|
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. |
And how many of those supporting gaymarriage today, who are now also burning Clinton for "flipflopping" (even though it was just a onetime-flip, no flop back and certainly no back and fourth) supported gaymarriage 20 years ago?
Let's be honest. It wasn't accepted 20 years ago and pretty much nobody supported it.
Times have changed and today suddenly people are calling everyone out who is a few years behind. It is ironic to see 60yo politicians call out others politicians and countries for a stance they supported themselves only few years ago.
I'm not buying Nyxistos idea that she was supporting it all the time and just didnt dare to say it, that is just cheap and bullshit.
But at the same time I also can't see how it should not be allowed for a political figure or any human being to actually say "Okay, I changed my mind on this topic. I believed the other way, but I was convinced, that what I thought was wrong, and I do believe that this new course is right". In fact, the ability to not stubbornly go one route for your entire life, but to be able to be convinced by others, to always reevaluate your own morals and opinion is a trait I really appreciate in humans and even more in a politician. But this is not necessarily a praise for Clinton. I can't change if she just went with the flow or really changed her mind. But in any case, it is certainly not a negative, while being stubborn for life, because NEVER CHANGE, would have been a negative for me.
I often feel, that any change of opinion for a politician for some reason is considered a sign of weakness. But it is exactly the inability to change your opinion which leads to those poisoned discussions you are seeing everywhere these days. If nobody is able to change his mind, why even have a discussion? What's the point? Just have a vote, see whatever opinion has more supporters and get done with it, argueing is a meaningless shouting duel. And with parties coming into play, and party discipline things become even worse, because you are now suddenly not even allowed to have your own opionion, but instead the party is telling you what your unchangable opinion has to be. And then both sides hold speeches for their POV in the parliament/senate/congress/whatever but nobody listens, because their vote is already set in stone anyway. Great times. But at least you weren't weak!
|
United States44168 Posts
On October 19 2016 12:41 Plansix wrote:
Can we please remember who signed TARP, who wasn't in office at the time and that TRAP has nothing to do with being SoS?
I considered that direction but it seemed not to be worth it. We'd get off topic on a series of educating him. He says a thing, we explain why that's not true and he'll counter with a more basic level of ignorance. We explain that and he counters again with an even more basic level of ignorance, slowly proceeding down through things that he should know, then that everyone knows, and then that you can't believe anyone would not know. There is no bottom.
Rather than follow him down that path I thought I'd remind him that his initial claim, that Clinton will favour Saudi Arabia as President, is unproven, contrary to the last few years of Middle Eastern foreign policy and frankly absurd, and ask again that he argue his claim.
|
Stop bringing up gay marriage in this argument, it's silly.
Her views evolved with the time like literally every politician and the vast majority of the country.
And while she was opposed to full marriage equality over a decade ago (personally as well as politically), she has always been both an ally to the LGBT community and always been in support of expanded rights/protections, and her, and her husband, done more than most politicians have, all told.
And if you bring up Bernie Sanders ima laugh.
There are precious few politicians that have not shifted their views on the issue, and that's a good thing lol. That's what the community activists campaigned to do: change hearts and minds.
On October 19 2016 09:35 Nevuk wrote:
*Snip*
Tunnel aside, his focus on 19th century US politics is part of his analysis of the evolution of "informal" US political structures, and you can't reach an appropriate analysis without focusing the late 19th, early 20th century period.
His point, primarily, is that these structures promoted cooperation and party loyalty, and that's something that consistent efforts to make government transparent flawed. He's not condemning them, nor does he view the need to return to the system in place in the 19th-early 20th century, just taking the view that a more nuanced approach to legislation and politics.
Personally I think there's too much hash being made about the Hastert rule, but isn't really relevant to the analysis. The issue is that the Republicans HAVE a majority: they should be able to legislate, but they can't, as they just literally cannot agree on anything, and the leadership has little/nothing to either enforce or entice compliance.
Also, no, Sanders is indeed comparable to at least Cruz. While almost certainly less of a scumbag, in terms of bipartisanship, he ranked dead last, behind Cruz at 99th. His campaign was predicated on a "political revolution" and changing government and getting Wall Street out of politics etc. etc., ran on a radical platform that had no chance of passing, his campaign ran on a distinctly anti-establishment message, and towards the later half of his campaign, the cries of "voter fraud/DNC riggings" and other disruptive efforts (see Nevada) were quite prevalent, and when asked for detailed policy questions he reverted to his stump speech.
|
|
|
|
|
On October 3, 2008. The election took place a month later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
She did not control who received those funds. She in a lame duck session when those funds were handed out and she was not involved. She was a junior senator that everyone knew was going to become SoS of Obama won. If you are going to make arguments, please have the vaguest understanding of what took place. Saying she controlled who received TARP funds is one step above blaming the response to Katrina on Obama.
|
On October 19 2016 12:52 plasmidghost wrote:
Maybe I just hold politicians to unrealistic standards. I'm a very idealist person (which explains why I'm currently backing Jill Stein) and always think about things in the way I think they should be and not in the way they are. Needless to say, I would not be a good politician
...lol Jill Stein.
If you want to change the political process, get involved, all politics starts with the grassroots.
|
Jill Stein is an idiot fringe candidate with no coherent policy beyond self-aggrandizement. If she were treated even with the slight seriousness that Gary Johnson was, she'd probably Aleppo several times over. It's quite possible that apart from the age requirement most of the posters on this forum are more informed and qualified as presidential candidates.
|
Also her greatest political accomplishment is being a local elected official for her home town of Lexington. And that town is so fucking filled with rich people that is really doesn't take much to make it function.
|
On October 19 2016 13:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
Jill Stein is an idiot fringe candidate with no coherent policy beyond self-aggrandizement. If she were treated even with the slight seriousness that Gary Johnson was, she'd probably Aleppo several times over.
It helps to actually mention the specific flaws she has. It isn't like they're hard to find. I looked at her very briefly, came to the conclusion that she was running a vanity campaign based on her unwillingness to part with the nonsensical parts of the green platform that appeal to homeopathy.
Another issue that immediately comes to mind is her plan to deal with student debt via "quantitative easing", which I've heard criticized as being literally nonsensical via several sources, and that she herself called a "magic trick to make debt disappear".
|
|
|
She wanted to us the TARP bail out to remove student debt, but failed to understand that the banks paid those funds back. The government can't buy stock in me and and let use those funds to pay down my student loans. I'm not publicly traded.
Edit: She isn't an idealist, she just plays one to feel smugly superior to other people trying to accomplish things. It's easy to set an impossibly high bar when you have no intention of trying to jump over it.
|
Honestly, if Stein outright denounced 9/11 truthers and anti-vaxxers rather than making vague statements in an attempt to court their vote, she'd probably pick up more votes from people thinking she's less insane than she loses from losing their support.
|
On October 19 2016 13:10 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 12:56 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 19 2016 12:52 plasmidghost wrote:
Maybe I just hold politicians to unrealistic standards. I'm a very idealist person (which explains why I'm currently backing Jill Stein) and always think about things in the way I think they should be and not in the way they are. Needless to say, I would not be a good politician ...lol Jill Stein. If you want to change the political process, get involved, all politics starts with the grassroots. Yeah, I'm a super idealist and even I know what she wants to do is crazy, to be honest the only reason I'm supporting her is because she seems the least bad choice. She says she will completely eliminate student debt, which I don't even know if it is legal for the president to do (most likely Congress) and is just not a right policy (the people who took the loans knew what they were getting into) and there's no way in hell that the US will go to a 100% clean energy country by 2030 under I think any possible scenario, but I do like that she emphasizes doing something about climate change and quick before it's too late, since it's the issue I most care about. Trump says global warming is a myth, Johnson would get rid of environmental regulations, Clinton has sold fracking to nations and while she does support renewable energies, isn't enough in my opinion
If you like Stein's policies you need to vote for Clinton because voting for Jill is a vote for Trump, you are acting as a spoiler. Even Ken Bone polls better than Jill, she's not going to win.
|
On October 19 2016 13:10 plasmidghost wrote:
Yeah, I'm a super idealist and even I know what she wants to do is crazy, to be honest the only reason I'm supporting her is because she seems the least bad choice. She says she will completely eliminate student debt, which I don't even know if it is legal for the president to do (most likely Congress) and is just not a right policy (the people who took the loans knew what they were getting into) and there's no way in hell that the US will go to a 100% clean energy country by 2030 under I think any possible scenario, but I do like that she emphasizes doing something about climate change and quick before it's too late, since it's the issue I most care about. Trump says global warming is a myth, Johnson would get rid of environmental regulations, Clinton has sold fracking to nations and while she does support renewable energies, isn't enough in my opinion
There is absolutely no way Jill Stein is the least bad choice.
A corrupt president who has selfish and ill-conceived goals but who has enough experience and understanding of how Washington works would do a better job than a political novice who doesn't even have a clue what she can and can't do as president of the United States.
People focus on the politically charged issues, but being president also involves a lot of mundane, politically-neutral decision-making that can't really be co-opted by someone's corrupt personal goals. Someone like Stein or Trump are far more likely to fuck up those kinds of basic things than Clinton is.
Not everything the president does is politically-divisive social/economic policy or international deal-brokering. It's just really easy to forget that because nobody campaigns on that stuff when it's super boring and not very contentious. But in all honestly, MOST stuff the president does is probably that mundane stuff. Electing someone who has the basic competency to oversee those things is also important. It's just usually not an issue because the primary process is usually rigorous enough that by the time we get past that, we can expect the two major parties' candidates to be able to handle that stuff. We just happen to be in an election year where the candidates are so shit that it's not true anymore and somehow that doesn't bother people.
|
On October 19 2016 13:10 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 12:56 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 19 2016 12:52 plasmidghost wrote:
Maybe I just hold politicians to unrealistic standards. I'm a very idealist person (which explains why I'm currently backing Jill Stein) and always think about things in the way I think they should be and not in the way they are. Needless to say, I would not be a good politician ...lol Jill Stein. If you want to change the political process, get involved, all politics starts with the grassroots. Yeah, I'm a super idealist and even I know what she wants to do is crazy, to be honest the only reason I'm supporting her is because she seems the least bad choice. She says she will completely eliminate student debt, which I don't even know if it is legal for the president to do (most likely Congress) and is just not a right policy (the people who took the loans knew what they were getting into) and there's no way in hell that the US will go to a 100% clean energy country by 2030 under I think any possible scenario, but I do like that she emphasizes doing something about climate change and quick before it's too late, since it's the issue I most care about. Trump says global warming is a myth, Johnson would get rid of environmental regulations, Clinton has sold fracking to nations and while she does support renewable energies, isn't enough in my opinion
I dunno, I guess you could argue that forgiving all the current student debt is a form of investment in the middle/lower classes and would be a big economic stimulus as student debt is seen as one of the reasons the younger generation aren't buying more of the big things like homes as much.
|
On October 19 2016 13:05 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 13:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
Jill Stein is an idiot fringe candidate with no coherent policy beyond self-aggrandizement. If she were treated even with the slight seriousness that Gary Johnson was, she'd probably Aleppo several times over. It helps to actually mention the specific flaws she has. It isn't like they're hard to find. I looked at her very briefly, came to the conclusion that she was running a vanity campaign based on her unwillingness to part with the nonsensical parts of the green platform that appeal to homeopathy. Another issue that immediately comes to mind is her plan to deal with student debt via "quantitative easing", which I've heard criticized as being literally nonsensical via several sources, and that she herself called a "magic trick to make debt disappear".
Call it laziness, but I'm tired of having to cover the same things over and over again. Sanders had plenty of problems when it came to policy, but was ultimately grounded in reality and largely followed workable ideas that have been implemented in Europe and elsewhere (though many of those wouldn't translate to the US very well).
Stein's policy ideas make Sanders' look like the work of a Nobel Prize-winning economist. The QE to end student debt is stupid but harmless, but her "vaxx-skeptic" (vs outright anti vaxx) is deeply harmful and fucking shameful considering she's a MD. She's anti nuclear. She's anti GMO. Her platform is incoherent. She makes no case for herself. All she does is act as some fringe voice on the left to attack Clinton and the actual left-wing people who have any degree of influence.
On October 19 2016 13:14 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 13:10 plasmidghost wrote:On October 19 2016 12:56 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 19 2016 12:52 plasmidghost wrote:
Maybe I just hold politicians to unrealistic standards. I'm a very idealist person (which explains why I'm currently backing Jill Stein) and always think about things in the way I think they should be and not in the way they are. Needless to say, I would not be a good politician ...lol Jill Stein. If you want to change the political process, get involved, all politics starts with the grassroots. Yeah, I'm a super idealist and even I know what she wants to do is crazy, to be honest the only reason I'm supporting her is because she seems the least bad choice. She says she will completely eliminate student debt, which I don't even know if it is legal for the president to do (most likely Congress) and is just not a right policy (the people who took the loans knew what they were getting into) and there's no way in hell that the US will go to a 100% clean energy country by 2030 under I think any possible scenario, but I do like that she emphasizes doing something about climate change and quick before it's too late, since it's the issue I most care about. Trump says global warming is a myth, Johnson would get rid of environmental regulations, Clinton has sold fracking to nations and while she does support renewable energies, isn't enough in my opinion I dunno, I guess you could argue that forgiving all the current student debt is a form of investment in the middle/lower classes and would be a big economic stimulus as student debt is seen as one of the reasons the younger generation aren't buying more of the big things like homes as much.
Where would the money come from though? That's the main thing.
Also, as someone who recently finished paying off student loans (and paid a good chunk of tuition from prior savings) I would be pretty much livid and would lobby the hell out of the government to not allow instant debt forgiveness.
|
|
|
On October 19 2016 13:14 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 13:10 plasmidghost wrote:On October 19 2016 12:56 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 19 2016 12:52 plasmidghost wrote:
Maybe I just hold politicians to unrealistic standards. I'm a very idealist person (which explains why I'm currently backing Jill Stein) and always think about things in the way I think they should be and not in the way they are. Needless to say, I would not be a good politician ...lol Jill Stein. If you want to change the political process, get involved, all politics starts with the grassroots. Yeah, I'm a super idealist and even I know what she wants to do is crazy, to be honest the only reason I'm supporting her is because she seems the least bad choice. She says she will completely eliminate student debt, which I don't even know if it is legal for the president to do (most likely Congress) and is just not a right policy (the people who took the loans knew what they were getting into) and there's no way in hell that the US will go to a 100% clean energy country by 2030 under I think any possible scenario, but I do like that she emphasizes doing something about climate change and quick before it's too late, since it's the issue I most care about. Trump says global warming is a myth, Johnson would get rid of environmental regulations, Clinton has sold fracking to nations and while she does support renewable energies, isn't enough in my opinion I dunno, I guess you could argue that forgiving all the current student debt is a form of investment in the middle/lower classes and would be a big economic stimulus as student debt is seen as one of the reasons the younger generation aren't buying more of the big things like homes as much.
Yeah young people don't want to take out loans to start a business or buy a house if they're still paying back student loans. But of course the rich don't have student loans so the class gap and perceived class gap is getting wider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
