Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

/glances through the last two pages

Huh, looks like Jeeves doubled down on accelerationism despite backing away from it after I called him out in the last "certain Bernie stans try to suck their own dicks" thread, all to justify his fucking moronic contention (based on literally nothing fact-based) that a President Clinton will not move this country to the left in any capacity.

Interesting

Spoiler

in the sense that it's obnoxious as hell and not very conducive to a debate anywhere close to being reasonable

!

 

[Jeevesmeister]

words

If anyone is choosing not to vote for a candidate because of obnoxious supporters on a message board or some other Internet hellhole, they are too incompetent to be trusted with the responsibility of voting. That is not my responsibility to cater to ineptitude and your outlandish accusations of this supposed la-la land I live in.

Also would just like to state again for the thread that even the Hillary campaign has stated that these polls are bullshit and this thread serves no purpose.

/glances through the last two pages

Huh, looks like Jeeves doubled down on accelerationism despite backing away from it after I called him out in the last "certain Bernie stans try to suck their own dicks" thread, all to justify his fucking moronic contention (based on literally nothing fact-based) that a President Clinton will not move this country to the left in any capacity.

Interesting!

Maybe I entertained the viewpoint because of the recent news coming out of the White House today (putting troops into Syria, doing jack shit about police abuse, etc) alongside the argument Hillary is a third term Obama. Gosh, I wonder how someone's views might grow in line as facts change.


When you're done slinging personal insults, I'll still be here.

 

[Cheebo]

And I have the evidence of what she's supported and spearheaded to be largely regressive policies - i.e. forwarding her husband's cause of wiping out welfare as First Lady. You and I can both form reasonable arguments here and I've yet to insult your mental health or call you a child.

Her husbands cause which is nominating very liberal judges? Name one non-hard left liberal SC judge Bill Clinton picked. Because there are not any.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Her husbands cause which is nominating very liberal judges? Name one non-hard left liberal SC judge Bill Clinton picked. Because there are not any.

Maybe she will, maybe she won't. The problem is that many in this thread are arguing on guarantees or supposed realities which can be easily argued against when confronted with basic fact.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Maybe I entertained the viewpoint because of the recent news coming out of the White House today (putting troops into Syria, doing jack shit about police abuse, etc) alongside the argument Hillary is a third term Obama.

First of all: lol. Second of all: Did Obama not move the country to the left in any capacity during his two terms, or am I just imagining his domestic policy accomplishments?

Gosh, I wonder how someone's views might grow in line as facts change.

Gosh, I wonder how Hillary Clinton's views might grow in line as facts change, except apparently this is functionally impossible because internet poster Jeevesmeister said so.

When you're done slinging personal insults, I'll still be here.

When you're done pretending an actual look at the implications of the bullshit you're posting is in any way a "personal insult", everyone who disagrees with you will still be here.

You might not be, because your arguments are disingenuous as fuck. Pretending you aren't implicitly okay with all of the side effects of electing a Republican president, while simultaneously saying there's a nonzero chance we'll be better off "in the long run" with Republican presidents and therefore we shouldn't even consider a vote for Clinton?

Fuck off. My life may literally hang in the balance of who wins the next two presidential elections, and I wouldn't have time for your "maybe the GOP will make things so bad that everyone will just magically realize they were the worst all along and swing hard left" garbage even if that *did* ever work.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Gosh, I wonder how Hillary Clinton's views might grow in line as facts change, except apparently this is functionally impossible because internet poster Jeevesmeister said so.

You don't elect Presidents based on views, you elect them based on their record. Hillary has decades of supporting regressive bullshit with a massive bodycount, and few if any positive achievements to show for it.

When you're done pretending an actual look at the implications of the bullshit you're posting is in any way a "personal insult", everyone who disagrees with you will still be here.

Weird how you can't disagree with me without calling me insane or a child, apparently that's the "reality" you've imagined for yourself here.

(You might not be, because your arguments are disingenuous as fuck. Pretending you aren't implicitly okay with all of the side effects of electing a Republican president, while simultaneously saying there's a nonzero chance we'll be better off "in the long run" with Republican presidents and therefore we shouldn't even consider a vote for Clinton? Fuck off.)

Wow, fuck off already? Basing your vote on bad gambling logic, which the vast majority of Hillary supporters have fallen for, is the main issue I have in the discourse taking place here, and jumping down the throats of anyone calling this out.

Fuck off. My life may literally hang in the balance of who wins the next two presidential elections, and I wouldn't have time for your "maybe the GOP will make things so bad that everyone will just magically realize they were the worst all along and swing hard left" garbage even if that *did* ever work.

And mine won't? You know jack shit about me and what I deal with. I don't have time to drag out an inevitable conclusion considering how little Hillary might actually fix anything and how the Republicans will turn around and capitalize on those failings some 2020. So fuck off for playing a shorter game than me, if that's how you really feel.

 

[Goodstyle]

Looks like America got some disinfectant for that Bern.

 

[ivysaur12]

Maybe she will, maybe she won't. The problem is that many in this thread are arguing on guarantees or supposed realities which can be easily argued against when confronted with basic fact.

Your argument is that she won't because look at her policies! But we're to look at her husband -- who is way to the right of Hillary -- and Obama, they both nominated very liberal judges. There is no evidence that she wouldn't do the same, based on her views, opinions on rulings, and the like, unless you think that she's a neocon in disguise.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Looks like America got some disinfectant for that Bern.

The polls are based on bullshit, even the Hillary campaign has said so.

Your argument is that she won't because look at her policies! But we're to look at her husband -- who is way to the right of Hillary -- and Obama, they both nominated very liberal judges. There is no evidence that she wouldn't do the same, based on her views, opinions on rulings, and the like, unless you think that she's a neocon in disguise.

What I'm saying is that "maybe," based on the fact she's supported imperialist military action abroad and wiping out welfare in the past, as well as the proposed belief she'll work with the Republicans somehow if she's in office, means that there's no guarantee here.

 

[Fenderputty]

Key words, in this thread. I thought I had seen you promoting something other than people voting their conscience in other primary threads, but if I've conflated you with someone else I apologize.

My contention has always been that people vote in the national. I've stated Bernie fits my ideology better but pragmatism has me supporting Hillary until Sanders looks like he can pull it off. So far he doesn't look like he can. I had no idea what "accelerationism" was until arguing with Bernie fans FYI.

No need to apologize though. I've been vocal in my opinions and if you don't read every post of mine (I mean, why would you or anyone for that matter) then I'm sure you've seen some more inflammatory ones.

 

[eBay Huckster]

You don't elect Presidents based on views, you elect them based on their record. Hillary has decades of supporting regressive bullshit with a massive bodycount, and few if any positive achievements to show for it.

First off: you don't elect Presidents based on their record in your two pet areas of policy, you elect them based on their entire record - something you don't seem to have kept in mind in any capacity. Second: you do actually elect Presidents based at least partially on views, otherwise no candidate would ever campaign based on some kind of platform.

Weird how you can't disagree with me without calling me insane or a child, apparently that's the "reality" you've imagined for yourself here.

Not weird how you're the only person I'm referring to as either in any capacity, because you're the only one calling for the dumbest goddamn philosophical approach possible.

Wow, fuck off already? Basing your vote on bad gambling logic, which the vast majority of Hillary supporters have fallen for, is the main issue I have in the discourse taking place here, and jumping down the throats of anyone calling this out.

"The entire history of campaigns from approximately 1912 to the present" is not "bad gambling logic", no matter how much you want to fuck this chicken. So yes, fuck off already - your "points" as they pertain to anything but foreign policy have the basis of a wet fart, considering what we know about Clinton's record regarding SCOTUS decisions and the history of presidential campaign promises.

And mine won't? You know jack shit about me and what I deal with

Based on the fact that you're entertaining a far larger level of actualized human suffering than currently exists, on the sole bases that Clinton supported one policy 20 years ago and was a part of the contemporary American foreign policy apparatus (which wouldn't entertain the notion of not making costly interventions overseas, short of a full-on isolationist president which Bernie ain't), I will assume that yours won't...

fuck off for playing a shorter game than me

...particularly since you're referring to this in any way as a "game". Sure, elect a Republican, and then a generation from now we still don't have a magical socialist revolution that will make everything utopian forever, because left-accelerationism never works.

 

[ivysaur12]

The polls are based on bullshit, even the Hillary campaign has said so.



What I'm saying is that "maybe," based on the fact she's supported imperialist military action abroad and wiping out welfare in the past, as well as the proposed belief she'll work with the Republicans somehow if she's in office, means that there's no guarantee here.

But you've accused Bill Clinton of the same thing, and here we are! You've accused her of being a third term of Obama's failed foreign policy, and here we are! We have all of her statements on major Supreme Court rulings during their many terms since she was in the Senate. We know where she stands on these rulings, and know -- know -- that she would support a liberal SCOTUS nominee.

You have literally no evidence to the contrary based on your gut feelings and her hawkishness, so it's hard to take you seriously with the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

 

[rjinaz]

Man this thread has become intense. Let's just everybody take a deep breath. Think about the Republican debate tomorrow and how fun that will be. Already got me rum!

 

[titiklabingapat]

Are people seriously saying that Hillary won't nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court now? Seriously?


Jeez.

 

[Foffy]

Man this thread has become intense. Let's just everybody take a deep breath. Think about the Republican debate tomorrow and how fun that will be. Already got me rum!

Oh shit, the carnival's opened up again?

 

[Veritigo_X]

Are people seriously saying that Hillary won't nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court now? Seriously?


Jeez.

Just one guy. Check out the last page.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

First off: you don't elect Presidents based on their record in your two pet areas of policy, you elect them based on their entire record - something you don't seem to have kept in mind in any capacity. Second: you do actually elect Presidents based at least partially on views, otherwise no candidate would ever campaign based on some kind of platform.

Oh bullshit. Hillary's entire record involves her greatest achievements - Libya and helping wipe out welfare in the 90s - which suddenly don't matter because "pragmatism," regardless of how awful they might be. "At least partially," because fuck that record when its suddenly inconvenient to your argument.

Not weird how you're the only person I'm referring to as either in any capacity, because you're the only one calling for the dumbest goddamn philosophical approach possible.

Again with the pathetic personal insults. I thought these were banworthy? Hmm.

Fine, I give you the Supreme Court thing. But that doesn't mean shit if Hillary's going to continue and even ramp up Obama's pathetically inept massacring of civilians in the Middle East, unless you think American lives are more important than Muslim lives. Which is okay, that just makes you a Republican.

Based on the fact that you're entertaining a far larger level of actualized human suffering than currently exists, on the sole bases that Clinton supported one policy 20 years ago and was a part of the contemporary American foreign policy apparatus, I will assume that yours won't...

There's a mass of Middle Eastern refugees flooding Europe largely due to American military policy abroad that Hillary would only continue.

...particularly since you're referring to this in any way as a "game". Sure, elect a Republican, and then a generation from now we still don't have a magical socialist revolution that will make everything utopian forever, because left-accelerationism never works.

You knew exactly what I was saying, stop trying to guilt trip me. Electing Hillary will be more disastrous in the long term, mark my words. She won't do enough to solve our problems now, and the Republicans will be quick to capitalize on them against a deflated Left that doesn't care.

When did I ever argue for a revolution or a utopia? Stop imagining shit to try and guilt trip someone into voting Hillary when the Primary hasn't even begun, and guilt tripping voters into turning out into the polls never works.

 

[ModBot]

This thread is awful and you should all feel awful. A pox on both your houses.