Well we're already doing the purity test/no true scotsman bullshit that the Tea Party thrived on.
Two new Iowa polls show Clinton with GIANT leads over Sanders
- Thread starter Bam Bam Baklava
- Start date
- Status
Well we're already doing the purity test/no true scotsman bullshit that the Tea Party thrived on.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Again, this is someone who was Secretary of State under a President who has failed to make meaningful improvements to an increasingly broken system, and enacted disastrous foreign policy abroad.
Sanders will be a better pick and there's plenty of time to do the actual work involved here. Instead y'all give up when the election is still over a year off. The inherent laziness of Hillary supporters to just throw in the towel and fall in line behind her isn't going to get the turnout come Election Day, and you will have a Republican in that White House again, Supreme Court justices and all.
The ultimate weapon of the Tea Party is to teach liberals how to really tear themselves apart like they did with the GOP.
gutter_trash
Banned
Just like what happened to the NDP's bragging hehehehe
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
Has sanders said much about foreign policy? I haven't seen everything by him but he seems entrenched in domestic issues.
It's true that Clinton's foreign policy has been pretty terrible, but the US has always been terrible with foreign policy.
It's true that Clinton's foreign policy has been pretty terrible, but the US has always been terrible with foreign policy.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
When the extreme right drags the political gradient so far to the right that Hillary is somehow a meaningful progressive choice after all the shit she's pulled over the past few decades, "extreme Left" is basically "not a fan of killing foreigners abroad for no reason," among other basic things.
Under a president who picked two very good Supreme Court candidates, which is the point you are responding to, not about foreign policy.
Damerman
Member
my favorite part is when we go from "LOL GOP IS UTTER SHIT, THEY ARE TRASH, THEY WONT WIN SHIT" to "IF SANDERS GETS NOMINATED, GOP WILL TURN THE USA INTO A DYSTOPIAN TOTALITARIAN STATE" at the drop of a hat.
why does this always happen?
Why are you so unfocused? You throw specific accusations out, get called on them, and respond with "well she sucks so there."
You're such a child.
Because people understand how politics work in the US.
You gonna actually respond to his post or just keep strawmanning?
If I had to quote one quote out of all of your library of quotes, this is the one.
It speaks for itself. It is remarkable.
Drink it in, folks.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
They won't win...unless 5% of the population suddenly votes Sanders over Clinton and they manage to squeak by with the 47% of the country that always votes for them
Velcro Fly
Member
Better late than never, madam president
America stole it from you 8 years ago
Now there is no one left to crush under your feet.
Now pick Al Gore as your running mate please. Clinton/Gore and let the good times roll.
America stole it from you 8 years ago
Now there is no one left to crush under your feet.
Now pick Al Gore as your running mate please. Clinton/Gore and let the good times roll.
Veritigo_X
Member
Oh wow, that one slipped by me. Hilarious stuff.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Lots of "insane" and "child" insults thrown around when the pro-Hillary crowd gets called on their argument. If you have to rest upon "I'm right and if you disagree you're insane or a child" then you don't have an argument at all.
Kylo Hillary will finish what Darth Bill started.
And my point still stands.
campfireweekend
Member
I'm not contesting your politics or views (they largely mirror mine). Where I feel you're at fault is your habit of bringing up points only to have them shot down, and then quickly moving on without addressing that.
Referencing specifically your argument that Clinton wouldn't nominate liberal SC judges
shoplifter
Member
And are they *tired* of the way politics work here, or are they resigned to it never improving and just taking the massive fucking they get from both sides?
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Because Sanders is a socialist and that's the worst thing possible, although Hillary who is everything that the horrifically sexist American culture hates about the modern woman, will somehow sweep. Again, this thread is full of people deciding facts that aren't founded in anything but their own desire to be right.
Next time when someone talks about SC nominations regarding the candidates.
Don't counter with Foreign Policy.
It doesn't make you look logical or smart, or really answers the question.
And the Idea of improving politics is to galvanize the right against a known boogeyman socialist, whose supporters want him to go independent as to all but confirm a GOP presidency
You postulated that there was no evidence that Hillary would nominate actual liberals to the SCOTUS. When pressed on this -- her voting record (let's throw in her views in here as well), both Bill and Obama's nominees -- your response was "well look at her foreign policy!"
That is not a response that tracks. If you're going to make such an accusations that Hillary will nominate a NotLiberal or a secret conservative to the SCOTUS, back it up.
Agreed. That doesn't mean we don't care about what happens in the Middle East though, I find it very heartbreaking and sad that we're at a point we really can't have both good foreign and domestic policy. I understand why voters would want to instead do some good by electing a democrat who won't screw the lives of many tens of millions in the US. One has to face the harsh reality we can't have it all, just to expand on what you said.
I didn't just rely on anything you've just described. You're embarrassing yourself at this point. You continually misconstrue, misrepresent or simply misunderstand what's said to you, then go on to just ignore specific refutations of points you try to relate.
You claimed that the idea Hillary would appoint liberal justic was laughable. It's been pointed out to you why your view is ridiculous and completely wrong. Your response was to throw more shit at a wall in a desperate attempt to change the subject. That is childish and, unfortunately, par for the course with you.
User 463088
Banned
Hopefully you don't take this as an attack against you, because it's not meant to be.
Because you're coming from a place of privilege. Those of us who don't hold the power, and I mean in terms of "negative" traits (such as sexuality, disability, socioeconomic status) don't have the ability to wreck shit. We just don't. My boyfriend and I are incredibly active in trying to make things better, which is why people pretending Sanders can just waive a wand and fix shit is so annoying to me. It's not going to happen. No amount of hoping will make it so. A lot of us have learned, through experience and activism, that you have to be willing to settle for the good. Life is won, changes are made, in the small moments. That's the way it is. That's the way it's going to be. Call it pragmatism, but I agree with Hillary--I'm a progressive who wants to get stuff done. A lot of us can't afford the risk of a Bernie Sander's candidacy. We just can't.
I've been active in the Democratic party since I was a little kid. My dad was an FDR voter (He was older when I was born. For reference, I'm in my late 20s but my dad voted for FDR). I've knocked on doors, I've made phone calls, I've handed out filers for candidates that I knew were going to lose. We still did it anyway. Because the Democratic party IS the best hope of progressive change in this country. In a world where political parties didn't exist? Sure, go do what you want. But that's not the real world.
That's not defeatist, either. It's realistic.
I said this to you before but will say it again. You need a reality check and quick
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
A Republican president in 2016 repeals Obamacare. They are threatening medicare. How stupid is that line of thinking? No care about alienating the old vote. That was unheard of 10 years ago.
Whoever wins the nomination will have a term where the dawn of technological unemployment becomes a reality. If not near the end of the next term, surely one after.
Do we really think Republicans will be smart about that problem? They'll take cues from the UK and infer a right to work while the jobs and their wages crater. These motherfuckers will be the literal enemies to any solution, as well as even having them halfway involved in our system is kind of a non-starter to solutions, too..
This is an issue even Sanders will fail, for his comments on the matter are uninspiring, to say the least.
If Bernie actually tried to push for a democratic China like he said, then that would be a pretty large foreign policy change. Personally, I think it sounds like a great way to completely ruin our relationship with the country and to get involved in something we shouldn't be involved in.
The GOP committee members looked like loud bumbling idiots, and she looked Presidential over 11 hours.
Damerman
Member
i just want to know why there is a 0% chance that an electoral college might vote in a GOP(despite popular vote) candidate versus Hillary, but then it's a 100% chance that sanders will lose to the same GOP candidate, despite sander's grassroots support?
Velcro Fly
Member
She handled herself for like 11 hours really well
Everyone is sick of it and is realizing it is a witch hunt designed to harm her presidential campaign.
boiled goose
good with gravy
President Hillary will be like obama 2.0 but probably worse.
Us will still continue lawless executions in the middle east.
The rich will continue to get richer as the wealth inequality increases.
Money in politics will continue to shape policy
Us will still continue lawless executions in the middle east.
The rich will continue to get richer as the wealth inequality increases.
Money in politics will continue to shape policy
has anyone said both of those things in one post
Jeevesmeister
Banned
The context was that SC was the only thing that matters. The problem is that to any human being not drunk on jingoism and a sense of empathy, the loss of life abroad killed by our weapons matters more.
And Hillary isn't a boogeyman woman that the Republicans spent 11 hours trying to grill?
This is what I don't get. We have never had a woman president or even VP. You can just as easily say "a woman could never be elected" as a "socialist".
I don't think some people on GAF are fully accounting for how motivated the GoP is this cycle. They have been getting crushed on social issues. Hillary is not going to stroll into the white house. This arrogance is the same exact reason she lost to Obama.
All it takes is for Trump or Carson or whoever to scream SOCIALIST for 90 seconds in a tv ad and the election's done.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
You think that's one side? You don't perceive yourself as doing that when you castigate anyone who supports a different candidate? Is it even possible for someone else's views to hold water if they don't synchronize with your own?
If someone says hey follow the money in politics, and they don't want to vote for a milquetoast centrist with the backing of the financial sector because voting from fear has lead to 40 years of steady political erosion and a deflated apathetic left, is it possible for that to be a potentially valid motivation regardless of whether it is a direct reflection of your views? Or is it better to castigate them, and blame them for what a dysfunctional opposition party might hypothetically do?
I still see people blaming Ralph Nader for throwing an election for Christ's sake. The problem wasn't electoral manipulation, voter disenfranchisement, or people who voted for Bush exercising their best judgement, for better or for worse. It was that a staggering minority who decided they preferred a consumer advocate spoiled things, because their votes were otherwise guaranteed for Gore or something. (Full disclosure, I voted for Gore).
I personally think it's telling of the political process in general that earnest disagreement isn't tolerated. People are more prone to point a finger than accept there's more than one way to skin a cat, and that an individual's choice can rest on a different set of priorities, short or long term. And that's ok. It's why democracy exists.
I guess we'd miss out on all that great tap dancing if we did that though.
Damerman
Member
so why did this person come in and say that a vote for Bernie is a vote for the GOP? how is it that you don't criticize that kind of hyperbolic talk?
The Republicans tore into her for 11 full hours over petty crap and she didn't crack under the pressure. It became obvious to everyone that it was a blatant political circus and the Republicans didn't walk away with anything but Clinton looking pretty damn presidential.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
This thread moves fast and I'm arguing against multiple people at once here. Give me a little credit, c'mon.
That's not what I said. The ideal that she would appoint justices that would just magically agree with all of our progressive views is hard to chalk up to reality considering how often she's come down supporting regressive policies over the decades both at home and abroad is laughable.
Please practice some reading comprehension and understanding context before lashing out with obnoxious accusations.
Fenderputty
Banned
Digging you're heals in: The Thread.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Watch out, they'll pull out all of one poll trying to disprove what you're saying here.
For someone voting for someone who is suppose to be 'above how politics is done today'
You are remarkably petty,
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Irony the post?
Your already dead.
You then accused him of saying that Hillary has a 100% chance of winning the nomination while Bernie has a 0% chance, a point that was not actually expressed or articulated in any way in the post in question.
The idea that Hillary has a better chance than Bernie in the general is pretty reasonable. She's now polling about ~5 points ahead of him in the state polls, especially after the debate (see: PPP's last North Carolina poll). It's quite possible to say, hey, I like Bernie, but I don't think he has as much of a shot as Hillary in the general, so I'm going with Hillary. I don't think Bernie has as much of a shot in the general, and I like Bernie, but I do think if he gets the nomination, it's much more likely that we will see a Republican presidency.
- Status