|
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 February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:28 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair.
The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse.
The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake.
I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary. Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently.
And as was pointed out (and openly dismissed as a priority by Hillary) your position doesn't account for the conditions that made the rise in crime inevitable.
I have a feeling after this election there will have to be a moderate party formed of Hillary and Bush/Rubio types or both will have their roles switched with the wings of their party They will be the ones having to vote for people who don't line up with their views but are better than the opposition or go third party.
|
On February 26 2016 04:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 26 2016 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:28 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 03:12 Souma wrote:
He doesn't have to vote for Hillary in the general, and it's pretty ridiculous of you and others to pressure people into voting for her if she takes the nomination.
I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and I do not plan on voting for Hillary in 2016. Why in the world should anyone vote for someone or some party that does not represent them? The DNC is what it is today because of voters who will settle for the "less worse" instead of challenging the establishment to represent the people who vote for them.
There's currently no way the Democratic candidate, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, will lose in the general from my observations, however even if my vote was the decider and it was Hillary vs. Trump, I'd still vote Green and the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves for becoming the shithole they are now.
And for the Hillary supporters to support her and and the DNC for their actions just because "it always happens," or "Bernie isn't perfect either," or whatever the hell, leave your disgusting apathy at the door because it's further ruining the democratic process that is already a joke. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair. The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse. The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake. I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary. Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I honestly could not give any shits about the ethics of who is running our country. If the country does well under someone's leadership, I do not care about the personality or ethics of that person. If they are good for our country. Killed 60 people? Improved infrastructure, healthcare, immigration, our tax system and the economy? Sounds good to me. I think it's so sad that people care so much about the character of a candidate as a stand alone quality. Not just how that personality influences decision making and policy, but who is the person. Would I have a beer with them? Pretty important quality in a president! Just so stupid. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even be able to see the candidates. We would just read a 50 page essay by each candidate explaining the problems with our country and what they would fix. With an attached resume. That would be the perfect election. See, I find it more astounding that some people care so little about integrity and ethics, but that's a general observation of life, and not necessarily specific to politics. Explain to me why it should matter how ethical someone is as a stand-alone idea. Do I ever talk to the president? Do I interact with the president? My point is that if the country benefits from the policies and ideas of a person, the variable of their character does not play a role in my assessment of their quality. There's a difference between someone suffering from shadyness and someone thriving because of shadyness. In a way, you could almost make a comparison to the military. We don't like the idea of killing people, but we like the idea of our country continuing to exist. Lets say in some alternate universe, everything is the same except Lincoln killed 20 people when he was 18. Everything else the same. Was he a shitty president?
Except that you can't isolate variables like that. It turns out that ethics have repercussions for governance. Lincoln was in fact a deeply heartfelt lifelong anti-slavery crusader. If he had lost his idealism somewhere along the way and become a cynical political apparatchik, he would not have governed in the fashion he did. When less ethical people did step in after his death, everything did kinda go to shit.
|
On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:28 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 03:12 Souma wrote:
He doesn't have to vote for Hillary in the general, and it's pretty ridiculous of you and others to pressure people into voting for her if she takes the nomination.
I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and I do not plan on voting for Hillary in 2016. Why in the world should anyone vote for someone or some party that does not represent them? The DNC is what it is today because of voters who will settle for the "less worse" instead of challenging the establishment to represent the people who vote for them.
There's currently no way the Democratic candidate, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, will lose in the general from my observations, however even if my vote was the decider and it was Hillary vs. Trump, I'd still vote Green and the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves for becoming the shithole they are now.
And for the Hillary supporters to support her and and the DNC for their actions just because "it always happens," or "Bernie isn't perfect either," or whatever the hell, leave your disgusting apathy at the door because it's further ruining the democratic process that is already a joke. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair. The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse. The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake. I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary. Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate (see Freakonomics). Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it?
This "black leaders supported it" line is also garbage. As if "black leaders" supporting it absolved other people of their failures. Leaders of groups, countries, etc. don't always have their constituents' best interests at heart. It's like saying that Dick Cheney isn't that bad because American leaders supported his policies and ideas.
There's also the fact that for a lot of black people, educated ones at that, fighting "white supremacy" is about being proportionally represented in the upper class. I.e. if whites had been incarcerated at a similar percentage to blacks then the policies would have been fine, which is an insane thing to say. I'd argue that a lot of "black leaders" are more like WEB Dubois than they are MLK. They are black capitalists who want what they consider theirs by virtue of class.
edit: i meant Booker T Washington, not Dubois.
|
On February 26 2016 04:20 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Everyone is blowing the 1994 crime bill way out of proportion. "States preside over the great bulk of the US justice system. So it's actually state policies that fueled mass incarceration....Federal criminal justice policy, including much of the 1994 crime law, focuses almost entirely on the federal system, particularly federal prisons....In the US, federal prisons house only about 13 percent of the overall prison population." ![[image loading]](http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_prison_population_crime_bill_0.jpg) http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/get-your-memes-right-1994-crime-bill-didnt-create-mass-incarceration
Oh well it only doubled the federal prison population all better...
Only Hillary and co are the ones focused on the bill itself. It was part of a much larger strategy. Though it's not like it was their idea, they just bought it, kind of like the Iraq war.
|
On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:28 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair.
The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse.
The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake.
I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary. Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently.
As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%.
Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008".
|
On February 26 2016 04:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:28 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair.
The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse.
The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake.
I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary. Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate (see Freakonomics). Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? This "black leaders supported it" line is also garbage. As if "black leaders" supporting it absolved other people of their failures. Leaders of groups, countries, etc. don't always have their constituents' best interests at heart. It's like saying that Dick Cheney isn't that bad because American leaders supported his policies and ideas. There's also the fact that for a lot of black people, educated ones at that, fighting "white supremacy" is about being proportionally represented in the upper class. I.e. if whited had been incarcerated at a similar percentage to blacks then the policies would have been fine, which is an insane thing to say. I'd argue that a lot of "black leaders" are more like WEB Dubois than they are MLK. They are black capitalists who want what they consider theirs by virtue of class.
DING DING DING DING! Look no further than the feigned outrage over the Oscars for evidence of this.
|
On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:
[quote]
Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%.
Bullshit, it did exactly what it was meant to.
On February 26 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:22 IgnE wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:
[quote]
Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate (see Freakonomics). Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? This "black leaders supported it" line is also garbage. As if "black leaders" supporting it absolved other people of their failures. Leaders of groups, countries, etc. don't always have their constituents' best interests at heart. It's like saying that Dick Cheney isn't that bad because American leaders supported his policies and ideas. There's also the fact that for a lot of black people, educated ones at that, fighting "white supremacy" is about being proportionally represented in the upper class. I.e. if whited had been incarcerated at a similar percentage to blacks then the policies would have been fine, which is an insane thing to say. I'd argue that a lot of "black leaders" are more like WEB Dubois than they are MLK. They are black capitalists who want what they consider theirs by virtue of class. DING DING DING DING! Look no further than the feigned outrage over the Oscars for evidence of this.
Well the celebrities was mostly feigned, but regular folks were genuinely pissed.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Was fun guys but I need to get back to work.
Vote Bernie Sanders 2016.
|
On February 26 2016 04:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine."
If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Bullshit, it did exactly what it was meant to.
Calling bullshit doesn't automatically mean something is bullshit. You're gonna have to actually some evidence that there was some dastardly plan concocted to screw over minorities.
The Republicans cut a lot of the funding towards education and services behind the crime bill which was a shame. You can hardly blame the Clinton administration and the bill's other proponents for that.
Also, here is Sanders being tough on crime according to his own website and some additional info about his shift on the issue. So maybe he didn't support the crime bill just because of VAWA after all.
|
On February 26 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:22 IgnE wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:
[quote]
Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate (see Freakonomics). Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? This "black leaders supported it" line is also garbage. As if "black leaders" supporting it absolved other people of their failures. Leaders of groups, countries, etc. don't always have their constituents' best interests at heart. It's like saying that Dick Cheney isn't that bad because American leaders supported his policies and ideas. There's also the fact that for a lot of black people, educated ones at that, fighting "white supremacy" is about being proportionally represented in the upper class. I.e. if whited had been incarcerated at a similar percentage to blacks then the policies would have been fine, which is an insane thing to say. I'd argue that a lot of "black leaders" are more like WEB Dubois than they are MLK. They are black capitalists who want what they consider theirs by virtue of class. DING DING DING DING! Look no further than the feigned outrage over the Oscars for evidence of this.
You mean the outrage that the Academy of Motion Pictures publicly agreed with and said they have a problem with diversity? It is really fake if the group they are mad at said it was a problem two years in a row and are trying to fix it?
|
On February 26 2016 04:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 26 2016 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:28 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 03:12 Souma wrote:
He doesn't have to vote for Hillary in the general, and it's pretty ridiculous of you and others to pressure people into voting for her if she takes the nomination.
I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and I do not plan on voting for Hillary in 2016. Why in the world should anyone vote for someone or some party that does not represent them? The DNC is what it is today because of voters who will settle for the "less worse" instead of challenging the establishment to represent the people who vote for them.
There's currently no way the Democratic candidate, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, will lose in the general from my observations, however even if my vote was the decider and it was Hillary vs. Trump, I'd still vote Green and the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves for becoming the shithole they are now.
And for the Hillary supporters to support her and and the DNC for their actions just because "it always happens," or "Bernie isn't perfect either," or whatever the hell, leave your disgusting apathy at the door because it's further ruining the democratic process that is already a joke. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair. The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse. The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake. I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary. Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I honestly could not give any shits about the ethics of who is running our country. If the country does well under someone's leadership, I do not care about the personality or ethics of that person. If they are good for our country. Killed 60 people? Improved infrastructure, healthcare, immigration, our tax system and the economy? Sounds good to me. I think it's so sad that people care so much about the character of a candidate as a stand alone quality. Not just how that personality influences decision making and policy, but who is the person. Would I have a beer with them? Pretty important quality in a president! Just so stupid. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even be able to see the candidates. We would just read a 50 page essay by each candidate explaining the problems with our country and what they would fix. With an attached resume. That would be the perfect election. See, I find it more astounding that some people care so little about integrity and ethics, but that's a general observation of life, and not necessarily specific to politics. Explain to me why it should matter how ethical someone is as a stand-alone idea. Do I ever talk to the president? Do I interact with the president? My point is that if the country benefits from the policies and ideas of a person, the variable of their character does not play a role in my assessment of their quality. There's a difference between someone suffering from shadyness and someone thriving because of shadyness. In a way, you could almost make a comparison to the military. We don't like the idea of killing people, but we like the idea of our country continuing to exist. Lets say in some alternate universe, everything is the same except Lincoln killed 20 people when he was 18. Everything else the same. Was he a shitty president?
But you're not voteing for a stand alone idea. You aren't voting for any idea at all. This is a representative republic were we elect someone to represent us. How ethical that person that represents you matters.
If Lincoln killed 20 people when he was 18 he never would have been president and everything changes? Did he have some reason and way he was able to get elected after murdering so many people? I mean hell if they were all child molesters and he lynched them all from a cherry tree I'd vote for the guy. Frontier justice and all that.
|
On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:
[quote]
Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008".
So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence?
Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit?
|
Canada11496 Posts
On February 26 2016 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Oh well it only doubled the federal prison population all better... Only Hillary and co are the ones focused on the bill itself. It was part of a much larger strategy. Though it's not like it was their idea, they just bought it, kind of like the Iraq war.
Well, the prison population went from 1million to 1.4 million, but there doesn't seem to be any discernible change in the trajectory: the trajectory was going up and continued at the same rate. I'd be more curious at what was going on in the late 70's and 80's, considering that's when it goes from 200K to 1M.
|
On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine."
If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit?
I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period.
Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed.
|
On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine."
If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit?
You are, but to assume someone is rotten to the core because they had perfectly good intentions but the results were bad is ridiculous. See the Good Samaritan Law and the idea behind it.
Iraq war vote: yeah, a ton of people supported the Iraq war, including John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Al Franken. They were all lied to. Bernie voted against it because he's a dove and largely non-interventionist, not because he had a magical foreign policy instinct. He spent some time trying to suggest that his one vote was a foreign policy platform or something though thankfully he's stopped that.
Sanders compared Hillary running against Senator Obama in 2008 to someone running against a largely well-liked incumbent President Obama in 2012. Apples to oranges.
|
There are many things to attack Hillary about, but the crime bill isn't one of them. The "bring them to heel" was gratuitous because many criminals were already being brought to heel decades before but it's not something to harp her over and over with.
|
On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:
[quote]
Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them?
Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote
"We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."
If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat.
Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed.
Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something.
|
On February 26 2016 04:43 Deathstar wrote:
There are many things to attack Hillary about, but the crime bill isn't one of them. The "bring them to heel" was gratuitous because many criminals were already being brought to heel decades before but it's not something to harp her over and over with.
How many times does this need to get said about things with hillary before it gets old? If we start throwing out things like this she never really did anything in government and we're back to square bengazi.
|
Which makes you wonder whether she believes anything that she says. How is a radical lefty with progressive spirit saying those things with a straight face? She is whatever she needs to be at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
69550
6558
2237
EPT
