Truth.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democratic Primary Debate VI: Raid Time 2/11 9PM EST
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
Truth.
excelsiorlef
Member
No limits in Canada. To be fair he was a minority leader until 2011
Zok310
Banned
Because that money corrupts our candidates against our interest. Look at Howard Dean, once a big progressive now a lobbyist for health insurance company.
http://youtu.be/R3t4Zj8UVAo
FDR even tried to stack the court at one point, the crafty devil.
I know, I'm just having a bit of a laugh given all the shit Canadians gave us about W.
There is nothing wrong with this.
That's not at all what Bernie was asking for though. He wanted Obama to be challenged on his failings on certain issues, not straight up ousted, simply hold him accountable for his first term decisions. As all politicians should be.
And there is no guarantee in the slightest this would have given Romney the win. Obama would have almost definitely won that primary hands down and been non worse the wear.
I'd vote for Cory Booker as prez in a heartbeat, but it's way too early in his political career for that. Here's to 2024, I suppose.
I understand that, he should've used it after talking about what happens the day after you overthrow a government, instead he pops up talking about Kissinger out of no where. It just looks dumb is all.
If the only thing the next Democratic President achieved was to replace a conservative or two on the court, he or she would have had a monumental Presidency. Not only Citizens United - the EPA, Affirmative Action, the Voting Rights Act, Hobby Lobby - anything remotely controversial that gets past a legislative body is almost always challenged in our judiciary. Our judiciary branch often has The Final Say on these matters.
The legal viability of all of those issues would be fundamentally changed.
To not have a conservative Supreme Court hovering over a future liberal Congress, waiting to strike-down its achievements?
To have a liberal Supreme Court hovering over future conservative Congresses, ready to essentially veto their most egregious excesses?
To have these effects over legislative bodies at all levels of government?
The magnitude of this cannot be understated. It'd be the first time in a generation where the court leans left once again - and either Bernie or Hillary would do well on appointing suitable justices.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
That's a whole lot of hindsight bias.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Please. The banks already have him
Gillibrand vs Booker for 2024 primary, both on the ticket at once for the general. Maximum salt from the GOP.
lastflowers
Banned
haha, gotcha.
RustyNails
Member
Pretty sure you're busy with the history being thrown at you. I also wanted to chime in that Lincoln didn't support banning slavery until he needed a moral argument against secession. He was originally for sending black people back to Africa because he believed the society would be better off that way. The abolitionists' fight against Lincoln is well documented. Even the emancipation was a compromise resulting in a segregationist southern reconstruction era. He changed his views over time and was a pragmatist.
In what way? The actual transcripts of Bernie taking about this have him saying that Obama would get the nomination again but that he should be challenged on these issues. Unless you have a crystal ball I don't know about that says for sure this would have lost Obama the election it's all just pure conjecture and fear mongering.
At that time and place, there was nothing wrong with wanting to hold a politician accountable for their actions. No one is above criticism and no one is entitled to their nomination or office. And I say this as staunch Obama supporter.
Jeffolation
Banned
As an Canadian from the maritime provinces, it was one of the longest and most painful periods in Canadian politics. This guy had nothing but contempt for people from the region and while in office it seemed he wanted to dismantle nearly everything positive this country had going for it. He hurt this country in ways that will take decades to recover from. Also if you want to hear music being debased on a level that cannot be truly comprehended, listen to his band. My God...
Just add, last debate Hillary chose Abraham Lincoln as her most respected President
Ogrekiller
Member
I really do believe that's the message the establishment wants people to believe and consider, but is not necessarily the truth. We shall see. Where Bernie was a year ago compared to where he is now, I don't think anyone could have guessed he'd benefit from this sort of immense momentum.
It's dumb because the reason Obama couldn't do what Sanders wanted had nothing to do with lighting a fire under his ass and everything to do with Congress.
Giving him a primary challenge, even if he easily defeated it would have done nothing on this front. It could only serve to harm him by taking away the single biggest advantage he had in 2012 (that he was already the President with the confidence of his party).
Tesseract
Banned
of course it's not true, the goalposts are real
bernie is doing the impossible, and he probably sleeps pretty well at night.
lastflowers
Banned
Google trends from the debate - stolen from reddit
bwahahahaha
Google trends from the debate - stolen from reddit
lol, CNN was right. Ain't nobody remember Kissinger -- which is also why it's a weak attack.
The pundits also just discussed this and how it's not necessarily wrong that Clinton used Kissinger as one avenue of advice. They said Bill Clinton claimed that the best advice he ever got on the Soviet Union was actually from Richard Nixon.
excelsiorlef
Member
Oh he'd have won the primary but he'd have looked like a complete loser whose party didn't trust him enough
I really doubt a crash will come, a recession is overdue but they are not really that bad.
RustyNails
Member
Hitchens supported the iraq war.
I hope more people find out what a piece of shit Kissinger is.
finowns
Member
If disagreement means 'shitting on' you're correct.
Google trends from the debate - stolen from reddit
Not really sure what to think about that.
Hitchens was a complex human being, like all of us of course.
But of course, I would never speak for the dead myself.
Basileus777
Member
There's not much significance in it. Name gets dropped, people google it. It's not that unique.
Ogrekiller
Member
Quick, who among them won the Nobel Peace prize?
And yet he despised the Clintons.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Ehhh, you could also argue that him being googled so much is a sign it was a strong attack because it caught people's attention. I don't think that data is really indicative one way or the other.
It means "who the fuck is Henry Kissinger?"
I doubt Obama would have been hurt at all.
And it certainly wouldn't have given Romney the win.
Kissinger.
I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to take from it. That they're corrupt hacks? I think Henry's win already proves that. Doesn't say anything substantive about future winners.
Broken clock twice a day yada yada yda.
JesseEwiak
Member
No President who has gotten a serious primary challenge has hone on to win the general election.
Well at least people are educating themselves.
Not just voting for their gender.
Not serious, but too easy based on his insulting assumption about young voters who didn't have experience with Kissinger.
Ogrekiller
Member
Nothing. It was merely an interesting contrast to the war criminal accusations earlier on in the thread.
Zok310
Banned
More like a bunch of young adults was watching the debate, saw the attack, wondered who Bernie and Hillary was referring to, then instantly googled Kissenger's name to get answers.......
Hopefully the folks searching don't deduce that Kissenger was a war criminal that escaped the consequences for his extremely poor decisions because he was part of the establishment.
Should paint a very clear picture for anyone thinking to vote for Hillary, she can't care less about you.
He was and is so.
That's what I got from it. Hoping it leads to some "whoa" moments for some.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Are you seriously saying that slavery was ended by one single act from Lincoln?
There were massive movements behind him, whose seeds were sown decades before Lincoln ever even thought of running for political office. The machine that brought about slavery's end was oiled by the sweat and tears of countess abolitionists, freed slaves, sympathizers, and even politicians who worked tirelessly to end it.
Your glib dismissal of the arduous work of people like James Oglethorpe (who laid out the frame upon which many abolitionist thinkers hung their arguments), Fredrick Douglas, William Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, and literally thousands of others who risked (or gave) life, limb, and fortune to kill the beast does them a massive disservice and weakens your argument.
You look at Lincoln and say he ended slavery with a single revolutionary action by taking a pen and signing a sheet of paper that set slaves free. But that pen was filled with the blood of those who fought and died for years and years to bring about that ending. The abolishment of slavery wasn't a revolution. It was an unbelievably slow journey that only culminated in that final act you reference.
You'd do well to realize most revolutions are actually evolutions that only look fast and easy in hindsight. Change--real change--takes work, it takes time, and it takes the efforts of countless people whom time will simply forget.
I'm sure you're probably joking, but this wasn't meant as a Black History Month essay. It's the debate I got into with a Sanders supporter at work who insisted that the country needs a revolution, then went on to talk about Lincoln's "revolutionary" act.
My only point is that wasn't a revolution. Lincoln was a capstone on something that had started before he was even born. To forget or toss aside their efforts and struggles is just not fair to them, and it's intellectually dishonest.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked