EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5860
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
just as a matter of election outcome etc, hillary is not the ideal candidate, but largely because of perception issues. it is very difficult to fault her for these problems, so in an ideal world you'd be correcting the record about her and making things better that way, rather than rejecting hrc and nominating a colored dude who is less susceptible to class based attacks. a machiavellian CEO of the democratic party would do the latter but it would not be fair to hillary. she should not be pinned on the cross of electorate prejudice and misinformation. but she really is a bit too easygoing with 'social corruption' at the elite level. if she wins this process should be a learning experience for her. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12341 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:15 Blisse wrote: Okay LegalLord can you piss off with this sarcastic "electable" crap you've been parroting the last 50 pages, like you've complained about, it adds nothing to the conversation and has been debated to death already. He shouldn't piss off with that. It's important that people recognize the bullshit of the argument of electability when used against facts, as it was here, so that Clinton can't use it against the next Sanders 4 years from now. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in a year without trump sanders would get destroyed. against trump, bloomberg might win but he might not. it won't lead to anything good. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:17 Nebuchad wrote: He shouldn't piss off with that. It's important that people recognize the bullshit of the argument of electability when used against facts, as it was here, so that Clinton can't use it against the next Sanders 4 years from now. That's not the point. The point is that LegalLord has just been repeating it over and over for a long time and it's becoming obnoxious and tedious. Anybody who is going to get anything out of LegalLord saying it has already gotten it... a long time ago, even. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Plenty of other countries have much lower campaign limits, much shorter campaign cycles and tighter restrictions on lobbying funds in general (as per usual, Canada and several EU nations are the examples). Voter turnout isn't that much different, the politicians aren't less political, and the corporate representation isn't that different really. Not to say that money doesn't influence politics, but that's its beyond naive to think that less money makes your politics better. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:20 oneofthem wrote: in a year without trump sanders would get destroyed. The only thing that destroyed Bernie this year, or any year, is this platitude, which is baseless. Bernie's cross-party appeal is simply extraordinary. You choose to ignore it. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12341 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:25 WolfintheSheep wrote: This talk about money influencing politics feels like one of those Americentric pipe dreams again. Plenty of other countries have much lower campaign limits, much shorter campaign cycles and tighter restrictions on lobbying funds in general (as per usual, Canada and several EU nations are the examples). Voter turnout isn't that much different, the politicians aren't less political, and the corporate representation isn't that different really. Not to say that money doesn't influence politics, but that's its beyond naive to think that less money makes your politics better. What are the policies that 80%+ of Canadians agree on that you don't get implemented? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:26 Leporello wrote: The only thing that destroyed Bernie this year, or any year, is this platitude, which is baseless. Bernie's cross-party appeal is simply extraordinary. You choose to ignore it. okay, let's say he's against romney whom an extraordinarily popular obama barely beat. then venezuela happens. romney talks about bernie sanders, representing everything that is wrong with the elite liberal establishment, will turn america into a banana republic that he praised in 2011 as closer to the american dream than america itself. rekt. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:24 Aquanim wrote: That's not the point. The point is that LegalLord has just been repeating it over and over for a long time and it's becoming obnoxious and tedious. Anybody who is going to get anything out of LegalLord saying it has already gotten it... a long time ago, even. Well you won't make yourself very electable with that attitude. It's important to sufficiently mock the people who gave an obscenely charitable interpretation to her criticisms in the primary, clinching the nomination but at the same time putting the entire election in the hands of the Republican Party, while having the balls to push one of the stupidest positions ever in trying to convince people she is electable. A fair bit of buyer's remorse around the choice to nominate her. | ||
KwarK
United States43232 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:30 LegalLord wrote: Well you won't make yourself very electable with that attitude. It's important to sufficiently mock the people who gave an obscenely charitable interpretation to her criticisms in the primary, clinching the nomination but at the same time putting the entire election in the hands of the Republican Party, while having the balls to push one of the stupidest positions ever in trying to convince people she is electable. A fair bit of buyer's remorse around the choice to nominate her. It's gotten old. Not quite as old as Nettles spamming to buy gold but still pretty old. You're shitposting and you should stop. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:26 Leporello wrote: The only thing that destroyed Bernie this year, or any year, is this platitude, which is baseless. And the word "socialist". And some other things, like his actual policies. Once again, for the record, I'd have preferred to see Sanders elected and his politics are a lot closer to mine than any of the other candidates... but to say that he would have waltzed through this election is a statement not based in a whole lot of facts. Head-to-head polling during the primaries, when the Republicans were busy dissing Clinton (to Sanders' benefit), is not very meaningful. Would Sanders be doing better than Clinton? I don't know. It's entirely possible. It's also entirely possible he'd be getting slaughtered as a socialist Commie and we'd all be wishing the Democrats had nominated somebody more... electable, to coin a term. (Seriously Legal, knock it off. If you must make those posts contribute something new and interesting in them.) | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:33 KwarK wrote: It's gotten old. Not quite as old as Nettles spamming to buy gold but still pretty old. You're shitposting and you should stop. Fair enough, no more of it for the next week. But if Hillary loses I will be mocking her ungodly electability for a long, long time. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:28 oneofthem wrote: okay, let's say he's against romney whom an extraordinarily popular obama barely beat. then venezuela happens. romney talks about bernie sanders, representing everything that is wrong with the elite liberal establishment, will turn america into a banana republic that he praised in 2011 as closer to the american dream than america itself. rekt. His poll-numbers and approval-ratings speak more than hypotheticals in which you simply presume a conclusion based on... | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:39 oneofthem wrote: it's basically a very anti-hrc electorate. not really her fault. What? None of her thirty-year trail of bullshit that is of her own creation is her fault? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:34 Aquanim wrote: And the word "socialist". And some other things, like his actual policies. Once again, for the record, I'd have preferred to see Sanders elected and his politics are a lot closer to mine than any of the other candidates... but to say that he would have waltzed through this election is a statement not based in a whole lot of facts. Head-to-head polling during the primaries, when the Republicans were busy dissing Clinton (to Sanders' benefit), is not very meaningful. Would Sanders be doing better than Clinton? I don't know. It's entirely possible. It's also entirely possible he'd be getting slaughtered as a socialist Commie and we'd all be wishing the Democrats had nominated somebody more... electable, to coin a term. (Seriously Legal, knock it off. If you must make those posts contribute something new and interesting in them.) Sanders would be doing better than Clinton, because the polling-numbers have always said exactly that. The "commie" charge comes down to policy. I think Bernie would have a very easy time deflecting the accusation into something constructive and revealing -- which by the way, would be a service in itself that this country needs. It plays a lot better than a candidate who bears an umbrella of vague bumper-sticker stigmatas that attack her on a personal level, whether they're deserved or not. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
I think my first post in this thread was saying "This election fucking sucks" and I stand by it. So when someone says Clinton has bad electability, they aren't being a dumpy troll. They're telling it like it is. We're voting against Trump. Not for Hillary. | ||
| ||
