"I support $12 federal minimum wage but am okay with jurisdictions with higher cost of living raising their wage higher" isn't really a flip flop if she's then celebrating a jurisdiction with a high cost of living raising their wage to $15/hour.
New Quinnipiac Polls: Hillary leads Trump by 1 in FL, PA. Trump leads by 4 in OH
- Thread starter NeoXChaos
- Start date
- Status
"I support $12 federal minimum wage but am okay with jurisdictions with higher cost of living raising their wage higher" isn't really a flip flop if she's then celebrating a jurisdiction with a high cost of living raising their wage to $15/hour.
Congrats on missing my point. Trumps "flip flops" aren't actual flip flops at all. They're basically lies to fool people. Nothing he has said on the minimum wage would give us a higher minimum wage.
That also raised it to $15 only in NYC, and left it at $12.50 in the suburbs/rural areas.
People ignoring economic evidence because they don't like what it tells them is not restricted to the right wing, unfortunately.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
US News rankings shenanigans obviously
Its very interesting to see this in motion. I'll be honest, I dont believe it. I just don't; it's too much for me to swallow.
I feel like a guy saying the stuff Trump has both over the years and in this primary are so disgusting that no one REALLY believes he is just doing it for the 'lulz' in a fucking presidential election. I think the starting point for this rationale is a dislike for his clear running opponent, Clinton. It has to be a search for an alternative that fuels this sort of cognitive dissonance.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
you actually didn't give any type of example, all you said was I'm an idiot for asking you for some type of evidence to back up your claim.
You do realize that this was before those speeches right?
Aaron Strife
Banned
I also think if you want to say going from "I support this, but it's probably not likely, so let's start smaller" to just "I support this" is a flip-flop, then Bernie's lost any claim to ideological purity on gay marriage ("c'mon Vermont, let's just do civil unions!"), racial inequality or gun control (issues he's expressed that he doesn't really care about).
I wonder, what's the point of no return in the campaign timeline where we accept that any right-wing rhetoric Trump is still peddling has to be real? After the convention? November 1?
There was a great political cartoon on this I wish I had bookmarked.
On Hillary: "Can't support her, cause you can't believe what she says"
On Trump: "I'm supporting him because he doesn't mean what he says"
The cognitive dissonance is absolutely absurd.
Trump's winning with men and women !
Just watch the polls keep coming, Trump is going to win, win, win !
Hillary has only one card to play and that's the only issue that she talks about because she doesn't want to the about real issues like securing the boarder, lowering taxes, getting jobs, fixing 'obamacare', destroying ISIS. She is as Bernie Sanders says, unfit for the job !
Just watch the polls keep coming, Trump is going to win, win, win !
Hillary has only one card to play and that's the only issue that she talks about because she doesn't want to the about real issues like securing the boarder, lowering taxes, getting jobs, fixing 'obamacare', destroying ISIS. She is as Bernie Sanders says, unfit for the job !
So what? You're telling me she's a changed woman?
QuantumZebra
Member
Yea but he's just saying stuff and pandering to the right and lying to them, so you can trust that he's really a secret liberal on tons of stuff, way more than that other person who is saying really liberal shit who is secretly a republican!
It's mind-numbing isn't it.
I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance that would lead someone who identifies more as a liberal to vote for Trump.
hydrophilic attack
Member
The thing about Trump's constant flip-flops is that confirmation bias will make it seem like he shares your opinion on any issue. It's a strategy that makes him into a walking Rorsach test for low-information voters.
Anf it may just pay off. Sad!
Anf it may just pay off. Sad!
I said that her not wanting to reinstate Glass-Steagall makes no sense for a liberal politician unless she's been influenced
Ah, thanks, I skipped most of P2 of the thread.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
When was the last time an election was decided on a 41-38 margin? That's clue number one. Clue number two is that apparently this electorate is going to be whiter than the 2014 midterms, and older than 2012. Final clue is that the other polling in these states don't show anything like these numbers.
Somebody has to do something about these fucking cherry picked poll threads because it's going to be really bad for the next 6 months.
Somebody has to do something about these fucking cherry picked poll threads because it's going to be really bad for the next 6 months.
I don't see how anyone can read about Trump trying to lower the national debt by getting creditors to accept less than face value from the US Treasury and not call it utter and absolute lunacy. Like it's hard to criticize it properly since the idea itself, the absolute shattering of the stability and security offered by the US Treasury is what we're known for.
Like sure lets let him do as he wishes and try and treat national debt like his other bankruptcies. Throw creditors 60 cents on the dollar and we can enjoy our national debt drop while grandma is out on her ass as her SS is decimated and the rest of us enjoy sky high interest rates.
Now imagine that slip up on the scale Trump is presenting. Fucking. Stupid. Fullstop.
The man isn't anything on economics other than a joke.
Like sure lets let him do as he wishes and try and treat national debt like his other bankruptcies. Throw creditors 60 cents on the dollar and we can enjoy our national debt drop while grandma is out on her ass as her SS is decimated and the rest of us enjoy sky high interest rates.
Now imagine that slip up on the scale Trump is presenting. Fucking. Stupid. Fullstop.
The man isn't anything on economics other than a joke.
"I'm liberal, but I want to judicially kneecap our chances of achieving liberal policy goals for the next 20-30 years."
Yep. That makes perfect sense.
OkaySure.gif
Black Mamba
Member
Who wants to meet Donald Trump's New Finance Chairman?
But yeah, Hillary is the one with the ties to Wall Street, big banks, etc.
Not Nice Guy Mr. Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/b...-fund-raiser-is-rife-with-contradictions.html
But yeah, Hillary is the one with the ties to Wall Street, big banks, etc.
Not Nice Guy Mr. Trump
It was actually posted earlier:
Exactly this. Those cartoons are supposed to be satire. But here we are.
In any case it doesn't make me worry for the election at all. That's in the bag, but it does make me facepalm pre-emptively. Because these people clearly hate Hillary and have an entire caricature in their mind of her being some secret evil villain, meaning during her presidency as progressive policy is passed, I expect the same cognitive dissonance to make these people unbearably annoying.
A super liberal supreme court nominee? She's just pandering!
We are finally overturning Citizens United? So what! What about breaking up banks! That should have been done by now! She's moving to slow!
It's going to be worse than Obama. The more progressive progress she makes, the louder the peanut gallery will get as they struggle to reconcile the internal caricature against reality.
Good Job Bob
Member
Trump is single-handedly destroying the Republican party, that makes him the de facto greatest left-wing hero currently running.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
I was happy that Don Lemon had two economists in yesterday and they didn't have them arguing "both sides of the issue." They both agreed it's the stupidest idea and like I said earlier: it might work... once. After that, we're fucked.
i dont remember if the right gave two shits about Paulites... i dont know why people are getting worked up about them moving to the shiny object on the left. They are a loud inconsequential group
ThLunarian
Member
I actually want to see if anyone has a response to this, because so far those of you ragging on this guy have been silent on it. Is this actually an indicator that she might be partially bought off by big business?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Are you ignoring the second part of what she says, where she says Glass-Steagall doesn't cover nearly enough anymore considering the multiple other factors in the economy and what actually brought down the economy in 08'?
I know it's a lovely liberal talking point of "Glass-Steagall would have saved us all!!!", but it's simply just that, a talking point that is greatly outdated but still useful for a nice little sound bite.
rob305
Member
-Trump wants to hire one of the best for the job.
-Turns out the guy worked for GS 15yrs ago because they hire the best in the field.
You imply GS has control over Trump
Man, your logic
Empyrean Heaven
Member
Probably not. Generally New England, New York, Minnesota, and the West Coast vote Blue, while everything else votes red. There are some exceptions but that's why the big swing states are FL, PA, OH, and VA.
Many many Americans have no idea how the national debt even works, much less why Trump's plan would be disastrous and divorced from reality.
This talking point has been addressed a number of times in the debates. Glass-Steagall wasn't the one and only boogeyman responsible for the crash, and reinstating it would not be a comprehensive patch on Wall Street excesses, which is Hillary's whole position.
Black Mamba
Member
That's not my logic at all. You've set up a straw man. Actually, you set up two.
1. I never mentioned GS at all, I mentioned Wall Street and big banks overall.
2. I never argued anything about Trump other than he also has ties.
My point was to refute the whole Hillary is a shill for WS and Banking while Trump is some independent who doesn't give a shit about them. His Finance chairman, whose explicit job now will be to get large donations from millionaires and billionaires, comes from GS family, GS, and Big Banking (One West).
Like, I'm not arguing at all that Trump is bought by WS and Big Banks.
I'm arguing you cannot on one hand argue Hillary is bought by WS and Big Banks and hand wave away Trump's connections with the other as if then he isn't.
That's fucking bullshit.
The next time you criticize someone's logic, perhaps you should re-read the post to actually understand what was posted.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
rofl, quick someone whip out that magic map of him getting 270 in a 3 way race!
boiled goose
good with gravy
Trump has highest unfavorables in history for major party candidate.
Guess who is # 2?
People don't distrust her on social issues, though she tends to be late to the party (Gay marriage support till 2013)
They distrust her on foreign policy and the economy.
Trump is already outflanking Hillary on the left on a few issues. Rhetoric, who the fuck knows what he actually believes or will do.
Isreal-Palestine.
Trade.
Corrupting influence of money in politics.
Iraq war.
Good Job Bob
Member
No and NO.
JesseEwiak
Member
No, he isn't and no he wouldn't.
He will win the Participation award
Box of Kittens
Banned
I can already see the collective internet freakout on election night when the polls first close, returns start trickling in from rural precincts, and a couple of red states are called for Trump.
"Trump's winning the popular and electoral vote!!!!"
"Trump's winning the popular and electoral vote!!!!"
The 'he' you refer to is Trump, right?
First off thats not what he is indicating
However! If giving a speech at a company you dont work at for pay is enough for someone to imply Wallstreet has control over Hillary, then WORKING at a company for pay is absolutely in the same ballpark.
That you realize that logic is hilariously faulty is actually hopeful. Maybe it might help you see how ridiculous it is to act like Hillary is some Wall Street shill for giving a paid speech.
Karsticles
Member
Why would the FBI want to hire hackers that broke into their website? They're hackers!
He is not going to run as an independent, and if he did, he would absolutely not win.
How is that even a plausible scenario? If Bernie can't win the Democratic nomination, how is he expected to win a general election (and as a third-party candidate, no less)?
boiled goose
good with gravy
.
With Electoral college system it would make no sense for him to run as a third party, even if the GOP runs a third party v trump. It just doesn't work out for him. Remember, he wasn't really interested in running for president, just didn't want a Hillary coronation without a progressive challenge.
If warren had run, he wouldn't have.
I agree it doesn't really work out, but a primary very different from the general. Hillary wouldn't win the south vs GOP plus independents can vote. Democrats are only ~29% of voters.
That said, I agree he would not win. People would be hesitant to vote for third party and it would only make it easier for GOP to win (either candidate or house deciding because no majority)
It would not be a 100% fix, but there's no perceptible reason not to reinstate it. It would definitely help.
Vermin Supreme?
Nope. It'll go one of two ways:
1. Split dem votes lead to Trump win
2. All 3 don't get the needed amount, house elects Trump/other republican anyway because they are Republican dominated.
Bernie would not win squat.
- Status