|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 17 2015 01:00 always_winter wrote:
The Republican primary is about as diverse as 18th century landowners. Trump is the only non-politician, and his policy views are no different, just exaggerated.
The funniest thing about this is that the democrat primary is far less diverse. It's a bunch of old white people tripping over each other to be the first to agree with each other on every point. Regardless of how you cut it, there's far more diversity in the republican primary.
(Not that anyone with half a brain give a shit about this).
|
On December 17 2015 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 01:00 always_winter wrote:
The Republican primary is about as diverse as 18th century landowners. Trump is the only non-politician, and his policy views are no different, just exaggerated. The funniest thing about this is that the democrat primary is far less diverse. It's a bunch of old white people tripping over each other to be the first to agree with each other on every point. Regardless of how you cut it, there's far more diversity in the republican primary. (Not that anyone with half a brain give a shit about this).
Unless you cut it using religion 
|
On December 17 2015 01:00 always_winter wrote:
The Republican primary is about as diverse as 18th century landowners. Trump is the only non-politician, and his policy views are no different, just exaggerated.
Uhm I'm pretty sure and correct me if I'm wrong, but...
9 people on stage.
2 Hispanics 22.2% US percent 16.4%
1 Black 11.1% US percent 12%
1 Lady 11.1%% US percent 51.5% (okay that's not diverse)
People that have never held political office:
Fiorina, Carson, and Trump or 1/3 of the candidates.
Ideologically they are pretty diverse as well. Jeb Bush is pretty centrist, Rand Paul is conservative/libertarian type mix, Trump is populist maybe?, Christie seems to be a stereotypical warhawk type although Fiorina and Carson are fuzzy to me...Rubio and Cruz don't really fit in with any of those either...is Rubio closest to Bush?
I think the diversity of the candidates is pretty good.
|
On December 17 2015 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 01:00 always_winter wrote:
The Republican primary is about as diverse as 18th century landowners. Trump is the only non-politician, and his policy views are no different, just exaggerated. The funniest thing about this is that the democrat primary is far less diverse. It's a bunch of old white people tripping over each other to be the first to agree with each other on every point. Regardless of how you cut it, there's far more diversity in the republican primary. (Not that anyone with half a brain give a shit about this).
it doesn't matter how diverse the candidates are when every single one of them is incompetent.
This is a presidential election, not a variate comedy show.
|
If diversity for you means "barely electable by a majority due to being hardcore rightiwng" and form there on goes full trottle until you enter "Pyramids Held Grain/the end is near" territory... Then yeah i guess this field seems very diverse.
|
On December 17 2015 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2015 01:00 always_winter wrote:
The Republican primary is about as diverse as 18th century landowners. Trump is the only non-politician, and his policy views are no different, just exaggerated. The funniest thing about this is that the democrat primary is far less diverse. It's a bunch of old white people tripping over each other to be the first to agree with each other on every point. Regardless of how you cut it, there's far more diversity in the republican primary. (Not that anyone with half a brain give a shit about this). it doesn't matter how diverse the candidates are when every single one of them is incompetent. This is a presidential election, not a variate comedy show.
And what competence did Hillary demonstrate as Secretary of State? One of the big takeaways for me from last night's debate is that the country is going to get a stark reminder of just how bad she was when the presidential race gets under way.
|
On December 17 2015 01:20 Eliezar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 01:00 always_winter wrote:
The Republican primary is about as diverse as 18th century landowners. Trump is the only non-politician, and his policy views are no different, just exaggerated. Uhm I'm pretty sure and correct me if I'm wrong, but... 9 people on stage. 2 Hispanics 22.2% US percent 16.4% 1 Black 11.1% US percent 12% 1 Lady 11.1%% US percent 51.5% (okay that's not diverse) People that have never held political office: Fiorina, Carson, and Trump or 1/3 of the candidates. Ideologically they are pretty diverse as well. Jeb Bush is pretty centrist, Rand Paul is conservative/libertarian type mix, Trump is populist maybe?, Christie seems to be a stereotypical warhawk type although Fiorina and Carson are fuzzy to me...Rubio and Cruz don't really fit in with any of those either...is Rubio closest to Bush? I think the diversity of the candidates is pretty good.
Exactly. It was a stupid, partisan comment that has no grounding in reality.
|
On December 17 2015 01:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 17 2015 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2015 01:00 always_winter wrote:
The Republican primary is about as diverse as 18th century landowners. Trump is the only non-politician, and his policy views are no different, just exaggerated. The funniest thing about this is that the democrat primary is far less diverse. It's a bunch of old white people tripping over each other to be the first to agree with each other on every point. Regardless of how you cut it, there's far more diversity in the republican primary. (Not that anyone with half a brain give a shit about this). it doesn't matter how diverse the candidates are when every single one of them is incompetent. This is a presidential election, not a variate comedy show. And what competence did Hillary demonstrate as Secretary of State? One of the big takeaways for me from last night's debate is that the country is going to get a stark reminder of just how bad she was when the presidential race gets under way.
Well she hasn't proposed to murder the families of our enemies, proposed a tax code based on the bible, shutdown the government, called for the bombing of Iran for no real reason ectect.
And your taking things away from a debate that focused on scoring cheap points with the lowest common denomination? I like to believe that the majority of Americans have some brain capacity left.
|
On December 17 2015 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 01:27 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2015 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 17 2015 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2015 01:00 always_winter wrote:
The Republican primary is about as diverse as 18th century landowners. Trump is the only non-politician, and his policy views are no different, just exaggerated. The funniest thing about this is that the democrat primary is far less diverse. It's a bunch of old white people tripping over each other to be the first to agree with each other on every point. Regardless of how you cut it, there's far more diversity in the republican primary. (Not that anyone with half a brain give a shit about this). it doesn't matter how diverse the candidates are when every single one of them is incompetent. This is a presidential election, not a variate comedy show. And what competence did Hillary demonstrate as Secretary of State? One of the big takeaways for me from last night's debate is that the country is going to get a stark reminder of just how bad she was when the presidential race gets under way. Well she hasn't proposed to murder the families of our enemies, proposed a tax code based on the bible, shutdown the government, called for the bombing of Iran for no real reason ectect. And your taking things away from a debate that focused on scoring cheap points with the lowest common denomination? I like to believe that the majority of Americans have some brain capacity left.
Are you really going to pretend that all of the republican candidates have adopted Trump's positions or those cherry picked extreme positions from other candidates?
And you completely dodged the larger point: Hillary was an inept Secretary of State.
|
Bush was an inept president... He still got reelected.
Your point is?
(And you might want to explain what exactly Hillary did so wrong).
|
United States43543 Posts
I don't get what all the hate for Iran is. I mean they're far more friendly than Saudi Arabia and they've actually been fighting ISIS for a while. If we accept the need for regional partners in the Middle East, and at some point hopefully we will, Iran is as good as we'll get. Sure there is some history there but America were the bigger dicks and dwelling on historical grudges does not make good foreign policy.
|
Daunt, I think one of the things people forget is that Daddy Bush and Clinton were not too different in policies as presidents as they both drifted pretty far central other than the healthcare that Clinton tried to push and didn't get through.
It was also interesting to here the democrats praising Reagan and contrasting him to the current republicans recently and also last night after the debate.
I guess my work background gives me a different political perspective than most, but I think that its almost a form of mass peer pressure censorship the way people denigrate opposing ideas. I actually like ideas from Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush, etc. I understand that those ideas represent concerns and areas of importance for different parts of the population. This isn't a binary "he's right, he's wrong" thing...Bush is right we don't want to alienate the Sunni Muslims who can help us fight ISIS, Bernie is right about money in politics, Rand Paul is right that we need to hold to the constitution. Actually, Ted Cruz was really spot on after the debate when CNN interviewed him and asked if he would deport illegal aliens if he was President and Cruz said something like "The president doesn't get to decide which laws he follows, he has to follow the laws of the land."
The idea that we need to determine the issues and find ways to improve them rather than just using them to wedge people apart and create party drones seems lost in social media, cable news, and the current 2 party oligolopy.
|
The amount of effort that the Republicans put into throwing shade on Hillary is so hilariously transparent. I have always found it amusing that they believe that will be effective when it comes to the general election. 2-3 years of accusations of wrong doing and misconduct that yielded nothing. And they there is the sound bite of one of them saying “look how we discredited Hillary”. They still living in this post Carl Rove reality distortion field where the American public is swayed by this shit.
And then they all get excited about killing the family members of terrorists and don't denounce that as complete garbage.
|
Quite a few Republicans refuse to even entertain the notion that Iran would make a better ally than the Saudis; this same camp similarly refuses to acknowledge the widening gap between the waning political authority of the Ayatollah relative to the increasingly Western-friendly Iranian government. Go figure.
|
On December 17 2015 01:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:On December 17 2015 01:27 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2015 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 17 2015 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2015 01:00 always_winter wrote:
The Republican primary is about as diverse as 18th century landowners. Trump is the only non-politician, and his policy views are no different, just exaggerated. The funniest thing about this is that the democrat primary is far less diverse. It's a bunch of old white people tripping over each other to be the first to agree with each other on every point. Regardless of how you cut it, there's far more diversity in the republican primary. (Not that anyone with half a brain give a shit about this). it doesn't matter how diverse the candidates are when every single one of them is incompetent. This is a presidential election, not a variate comedy show. And what competence did Hillary demonstrate as Secretary of State? One of the big takeaways for me from last night's debate is that the country is going to get a stark reminder of just how bad she was when the presidential race gets under way. Well she hasn't proposed to murder the families of our enemies, proposed a tax code based on the bible, shutdown the government, called for the bombing of Iran for no real reason ectect. And your taking things away from a debate that focused on scoring cheap points with the lowest common denomination? I like to believe that the majority of Americans have some brain capacity left. Are you really going to pretend that all of the republican candidates have adopted Trump's positions or those cherry picked extreme positions from other candidates? And you completely dodged the larger point: Hillary was an inept Secretary of State.
I don't think Secretary of State is a place where you can easily distinguish yourself publicly and I don't really remember any particularly bad fuck ups from her so please provide some evidence if you are so sure she was inept.
And extreme positions tell a lot about a person. I'll pick the "more of the same" establishment candidate over crazy any day of the week because the Presidency is a position of responsibility.
|
On December 17 2015 01:39 KwarK wrote:
I don't get what all the hate for Iran is. I mean they're far more friendly than Saudi Arabia and they've actually been fighting ISIS for a while. If we accept the need for regional partners in the Middle East, and at some point hopefully we will, Iran is as good as we'll get. Sure there is some history there but America were the bigger dicks and dwelling on historical grudges does not make good foreign policy.
Because Iran have been the enemy in every public narrative for decades. Its the shaping of a public image and the result of that on a part of the population that is very susceptible to that narrative, the people the Republicans have turned to in order to win elections (the tea party).
|
Plus even when we trying to work with them our politicians constantly say they are willing invade or bomb Iran at any time. Which leads to the general population of Iran having this weird impression that we are going to bomb or invade them at any moment. So they do things to say they are ready to fight or strengthen their military, which scares our allies. And thus trying to fix anything between our two nations is very hard due to the cycle of political posturing.
|
On December 17 2015 01:38 Velr wrote:
Bush was an inept president... He still got reelected.
Your point is?
(And you might want to explain what exactly Hillary did so wrong).
Bush was not an idept president, that couldn't be further from the truth. Bush actually was able to get what he wanted as president and his major things he went after got done. That doesn't mean that I agree with the Iraq war (I disagreed then and disagree now), but Bush got stuff done. Why we went to war in Iraq is up for debate and I'm not sure we will ever really know the issue, but if nothing else part of it may have been the war Saddam Hussein's assassination attempt on daddy Bush and part of it is likely to do with other elements who were in the pocket of corporate "donors" deceiving or at least clouding Bush's judgement. I really think Colin Powell and Bush believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush was too polarizing and took the country into a war he never should have, but he wasn't inept.
Hillary Clinton was just a bad secretary of state. Whether it was praising Assad and saying he was a champion for reform, not responding to the request for additional security for Benghazi before the attack and not responding to the okay to send troops there during the multihour ordeal or sending classified emails through her personal email (which is a felony). Clinton is just bad...she's also just a wealthy, wedge issue type of democrat. Issues can go on and on. She's been caught in a lot of double speak and lies and has a history of things to be investigated being destroyed/deleted. Her brother also duped foreign governments into giving them millions in contracts in order to win Clinton favors during his presidency.
She is establishment with a name. Its unfortunate because I think the democrats could have offered up a much better candidate and definitely feel that Bernie Sanders is a much better choice.
|
On December 17 2015 01:42 farvacola wrote:
Quite a few Republicans refuse to even entertain the notion that Iran would make a better ally than the Saudis; this same camp similarly refuses to acknowledge the widening gap between the waning political authority of the Ayatollah relative to the increasingly Western-friendly Iranian government. Go figure.
If Iran was going to be able to be our ally it would have happened under Obama. I really don't think Iran or Saudi Arabia are countries you want as allies from a moral perspective, but we definitely could use less tension with Iran than we've had ever since we meddled with their government. I think that's one thing that was good with the debate last night that multiple candidates were stating that regime change just doesn't work...it doesn't change the culture.
|
On December 17 2015 01:56 Eliezar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 01:42 farvacola wrote:
Quite a few Republicans refuse to even entertain the notion that Iran would make a better ally than the Saudis; this same camp similarly refuses to acknowledge the widening gap between the waning political authority of the Ayatollah relative to the increasingly Western-friendly Iranian government. Go figure. If Iran was going to be able to be our ally it would have happened under Obama. I really don't think Iran or Saudi Arabia are countries you want as allies from a moral perspective, but we definitely could use less tension with Iran than we've had ever since we meddled with their government. I think that's one thing that was good with the debate last night that multiple candidates were stating that regime change just doesn't work...it doesn't change the culture.
Given that it is precisely the difference between a nation's regime and a nation's underlying culture that informs a critique of the Republican position that Iran is be flatly distrusted in all affairs, I agree with your last sentiment. That said, the decreasing sway of the Ayatollah is an ongoing phenomena so I think it's incorrect to suggest that the time is past for strengthened US-Iran relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
