|
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. |
On April 08 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:Milo had turned on Trump over the Syrian airstrikes. Some other alt right people seem to be upset too. Show nested quote +In an exclusive statement to Mediaite, Yiannopoulos said Trump’s sudden foreign adventurism was “not why people voted for Daddy.”
“I’m as troubled by violence toward innocent children as the next sociopath, but those kids are only growing up to be oppressors of women and murderers of homosexuals anyway,” said Yiannopoulos in an email. “NO MORE POINTLESS FOREIGN WARS. This is not why people voted for Daddy. It’s the opposite of why people voted for him.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-milo-yiannopoulos-breaks-with-trump-on-syria-not-why-people-voted-for-daddy/These people seem very fickle strangely
There are so many valid reasons why you could oppose those strikes. Even just the good old "not our business" theme which would have perfectly fit here...
But "those kids are shit anyway" is just ... I lack words...
|
On April 08 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:Milo had turned on Trump over the Syrian airstrikes. Some other alt right people seem to be upset too. Show nested quote +In an exclusive statement to Mediaite, Yiannopoulos said Trump’s sudden foreign adventurism was “not why people voted for Daddy.”
“I’m as troubled by violence toward innocent children as the next sociopath, but those kids are only growing up to be oppressors of women and murderers of homosexuals anyway,” said Yiannopoulos in an email. “NO MORE POINTLESS FOREIGN WARS. This is not why people voted for Daddy. It’s the opposite of why people voted for him.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-milo-yiannopoulos-breaks-with-trump-on-syria-not-why-people-voted-for-daddy/These people seem very fickle strangely
All their political power and relevance is due to the refugee crisis fueling the high levels of xenophobia. If everyone starts fighting Assad and helping people, they sort of lose a big part of their platform.
And Milo continues to be a garbage person.
|
On April 08 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:Milo had turned on Trump over the Syrian airstrikes. Some other alt right people seem to be upset too. Show nested quote +In an exclusive statement to Mediaite, Yiannopoulos said Trump’s sudden foreign adventurism was “not why people voted for Daddy.”
“I’m as troubled by violence toward innocent children as the next sociopath, but those kids are only growing up to be oppressors of women and murderers of homosexuals anyway,” said Yiannopoulos in an email. “NO MORE POINTLESS FOREIGN WARS. This is not why people voted for Daddy. It’s the opposite of why people voted for him.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-milo-yiannopoulos-breaks-with-trump-on-syria-not-why-people-voted-for-daddy/These people seem very fickle strangely
how is it fickle?
They seem upset that trump changed his stance and did the opposite of what he said he'd do.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 08 2017 05:02 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:Milo had turned on Trump over the Syrian airstrikes. Some other alt right people seem to be upset too. In an exclusive statement to Mediaite, Yiannopoulos said Trump’s sudden foreign adventurism was “not why people voted for Daddy.”
“I’m as troubled by violence toward innocent children as the next sociopath, but those kids are only growing up to be oppressors of women and murderers of homosexuals anyway,” said Yiannopoulos in an email. “NO MORE POINTLESS FOREIGN WARS. This is not why people voted for Daddy. It’s the opposite of why people voted for him.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-milo-yiannopoulos-breaks-with-trump-on-syria-not-why-people-voted-for-daddy/These people seem very fickle strangely There are so many valid reasons why you could oppose those strikes. Even just the good old "not our business" theme which would have perfectly fit here... But "those kids are shit anyway" is just ... I lack words...
This is Milo, who most here are not huge fans of - he says provocative stuff on a regular basis. He got fired from his previous position for supporting pedophilia.
What's relevant is that he is a Trump die-hard that is now switching his position.
|
On April 08 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 04:53 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You can’t have single payer by just passing it and then getting voted out. Otherwise it is under constant threat of being removed. Or worse, imploding under poor management of the other party. You need to win more than one election, so you can’t promise the moon and then not deliver. Ah, well single payer isn't a unicorn or "the moon", it's (or some variation) how many modern countries run their healthcare system. Fundamentally what matters is establishing that the government views healthcare as a right, but the Democratic party has to catch up with Coal mining Trump supporters in West Virginia on that one.
Reminder that those countries that do have UHC took several decades to transition into it.
In Canada, at least, the majority of the transition happened at provincial levels first, and then a national plan was negotiated out after that.
Now, I would expect a country like US to build off of other nations' work and infrastructure and get it done faster. But it will take a building of frameworks, legal systems and shifts from existing systems, all of which take time. Promising it within a single term is either naivety or a lie.
|
On April 08 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:Milo had turned on Trump over the Syrian airstrikes. Some other alt right people seem to be upset too. Show nested quote +In an exclusive statement to Mediaite, Yiannopoulos said Trump’s sudden foreign adventurism was “not why people voted for Daddy.”
“I’m as troubled by violence toward innocent children as the next sociopath, but those kids are only growing up to be oppressors of women and murderers of homosexuals anyway,” said Yiannopoulos in an email. “NO MORE POINTLESS FOREIGN WARS. This is not why people voted for Daddy. It’s the opposite of why people voted for him.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-milo-yiannopoulos-breaks-with-trump-on-syria-not-why-people-voted-for-daddy/These people seem very fickle strangely
Yeah... Weird to have Democrats cheer-leading a guy they told us couldn't be trusted with America's military as he launches missiles into a country he may or may not be able to find on an unlabeled map. Meanwhile the "crazies" on the alt-right are upset Trump is exactly the con man everyone told them he was.
Then there's the folks that said "Hillary might actually be more hawkish than Trump" who got laughed at and shouted down, while now she advocates for MORE escalation in Syria. Her supporters suggest this is just a political stunt and if he was serious he'd escalate too, as if we're supposed to now think Trump is "Presidential" because he talked about a dead soldier at his joint address and launched some missiles (he might have a financial interest in) into a country he doesn't have the slightest fucking clue about.
People are cray cray
|
United States42016 Posts
On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Yes, it was.
Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was doing with things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge.
|
On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge.
Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign...
|
On April 08 2017 05:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:Milo had turned on Trump over the Syrian airstrikes. Some other alt right people seem to be upset too. In an exclusive statement to Mediaite, Yiannopoulos said Trump’s sudden foreign adventurism was “not why people voted for Daddy.”
“I’m as troubled by violence toward innocent children as the next sociopath, but those kids are only growing up to be oppressors of women and murderers of homosexuals anyway,” said Yiannopoulos in an email. “NO MORE POINTLESS FOREIGN WARS. This is not why people voted for Daddy. It’s the opposite of why people voted for him.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-milo-yiannopoulos-breaks-with-trump-on-syria-not-why-people-voted-for-daddy/These people seem very fickle strangely how is it fickle? They seem upset that trump changed his stance and did the opposite of what he said he'd do.
Fickle in the sense that this is a strange place to draw the line. I would've figured many of them would've gotten upset about mnunchin , but that wasn't the case at all. Total lack of criticism fork this crowd until now.
|
United States42016 Posts
On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign...
Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan.
|
On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan.
That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on".
|
On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on".
Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 08 2017 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:Milo had turned on Trump over the Syrian airstrikes. Some other alt right people seem to be upset too. In an exclusive statement to Mediaite, Yiannopoulos said Trump’s sudden foreign adventurism was “not why people voted for Daddy.”
“I’m as troubled by violence toward innocent children as the next sociopath, but those kids are only growing up to be oppressors of women and murderers of homosexuals anyway,” said Yiannopoulos in an email. “NO MORE POINTLESS FOREIGN WARS. This is not why people voted for Daddy. It’s the opposite of why people voted for him.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-milo-yiannopoulos-breaks-with-trump-on-syria-not-why-people-voted-for-daddy/These people seem very fickle strangely Yeah... Weird to have Democrats cheer-leading a guy they told us couldn't be trusted with America's military as he launches missiles into a country he may or may not be able to find on an unlabeled map. Meanwhile the "crazies" on the alt-right are upset Trump is exactly the con man everyone told them he was. Then there's the folks that said "Hillary might actually be more hawkish than Trump" who got laughed at and shouted down, while now she advocates for MORE escalation in Syria. Her supporters suggest this is just a political stunt and if he was serious he'd escalate too, as if we're supposed to now think Trump is "Presidential" because he talked about a dead soldier at his joint address and launched some missiles (he might have a financial interest in) into a country he doesn't have the slightest fucking clue about. People are cray cray
The support of Hillary Clinton included quite a long delusion train. This was basically a necessity - the arguments in favor of her, without any Trump to complain about, are lacking at best. The establishment folk were fully behind her, but that was hardly a good thing. In response to most problems the "never mind that, we HAVE TO stop TRUMP because he is dangerous." Unfortunately it was true that Trump was every bit as bad as his opponents said - shitty at leadership on top of being unreliable and liable to change his mind - but unfortunately that description doesn't apply to Trump alone.
|
The US is still in need of healthcare reform but I doubt that a proposal to expand an entitlement that costs $1 trillion already to the entire population will go anywhere in Congress.
|
On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either.
The myth was that it would be any different for Hillary. Additionally, Bernie and his ideas appeal to republicans.
Currently, 60% of Americans say the government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, compared with 38% who say this should not be the government’s responsibility.
Source
Lastly he had a strategy that was meant to compete for the 1000+ seats Democrats lost under Obama and Hillary.
On April 08 2017 05:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization.
The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality.
You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization.
The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality.
You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either. That is true. Bernie probably wouldn't have been the solution to the problems we had. But, you know, I'd rather have deadlock than what we have right now. A lack of consensus is better than a Republican consensus - Hillary-led or Trump-led.
yeah that too, I made this point during the election as well.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either.
That is true. Bernie probably wouldn't have been the solution to the problems we had. But, you know, I'd rather have deadlock than what we have right now. A lack of consensus is better than a Republican consensus - Hillary-led or Trump-led.
|
On April 08 2017 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization.
The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality.
You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization.
The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality.
You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either. The myth was that it would be any different for Hillary. Additionally, Bernie and his ideas appeal to republicans. Show nested quote +Currently, 60% of Americans say the government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, compared with 38% who say this should not be the government’s responsibility. SourceLastly he had a strategy that was meant to compete for the 1000+ seats Democrats lost under Obama and Hillary.
Yeah, and how do those percentages change when you attach a D or an R next to the plan?
|
On April 08 2017 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization.
The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality.
You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization.
The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality.
You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either. The myth was that it would be any different for Hillary. Additionally, Bernie and his ideas appeal to republicans. Show nested quote +Currently, 60% of Americans say the government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, compared with 38% who say this should not be the government’s responsibility. SourceLastly he had a strategy that was meant to compete for the 1000+ seats Democrats lost under Obama and Hillary. Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:21 LegalLord wrote:On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either. That is true. Bernie probably wouldn't have been the solution to the problems we had. But, you know, I'd rather have deadlock than what we have right now. A lack of consensus is better than a Republican consensus - Hillary-led or Trump-led. yeah that too, I made this point during the election as well.
GH, those opinion polls don’t matter. The majority of Americans don’t want a complete ban on abortion, want background checks and think we should fund education better. Republicans still get elected.
Once single payer is passed, there is a long and ongoing fight to make it work. Just like the ACA. You need to be in power for term after term.
I don’t really understand your argument. You just seem to shut down every time someone tries to have some discussion with you about how it’s hard to govern. No one really disagrees with you, but you just fight anyways for some reason.
|
On April 08 2017 05:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either. The myth was that it would be any different for Hillary. Additionally, Bernie and his ideas appeal to republicans. Currently, 60% of Americans say the government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, compared with 38% who say this should not be the government’s responsibility. SourceLastly he had a strategy that was meant to compete for the 1000+ seats Democrats lost under Obama and Hillary. Yeah, and how do those percentages change when you attach a D or an R next to the plan?
Well it could be an (I), but like I said, Bernie's got a Trump voting coal miner and a Trump delegate in WV on board, I think it can do okay if Democrats actually get behind it and don't run scared.
|
On April 08 2017 05:02 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:Milo had turned on Trump over the Syrian airstrikes. Some other alt right people seem to be upset too. In an exclusive statement to Mediaite, Yiannopoulos said Trump’s sudden foreign adventurism was “not why people voted for Daddy.”
“I’m as troubled by violence toward innocent children as the next sociopath, but those kids are only growing up to be oppressors of women and murderers of homosexuals anyway,” said Yiannopoulos in an email. “NO MORE POINTLESS FOREIGN WARS. This is not why people voted for Daddy. It’s the opposite of why people voted for him.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-milo-yiannopoulos-breaks-with-trump-on-syria-not-why-people-voted-for-daddy/These people seem very fickle strangely There are so many valid reasons why you could oppose those strikes. Even just the good old "not our business" theme which would have perfectly fit here... But "those kids are shit anyway" is just ... I lack words...
Well Milo is a fucking asshole, there is really nothing new here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
