|
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. |
|
|
"Brought to you by the Film Actors Guild."
|
On September 22 2016 11:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 10:54 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:32 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that. On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise. Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy. I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from. You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in. Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game. Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though. On September 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage. Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's. And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare. I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not. They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem. Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means. For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well. The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job. It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president. Kasich confirmed it It's the same alleged source no matter whether the hearsay comes from the NYT or Politifact or Stephen Hawking or someone as publicly anti-Trump as Kasich. The combination of the implausibility and convenience of the story means it's something to take with a grain of salt, which politics has no shortage of. Does it really not matter? Because before he confirmed it was just the librul media making shit up. Now we've gone to Kasich saying it and maybe he's lying, maybe not. I assume you're not suggesting his aide is some deep undercover Hillary plant misleading Kasich, if this was a lie chances are Kasich is in on it. I also disagree with you that it's implausible given Trump's initial reaction to Pence and what comes out of his mouth whenever he talks about FP or international agreements, but that's another matter. Yes, it really doesn't. "That's what they tell me" is what you're referring to by confirmation.
It was a rhetorical question. The reaction of the Trump supporters here went from 'bullshit' at the NYT article to 'take it with a grain of salt' at Kasich.
|
That's a pretty lame ad if it wasn't done ironically.
|
Damn left Hollywood, having opinions and shit. How dare they use their fame for anything but entertainment?
|
On September 22 2016 11:33 Plansix wrote:
Damn left Hollywood, having opinions and shit. How dare they use their fame for anything but entertainment?
The bigger problem is that the ad itself is pretty stupid.
|
On September 22 2016 11:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 11:33 Plansix wrote:
Damn left Hollywood, having opinions and shit. How dare they use their fame for anything but entertainment? The bigger problem is that the ad itself is pretty stupid.
Maybe Hillary has to fight stupid with stupid? It's clear that you can't get through to trump supporters with facts and reason and logic, so maybe stupid ads to battle the stupid shit trump says is the only way?
|
On September 22 2016 11:33 Plansix wrote:
Damn left Hollywood, having opinions and shit. How dare they use their fame for anything but entertainment?
It's not that they have opinions but the ad was corny as hell, to the point of fremdschämen
|
On September 22 2016 11:31 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 11:10 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:54 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:32 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision?
Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that. On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise. Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy. I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from. You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in. Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game. Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though. On September 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage. Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's. And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare. I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not. They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem. Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means. For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well. The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job. It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president. Kasich confirmed it It's the same alleged source no matter whether the hearsay comes from the NYT or Politifact or Stephen Hawking or someone as publicly anti-Trump as Kasich. The combination of the implausibility and convenience of the story means it's something to take with a grain of salt, which politics has no shortage of. Does it really not matter? Because before he confirmed it was just the librul media making shit up. Now we've gone to Kasich saying it and maybe he's lying, maybe not. I assume you're not suggesting his aide is some deep undercover Hillary plant misleading Kasich, if this was a lie chances are Kasich is in on it. I also disagree with you that it's implausible given Trump's initial reaction to Pence and what comes out of his mouth whenever he talks about FP or international agreements, but that's another matter. Yes, it really doesn't. "That's what they tell me" is what you're referring to by confirmation. It was a rhetorical question. The reaction of the Trump supporters here went from 'bullshit' at the NYT article to 'take it with a grain of salt' at Kasich.
It's equivalent bullshit, just repeated.
|
On September 22 2016 11:29 xDaunt wrote:"Brought to you by the Film Actors Guild."
you're just upset that the best thing Trump gets is soap opera people and the duck dynasty guys
|
Someone over at the Hillary campaign should really let BLM that they aren't doing her any favors in North Carolina.
|
On September 22 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:
Someone over at the Hillary campaign should really let BLM that they aren't doing her any favors in North Carolina.
Someone at BLM would probably let the Hillary campaign know they don't care.
|
On September 22 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:
Someone over at the Hillary campaign should really let BLM that they aren't doing her any favors in North Carolina.
I mean is BLM really associated with Hilary? I would imagine they would want to distance themselves from that group, as they are borderline terrorists, but I guess if they do they will lose the black vote which they need.
|
On September 22 2016 11:51 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:
Someone over at the Hillary campaign should really let BLM that they aren't doing her any favors in North Carolina. Someone at BLM would probably let the Hillary campaign know they don't care.
I'm sure that BLM doesn't care, but they should. Between Hillary and Trump, it's pretty clear which one is more likely to crack down on them.
|
On September 22 2016 11:51 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:
Someone over at the Hillary campaign should really let BLM that they aren't doing her any favors in North Carolina. Someone at BLM would probably let the Hillary campaign know they don't care.
I was about to say, I don't think they give a fuck at all.
|
BLM is too amorphous to be associated with anyone.
borderline terrorists sounds a bit too far of a description though.
At any rate, there's already local people in NC who have cred in that community calling for peace, I don't think there's much more that can be done in that regard that isn't being done already.
|
United States43448 Posts
On September 22 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:
Someone over at the Hillary campaign should really let BLM that they aren't doing her any favors in North Carolina.
I read that it's the first stage in Obama's takeover to prevent the election.
|
On September 22 2016 11:56 zlefin wrote:
BLM is too amorphous to be associated with anyone.
borderline terrorists sounds a bit too far of a description though.
At any rate, there's already local people in NC who have cred in that community calling for peace, I don't think there's much more that can be done in that regard that isn't being done already.
Apparently its all black people and they have the magical power to stop protests just by sending out a memo.
|
A lot of BLM people are to the left of Sanders, I don't think they care if they're hurting Hillary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
