|
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. |
Mohdoo, it's tough to apply a utilitarian standard to these candidates unlike your scenario of family members. Nobody can predict whether trump or clinton will actually be better for the country because there are so many metrics to score them by and no one will agree. HRC might start WW3, or do something equally catastrophic. Trump might triple our debt and not improve the economy at all, yeah we can take a best guess but we don't even know if they will even follow through with their promises. It's completely different from your family member scenario where you know exactly what will happen. So I am gonna go by who I trust will look out for my values, not try to evaluate the impossible task of who will objectively be better for the country.
|
Ah, 2016, truly a glorious year.
|
On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress.
It depends. Please remember that I have still donated more to Bernie than I have Clinton at this point. I was team Bernie. I know it is hard to believe, but I would be happy to prove it if you really don't believe me. However, as soon as I saw Bernie's ship sinking, I shifted my focus to defeating Trump. Its all about timing. Bernie had a shot. But then he didn't at one point.
|
On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver.
I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party.
|
On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party.
Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear.
|
On September 29 2016 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. It depends. Please remember that I have still donated more to Bernie than I have Clinton at this point. I was team Bernie. I know it is hard to believe, but I would be happy to prove it if you really don't believe me. However, as soon as I saw Bernie's ship sinking, I shifted my focus to defeating Trump. Its all about timing. Bernie had a shot. But then he didn't at one point.
I am quite certain that if it were Bernie vs Trump right now, it would be a landslide. One just has so much less working against them than the other. Part of why Trump is still afloat - a truly large part - is that people hate Hillary almost as much as Trump.
|
On September 29 2016 04:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:17 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 04:13 Rebs wrote:On September 29 2016 04:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe. In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness. Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings". And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc. Its doing fair exchanges. Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering. Yes because imperialism has proven to be the perfect recipe for getting these countries all those thin...... oh wait... I cant believe this point is being debate in 2016. #realityisking Japan + South Korea are projects invested by America. Look where they are. #RealityIsIndeedTheKing South Korea, whose economy was largely stagnant under the (corrupt) President appointed by the United States, until a military dictator took over and forced through sweeping changes that created most of the nation's modern infrastructure? Japan, which was already one of (if not the) most economically/industrially powerful nations in Asia before and during WWII?
this much truth needs to be broken down into 5 different posts... its too much for 1 post.
according to my 1 iranian employee/contractor iran is way better off without a US puppet running the country. i'm not 50 and i don't live in Iran so i can't really confirm or deny his claims.. any opinions on this ?
|
On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party.
in the first or second most liberal state in the US, yeah.
|
On September 29 2016 05:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 04:17 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 04:13 Rebs wrote:On September 29 2016 04:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II.
Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe. In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness. Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings". And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc. Its doing fair exchanges. Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering. Yes because imperialism has proven to be the perfect recipe for getting these countries all those thin...... oh wait... I cant believe this point is being debate in 2016. #realityisking Japan + South Korea are projects invested by America. Look where they are. #RealityIsIndeedTheKing South Korea, whose economy was largely stagnant under the (corrupt) President appointed by the United States, until a military dictator took over and forced through sweeping changes that created most of the nation's modern infrastructure? Japan, which was already one of (if not the) most economically/industrially powerful nations in Asia before and during WWII? this much truth needs to be broken down into 5 different posts... its too much for 1 post. according to my 1 iranian employee iran is way better off without a US puppet running the country. i'm not 50 and i don't live in Iran so i can't really confirm or deny his claim.. any opinions on this ?
Iran is a country with substantial potential for growth, given a more stable political climate.
|
On September 29 2016 05:00 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. in the first or second most liberal state in the US, yeah.
Yeah, just think about living in a state like NH where they lean both directions. That is the state were you don’t always get to vote for your perfect candidate.
|
On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear.
Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off.
On September 29 2016 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. in the first or second most liberal state in the US, yeah. Yeah, just think about living in a state like NH where they lean both directions. That is the state were you don’t always get to vote for your perfect candidate.
I accept that people in more contested states have a more difficult choice to make.
One problem is I'm not sure there's anything that could happen that would make people think Hillary was the wrong choice. Wouldn't matter what she did, kill net neutrality, go to war, let wall st run wild, not follow through on any of her progressive proposals, anything. No matter how bad she is, Democrats will tell us it was better than any other possible alternative which just won't be true.
If we don't like Hillary much and are just supporting her to stop Trump there's no reason the same couldn't have been done for Bernie (except there would be a hell of a lot more energy and youth engagement and a hell of a lot less people who hated/didn't trust our candidate).
|
On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear. Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off.
Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with?
|
maybe b/c a blanket ban on wall street isnt a good idea?
gensler worked at GS and then went on to be an adviser to paul sarbanes (for the sarbanes oxley act) and then went on to head the CFTC and lead the investigation into the Libor scandal
|
On September 29 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear. Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off. Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with?
Endorse Bernie before the primary in her state ensuring he wins and changes the "he can't win" narrative at a critical point.
EDIT: If she actually wanted what she says she wanted she should have supported the person who would be most likely to give it to her, instead she played politics and fence sat and is getting nothing in return.
|
On September 29 2016 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear. Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off. Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with? Endorse Bernie before the primary in her state ensuring he wins and changes the "he can't win" narrative at a critical point.
But what if she didn’t believe he could win or agree with his policies? Or believe she could get what she wants with Bernie in office? Or she has worked with him and did not think he was a very good senator?
Also, if you think Warren can stop Clinton from winning MA in the primary you are living in dream land.
|
On September 29 2016 05:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there. There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear. Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off. Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with? Endorse Bernie before the primary in her state ensuring he wins and changes the "he can't win" narrative at a critical point. But what if she didn’t believe he could win or agree with his policies? Or believe she could get what she wants with Bernie in office? Or she has worked with him and did not think he was a very good senator? Also, if you think Warren can stop Clinton from winning MA in the primary you are living in dream land.
Well I suppose there's no sense in rehashing it since we disagree and there's no way to verify who would be right.
Honestly what bugs me is this "cover for Clinton" is going to end up being how she hides emboldening the wealth disparity in the country by hiding it under a short term boom that will happen when they give corporate tax cheats a pass. That Warren didn't stand up to her when she had the chance lost her a lot of credibility in my view.
|
it was close enough that warren mightve pushed bernie over the edge. but i dont think that would have meant anything except maybe a couple delegates.
|
I'm not sure that Warren would have made much of a difference for Bernie. Seems like the majority of the Warren fans were already Bernie supporters.
|
On September 29 2016 05:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
it was close enough that warren mightve pushed bernie over the edge. but i dont think that would have meant anything except maybe a couple delegates.
I could dig up the posts but I think we remember how that it was interpreted by Hillary supporters and the implications they drew from it.
Every Hillary supporter thinks they are the one she's not lying to, question is, do you really think she's lying to the Wall st folks who paid her millions and expect her to keep the status quo or the plebs that think she's going to change it for them?
|
On September 29 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:15 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there.
There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable. The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear. Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off. Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with? Endorse Bernie before the primary in her state ensuring he wins and changes the "he can't win" narrative at a critical point. But what if she didn’t believe he could win or agree with his policies? Or believe she could get what she wants with Bernie in office? Or she has worked with him and did not think he was a very good senator? Also, if you think Warren can stop Clinton from winning MA in the primary you are living in dream land. Well I suppose there's no sense in rehashing it since we disagree and there's no way to verify who would be right. Honestly what bugs me is this "cover for Clinton" is going to end up being how she hides emboldening the wealth disparity in the country by hiding it under a short term boom that will happen when they give corporate tax cheats a pass. That Warren didn't stand up to her when she had the chance lost her a lot of credibility in my view.
She is not up for election this year and she needs Clinton to continue what she is doing in the Senate. Endorsing Bernie does nothing and burns a lot of people in this state. You might like Bernie, but many of the professional women in this state love Clinton, specifically attorneys and legal professionals. Women were not allowed to wear pants in court until Clinton came along and make the pants suit the standard for women. That was less than 10 years ago.
Professional middle class women huge demographic for Warren. The folks who are Bernie or bust are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
