This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

2016 Presidential Election

12526283031109

Comments

  • edited December 2015
    muppet said:

    Have you ever chosen between medication for either you or your kid? Or between medication or groceries? Clinton probably looks great to people who have been comfortable their whole lives.

    You're getting dangerously close to territory that historically does not end well around here. You're quite free talking about your own situation, do not presume that because other people here are not that they don't have their own problems, let alone problems that relate.

    It's not about politics, it's just that I'm not keen on watching you make a total arse of yourself without at least attempting to tell you that might not be a good path to start walking down. Political arguments is one thing, but down that path lies something altogether nastier.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Churba said:

    muppet said:

    Except politically it's more about wedge issues and pop politics than deep seated and intransigent issues that both sides would like changed but everyone is too distracted to talk about. Wedge issues ARE important or else they wouldn't be effective political fodder, but there are plenty of social and economic issues that both sides agree are trouble that don't make exciting prime time news or good SNL sketches. Hillary couldn't care less about those and neither does the entire GOP field. No hay to be made.

    Or, I was giving him a simple explanation and a simple example, because he didn't know what a weathervane was, and presumably how it related to politics. I don't think he needs a deep understanding of the intricacies of political terminology to understand what a fecking weathervane is or what Rym was getting at.
    I was elaborating on my characterization of Clinton and why i used that term which I thought was in the context of the conversation since it's what I was getting at. Apologies for... whatever.
  • muppet said:

    Have you ever chosen between medication for either you or your kid? Or between medication or groceries? Clinton probably looks great to people who have been comfortable their whole lives.

    And Trump will make that better?
  • Rym said:

    muppet said:

    Have you ever chosen between medication for either you or your kid? Or between medication or groceries? Clinton probably looks great to people who have been comfortable their whole lives.

    And Trump will make that better?
    No but we've already been here and now we're going in circles. My entire point is that Clinton won't either. At best she'll pay it lip service or take credit for some marginal improvement. This is why to me there's fundamentally not enough difference to matter.
  • edited December 2015
    I bet about 500k dead Iraqis really wish we had elected Gore. (another D who was considered the same as the R during the election by democrat/liberals)

    Is that wedge enough for you?
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • edited December 2015
    muppet said:

    I was elaborating on my characterization of Clinton and why i used that term which I thought was in the context of the conversation since it's what I was getting at. Apologies for... whatever.

    Overthinking it, more than anything else. I'll admit to being tricky sometimes, but Frank Underwood I am not.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • edited December 2015
    Cremlian said:

    I bet about 500k dead Iraqis really wish we had elected Gore. (another D who was considered the same as the R during the election by democrat/liberals)

    Is that wedge enough for you?

    I agree that Gore vs Bush was an important distinction. I don't see Clinton as being especially anti-war except that she murmurs a few things after Bernie says them. You can keep yelling "intransigent Congress" to excuse Obama's human rights record, too, but he could be bringing it into the spotlight a great deal more than he is.

    Churba I wasn't accusing you of being disingenuous or tricky or anything I was just explaining what I meant by "weathervane" since it's more than simply playing to the masses in her case. I can understand why some people may see that as the whole of politics because of how cynical everyone has (justifiably) become.

    I wonder how many of Bernie's speeches and policy stances the folks on FRC have read in general. His website and his Facebook page are pretty illustrative of the things I'm talking about. The politics that most candidates aren't talking about or are only paying lip service to are just about the entirety of his platform. He's like the non-crazy, actually human version of Rand Paul.
    Post edited by muppet on
  • Churba said:

    muppet said:

    Have you ever chosen between medication for either you or your kid? Or between medication or groceries? Clinton probably looks great to people who have been comfortable their whole lives.

    You're getting dangerously close to territory that historically does not end well around here. You're quite free talking about your own situation, do not presume that because other people here are not that they don't have their own problems, let alone problems that relate.

    It's not about politics, it's just that I'm not keen on watching you make a total arse of yourself without at least attempting to tell you that might not be a good path to start walking down. Political arguments is one thing, but down that path lies something altogether nastier.
    I have no doubt that there's a person or five here who could "beat" me with their life stories, but I do think that your relative comfort and your own experience with hardship is relevant when it comes to the ability to feel informed empathy rather than just the general sort, and I think that's something that is particularly instrumental in understanding why relative to Bernie, Clinton may as well be a Republican.

    If you want to get into some sort of pissing match about what poor actually is or abused actually is or marginalized actually is, well, I don't see that as particularly productive but we could do that I guess. It would certainly not make a stronger argument for Clinton.
  • Cremlian said:

    God your definition of marginally better is infuriating.

    IKR. Reproductive rights, Civil rights, these are only "wedge" (read: secondary) issues when you treat the straight white (cis)male experience as the default, neutral perspective. Decentralize that shit.
    Greg said:

    you're doing a lot of fear mongering that kind of disgusts me.

    Maybe you have no reason to be afraid. Must be nice.

    P1: Hey, the house is on fire. Let's use a fire extinguisher.
    P2: Your fire extinguisher is not as effective as my fire extinguisher. If we don't use mine, I'm just going to napalm the place with the people still in it.
    P1: ...
    ---
    P1: Hey, this ship is sinking! Help me bail out the water.
    P2: We could bail out more water if we had faster pumps. But we don't, so I'm going to punch more holes in the hull, since we're doomed anyway.
    P1: ...
  • You know Sanders isn't a real socialist, yes? He lies somewhere between Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. His brand as Congress's only socialist fooled me for years. He's actually more conservative on some issues than Clinton. What policies did he push or votes did he cast to make you think there is this giant gap between the two?
  • Greg said:

    What policies did he push or votes did he cast to make you think there is this giant gap between the two?

    I too would like to hear this.

  • Reproductive rights, Civil rights, these are only "wedge" (read: secondary) issues when you treat the straight white (cis)male experience as the default, neutral perspective

    This cannot be understated. Literally today, if any member of the GOP had been president instead of a Democrat, Planned Parenthood would be dead.

    That would be a disaster for a lot of people. A real personal disaster affecting their lives in deeply material ways.
  • P1: Hey, the house is on fire. Let's use a fire extinguisher.
    P2: Your fire extinguisher is not as effective as my fire extinguisher. If we don't use mine, I'm just going to napalm the place with the people still in it.
    P1: ...
    ---
    P1: Hey, this ship is sinking! Help me bail out the water.
    P2: We could bail out more water if we had faster pumps. But we don't, so I'm going to punch more holes in the hull, since we're doomed anyway.
    P1: ...

    My statement wasn't intended to be support for Muppet. I was directing it at comments across party lines that Rym seems to repeat without revision.
  • edited December 2015
    The last thing I want is a real revolutionary socialist. Those people are out of their minds, living in a dream world. There's no way to get from here to there even if they get the glorious violent uprising they all seem to want.

    Re: voting record, if I have some spare time that I wouldn't rather spend lobotomizing myself against a wall during, I'll dig through his Congressional record and pick out some gems. It's much more to do with what he's willing to talk about and she isn't. Even recent stuff like his response to the Paris attacks (that Clinton carefully parroted days later), and so on. Sure, politicians talk and talk is cheap but Bernie has a record that backs him up where Clinton, I feel, really doesn't. FFS she was working for Barry Goldwater back in the day.

    Reproductive and civil rights aren't being protected by the power of a presidential veto and even if they were, how long is that going to keep working before one election goes south and it all goes to hell? What kind of way is that to preserve the rights of a minority, by our fingernails for the rest of our lives?

    Those same minorities are going to continue getting fucked under Clinton when their death rates are higher, their health outcomes are poorer, etc. Is Trump going to singlehandedly overturn Roe vs Wade?
    Post edited by muppet on
  • My point is in 1999 you could have made the same argument about Gore, however if you had just gone with the D presidents of modern time tend not to be completely crazy war mongers. No Iraq War along with a bunch of other stuff that probably wouldn't happen.
  • Cremlian said:

    My point is in 1999 you could have made the same argument about Gore, however if you had just gone with the D presidents of modern time tend not to be completely crazy war mongers. No Iraq War along with a bunch of other stuff that probably wouldn't happen.

    I don't agree that Gore was as milque toast as Hillary is, but I'm sure that someone could have justified that argument, sure. I don't agree that there's much of a parallel here.

    How's Obama doing? Are we still drone bombing fucktons of people and keeping Gitmo open? Maybe Congress prevents him from closing it but they're not ordering drone strikes and they're not ordering him to shut his mouth about all of it, either.
  • edited December 2015
    Rym said:

    Reproductive rights, Civil rights, these are only "wedge" (read: secondary) issues when you treat the straight white (cis)male experience as the default, neutral perspective

    This cannot be understated. Literally today, if any member of the GOP had been president instead of a Democrat, Planned Parenthood would be dead.

    That would be a disaster for a lot of people. A real personal disaster affecting their lives in deeply material ways.
    While I don't disagree with this assessment, Planned Parenthood is a band aid on a bullet wound. Sure, a large number of people benefit from it and would rather have it than not, which I'm sure is putting it mildly. It is not even CLOSE to solving healthcare in the US, but people like Clinton will tout all of its great work and do their damnedest to imply that it practically does solve everything.

    And you can argue that people would be ridiculously ignorant of reality to believe that, and you'd be right, and that's the America we're living in.
    Post edited by muppet on
  • muppet said:

    The last thing I want is a real revolutionary socialist. Those people are out of their minds, living in a dream world. There's no way to get from here to there even if they get the glorious violent uprising they all seem to want.

    You're delusional if you think that Sanders is the furthest to the left peaceful politics gets.
  • muppet said:

    While I don't disagree with this assessment, Planned Parenthood is a band aid on a bullet wound.

    Of all the people to quote, Taylor Swift? :P
  • muppet said:

    Rym said:

    Reproductive rights, Civil rights, these are only "wedge" (read: secondary) issues when you treat the straight white (cis)male experience as the default, neutral perspective

    This cannot be understated. Literally today, if any member of the GOP had been president instead of a Democrat, Planned Parenthood would be dead.

    That would be a disaster for a lot of people. A real personal disaster affecting their lives in deeply material ways.
    While I don't disagree with this assessment...
    So you're totally OK with making electoral choices that lead to this mass harm of women and women's health?
  • Greg said:

    muppet said:

    The last thing I want is a real revolutionary socialist. Those people are out of their minds, living in a dream world. There's no way to get from here to there even if they get the glorious violent uprising they all seem to want.

    You're delusional if you think that Sanders is the furthest to the left peaceful politics gets.
    I think it's as far to the left as we can reasonably push American politics in the next election.
  • edited December 2015
    Rym said:

    muppet said:

    Rym said:

    Reproductive rights, Civil rights, these are only "wedge" (read: secondary) issues when you treat the straight white (cis)male experience as the default, neutral perspective

    This cannot be understated. Literally today, if any member of the GOP had been president instead of a Democrat, Planned Parenthood would be dead.

    That would be a disaster for a lot of people. A real personal disaster affecting their lives in deeply material ways.
    While I don't disagree with this assessment...
    So you're totally OK with making electoral choices that lead to this mass harm of women and women's health?
    Are you a Republican? Because you just accused me of using "their" talking points or terminology and then you come out with this shit. :)

    Voting Hillary in to maintain a tenuous status quo at best is not much of a rallying cry. We need to do better than that. A whole hell of a lot better.
    Post edited by muppet on
  • Greg said:

    muppet said:

    While I don't disagree with this assessment, Planned Parenthood is a band aid on a bullet wound.

    Of all the people to quote, Taylor Swift? :P
    Taylor Swift did not invent this aphorism/metaphor/whatever. :P
  • edited December 2015
    So to continue with the analogy. Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. We may not have gone in and just bombed the heck from the sky but we would be still involved there in some way.

    Obama compared to McCain, "BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN" We got a Iran Nuclear Deal, normalizing Cuba relations. Compared to McCain, we didn't put troops on the ground in Libya. We drew down in Afghanstan and Iraq as planned. We signed a Nuclear arms deal with Russia. We stayed out of a bunch of international conflicts or just provided support or air strikes.

    Sure his failure to close Gitmo is disappointing but no president gets everything they want. Compared to the alternative. Only Rand Paul has a foreign policy that would reduce our military impact.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • muppet said:

    Voting Hillary in to maintain a tenuous status quo at best is not much of a rallying cry. We need to do better than that. A whole hell of a lot better.

    muppet said:

    I think it's as far to the left as we can reasonably push American politics in the next election.

    You see where this is contradictory, yes?
  • No, I don't, but then we get back to where you folks seem to see this equivalence between Hillary and Bernie that I just do not see.
  • I'm the only one who thinks they're close on the political spectrum. At least, no one else has expressed that opinion. Point being, if you're willing to compromise, why would you then sabotage Clinton? Clinton is the compromise candidate. Not like Henry Clay, but like a compromise between the radicals like us and Love Me I'm A Liberals who populate the swing vote. Whoever wins the Democratic primary is the furthest we can reasonably push American politics, proven by the fact that they wont he Democratic primary.
  • It's too late for compromise.

    And the DNC is a fuckshow. Let their games blow up in their face.

    At any rate, you can all rest assured that Connecticut will vote Clinton anyway so my stance is academic.
  • edited December 2015
    Rym said:

    Trump being horrible

    I just had to look up the survey that statement is referencing and my god did they do a fun job of phrasing questions so that they could make them look terrible without context.
    Post edited by Linkigi(Link-ee-jee) on
Sign In or Register to comment.