EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3861
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On May 22 2016 05:52 oneofthem wrote: if the sandernista sympathizers in this little thread take a quiz about what policies are in clinton's platform they would fail horribly. you are like some kind of cold war leftist denying atrocities of the commies. kids like mao cant be too bad The irony here is so dark it's almost (almost) comical. Stop.dreamimg of healthcare or the CIA will pay to have your children raped and doctors murdered. But literally. Mocking the victims of mass murder and terror for their weakness while scolding the left for denying atrocities is perfectly consistent with the political opinions of onethethem. And you guys say trump supporters are scary. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
House and Senate negotiators reached agreement on Thursday on far-reaching legislation to overhaul the nation’s 40-year-old law governing toxic chemicals, a compromise that would subject thousands of household chemicals to regulation for the first time. Public health advocates and environmentalists have complained for decades that the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act is outdated and riddled with gaps that leave Americans exposed to harmful chemicals. Under current law, around 64,000 chemicals are not subject to environmental testing or regulation. But efforts to tighten the law have stalled for years, in part because of opposition from the chemical industry. The bipartisan authors of the new bill say their breakthrough represents a pragmatic, politically viable compromise between better environmental standards and the demands of industry. “Anytime you have the Chamber of Commerce and you have the manufacturers and the Environmental Defense Fund all together on this thing, then that gets people’s attention,” said Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who helped negotiate the agreement. Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, one of its Democratic authors, said current law “has been broken for nearly 40 years.” Some House Democrats and environmental advocates have criticized the compromise as a capitulation to the chemical industry that weakens existing law. Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey and Paul D. Tonko of New York said Tuesday in a joint statement, “Unfortunately, at this point, it would be better for us to not act at all.” Aides said Thursday that conversations were continuing with House Democrats on some changes to the agreement in the hope of bringing them on board in the next 24 hours. Source | ||
|
the bear jew
United States3674 Posts
That's great, we killed a bad man. But how many more bad men will arise? How many times have we said that we killed senior terrorist leader? How many times have we killed a second in command? Every few months we kill a new one. But what they don't say is how many failed drone strikes it took before we suceeded. And when they say fail, what they don't say, what the media doesn't emphasize is that we fired missiles at sites with people, and didn't kill the target. We kill people we don't know the names of, all in the name of national security. And don't give me the bullshit that we only kill bad people. We've killed thousands of innocent people in drone strikes. Is a bad man dead? Yes, but are drone strikes actually making a difference and not giving a very legitimate reason to terrorist recruitment, aka the US killed my family who had nothing to do with terrorism? I say we should end the drone war. What happened to the old days of taking terrorists into custody and trying them? If they evidence we have shows they are such a threat aren't they able to come to trial? Hell even the Rand Institute found that law enforcement is the best way to break terrorist groups and that solely relying on military action has the lowest success rate. So why do we just drop bombs and fire missiles and slap ourselves on the back and say job well done? It's Vietnam with the body counts all over again. Kill lots of people, kill lots of bad guys, new guys take their place, rinse and repeat as the military claims success cause look at all the bad people we kill! | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
People largely transfer their arguments from random redditors and project them onto mine (when they have similar topics especially). You can go back and see often I have to say 4+ times that something is not at all what I said and that my concern is specific and not part of some elaborate and absurd conspiracy, but plain faced collusion or some other issue. You can go back and usually see Hillary supporters simultaneously arguing that the DNC is both neutral and fair, and obviously helping Hillary because she has helped them so much as well. The party and Hillary supporters seem totally blind to what's happening out in the streets. Surely I use more heated rhetoric than plain yogurt Farv over here, but I'm pretty sure if he had to hear the stories I had to hear today (and prior) from people (mostly over 50) about how policies Hillary has supported over the years personally impacted them and why they could never vote for her, he'd probably be pretty perplexed at her supporters too. Washington will be sending almost exclusively Bernie or bust folks to national and most of them will be over 30. Washington is probably not symbolic of the country, but Hillary isn't going to win WA so I hope that's not in her path to 270. I foolishly bought into the narrative here and in the media about Bernie or Bust and, had I not seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't believe how many Bernie or bust folks we are sending to nationals and how far and deep the sentiment is here in WA. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
I’ve talked to several former Clinton and Obama White House aides who don’t enjoy checking in with the joyless Clinton campaign in Brooklyn. “It’s the Bataan Death March,” one says. Hopeful acceptance of Hillary has shifted to amazed disbelief that she can’t put away Bernie. Given dynasty fatigue and Hillary’s age, many Democrats assumed that their front-runner would come out of the gate with a vision for the future that gave her campaign a fresh hue, instead of white papers tinkering around the edges. She should have been far over her husband’s bridge to the 21st century and way down the highway by now. Instead, her big new idea is to put Bill in charge of the economy again (hopefully, with less Wall Street deregulation). Again with the two for the price of one. And please don’t deny us the pleasure of seeing Bill choose the china patterns. Hillary’s Bataan Death March is making Republicans reconsider their own suicide mission with Trump. More are looking at Clinton’s inability to get the flashing lights going like her husband, and thinking: Huh, maybe we’re not dead here. Maybe Teflon Don could pull this off. The 2016 race is transcendentally bizarre. We have two near-nominees with the highest unfavorables at this point in the race of any in modern history. We seem to have a majority of voters in both parties who are driven by the desire to vote against the other candidate, rather than for their own. Debbie Wasserman Schultz tries to herd young women to Hillary by raising the specter of Roe v. Wade being overturned. And former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said Trump’s obsession with “10s” and D-cups would “come back to haunt him’’ and give Democrats wins because “there are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women.” Hillary can’t generate excitement on her own so she is relying on fear of Trump to get her into the White House. And Trump is relying on fear of everything to get him into the White House. So voters are stuck in the muck of the negative: What are you most afraid of? Read the whole thing here. I'm particularly amused by Dowd's description of Hillary's platform in the bolded section. And you Clinton supporters wonder why Bernie simply won't go away.,,, | ||
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6209 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
On May 22 2016 15:45 Introvert wrote: This is one reason there were 17 GOP candidates. They all wanted a crack at her. Hillary supporters want to blame Bernie and his supporters for everything, but they forget Hillary has been polling terrible against everyone for pretty much the whole election. BUSH was statistically tied with Hillary in February (When Bush was polling at ~5% in the R primary), the power the Hillary camp is trying to ascribe to Sanders and his supporters to be the reason she's struggling so hard is flattering, but altogether ridiculous. She was an inexplicably poor (polling) candidate before most people even knew who Bernie was. Links: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On May 22 2016 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote: Hillary supporters want to blame Bernie and his supporters for everything, but they forget Hillary has been polling terrible against everyone for pretty much the whole election. BUSH was statistically tied with Hillary in February (When Bush was polling at ~5% in the R primary), the power the Hillary camp is trying to ascribe to Sanders and his supporters to be the reason she's struggling so hard is flattering, but altogether ridiculous. She was an inexplicably poor (polling) candidate before most people even knew who Bernie was. Links: + Show Spoiler + I think Biden would have had the presidency in the bag if he had run. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On May 22 2016 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote: People can whine about whether it would be fair or not, but it's not accurate to say that if Bernie ran 3rd party there are no options but for Trump to beat them by splitting votes. Sure Hillary "should" get to be the one, but if that meant Bernie ran 3rd party she could huff and puff about it on the way to losing the election for the entire left, or she could step aside and fully support Bernie. The choice of whether Trump wins or not becomes hers after a hypothetical Bernie decides to run indy. The idea that Hillary should be the one to get out of the race when she's the Democratic nominee and if Sanders decides to run third-party is comical. In any case, I think Hillary would have a good chance of beating Trump even if Sanders decided to run as an independent, which he is certainly not going to do since he has promised as much, and since he doesn't want Trump to get anywhere near the White House. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
On May 22 2016 19:10 kwizach wrote: The idea that Hillary should be the one to get out of the race when she's the Democratic nominee and if Sanders decides to run third-party is comical. In any case, I think Hillary would have a good chance of beating Trump even if Sanders decided to run as an independent, which he is certainly not going to do since he has promised as much, and since he doesn't want Trump to get anywhere near the White House. I wasn't saying she should, I was saying she could. EDIT: He's under no obligation to keep his word to support her if she isn't keeping her word. And as was pointed out before, those statements leave plenty of room for an independent campaign. He says " I endorse Hillary as the Democratic nominee, I also endorse myself as the best Indy candidate". Then something like Hillary can't unite the country (hasn't been over 50% in months) and beat Trump, someone had to step up. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 22 2016 15:03 xDaunt wrote: Even Maureen Dowd is catching on: Read the whole thing here. I'm particularly amused by Dowd's description of Hillary's platform in the bolded section. And you Clinton supporters wonder why Bernie simply won't go away.,,, I don't really understand how blind political commentators can to 2008 when they say Clinton isn't putting away Bernie. She's going to have a larger margin in pledged delegates (and probably popular vote) against Sanders than Obama did against her in '08. And the story as far as delegates went over the course of the season was virtually identical, and that campaign was also full of vitriol and the same handwringing (and at one point more people exit-polled in primaries were willing to vote for Clinton this year than in '08). Yet all of them would say Obama handily dispatched Clinton in '08 after a shocking upset. I don't see why the optics are so different this time. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On May 22 2016 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote: I just find the characterizations of the "Bernie or Bust" movement comical. I don't know how many of the Hillary supporters actually engage with Bernie supporters (not online), but I've interacted with as many or more people over 40 who are Bernie or Bust than I have in Reddit's demo's. The ideas behind being Bernie or bust are typically young ideals. The idea that voting for someone is giving up a piece of who you are is childish. The idea that this person needs to be someone who you could stand behind in every way is similar. I see Bernie or bust as being both those things, not necessarily from young people. The things that make "Bernie or bust" silly are just things most typical in young people. Young people are more likely to feel recently inspired by learning about other social movements and they want to feel like they are equally important. They want to be a part of a revolution. That need/desire is really, really sad and is most commonly found in people who are still trying to feel like they've found their place. When people are wandering, still trying to find who they are, it is really easy to get caught up in a "revolution". So while it is not specific to young people, this type of insecurity is most common in young people. But it is seen in plenty of other people. There's loads of psychology showing how empowered people feel when they take unyielding stances. The Bernie movement is made of a lot of disenfranchised people and also a lot of fringe people. These are all people who are vulnerable to these type of emotional deficiencies. They often feel like the world is against them and that they have, for the most part, been powerless to stop it. When someone yells about "enough already", these people see an opportunity to elevate themselves by joining into this excitement and strength. On May 22 2016 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote: The party and Hillary supporters seem totally blind to what's happening out in the streets. Surely I use more heated rhetoric than plain yogurt Farv over here, but I'm pretty sure if he had to hear the stories I had to hear today (and prior) from people (mostly over 50) about how policies Hillary has supported over the years personally impacted them and why they could never vote for her, he'd probably be pretty perplexed at her supporters too. Washington will be sending almost exclusively Bernie or bust folks to national and most of them will be over 30. Washington is probably not symbolic of the country, but Hillary isn't going to win WA so I hope that's not in her path to 270. I foolishly bought into the narrative here and in the media about Bernie or Bust and, had I not seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't believe how many Bernie or bust folks we are sending to nationals and how far and deep the sentiment is here in WA. What exactly do you mean here? Are you saying Washington won't be won by Clinton in the general? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
As Donald Trump prepares to accept the Republican nomination, just over eight weeks away, he's let it be known he thinks the nominating conventions are boring. He's right. Every nominee since 1980 has been known before the opening gavel. Floor fights are nearly extinct. The TV audience is dwindling. Trump wants a flashier GOP convention. But the event already has its own controversy, because of the nominee himself. It's about money. This spring, several progressive groups said Coca-Cola, Microsoft and a few other big corporations should retract $100,000 contributions pledged for the Republican convention in Cleveland. The progressive groups said the money would help promote Trump, thus compromising the corporations' own policies not to discriminate. "They can't be out there professing their commitment to those core values, when they end up making decisions to align their brand with Trump's racist and sexist campaign," said Murshad Zaheed, political director of Credo Action. "They can't have it both ways." The contributions were for Cleveland's nonprofit host committee, not the Republican national committee. Zaheed said Coca-Cola and Microsoft both backed out of their pledges. The two companies dispute that. They told NPR that yes, they have reduced their cash contributions for both conventions — but those decisions were made last year. And both still plan to supply their products — drinks and technology — to the conventions. The groups are also putting pressure on Google, which is the official live-streaming service for the convention. A Google spokeswoman declined to comment on the company's cash contributions. Source | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Do they go with the "They're voting against their own self interests! They've been conned!" What best describes them I wonder from their perspective? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
I'll grant that some progressive voices make similar mistakes regarding white males, but I have no problem understanding that 20% of latino voters might want to vote trump because they might a) overall not care much about his rhetoric and b) overall vastly favor his policies over that of clinton/sanders. Basically, minorities are individuals just like everyone else, it makes sense that more minorities favor policies that don't unfairly target minorities (or that benefit minorities), and it makes sense that some minorities care more about other aspects of policy than specifically those that relate to their minority status. Some african americans think that the continued focus on race cements a racial mindset which is exactly what they are opposed to - I might not agree but I think that's fairly legitimate. Minority individuals reaching those types of conclusions easily explain minorities voting 'against their interests' without them being reduced to useful idiots or uncle toms or whatever. | ||
| ||
