|
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 07:33 LegalLord wrote:
I swear, there's a nontrivial portion of the base that is still trying to say, "See? You really wish you had gotten behind Hillary now, don't you? Told you so!" Rather than exploring the genuine reasons for the widespread loss (not just at the presidential level) like they should.
No, idiot. There was a reason why people opposed your ungodly electable loser and her most loyal underlings. And it's not because they were racist sexist xenophobic Russians.
It's pretty reasonable for most people to have a threshold where they will regret their decisions. People's thresholds will be different but I'm sure there's plenty of perfectly reasonable Bernie/Trump voters who were on the fence and are least disappointed by the outcome so far.
|
United States43758 Posts
On April 08 2017 07:42 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 07:33 LegalLord wrote:
I swear, there's a nontrivial portion of the base that is still trying to say, "See? You really wish you had gotten behind Hillary now, don't you? Told you so!" Rather than exploring the genuine reasons for the widespread loss (not just at the presidential level) like they should.
No, idiot. There was a reason why people opposed your ungodly electable loser and her most loyal underlings. And it's not because they were racist sexist xenophobic Russians. Bro you just don't see it, she won the popular vote. Don't you get it, she was the most electable and popular candidate in the history of us politics. No one has beaten anyone in such a popular fashion before, I mean I'm sorry the democrats now have nobody, hrc was truly their last champion. Wait I take that back, I think everyone is underestimating Tim Kaine 2020, he might be even more electable.
I mean there are actually options other than LegalLord's "literally nobody wanted Hillary to be President" and "she was the most popular candidate in the history of US politics". LegalLord is making the kind of argument that only a moron would make when he says that nobody wanted Hillary to be President when he knows that nearly 66 million people backed her for the job in the ballot box. Don't try to double down on his idiocy by presenting an equally absurd straw man alternative and then making the argument that if the straw man is wrong then surely LegalLord must be right. You're better than that argument.
|
On April 08 2017 08:10 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 07:33 LegalLord wrote:
I swear, there's a nontrivial portion of the base that is still trying to say, "See? You really wish you had gotten behind Hillary now, don't you? Told you so!" Rather than exploring the genuine reasons for the widespread loss (not just at the presidential level) like they should.
No, idiot. There was a reason why people opposed your ungodly electable loser and her most loyal underlings. And it's not because they were racist sexist xenophobic Russians. It's pretty reasonable for most people to have a threshold where they will regret their decisions. People's thresholds will be different but I'm sure there's plenty of perfectly reasonable Bernie/Trump voters who were on the fence and are least disappointed by the outcome so far.
The problem, of course, is that they would have been just as disappointed by the alternative. As soon as Hillary Clinton decided she must be president, no matter the cost, it was only a matter of time before we got here.
|
Should we rename the thread to the "rehashing the 2016 election" thread? It seems to me that's the primary activity, and discussion of more recent topics is basically peripheral. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 election was totally crazy and worthy of discussion, but I came back to figure out if we're gonna wind up in a war with Syria or not. I would have thought that'd be a hotter topic
|
Every time Trump does something stupid, the discussion tangentially rotates back to Hillary. And Trump does a lot of stupid things.
|
On April 08 2017 08:54 ChristianS wrote:
Should we rename the thread to the "rehashing the 2016 election" thread? It seems to me that's the primary activity, and discussion of more recent topics is basically peripheral. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 election was totally crazy and worthy of discussion, but I came back to figure out if we're gonna wind up in a war with Syria or not. I would have thought that'd be a hotter topic
no, we should just encourage a limit on people making ridiculous posts rehashing stuff endlessly; which due to their ridiculous bs in the starting ones, causes discussion chains rather than just statements that then end and we go back to the normal discussion.
|
On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen.
Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself.
But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss:
Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ?
Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back?
*due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance...
I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again.
|
On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again.
teh electability talk mostly comes from legal bitching about it after the fact; rather than being a real strain of thought during the primaries, in which it was more of a neutral matter. it really wasn't a recurrent argument by the actual democratic voters. iirc kwiz gave a very detailed account of the issue at some point.
public statements about where they're moving often aren't that representative of the real behind the scenes decisions/changes; and at any rate, it's still the case that what we hear in thread isn't serious, or even snarky, commentary on where the dems are moving, but endless harping on thing sthat have been discussed to death (and even then it's usually partial misrepresentation of what actually happened, sadly repeated lying isn't actionable unless the mods deem it extremely blatant).
|
On April 08 2017 08:54 ChristianS wrote:
Should we rename the thread to the "rehashing the 2016 election" thread? It seems to me that's the primary activity, and discussion of more recent topics is basically peripheral. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 election was totally crazy and worthy of discussion, but I came back to figure out if we're gonna wind up in a war with Syria or not. I would have thought that'd be a hotter topic
To be fair, in this case it's because Hillary went and ran her electable mouth on the Syria matter that we're talking about her.
|
On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again.
I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message.
|
Clinton said she isn't running for public office again so maybe people can finally move on from that. Good lord.
But the 69-year-old also said she had no plans to run for office again.
“I am looking at doing interesting things, I don’t think that will include ever running for office again,” she told the audience.
link
|
On April 08 2017 10:46 CobaltBlu wrote:
Clinton said she isn't running for public office again so maybe people can finally move on from that. Good lord.
When did she say that?
|
On April 08 2017 08:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 08:10 Azuzu wrote:On April 08 2017 07:33 LegalLord wrote:
I swear, there's a nontrivial portion of the base that is still trying to say, "See? You really wish you had gotten behind Hillary now, don't you? Told you so!" Rather than exploring the genuine reasons for the widespread loss (not just at the presidential level) like they should.
No, idiot. There was a reason why people opposed your ungodly electable loser and her most loyal underlings. And it's not because they were racist sexist xenophobic Russians. It's pretty reasonable for most people to have a threshold where they will regret their decisions. People's thresholds will be different but I'm sure there's plenty of perfectly reasonable Bernie/Trump voters who were on the fence and are least disappointed by the outcome so far. The problem, of course, is that they would have been just as disappointed by the alternative. As soon as Hillary Clinton decided she must be president, no matter the cost, it was only a matter of time before we got here.
Trump was largely a wildcard about how he would govern and who he would appoint. Hillary would have been entirely predictable nod towards the status quo. When faced with a decision between a hidden prize and mediocre known prize, who is really more likely to be disappointed? Of course, some people will wish they had taken the gamble afterwards but I would imagine considerably less regret it since they knew what they were getting from the start.
|
On April 08 2017 08:54 ChristianS wrote:
Should we rename the thread to the "rehashing the 2016 election" thread? It seems to me that's the primary activity, and discussion of more recent topics is basically peripheral. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 election was totally crazy and worthy of discussion, but I came back to figure out if we're gonna wind up in a war with Syria or not. I would have thought that'd be a hotter topic
You see the reason why she's up again is because she thinks Trump isn't hawkish enough. She thinks we should be MORE aggressive in Syria right now (despite not knowing whether it was actually Assad, though it very well could have been).
So when people dumped on Bernie supporters for saying Hillary was probably more hawkish than Trump and a significant amount of Republicans/Trump voters, we were right, her supporters were wrong.
On April 08 2017 10:46 CobaltBlu wrote:Clinton said she isn't running for public office again so maybe people can finally move on from that. Good lord. Show nested quote +But the 69-year-old also said she had no plans to run for office again.
“I am looking at doing interesting things, I don’t think that will include ever running for office again,” she told the audience.
link
Are you unfamiliar with Hillary Clinton? She said multiple times she wasn't running in 2016. Including while she was coordinating with her superPAC and legally while she and Bill were still giving paid speeches. Her word is pretty worthless.
But at least we have more good news like this on the horizon:
Russia is deploying a missile-armed frigate to the Mediterranean Sea, where two U.S. destroyers fired missiles targeting a Syrian airbase Thursday night.
Russian news agency Tass reported Friday that the Admiral Grigorovich was heading to the Mediterranean on what it described as a “routine voyage.”
Fox News, citing an unnamed U.S. defense official, reported Friday afternoon that the Russian ship had cross the Bosphorus Strait “a few hours ago” from the Black Sea and was heading toward the direction of the U.S. warships.
source
|
On April 08 2017 08:54 ChristianS wrote:
Should we rename the thread to the "rehashing the 2016 election" thread? It seems to me that's the primary activity, and discussion of more recent topics is basically peripheral. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 election was totally crazy and worthy of discussion, but I came back to figure out if we're gonna wind up in a war with Syria or not. I would have thought that'd be a hotter topic
Hillary just gave an hour long interview where she humorously blames everything but her campaign md the gingerbread man for her election loss (I linked vid earlier). So she did re-emerge into the news...and once again because of the Syria comments.
Learning the lessons from Hillary's failed presidential run would be a healthy development in the Democrats third Congressional defeat in three elections, which is newsworthy at irregular intervals. Similarly, some of us still consider her alternative to have been worse for America EVEN knowing what Trump has said and done in his first ~three months (shitposter clarification: a war with Syria/Russia/Iran would tip me against).
And it's been a hot topic for some pages now.
|
I wonder where Trump is going to go from here. His most consistent supporters rightfully turned on him for this Syria issue and his establishment handlers never liked him. Maybe he's going to be another Republican agenda puppet because this shit is precisely what happens when a directionless chump meets with more hardships for his promises than he bargained for.
|
On April 08 2017 13:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 08:54 ChristianS wrote:
Should we rename the thread to the "rehashing the 2016 election" thread? It seems to me that's the primary activity, and discussion of more recent topics is basically peripheral. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 election was totally crazy and worthy of discussion, but I came back to figure out if we're gonna wind up in a war with Syria or not. I would have thought that'd be a hotter topic Hillary just gave an hour long interview where she humorously blames everything but her campaign md the gingerbread man for her election loss (I linked vid earlier). So she did re-emerge into the news...and once again because of the Syria comments. Learning the lessons from Hillary's failed presidential run would be a healthy development in the Democrats third Congressional defeat in three elections, which is newsworthy at irregular intervals. Similarly, some of us still consider her alternative to have been worse for America EVEN knowing what Trump has said and done in his first ~three months (shitposter clarification: a war with Syria/Russia/Iran would tip me against). And it's been a hot topic for some pages now.
Quick syntax clarification: would war Russia, Syria, OR Iran tip you against? Or only war with all three?
|
On April 08 2017 11:21 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 08:44 LegalLord wrote:On April 08 2017 08:10 Azuzu wrote:On April 08 2017 07:33 LegalLord wrote:
I swear, there's a nontrivial portion of the base that is still trying to say, "See? You really wish you had gotten behind Hillary now, don't you? Told you so!" Rather than exploring the genuine reasons for the widespread loss (not just at the presidential level) like they should.
No, idiot. There was a reason why people opposed your ungodly electable loser and her most loyal underlings. And it's not because they were racist sexist xenophobic Russians. It's pretty reasonable for most people to have a threshold where they will regret their decisions. People's thresholds will be different but I'm sure there's plenty of perfectly reasonable Bernie/Trump voters who were on the fence and are least disappointed by the outcome so far. The problem, of course, is that they would have been just as disappointed by the alternative. As soon as Hillary Clinton decided she must be president, no matter the cost, it was only a matter of time before we got here. Trump was largely a wildcard about how he would govern and who he would appoint. Hillary would have been entirely predictable nod towards the status quo. When faced with a decision between a hidden prize and mediocre known prize, who is really more likely to be disappointed? Of course, some people will wish they had taken the gamble afterwards but I would imagine considerably less regret it since they knew what they were getting from the start.
Rolling dice for every decision would also be a wildcard. And a d20 as president would be immeasurably better than Trump. Please, America, it's time to roll a sanity check.
|
On April 08 2017 11:21 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 08:44 LegalLord wrote:On April 08 2017 08:10 Azuzu wrote:On April 08 2017 07:33 LegalLord wrote:
I swear, there's a nontrivial portion of the base that is still trying to say, "See? You really wish you had gotten behind Hillary now, don't you? Told you so!" Rather than exploring the genuine reasons for the widespread loss (not just at the presidential level) like they should.
No, idiot. There was a reason why people opposed your ungodly electable loser and her most loyal underlings. And it's not because they were racist sexist xenophobic Russians. It's pretty reasonable for most people to have a threshold where they will regret their decisions. People's thresholds will be different but I'm sure there's plenty of perfectly reasonable Bernie/Trump voters who were on the fence and are least disappointed by the outcome so far. The problem, of course, is that they would have been just as disappointed by the alternative. As soon as Hillary Clinton decided she must be president, no matter the cost, it was only a matter of time before we got here. Trump was largely a wildcard about how he would govern and who he would appoint. Hillary would have been entirely predictable nod towards the status quo. When faced with a decision between a hidden prize and mediocre known prize, who is really more likely to be disappointed? Of course, some people will wish they had taken the gamble afterwards but I would imagine considerably less regret it since they knew what they were getting from the start.
Trump has never been a wildcard. There was no chance on earth his unpredictability was going to lead to anything better than the statu quo.
Take any issue, like the environment. Was there a chance that he would be better than Clinton?
Or taxation, was there a chance in heaven he would have a more progressive, fairer taxation plan than Clinton?
You elect an ignorant, vindicative, incompetent, unstable man to office, and you get a lot of uncertainty. It's uncertain if it's gonna be god awful or worse than that. The possibility that Trump could be better than Clinton was never remotely there.
|
On April 08 2017 08:58 TheYango wrote:
Every time Trump does something stupid, the discussion tangentially rotates back to Hillary. And Trump does a lot of stupid things.
Even if the discussion does go back to Hillary - she approves the bombing of targets in Syria anyway so it's probably better to discuss the ramifications rather than the characters.Anyone who was hoping for change with Trump got burned but we'd be in exactly the same situation if Clinton won.
Thu Apr 6, 2017 | 10:38pm EDT
Hillary Clinton calls for U.S. to bomb Syrian air fields
Asked whether she now believes that failing to take a tougher stand against Syria was her worst foreign policy mistake as secretary of state under President Barack Obama, Clinton said she favored more aggressive action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"I think we should have been more willing to confront Assad," Clinton said in the interview, conducted by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.
"I really believe we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hillary-clinton-idUSKBN179058
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
