Support NeoGAF

[Foffy]

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/opinion/atlas-obamacare-poor-middle-class/

Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ht-obamacares-five-years-of-failure/?page=all

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/florida-medicaid-uninsured_n_4680566.html

It's common knowledge, and should be obvious since it was originally a Republican plan in the first place.

Just glancing at CNN's article, the issue appears to be Medicaid, and how places don't take it.

That's more of a criticism to our cancerous system than the ACA outright. You can still play it as a part in the war on the poor, but this seems more like a side effect to a policy that didn't go far enough.

When health care infers you are a fucking product, you guarantee a have/have not social game. And Americans actively hate the have nots, so it makes sense that even what they got in terms of health care comes with a "less than" tag alongside it.

 

[User 463088]

Bernie voted against the Brady Bill just to not piss off farmers.

a Left winger on side with the NRA

Five times. He voted against it five different times. He voted for PLCAA.

Those two things are enough to disqualify him from earning my vote. Period.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Way to make some leaps and bounds assumptions, bud.

It actually does affect me, and millions of people around the world. This is the long game that you're too short-sighted to see - another four years of failed half-ass Democratic Party lollygagging while things get progressively worse and worse won't fix a damn thing, and the Republicans will quickly capitalize on it before you know it, and will be able to push policies that will be way worse.

When you're done guilt-tripping and insulting someone for not falling in line behind a pseudo-progressive imperialist that wants to keep us dumping billions into warzones we're not capable of making positive change in, among countless other things, let me know.

Did you not suggest a republican president would be better for this country in the long run? If you want to talk about long term look at SC nominations. We're still feeling the effects of republican presidents from days past. If you're cool with same sex marriage being repealed and millions of people being deported fine, but I'll call you out on that every time. This is the shit republican candidates are promising to their voters.

 

[Cheebo]

Again, let's look back at the last 8 years of Obama, of which Hillary served as secretary of state of, and is argued as Obama's "Third Term" here:

-bombed 7 countries
-record arms sales at home
-proxy wars in Yemen & Syria
-wrecked Libya
-escalated in Afghanistan, with no positive gain
-huge increase special ops/drones, killing 90% innocents

There's no argument being made that Hillary would somehow make any of these things any better, and there's certainly precedent that she would make things even worse.

Gay marriage was a 5-4 decisions, with two of those being his appointees.

SC nominations have more of an impact than anything you have listed.

 

[LosDaddie]

Or just week local Democrats, of which there were many. Part of it is Dems also don't spend much money on midterms to put out and endorse quality local candidates. The GOP on the other hand goes full tilt.

Chicken or egg scenario

Why spend money when you already know your shithead voters aren't going to show up?
Why vote when you already know your shithead politician is running away from the president you support?

 

[Jeevesmeister]

I dunno why Sanders would have a harder time getting laws passed than Hillary when Republicans just finished their longest witch hunt against her yet.

People expecting bipartisanism with either candidate are in for a rude awakening.

Seriously. 11 hours or whatever of the Republicans trying to pull blades against her, but all of a sudden she'd be reaching across the aisle to them and fixing all of our problems through some sort of reasonable compromise. Yeah-huh, okay. The cognitive dissonance in this thread is really telling.

No shit Sanders would have a hell of a time, but we might get something meaningful done under him.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

From Hillary for America's Communications Director:

 

[Konka]

In late October of 2008? Are you sure about that?

If you meant that a relatively unknown Obama had little support during the early stages compared to Hilary, then sure. That doesn't change how Hillary and her supporters were viewed towards the end the Dem primary. You would think Dems would remember this.

I meant during the 08 campaign.

 

[Meowster]

Gay marriage was a 5-4 decisions, with two of those being his appointees.

SC nominations have more of an impact than anything you have listed.

And will be one of the biggest impacts a President can ever have. Scalia is still around decades after he was appointed, destroying tons of hope for progress throughout his tenure.

 

[Armaros]

I dunno why Sanders would have a harder time getting laws passed than Hillary when Republicans just finished their longest witch hunt against her yet.

People expecting bipartisanism with either candidate are in for a rude awakening.

Seriously. 11 hours or whatever of the Republicans trying to pull blades against her, but all of a sudden she'd be reaching across the aisle to them and fixing all of our problems through some sort of reasonable compromise. Yeah-huh, okay. The cognitive dissonance in this thread is really telling.

No shit Sanders would have a hell of a time, but we might get something meaningful done under him.

Is Hillary campaigning as such where her supporters are preaching Ideological purity?

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Did you not suggest a republican president would be better for this country in the long run? If you want to talk about long term look at SC nominations. We're still feeling the effects of republican presidents from days past. If you're cool with same sex marriage being repealed and millions of people being deported fine, but I'll call you out on that every time. This is the shit republican candidates are promising to their voters.

So thousands across the globe should be slaughtered wholesale, and many millions more devastated, for no rhyme or reason because of a couple of Supreme Court nominations.

Arab lives don't matter to you. I get it.

 

[Stet]

So thousands across the globe should be slaughtered wholesale, and many millions more devastated, for no rhyme or reason because of a couple of Supreme Court nominations.

Arab lives don't matter to you. I get it.

Egads.

 

[Armaros]

So thousands across the globe should be slaughtered wholesale, and many millions more devastated, for no rhyme or reason because of a couple of Supreme Court nominations.

Arab lives don't matter to you. I get it.

Gay People in the US dont matter to you.

5-4 Gay Marriage court case.


Oh look, I can do that as well.

 

[Kusagari]

So thousands across the globe should be slaughtered wholesale, and many millions more devastated, for no rhyme or reason because of a couple of Supreme Court nominations.

Arab lives don't matter to you. I get it.

The actual citizens of America don't seem to matter to you.

 

[User 463088]

Some of us are more interested in taking a principled stand, even if it's not in our immediate interests.

I'm glad that you are fortunate enough to be able to do that and fuck the consequences.

As a gay, partially disabled dude, I don't have that luxury. I lose the ACA, I'm shit out of luck. There goes my chance at regaining a "normal" life again. But, it's all good, if we get to stand on the mountain while the rest of the coalition wades through shit, amirite? Fuck the poor, racial minorities, sexual minorities, and the vulnerable. I can treat myself with conviction, and feed myself with principles.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

From Hillary for America's Communications Director:

/thread

Gay People dont matter to you.

If I have to pick between gays not getting married and Arabs not being slaughtered by our missiles and guns and bombs, that's an easy choice. Luckily it's also a false one. Hell, let's talk about Black American lives then. Obama just spoke and proposed entirely meaningless criminal justice reform, which Hillary would continue.

 

[Foffy]

Small addition to the CNN article linked here.

Scott Atlas, the person who wrote the article, is against all forms of single payer, and thinks the fucking Republicans have the answer.

Let's chalk him up as a fucking idiot, please.

 

[Holmes]

A smart campaign should never brag about good polling numbers unless they're asking for money. A smart campaign would use bad polling numbers to galvanize volunteers and mobilize the base.

Dog, I'm at work and posting in spare moments. I'm sorry if you're relying on me to care.

Alright.

 

[teruterubozu]

Did you not suggest a republican president would be better for this country in the long run? If you want to talk about long term look at SC nominations. We're still feeling the effects of republican presidents from days past. If you're cool with same sex marriage being repealed and millions of people being deported fine, but I'll call you out on that every time. This is the shit republican candidates are promising to their voters.

Funny thing is Trump said he may appoint his sister - Maryanne Trump Berry, who is actually pro-abortion.

 

[Bronx-Man]

So thousands across the globe should be slaughtered wholesale, and many millions more devastated, for no rhyme or reason because of a couple of Supreme Court nominations.

Arab lives don't matter to you. I get it.

Now this is where the fun starts.

 

[Cheebo]

Funny thing is Trump said he may appoint his sister - Maryanne Trump Berry, who is actually pro-abortion.

He backed off that fast.

 

[Valhelm]

Five times. He voted against it five different times. He voted for PLCAA.

Those two things are enough to disqualify him from earning my vote. Period.

Why does that solely sway your vote?

I disagree with Sanders on the issue of guns, but the black marks against him are a lot fainter than those against Clinton.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Also, if your don't vote for my candidate of choice, why do you hate freedom? I'm just being real here. Hating freedom is an indefensible position.

 

[Damerman]

The actual citizens of America don't seem to matter to you.

Gay People dont matter to you.

5-4 Gay Marriage court case.


Oh look, I can do that as well.

you guys can't seriously be making arguments against arab lives...

I understand marriage equality is important and looking out for "your own" is important, but to fullstop shit on his argument about lives without any concessions is really fucking cold

 

[teruterubozu]

He backed off that fast.

eh, no candidate is gonna talk candidly about SC justices. They just don't.

 

[ivysaur12]

Why does that solely sway your vote?

I disagree with Sanders on the issue of guns, but the black marks against him are a lot fainter than those against Clinton.

Because maybe for him, that's the line in the sand. People have issues like that.

 

[User 463088]

Why does that solely sway your vote?

I disagree with Sanders on the issue of guns, but the black marks against him are a lot fainter than those against Clinton.

It's not the sole reason I don't support Sanders. However, it would be enough. There are quite a few other reasons, not least of all which the guy is not a Democrat. I've posted my reasons for not supporting Sanders in a few threads, including why I support Hillary over him in this one.

A quick summary: He's wrong on guns. His foreign policy is....whatever it is apparently involves Russians getting tired of Putin and he'll apologize. I'm not a fan of protectionism. He's not a Democrat. His plans have about as much of a chance becoming reality as I do winning the Indonesian Lottery next month. I also don't personally care for the guy.

 

[Cheebo]

you guys can't seriously be making arguments against arab lives...

I understand marriage equality is important and looking out for "your own" is important, but to fullstop shit on his argument about lives without any concessions is really fucking cold

No candidate is going to dramatically change that sort of foreign policy so it makes sense to focus on things we know a President can have a direct and dramatic impact on, which is SC picks.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Also the ideal that Hillary is going to automatically decide some super-progressive messiah liberal judge will take the Supreme Court justices, based on, uh... nothing, is laughable.

 

[Cybit]

It's the masochist liberal syndrome. They would rather suffer under the ideology they completely disagree with than take any watered down version of their own ideology.

This slow change of progressivism into Tea Party Left (as a reaction to the obstructionism of the GOP) terrifies the heck out of me. I find myself drifting to the right-ward side of the Democratic party even though my views haven't particularly changed in many ways since the early 2000s. Classical Liberal ftw.

Serious question to Hillary supporters: Your honest opinion about her foreign policy record?

I've seen a Clinton foreign policy, a Bush foreign policy, and an Obama foreign policy, and I'd rather take the first and the third over the potential repeat of the second. Bush more or less caused the collapse of the American empire.

And the GOP is split between all the canaidates. Imagine a Trump campaign with the entire GOP behind it

Trump would wreck Sanders in a general election.

People in this thread have got to be kidding themselves considering today's news.

Considering everyone is calling Hillary a third term Obama (supporting Obama's troop extension in Iraq) and we're now deploying troops in Syria (and sending more to Iraq when we should have been out of there a long time ago) because that worked so well the last three times we've tried to fight an enemy like ISIS, I can't help but fuckin' laugh if you think Clinton is somehow better than a Republican any way at this point. How many more innocent Arab kids does queen, yaassss Hillary need to slay before you wake up to how inexcusable, and frankly unsustainable this is.

With Clinton you're just dragging out the inevitable. The Left won't rush to the polls for this come time for the general election, regardless of how many guilt trips you try to throw out, and a Republican will take the White House come 2016, mark my words.

In related news, I heard this in 2000. Last time I checked, it led to wealth inequity reminiscent of the middle ages, a multi trillion dollar (when all is said and done) war that used up all of our money that was set to deal with Social Security and/or our failing infrastructure, and watched Citizens United happen - because our principles mattered, damnit.

Dems fall in love, GOP falls in line. We all like to mock them for being out of touch and sexist and racist and yet they're the dominant power in the country. What's that say about us?

I believe the adage "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" applies here.

This. So much this.

Also - gonna drop this point about Sanders and Trump here

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/10/23/a-whiter-shade-of-candidate/

There are too few data to say anything for sure. But all of the data that exist suggest that if the Republican primary were held today and restricted to non-whites, Trump would still win. And if Trump were the Republican nominee, he could probably count on equal or greater support from minorities as Romney or McCain before him.

In other words, the media narrative that Trump is doing some kind of special appeal-to-white-voters voodoo is unsupported by any polling data.

On the other hand, there is a candidate whom the media narrative fits like a glove. A candidate who may win primary among whites, but loses in a landslide among minorities. A candidate whose black support is almost an entire order of magnitude lower than his white support.

That candidate is Bernie Sanders.

According to the same YouGov poll mentioned above, 38% of whites support Bernie Sanders for President, compared to 37% of whites who support Hillary for President. However, only 13% of Hispanics support Sanders, compared to 63% for Hillary. And only 4% of blacks support Sanders, compared to 64% for Hillary!

A South Carolina poll from this month broadly agrees. CNN finds that the two candidates are in a statistical dead heat among whites (48-47) but that Hillary has an overwhelming advantage among blacks (84-7).

Other polls are slightly less extreme but tell the same picture. Gravis (early August) found Hillary leading comfortably among all races, but Sanders’ support among whites was still twice as high as among blacks. The Washington Post also found Sanders doing abysmally overall, but his support among blacks was super-abysmal – only 5 percent!

Also, interesting aside that is somewhat relevant to OT

Second, in this post, I argue against the theory that groups with few black members are necessarily racist or exclusive (frequently seen as “Silicon Valley is problematic because of how few black techies there are”). I note that black people are severely underrepresented in groups as diverse as runners, BDSM participants, atheists, fanfiction readers, Unitarian Universalists, furries, and bird watchers. They’re also underrepresented in movements with apparently impeccable leftist and anti-racist credentials, like Occupy Wall Street and the US Communist Party. Given the frequency with which the “your group has few minorities, that means you’re racist and need to become more explicitly leftist in order to shrieve yourself” argument gets used to punch down at nonconformist or “weird” groups, there can never be too many counterexamples. And Bernie Sanders’ campaign is such a counterexample. It fits poorly with the “low nonwhite representation is caused by insufficiently strong social justice orientation” theory, but very well with the counter-theory I propose in that post: nonwhites are just generally less eager to join weird intellectual signaling-laden countercultural movements.

I take immense schadenfreude in imagining the people who like to write thinkpieces that “call out” polyamory or atheism for their insufficient minority representation, fidgeting and sweating and trying to justify their support for Sanders. I deeply enjoy the thought of them reading the article on ‘Berniebros’ (warning: possibly literally the worst article ever written, I am not kidding) and maybe realizing that wait, this is what they’ve been doing to other people all along, and it’s kind of unfair and hurtful. I mean, this will never happen. But it makes me happy to think about.

Bernie hasn’t done much specific to upset minorities; I doubt those stunts by the Black Lives Matter protesters mattered much one way or the other. And I would naively have expected his message of income equality and helping the least fortunate to go over better with people who are pretty unequal and unfortunate. And although Bill Clinton was pretty popular among nonwhites, I don’t see anything super-special about Hillary that would make her attractive to them.

 

[KHarvey16]

I would argue that passion and limited knowledge is better than no passion and limited knowledge which is most of the American people.

I don't know that I would rank them really. They're both less than ideal.

Some of us are more interested in taking a principled stand, even if it's not in our immediate interests.

And even worse, it's hard to keep your monocle from popping out when you look down your nose at the wriggling mass of ignorant fools who place conscience above fear of opposition. Disgusting, if mildly bemusing, that.

I don't know why it gets framed this way. It's not like we take a chance and, if we fail, things just remain the same. If we take a chance and fail huge swathes of the population get fucked over and things get worse for a lot of people. SC justices get appointed who will work for a long time to stifle progress. The risk is huge.

It's just frustrating that it seems one side of this can't argue their position effectively without misrepresenting what the other side thinks or what the stakes actually are.

Passion turns into apathy very quickly when these voters go head-to-head with reality.

Precisely the issue! Perfect becomes the enemy of the good and they give up.

 

[ivysaur12]

Also the ideal that Hillary is going to automatically decide some super-progressive messiah liberal judge will take the Supreme Court justices, based on, uh... nothing, is laughable.

Yes, because Third Way Bill Clinton appointed those Hawkish, Corportist shills like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

 

[campfireweekend]

Also the ideal that Hillary is going to automatically decide some super-progressive messiah liberal judge will take the Supreme Court justices, based on, uh... nothing, is laughable.

Bill Clinton chose some pretty damn liberal ones, and Hillary's more liberal than him, so...

 

[Damerman]

A quick summary: He's wrong on guns. His foreign policy is....whatever it is apparently involves Russians getting tired of Putin and he'll apologize. I'm not a fan of protectionism.

so thats all he said about foreign policy? lol ya'll are mad disingenuous. there is no doubt in my mind sanders has a very similar approach to foreign policy as Hillary... even considering bernie was right on Iraq and Clinton was wrong.

 

[Kusagari]

Also the ideal that Hillary is going to automatically decide some super-progressive messiah liberal judge will take the Supreme Court justices, based on, uh... nothing, is laughable.

Makes far more sense than the Bernie stans who think he's going to suddenly change what our foreign policy has been for decades.

I want Bernie to win but this shit is hilarious.

 

[shoplifter]

I'm glad that you are fortunate enough to be able to do that and fuck the consequences.

As a gay, partially disabled dude, I don't have that luxury. I lose the ACA, I'm shit out of luck. There goes my chance at regaining a "normal" life again. But, it's all good, if we get to stand on the mountain while the rest of the coalition wades through shit, amirite? Fuck the poor, racial minorities, sexual minorities, and the vulnerable. I can treat myself with conviction, and feed myself with principles.

I hear you. That would be incredibly shitty. I'll fully admit that my primary reason for supporting Bernie is economic. I don't identify as a democrat, I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't think that a Hillary term would be anything more than another huge handout to banks/industry with admittedly some positive movement on social issues. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

If people felt that oppressed though, I'd ask why they're not out wrecking shit instead of waiting for rights to be granted from on high.

It's not the sole reason I don't support Sanders. However, it would be enough. There are quite a few other reasons, not least of all which the guy is not a Democrat. I've posted my reasons for not supporting Sanders in a few threads, including why I support Hillary over him in this one.

I can actually accept this as a good reason, if voting party line is important to you. Like I said, I'm not a member of the democratic party so I have no allegiance to Hilldawg.

It's just frustrating that it seems one side of this can't argue their position effectively without misrepresenting what the other side thinks or what the stakes actually are.

Whereas I fully understand what the stakes are, and still don't give a fuck because I'm tired of both parties' bullshit.

 

[wolfhowwl]

A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for a Republican landslide, a vote for eight years of crushing hard-right policy, a vote for the packing of the Supreme Court with conservative zealots imposing a reactionary vision that will last decades.

It is utterly contemptible that these posturing "progressives" would throw millions under the bus for the sake of ideological purity and pointless stands all the while no doubt remaining ensconced in the safety of their middle-class existence protected from the consequences of their folly.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Also the fact that Hillary supporters automatically assume she'll just win the General without a fight is laughable. You people have imagined your own rules to declare yourselves the winner and anyone who disagrees or backs Bernie hates minorities and all sorts of other absurd accusations. Really goes to show how little faith anyone actually has in Hillary doing any real good.

 

[KHarvey16]

Also the ideal that Hillary is going to automatically decide some super-progressive messiah liberal judge will take the Supreme Court justices, based on, uh... nothing, is laughable.

Based on her comments and voting record. Paying attention helps during these things you know.

 

[dramatis]

I would argue that passion and limited knowledge is better than no passion and limited knowledge which is most of the American people.

And I would argue that passion and extensive knowledge is better than passion and limited knowledge.

From Hillary for America's Communications Director:

Interestingly enough, the reason her campaign would know this is because they've been doing extensive internal polling in Iowa themselves. Nice of you to post that when this sort of admission didn't arise out of the Bernie camp when he was having favorable polls.

In any case it's the aggregate that needs to be looked at anyway. These two polls were conducted too soon to be a Benghazi bounce. I think it's more likely to be influenced by Biden's announcement.

Also the fact that Hillary supporters automatically assume she'll just win the General without a fight is laughable. You people have imagined your own rules to declare yourselves the winner and anyone who disagrees or backs Bernie hates minorities and all sorts of other absurd accusations. Really goes to show how little faith anyone actually has in Hillary doing any real good.

Nobody in her camp is under the impression that the general will be a cakewalk; rather, Sanders supporters seem to be under the impression that Bernie can win easily against any general election opponent. Those who know politics understand the situation better. It has very little to do with disliking Bernie Sanders; it has everything to do with knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the candidates. You lost this argument a long time ago, when you actually tried to sell Benghazi as something that will hobble Hillary Clinton.

 

[Angry Grimace]

From this reddit/politics thread from this morning:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3qfdl0/clinton_has_41_point_lead_over_sanders_in_iowa/









It goes on and on. There are plenty of Bernie supporters who want to see a "course correction" (i.e. elect the GOP and let the country burn to prove how shitty their politics are) if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. The only problem with their strategy is that is demonstrably doesn't work (case and point Kansas).

I think there are less than you think. Let the Bernie supporters stew a bit. They'll get over it.

 

[Armaros]

I hear you. That would be incredibly shitty. I'll fully admit that my primary reason for supporting Bernie is economic. I don't identify as a democrat, I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't think that a Hillary term would be anything more than another huge handout to banks/industry with admittedly some positive movement on social issues. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

If people felt that oppressed though, I'd ask why they're not out wrecking shit instead of waiting for rights to be granted from on high.

Because 'wrecking shit' gets you put in jail.

And not everyone has the opportunity to 'wreck shit' in the legal way either.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Makes far more sense than the Bernie stans who think he's going to suddenly change what our foreign policy has been for decades.

I want Bernie to win but this shit is hilarious.

The problem is that Hillary would certainly make it worse. It was her that spearheaded devastating Libya based on knowingly false information.

Bernie would make it marginally better if anything.

 

[Slime]

Speaking of SC appointments, in Canada our Conservative PM was able to use his 9-year mandate to appoint 7 Justices. Only 2 appointees made by Liberal PMs remain.

Can you imagine ceding that much control of the SC to a President Trump or Carson?

Supporting Clinton in the GE is essential, whether she's your ideological dream candidate or not.

 

[ivysaur12]

Also the fact that Hillary supporters automatically assume she'll just win the General without a fight is laughable. You people have imagined your own rules to declare yourselves the winner and anyone who disagrees or backs Bernie hates minorities and all sorts of other absurd accusations. Really goes to show how little faith anyone actually has in Hillary doing any real good.

"Ignore my last point that was stupid and then look at this stupid argument!"

 

[KHarvey16]

Also the fact that Hillary supporters automatically assume she'll just win the General without a fight is laughable. You people have imagined your own rules to declare yourselves the winner and anyone who disagrees or backs Bernie hates minorities and all sorts of other absurd accusations. Really goes to show how little faith anyone actually has in Hillary doing any real good.

You keep saying this despite how wrong it is. The argument isn't that Hillary will definitely win the general, it's that Hillary definitely has a better chance than Sanders.

 

[Bronx-Man]

I hear you. That would be incredibly shitty. I'll fully admit that my primary reason for supporting Bernie is economic. I don't identify as a democrat, I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't think that a Hillary term would be anything more than another huge handout to banks/industry with admittedly some positive movement on social issues. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

If people felt that oppressed though, I'd ask why they're not out wrecking shit instead of waiting for rights to be granted from on high.

We did.

A CVS got wrecked.

America lost their fucking minds.

 

[Foffy]

I hear you. That would be incredibly shitty. I'll fully admit that my primary reason for supporting Bernie is economic. I don't identify as a democrat, I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't think that a Hillary term would be anything more than another huge handout to banks/industry with admittedly some positive movement on social issues. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

If people felt that oppressed though, I'd ask why they're not out wrecking shit instead of waiting for rights to be granted from on high.




I can actually accept this as a good reason, if voting party line is important to you. Like I said, I'm not a member of the democratic party so I have no allegiance to Hilldawg.

We settle for less. The only way we'd wreck shit is if we can literally get nothing anymore, even if what we're getting seems more like human exploitation than anything else.

 

[Veritigo_X]

So thousands across the globe should be slaughtered wholesale, and many millions more devastated, for no rhyme or reason because of a couple of Supreme Court nominations.

Arab lives don't matter to you. I get it.

I seriously doubt any democratic candidate would dramatically change our foreign policy. If both republicans and democrats are the exact same in regards to foreign policy (as you've suggested), I'd much rather pick the candidate that would do less harm to the people here in the US.

 

[campfireweekend]

"Ignore my last point that was stupid and then look at this stupid argument!"

I really don't like this new look where the extreme left starts to mimic the actions of the extreme right.