In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote: [quote] There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though.
This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!"
I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros".
If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave.
let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right?
Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her.
briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances.
Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Trump supporters, in their view, Trump can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Trump supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise.
it's more accurate to say that Trump is so truly terrible that it takes an awful lot to overcome that. You'd have to compare to a more reasonable republican candidate, of which there are plenty, to make it about hillary.
nail on the head again.
yeah, the fact that i'd vote for a dem ticket over a republican team this year even if the dem ticket did some pretty heinous things speaks to how bad the republican one is. if it was romney or mccain or one of the other guys who ran this year chances i would more than likely vote for one of them over an actual killary while voting dem downballot.
trump is a rotten piece of amateur-prepared fugu. clinton right now is a boring ham sandwich that could use some more mustard. there are a bajillion things i'd eat before the fugu.
On November 02 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote: [quote] Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office.
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then?
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump.
Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets.
There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though.
This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!"
I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros".
If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave.
iirc Hillary supporters were primarily pointing out how stupid Bernie was at being unable to answer questions about his own plan.
I expect lost of this type of rewriting of history to become even more common over the next 4 years. That didn't even come until much later in the primary, long after they had made up their minds.
On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote: the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz.
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well.
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
define plutocrats by their desire to maintain or enhance concentration of power, the plutocrats favor republicans and particularly a guy like rubio.
On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote: the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz.
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well.
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time?
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity.
People tend to avoid them when they expose a weakness, lesson learned.
the whole point of the hypothetical was to expose the weakness. In reality the weakness is significantly weaker and most of them arent real, which is why we ground ourselves in reality and dont like to entertain bullshit hypotheticals. (see waah I did there)
The scenario is literally one in which one is asked "how bad does Hillary have to be that one chooses Drumpf over her) So really its more of a reflection on how bad people think Drumpf is. Mind you Hillary could be literally anyone else and it still wouldnt matter in this sort of hypothetical.
But sure take it anyway you like to compliment your heavy dose of delusion.
On November 02 2016 04:28 Danglars wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise.
See these are the kinds of leaps why bullshit hypotheticals are bad.
I get the idea that bullshit fascistic doomsday theories are fine when you're talking about The Drumpf, but see no double standard to calling out wackos that thought Obama was going to suspend elections. One's a rational expectation of outcomes, the other's racism. It's like Drumpf is an alt right puppet and only the enlightened can see it.
What bullshit fascistic doomsday theories. Just repeat everything he says, add all the context you want. Or are you saying hes a liar?
Sure that Russian agent stuff is far fetched but you dont need to go that far to see the obvious fascism.
Giving Drumpf any more credit than maybe being proto-fascist is an insult to fascists everywhere.
Ok lets agree with that, given my experience living under fascism (the millitary kind no less) I can assure you that even proto fascism, poisons the well so badly it will make Hillarys "corruption" look like daycare.
I'm more optimistic about the will of the people to fight. It's fair to say Trump could lead us down that track. Not sure the plutocracy alternative is automatically the one that ends better though.
No, if Trump is elected (under any circumstances except for maybe losing the popular vote by 10% while winning the electoral college) then most of his opposition is going to assume they've lost the fight for the soul of the American people entirely and give up. Of course there would still be resistance , there was resistance even to the Nazis in the 30s by Germans, but it won't be significant enough to actually change anything.
On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote: the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz.
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well.
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time?
what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy?
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity.
People tend to avoid them when they expose a weakness, lesson learned.
the whole point of the hypothetical was to expose the weakness. In reality the weakness is significantly weaker and most of them arent real, which is why we ground ourselves in reality and dont like to entertain bullshit hypotheticals. (see waah I did there)
The scenario is literally one in which one is asked "how bad does Hillary have to be that one chooses Drumpf over her) So really its more of a reflection on how bad people think Drumpf is. Mind you Hillary could be literally anyone else and it still wouldnt matter in this sort of hypothetical.
But sure take it anyway you like to compliment your heavy dose of delusion.
On November 02 2016 04:28 Danglars wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise.
See these are the kinds of leaps why bullshit hypotheticals are bad.
I get the idea that bullshit fascistic doomsday theories are fine when you're talking about The Drumpf, but see no double standard to calling out wackos that thought Obama was going to suspend elections. One's a rational expectation of outcomes, the other's racism. It's like Drumpf is an alt right puppet and only the enlightened can see it.
What bullshit fascistic doomsday theories. Just repeat everything he says, add all the context you want. Or are you saying hes a liar?
Sure that Russian agent stuff is far fetched but you dont need to go that far to see the obvious fascism.
Giving Drumpf any more credit than maybe being proto-fascist is an insult to fascists everywhere.
Ok lets agree with that, given my experience living under fascism (the millitary kind no less) I can assure you that even proto fascism, poisons the well so badly it will make Hillarys "corruption" look like daycare.
I'm more optimistic about the will of the people to fight. It's fair to say Drumpf could lead us down that track. Not sure the plutocracy alternative is automatically the one that ends better though.
You mean that same will that would elect him into office ? And here you are going around calling people naive at every opportunity.
Hillary is no more "plutocracy" than what we've always had in US presidents. Trump is an incompetent revolutionist. To be someone who is to the left of Hillary and entertaining the possibility of a Trump presidency means you have shut off your brain.
On November 02 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote: [quote] Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office.
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then?
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump.
Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets.
There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though.
This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!"
I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros".
If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave.
iirc Hillary supporters were primarily pointing out how stupid Bernie was at being unable to answer questions about his own plan.
Then we started pointing out the inherent race issues and sexism bias in Sander's camp. Then we started pointing out the sexism and hate in Trump's campaign.
The sexism is still there whether Hillary wins or loses. The race issues are still there whether Hillary wins or loses. And Bernie will forever be the guy who thinks the best way to help Muslims under threat of genocide is to throw more Muslims into the grinder.
Those are not Hillary's issues, those are BernieBro and Trump Supporter issues.
Of course there was sexism opposing Hillary. However, that's not her current problem with Bernie supporters. Her current problem is with FEMALE Bernie supporters. Apparently, telling someone they'll burn in hell if they don't vote for you leaves a lasting impression that is very difficult to change.
The conventional wisdom is that millennial women are supporting Clinton, but, according to this poll, that isn’t the case. Hillary Clinton is getting record levels of support from millennial men. Sixty-five percent of millennial men support Clinton. Her support with millennial men is 11 points than President Obama’s support with the same demographic in 2012. Millennial women are supporting Clinton by a margin of 47%-18%, but an equal 18% are also supporting Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote: the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz.
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well.
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time?
what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy?
I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet?
On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote: the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz.
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well.
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time?
what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy?
I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet?
then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system?
On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote: [quote] For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office.
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then?
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump.
Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets.
There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though.
This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!"
I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros".
If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave.
iirc Hillary supporters were primarily pointing out how stupid Bernie was at being unable to answer questions about his own plan.
Then we started pointing out the inherent race issues and sexism bias in Sander's camp. Then we started pointing out the sexism and hate in Trump's campaign.
The sexism is still there whether Hillary wins or loses. The race issues are still there whether Hillary wins or loses. And Bernie will forever be the guy who thinks the best way to help Muslims under threat of genocide is to throw more Muslims into the grinder.
Those are not Hillary's issues, those are BernieBro and Trump Supporter issues.
Of course there was sexism opposing Hillary. However, that's not her current problem with Bernie supporters. Her current problem is with FEMALE Bernie supporters. Apparently, telling someone they'll burn in hell if they don't vote for you leaves a lasting impression that is very difficult to change.
The conventional wisdom is that millennial women are supporting Clinton, but, according to this poll, that isn’t the case. Hillary Clinton is getting record levels of support from millennial men. Sixty-five percent of millennial men support Clinton. Her support with millennial men is 11 points than President Obama’s support with the same demographic in 2012. Millennial women are supporting Clinton by a margin of 47%-18%, but an equal 18% are also supporting Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote: the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz.
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well.
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time?
what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy?
I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet?
then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system?
On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote: [quote] For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office.
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then?
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump.
Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets.
There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though.
This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!"
I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros".
If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave.
iirc Hillary supporters were primarily pointing out how stupid Bernie was at being unable to answer questions about his own plan.
I expect lost of this type of rewriting of history to become even more common over the next 4 years. That didn't even come until much later in the primary, long after they had made up their minds.
Of course people madecide up their minds. She was the only candidate with name recognition in the race. It was his job to change hem and not being able to answer that question hurt.
On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote: the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz.
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well.
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time?
what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy?
I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet?
then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system?
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote: [quote] Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office.
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then?
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump.
Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets.
There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though.
This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!"
I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros".
If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave.
iirc Hillary supporters were primarily pointing out how stupid Bernie was at being unable to answer questions about his own plan.
Then we started pointing out the inherent race issues and sexism bias in Sander's camp. Then we started pointing out the sexism and hate in Trump's campaign.
The sexism is still there whether Hillary wins or loses. The race issues are still there whether Hillary wins or loses. And Bernie will forever be the guy who thinks the best way to help Muslims under threat of genocide is to throw more Muslims into the grinder.
Those are not Hillary's issues, those are BernieBro and Trump Supporter issues.
Of course there was sexism opposing Hillary. However, that's not her current problem with Bernie supporters. Her current problem is with FEMALE Bernie supporters. Apparently, telling someone they'll burn in hell if they don't vote for you leaves a lasting impression that is very difficult to change.
The conventional wisdom is that millennial women are supporting Clinton, but, according to this poll, that isn’t the case. Hillary Clinton is getting record levels of support from millennial men. Sixty-five percent of millennial men support Clinton. Her support with millennial men is 11 points than President Obama’s support with the same demographic in 2012. Millennial women are supporting Clinton by a margin of 47%-18%, but an equal 18% are also supporting Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
it isn't because of what albright said. it's because of their ideology and position on certain issues. basically too left for their own good
You think millenial women are further left than millenial men by that large of a margin? (65% vs 47%) That's a pretty large difference, and I've seen even larger in a few other polls. If it were like 5-10% I could buy it, but it seems a much simpler explanation that Hillary's surrogate's comments were insulting to women in a lasting way that they weren't to men (Steinham's "college-age women are just going where the boys are" didn't help either, but at least she apologized for it eventually).
The worst they came up with for men was "Bernie Bros" which honestly sounds more like an awesome nintendo game than an insult, and if you dig further into it was basically just "his male supporters are sexist" which is easy to shrug off as a guy in the current society as a pretty frequent and generally overblown criticism. It also didn't suggest a lack of principles or attempt to deprive them of agency in the way the comment by Steinham or Albright did.
both clintons started middle class (heck bill was working class) and they worked their way up. hillary's platform has tons about providing the tools and resources for people to make better lives for themselves.
and then you have trump who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and managed not to choke on it. he abused the system his whole life, and sometimes he happily declares he does so, and other times he's more shifty about it.
On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote: the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz.
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well.
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time?
what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy?
I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet?
then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system?
plutocrats is more than rich, it is a role in a political system. not all rich people favor plutocracy, though they may have benefited from the system.
for example, marx was funded by plutocrats, married an aristocrat, and traveled in elite circles.
modern day example, soros, bill gates etc. you need to get deeper into what people believe rather than rehash crass marxist theory.
On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote: [quote] No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office.
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then?
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump.
Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets.
There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though.
This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!"
I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros".
If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave.
iirc Hillary supporters were primarily pointing out how stupid Bernie was at being unable to answer questions about his own plan.
Then we started pointing out the inherent race issues and sexism bias in Sander's camp. Then we started pointing out the sexism and hate in Trump's campaign.
The sexism is still there whether Hillary wins or loses. The race issues are still there whether Hillary wins or loses. And Bernie will forever be the guy who thinks the best way to help Muslims under threat of genocide is to throw more Muslims into the grinder.
Those are not Hillary's issues, those are BernieBro and Trump Supporter issues.
Of course there was sexism opposing Hillary. However, that's not her current problem with Bernie supporters. Her current problem is with FEMALE Bernie supporters. Apparently, telling someone they'll burn in hell if they don't vote for you leaves a lasting impression that is very difficult to change.
The conventional wisdom is that millennial women are supporting Clinton, but, according to this poll, that isn’t the case. Hillary Clinton is getting record levels of support from millennial men. Sixty-five percent of millennial men support Clinton. Her support with millennial men is 11 points than President Obama’s support with the same demographic in 2012. Millennial women are supporting Clinton by a margin of 47%-18%, but an equal 18% are also supporting Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
it isn't because of what albright said. it's because of their ideology and position on certain issues. basically too left for their own good
You think millenial women are further left than millenial men by that large of a margin? (65% vs 47%) That's a pretty large difference, and I've seen even larger in a few other polls. If it were like 5-10% I could buy it, but it seems a much simpler explanation that Hillary's surrogate's comments were insulting to women in a lasting way that they weren't to men (Steinham's "college-age women are just going where the boys are" didn't help either, but at least she apologized for it eventually).
The worst they came up with for men was "Bernie Bros" which honestly sounds more like an awesome nintendo game than an insult, and if you dig further into it was basically just "his male supporters are sexist" which is easy to shrug off as a guy in the current society as a pretty frequent and generally overblown criticism. It also didn't suggest a lack of principles or attempt to deprive them of agency in the way the comment by Steinham or Albright did.
hillary's surrogates on that front were extremely ineffective. nobody listened to them.
but yea, more emotive voters favor feels over reals
He shadowed Trump for 18 months and said he possibly go to know Trump better than anyone, since Trump allegedly doesn't see his family much. He spoke about Trump's basic personality traits. He advised Hillary for the debates, and she toyed with Trump's emotions during them. Schwartz says he is genuinely scared about the world's security in a Trump presidency. How could a man with this temperament be given commander in chief powers?
In the late 1980s, the satirical magazine Spy began to use Trump as a symbol of the gaudy decadence and ostentatious vulgarity of New York City during the era. Editor Graydon Carter noted at one point that Trump had small fingers, and the magazine—known for inventing pithy epithets for people and using them repeatedly—came to introduce Trump as a “short-fingered vulgarian.”
Even though Spy went out of publication more than a decade ago, Carter still hears from Trump about the insult. “He'll send me pictures, tear sheets from magazines—and he did it as recently as April,” Carter said earlier this year on NPR. “With a gold sharpie, he'll circle his fingers and in his handwriting say, ‘see, not so short.’”
EPT
