|
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. |
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 08 2016 11:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:14 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 11:14 oneofthem wrote:
if you have this crazy left wing of the party it'd be stupid not to flip flop Yeah man, gay rights so cray. It is very easy for someone who turned 20 in 2010 to complain of people flip flopping on gay rights between 1990 and 2010. But realize gay marriage went from something like 35% support in 1990 to 70% support in 2015. The whole center of the country moved. The center that does the electing in this country. That is progress. Also, what is liberal moves as progress moves. The fringe of gay rights in the 90s was gay marriage, but basic non-jailing rights were the normal argument within liberals at the time. Both Clintons were within the liberal camp at the time. Holding the past to the present's level of progress is a ridiculous standard. The real question is, were you on the side of progress at the time?
Don't really care what the majority of the country supported. If someone like Bernie can support gay rights before it was "popular," surely others could have. Hillary has shown time and again to be more of a follower than a leader. I don't want that in a President.
|
The GOP is on fire right now. They can't figure out how they got here, but they are pretty sure Obama is to blame. Not the lowest approval rating of congress in history. Well Obama did that too.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 08 2016 10:14 strongwind wrote:
I'm curious..
Question for Hillary supporters: If a Republican wins the presidency, would you rather it be Trump or Cruz?
Trump, without a doubt. I'd rather have someone driven by greed and ego, than driven by religion.
|
On March 08 2016 11:25 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 08 2016 11:14 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 11:14 oneofthem wrote:
if you have this crazy left wing of the party it'd be stupid not to flip flop Yeah man, gay rights so cray. It is very easy for someone who turned 20 in 2010 to complain of people flip flopping on gay rights between 1990 and 2010. But realize gay marriage went from something like 35% support in 1990 to 70% support in 2015. The whole center of the country moved. The center that does the electing in this country. That is progress. Also, what is liberal moves as progress moves. The fringe of gay rights in the 90s was gay marriage, but basic non-jailing rights were the normal argument within liberals at the time. Both Clintons were within the liberal camp at the time. Holding the past to the present's level of progress is a ridiculous standard. The real question is, were you on the side of progress at the time? Don't really care what the majority of the country supported. If someone like Bernie can support gay rights before it was "popular," surely others could have. Hillary has shown time and again to be more of a follower than a leader. I don't want that in a President.
Fantasy Bernie or Real Bernie?
"And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
Fantasy Bernie has had all of your favorite liberal positions since the 1960s. Real Bernie has a record I can look up on the internet. Real Bernie fulfills my standard of being on the side of progress at the time. Which is good. But you are comparing Fantasy Bernie to Real Hillary Clinton.
|
On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:47 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 08:29 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:23 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 08:19 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess the question starts with "do you think $ has undue influence in politics" if your answer is "yes" Bernie is the only person to vote for No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country? Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. They've extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base. I'd pause and take a step back when someone gets complimented by the GOP. Is that so? Or perhaps you could simply avoid the knee-jerk reaction and actually look at what's being said. Uh, that link is completely irrelevant, and the only one who's having knee-jerk reactions is you if you think I didn't skim through your other link, which made no difference. kwizach I find it funny that in the 2012 election thread you threw Mitt Romney under the bus for basically being Hillary (an insane flip flopper) but refuse to apply that logic to Hillary. It's no wonder you're siding with Shilldawg. That link is not irrelevant at all, since I was pointing out that receiving praise from the GOP should not lead one to automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising. If the GOP says the Earth is not flat, it doesn't mean it actually is. In the context of this discussion, the kind of praise from several Republican officials that I was referring to was about Hillary's competence, her deep knowledge of the issues she tackles, and her integrity. Concluding that she must be the opposite of that because Republicans happened to join Democrats in praising her merits is a knee-jerk, a frankly ridiculous, position. I did not support Romney for a number of reasons, the most important of which was that I disagreed with a lot of his views and policies. I largely agree with Hillary on the issues (even though I am considerably to the left of her), and she has put forward several plans outlying clearly what she hopes to achieve and what she will fight for, and how. She's not the kind of flip-flopper that you're describing. You've painted a caricature of her in your head -- not much more to add. I did not say "automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising." I said pause and take a step back, which means hey, something might be up.
Good for you, did you take that step back? Can you tell us if "something is up" from the great vantage point you now have? Or was it simply, exactly as I presented it, a case of recognizing someone else's competence? Please let us know, because I'm really interested in whether or not you're going to keep milking that opportunity of indirectly smearing someone through dishonest association. By the way, I hope you're ready to take another step back because Republicans in Congress have at times praised Sanders for his honesty. Something might be up.
On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:
For instance the article you just linked, it's obvious why the GOP would want to prop up Bernie--they think he'd be the easier opponent in the general, and that's even stated in that article.
You don't say? My point was that it's not because the GOP is praising you that there's something wrong with you. They can have plenty of different reasons for praising you, and in Hillary's case it's clear as day that it was because of her competence.
On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:You have to do some insane mental gymnastics to think this. It's funny that when other Hillary supporters back her flip flopping up with, "It's okay for a politician to change their mind. They need to reflect the thinking of their constituents," you disregard it completely.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have disregarded. Hillary has obviously changed her mind on some issues over the time she's been in the public light. Sanders has as well. She's still nowhere near the flip-flopper you make her out to be.
|
there's a big gap between Sanders and Hillary but it still makes no sense to switch from Sanders to Trump, that's just nuts. I'm pretty sure I saw an interview with Chomsky somewhere and even he said he's going to vote for Hillary if she makes the nomination. I can't really believe that a significant portion of Sanders voters is more radical than Chomsky
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 08 2016 11:30 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:25 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 11:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 08 2016 11:14 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 11:14 oneofthem wrote:
if you have this crazy left wing of the party it'd be stupid not to flip flop Yeah man, gay rights so cray. It is very easy for someone who turned 20 in 2010 to complain of people flip flopping on gay rights between 1990 and 2010. But realize gay marriage went from something like 35% support in 1990 to 70% support in 2015. The whole center of the country moved. The center that does the electing in this country. That is progress. Also, what is liberal moves as progress moves. The fringe of gay rights in the 90s was gay marriage, but basic non-jailing rights were the normal argument within liberals at the time. Both Clintons were within the liberal camp at the time. Holding the past to the present's level of progress is a ridiculous standard. The real question is, were you on the side of progress at the time? Don't really care what the majority of the country supported. If someone like Bernie can support gay rights before it was "popular," surely others could have. Hillary has shown time and again to be more of a follower than a leader. I don't want that in a President. Fantasy Bernie or Real Bernie? "And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont." http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.htmlFantasy Bernie has had all of your favorite liberal positions since the 1960s. Real Bernie has a record I can look up on the internet. Real Bernie fulfills my standard of being on the side of progress at the time. Which is good. But you are comparing Fantasy Bernie to Real Hillary Clinton.
Rather than that blog here's a much more better look at Bernie's (complicated) history with gay rights:
http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/
So he's been actively fighting for gay rights since 1983. And while his position wasn't as clear as day until 2009 (in terms of vocalizing it) his actions speak for themselves.
|
On March 08 2016 11:32 Nyxisto wrote:
there's a big gap between Sanders and Hillary but it still makes no sense to switch from Sanders to Trump, that's just nuts. I'm pretty sure I saw an interview with Chomsky somewhere and even he said he's going to vote for Hillary if she makes the nomination. I can't really believe that a significant portion of Sanders voters is more radical than Chomsky
I have thus far assumed that Bernie supports do it because of his policies. Thus, a Bernie supporter must have some grasp of the policy gulf between Democrats and Republicans. But these Sanders --> Trump cause I just hate Hillary guys are strange. It can't be about policy. War, capital gains, torture, abortion, the courts, labor ... all these issues are 100-0 differences between the two and this is not an exhaustive list. Perhaps the anti-establishment meme is more true than I thought.
|
On March 08 2016 11:28 Plansix wrote:
The GOP is on fire right now. They can't figure out how they got here, but they are pretty sure Obama is to blame. Not the lowest approval rating of congress in history. Well Obama did that too.
Nope everyone knows why the party is in the shitter. Bush left the party such a terrible image that the tea party shift was the only move to retain viability. Now the long awaiting consequences are finally coming there isn't any play left in the book. At least the state and house parts of the party aren't going to feel the backlash too bad.
|
On March 08 2016 11:32 Nyxisto wrote:
there's a big gap between Sanders and Hillary but it still makes no sense to switch from Sanders to Trump, that's just nuts. I'm pretty sure I saw an interview with Chomsky somewhere and even he said he's going to vote for Hillary if she makes the nomination. I can't really believe that a significant portion of Sanders voters is more radical than Chomsky
you have to understand the commonalities between Trump and Sanders: they believe corruption runs rampant in politics and the establishment perpetuates it. Both of their respective messages hinge on this point (Cruz too). If you look at it through that lens, it's really not hard to see the similarities.
I think the running narrative through this whole thing is that voter ideologies don't line up well with the two party system anymore. People are trying to fit round pegs into square holes.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 08 2016 11:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:47 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 08:29 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:23 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 08:19 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess the question starts with "do you think $ has undue influence in politics" if your answer is "yes" Bernie is the only person to vote for No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country? Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. They've extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base. I'd pause and take a step back when someone gets complimented by the GOP. Is that so? Or perhaps you could simply avoid the knee-jerk reaction and actually look at what's being said. Uh, that link is completely irrelevant, and the only one who's having knee-jerk reactions is you if you think I didn't skim through your other link, which made no difference. kwizach I find it funny that in the 2012 election thread you threw Mitt Romney under the bus for basically being Hillary (an insane flip flopper) but refuse to apply that logic to Hillary. It's no wonder you're siding with Shilldawg. That link is not irrelevant at all, since I was pointing out that receiving praise from the GOP should not lead one to automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising. If the GOP says the Earth is not flat, it doesn't mean it actually is. In the context of this discussion, the kind of praise from several Republican officials that I was referring to was about Hillary's competence, her deep knowledge of the issues she tackles, and her integrity. Concluding that she must be the opposite of that because Republicans happened to join Democrats in praising her merits is a knee-jerk, a frankly ridiculous, position. I did not support Romney for a number of reasons, the most important of which was that I disagreed with a lot of his views and policies. I largely agree with Hillary on the issues (even though I am considerably to the left of her), and she has put forward several plans outlying clearly what she hopes to achieve and what she will fight for, and how. She's not the kind of flip-flopper that you're describing. You've painted a caricature of her in your head -- not much more to add. I did not say "automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising." I said pause and take a step back, which means hey, something might be up. Good for you, did you take that step back? Can you tell us if "something is up" from the great vantage point you now have? Or was it simply, exactly as I presented it, a case of recognizing someone else's competence? Please let us know, because I'm really interested in whether or not you're going to keep milking that opportunity of indirectly smearing someone through dishonest association. By the way, I hope you're ready to take another step back because Republicans in Congress have at times praised Sanders for his honesty. Something might be up. Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:
For instance the article you just linked, it's obvious why the GOP would want to prop up Bernie--they think he'd be the easier opponent in the general, and that's even stated in that article. You don't say? My point was that it's not because the GOP is praising you that there's something wrong with you. They can have plenty of different reasons for praising you, and in Hillary's case it's clear as day that it was because of her competence. Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:She's not the kind of flip-flopper that you're describing. You have to do some insane mental gymnastics to think this. It's funny that when other Hillary supporters back her flip flopping up with, "It's okay for a politician to change their mind. They need to reflect the thinking of their constituents," you disregard it completely. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have disregarded. Hillary has obviously changed her mind on some issues over the time she's been in the public light. Sanders has as well. She's still nowhere near the flip-flopper you make her out to be.
Yes, whenever Republicans begin complimenting someone I will always be skeptical. And it's funny how you think Republicans praising Hillary makes an argument for anything. Oh boy I wish Kissinger and Jeb Bush complimented me, that'd give me such a boner and prove my worthiness. If anything it just boosts my fears of her appeasing Republicans once she's in office and passing legislation that will be harmful to the vulnerable.
Re: flip flopping. The other Hillary backers have acknowledged it. Why can't you? Your bias is running very deep my friend.
|
On March 08 2016 11:44 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:30 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:47 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 08:29 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:23 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 08:19 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country? Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. They've extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base. I'd pause and take a step back when someone gets complimented by the GOP. Is that so? Or perhaps you could simply avoid the knee-jerk reaction and actually look at what's being said. Uh, that link is completely irrelevant, and the only one who's having knee-jerk reactions is you if you think I didn't skim through your other link, which made no difference. kwizach I find it funny that in the 2012 election thread you threw Mitt Romney under the bus for basically being Hillary (an insane flip flopper) but refuse to apply that logic to Hillary. It's no wonder you're siding with Shilldawg. That link is not irrelevant at all, since I was pointing out that receiving praise from the GOP should not lead one to automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising. If the GOP says the Earth is not flat, it doesn't mean it actually is. In the context of this discussion, the kind of praise from several Republican officials that I was referring to was about Hillary's competence, her deep knowledge of the issues she tackles, and her integrity. Concluding that she must be the opposite of that because Republicans happened to join Democrats in praising her merits is a knee-jerk, a frankly ridiculous, position. I did not support Romney for a number of reasons, the most important of which was that I disagreed with a lot of his views and policies. I largely agree with Hillary on the issues (even though I am considerably to the left of her), and she has put forward several plans outlying clearly what she hopes to achieve and what she will fight for, and how. She's not the kind of flip-flopper that you're describing. You've painted a caricature of her in your head -- not much more to add. I did not say "automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising." I said pause and take a step back, which means hey, something might be up. Good for you, did you take that step back? Can you tell us if "something is up" from the great vantage point you now have? Or was it simply, exactly as I presented it, a case of recognizing someone else's competence? Please let us know, because I'm really interested in whether or not you're going to keep milking that opportunity of indirectly smearing someone through dishonest association. By the way, I hope you're ready to take another step back because Republicans in Congress have at times praised Sanders for his honesty. Something might be up. On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:
For instance the article you just linked, it's obvious why the GOP would want to prop up Bernie--they think he'd be the easier opponent in the general, and that's even stated in that article. You don't say? My point was that it's not because the GOP is praising you that there's something wrong with you. They can have plenty of different reasons for praising you, and in Hillary's case it's clear as day that it was because of her competence. On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:She's not the kind of flip-flopper that you're describing. You have to do some insane mental gymnastics to think this. It's funny that when other Hillary supporters back her flip flopping up with, "It's okay for a politician to change their mind. They need to reflect the thinking of their constituents," you disregard it completely. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have disregarded. Hillary has obviously changed her mind on some issues over the time she's been in the public light. Sanders has as well. She's still nowhere near the flip-flopper you make her out to be. Yes, whenever Republicans begin complimenting someone I will always be skeptical. And it's funny how you think Republicans praising Hillary makes an argument for anything. Oh boy I wish Kissinger and Jeb Bush complimented me, that'd give me such a boner and prove my worthiness. If anything it just boosts my fears of her appeasing Republicans once she's in office and passing legislation that will be harmful to the vulnerable. Re: flip flopping. The other Hillary backers have acknowledged it. Why can't you? Your bias is running very deep my friend.
listening to die-hard supporters from any camp for too long makes me not want to vote for their candidate. I can only handle self-righteous attitudes for so long. I'll probably end up voting Hillary, but I'll probably have to take a break from this thread before doing it lol.
|
On March 08 2016 11:44 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:30 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:47 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 08:29 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:23 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 08:19 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country? Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. They've extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base. I'd pause and take a step back when someone gets complimented by the GOP. Is that so? Or perhaps you could simply avoid the knee-jerk reaction and actually look at what's being said. Uh, that link is completely irrelevant, and the only one who's having knee-jerk reactions is you if you think I didn't skim through your other link, which made no difference. kwizach I find it funny that in the 2012 election thread you threw Mitt Romney under the bus for basically being Hillary (an insane flip flopper) but refuse to apply that logic to Hillary. It's no wonder you're siding with Shilldawg. That link is not irrelevant at all, since I was pointing out that receiving praise from the GOP should not lead one to automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising. If the GOP says the Earth is not flat, it doesn't mean it actually is. In the context of this discussion, the kind of praise from several Republican officials that I was referring to was about Hillary's competence, her deep knowledge of the issues she tackles, and her integrity. Concluding that she must be the opposite of that because Republicans happened to join Democrats in praising her merits is a knee-jerk, a frankly ridiculous, position. I did not support Romney for a number of reasons, the most important of which was that I disagreed with a lot of his views and policies. I largely agree with Hillary on the issues (even though I am considerably to the left of her), and she has put forward several plans outlying clearly what she hopes to achieve and what she will fight for, and how. She's not the kind of flip-flopper that you're describing. You've painted a caricature of her in your head -- not much more to add. I did not say "automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising." I said pause and take a step back, which means hey, something might be up. Good for you, did you take that step back? Can you tell us if "something is up" from the great vantage point you now have? Or was it simply, exactly as I presented it, a case of recognizing someone else's competence? Please let us know, because I'm really interested in whether or not you're going to keep milking that opportunity of indirectly smearing someone through dishonest association. By the way, I hope you're ready to take another step back because Republicans in Congress have at times praised Sanders for his honesty. Something might be up. On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:
For instance the article you just linked, it's obvious why the GOP would want to prop up Bernie--they think he'd be the easier opponent in the general, and that's even stated in that article. You don't say? My point was that it's not because the GOP is praising you that there's something wrong with you. They can have plenty of different reasons for praising you, and in Hillary's case it's clear as day that it was because of her competence. On March 08 2016 11:13 Souma wrote:She's not the kind of flip-flopper that you're describing. You have to do some insane mental gymnastics to think this. It's funny that when other Hillary supporters back her flip flopping up with, "It's okay for a politician to change their mind. They need to reflect the thinking of their constituents," you disregard it completely. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have disregarded. Hillary has obviously changed her mind on some issues over the time she's been in the public light. Sanders has as well. She's still nowhere near the flip-flopper you make her out to be. Yes, whenever Republicans begin complimenting someone I will always be skeptical.
There is a difference between being skeptical as a general rule, and actively posting an inane response to my post about a specific set of quotes when it's clear as day that Republicans were sincerely praising her competence as a public official. You and I both know that if someone had posted my article mentioning that Republicans have praised Sanders' honesty in the past, you wouldn't have replied with "I'd pause and take a step back when someone gets complimented by the GOP". Yet you felt compelled to do that for Hillary, not because the instances of praise I put forward warranted it but because it was a way to take a cheap shot at the candidate you don't support.
On March 08 2016 11:44 Souma wrote:
And it's funny how you think Republicans praising Hillary makes an argument for anything. Oh boy I wish Kissinger and Jeb Bush complimented me, that'd give me such a boner and prove my worthiness. If anything it just boosts my fears of her appeasing Republicans once she's in office and passing legislation that will be harmful to the vulnerable.
If you had paid attention to the discussion you butted your head into, you would have realized that yes, it does make an argument for distinguishing between the way the GOP portrays Hillary when they are competing against her in an election, and the way many Republicans actually feel about her work ethic, competence, and integrity. That was the entire point of my reply to DarkPlasmaBall.
On March 08 2016 11:44 Souma wrote:
Re: flip flopping. The other Hillary backers have acknowledged it. Why can't you? Your bias is running very deep my friend.
Like I said: Hillary has obviously changed her mind on some issues over the time she's been in the public light. Sanders has as well. She's still nowhere near the flip-flopper you make her out to be.
|
|
|
On March 08 2016 11:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 10:14 strongwind wrote:
I'm curious..
Question for Hillary supporters: If a Republican wins the presidency, would you rather it be Trump or Cruz?
Trump, without a doubt. I'd rather have someone driven by greed and ego, than driven by religion.
I don't know about that. Cruz seems like a horrible, horrible, horrible person, but at least we kind of know what he thinks. It's scary, but that's what it is. The problem with Trump is that his platform has been consistently to say what the dumbest people want him to say, and so nobody has a clue what the guy would do if he were president. In a way, I would tend to believe that he is actually less dangerous than Trump, on the basis that a known evil is always better than an unknown evil. That also is common sense. It's basically impossible to know what Trump would do if elected. He has been lying the whole campaign and doesn't seen to have any concern about building a remotely coherent platform (oh wait, he is "flexible")...
|
On March 08 2016 11:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:44 Souma wrote:
Re: flip flopping. The other Hillary backers have acknowledged it. Why can't you? Your bias is running very deep my friend. Like I said: Hillary has obviously changed her mind on some issues over the time she's been in the public light. Sanders has as well. She's still nowhere near the flip-flopper you make her out to be.
This is the first video you get when you type in "Hillary Clinton" into youtube. It's not even that she flip-flops, it's that she denies that she does. That combative interview with Terry Gross really changed my opinion of Hillary.
|
On March 08 2016 11:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 10:14 strongwind wrote:
I'm curious..
Question for Hillary supporters: If a Republican wins the presidency, would you rather it be Trump or Cruz?
Trump, without a doubt. I'd rather have someone driven by greed and ego, than driven by religion.
I agree. Plus, I think that Trump being the head of the Republican party would do more damage to it than Cruz would, and I really want the Republican party to be forced to take a step back and get their shit together and become even half as competent as the current Democratic party. It'd be nice to have two legitimate parties again.
|
On March 08 2016 12:22 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:59 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 11:44 Souma wrote:
Re: flip flopping. The other Hillary backers have acknowledged it. Why can't you? Your bias is running very deep my friend. Like I said: Hillary has obviously changed her mind on some issues over the time she's been in the public light. Sanders has as well. She's still nowhere near the flip-flopper you make her out to be. This is the first video you get when you type in "Hillary Clinton" into youtube. It's not even that she flip-flops, it's that she denies that she does. That combative interview with Terry Gross really changed my opinion of Hillary.
Watched the first three minutes, clips are taken out of context and impossible to assess alone. The Terry Gross bit could be Hillary trying to dispel the idea that she changed her position for political gain, not that she changed her position period. I don't know what Gross said earlier, but it seemed to me like Hillary was trying to refute the false picture that she was a complete opponent of gay rights, and wanted to argue that she had supported gay rights in the past, only not when it came to the specific topic of gay marriage, and that she ended up changing her mind on that issue but not for political gain. Pointless to watch more, it's impossible to tell without any context for each clip.
|
On March 08 2016 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 11:29 Jibba wrote:On March 08 2016 10:14 strongwind wrote:
I'm curious..
Question for Hillary supporters: If a Republican wins the presidency, would you rather it be Trump or Cruz?
Trump, without a doubt. I'd rather have someone driven by greed and ego, than driven by religion. I agree. Plus, I think that Trump being the head of the Republican party would do more damage to it than Cruz would, and I really want the Republican party to be forced to take a step back and get their shit together and become even half as competent as the current Democratic party. It'd be nice to have two legitimate parties again.
That's what Trump's doing - he stands for tax reform, healthcare reform, immigration reform, and wants to change the defense sector and fight offshoring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
