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 September 03 2016 00:18 biology]major wrote: Oh maybe you guys misunderstood the Poll, it was anyone you wanted in the democratic party lol. Not just HRC or Bernie, I was just trying to see if there were people who actually LOVED hrc
You don't need to love a candidate to think they are an appropriate candidate. If you feel taken by a candidate and passionate about them, you fucked up. That's not the kind of thinking you should entertain when deciding who determines the future of the country. I think Clinton will be a net benefit to our country, simple as that.
On September 03 2016 00:18 biology]major wrote: Oh maybe you guys misunderstood the Poll, it was anyone you wanted in the democratic party lol. Not just HRC or Bernie, I was just trying to see if there were people who actually LOVED hrc
You don't need to love a candidate to think they are an appropriate candidate. If you feel taken by a candidate and passionate about them, you fucked up. That's not the kind of thinking you should entertain when deciding who determines the future of the country. I think Clinton will be a net benefit to our country, simple as that.
I agree 100%, and that is why when I gave people option to replace her with anyone and they still chose her I was suspicious. You could replace her with any democrat and get similar views on policy without all the baggage. But I should have been more specific.
On September 02 2016 23:58 biology]major wrote: Damn people in this thread genuinely are FOR hrc and not just anti-trump? That is surprising. I will be even more distrusting of the opinions floating around here.
who are the other good candidates and what metric are you going by? If purely based on ideology, there are lots of democrats I prefer. sanders, warren, prolly o'malley from the debates. Biden I don't really know how differs from her tbh. When it comes to likability, it's like, she's not charming, but I really don't accept the narrative that she's super unlikable or cold- to me, she mostly just comes off as professional. ethically? Totally prefer the same ones I preferred ideology wise. Electability? Well, hillary beat all of those other candidates in the democratic primaries and I'm convinced she's gonna beat Trump quite soundly. I don't actually know how any of the other candidates would stand up to similar amounts of smearing - I think many of the reasons why people hate Hillary so much are largely fabrications/wild exaggerations, and thus I can't say for sure that people wouldn't dislike the other candidates if similar fabricated stories had been circulating for equal amounts of time.
I have genuine issues with her war-hawkish past and I'm to the left of the mainstream democratic party on mostly all political issues, but I don't think the degree to which Hillary is hated is actually caused by her faulty character. She strikes me as exceptionally knowledgeable and competent and I think a Hillary presidency is likely to lead to small incremental improvement across the board- and extremely unlikely to lead to any disaster caused by her action or inaction. She's not my ideal candidate by any means (and I actually voted no in your poll ), but I think 'solid' is a very fitting word to describe her-and that's an important presidential quality.
Its really really not. His analysis isnt anything a Trump fan wont tell you. He isnt telling you anything xDaunt and Oblade havent already implied or suggested for months now.
I'm not really sure why you say that. This guy has a completely different perspective than I do (I'll let oBlade speak for himself, but I suspect that he'd echo my comments).
That said, I find his argument that Trump is the most "libertarian" candidate interesting, and I find it rather hard to disagree. And I also think that Hillary better matches the politics of the #neverTrump republicans (particularly those with neocon leanings) than Gary Johnson does.
What a strange conclusion. And that doesn't seem to be what that libertarian is saying either. He was just switching to support Trump from a strategic point. He seems to think Johnson is still more libertarian, but disagrees with the way he is gathering votes for the election and wants to send that signal to his favourite party. He doesn't really seem to give a fuck about Trump. He only really talks about Trump's immigration politics (after emphasizing a few times that immigration policy is not all that important to him), and the fact that Trump probably supports liberal social policies (moreso than Hillary, in fact). He then hammers a few hundred times on the fact that nobody cares about the economy this election, but lets face it: Trump is NOT a libertarian when it comes to the little bit of economic policy he has set out. Trump does not sound like a small government, and whether Trump wants war or not, he seems exceedingly good at antagonizing people, so others might start acting quite bellicose, whether Trump wants to fight or not. You shout insults at people often enough and they'll punch you in the face. Unfortunately the equivalent at national level is to invade an ally, fire a rocket, or do something else rather nasty.
On September 03 2016 00:18 biology]major wrote: Oh maybe you guys misunderstood the Poll, it was anyone you wanted in the democratic party lol. Not just HRC or Bernie, I was just trying to see if there were people who actually LOVED hrc
You don't need to love a candidate to think they are an appropriate candidate. If you feel taken by a candidate and passionate about them, you fucked up. That's not the kind of thinking you should entertain when deciding who determines the future of the country. I think Clinton will be a net benefit to our country, simple as that.
I agree 100%, and that is why when I gave people option to replace her with anyone and they still chose her I was suspicious. You could replace her with any democrat and get similar views on policy without all the baggage. But I should have been more specific.
Her baggage comes from the same places a lot of her strengths come from. She is extremely competent at mobilizing movements and making change happen. This has led to her working with a lot of important people and making amazing connections. While these connections are sketchy at times, she has always advocated for liberal policy. Have you watched the Benghazi hearings? She's fierce and extremely knowledgeable.
The things "dishonest" about her are not things I think would hurt my country. They are things I look down on her for and make me like her less as a person, but I'm not bothered by it with regards to her purpose. There is no doubt in my mind that her administration would do a good job.
NBC's Lester Holt, ABC's Martha Raddatz, CNN's Anderson Cooper, Fox News' Chris Wallace and CBS' Elaine Quijano will moderate presidential and vice presidential debates this fall, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced on Friday.
Holt, anchor of NBC's "Nightly News,” will moderate the first debate at Hofstra University in New York on Sept. 26, which will be a traditional debate divided into six segments of 15 minutes each on major topics to be determined by Holt.
Quijano, an anchor on CBS' live streaming service CBSN, will moderate the vice presidential debate on Oct. 4 at Longwood University in Virginia, which will be a traditional debate as well — divided into nine timed segments of 10 minutes each.
Raddatz, ABC's Chief Global Correspondent and co-anchor of "This Week,” along with CNN anchor Cooper, will moderate a town-meeting style debate on Oct. 9 at Washington University in St. Louis. There, the questions will be posed directly by citizen participants made up of uncommitted voters based on topics "of broad public interest as reflected in social media and other sources."
Wallace, host of "Fox News Sunday,” will become the first Fox News host to moderate a general election debate since the network's founding. He will host the final presidential debate on Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. The format of the final debate will be the same as the first.
"The CPD has a simple mission, to ensure that presidential debates help the public learn about the positions of the leading candidate for president and vice-president," CPD co-chairs Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry said. "These format will allow an in-depth exploration of the major topics in this year's election."
On September 03 2016 00:18 biology]major wrote: Oh maybe you guys misunderstood the Poll, it was anyone you wanted in the democratic party lol. Not just HRC or Bernie, I was just trying to see if there were people who actually LOVED hrc
Honestly I don't know enough about Democratic politicians below the highest levels. I liked Kerry in 04 and I think he's done a great job in the current cabinet but beyond that I'm not too opinionated. But I think even if I did know of a Democratic politician who mirrored my views perfectly, it's not just "would you do a job I like if you could?", it's also "could you get it done?" and that's where Hillary edges out the competition.
On September 02 2016 21:33 Plansix wrote: If you read a bunch of Scott Adam’s blogs, it becomes pretty clear that dude has some unresolved issues with ladies.
He has a lot of unresolved issues in general. Read his blogs on religion and Trump as well.
I mostly just stick to reading Dilbert and ignoring everything else he puts out. The comic is very good (usually) but all his other stuff is not.
On September 03 2016 00:18 biology]major wrote: Oh maybe you guys misunderstood the Poll, it was anyone you wanted in the democratic party lol. Not just HRC or Bernie, I was just trying to see if there were people who actually LOVED hrc
You don't need to love a candidate to think they are an appropriate candidate. If you feel taken by a candidate and passionate about them, you fucked up. That's not the kind of thinking you should entertain when deciding who determines the future of the country. I think Clinton will be a net benefit to our country, simple as that.
I agree 100%, and that is why when I gave people option to replace her with anyone and they still chose her I was suspicious. You could replace her with any democrat and get similar views on policy without all the baggage. But I should have been more specific.
Basically the same issue as Trump in the Republican nominations.
The problem isn't the "would you like someone else" part of the question, it's the "name someone else" bit that trips people up.
I support Hillary because I think her policies are very detailed and intelligent, but also because I think she would bring a new sort of leadership style to the office.
Obama relies a lot on his charisma and mass appeal, but he has not been very good at working with Congress. He is generally reluctant to meet individually with dozens of Congress people, and instead has tried to get the public on his side.
I think this has alienated Congress people, who often feel like they are being lectured to rather than being engaged in a collaborative process.
On the other hand, one of Hillary's biggest strengths is her ability to work behind the scenes to get people on her side. She is willing to meet with ANY political adversary to find common ground, which I think may make her relationship with Congress much more productive than Obama's has been.
As an example of their different leadership styles, just look at how they ran their respective campaigns. Obama was able to generate a huge amount of grassroots public support, while Hillary put a huge amount of effort into consolidating the entire Democratic establishment behind her, including Sanders's natural allies like labor groups, and progressive politicians like Sharrod Brown and Warren.
When I think likeability, I just ask myself "who would I rather do fireball shots with?" The answer b/w Trump and Clinton is Clinton (ignoring the fact Trump doesn't drink).
Romney, you may recall, very accurately described his immigration policy as “self-deportation”: Through malign neglect (including random documentation checks by local law enforcement), make life as unpleasant as possible for the undocumented and many of them will go home and take with them the message that the Land of Opportunity was closing its doors.
Here’s how the [RNC's] “autopsy report” described the political consequences of that attitude:
“If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence.”
That did seem to be the case, as Romney lost the Hispanic vote — the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. electorate — in 2012 (according to exit polls) by an astonishing 71-27 margin.
And so the logical thing to do, concluded the report, was to go back to the support for comprehensive immigration reform that was originally devised by Karl Rove as one of the keys to an enduring Republican majority — before “the base” rejected efforts by its last two pre-Romney presidential nominees (George W. Bush and John McCain) to enact it into law.
As we all know, “the base” stopped that from happening once again, and the 2016 nominee turned out to be someone who had made hostility to immigration reform — and a variety of other white ethno-nationalist themes — signature motifs of an unprecedented challenge to Establishment Republicanism.
Now that Trump has...issued his most definitive statement ever on immigration policy, it seems he’s taken Romney’s “self-deportation” position and tried to add some teeth and a snarl.
Romney, you may recall, very accurately described his immigration policy as “self-deportation”: Through malign neglect (including random documentation checks by local law enforcement), make life as unpleasant as possible for the undocumented and many of them will go home and take with them the message that the Land of Opportunity was closing its doors.
Here’s how the [RNC's] “autopsy report” described the political consequences of that attitude:
“If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence.”
That did seem to be the case, as Romney lost the Hispanic vote — the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. electorate — in 2012 (according to exit polls) by an astonishing 71-27 margin.
And so the logical thing to do, concluded the report, was to go back to the support for comprehensive immigration reform that was originally devised by Karl Rove as one of the keys to an enduring Republican majority — before “the base” rejected efforts by its last two pre-Romney presidential nominees (George W. Bush and John McCain) to enact it into law.
As we all know, “the base” stopped that from happening once again, and the 2016 nominee turned out to be someone who had made hostility to immigration reform — and a variety of other white ethno-nationalist themes — signature motifs of an unprecedented challenge to Establishment Republicanism.
Now that Trump has...issued his most definitive statement ever on immigration policy, it seems he’s taken Romney’s “self-deportation” position and tried to add some teeth and a snarl.
As said before, the Republican party has been hijacked. The leadership knows what kind of message they want to present to have a shot at the general election. They know the type of candidate they want to put forth but their base will have non of it and they keep selecting people who have 0 chance in the general election and there is nothing the leadership can do to stop it short of changing the way the primary works for them (by removing/limiting the ability to vote on a candidate).
Romney, you may recall, very accurately described his immigration policy as “self-deportation”: Through malign neglect (including random documentation checks by local law enforcement), make life as unpleasant as possible for the undocumented and many of them will go home and take with them the message that the Land of Opportunity was closing its doors.
Here’s how the [RNC's] “autopsy report” described the political consequences of that attitude:
“If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence.”
That did seem to be the case, as Romney lost the Hispanic vote — the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. electorate — in 2012 (according to exit polls) by an astonishing 71-27 margin.
And so the logical thing to do, concluded the report, was to go back to the support for comprehensive immigration reform that was originally devised by Karl Rove as one of the keys to an enduring Republican majority — before “the base” rejected efforts by its last two pre-Romney presidential nominees (George W. Bush and John McCain) to enact it into law.
As we all know, “the base” stopped that from happening once again, and the 2016 nominee turned out to be someone who had made hostility to immigration reform — and a variety of other white ethno-nationalist themes — signature motifs of an unprecedented challenge to Establishment Republicanism.
Now that Trump has...issued his most definitive statement ever on immigration policy, it seems he’s taken Romney’s “self-deportation” position and tried to add some teeth and a snarl.
As said before, the Republican party has been hijacked. The leadership knows what kind of message they want to present to have a shot at the general election. They know the type of candidate they want to put forth but their base will have non of it and they keep selecting people who have 0 chance in the general election and there is nothing the leadership can do to stop it short of changing the way the primary works for them (by removing/limiting the ability to vote on a candidate).
They got hijacked by the people that they courted in 2010 to take back the House and Senate on a wave of populism. And that wave hasn't slowed and is just pulling them along.
Romney, you may recall, very accurately described his immigration policy as “self-deportation”: Through malign neglect (including random documentation checks by local law enforcement), make life as unpleasant as possible for the undocumented and many of them will go home and take with them the message that the Land of Opportunity was closing its doors.
Here’s how the [RNC's] “autopsy report” described the political consequences of that attitude:
“If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence.”
That did seem to be the case, as Romney lost the Hispanic vote — the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. electorate — in 2012 (according to exit polls) by an astonishing 71-27 margin.
And so the logical thing to do, concluded the report, was to go back to the support for comprehensive immigration reform that was originally devised by Karl Rove as one of the keys to an enduring Republican majority — before “the base” rejected efforts by its last two pre-Romney presidential nominees (George W. Bush and John McCain) to enact it into law.
As we all know, “the base” stopped that from happening once again, and the 2016 nominee turned out to be someone who had made hostility to immigration reform — and a variety of other white ethno-nationalist themes — signature motifs of an unprecedented challenge to Establishment Republicanism.
Now that Trump has...issued his most definitive statement ever on immigration policy, it seems he’s taken Romney’s “self-deportation” position and tried to add some teeth and a snarl.
As said before, the Republican party has been hijacked. The leadership knows what kind of message they want to present to have a shot at the general election. They know the type of candidate they want to put forth but their base will have non of it and they keep selecting people who have 0 chance in the general election and there is nothing the leadership can do to stop it short of changing the way the primary works for them (by removing/limiting the ability to vote on a candidate).
This is why democrats have superdelegates. The average joe shmoe is poorly educated and makes bad decisions.
When this happened in the UK in the 80s with the Labour party it eventually resulted in a party schism between the defectors who wanted to abandon socialism for a more modern social justice approach and the hardline traditionalists who, due to union voting blocks (the union leadership were allowed to vote in the internal party leadership elections on behalf of all their members, shit was fucked up), were able to dominate the party while being completely unrepresentative of the broader population. It damn near destroyed the party for 15 years until Blair/Brown came along and rebuilt the Labour party in the image of the defectors. Sometimes it takes a while.
Amid public outcry over a sharp increase in the cost of the EpiPen, a life-saving drug to stop an anaphylactic allergy attack, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan to prevent “unjustified price hikes” for older prescription drugs.
Clinton’s proposal would create a team of representatives from federal agencies that would investigate and monitor the cost of long-available prescription drugs with little or no competition to protect consumers from so-called “price gouging”. The plan sets out criteria for determining “an excessive, outlier price increase” and a set of enforcement tools that include making alternative drugs available and imposing fines or penalties to help fund expanded access.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for longstanding, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or [research and development],” Clinton said in a statement. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.”
Last week, Clinton called on Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, to reduce the cost of the medical device after reports highlighted that its price rose by 461%, from from $56.64 to $317.82, since 2007, when the company acquired the product.
In a statement, Clinton called the price hike “outrageous” a “troubling example” of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of consumers. “Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens,” Clinton said in a statement.
In response to the uproar, Mylan said it would launch a generic EpiPen version that is identical to the brand-name device but significantly less expensive, with a list price of $300 for a two-pack. The company also announced earlier that it would offer additional financial assistance, including co-payments worth $300, to patients who have to pay the full out-of-pocket price for the device.
Last year, Clinton outlined a plan to tackle the rising costs of prescription drugs amid outrage over the staggering price increase of Daraprim, a drug that treats life-threatening parasitic infection. The startup company responsible, Turing Pharmaceuticals, owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, acquired the decades-old drug and raised the cost from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
That plan would deny tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies that market medicines directly to consumers, a controversial and costly practice legal only in the US and New Zealand, according to the World Health Organization. Clinton also said she would push companies to invest in research and development in exchange for federal subsidies.
Romney, you may recall, very accurately described his immigration policy as “self-deportation”: Through malign neglect (including random documentation checks by local law enforcement), make life as unpleasant as possible for the undocumented and many of them will go home and take with them the message that the Land of Opportunity was closing its doors.
Here’s how the [RNC's] “autopsy report” described the political consequences of that attitude:
“If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence.”
That did seem to be the case, as Romney lost the Hispanic vote — the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. electorate — in 2012 (according to exit polls) by an astonishing 71-27 margin.
And so the logical thing to do, concluded the report, was to go back to the support for comprehensive immigration reform that was originally devised by Karl Rove as one of the keys to an enduring Republican majority — before “the base” rejected efforts by its last two pre-Romney presidential nominees (George W. Bush and John McCain) to enact it into law.
As we all know, “the base” stopped that from happening once again, and the 2016 nominee turned out to be someone who had made hostility to immigration reform — and a variety of other white ethno-nationalist themes — signature motifs of an unprecedented challenge to Establishment Republicanism.
Now that Trump has...issued his most definitive statement ever on immigration policy, it seems he’s taken Romney’s “self-deportation” position and tried to add some teeth and a snarl.
As said before, the Republican party has been hijacked. The leadership knows what kind of message they want to present to have a shot at the general election. They know the type of candidate they want to put forth but their base will have non of it and they keep selecting people who have 0 chance in the general election and there is nothing the leadership can do to stop it short of changing the way the primary works for them (by removing/limiting the ability to vote on a candidate).
This is why democrats have superdelegates. The average joe shmoe is poorly educated and makes bad decisions.
Electability is not the discussion is used to be during primaries. The people deeply invested in the party used to be concerned about running someone who could appeal to the general public. That someone from their party that agreed with them on most of the issues was better than running a "true believer".
EPT
), but I think 'solid' is a very fitting word to describe her-and that's an important presidential quality. 
