Support NeoGAF

[Cheebo]

I'm not angry about the primaries, I'm angry about the last 35 years. I'm not going to be a default democrat anymore. Bernie is passable. Hillary is not. If the Democratic Party won't back a left candidate, then they are not the party for me. Parties die...maybe it's time for the Democratic Party to die.

If they did it ushers in decades of super majority control of the country by Republicans.

The death of Democrats will be perceived as the country being too conservative for them. When Democrats lose they shift to the center that's what happens.

Your are advocating for the complete control of all levels of governments by conservatives. You aren't looking at this logically at all.

 

[shinra-bansho]

You live in a FPTP country. If you fracture the centre-left flank of the political spectrum unilaterally, all you'll end up with is perpetual Republican administrations.

 

[Black Mamba]

I want a real left and I won't vote for a Democrat that isn't part of the real left. Democrats wanna try 'Republican-lite' once again? Okay. Do that, but I want you to lose the left as punishment so that we can actually form some sort of identity outside the Democratic Party.

You want progress too quickly. That's the problem.

Ask for everything, get nothing. That's how you allow the GOP to win. That's how you get the Democrat Party to move right. How you get this country to move right.

You want this country to move left in a significant way? Be prepared to get into a long fight that will require winning every small battle you can, not expecting everything to go your way and when it doesn't try to burn it all down.

African Americans fought for centuries and are still fighting. Homosexuals. Minorities. Women. So many people are fighting for decades upon decades to get the change they want. Imagine if not winning over night they all said "fuck it, let the racists/sexists/xenophobes have their way then." Where would we be today if they threw in the towel because they had to compromise.

You think this country will be better off if the GOP wins? People like you thought that in 2000. All that led to was us moving to the right, us engaging in a fruitless war that has had worldwide repercussion. We moved right. We're only now moving left because Obama is in office. Slowly but surely. We will move back right if Hillary/Bernie don't win.

You think the Left will become more Left because the Right wins? No, that's not how it will work.

If you want progress, you need to understand how that comes about. And this whole notion of progress through losing is nonsensical.

 

[Yellowtail]

The Louisiana GOP making that Hail Mary pass:

MISSING: Unmonitored Syrian refugee last seen in Baton Rouge

It’s no secret that Obama’s biggest fan in Louisiana is John Bel Edwards. In Tuesday’s gubernatorial debate, John Bel admitted that he would rather talk to the Obama Administration about the flood of incoming Syrian refugees than take action to stop them and do thorough background checks before letting them wander around on our streets.

John Bel and Obama are not the right men to handle this Syrian refugee situation. That much is clear.

Just yesterday, David Vitter had to notify the Obama Administration that a Syrian refugee who had been living in Baton Rouge has gone missing. What kind of accountability is that? There is an unmonitored Syrian refugee who is walking around freely, and no one knows where he is.

That’s why we need to get everyone to the polls on Saturday to vote for David Vitter.

http://www.lagop.com/blog/2015/11/18/missing-unmonitored-syrian-refugee-last-seen-in-baton-rouge

 

[ivysaur12]

The Louisiana GOP making that Hail Mary pass:


http://www.lagop.com/blog/2015/11/18/missing-unmonitored-syrian-refugee-last-seen-in-baton-rouge

Not really the move of a winning campaign.

 

[disastermouse]

You might as well deport those 11 million Hispanics with your own hands.

I know, right? I won't vote for Hillary in the general. Obviously, I must be a monster!

If I'm a monster, I'm a monster that the Democratic Party has been making for 30 years.

 

[Dominican Power]

You want progress too quickly. That's the problem.

Ask for everything, get nothing. That's how you allow the GOP to win. That's how you get the Democrat Party to move right. How you get this country to move right.

You want this country to move left in a significant way? Be prepared to get into a long fight that will require winning every small battle you can, not expecting everything to go your way and when it doesn't try to burn it all down.

African Americans fought for centuries and are still fighting. Homosexuals. Minorities. Women. So many people are fighting for decades upon decades to get the change they want. Imagine if not winning over night they all said "fuck it, let the racists/sexists/xenophobes have their way then." Where would we be today if they threw in the towel because they had to compromise.

You think this country will be better off if the GOP wins? People like you thought that in 2000. All that led to was us moving to the right, us engaging in a fruitless war that has had worldwide repercussion. We moved right. We're only now moving left because Obama is in office. Slowly but surely. We will move back right if Hillary/Bernie don't win.

You think the Left will become more Left because the Right wins? No, that's not how it will work.

If you want progress, you need to understand how that comes about. And this whole notion of progress through losing is nonsensical.

The problem is that this country is fundamentally and culturally conservative. It's not like in Europe. America is still an immature ass country.

 

[ivysaur12]

I know, right? I won't vote for Hillary in the general. Obviously, I must be a monster!

If I'm a monster, I'm a monster that the Democratic Party has been making for 30 years.

You'd also push the Democratic party further to the right and shrinking the progressive base. But you do you.

 

[Poodlestrike]

The short version is that Disastermouse is comfortable enough to not give a flying fuck about the rest of the country. Pretty basic FYGM mentality.

I honestly find you very, very despicable.

 

[Coriolanus]

You want progress too quickly. That's the problem.

Ask for everything, get nothing. That's how you allow the GOP to win. That's how you get the Democrat Party to move right. How you get this country to move right.

This completely ignores that the other party has been asking for everything and getting everything but the presidency, which also coincides with the period where, aside from social issues, neoliberalism has grown stronger than ever.

Well, aside from the industrial revolution, i guess.

 

[disastermouse]

You want progress too quickly. That's the problem.

Ask for everything, get nothing. That's how you allow the GOP to win. That's how you get the Democrat Party to move right. How you get this country to move right.

You want this country to move left in a significant way? Be prepared to get into a long fight that will require winning every small battle you can, not expecting everything to go your way and when it doesn't try to burn it all down.

African Americans fought for centuries and are still fighting. Homosexuals. Minorities. Women. So many people are fighting for decades upon decades to get the change they want. Imagine if not winning over night they all said "fuck it, let the racists/sexists/xenophobes have their way then." Where would we be today if they threw in the towel because they had to compromise.

You think this country will be better off if the GOP wins? People like you thought that in 2000. All that led to was us moving to the right, us engaging in a fruitless war that has had worldwide repercussion. We moved right. We're only now moving left because Obama is in office. Slowly but surely. We will move back right if Hillary/Bernie don't win.

You think the Left will become more Left because the Right wins? No, that's not how it will work.

If you want progress, you need to understand how that comes about. And this whole notion of progress through losing is nonsensical.

Oh yeah, about that war...who voted in favor of it? That's right, our very own Hillary! Such judgement! So values!

 

[B-Dubs]

You want progress too quickly. That's the problem.

Ask for everything, get nothing. That's how you allow the GOP to win. That's how you get the Democrat Party to move right. How you get this country to move right.

You want this country to move left in a significant way? Be prepared to get into a long fight that will require winning every small battle you can, not expecting everything to go your way and when it doesn't try to burn it all down.

African Americans fought for centuries and are still fighting. Homosexuals. Minorities. Women. So many people are fighting for decades upon decades to get the change they want. Imagine if not winning over night they all said "fuck it, let the racists/sexists/xenophobes have their way then." Where would we be today if they threw in the towel because they had to compromise.

You think this country will be better off if the GOP wins? People like you thought that in 2000. All that led to was us moving to the right, us engaging in a fruitless war that has had worldwide repercussion. We moved right. We're only now moving left because Obama is in office. Slowly but surely. We will move back right if Hillary/Bernie don't win.

You think the Left will become more Left because the Right wins? No, that's not how it will work.

If you want progress, you need to understand how that comes about. And this whole notion of progress through losing is nonsensical.

Shit, I should bookmark this post and quote it whenever someone says some shit like that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.lagop.com/blog/2015/11/18/missing-unmonitored-syrian-refugee-last-seen-in-baton-rouge

the amount of pure racism coming from the GOP is amazing

Just yesterday, David Vitter had to notify the Obama Administration that a Syrian refugee who had been living in Baton Rouge has gone missing. What kind of accountability is that? There is an unmonitored Syrian refugee who is walking around freely, and no one knows where he is.

That’s why we need to get everyone to the polls on Saturday to vote for David Vitter. Vitter flew up to DC yesterday to introduce legislation in the United States Senate that would stop all incoming refugees until we’ve conducted thorough, adequate background and criminal history checks.

and this is the actual story

http://theadvocate.com/news/14012129-172/catholic-charities-one-syrian-immigrant

 

[disastermouse]

You'd also push the Democratic party further to the right and shrinking the progressive base. But you do you.

If the Democratic Party goes further right, maybe progressives will snap out of it and form a real alternative to the dismal democrats. We'll never know if they just keep pressing the button for 'almost Republicans' like HRC.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't get why no one feels the Chafe for his war vote, arguably more notable given he was the only Republican senator to do so.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm not angry about the primaries, I'm angry about the last 35 years. I'm not going to be a default democrat anymore. Bernie is passable. Hillary is not. If the Democratic Party won't back a left candidate, then they are not the party for me. Parties die...maybe it's time for the Democratic Party to die.

Sheesh because of this kind of thinking we got Bush is the White House :/

 

[Coriolanus]

Because i need a place to comment on this oh my god why
after i ninja'd my mother's stand mixer, she asked me to give her a new one, portable.
find the best model, buy it, arrives, test it, pretty damn solid, give it to her.

asks me to return it because, and this is not a fucking joke, it is black. And (also not a joke) she then mentions that she has never trusted a black kitchen appliance.

If the Democratic Party goes further right, maybe progressives will snap out of it and form a real alternative to the dismal democrats. We'll never know if they just keep pressing the button for 'almost Republicans' like HRC.

HRC is not even remotely almost republican, come on man. She's satan, sure, but not a republican.

 

[Doc Holliday]

If the Democratic Party goes further right, maybe progressives will snap out of it and form a real alternative to the dismal democrats. We'll never know if they just keep pressing the button for 'almost Republicans' like HRC.

Same sex marriage was legalized...think about that for a minute. In this country who's president happens to be black btw, we have same sex marriage. That is fucking nuts! If you call that republican lite then shit I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Doc Holliday]

HRC is not even remotely almost republican, come on man. She's satan, sure, but not a republican.

She fought her ass off for single payer healthcare. I'm a Bernie fan but let's stop pretending that Clinton is Joe Lieberman.

 

[B-Dubs]

If the Democratic Party goes further right, maybe progressives will snap out of it and form a real alternative to the dismal democrats. We'll never know if they just keep pressing the button for 'almost Republicans' like HRC.

So you haven't been paying attention to anything at all then.

 

[Black Mamba]

That problem is that this country is fundamentally and culturally conservative. It's not like in Europe. America is still an immature ass country.

Also correct.

This completely ignores that the other party has been asking for everything and getting everything but the presidency, which also coincides with the period where, aside from social issues, neoliberalism has grown stronger than ever.

Well, aside from the industrial revolution, i guess.

Incorrect. They got the Senate back for 2 years right now, but we don't know how long that lasts. And they won't have the Judiciary at all if Hillary wins.

What we're also seeing is that the "left" has concentrated into urban areas and those areas are vastly underrepresented in Congress. The issue isn't gerrymandering as much as urban density. A city like LA should have significantly more votes than all of central cali combined. But it doesn't.

Also, the "other side" is fighting a losing battle long term and the above poster wants to take that strategy and run it for the left. That's the incorrect approach. The right is winning battles right now but it will lose the war. You can't look at the short game, it's a long run. Don't mistake short term gains for long term sustainability.

Oh yeah, about that war...who voted in favor of it? That's right, our very own Hillary! Such judgement! So values!

Yeah, based on intelligence that was fabricated. Most Americans wanted to go to war then.

But this ignores my point. How many countless lives were lost around the world because of people like you who didn't vote for Al Gore because he wasn't "left enough," at the time. You think we go into Iraq with President Gore?

How much collateral damage are you willing to take for your side to "win." That's why I hate this shit. That's why I never say "lol Kansas gets what they deserve," because lots of people in Kansas didn't vote for the current asshats. They're just being fucked over by the majority that do vote for them.

Imagine all the work people like MLK Jr and numerous others have done in their lives to achieve real progress and change. And here you are saying "well if I don't get my way RIGHT NOW the other side might as well win." Imagine if that was MLK's attitude. Where would we be.

Progress takes lots and lots and lots of gritty, hard work where you take every little victory you can.

You want the country to move left but you'e not willing to work for it because you think you're entitled to it. For those that do fight, you're as much an obstacle to progress as someone on the "other side."

 

[NeoXChaos]

So you haven't been paying attention to anything at all then.

no he has not and it shows.

 

[Basileus777]

This completely ignores that the other party has been asking for everything and getting everything but the presidency, which also coincides with the period where, aside from social issues, neoliberalism has grown stronger than ever.

Well, aside from the industrial revolution, i guess.

The Republicans haven't gotten much from their control of Congress, it's one of the reasons why this primary is going the way it is. All those tea partiers are just as politically naive and demanding as those on the far left, and even more frustrated that things haven't gone their way despite their electoral victories.

 

[Coriolanus]

Also, the "other side" is fighting a losing battle long term and the above poster wants to take that strategy and run it for the left. That's the incorrect approach. The right is winning battles right now but it will lose the war. You can't look at the short game, it's a long run. Don't mistake short term gains for long term sustainability.

The long view is that they've been dictating the terms of economic policy since Reagan, mate.

The Republicans haven't gotten much from their control of Congress, it's one of the reasons why this primary is going the way it is. All those tea partiers are just as politically naive and demanding as those on the far left, and even more frustrated that things haven't gone their way despite their electoral victories.

Can you name at least one individual that is a member of the far left and has a seat in congress?

 

[disastermouse]

Same sex marriage was legalized...think about that for a minute. In this country who's president happens to be black btw, we have same sex marriage. That is fucking nuts! If you call that republican lite then shit I don't know what to tell you.

How many more Middle East entanglements? No public option. TPP. Sequester. Drone wars. Minimum wage. Before Obama? NAFTA. 'Workfare'. Mandatory minimums. Don't ask, don't tell.

 

[disastermouse]

The long view is that they've been dictating the terms of economic policy since Reagan, mate.

Exactly! Supply-side economics and the rest of the nightmare of neoliberal economic policy has been obvious for 30 years but Democrats won't fight against it. Hillary most certainly won't fight against it.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Exactly! Supply-side economics and the rest of the nightmare of neoliberal economic policy has been obvious for 30 years but Democrats won't fight against it. Hillary most certainly won't fight against it.

Why would Clinton support supply-side economics when neither her husband or Obama did so?

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Because i need a place to comment on this oh my god why
after i ninja'd my mother's stand mixer, she asked me to give her a new one, portable.
find the best model, buy it, arrives, test it, pretty damn solid, give it to her.

asks me to return it because, and this is not a fucking joke, it is black. And (also not a joke) she then mentions that she has never trusted a black kitchen appliance.

What did you say to that?

 

[disastermouse]

Also correct.



Incorrect. They got the Senate back for 2 years right now, but we don't know how long that lasts. And they won't have the Judiciary at all if Hillary wins.

What we're also seeing is that the "left" has concentrated into urban areas and those areas are vastly underrepresented in Congress. The issue isn't gerrymandering as much as urban density. A city like LA should have significantly more votes than all of central cali combined. But it doesn't.

Also, the "other side" is fighting a losing battle long term and the above poster wants to take that strategy and run it for the left. That's the incorrect approach. The right is winning battles right now but it will lose the war. You can't look at the short game, it's a long run. Don't mistake short term gains for long term sustainability.



Yeah, based on intelligence that was fabricated. Most Americans wanted to go to war then.

But this ignores my point. How many countless lives were lost around the world because of people like you who didn't vote for Al Gore because he wasn't "left enough," at the time. You think we go into Iraq with President Gore?

How much collateral damage are you willing to take for your side to "win." That's why I hate this shit. That's why I never say "lol Kansas gets what they deserve," because lots of people in Kansas didn't vote for the current asshats. They're just being fucked over by the majority that do vote for them.

Imagine all the work people like MLK Jr and numerous others have done in their lives to achieve real progress and change. And here you are saying "well if I don't get my way RIGHT NOW the other side might as well win." Imagine if that was MLK's attitude. Where would we be.

Progress takes lots and lots and lots of gritty, hard work where you take every little victory you can.

You want the country to move left but you'e not willing to work for it because you think you're entitled to it. For those that do fight, you're as much an obstacle to progress as someone on the "other side."

I voted for Gore. This isn't a result of this primary, although this primary has put the issue in stark relief. This is the result of all of my adult life - every presidential election since 1992.

 

[User 406]

The long view is that they've been dictating the terms of economic policy since Reagan, mate.

That's right, the rift that the Southern Strategy created has been working itself out by eroding away all the progressive gains from the previous half century.

Overcoming that is part of that long struggle too. Just because it's taking a long time doesn't mean it's futile, any more than any of the other long struggles were.

 

[Cheebo]

Oh yeah, about that war...who voted in favor of it? That's right, our very own Hillary! Such judgement! So values!

There wouldn't have been a war to even vote on if liberals didn't decide Gore was not liberal enough and voted for Nader instead you realize right?

Gore was deemed too corporate, not liberal enough. More of the same so self-entitled liberals voted Nader.

You know who wouldn't have taken us to war? Fucking Al Gore.

Please do tell me why liberals voting Nader over Gore in swing states such as Florida was a good thing in 2000.

 

[Retromelon]

Yep. They still don't matter. It's too far out.

how come nobody said this when Hillary just got in and was 50 points ahead of everyone

 

[Black Mamba]

The long view is that they've been dictating the terms of economic policy since Reagan, mate.

Uh, and that's been crumbling since Obama came to office. How many states are raising minimum wages?

What's the country's overall position on raising taxes on wealthy?

How did the fiscal cliff deal end up, again?

Yeah, we're still feeling the fallout from that shit stain Reagan, but progress has been made and will continue to be made.

We are on the verge of a major economic shift in this country thanks to obama's presidency. Don't be impatient.

How many more Middle East entanglements? No public option. TPP. Sequester. Drone wars. Minimum wage. Before Obama? NAFTA. 'Workfare'. Mandatory minimums. Don't ask, don't tell.

The Middle East entanglements are a direct result of W Bush and people like you voting Nader, so thanks for that.

No public option is exactly my point. Not willing to work hard. Would I like Medicare for all? healthcare public option for all? yes. But it's not feasible. So let's play your game. Let's say you're right and that by going all in on the public option or nothing we get nothing now and 30 years from now a public option. Well, how many people died in that time because you felt entitled to only your way? The ACA was a major step to the left that helps millions of people. And here you go whining about the lack of a public option.

Don't ask don't tell was also progress as the time. Would you prefer the alternative?

We're winning the minimum wage fight, slowly. States are the ones making that move because the GOP Congress won't go along.

Political realities matter. All the progress and none of the work, like a spoiled child.



Where would we be today with a President McCain or Romney? no ACA. more inequality. More wars. More everything you probably hate. And guess what, it wouldn't turn the country more left any quicker.

 

[Black Mamba]

I voted for Gore. This isn't a result of this primary, although this primary has put the issue in stark relief. This is the result of all of my adult life - every presidential election since 1992.

As I have argued numerous times on here, Reagan's presidency was a major catastrophe that we are still working ourselves out of. We are finally on the verge of truly turning that corner.

I honestly believe with 8 years of Hillary, this country is going to be making a huge move left in 2024. the only thing that can stop it is a President Trump/Rubio (I won't entertain the others as having a chance). For instance, a President Rubio would basically put us right back to 1988 unless there's another disaster ala 2007 with W. Bush.

I understand it's frustrating for you. I hear you. I hate how slow this is taking. But what happened under Reagan is not something that can be fixed in under 50 years, as sad as that sounds. Christ, African Americans are still second class citizens in this nation after 200 years.

You have to fight the urge to basically give up. Take every small victory you can. Keep pushing that push. We'll get there.

how come nobody said this when Hillary just got in and was 50 points ahead of everyone

Actually, I did. I've been steadfast for a year here to ignore all GE polls no matter what.

 

[ivysaur12]

how come nobody said this when Hillary just got in and was 50 points ahead of everyone

I do think people actually said this.

 

[Retromelon]

Actually, I did. I've been steadfast for a year here to ignore all GE polls no matter what.

props. How come *more people didnt
also if anyone knows how you make the giant electric serpent come out of the water in shadow of the colossus i would be grateful for the info

 

[BertramCooper]

How many more Middle East entanglements? No public option. TPP. Sequester. Drone wars. Minimum wage. Before Obama? NAFTA. 'Workfare'. Mandatory minimums. Don't ask, don't tell.

You forgot Benghazi.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Trade protectionism is kind of an interesting variant on the FYGM type mentality, given liberalisation of trade and FDI being generally accepted as an antecedent to the reduction of the most abject of global poverty. It's one of those issues that typically spans the political spectrum too, similar to nationalistic immigration policies.

 

[User 406]

props. How come *more people didnt

Well, I didn't, because I didn't pay any attention to posts about GE polling early on because that's dumb stuff.

also if anyone knows how you make the giant electric serpent come out of the water in shadow of the colossus i would be grateful for the info

It's been so many years since I played it, but I think you have to stay above it, and wait for the tail to pop out of the water as it passes beneath you and grab hold.

 

[danm999]

If the Democratic Party goes further right, maybe progressives will snap out of it and form a real alternative to the dismal democrats. We'll never know if they just keep pressing the button for 'almost Republicans' like HRC.

Honestly the Democrats aren't the impediment to forming a progressive party worthy of the name; it's the US voters.

Even Sanders has to play to his state voters on issues like gun control that would make him stick out like a sore thumb in dozens of other left wing parties around the world.

 

[User 406]

Honestly the Democrats aren't the impediment to forming a progressive party worthy of the name; it's the US voters.

Shhh, nobody's supposed to know that shaking up the parties doesn't randomly generate a completely new electorate.

 

[Coriolanus]

Uh, and that's been crumbling since Obama came to office. How many states are raising minimum wages?
What's the country's overall position on raising taxes on wealthy?
How did the fiscal cliff deal end up, again?
Yeah, we're still feeling the fallout from that shit stain Reagan, but progress has been made and will continue to be made.
We are on the verge of a major economic shift in this country thanks to obama's presidency. Don't be impatient.

How close are you to raising the minimum wage at the federal level?
How likely are you to keep wages adjusted if you keep losing states to republicans?
How much did the other party suffer for all the bullshit they pulled with the fiscal cliff?

Yes, progress has been made, but the idea that progress has been made at the ideal speed, and if you just push a little more it'll all come crumbling down doesn't seem to be backed by anything.

I am not defending that democrats run far left candidates. They wouldn't even know where to find one. I am, however, defending that candidates try to push the envelope far more than they currently do, and think very carefully before they concede any sort of ground as far as economic rhetoric is concerned.

Also that new democrats should get fucked.

But aside from that, and this is something i am genuinely asking you, is there good reason to believe that hills wont just be bill 2.0?

The Middle East entanglements are a direct result of W Bush and people like you voting Nader, so thanks for that.

You don't blame the electorate when that fuckwit couldn't even carry his own state.

What did you say to that?

We ain't returning shit.

 

[RastaMentality]

@fmanjoo: Is this correct: none of the Paris attackers came in as refugees? The whole story about that was based on a forged passport? Yes?

Because if so, I think you (meaning media people) could make a good argument that breaking news misinfo actually affected policy here

Is this accurate? Because if it is, the GOP effectively jumped on this (along with the general Syria-ISIS connection) for fear mongering.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

We ain't returning shit.

Lol

 

[Cheebo]

You don't blame the electorate when that fuckwit couldn't even carry his own state.

His home state was more conservative in 2000 than Gore was in 2000. Yes, the voters were to blame. Gore has proven himself time and time again to be a solid strong liberal who would have done a pretty damn good job as President.

Gore was not the problem, idiotic liberals were. If even 2-3% of Naders voters in Florida voted Gore there would never have been a recount.

 

[disastermouse]

You forgot Benghazi.

Benghazi is not a concern for the left - the concerns I listed were left concerns, not Fox talking points.

 

[Cheebo]

Benghazi is not a concern for the left - the concerns I listed were left concerns, not Fox talking points.

It's honestly hard to see any difference between you and tea party Fox News loving Republicans based on your post history. You both want to see Democrats lose and Republicans control the government.

You plan to fuck over minorities just as much as they do based on how you plan to vote. Otherwise why vote to help Republicans in a swing state?

 

[Basileus777]

Gore was not the problem, idiotic liberals were. If even 2-3% of Naders voters in Florida voted Gore there would never have been a recount.

Or if 4% of New Hampshire voters hadn't gone with Nader, Florida would have been irrelevant.

 

[Jack Remington]

"What I'd like is build a safe zone, it's here, build a big beautiful safe zone and you have whatever it is so people can live, and they'll be happier."

I have like 10 safe zone settlements going in Fallout 4 right now. It's the same thing, no? Build some walls, throw down some mattresses, install some water pumps, plant some corn and melons, put up some turrets around the perimeter and you're good to go!

 

[User 406]

But aside from that, and this is something i am genuinely asking you, is there good reason to believe that hills wont just be bill 2.0?

Hillary fought pretty damn hard for universal health care back in the 90's and lost. It's also been pointed out over and over that she has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

Let's face it, both Hillary and Bill have had to be pragmatic about things, which is why a lot of stuff that's pretty odious now in hindsight got passed during his terms because the national mood was different. I was out of college and married when DADT was passed, and at the time it was pretty widely considered to be very progressive, because it actually allowed gay people to serve in the military, as long as they kept it on the dl. Not actively rooting them out and discharging them was considered progress back then. That's where the country's head was at at the time on gay rights.

I don't think there's any doubt that Hillary would like to move things leftward, and she's going to try to do so as far as the electorate will allow it. That her assessment of what the electorate will allow differs from other people doesn't change that. And with her experience in that regard, I tend to think she's closer to the mark than disgruntled leftists. Especially since all current polling evidence is making it glaringly obvious that at least half of our citizens are fucking psychotic bigots from hell. You gotta work with what you have.