from Cash for Clunkers. At best, she did not think things through here.
Also she seems to misunderstand what an automatic weapon is. If you want to ban or restrict something, it helps to understand what it is you are banning/restricting.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 02:01:43 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 02:01:43 PM
It seems like when it comes to elections, there are two schools of thought about the reasoning for voting or not voting for someone. Mihali seems to subscribe to the "ultimatum" school of thought: you better give me a candidate I like, or I will indirectly help make things worse for all of us just to show you I'm serious.
I subscribe to the "gradualism" school of thought: if you consistently make the worse choice lose at the elections, eventually candidates will want to make themselves less worse than their opponent. It might mean you may have to vote for candidates you have distaste for, and that change may be slow in the making, but at least you avoid national catastrophes that set both the country and process back decades.
Is there a clearly better choice? Yes, of course. People who subscribe to Mihali's philosophy needs to seriously grow up, and realize that with the adult power to vote comes adult responsibility to not throw tantrums.
I subscribe to the "gradualism" school of thought: if you consistently make the worse choice lose at the elections, eventually candidates will want to make themselves less worse than their opponent. It might mean you may have to vote for candidates you have distaste for, and that change may be slow in the making, but at least you avoid national catastrophes that set both the country and process back decades.
Is there a clearly better choice? Yes, of course. People who subscribe to Mihali's philosophy needs to seriously grow up, and realize that with the adult power to vote comes adult responsibility to not throw tantrums.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:07:51 PM
Post by: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 02:01:43 PM
It seems like when it comes to elections, there are two schools of thought about the reasoning for voting or not voting for someone. Mihali seems to subscribe to the "ultimatum" school of thought: you better give me a candidate I like, or I will indirectly help make things worse for all of us just to show you I'm serious.
I subscribe to the "gradualism" school of thought: if you consistently make the worse choice lose at the elections, eventually candidates will want to make themselves less worse than their opponent. It might mean you may have to vote for candidates you have distaste for, and that change may be slow in the making, but at least you avoid national catastrophes that set both the country and process back decades.
Is there a clearly better choice? Yes, of course. People who subscribe to Mihali's philosophy needs to seriously grow up, and realize that with the adult power to vote comes adult responsibility to not throw tantrums.
:rolleyes:
There is a time and place for both options.
If you look at both realistic options and decide one is noticeably better, or at least one is noticeably worse, then you should probably pick between those two options.
But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice. And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.
I don't care for either candidate in this likely matchup. But Trump's so incoherent, so unpredictable I don't want him anywhere near the levers of power, so I'd rather a plain old corrupt candidate like Hillary take it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 02:11:07 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 02:11:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:07:51 PM
But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice. And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.
Of course. But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Brain on March 16, 2016, 02:12:31 PM
Post by: The Brain on March 16, 2016, 02:12:31 PM
I let MB vote for me.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:17:29 PM
Post by: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:17:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 02:11:07 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:07:51 PM
But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice. And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.
Of course. But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.
True. I was trying to let Mihali come to that conclusion himself however. :shifty:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 02:22:50 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 02:22:50 PM
LEAVE MIHALI ALONE
(https://whybecausescience.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/leave-britney-alone.jpg)
(https://whybecausescience.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/leave-britney-alone.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 02:30:04 PM
Post by: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 01:31:22 PMNot this time. You can not trust socialists, that is all.
Viper are you drunk?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 02:30:23 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2016, 02:30:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 02:11:07 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:07:51 PM
But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice. And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.
Of course. But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.
He appears to be 100% against both. :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 02:31:00 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 02:31:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 11:27:53 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:15:33 AM
Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.
Agreed. That's why I am talking history. We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that. That actually happened.
We got 8 years of B. Clinton and it was Perot voters who swung that according to your logic, and those 8 years were as bad if not worse than the following 8 in creating the conditions for the '8 meltdown.
The Democratic Party and Al Gore failed to convince a number of people to vote for them instead of Nader. They lost the election, not the Nader voters. I feel like this is November 2000 all over again...
The fact that there are only two shitty choices and you have to choose the less shitty one for your vote to count -- that's every American's fault, not just those of us who'd rather not exercise our democratic prerogative for shittiness at all.
You're talking alt-history because you're imagining things would've been different under 8 years of Gore/Lieberman -- even typing that makes me cringe -- in such a way that the financial collapse of 2008 wouldn't have happened. Exactly like imagining "what-if" the South won the Civil War.
And like imagining that a victorious Confederacy would have carefully emancipated its slaves, there is no basis in reality for assuming that a Gore presidency would have exercised anymore control over the financial sector than the Bush presidency did.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 02:33:08 PM
Post by: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 02:33:08 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 01:42:35 PMPeople like Castro and Corbyn. The ones that don't refrain to use violence against opponents.Quote from: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 01:27:22 PM
The problem with Sanders is not what he says, it's what he's not saying considering the kind of people he admires and respect.
People like Olof Palme and Gro Harlem Brundtland? :unsure:
Sanders is against NAFTA (he voted against most free trade agreements), just like Trump, so that's enough to discredit him in my eyes.
About free trade:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/opinion/what-trump-and-sanders-get-wrong-about-free-trade.html
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 02:35:11 PM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 02:35:11 PM
And he says he isn't a one issue voter...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: lustindarkness on March 16, 2016, 02:49:48 PM
Post by: lustindarkness on March 16, 2016, 02:49:48 PM
So, voters should vote for the candidates they want? Or vote against the candidate they dislike?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 02:51:04 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 16, 2016, 02:49:48 PM
So, voters should vote for the candidates they want? Or vote against the candidate they dislike?
Yes.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 02:52:04 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 02:52:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 02:11:07 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:07:51 PM
But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice. And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.
Of course. But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.
This'll get me accused of being drunk, too, and maybe thrown off the boat, but I am pretty close.
Working- and middle-class Americans stand to gain very little from either candidate. Who has the more entrenched ruling-class interests, Clinton or Trump? It's hard to say: Trump's richer, but not by that much, they have the same rich buddies, and while they're both swindlers, Trump might have made his fortune in a slightly more honest way. (Comparing him with Berlusconi gives Trump too much credit almost to the extent that comparing with Mussolini does.)
As far as the welfare of non-rich non-Americans goes, Clinton already has a terrible track record as Senator and Secretary of State from my perspective (e.g. the Iraq War vote, Syria, Libya). Could Trump fuck things up worse? Yes, certainly. He could also fuck them up better. Experience is a net negative when you're an experienced hand at fucking things up.
It would be an embarrassment to have Trump as President, but maybe the US is an embarrassment of a nation right now and we need to look in the mirror.
The only thing is Ruth Goddamn Bader Fucking Ginsberg, who's had nearly eight years to bow out gracefully. But I won't let her hold me hostage.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: lustindarkness on March 16, 2016, 02:52:58 PM
Post by: lustindarkness on March 16, 2016, 02:52:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 02:51:04 PMQuote from: lustindarkness on March 16, 2016, 02:49:48 PM
So, voters should vote for the candidates they want? Or vote against the candidate they dislike?
Yes.
That's what I thought, thank you. :D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 02:54:48 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 02:35:11 PM
And he says he isn't a one issue voter...
:huh: US-Israel policy is not my only issue, that should be clear now.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 02:56:42 PM
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 02:56:42 PM
For the record, I think it is perfectly fine for a Bernie supporter to vote for Trump instead of Clinton (or to stay home) provided he or she does not think Trump is the Hitler Reborn(tm).
That's really my beef with the Trump hate - he is seriously lacking as a candidate despite his appeal but he is not Hitler and painting him as such does disservice to the democratic process (not least because of which, it gives all kinds of idiots, especially on the left, a license to do all kinds of unsavory things - like shutting down a pro-Trump rally - to stop him). I just hope the leftist anti-Trump frenzy does not end up in a political assassination.
That's really my beef with the Trump hate - he is seriously lacking as a candidate despite his appeal but he is not Hitler and painting him as such does disservice to the democratic process (not least because of which, it gives all kinds of idiots, especially on the left, a license to do all kinds of unsavory things - like shutting down a pro-Trump rally - to stop him). I just hope the leftist anti-Trump frenzy does not end up in a political assassination.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 03:04:39 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 03:04:39 PM
I think if you vote for one of the two main party candidates, you're telling them you're okay with everything they're doing. Vote third party or stay home-- when they see the third party votes or low turnout, they'll get the message.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:05:09 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:05:09 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 02:31:00 PM
The Democratic Party and Al Gore failed to convince a number of people to vote for them instead of Nader. They lost the election, not the Nader voters.
In a democracy, the people decide and the people are responsible for the consequences. It was an indisputable fact in 2000 that Nader would not and could not win. In the context of a non-PR plurality vote Presidential electoral system, those voters were saying that they were entirely indifferent as to the outcome of the election.
Putting that in the present context, my own view is that someone who claims to be indifferent or sees no difference between HC and Trump must be off their rocker.
QuoteThe fact that there are only two shitty choices and you have to choose the less shitty one for your vote to count -- that's every American's fault, not just those of us who'd rather not exercise our democratic prerogative for shittiness at all.
Part of being a grown up in a democracy is making the right choice of between lousy choices. There can be pretty big differences between 2 evils and failing to get that choice correct can have very serious consequences.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:12:58 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:12:58 PM
I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric. :lol: As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:14:31 PM
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:14:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:12:58 PM
I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric. :lol: As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.
Vote for Trump, Mihali. You know you want to. :cool:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:16:16 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:16:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 02:56:42 PM
For the record, I think it is perfectly fine for a Bernie supporter to vote for Trump instead of Clinton (or to stay home) provided he or she does not think Trump is the Hitler Reborn(tm).
That's really my beef with the Trump hate - he is seriously lacking as a candidate despite his appeal but he is not Hitler and painting him as such does disservice to the democratic process (not least because of which, it gives all kinds of idiots, especially on the left, a license to do all kinds of unsavory things - like shutting down a pro-Trump rally - to stop him). I just hope the leftist anti-Trump frenzy does not end up in a political assassination.
That's absurd.
Being not as bad as Hitler is a very low bar. I would think a Pole of all people would understand that. It is possible to be far better than Hitler, and yet extremely bad. It is not only possible it is actually the case right now. The human brain is capable of comprehending qualitative gradations. 100 degrees is a lot less than 120 degrees. But it is still way too damn hot. 90 degrees is better.
As for this stuff about shutting down rallies and "poltical assassination" that is pure strawman. No one is doing any of that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:18:00 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:18:00 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:12:58 PM
I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric. :lol: As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.
Re-read the definition of ad hominem.
I'll take this as a non-response.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 03:18:28 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 03:18:28 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:12:58 PMThat's not really an ad hominem argument, though. You'll understand when you're older.
I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric. :lol: As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:19:55 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:14:31 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:12:58 PM
I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric. :lol: As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.
Vote for Trump, Mihali. You know you want to. :cool:
But that would be throwing my vote away. :( You see, Washington State is solidly "blue" in 2016, so it's just juvenile to vote for anyone but the Democrat, because of the Electoral College.
And I'm sure the voter turnout rate will clear 54% this year too if more responsible adults set a good example and vote for their choice of either Approved Candidate. :lol: As James Brown put it: Livin' in America...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:20:25 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:20:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:05:09 PM
Part of being a grown up in a democracy is making the right choice of between lousy choices. There can be pretty big differences between 2 evils and failing to get that choice correct can have very serious consequences.
There is a reasonable argument to be made however that in this case, picking the worst solution might be dangerous and short term bad, but be necessary for a long term shift in US politics.
IE, Trump is probably going to be a "D" President, and might be a "F" President. At best he might surprise us and be a "C" President.
Clinton is probably going to be a "C" President, very unlikely to be a "D", and maybe a "B" at best.
However, electing Clinton just reinforces the status quo, and that status quo (the argument goes) is fucking things up badly because the systemic problem we have gotten ourselves into cannot be fixed without radical change. And Clinton is an agent to oppose that change.
So maybe it is better to risk the possible "F" President if necessary, to force the system to change in the long run.
I can't bring myself to come to that conclusion myself - Trump is just too terrible, and further, I don't actually think he would even try to make the systemic change anyway. For me, the potential payoff is nearly zero, and the risk very, very high.
But I can understand others who go through that same evaluation and come to a different conclusion.
I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 03:21:11 PM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 03:21:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:18:00 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:12:58 PM
I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric. :lol: As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.
Re-read the definition of ad hominem.
I'll take this as a non-response.
While fair, I have to admit, I always wondered what it would be like if you channeled grumbler. :o :)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:22:10 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:22:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:18:00 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:12:58 PM
I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric. :lol: As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.
Re-read the definition of ad hominem.
I'll take this as a non-response.
OK, I'll go re-read it (if the words aren't too big for me), while you think about how to tell me you didn't post a load of puerile alt-history up above.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 03:22:12 PM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 03:22:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:20:25 PM
I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.
Yeah, I don't really see that at all.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:23:12 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:23:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 03:22:12 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:20:25 PM
I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.
Yeah, I don't really see that at all.
That it is getting better, or getting worse?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: PJL on March 16, 2016, 03:23:41 PM
Post by: PJL on March 16, 2016, 03:23:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 11:03:51 AM
Mihali is exactly what I am talking about when I try to convince people that Trump (or rather the problem that he is a symptom of) is NOT a "Republican" problem.
The GOP has created the most fertile ground for someone like him to thrive in with their xenophobia and intolerance and embrace of the stupid, but Trump is getting votes from Republicans and a lot of independents who recognize that the system itself is broken, and people like Clinton cannot be a solution, since they are actually the problem.
Now, IMO here the solution is considerably worse than the problem. Or rather, the solution cannot solve the problem anyway, and hence all the incredibly negative baggage he carries with him cannot possibly be worth it.
But I completely understand where he is coming from, and fundamentally agree with his stance - at least in theory.
Indeed, and for those who think the system is broken may feel that it needs to be discredited first before a new one can be started. In that sense leftists may prefer a Trump presidency over a Clinton one as although it would incur short term pain, it would be worth it if a better system comes out of it. Of course, it could mean that the short term is much worse than envisioned before a better one comes along, just as Hitler and the Nazis discrediting the Weimar system in Germany did huge damage to Germans and Europe before a better system came along after the war.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:25:51 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:25:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:20:25 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:05:09 PM
Part of being a grown up in a democracy is making the right choice of between lousy choices. There can be pretty big differences between 2 evils and failing to get that choice correct can have very serious consequences.
There is a reasonable argument to be made however that in this case, picking the worst solution might be dangerous and short term bad, but be necessary for a long term shift in US politics.
. ..
However, electing Clinton just reinforces the status quo, and that status quo (the argument goes) is fucking things up badly because the systemic problem we have gotten ourselves into cannot be fixed without radical change. And Clinton is an agent to oppose that change.
Ok but that is still a choice between 2 evils. I.e. if you truly believe that, then you should vote Trump, not stay home or vote for Harold Stassen.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 03:27:13 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 03:27:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:20:25 PM:huh: I don't think we actually followed that approach at all. Instead of voting for the least worst choice, voters yo-yo regardless of the merits of the two parties and their candidates. That's almost precisely the opposite approach: it does nothing to incentivize being the least worst choice, because your cycle will come soon enough anyway.
I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:27:34 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:27:34 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:22:10 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:18:00 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:12:58 PM
I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric. :lol: As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.
Re-read the definition of ad hominem.
I'll take this as a non-response.
OK, I'll go re-read it (if the words aren't too big for me), while you think about how to tell me you didn't post a load of puerile alt-history up above.
Thanks - before you look it up make sure the dictionary also has "puerile" in it. Just to save time. :)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:29:01 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:25:51 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:20:25 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:05:09 PM
Part of being a grown up in a democracy is making the right choice of between lousy choices. There can be pretty big differences between 2 evils and failing to get that choice correct can have very serious consequences.
There is a reasonable argument to be made however that in this case, picking the worst solution might be dangerous and short term bad, but be necessary for a long term shift in US politics.
. ..
However, electing Clinton just reinforces the status quo, and that status quo (the argument goes) is fucking things up badly because the systemic problem we have gotten ourselves into cannot be fixed without radical change. And Clinton is an agent to oppose that change.
Ok but that is still a choice between 2 evils. I.e. if you truly believe that, then you should vote Trump, not stay home or vote for Harold Stassen.
Good point - if your evaluation is that Trump is the right choice under whatever metric, then yeah, go vote for him.
Not voting doesn't make any sense at all, IMO. Or voting for someone who cannot win, unless you actually believe that the establishment parties actually "hear" that message. I don't think that they do....
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:32:09 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:32:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 03:27:13 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:20:25 PM:huh: I don't think we actually followed that approach at all. Instead of voting for the least worst choice, voters yaw-yaw regardless of the merits of the two parties and their candidates. That's almost precisely the opposite approach: it does nothing to incentivize being the least worst choice, because your cycle will come soon enough anyway.
I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.
OK, but that is because each partisan group thinks their slightly less worse choice is the right incremental step.
It will *never* be the case that one party just dominates every election for a length of time long enough to enact that change in question, and what is more, if they did, the incentive for them to destroy the very system they are dominating would be gone!
Your system *cannot* work even if you managed to convince enough people to vote for Dems all the time. Only the threat of losing could theoretically force either party to buck the system, and if that threat exists, then it is the case that they will not consistently win enough for your incremental plan to take effect, since we will get that churn back and forth.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 03:32:23 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 03:32:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 02:56:42 PM
For the record, I think it is perfectly fine for a Bernie supporter to vote for Trump instead of Clinton (or to stay home) provided he or she does not think Trump is the Hitler Reborn(tm).
That's really my beef with the Trump hate - he is seriously lacking as a candidate despite his appeal but he is not Hitler and painting him as such does disservice to the democratic process (not least because of which, it gives all kinds of idiots, especially on the left, a license to do all kinds of unsavory things - like shutting down a pro-Trump rally - to stop him). I just hope the leftist anti-Trump frenzy does not end up in a political assassination.
He'd be a shitty candidate even in Poland, M.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:32:52 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:32:52 PM
Quote from: PJL on March 16, 2016, 03:23:41 PM
Indeed, and for those who think the system is broken may feel that it needs to be discredited first before a new one can be started. In that sense leftists may prefer a Trump presidency over a Clinton one as although it would incur short term pain, it would be worth it if a better system comes out of it. Of course, it could mean that the short term is much worse than envisioned before a better one comes along, just as Hitler and the Nazis discrediting the Weimar system in Germany did huge damage to Germans and Europe before a better system came along after the war.
The example that came to my mind was the Communist disavowal of the "bourgeois socialists" and abandonment of the Popular Front strategy. That kind of strategy can be logically consistent but it is playing with fire.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:33:14 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:33:14 PM
You guys were right, of course; it's not truly an ad hominem argument (thank goodness for Nizkor!). Though it's not really an argument at all. Just something you slip into an argument to be extra pompous, condescending, unproductive, and trite. :)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Malthus on March 16, 2016, 03:34:13 PM
Post by: Malthus on March 16, 2016, 03:34:13 PM
We had to destroy the Presidency in order to save it! ;)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:34:50 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:34:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:27:34 PM
Thanks - before you look it up make sure the dictionary also has "puerile" in it. Just to save time. :)
I'll take this as a non-response.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:35:31 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:35:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:33:14 PM
Just something you slip into an argument to be extra pompous, condescending, unproductive, and trite. :)
I take issue with unproductive.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:36:33 PM
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:16:16 PMQuote from: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 02:56:42 PM
For the record, I think it is perfectly fine for a Bernie supporter to vote for Trump instead of Clinton (or to stay home) provided he or she does not think Trump is the Hitler Reborn(tm).
That's really my beef with the Trump hate - he is seriously lacking as a candidate despite his appeal but he is not Hitler and painting him as such does disservice to the democratic process (not least because of which, it gives all kinds of idiots, especially on the left, a license to do all kinds of unsavory things - like shutting down a pro-Trump rally - to stop him). I just hope the leftist anti-Trump frenzy does not end up in a political assassination.
You missed my point. I said I can think why Trump could seem a better choice for a Bernie supporter than Clinton is - that's not hard to understand, is it? You may disagree with this conclusion but some people may reach it.
My point was that if you think Trump is Hitler, you shouldn't abstain from voting even if it means you vote for Hillary. But if you don't think he is Hitler (I don't think he is a Hitler)
That's absurd.
Being not as bad as Hitler is a very low bar. I would think a Pole of all people would understand that. It is possible to be far better than Hitler, and yet extremely bad. It is not only possible it is actually the case right now. The human brain is capable of comprehending qualitative gradations. 100 degrees is a lot less than 120 degrees. But it is still way too damn hot. 90 degrees is better.
As for this stuff about shutting down rallies and "poltical assassination" that is pure strawman. No one is doing any of that.
You missed my point. It is not that you should vote Trump if he is not Hitler - but if you think he is not Hitler, he can be more appealing to a Sanders supporter than Hillary.
It is quite clear that from your perspective (and mine, if I were an American and held a similar social and economic position in the American society as I hold in the Polish one), Clinton is vastly superior to Trump as a POTUS. But for many people it may not be so.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 03:37:43 PM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 03:37:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2016, 03:34:13 PM
We had to destroy the Presidency in order to save it! ;)
So we need to trash America to make it great again?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:38:12 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:38:12 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:35:31 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:33:14 PM
Just something you slip into an argument to be extra pompous, condescending, unproductive, and trite. :)
I take issue with unproductive.
Productive in the cough sense of the word, certainly.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
mihali, what if actual hitler were up against hillary? I get your view, but is there a circumstance where you'd vote strategically?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:41:09 PM
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:41:09 PM
Quote from: PJL on March 16, 2016, 03:23:41 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 11:03:51 AM
Mihali is exactly what I am talking about when I try to convince people that Trump (or rather the problem that he is a symptom of) is NOT a "Republican" problem.
The GOP has created the most fertile ground for someone like him to thrive in with their xenophobia and intolerance and embrace of the stupid, but Trump is getting votes from Republicans and a lot of independents who recognize that the system itself is broken, and people like Clinton cannot be a solution, since they are actually the problem.
Now, IMO here the solution is considerably worse than the problem. Or rather, the solution cannot solve the problem anyway, and hence all the incredibly negative baggage he carries with him cannot possibly be worth it.
But I completely understand where he is coming from, and fundamentally agree with his stance - at least in theory.
Indeed, and for those who think the system is broken may feel that it needs to be discredited first before a new one can be started. In that sense leftists may prefer a Trump presidency over a Clinton one as although it would incur short term pain, it would be worth it if a better system comes out of it. Of course, it could mean that the short term is much worse than envisioned before a better one comes along, just as Hitler and the Nazis discrediting the Weimar system in Germany did huge damage to Germans and Europe before a better system came along after the war.
Yes, this is exactly my point. If Trump is Hitler, then choosing him over Clinton is immoral, as it plunges the US into too much pain. But if he is just a bad but not genocidal president, then perhaps it is worth it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:41:26 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:36:33 PM
You missed my point. It is not that you should vote Trump if he is not Hitler - but if you think he is not Hitler, he can be more appealing to a Sanders supporter than Hillary.
If a Sanders voter was really motivated by trade issues, to the exclusion of just about everything else, then maybe that could be case. b/c Trump is clearly taking a more protectionist line than Clinton. On every other issue Clinton is far closer to Sanders than Trump.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:42:53 PM
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:42:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:27:34 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:22:10 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 03:18:00 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:12:58 PM
I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric. :lol: As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.
Re-read the definition of ad hominem.
I'll take this as a non-response.
OK, I'll go re-read it (if the words aren't too big for me), while you think about how to tell me you didn't post a load of puerile alt-history up above.
Thanks - before you look it up make sure the dictionary also has "puerile" in it. Just to save time. :)
You are being catty. That's what we gays do. Stop this cultural appropriation. <_<
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 03:44:19 PM
Post by: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
mihali, what if actual hitler were up against hillary? I get your view, but is there a circumstance where you'd vote strategically?
I'll take that one step further. What if Hitler were running against Hitler? Who would you vote for then???
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:44:39 PM
Post by: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 03:44:39 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 03:32:23 PMQuote from: Martinus on March 16, 2016, 02:56:42 PM
For the record, I think it is perfectly fine for a Bernie supporter to vote for Trump instead of Clinton (or to stay home) provided he or she does not think Trump is the Hitler Reborn(tm).
That's really my beef with the Trump hate - he is seriously lacking as a candidate despite his appeal but he is not Hitler and painting him as such does disservice to the democratic process (not least because of which, it gives all kinds of idiots, especially on the left, a license to do all kinds of unsavory things - like shutting down a pro-Trump rally - to stop him). I just hope the leftist anti-Trump frenzy does not end up in a political assassination.
He'd be a shitty candidate even in Poland, M.
I am not sure. Have you looked at our current President?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 03:45:37 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 03:45:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:32:09 PMThere are a couple of assumptions here. You're assuming that all voters are partisan. There are in fact enough unaligned independents. Problem is that too many of them make up their mind for stupid reasons, like "we need balance" or "we need gridlock", even when the merits don't change at all. Or, alternatively, elections are decided on voter turnout because the party in power just naturally can't keep up the enthusiasm as much as the party in opposition can. So, again, with these dynamics, there no reason for parties to cater to voters, the fickle middle will come to them eventually by default.Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 03:27:13 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 16, 2016, 03:20:25 PM:huh: I don't think we actually followed that approach at all. Instead of voting for the least worst choice, voters yaw-yaw regardless of the merits of the two parties and their candidates. That's almost precisely the opposite approach: it does nothing to incentivize being the least worst choice, because your cycle will come soon enough anyway.
I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.
OK, but that is because each partisan group thinks their slightly less worse choice is the right incremental step.
It will *never* be the case that one party just dominates every election for a length of time long enough to enact that change in question, and what is more, if they did, the incentive for them to destroy the very system they are dominating would be gone!
Your system *cannot* work even if you managed to convince enough people to vote for Dems all the time. Only the threat of losing could theoretically force either party to buck the system, and if that threat exists, then it is the case that they will not consistently win enough for your incremental plan to take effect, since we will get that churn back and forth.
Another assumption is that parties are not going to change. If one party does stay in power for some length of time, the other party will have to decide how to adjust their agenda so that they would be more competitive. Some issues that just don't play well will have to be dropped, while other issues that the party in power is weak on will be emphasized more. The point is that the party in power should be threatened by the other party broadening its appeal rather than by voters' fatigue.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:54:45 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
mihali, what if actual hitler were up against hillary? I get your view, but is there a circumstance where you'd vote strategically?
Look at the other thread, of course I'd vote Hitler.
Seriously: yes, the profundity of the difference there is Mariana Trench level of course, but Holocaust and innumerable other atrocities aside, we knew in 1932 that Candidate Hitler did not believe in democracy and was very likely to dissolve the institutions protecting it. I would use my democratic ballot in favor the candidate who endorsed democracy, whatever his or her views, policy programs, donors, background, etc.
In real life, Freud surprised his friends by remaining a Dollfuss supporter during all the excitement of Red Vienna, and even until the Anschluss was nigh. Why did this very intelligent and perceptive man support the Austrofascist? Well, to be a "grown up," since who knew what trouble the Communists would make, and sometimes you just have to pick the best of a bad lot.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 03:56:09 PM
Post by: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 03:56:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 02:35:11 PMEconomy is the foundation of everything.
And he says he isn't a one issue voter...
Without a strong economy, the US will be unable to buy our exports. If there is no free trade, not only does it hurt the US, but it hurts us too. If the citizens of South Carolina want to commit mass economic suicide, I don't really care. But the entire country? That's hurtful to my economy, the foundation of everything.
Free trade is part of a good economy.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Brain on March 16, 2016, 03:57:52 PM
Post by: The Brain on March 16, 2016, 03:57:52 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:54:45 PMQuote from: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
mihali, what if actual hitler were up against hillary? I get your view, but is there a circumstance where you'd vote strategically?
Look at the other thread, of course I'd vote Hitler.
Seriously: yes, the profundity of the difference there is Mariana Trench level of course, but Holocaust and innumerable other atrocities aside, we knew in 1932 that Candidate Hitler did not believe in democracy and was very likely to dissolve the institutions protecting it. I would use my democratic ballot in favor the candidate who endorsed democracy, whatever his or her views, policy programs, donors, background, etc.
In real life, Freud surprised his friends by remaining a Dollfuss supporter during all the excitement of Red Vienna, and even until the Anschluss was nigh. Why did this very intelligent and perceptive man support the Austrofascist? Well, to be a "grown up," since who knew what trouble the Communists would make, and sometimes you just have to pick the best of a bad lot.
Sometimes a vote is just a vote.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 03:59:34 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 03:59:34 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 03:54:45 PMLook at the other thread, of course I'd vote Hitler.
Seriously: yes, the profundity of the difference there is Mariana Trench level of course, but Holocaust and innumerable other atrocities aside, we knew in 1932 that Candidate Hitler did not believe in democracy and was very likely to dissolve the institutions protecting it. I would use my democratic ballot in favor the candidate who endorsed democracy, whatever his or her views, policy programs, donors, background, etc.
In real life, Freud surprised his friends by remaining a Dollfuss supporter during all the excitement of Red Vienna, and even until the Anschluss was nigh. Why did this very intelligent and perceptive man support the Austrofascist? Well, to be a "grown up," since who knew what trouble the Communists would make, and sometimes you just have to pick the best of a bad lot.
:hmm: if you're willing to vote strategically in some situations, why not here?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 04:06:13 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 04:06:13 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 03:59:34 PM
:hmm: if you're willing to vote strategically in some situations, why not here?
Oh ho! :o I see you've been to law school!
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 02:52:04 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 02:11:07 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:07:51 PM
But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice. And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.
Of course. But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.
This'll get me accused of being drunk, too, and maybe thrown off the boat, but I am pretty close.
Working- and middle-class Americans stand to gain very little from either candidate. Who has the more entrenched ruling-class interests, Clinton or Trump? It's hard to say: Trump's richer, but not by that much, they have the same rich buddies, and while they're both swindlers, Trump might have made his fortune in a slightly more honest way. (Comparing him with Berlusconi gives Trump too much credit almost to the extent that comparing with Mussolini does.)
As far as the welfare of non-rich non-Americans goes, Clinton already has a terrible track record as Senator and Secretary of State from my perspective (e.g. the Iraq War vote, Syria, Libya). Could Trump fuck things up worse? Yes, certainly. He could also fuck them up better. Experience is a net negative when you're an experienced hand at fucking things up.
It would be an embarrassment to have Trump as President, but maybe the US is an embarrassment of a nation right now and we need to look in the mirror.
The only thing is Ruth Goddamn Bader Fucking Ginsberg, who's had nearly eight years to bow out gracefully. But I won't let her hold me hostage.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 04:12:21 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 04:12:21 PM
what if working and middle-class americans could stand to gain under a hitler-like candidate? or is it more that you're willing to vote strategically if the republic is threatened?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: FunkMonk on March 16, 2016, 04:18:53 PM
Post by: FunkMonk on March 16, 2016, 04:18:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 03:37:43 PMQuote from: Malthus on March 16, 2016, 03:34:13 PM
We had to destroy the Presidency in order to save it! ;)
So we need to trash America to make it great again?
It all makes sense now :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 04:32:03 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 04:32:03 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 04:12:21 PM
what if working and middle-class americans could stand to gain under a hitler-like candidate? or is it more that you're willing to vote strategically if the republic is threatened?
No to the first, Yes to the second; why and when I'm willing to vote strategically is complex, and I don't vote "unstrategically" even now without some unresolved feelings. (And that's ignoring the whole relevant issue of the Electoral College.) But that's because it just isn't a simple question of being reasonable versus throwing a tantrum, as some would put it.
I hope I don't live to see the extremes in your hypotheticals, but odds are I end up on the side of the strategic status quo'ers, but mainly because I am in fact not a committed revolutionary or someone with nothing to lose...
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on March 16, 2016, 04:54:20 PM
Post by: dps on March 16, 2016, 04:54:20 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 09:16:28 AMQuote from: Tyr on March 16, 2016, 09:04:56 AM
:mellow: I specifically said he seemed good for America.
And unsure if his stance of promoting domestic industries would be good for the world.
I think it would be terrible for everyone in the long run.
In the long run, IMO free trade is very much a good thing (granted, in the short run, it can cause some problems). But Sanders seems to be at least as protectionist as Trump, so if you have doubts about protectionism, why are you such a strong Sanders supporter?
QuoteAnd we're not on the same side politically, a fundamental point that's much broader than just the two of us, and one that's been building and building for various reasons. My political priorities are entirely different than yours, even though we share certain policy preferences, and the Democratic Party is just not a big enough tent for me with Hillary Clinton as the candidate
I understand exactly where you're coming from here, though from the other end of the political spectrum. The Republican Party isn't big enough a tent for me to vote for Donald Trump for President.
OTOH, I certainly will vote in November, if for no other reason that there are other offices besides the Presidency to vote on. And while at this point I'll probably vote for a 3rd party candidate if Trump and Clinton are the nominees, I am willing to vote strategically and pick Hilary if it seems possible that Trump could win and NC is close.
Quote from: garbon
There's also, as DG sort of said, a bit about voting for the candidate who you think would be better for America and its citizens as a whole. Trump (and the current Republican crop) aren't really those people.
That's not an argument against voting for a 3rd party candidate, though, if you actually believe said candidate would be better for America than either Trump or Clinton would be.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment2008 wasn't that long ago. It followed 8 years of regulatory lenity for the financial industry. 8 years that might not have played out the same way had some people held their noses and voted for the "establishment" PAC-funded candidate Al Gore instead of Nader. Is that something you are that eager to repeat?
Again, I find myself agreeing with Mihali here--there is no reason to believe that financial regulation under a Gore Administration would have been different to any significant degree than it was under the Bush Administration, because Gore was committed to continuing the policies of the Clinton Administration, which were about the same as Bush's when it came to financial regulation. Though I would probably disagree with Mihali as to what appropriate regulations for the finance industry should be, the fact is the economic collapse of 2008 followed a period of roughly 20 years, under Presidents from both parties, in which the financial regulations in place created exactly the wrong incentives and disincentives. Personally, I think the degree or amount of regulation in place was roughly appropriate, but the form or content of those regulations was all ass-backwards.
Quote from: Barrister
I don't care for either candidate in this likely matchup. But Trump's so incoherent, so unpredictable I don't want him anywhere near the levers of power, so I'd rather a plain old corrupt candidate like Hillary take it.
<sigh> Yeah.
Quote from: The Minsky MomentIn a democracy, the people decide and the people are responsible for the consequences. It was an indisputable fact in 2000 that Nader would not and could not win. In the context of a non-PR plurality vote Presidential electoral system, those voters were saying that they were entirely indifferent as to the outcome of the election.
Speaking as someone who voted for a 3rd party candidate in 2000 (certainly NOT Nader!) I can say that was pretty much how I felt--I figured both Gore and Bush II would be pretty much equally poor Presidents, though in different ways.
QuotePutting that in the present context, my own view is that someone who claims to be indifferent or sees no difference between HC and Trump must be off their rocker.
I wouldn't go that far, but I certainly don't see Trump and Clinton as equally poor choices. Well, I don't even see them as poor choices; I see them as absolutely terrible choices, but IMO Trump is clearly even more terrible than Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 05:17:52 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 05:17:52 PM
I'm not sure what "system" it is that hypothetical Bernie supporters could see discredited after a Trump presidency.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 05:44:10 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 05:44:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 05:17:52 PM
I'm not sure what "system" it is that hypothetical Bernie supporters could see discredited after a Trump presidency.
The system where corporate money buys political outcomes retail instead of wholesale.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 06:36:04 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 06:36:04 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:41:32 AM
You go ahead and vote for President Goldman and Vice-President Sachs. I'm done.
Politics isn't about principle: it's about compromise--and yes, that sometimes includes your vote.
Did I stay home and not vote after the only political campaign I ever volunteered for collapsed, oh, by Tuesday? No. I took all the power and the glory and the bumper stickers that was General Alexander Haig, internalized it, and moved on to Senator Bob Dole's campaign. And then I did it again, lulz.
Did I decide not to vote because America always supports its troops except when they're Democrats named General Wesley Clark? Nope.
Am I going to stay home because the nation decided it wasn't worthy of the myriad complexities and beautiful nightmares that is Jim Webb? Nope.
No, I compromised. And perhaps if more pretentious Nader assclowns did the same in 2000, a lot of messes could have been avoided; but we'll never know, and that's the great thing about sanctimony. So go ahead and stay home and pout as somebody else puts Trump up +1. DerWeiß approves of that message.
Oh, and don't ever fucking lecture me on Wall Street and the damage done, Harvard.
Fucking Ivies. Christ.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:55:53 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:55:53 PM
Compromise means you had a position, they had a position, you met in the middle even though it wasn't perfect. Voting in another round of Wall Street "experts" to walk in the revolving door of financial regulation isn't compromise, it's surrender.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 07:00:10 PM
Post by: garbon on March 16, 2016, 07:00:10 PM
The man always keeping us down.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jacob on March 16, 2016, 07:03:03 PM
Post by: Jacob on March 16, 2016, 07:03:03 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:55:53 PM
Compromise means you had a position, they had a position, you met in the middle even though it wasn't perfect. Voting in another round of Wall Street "experts" to walk in the revolving door of financial regulation isn't compromise, it's surrender.
You're such a radical.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 07:07:25 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 07:07:25 PM
I'm really starting to dislike Sanders. The Manichean thinking he inspires in people is getting old, real fast.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Ed Anger on March 16, 2016, 07:09:34 PM
Post by: Ed Anger on March 16, 2016, 07:09:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2016, 07:07:25 PM
I'm really starting to dislike Sanders. The Manichean thinking he inspires in people is getting old, real fast.
I tired of the Berniebros a long time ago. A bunch of leeches wanting free shit.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 07:17:40 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 07:17:40 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:55:53 PM
Compromise means you had a position, they had a position, you met in the middle even though it wasn't perfect. Voting in another round of Wall Street "experts" to walk in the revolving door of financial regulation isn't compromise, it's surrender.
What would "real" financial regulation look like?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 07:37:05 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 07:37:05 PM
If it doesn't involve the deployment and detonation of unconventional explosive devices with the appropriate yield to incur large numbers of casualties, then it's not really "real" financial regulation.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 07:56:19 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 07:56:19 PM
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2016, 04:54:20 PMIt is an argument against voting for a third party candidate, if you take actual real world consequences of voting into account. Voting for a third party candidate is not as bad as voting for Trump, but it is half as bad, because you're not canceling out someone else's vote for Trump. It's so obvious that I have no idea why I need to spell it out.Quote from: garbon
There's also, as DG sort of said, a bit about voting for the candidate who you think would be better for America and its citizens as a whole. Trump (and the current Republican crop) aren't really those people.
That's not an argument against voting for a 3rd party candidate, though, if you actually believe said candidate would be better for America than either Trump or Clinton would be.
And all this "said candidate would be better for America" is answering a wrong question to begin with. In the voting booth, you should not ask yourself who the best candidate for America would be. You should be asking yourself which vote would be best for America. In 2000, it didn't matter whether Nader or Gore would be better for America. It sure as hell mattered which vote was better for America.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 08:25:28 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 08:25:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 07:56:19 PMIt is an argument against voting for a third party candidate, if you take actual real world consequences of voting into account.
to be fair, mono is absolutely correct that it doesn't matter whether mihali votes. there are no real world consequences, because a single person's vote has negligible impact in national and most state politics. but, I know you're arguing against the general principle :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on March 16, 2016, 08:38:36 PM
Post by: Monoriu on March 16, 2016, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 16, 2016, 08:25:28 PMQuote from: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 07:56:19 PMIt is an argument against voting for a third party candidate, if you take actual real world consequences of voting into account.
to be fair, mono is absolutely correct that it doesn't matter whether mihali votes. there are no real world consequences, because a single person's vote has negligible impact in national and most state politics. but, I know you're arguing against the general principle :P
:hug:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Siege on March 17, 2016, 03:51:22 AM
Post by: Siege on March 17, 2016, 03:51:22 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 08:55:58 AMQuote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 07:01:16 AMQuote from: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2016, 06:43:55 AMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:03:05 AM
As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.
Ass.
This is also why I'm so upset that we're continuing to have the Bern drift along. He's already pushed Hillary to the left, now time to bow out as the next few months will only continue strife and lead to more Bern supporters adopting Mihali's juvenile* stance.
*and really it is as not voting/protesting voting in the two party system we have only serves to help the Republicans who are certainly much farther away policy-wise than Hillary is to Bernie.
:lol: So juvenile to think that just because I've voted for 95% (D) candidates in the past, a Presidential candidate -- even from the Democratic Party! -- has to earn my vote rather than just expect it? What's juvenile is refusing to believe we can ever have anything better than "the better of two evils" and smearing anyone who is foolish enough to vote their conscience, like a mere child shaking his rattle.
Of course we can never have perfect candidates; but at a certain point the things that make the candidates "evil" are pretty specific and pretty obvious, e.g. campaign contributions from the finance sector, not vague or petty distastes like "not sure we see eye-to-eye on the environment..." or "wears suits a size too big."
EDIT: Nevermind, wasn't a fair reading of your words.
Why are you so liberal?
Your liberal policies are destroying this country.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Malthus on March 17, 2016, 08:24:29 AM
Post by: Malthus on March 17, 2016, 08:24:29 AM
Inside Mihali's mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70
:D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70
:D
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 17, 2016, 08:34:49 AM
Post by: derspiess on March 17, 2016, 08:34:49 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 17, 2016, 03:51:22 AM
Why are you so liberal?
Your liberal policies are destroying this country.
Shhh
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:09:40 AM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:09:40 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 07:17:40 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 06:55:53 PM
Compromise means you had a position, they had a position, you met in the middle even though it wasn't perfect. Voting in another round of Wall Street "experts" to walk in the revolving door of financial regulation isn't compromise, it's surrender.
What would "real" financial regulation look like?
blah blah blah Glass-steagall blah blah blah transactions tax blah blah blah
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 10:37:11 AM
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 10:37:11 AM
Real financial regulation would to me look like hedgefund managers hanging from lamp posts. :ph34r:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
Except that hedge fund managers, however objectionable their mores may seem to you, are not really the public policy problem.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 11:13:28 AM
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 11:13:28 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
Except that hedge fund managers, however objectionable their mores may seem to you, are not really the public policy problem.
It was a joke.
"Financial regulation" is like a buzzword thrown out there from populists everywhere.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Tamas on March 17, 2016, 11:27:24 AM
Post by: Tamas on March 17, 2016, 11:27:24 AM
In Hungary the government regulates all profit-making sectors into the hands of oligarchs who support them. Progress!
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 12:11:20 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 12:11:20 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 17, 2016, 11:27:24 AM
In Hungary the government regulates all profit-making sectors into the hands of oligarchs who support them. Progress!
In Norway, the state has shareholder majority in Telenor and Statoil, both companies operating in places that encourage bribery and corruption like Brazil and the former Soviet -stans.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 17, 2016, 12:40:36 PM
Post by: Martinus on March 17, 2016, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 10:37:11 AM
Real financial regulation would to me look like hedgefund managers hanging from lamp posts. :ph34r:
I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 17, 2016, 12:42:10 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 17, 2016, 12:42:10 PM
But of course that is just a mercy compared to what Norgy would do to Corporate Attorneys.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 12:58:56 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 12:58:56 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 12:11:20 PMI think oil companies are in a no-win situation. You have to go where the oil is, and oil is usually located under some pretty unsavory feet. You either play by their rules or you don't play at all. The best you can do is not have your legal counsel help out with executions of troublesome environmentalists.
In Norway, the state has shareholder majority in Telenor and Statoil, both companies operating in places that encourage bribery and corruption like Brazil and the former Soviet -stans.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 01:01:49 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 01:01:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2016, 12:42:10 PM
But of course that is just a mercy compared to what Norgy would do to Corporate Attorneys.
They'd get the Comfy Chair.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 01:46:42 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 01:46:42 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
Except that hedge fund managers, however objectionable their mores may seem to you, are not really the public policy problem.
What is the public policy problem, and how do reinstituting Glass-Steagall and enacting a financial transaction tax solve this problem(s)?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: viper37 on March 17, 2016, 01:51:33 PM
Post by: viper37 on March 17, 2016, 01:51:33 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 10:37:11 AMWhen the government does not rush to their rescue, they usually do that by themselves, so not a problem of regulation.
Real financial regulation would to me look like hedgefund managers hanging from lamp posts. :ph34r:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 17, 2016, 02:12:52 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 17, 2016, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 01:01:49 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 17, 2016, 12:42:10 PM
But of course that is just a mercy compared to what Norgy would do to Corporate Attorneys.
They'd get the Comfy Chair.
:o
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 02:17:40 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 02:17:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 01:46:42 PMHere is my take: the problem is that a large chunk of our economy is based on zero-sum speculation. At the very least it's a waste of human potential, since the best and the brightest can make much more money shifting money from other people to themselves rather than doing something productive to society. Other problems are that this speculation can bring down the real economy with it, or that the needs of the speculative economy drive the economic policy to the exclusion of productive sectors. Transaction tax would introduce enough friction in the trading system to keep a lid on the most marginal of speculative activities.Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
Except that hedge fund managers, however objectionable their mores may seem to you, are not really the public policy problem.
What is the public policy problem, and how do reinstituting Glass-Steagall and enacting a financial transaction tax solve this problem(s)?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Berkut on March 17, 2016, 02:24:15 PM
Post by: Berkut on March 17, 2016, 02:24:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 02:17:40 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 01:46:42 PMHere is my take: the problem is that a large chunk of our economy is based on zero-sum speculation. At the very least it's a waste of human potential, since the best and the brightest can make much more money shifting money from other people to themselves rather than doing something productive to society. Other problems are that this speculation can bring down the real economy with it, or that the needs of the speculative economy drive the economic policy to the exclusion of productive sectors. Transaction tax would introduce enough friction in the trading system to keep a lid on the most marginal of speculative activities.Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
Except that hedge fund managers, however objectionable their mores may seem to you, are not really the public policy problem.
What is the public policy problem, and how do reinstituting Glass-Steagall and enacting a financial transaction tax solve this problem(s)?
What kind of transaction tax are you talking about?
And how do you make sure to target it only at the transaction you want to discourage, while maintaining the flexibility and agility in the system we certainly want?
These are honest questions, btw...not a set up.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 02:29:16 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 02:29:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 02:17:40 PM
Here is my take: the problem is that a large chunk of our economy is based on zero-sum speculation. At the very least it's a waste of human potential, since the best and the brightest can make much more money shifting money from other people to themselves rather than doing something productive to society. Other problems are that this speculation can bring down the real economy with it, or that the needs of the speculative economy drive the economic policy to the exclusion of productive sectors. Transaction tax would introduce enough friction in the trading system to keep a lid on the most marginal of speculative activities.
I disagree with some of your underlying assumptions. First of all, as Joan (I think it was) pointed out long ago, the great majority of derivative contracts are for currency and interest rate swaps, which are legitimate hedging instruments. Second of all, any non-swap derivative such as a future or a stock option can and is used as a hedging instrument as well. A farmer selling soy beans forward or a pension fund buying stock puts or CDS is not engaged in a zero sum speculative game, they're giving up upside in exchange for reduced downside.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 02:29:52 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 02:29:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 01:46:42 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
Except that hedge fund managers, however objectionable their mores may seem to you, are not really the public policy problem.
What is the public policy problem, and how do reinstituting Glass-Steagall and enacting a financial transaction tax solve this problem(s)?
The blahs were intended to connote my skepticism of the usefulness of those particular measures.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 02:30:32 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 02:30:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 02:29:52 PM
The blahs were intended to connote my skepticism of the usefulness of those particular measures.
Gotcha.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 02:31:25 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 02:31:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2016, 02:24:15 PMNo idea about details, just a general concept. Every time you buy or sell some financial assets or write contracts or something of that nature, you pay a tax as a tiny percentage of the amounts involved. It would be an insignificant amount for regular trading, but for algorithmic traders that can buy and sell billion dollars worth of assets to eek out some nickel or two in arbitrage, it would be prohibitive. Sort of like charging 0.1 cents for every e-mail: won't really do anything to you or me, but spammers offering you various penis enhancement deals would be hit hard.
What kind of transaction tax are you talking about?
QuoteThe very nature of such tax would target high frequency trading, so it does this automatically, which is why this idea gained some traction.
And how do you make sure to target it only at the transaction you want to discourage, while maintaining the flexibility and agility in the system we certainly want?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 02:35:11 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 02:35:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 02:29:16 PMThere is such a thing as too much hedging. When everyone hedges each other, a failure of one actor in that complicated hedging chain can start off a chain reaction. That's why the concept of "too big to fail" is a bit questionable right now: if you have a million of small financial institutions all interconnected extremely closely with each other due to holding each others' financial instruments, they're all really just one big institution as far as system stability is concerned.Quote from: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 02:17:40 PM
Here is my take: the problem is that a large chunk of our economy is based on zero-sum speculation. At the very least it's a waste of human potential, since the best and the brightest can make much more money shifting money from other people to themselves rather than doing something productive to society. Other problems are that this speculation can bring down the real economy with it, or that the needs of the speculative economy drive the economic policy to the exclusion of productive sectors. Transaction tax would introduce enough friction in the trading system to keep a lid on the most marginal of speculative activities.
I disagree with some of your underlying assumptions. First of all, as Joan (I think it was) pointed out long ago, the great majority of derivative contracts are for currency and interest rate swaps, which are legitimate hedging instruments. Second of all, any non-swap derivative such as a future or a stock option can and is used as a hedging instrument as well. A farmer selling soy beans forward or a pension fund buying stock puts or CDS is not engaged in a zero sum speculative game, they're giving up upside in exchange for reduced downside.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 02:40:05 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 02:40:05 PM
The FTT concept is for a global tax. Read Tobin's original article - he makes this clear. Financial transactions can take place anywhere so a localized tax doesn't work.
I also don't really see algo traders or HFT as a public policy priority. Even they were there are other measures that can be implemented nationally to address it.
I also don't really see algo traders or HFT as a public policy priority. Even they were there are other measures that can be implemented nationally to address it.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 02:45:20 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 02:45:20 PM
Anyone read "Flash Mob?" I read about half the book, gave up, didn't seem the author understood what he was writing about.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 03:13:05 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 03:13:05 PM
How exactly would a global tax be distributed and who the hell would collect it, I wonder.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 04:34:51 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 04:34:51 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 03:13:05 PM
How exactly would a global tax be distributed and who the hell would collect it, I wonder.
It would be administered at a national level. Again, also in the original Tobin article.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 04:37:54 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 04:37:54 PM
Well, I read it, and I think I understood most of it, but have to mull over it to really have an opinion this way or the other.
I am not the cleverest chap here.
I am not the cleverest chap here.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 06:18:48 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 06:18:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 02:29:52 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 01:46:42 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
Except that hedge fund managers, however objectionable their mores may seem to you, are not really the public policy problem.
What is the public policy problem, and how do reinstituting Glass-Steagall and enacting a financial transaction tax solve this problem(s)?
The blahs were intended to connote my skepticism of the usefulness of those particular measures.
Any particular measures you're not skeptical of? An honest question (it's sad we always have to say this). Because your "blahs" answer would did a good job of anticipating what I would've said.
Although my interest is more in financial regulation as one means of changing the way the national wealth is distributed, rather than in maintaining the integrity of American high finance system as an end in itself.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 06:26:56 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 06:26:56 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 06:18:48 PM
Although my interest is more in financial regulation as one means of changing the way the national wealth is distributed, rather than in maintaining the integrity of American high finance system as an end in itself.
Then why did you start this particular sequence of discussion by saying you objected to the revolving door between Wall Street and government?
And why would you not favor a more direct approach to transferring wealth, such as a wealth tax?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 07:32:30 PM
Post by: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 07:32:30 PM
Property and wealth tax have worked quite well in Scanditopia.
The poor stay poor, though. How they can be drawn out of welfare and poverty, I don't know. We have a high mininum wage and free education.
I'm not advocating eugenics, but some families around here have been welfare recipients since the 50s and complain about immigrants taking the jobs they felt too proud to take anyway.
If there's anything I feel we should do, it's creating as an equal playing field as possible for our children and grandchildren. That would be be my political agenda. It's like believing in fairies.
The hows are more obscure.
The poor stay poor, though. How they can be drawn out of welfare and poverty, I don't know. We have a high mininum wage and free education.
I'm not advocating eugenics, but some families around here have been welfare recipients since the 50s and complain about immigrants taking the jobs they felt too proud to take anyway.
If there's anything I feel we should do, it's creating as an equal playing field as possible for our children and grandchildren. That would be be my political agenda. It's like believing in fairies.
The hows are more obscure.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 07:34:37 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 07:34:37 PM
Because the revolving door is a big impediment to a more just wealth distribution because of the oversized role that the financial industry plays in the US economy.
I do favor more direct measures like a wealth tax primarily, not just regulating financial speculation to the extent necessary to avoid global economic meltdown.
I do favor more direct measures like a wealth tax primarily, not just regulating financial speculation to the extent necessary to avoid global economic meltdown.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 09:40:41 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 09:40:41 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 07:34:37 PM
Because the revolving door is a big impediment to a more just wealth distribution because of the oversized role that the financial industry plays in the US economy.
Which is again, at least one remove from the issue of people with finance experience working in government.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 10:18:17 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 10:18:17 PM
Finance experience \= working at Goldman before and after your tenure in the Treasury.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 10:19:45 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 10:19:45 PM
I'm not familiar with that mathematical notation, having only had a week of formal logic slipped into a high school math class.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 17, 2016, 10:21:59 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 17, 2016, 10:21:59 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 17, 2016, 07:32:30 PM
Property and wealth tax have worked quite well in Scanditopia.
The poor stay poor, though. How they can be drawn out of welfare and poverty, I don't know. We have a high mininum wage and free education.
I'm not advocating eugenics, but some families around here have been welfare recipients since the 50s and complain about immigrants taking the jobs they felt too proud to take anyway.
If there's anything I feel we should do, it's creating as an equal playing field as possible for our children and grandchildren. That would be be my political agenda. It's like believing in fairies.
The hows are more obscure.
I don't think it's plausible. we can provide tools to allow people to lift themselves from poor to middle class, but beyond that? a lot of people are simply unwilling to figure out how to do things for themselves, so they remain in a slump. some families rise to middle class after a generation or two, while others (malthus) fall to lower class
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 10:24:31 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 10:24:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 10:19:45 PM
I'm not familiar with that mathematical notation, having only had a week of formal logic slipped into a high school math class.
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but honestly I can't remember the order of the characters either; it is the computer-language rendition of a barred equals sign, and it is used on Languish quite a bit to mean "does not equal."
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 17, 2016, 10:25:11 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 17, 2016, 10:25:11 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 06:18:48 PM
Although my interest is more in financial regulation as one means of changing the way the national wealth is distributed, rather than in maintaining the integrity of American high finance system as an end in itself.
I paid off my Jeep, and my credit score dropped 24 points two months later.
No, smarmy cockfuck douchebags on Wall Street trading imaginary dollars are only one piece of the problem. The whole system needs to be rebuilt, preferably from rubble, and that's Bigger Than Bernietm.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:25:28 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:25:28 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 06:18:48 PM
Any particular measures you're not skeptical of?
Capital regulation.
If a more radical approach would be desired then require all financial companies to operate through partnerships, as was traditionally done. That would help tame excessive risk-taking.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 10:36:23 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 10:36:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:25:28 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 06:18:48 PM
Any particular measures you're not skeptical of?
Capital regulation.
If a more radical approach would be desired then require all financial companies to operate through partnerships, as was traditionally done. That would help tame excessive risk-taking.
I'll read up. :) But having to put putting the investors' personal assets on the line in a partnership would indeed tame excessive risk-taking, I'd tend to think.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 10:43:22 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2016, 10:43:22 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 10:24:31 PM
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but honestly I can't remember the order of the characters either; it is the computer-language rendition of a barred equals sign, and it is used on Languish quite a bit to mean "does not equal."
I wasn't being facetious. However, on re-reading your post I see I did not understand it. Why way does the causality run between revolving door and outsized sector?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 10:45:17 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 17, 2016, 10:45:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:25:28 PM:hmm: I'll go with that.Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 06:18:48 PM
Any particular measures you're not skeptical of?
Capital regulation.
If a more radical approach would be desired then require all financial companies to operate through partnerships, as was traditionally done. That would help tame excessive risk-taking.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 18, 2016, 02:14:29 PM
Post by: celedhring on March 18, 2016, 02:14:29 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdtLJnCUAAEEKLx.jpg)
Since they are measuring fundraising I guess it's to be expected to see well-off Zip codes at the top the list.
Since they are measuring fundraising I guess it's to be expected to see well-off Zip codes at the top the list.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 18, 2016, 02:18:24 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 18, 2016, 02:18:24 PM
Oakland laughs at the piddly incomes of Manhattan.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 18, 2016, 02:18:41 PM
Post by: garbon on March 18, 2016, 02:18:41 PM
My former district seems to have gotten confused.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: lustindarkness on March 18, 2016, 02:30:13 PM
Post by: lustindarkness on March 18, 2016, 02:30:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 17, 2016, 10:25:11 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 17, 2016, 06:18:48 PM
Although my interest is more in financial regulation as one means of changing the way the national wealth is distributed, rather than in maintaining the integrity of American high finance system as an end in itself.
I paid off my Jeep, and my credit score dropped 24 points two months later.
No, smarmy cockfuck douchebags on Wall Street trading imaginary dollars are only one piece of the problem. The whole system needs to be rebuilt, preferably from rubble, and that's Bigger Than Bernietm.
Has it started falling apart yet? :(
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 18, 2016, 02:30:33 PM
Post by: celedhring on March 18, 2016, 02:30:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 18, 2016, 02:18:41 PM
My former district seems to have gotten confused.
10025 = Columbia University and all the other schools in the area. Fertile ground for Sanders. I mean, #2 for Sanders is Ithaca...
I lived in 10026, incidentally.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 18, 2016, 02:36:46 PM
Post by: garbon on March 18, 2016, 02:36:46 PM
Sure but number one has no schools. Full of minorities, gays and business folk. After all, I was all 3. :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 18, 2016, 04:10:10 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 18, 2016, 04:10:10 PM
San Francisco is prime Bernie territory.
You don't care for Pelosi much either, IIRC.
You don't care for Pelosi much either, IIRC.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 18, 2016, 06:24:33 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 18, 2016, 06:24:33 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 18, 2016, 02:30:13 PM
Has it started falling apart yet? :(
No. I take care of my vehicles.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: lustindarkness on March 18, 2016, 08:14:46 PM
Post by: lustindarkness on March 18, 2016, 08:14:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 18, 2016, 06:24:33 PMQuote from: lustindarkness on March 18, 2016, 02:30:13 PM
Has it started falling apart yet? :(
No. I take care of my vehicles.
But.. but.. it's paid for. And a Jeep.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: katmai on March 19, 2016, 09:38:34 PM
Post by: katmai on March 19, 2016, 09:38:34 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 18, 2016, 02:30:13 PM:angry:
Has it started falling apart yet? :(
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on March 19, 2016, 10:36:34 PM
Post by: Jaron on March 19, 2016, 10:36:34 PM
Bernie supporters are defiant!
After Hillary's wins in the South, they said "Just wait - the progressive states are coming up." Then Bernie lost in IL, Florida, Missoura, and Virginia.
Now they say "Just wait - the LIBERAL west is coming up." And so they bank their hopes on the west coast supporting the Bernie.
They need to fall back and throw their support to her imperial highness, Hillaria I.
After Hillary's wins in the South, they said "Just wait - the progressive states are coming up." Then Bernie lost in IL, Florida, Missoura, and Virginia.
Now they say "Just wait - the LIBERAL west is coming up." And so they bank their hopes on the west coast supporting the Bernie.
They need to fall back and throw their support to her imperial highness, Hillaria I.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 19, 2016, 10:53:50 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 19, 2016, 10:53:50 PM
The Bernie supporters are so fanatical I am worried they will abandon the side of truth and righteousness when the general election comes. We will need every Fireblade to help us in Arkansas.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: citizen k on March 19, 2016, 10:54:03 PM
Post by: citizen k on March 19, 2016, 10:54:03 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 19, 2016, 10:36:34 PM
' - the progressive states are coming up.' Then Bernie lost in IL, Florida, Missoura, and Virginia.
:hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on March 20, 2016, 01:21:15 AM
Post by: Jaron on March 20, 2016, 01:21:15 AM
IL and Florida are among the most progressive states in the nation in terms of their Democratic voting populace.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2016, 04:24:28 AM
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2016, 04:24:28 AM
https://newrepublic.com/article/131762/hillary-voter
QuoteWho Is the Hillary Voter?
The media is obsessed with the Sanders voter and the Trump voter. Yet it is the Hillary voter who may have the last laugh.
We have heard much talk this cycle about the mood of our national electorate. People are angry. They are sick and tired of establishment politicians, and are gravitating toward outsiders, revolutionaries, people who are going to "turn this country around." They are flocking to the polls in huge numbers to make their anger heard.
The media has saturated us with profiles of the voters who are turning out for these anti-establishment candidates. There is the Sanders voter, a white, social-media-savvy millennial sick of corporate oligarchies and paying student loans. There is the alienated, white, working-class Trump voter, threatened by immigration and trade treaties and Muslims, someone far less interested in small government and the capital gains tax than the Republican donor class would like him to be. And there is the stridently conservative, small-government Cruz voter, a dedicated God-fearing culture warrior.
The voter we almost never hear about, however, is the Clinton voter. Which is surprising, since Hillary Clinton has won more votes in the primaries than any other candidate so far. She has amassed over 2.5 million more votes than Sanders; over 1.1 million more votes than Trump. Clearly Clinton voters exist, yet there has been very little analysis as to who they are or why they are showing up to vote for her. Sure, there has been talk of Clinton's dominance among African-American voters, and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic voters. Her voters seem to skew older and more affluent. But these are demographics. (And even demographics have a hard time explaining her commanding win in Ohio, or her wins in Massachusetts and Missouri.) There is almost no discussion of what is motivating these voters. If anything, the media seems to think they are holding their noses as they vote for Hillary. As a recent New York Times article suggested, Clinton is winning "votes, not hearts."
We never hear that Hillary Clinton has "momentum"—what she has is a "sizable delegate lead." No one this cycle has described Clinton supporters as "fired up"—it's simply not possible that people are fired up for Hillary. No, what we gather about Clinton from the press is that she can't connect. She has very high unfavorable ratings. People think she is dishonest and untrustworthy. She is not a gifted politician. She is a phony. Hated by so many. The list goes on.
Considering that narrative, one would expect Clinton to be faring far worse in the primaries. Instead, she currently holds a popular vote and delegate lead over Sanders that far surpasses Obama's lead over her at this point in the race in 2008.
This is no accident. An examination of Clinton voters and their motivations might reveal that the narrative that most media outlets have been feeding us this election cycle is dubious at best. Because if the biggest vote-getter of either party is Hillary—by a large margin—then that suggests the electorate is not necessarily as angry as pundits claim. It further suggests that perhaps some people are tired of hearing about how angry they are, and are quietly asserting their opinions at the ballot box. If Democrats are so angry, Clinton would not be in the position she is today. Is it really so farfetched to claim that quite a few Democrats aren't voting for Sanders precisely because he seems angry? Which isn't to suggest that people aren't angry—certainly many Republican primary voters seem to be. Rather, it is to suggest that voters who aren't angry are still showing up at the polls, despite being ignored in news stories.
Of course, angry voters make for sexier clickbait. So it's not too surprising that we're not seeing front-page headlines that scream, "Satisfied Obama Supporters Show Up in Droves." Furthermore, Trump and Sanders have seen enormous crowds at their rallies, and exuberant support on social media platforms.
So perhaps Clinton voters don't show up at rallies so much. Perhaps they are a bit less passionate on Facebook, share fewer articles, give less money to their candidate (she does have a super PAC, after all). But what they are doing is perhaps the only thing that actually matters in an election. They are showing up to vote. In numbers that no other candidate can boast.
It's certainly curious to presume, as many do, that Clinton's supporters are somehow less enthusiastic than Sanders's are. How is enthusiasm measured, if not by actual vote count? And they are doing so despite the media narrative surrounding their candidate, despite hearing very little about themselves in the media, despite her "damn" emails, despite Benghazi, despite her low Gallup favorables, and despite how everyone else is "Feeling the Bern." If anything, Clinton might need to thank the press for consistently underestimating her. Perhaps this is why her supporters are coming out for her in such strength: to assert their existence in the face of a narrative that both overlooks them and disparages their candidate.
This, then, is the one thing the Clinton voter has in common with the Trump voter: a refusal to buy into the prevailing wisdom about their candidate. We always hear about how Trump supporters have remained loyal to him no matter what Trump says or does; their support is rock solid. We never hear that about Clinton, even though she has survived more scandals and accusations than the rest of the presidential field combined. It may very well be that Hillary voters are the most stubborn of all. Because they've heard it all for decades—and they are still showing up.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:26:26 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:26:26 AM
The piece is right: many people are just tired, scared, and risk-averse -- not angry. It's a nice attempt to add some fantasized enthusiasm about the Clinton campaign to the narrative, even if it has to be invented out of whole cloth.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2016, 05:28:48 AM
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2016, 05:28:48 AM
I'm surprised you didn't mention how black people simply don't know who is the best candidate for them.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:31:04 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:31:04 AM
I can feel the black enthusiasm for Hillary bubbling up all over this country. :mellow:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 20, 2016, 06:53:24 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 20, 2016, 06:53:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2016, 05:28:48 AM
I'm surprised you didn't mention how black people simply don't know who is the best candidate for them.
That's because the Jew is keeping them down.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2016, 11:31:32 AM
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2016, 11:31:32 AM
Fwiw I consider myself an enthusiastic HillaRyan supporter though it is true that I have never donated to her campaigns or attended a rally. I also don't blow up my social media accounts in a timmayesque fashion with posts about Hillary. Nor really do most of the people I know who support Hillary now / did the past.
I guess I'm open to letting people vote with their conscience unhindered even if that leads to poor choices like Sanders or Trump. Though I suppose what I can't abide are non-voters or those essentially non-voters who go third party in the general. -_-
I guess I'm open to letting people vote with their conscience unhindered even if that leads to poor choices like Sanders or Trump. Though I suppose what I can't abide are non-voters or those essentially non-voters who go third party in the general. -_-
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 20, 2016, 11:39:03 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 20, 2016, 11:39:03 AM
Perhaps some people feel that politics is not important to them and decide not to vote. From a certain perspective after all politics seems like one of the greatest scams of all - it gets people excited with things that have ultimately little influence on their lives and which they can individually influence even less. I wonder how much really an interest in politics is important for a good and happy life.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: LaCroix on March 20, 2016, 12:50:00 PM
Post by: LaCroix on March 20, 2016, 12:50:00 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:26:26 AM
The piece is right: many people are just tired, scared, and risk-averse -- not angry. It's a nice attempt to add some fantasized enthusiasm about the Clinton campaign to the narrative, even if it has to be invented out of whole cloth.
I've been enthusiastic since 2008! :)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Jaron on March 20, 2016, 12:55:33 PM
Post by: Jaron on March 20, 2016, 12:55:33 PM
One of the most insulting pieces of political rhetoric this season is the often mentioned fact that Bernie Sanders was active in the Civil Rights movement. To Bernie supporters, this somehow should have bought and paid for the black vote and a vote for Clinton means the black voter doesn't know their own history.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2016, 02:14:44 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2016, 02:14:44 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:26:26 AM
The piece is right: many people are just tired, scared, and risk-averse -- not angry.
You forgot wise and mature -_-
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 02:39:30 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 02:39:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2016, 02:14:44 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:26:26 AM
The piece is right: many people are just tired, scared, and risk-averse -- not angry.
You forgot wise and mature -_-
Too wise and mature to display any enthusiasm for their candidate, I suppose.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 20, 2016, 03:08:58 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 20, 2016, 03:08:58 PM
I'm happy with Hillary. I'm not interested in tilting at windmills with Sanders.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2016, 04:46:20 PM
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2016, 04:46:20 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 02:39:30 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 20, 2016, 02:14:44 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:26:26 AM
The piece is right: many people are just tired, scared, and risk-averse -- not angry.
You forgot wise and mature -_-
Too wise and mature to display any enthusiasm for their candidate, I suppose.
Enthusiasm doesn't have to be manifested as declarations that all other candidates are evil. :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: MadImmortalMan on March 20, 2016, 06:04:34 PM
Post by: MadImmortalMan on March 20, 2016, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2016, 11:39:03 AM
Perhaps some people feel that politics is not important to them and decide not to vote. From a certain perspective after all politics seems like one of the greatest scams of all - it gets people excited with things that have ultimately little influence on their lives and which they can individually influence even less. I wonder how much really an interest in politics is important for a good and happy life.
I've come to believe that a certain distance from it is pretty healthy actually. People obsessed with politics seem to be chronically angry.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 08:34:38 PM
Post by: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 08:34:38 PM
Politics has a decisive effect on everybody's lives. But for 99.99%+ of the population, there is absolutely nothing one can do to influence politics.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on March 20, 2016, 08:43:33 PM
Post by: dps on March 20, 2016, 08:43:33 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 20, 2016, 06:04:34 PMQuote from: Martinus on March 20, 2016, 11:39:03 AM
Perhaps some people feel that politics is not important to them and decide not to vote. From a certain perspective after all politics seems like one of the greatest scams of all - it gets people excited with things that have ultimately little influence on their lives and which they can individually influence even less. I wonder how much really an interest in politics is important for a good and happy life.
I've come to believe that a certain distance from it is pretty healthy actually. People obsessed with politics seem to be chronically angry.
There's a big middle ground between apathetic and obsessed.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 09:29:49 PM
Post by: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 09:29:49 PM
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2016, 08:43:33 PMQuote from: MadImmortalMan on March 20, 2016, 06:04:34 PMQuote from: Martinus on March 20, 2016, 11:39:03 AM
Perhaps some people feel that politics is not important to them and decide not to vote. From a certain perspective after all politics seems like one of the greatest scams of all - it gets people excited with things that have ultimately little influence on their lives and which they can individually influence even less. I wonder how much really an interest in politics is important for a good and happy life.
I've come to believe that a certain distance from it is pretty healthy actually. People obsessed with politics seem to be chronically angry.
There's a big middle ground between apathetic and obsessed.
Let somebody else fill that ground then :contract:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 20, 2016, 09:47:17 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 20, 2016, 09:47:17 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 08:34:38 PM
Politics has a decisive effect on everybody's lives. But for 99.99%+ of the population, there is absolutely nothing one can do to influence politics.
I have found that not to be the case.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2016, 09:54:30 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2016, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:31:04 AM
I can feel the black enthusiasm for Hillary bubbling up all over this country. :mellow:
That's the point of the article. People may not be screaming in wild ecstasy but they sure are voting.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 10:12:24 PM
Post by: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 10:12:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2016, 09:47:17 PMQuote from: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 08:34:38 PM
Politics has a decisive effect on everybody's lives. But for 99.99%+ of the population, there is absolutely nothing one can do to influence politics.
I have found that not to be the case.
What can I say. Congrats for being the 0.01% :P
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2016, 10:31:40 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2016, 10:31:40 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 08:34:38 PM
Politics has a decisive effect on everybody's lives. But for 99.99%+ of the population, there is absolutely nothing one can do to influence politics.
There is probably lots I could do to influence politics. I could make myself a real nuisance. But why? Sounds like a lot of work and I am not even sure what my cause would be.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2016, 10:33:15 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2016, 10:33:15 PM
Also this is a big reason why I don't get too worked up about elections. A vote is a vote, it does not matter how passionately it is cast.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2016, 12:51:28 AM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2016, 12:51:28 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2016, 09:54:30 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:31:04 AM
I can feel the black enthusiasm for Hillary bubbling up all over this country. :mellow:
That's the point of the article. People may not be screaming in wild ecstasy but they sure are voting.
The primary voters with a vested interested in the direction/success of the party sure are. Let's see if the whole country clears 54.9% voter turnout in November, let alone all the non-ecstatic HR Clinton devotees out there.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 01:08:14 AM
Post by: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 01:08:14 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 10:12:24 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2016, 09:47:17 PMQuote from: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 08:34:38 PM
Politics has a decisive effect on everybody's lives. But for 99.99%+ of the population, there is absolutely nothing one can do to influence politics.
I have found that not to be the case.
What can I say. Congrats for being the 0.01% :P
Small towns elect officials. Counties elect officials. School boards elect officials. At these levels not only does the average person can have an effect on politics, he may very well run for office. It's not that big a deal. Elected officials aren't "special". They can be pretty much anyone. And at these levels, important things occur things that can make a big difference in your life. Taxation, road building and repair, which companies decide to base themselves in your area.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 21, 2016, 03:18:45 AM
Post by: garbon on March 21, 2016, 03:18:45 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2016, 12:51:28 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2016, 09:54:30 PMQuote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 05:31:04 AM
I can feel the black enthusiasm for Hillary bubbling up all over this country. :mellow:
That's the point of the article. People may not be screaming in wild ecstasy but they sure are voting.
The primary voters with a vested interested in the direction/success of the party sure are. Let's see if the whole country clears 54.9% voter turnout in November, let alone all the non-ecstatic HR Clinton devotees out there.
Well pretty much everyone has a vested interest whether they want one or not.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: derspiess on March 21, 2016, 11:57:40 AM
Post by: derspiess on March 21, 2016, 11:57:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2016, 10:33:15 PM
Also this is a big reason why I don't get too worked up about elections. A vote is a vote, it does not matter how passionately it is cast.
Dunno, man. I fill in those squares on my ballot so dark they have to be weighted extra.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 12:10:23 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 12:10:23 PM
All the men below share something in common in their Senate voting record:
John Barrasso
Thad Cochrane
Mike Crapo
Mike Enzi
Jim Inhofe
Ron Johnson
Pat Roberts
Bernie Sanders
Jeff Sessions
Richard Shelby
David Vitter
Roger Wicker
Interesting company for Senator Sanders, left wing hero.
John Barrasso
Thad Cochrane
Mike Crapo
Mike Enzi
Jim Inhofe
Ron Johnson
Pat Roberts
Bernie Sanders
Jeff Sessions
Richard Shelby
David Vitter
Roger Wicker
Interesting company for Senator Sanders, left wing hero.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 21, 2016, 12:18:20 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 21, 2016, 12:18:20 PM
Guns?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2016, 12:30:38 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2016, 12:30:38 PM
Guns are just NBD in Vermont. The only state gun law is no loaded rifle or shotgun in the passenger compartment of a vehicle -- Fish And Wildlife Violation punishable by a $500 fine and suspension of your license to take game in Vermont for up to three years. He faithfully represented his constituency.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 21, 2016, 12:45:50 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 21, 2016, 12:45:50 PM
Some bill from the Reagan years?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 21, 2016, 12:53:26 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 21, 2016, 12:53:26 PM
I have to say I'm not a fan of this kind of innuendo posting. I'm 80% Minksy is waiting to drop the punchline, and it's about something worse than guns.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 01:40:36 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 01:40:36 PM
They all voted against TARP and for the "Audit the Fed" bill.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 01:42:24 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 01:42:24 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 01:40:36 PM
They all voted against TARP and for the "Audit the Fed" bill.
Well those do sound like things extremists of both varieties would like :hmm:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 01:45:57 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 01:45:57 PM
In this case it is all hard right wing nutbags, plus Sanders.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 21, 2016, 01:47:26 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 21, 2016, 01:47:26 PM
The Democratic establishment bought into the "too big to fail" argument, but unsurprisingly lots of the grass roots are against bailouts for banks. Bernie's campaign has been built on stuff like opposing TARP.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2016, 02:13:27 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2016, 02:13:27 PM
Wow, big surprise, Bernie voted against the bailout. :mellow:
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 21, 2016, 02:13:39 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 21, 2016, 02:13:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 01:40:36 PMThat's it, that's the reveal? I personally disagree with these votes out of pragmatic reasons, but it is certainly in character for Sanders to be skeptical of both TARP and the Fed. Both are probably necessary, but both are in the business of bailing out oligarchs under the guise that little people would be hurt as well if oligarchs had tough times.
They all voted against TARP and for the "Audit the Fed" bill.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2016, 02:15:59 PM
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2016, 02:15:59 PM
Fuck tha big banks and Bern said it with authority
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: PJL on March 21, 2016, 03:04:33 PM
Post by: PJL on March 21, 2016, 03:04:33 PM
Just confirms that both Trump & Sanders are tapping into the same discontent. It's not not much left vs right as the establishment vs outsiders.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 03:08:30 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 03:08:30 PM
Quote from: PJL on March 21, 2016, 03:04:33 PM
Just confirms that both Trump & Sanders are tapping into the same discontent. It's not not much left vs right as the establishment vs outsiders.
Same reason Kucinich was always allying with Ron Paul about stuff.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:13:49 PM
Post by: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:13:49 PM
Quote from: PJL on March 21, 2016, 03:04:33 PM
Just confirms that both Trump & Sanders are tapping into the same discontent. It's not not much left vs right as the establishment vs outsiders.
Yup, pretty much. I wonder if, assuming Clinton wins this one, this will go away or just get worse until the "outsider" candidate wins?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 03:19:06 PM
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 03:19:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:13:49 PMQuote from: PJL on March 21, 2016, 03:04:33 PM
Just confirms that both Trump & Sanders are tapping into the same discontent. It's not not much left vs right as the establishment vs outsiders.
Yup, pretty much. I wonder if, assuming Clinton wins this one, this will go away or just get worse until the "outsider" candidate wins?
Oh it is only going to get more intense. 2020 will be a real freak show. I have no idea where this is going to take us. A major political re-alignment is coming.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwallpaperswide.com%2Fdownload%2Fgame_of_thrones_winter_is_coming-wallpaper-768x1024.jpg&hash=5b22b97c22dd595ca6d7c9dca591b986ea9a88af)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Zanza on March 21, 2016, 03:20:53 PM
Post by: Zanza on March 21, 2016, 03:20:53 PM
Tyrion for President.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 03:21:09 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 03:21:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2016, 02:13:39 PM
That's it, that's the reveal? I personally disagree with these votes out of pragmatic reasons, but it is certainly in character for Sanders to be skeptical of both TARP and the Fed. Both are probably necessary, but both are in the business of bailing out oligarchs under the guise that little people would be hurt as well if oligarchs had tough times.
You're obviously a pretty bright guy; in fact your SAT scores were borderline acceptable. But this is a fairly tale characterization of both TARP and the Fed.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:28:32 PM
Post by: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:28:32 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 21, 2016, 03:20:53 PM
Tyrion for President.
Tyrion is SOOO establishment though.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on March 21, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
Post by: dps on March 21, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2016, 01:08:14 AMQuote from: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 10:12:24 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2016, 09:47:17 PMQuote from: Monoriu on March 20, 2016, 08:34:38 PM
Politics has a decisive effect on everybody's lives. But for 99.99%+ of the population, there is absolutely nothing one can do to influence politics.
I have found that not to be the case.
What can I say. Congrats for being the 0.01% :P
Small towns elect officials. Counties elect officials. School boards elect officials. At these levels not only does the average person can have an effect on politics, he may very well run for office. It's not that big a deal. Elected officials aren't "special". They can be pretty much anyone. And at these levels, important things occur things that can make a big difference in your life. Taxation, road building and repair, which companies decide to base themselves in your area.
Yep. Policies decided at the municipal level often directly affect people far more than anything the Federal government does, and a single person's vote is far more likely to make a difference in a local election. Granted, that's less true in a local election in Hong Kong than in just about anywhere else.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 04:28:12 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 04:28:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2016, 02:13:39 PM
Both are probably necessary
Bingo
2 kinds of politician: those who figure out how to back that which is necessary but not always popular, and those who attack that which is necessary for cheap applause in the expectation that more responsible politicians will step up and take the heat for it anyways (Exhibit A: Ted Cruz)
Most of the morons on that list have the excuse of being morons. Bernie doesn't have that excuse.
Whatever you think about the big banks, TARP was necessary. When the hurricane is coming in to shore, that is not the time to pontificate about land use policy and zoning near the shore, you just have to pile up the sandbags.
Whatever you think about the Fed, it is very transparent in its current incarnation, maybe too much so. The "audit" bill has nothing to do with audit, it has to do about meddling in the monetary policy process, so that the goldbugs can push their 19th century monetary agenda.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:50:58 PM
Post by: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2016, 04:28:12 PM
2 kinds of politician: those who figure out how to back that which is necessary but not always popular, and those who attack that which is necessary for cheap applause in the expectation that more responsible politicians will step up and take the heat for it anyways (Exhibit A: Ted Cruz)
Most of the morons on that list have the excuse of being morons. Bernie doesn't have that excuse.
Whatever you think about the big banks, TARP was necessary. When the hurricane is coming in to shore, that is not the time to pontificate about land use policy and zoning near the shore, you just have to pile up the sandbags.
It's one think to think on an intellectual level, that TARP was necessary. But it's quite another to think that the anger over it isn't real, or that it's just being created by cynical windbag politicians. They might seek to exploit the anger, but they didn't create it. Necessary or not, calling certain businesses "too big to fail" is absolutely not the way to sell to sell any economic program. It's going to be taken as a slap on the face or worse by any "little guy" who's struggling, and maybe even by the "little guys" who are doing OK.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 04:56:22 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 04:56:22 PM
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:50:58 PM
It's one think to think on an intellectual level, that TARP was necessary. But it's quite another to think that the anger over it isn't real, or that it's just being created by cynical windbag politicians. They might seek to exploit the anger, but they didn't create it. Necessary or not, calling certain businesses "too big to fail" is absolutely not the way to sell to sell any economic program. It's going to be taken as a slap on the face or worse by any "little guy" who's struggling, and maybe even by the "little guys" who are doing OK.
"Too big to fail" was not sales pitch for TARP, it was the critique.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:59:03 PM
Post by: dps on March 21, 2016, 04:59:03 PM
The pitch should have been tailored to deflect that criticism, then. Not that I'm sure how you'd do that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2016, 06:11:45 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2016, 06:11:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2016, 03:19:06 PMQuote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:13:49 PM
I wonder if, assuming Clinton wins this one, this will go away or just get worse until the "outsider" candidate wins?
Oh it is only going to get more intense. 2020 will be a real freak show. I have no idea where this is going to take us. A major political re-alignment is coming.
Oh, hells yeah. The GOP has been consistently doubling down on stupid for every election since 2008, just wait and see what they're going to be exasperated enough to trot out after 4 years of Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2016, 06:34:21 PM
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2016, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:28:32 PMQuote from: Zanza on March 21, 2016, 03:20:53 PM
Tyrion for President.
Tyrion is SOOO establishment though.
He's pretty much exactly the opposite. He's a bastard of the exiled royal family who was only reluctantly acknowledged as as the son of an establishment figure in order to avoid an anti-establishment backlash. He is as outsider as outsider gets.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 21, 2016, 06:40:22 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 21, 2016, 06:40:22 PM
Haven't been keeping up with this thread. Has this been posted?
http://www.democratsabroad.org/global_presidential_primary_results
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6w3scni.png&hash=f7b7aeb7687969d521b2664b770ac2a1e4692557)
http://www.democratsabroad.org/global_presidential_primary_results
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6w3scni.png&hash=f7b7aeb7687969d521b2664b770ac2a1e4692557)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 25, 2016, 05:43:01 AM
Post by: garbon on March 25, 2016, 05:43:01 AM
Interesting as they finally do the Dems.
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/beckman-demrepeats-1.png?w=1024&h=1031)
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/beckman-demrepeats-1.png?w=1024&h=1031)
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 25, 2016, 05:58:29 AM
Post by: celedhring on March 25, 2016, 05:58:29 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 21, 2016, 03:20:53 PM
Tyrion for President.
Zombie Genghis Khan. Proven anti-establishment credentials and won't be bullied by China or Russia.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 25, 2016, 11:23:31 AM
Post by: garbon on March 25, 2016, 11:23:31 AM
http://uk.businessinsider.com/jimmy-kimmel-mansplaining-to-hillary-clinton-2016-3?r=US&IR=T
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=201&v=j2wBpYT6Zlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=201&v=j2wBpYT6Zlo
QuoteJimmy Kimmel mocks Hillary Clinton's critics by 'mansplaining' public speaking to her
Hillary Clinton took a stab at pleasing those who have critiqued her speaking style — and made a point of her own — with some help from Jimmy Kimmel on Thursday night.
During the segment, Kimmel offered to give the Democratic presidential candidate some pointers from a man's point of view — in other words, he did some "mansplaining."
"I feel like I'm going to be your secret weapon now," the late-night host declared to Clinton. "I'm going to help you win this election, no problem."
When Kimmel asked Clinton if she knew what "mansplaining" is, she answered, "That's when a man explains something to a woman in a patronizing way."
The host then corrected her: "Actually, it's when a man explains something to a woman in a condescending way, but you were close."
Kimmel asked Clinton to stand behind a podium and give a speech just as she'd do at a rally. He then offered his male-oriented advice, from her outfit, to how loudly she spoke, and even her smile.
"Don't smile like that, because it's too forced. It's like you're faking it," he told Clinton. "Ask yourself, 'Do I want to be president or do I want to be a Lakers girl?'"
"Is that a real choice?" Clinton responded.
Clearly, this was Kimmel and Clinton's tongue-in-cheek way of addressing critics who go after her presentation. The former Secretary of State has been subjected to a lot of scrutiny about her choice of outfits, her speaking style, and even when and how she should smile. Arguably, these are critiques that the male politicians don't typically have to deal with.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 25, 2016, 11:38:27 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 25, 2016, 11:38:27 AM
Anyone who uses the word "mansplaining" should be exterminated.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 25, 2016, 11:39:40 AM
Post by: DGuller on March 25, 2016, 11:39:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2016, 11:38:27 AM:yes: I don't often call for exterminations, but in this case it's perfectly justifiable.
Anyone who uses the word "mansplaining" should be exterminated.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 25, 2016, 11:41:45 AM
Post by: celedhring on March 25, 2016, 11:41:45 AM
I get he probably was making a joke by being patronizing himself when explaining that, but what's the difference between patronizing and condescending?
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Martinus on March 25, 2016, 11:43:01 AM
Post by: Martinus on March 25, 2016, 11:43:01 AM
Ask garbose.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 25, 2016, 12:27:59 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 25, 2016, 12:27:59 PM
They are synonyms, though I think condescending is more openly negative.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 25, 2016, 12:35:44 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 25, 2016, 12:35:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2016, 06:34:21 PMQuote from: Martinus on March 21, 2016, 03:28:32 PMQuote from: Zanza on March 21, 2016, 03:20:53 PM
Tyrion for President.
Tyrion is SOOO establishment though.
He's pretty much exactly the opposite. He's a bastard of the exiled royal family who was only reluctantly acknowledged as as the son of an establishment figure in order to avoid an anti-establishment backlash. He is as outsider as outsider gets.
Yeah, except for the 99% of the population who aren't part of a royal family. They might be more of an outsider then that.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 25, 2016, 12:48:07 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 25, 2016, 12:48:07 PM
True outsiders have piercing blue eyes and icy cold skin.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: celedhring on March 25, 2016, 12:55:36 PM
Post by: celedhring on March 25, 2016, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2016, 05:43:01 AM
Interesting as they finally do the Dems.
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/beckman-demrepeats-1.png?w=1024&h=1031)
What do the highlighted phrases mean?
Sanders seems to repeat more platform - significant phrases than Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 25, 2016, 01:08:09 PM
Post by: garbon on March 25, 2016, 01:08:09 PM
I think it highlights what they think are characteristic statements of the candidates - at least that was the case when they did Republicans. Here was their take.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/these-are-the-phrases-that-sanders-and-clinton-repeat-most/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/these-are-the-phrases-that-sanders-and-clinton-repeat-most/
QuoteThe differences here are stark, and they line up well with the dominant narrative of this race. Clinton is the candidate of action, stressing strong verbs and first-person pronouns; Sanders is the protest candidate, listing problems that he thinks need more attention. Read from top to bottom, the former secretary of state's talking points resemble a cover letter put through a blender; the Vermont senator's list reads like a socialist stream of consciousness of American problems with Scandinavian solutions.
For all the talk of Clinton's stilted performances and Sanders's from-the-gut delivery, the latter is the more repetitive candidate by far. I expected to see "millionaires and billionaires" in Sanders's top 20 but had to scroll through dozens of higher-scoring phrases like "corporate America" and "Goldman Sachs" before finding it at No. 72.
As I mentioned in my previous article, tf-idf is a relative measure, so a score of 25 means only "higher than 20." Longer and more repeated phrases score higher, and phrases that have also been used by other candidates score lower.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: DGuller on March 25, 2016, 01:11:43 PM
Post by: DGuller on March 25, 2016, 01:11:43 PM
It's really bad style to highlight something without explaining the meaning of highlighting. Pretty surprising to see it from 538, who are usually pretty good about such things.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: garbon on March 25, 2016, 01:13:32 PM
Post by: garbon on March 25, 2016, 01:13:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2016, 01:11:43 PM
It's really bad style to highlight something without explaining the meaning of highlighting. Pretty surprising to see it from 538, who are usually pretty good about such things.
Well here is exactly what they said for Repubs. So I suppose what they think are core statements that say something about the candidate.
QuoteBeyond highlighting some stone-cold classics — "right to keep and bear arms" — and quintessential Trumpisms — "we don't win" — this analysis reveals each candidate's verbal tics. Ted Cruz daydreams about the possibilities "if I am elected president," while Rubio, fresh off a string of third- and fourth-place victories, predicts the glorious future "when I'm president." Trump shoots from the hip with "I have to say"; Cruz betrays his Ivy League past with "I would note." And John Kasich ... well, he mostly just talks about his record in Ohio.
Title: Re: Hillary vs Bernie
Post by: Razgovory on March 25, 2016, 02:11:51 PM
Post by: Razgovory on March 25, 2016, 02:11:51 PM
Am I the only Democrat who think that Sanders might be a little crazy.