Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

White supremacist makes "are you in a bubble?" quiz that "somehow" asks zero questions about if you're ever met a person of color. PBS decides to publish it online:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2/

 

[Armaros]

According to millennials - hence the article

I don't see any polling in corroborate his ideas.

So that's just his opinion.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Millennials are super against money in politics while being indifferent towards Democracy and support Bernie Sanders while being indifferent to wealth redistribution and taxation.

It's really hard to poll millennials in a way that comes out coherent.

 

[Dangansona]

It's not a gendered attack, it's a characteristic pointed out against her because she's a member of the Democratic party who is surprisingly conservative when it comes to foreign policy.

By the way, it shocks me how pro-Hillary GAF is. I'm not saying how dare you support her or anything like that, but it's just not what I expected from what I presume the demographics of NeoGAF are.

 

[noshten]

I really don't understand Hillary's characterization as hawkish. I honestly may need to be educated, because to me it seems like a gendered attack.

Hillary has stated countless times that she has no intention of getting the US involved in another ground war. Her position on Libya was grounded in the fact that Gaddafi was about to slaughter a shit ton of his own people, and the US was being called to help by our allies. And yeah, people are free to disagree with the intentions behind her Iraq vote, but her stated logic is sound (Bush DID lie to the American people, and he did mislead he Senate into believing that he would give the UN inspectors time before jumping into a ground assault).

To me at least, Hillary Clinton has come across on foreign policy in a way that I would best describe as "shrewd", and I can't help but feel like a male in her position, with her views, would be characterized in just that way. Hawkish is a word best left for the Republicans currently fellating themselves over who can best fanfic-ize military intervention in their speeches

Kissinger was also a person who people would describe as shrewd

Also if you think Gaddafi slaughtering a shit ton of his own people is a reason for the US to get involved in regime change - I have some bad news for you. It pretty much gives Clinton a reason to get entangled in potentially a dozen different countries. Personally I've said it in the past but the whole humanitarian "reasons" for killing Gaddafi are a load of bullshit used by Western States to justify a regime change. Gaddafi's human rights record is no worse than a lot of dictators Clinton has close ties with.

She has advocated for a no fly zone in Syria, what exactly do you think a no fly zone involves? A no fly zone is pretty much a declaration of war and requires a lot of military presence to be implemented.

I don't even want to get into the Iraq war and how she has justified that decision for years.

I don't see any polling in corroborate his ideas.

So that's just his opinion.

It is - hence the article

Article =/= Editorial.

I was agreeing with you that it's his opinion, whether you call it an article or editorial is immaterial to me

 

[Armaros]

Kissinger was also a person who people would describe as shrewd

Also if you think Gaddafi slaughtering a shit ton of his own people is a reason for the US to get involved in regime change - I have some bad news for you. It pretty much gives Clinton a reason to get entangled in potentially a dozen different countries. Personally I've said it in the past but the whole humanitarian "reasons" for killing Gaddafi are a load of bullshit used by Western States to justify a regime change. Gaddafi's human rights record is no worse than a lot of dictators Clinton has close ties with.

She has advocated for a no fly zone in Syria, what exactly do you think a no fly zone involves? A no fly zone is pretty much a declaration of war and requires a lot of military presence to be implemented.

I don't even want to get into the Iraq war and how she has justified that decision for years.



It is - hence the article

Article =/= Editorial.

 

[royalan]

Kissinger was also a person who people would describe as shrewd

Also if you think Gaddafi slaughtering a shit ton of his own people is a reason for the US to get involved in regime change - I have some bad news for you. It pretty much gives Clinton a reason to get entangled in potentially a dozen different countries. Personally I've said it in the past but the whole humanitarian "reasons" for killing Gaddafi are a load of bullshit used by Western States to justify a regime change. Gaddafi's human rights record is no worse than a lot of dictators Clinton has close ties with.

She has advocated for a no fly zone in Syria, what exactly do you think a no fly zone involves? A no fly zone is pretty much a declaration of war and requires a lot of military presence to be implemented.

I don't even want to get into the Iraq war and how she has justified that decision for years.

But why? I suppose that is the crux of what I'm asking here. Why would Hillary Clinton want to get entangled in endless conflict? The explanations always seem to stop at "because she does." Where is this evidence that Hillary Clinton is a warmonger that is so strong that it leaves people no choice but to not take her at her word that she has no intention to plunge the US into further conflict?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

people remove a lot of the context. Shit was real back then, folks were looking for anything and everything to stop it.

I mean, that's true (though no more true than in the late 1970s and early 1980s), but one of the big criticisms of the Clintons is that they DO lead from behind on a lot of issues like that, that they're easily swayed by opinion polls and thus more open to bad policy. I can't imagine Obama being as open to passing sweeping anti-crime measures like that, for example, because Obama is a lot more measured and thoughtful in terms of the kinds of changes he's willing to implement. Presidents can set the tone for the national political conversation (one of the reasons many Bernie supporters want him to be POTUS even knowing that he's not likely to get his policies passed), but both the Clintons are the types of politicians willing to have the tone set for them. That, to me, is a big drawback.

Edit: Read the "Obama Doctrine" article in The Atlantic. It's pretty clear that Clinton, while not necessarily a neoconservative, is VERY comfortable with foreign intervention if she thinks there is a greater humanitarian concern, and I don't see any evidence that, post-Libya, she has learned her lesson of why this is a bad approach to take in the modern geopolitical sphere.

 

[Macho Madness]

Trump is a champion of women, okay?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/71374721380193894

And people say I'm not! Can you believe that? The media *points at cameras* they're terrible and want you to believe that. Folks, I'm the best with women.

 

[royalan]

I mean, that's true (though no more true than in the late 1970s and early 1980s), but one of the big criticisms of the Clintons is that they DO lead from behind on a lot of issues like that, that they're easily swayed by opinion polls and thus more open to bad policy. I can't imagine Obama being as open to passing sweeping anti-crime measures like that, for example, because Obama is a lot more measured and thoughtful in terms of the kinds of changes he's willing to implement. Presidents can set the tone for the national political conversation (one of the reasons many Bernie supporters want him to be POTUS even knowing that he's not likely to get his policies passed), but both the Clintons are the types of politicians willing to have the tone set for them. That, to me, is a big drawback.

Not even Bernie Sanders would agree with that, considering his critique of Obama for the Wall Street bailout, and TPP.

 

[noshten]

But why? I suppose that is the crux of what I'm asking here. Why would Hillary Clinton want to get entangled in endless conflict? The explanations always seem to stop at "because she does." Where is this evidence that Hillary Clinton is a warmonger that is so strong that it leaves people no choice but to not take her at her word that she has no intention to plunge the US into further conflict?

Obama’s reticence frustrated Power and others on his national-security team who had a preference for action. Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama’s secretary of state, argued for an early and assertive response to Assad’s violence. In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad … left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Obama became “rip-shit angry,” according to one of his senior advisers. The president did not understand how “Don’t do stupid shit” could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes recalls that “the questions we were asking in the White House were ‘Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is pro–stupid shit?’ ” The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit. (Clinton quickly apologized to Obama for her comments, and a Clinton spokesman announced that the two would “hug it out” on Martha’s Vineyard when they crossed paths there later.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

 

[Makai]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/26/bill-maher-ted-cruz-less-awful-than-donald-trump/

Bill Maher ended his talk show Friday night by settling the debate over which Republican presidential candidate is less awful, saying he would rather see Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in the White House than businessman Donald Trump.

The “Real Time” host said it was a hard choice between two candidates who were like Mussolini and Joe McCarthy, but said in the end that Mr. Cruz might be our worst president, but Mr. Trump might be our last, Mediaite reported.

“Donald Trump is like Ebola. He’ll violently kill you right away,” Mr. Maher said. “Cruz is more like the Zika virus, we won’t see the damage until future generations.”

Mr. Maher also called Mr. Trump “the most thin-skinned person in human history,” saying he overreacts to the smallest slights, “whereas Ted Cruz is immune to insults because he’s had to live in a world where everyone, everywhere hates him.”

He said he chose Mr. Cruz because Mr. Trump is a “lunatic” who might make people disappear.

“What does he do on day one? Send Megyn Kelly to Guantanamo Bay?” Mr. Maher asked, referencing Mr. Trump’s ongoing feud with the Fox News anchor.

Mr. Maher finished the segment by washing his mouth with bleach and throwing on a hat with the slogan, "Better Ted Than Dead."

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Not even Bernie Sanders would agree with that, considering his critique of Obama for the Wall Street bailout, and TPP.

I don't really care about what Bernie Sanders thinks. If anything, lack of action and spinelessness caused by overthinking is Obama's great fault, but to me, it's vastly preferable to somebody being too easily swayed by public opinion.

 

[Hexa]

Trump is a champion of women, okay?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/71374721380193894

And people say I'm not! Can you believe that? The media *points at cameras* they're terrible and want you to believe that. Folks, I'm the best with women.

Tweet is gone. What did it say?

 

[Abinash117]

But why? I suppose that is the crux of what I'm asking here. Why would Hillary Clinton want to get entangled in endless conflict? The explanations always seem to stop at "because she does." Where is this evidence that Hillary Clinton is a warmonger that is so strong that it leaves people no choice but to not take her at her word that she has no intention to plunge the US into further conflict?

Because she manipulated Obama to get in those wars or her comments as SoS. Either way as a SoS she follows Obama's foreign policy she does not do her own thing. How they completely try to frame is completely stupid as hell and disingenuous, they do this by completely forgoing Obama's role on the conflicts forgetting that he is alone- the sole person who dictates the foreign policy and the decision is finial based on him. While placing the blame on Hillary like she is responsible for it or mostly.

 

[royalan]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

...so it all comes back to her Iraq vote?

 

[Tesseract]

Bernie's unstoppable now, thank you universe. Thank you birdie.

 

[Macho Madness]

Oh the guy who wrote the article I linked to earlier wrote a rebuttal to the Rolling Stone article: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/matt-taibbi-case-against-hillary-weak

Essentially, it's mostly about foreign policy. And those are my biggest concerns with her as well.

 

[dramatis]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

A President Hillary Clinton would almost certainly be more confident about the utility of force than President Obama has been (or a President Biden would have been). She was the most enthusiastic of all of Obama’s senior civilian advisors about the counterinsurgency plan his generals proposed for Afghanistan in 2009; she helped persuade a very reluctant commander in chief to bomb Libya to prevent atrocities there. Clinton is a Cold War-era patriot who believes unambiguously that America is a force for good in the world. At the same time, it’s clear from conversations I had this summer with most of her senior staff members, as well as White House officials and outside advisors, that Clinton is a cautious figure who distrusts grandiose rhetorical formulations, is deeply grounded in the harsh realities of politics, and prefers small steps to large ones. Her belief in the use of American power has less to do with the humanitarian impulse to prevent injustice abroad than with the belief that only coercion works with refractory nations and leaders.

Is that good or bad? Perhaps that depends on how one thinks about how the Arab Spring turned out. Clinton is proud of her role — she tells the story in her memoirs at great length — because she thinks history has vindicated her judgments. Egypt quickly spun into a maelstrom of confusion and political incompetence, and has now emerged as a harsher dictatorship than it was in 2011. The hope that Obama offered, above all in his first year in office, often seemed untethered to the grim realities of the world, putting his rhetoric at odds with his actions. Clinton’s optimistic vision is less soaring, less idealistic, less transformative in its goals. Perhaps that will turn out to be well suited to our own diminished expectations of America’s ability to shape the world beyond its borders.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/06...obama-interventionist-tough-minded-president/

Rather than asking Obama Doctrine about Hillary, how about you ask Hillary Doctrine about Hillary, hm?

But of course. This article offers a much more favorable view of Hillary, and therefore cannot be used.

 

[Holmes]

I just find it interesting how young people really care about black and brown people being bombed by drones in the Middle East and northern Africa when they didn't care about voter suppression laws that disproportionately targeted black and brown people in the United States until their prefered candidate lost the Arizona primary.

 

[Macho Madness]

Benchmark Politics predictions for today:

Washington

Sanders 56
Clinton 44

Hawaii

Sanders 55
Clinton 45

Alaska

Sanders 70
Clinton 30

You're also going to hear a lot about momentum today. There is no real proof that says momentum is a thing that matters: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/the-misunderstanding-of-momentum

Also it's my birthday (30th oh god) so I probably won't be around a whole lot today.

 

[aspiegamer]

By the way, it shocks me how pro-Hillary GAF is. I'm not saying how dare you support her or anything like that, but it's just not what I expected from what I presume the demographics of NeoGAF are.

I know what you're saying and actually agree to a point, but I'd like to think that "pragmatic" isn't a demographic. It's a trait.

Vast oversimplification, of course, but PoliGAF regulars have often gone through a lot of this before. They know that it's Serious Business™. There's minimal tolerance for a lack of Understanding How This Shit Works™, which comes up far more frequently with Sanders supporters. As a random quick example, we remember how waves of gullible college kids voting for Nader in 2000 cost Gore the election and doomed the planet, and really don't want to see anything like that happen again.

And, frankly, it would be horrifying for Reddit and GAF to agree on much. The internet would explode in some kind of antimatter explosion. People come here specifically because it's not Reddit. It's better this way.

 

[noshten]

...so it all comes back to her Iraq vote?

For Obama it might, for me it's different and more complicated issue.

I'm not sure why I bother with you royalan, I know I would never change your mind about Hills - I mean here you are defending her foreign policy without addressing a single point I made in my previous posts. Just asking why her previous history would somehow lead to the same results, it appears some

Spoiler

Obama

might think it's because she never learned a lesson from the Iraq war.

Benchmark Politics predictions for today:

Washington

Sanders 56
Clinton 44

Hawaii

Sanders 55
Clinton 45

Alaska

Sanders 70
Clinton 30

You're also going to hear a lot about momentum today. There is no real proof that says momentum is a thing that matters: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/the-misunderstanding-of-momentum

I'd be honestly surprised if he beats Hillary by such small margins in any of those States.

 

[Makai]

It's not a gendered attack, it's a characteristic pointed out against her because she's a member of the Democratic party who is surprisingly conservative when it comes to foreign policy.

By the way, it shocks me how pro-Hillary GAF is. I'm not saying how dare you support her or anything like that, but it's just not what I expected from what I presume the demographics of NeoGAF are.

This is what happens when you play Spelunky. Very risk averse.

 

[Abinash117]

I just find it interesting how young people really care about black and brown people being bombed by drones in the Middle East and northern Africa when they didn't care about voter suppression laws that disproportionately targeted black and brown people in the United States until their prefered candidate lost the Arizona primary.

I don't think they really care that much besides the fact it happens so they have a opinion on it. Other times it seems like they care only if a perceived enemy does something bad aboard and if it makes America look bad it makes them look bad. I do see Obama get criticized for his foreign policy roles , but it seems mostly muted. That is why many people are bringing up Libya , and tie it with Hillary and such despite the Obama's role in it.

 

[royalan]

For Obama it might, for me it's different and more complicated issue.

I'm not sure why I bother with you royalan, I know I would never change your mind about Hills - I mean here you are defending her foreign policy without addressing a single point I made in my previous posts. Just asking why her previous history would somehow lead to the same results, it appears some

Spoiler

Obama

might think it's because she never learned a lesson from the Iraq war.

I asked a question in the thread. You responded. I followed up on your implication that Hillary Clinton wants to leave the door open for future potential conflicts because reasons. I asked what incentive she would have for that. If you don't want to answer then I'm also not sure why you're bothering with me.

 

[Iolo]

Benchmark Politics predictions for today:

Washington

Sanders 56
Clinton 44

Hawaii

Sanders 55
Clinton 45

Alaska

Sanders 70
Clinton 30

You're also going to hear a lot about momentum today. There is no real proof that says momentum is a thing that matters: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/the-misunderstanding-of-momentum

Also it's my birthday (30th oh god) so I probably won't be around a whole lot today.

Those predictions seem optimistic for Hillary based on her tendency to severely underperform in caucuses and, well, Seattle. I would take those results.

Also welcome to your 30s, kid

 

[Holmes]

Quite a bit of people on PoliGAF support Sanders but either think Clinton would be a better candidate, or don't think she's the horrible person dome make her out to be, and are voting for Sanders. Cheebo is one person for example, and he literally carried Michigan for Sanders with his vote.

 

[Tesseract]

we can probably agree that getting blown to bits is significantly worse than voter suppression and registration tampering.

 

[East Lake]

I just find it interesting how young people really care about black and brown people being bombed by drones in the Middle East and northern Africa when they didn't care about voter suppression laws that disproportionately targeted black and brown people in the United States until their prefered candidate lost the Arizona primary.

Is Bernie neutral on voter suppression? That's a detail I haven't been aware of.

 

[Macho Madness]

Those predictions seem optimistic for Hillary based on her tendency to severely underperform in caucuses and, well, Seattle. I would take those results.

Also welcome to your 30s, kid

Thanks.

It's based on demographics mainly: http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/2016/03/washington-final-benchmark-county-guide.html?m=1

 

[Y2Kev]

I mean, that's true (though no more true than in the late 1970s and early 1980s), but one of the big criticisms of the Clintons is that they DO lead from behind on a lot of issues like that, that they're easily swayed by opinion polls and thus more open to bad policy. I can't imagine Obama being as open to passing sweeping anti-crime measures like that, for example, because Obama is a lot more measured and thoughtful in terms of the kinds of changes he's willing to implement. Presidents can set the tone for the national political conversation (one of the reasons many Bernie supporters want him to be POTUS even knowing that he's not likely to get his policies passed), but both the Clintons are the types of politicians willing to have the tone set for them. That, to me, is a big drawback.

Edit: Read the "Obama Doctrine" article in The Atlantic. It's pretty clear that Clinton, while not necessarily a neoconservative, is VERY comfortable with foreign intervention if she thinks there is a greater humanitarian concern, and I don't see any evidence that, post-Libya, she has learned her lesson of why this is a bad approach to take in the modern geopolitical sphere.

I think this is sort of romantic. Obama is the guy that so desperately wanted a grand bargain that would have dramatically slashed social program spending because, let's be realistic, he either genuinely believed the deficit is a problem or he wanted to appear bipartisan. His first six years were Crime Bill 2.0.

Obama and the Clintons are two sides of the same coin, IMO.

But I love Obama so I would love Hillary Clinton.

 

[Macho Madness]

Looking at the clip, I think the bird wanted a drink of Bernie's water. Very cool moment though.

 

[Abinash117]

I asked a question in the thread. You responded. I followed up on your implication that Hillary Clinton wants to leave the door open for future potential conflicts because reasons. I asked what incentive she would have for that. If you don't want to answer then I'm also not sure why you're bothering with me.

Las7 is implying she hasn't learned her lesson judging by the article. How I saw it when I read the article a month a so ago, that exchange was from miscommunication and lack of clarification of what not doing stupid shit means. So when Hillary Clinton says that not doing stupid shit is not a principle because is might be a vague or is blanket, that s why even in the White House there was a debate about that it say so in the same paragraph.

 

[T'Zariah]

If Bernie only wins Washington with single digits I'll be legit shocked.

Calling 15-20 percent spread.

 

[Y2Kev]

Benchmark Politics predictions for today:

Washington

Sanders 56
Clinton 44

Hawaii

Sanders 55
Clinton 45

Alaska

Sanders 70
Clinton 30

You're also going to hear a lot about momentum today. There is no real proof that says momentum is a thing that matters: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/the-misunderstanding-of-momentum

Also it's my birthday (30th oh god) so I probably won't be around a whole lot today.

I think these results would make sense in a primary. In a caucus, she has no shot. Benchmark was also off by 10%-15% in Idaho and Utah. They're really good in primaries where people just, you know, vote, but caucuses are bullshit so.

 

[noshten]

Las7 is implying she hasn't learned her lesson judging by the article. How I saw it when I read the article a month a so ago, that exchange was from miscommunication and lack of clarification of what not doing stupid shit means. So when Hillary Clinton says that not doing stupid shit is not a principle because is might be a vague or is blanket, that s why even in the White House there was a debate about that it say so in the same paragraph.

I wasn't implying anything, I simply quoted that article - thinking it might have a bit more if ab effect on royalan, which was obviously misguided. Even when presented with substantial reasons why its more of the same from Hills on foreign policy people will find a way to justify it.

 

[Macho Madness]

Frank is a Third Way, right? Blythe is like Bernie.

 

[Holmes]

Is Bernie neutral on voter suppression? That's a detail I haven't been aware of.

Not that I was even talking about him, but the people who are all in an uproar now over Arizona and are blaming the wrong people (Clinton, the DNC instead of the Supreme Court for gutting the Voting Rights Act and Arizona Republicans for limiting the number of polling stations) were pretty silent when voter suppression laws were doing the same in Southern States. Well, Michael Moore spoke up...and disenfranchised the voices of millions of African-Americans that were able to vote in the primaries in the South.

 

[Iolo]

Thanks.

It's based on demographics mainly: http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/2016/03/washington-final-benchmark-county-guide.html?m=1

Eh, benchmark politics is not meant to be used as a prediction, it helps forecast a winner as results come in.

They were somehow spot on in AZ, but way off in ID and UT (if considered as a prediction). In fact the man Mr. Tyler himself was much closer to the final results in ID/UT. Shame about his complete miss in AZ though.

If you look at the 538 delegate tracker, which is also demographically based, it tells a similar story—she has been doing way worse in caucus states than demographically predicted (except Iowa), but way better in other states, which has still kept her ahead of her targets. I suspect she will not come close to her targets just for this week.

Someone suggested earlier that Sanders would net 80 delegates this week, which would require an 80-20 win everywhere. I'm using this as my benchmark today, so that anything better will be a pleasant surprise!

 

[Macho Madness]

Eh, benchmark politics is not meant to be used as a prediction, it helps forecast a winner as results come in.

They were somehow spot on in AZ, but way off in ID and UT (if considered as a prediction). In fact the man Mr. Tyler himself was much closer to the final results in ID/UT. Shame about his complete miss in AZ though.

If you look at the 538 delegate tracker, which is also demographically based, it tells a similar story—she has been doing way worse in caucus states than demographically predicted (except Iowa), but way better in other states, which has still kept her ahead of her targets. I suspect she will not come close to her targets just for this week.

Someone suggested earlier that Sanders would net 80 delegates this week, which would require an 80-20 win everywhere. I'm using this as my benchmark today, so that anything better will be a pleasant surprise!

The thing that may help her is the absentees that were sent in. The campaign made good use of them in prior caucus states where available. I guess it'll probably prevent an 80/20 blowout.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

What time will we start getting results?

 

[Macho Madness]

What time will we start getting results?

I think the doors just opened in Washington, so in a few hours.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I think this is sort of romantic. Obama is the guy that so desperately wanted a grand bargain that would have dramatically slashed social program spending because, let's be realistic, he either genuinely believed the deficit is a problem or he wanted to appear bipartisan. His first six years were Crime Bill 2.0.

Obama and the Clintons are two sides of the same coin, IMO.

But I love Obama so I would love Hillary Clinton.

The difference is that Obama inherited a MUCH more partisanly divided country than even Bill Clinton had, and he made a goal of trying to bridge that rift by crafting his legislation to have bipartisan appeal. He ultimately failed, because the political divide was actually far deeper than anybody realized (see: rise of the Tea Party), but I don't fault him for trying.

 

[royalan]

I wasn't implying anything, I simply quoted that article - thinking it might have a bit more if ab effect on royalan, which was obviously misguided. Even when presented with substantial reasons why its more of the same from Hills on foreign policy people will find a way to justify it.

How can it be "more of the same" when the logic keeps going back to the Iraq War, a vote that she admits was a mistake?

I just don't believe that her vote then should paint every foreign policy position she takes going forward. I also don't believe that her reasoning for voting for the war has much to do with the US intervening in Libya, which was an entirely different set of circumstances.

 

[Tesseract]

Bernie won az, or got damn close

Shruggles

 

[Voysa Reezun]

people remove a lot of the context. Shit was real back then, folks were looking for anything and everything to stop it.

But the way that the original post presented that idea was out-of-context, too. As Fields notes, black leaders and black citizens also were asking for improved schools, jobs bills that helped black workers, etc., in conjunction with an omnibus crime bill.

That we only got the crime bill, but not any of the other stuff, is damning to everyone involved, including the Clintons.

I think the doors just opened in Washington, so in a few hours.

Caucus starts at ten at my location.

 

[noshten]

How can it be "more of the same" when the logic keeps going back to the Iraq War, a vote that she admits was a mistake?

I just don't believe that her vote then should paint every foreign policy position she takes going forward. I also don't believe that her reasoning for voting for the war has much to do with the US intervening in Libya, which was an entirely different set of circumstances.

Is her no fly zone plan a mistake and why hasn't she admitted that?
Is her actively lobbying for regime change in Libya a mistake and has she admitted that?
Is supporting Saudi's war in Yemen and drone strikes there by the US a mistake and has she admitted that?
Is spreading Israeli anti-Iran propaganda a mistake and has she admitted that?

 

[Iolo]

The thing that may help her is the absentees that were sent in. The campaign made good use of them in prior caucus states where available. I guess it'll probably prevent an 80/20 blowout.

You're right in that she did do relatively okay in Nebraska. Although I don't think there is enough data to prove absentee ballots are helping. The weird part is that only ID and UT (and VT) were blowouts. I don't know what's different about ID and UT, except that the dem survivors there must be hardened liberals.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Norm Ornstein was right about everything:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/maybe-this-time-really-is-different/401900/