I would be disappointed if they somehow ended up back at the Venture Compound at the end of this season.
Posts made by Taggerung
-
RE: Venture Brothers
-
RE: Random News Article Discussion II
NSA data will now be used for domestic policing
We edge ever closer to a society where the government knows everything you do and everyone you talk to. Now the police can obtain this information without a warrant. This should be a major concern to everyone in the country as it, and policies like it are supported by the leading candidates from both parties.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Or it's the result of people emboldened by a leading politician who is finally saying out loud and everywhere what they were all thinking anyway. Trump is a symptom of the problem. He's capitalizing on it. But he's not the source. A lot of people in this country are just really shitty people. Go figure.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
the Donald is friends with everybody.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/ben-carson-endorses-donald-trump/index.html
It's not as cringe as Christie's verbal blowjob. It's actually kind of a soothing listen.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
I like the outfit. It's always weird when the heroes discover they can sew haute couture garments out of difficult fabrics overnight. And I think it matches this version of Spider-man who seems more like a kid. He automatically looks out of place next to all the fancy leather and buckles.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
And blacks, like the North, have remembered and bequeathed unto her our undying loyalty.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
I wonder how come Bernie is suffering with the minority vote. Was it because he never addressed any civil rights issues, and only really address stuff like economics for example? Or is it because minorities feel like they can empathize better with Hillary because she is a woman, and not a man? (Women had similar issues with civil rights like the other minorities.)
Clinton is coasting off recognition. She's hasn't done anything meaningful for civil rights. She championed legislature that actually gutted black and latino communities. But people liked Bill Clinton cause he played the sax and was the real first black president etc. Prior to this race Sanders was not a household name. Hilary has been one for two decades.
She doesn't resonate more. She hasn't done anything to earn these votes. People aren't empathizing with her. It's her name.
-
RE: Grimdark Edgy Science Show (Rick & Morty Thread)
Not only will the show be back sooner than expected but we're getting a longer season.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
I am not vouching for Rubio. He is so far off the deep-end on foreign policy that even thinking about vouching for him would give me a heart attack. What if he confuses Pakistan and India and bombs my home instead? I am merely pointing out that his profile (immigrant, middle-of-the-road conservative on domestic issues, war hawk, fairly popular in a pretty important swing state, might look charismatic given the right spin) would appeal more to the Republican bosses than the donut-gorging extra from Jersey Shore.
None of that mattered because you could spin Rubio in circles and he'd still be a busted hunk of junk. That wasn't a secret when they decided to support him.
If he were ever relevant in the election, what do you think his opponents would be trumpeting (heh) from the rooftops? Add the spin of being a corrupt vindictive man-child and you've got a campaign dead in the water.
I already said I don't think it would hurt chances if they brought it up. No one cares about bridgegate. No one is going "omg I used to like Christie but then Bridgegate made me think he was the worst." Bridgegate is to the right what Benghazi is to the left. The only candidate who doesn't have any real dirt is Bernie and Hilary is the only one who can throw that stone without shattering her glass house.
Contrary to the perception built in this place, Republican politicians vary on their stances on immigration. W was pretty pro-immigration and even worked with Congress to try and streamline the process of granting illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. The rabid xenophobia Trump has built is not something that every Republican espouses, which is why you still don't see him topping 40% in any major national poll among Republicans. Also, no one in the mainstream Republican Party has called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. (Cue dozens of articles about nutbags in some obscure local office calling for mass-execution of all Muslims.)
All the leading candidates for the Reps support some form of drastic border control from walls to tracking. They wouldn't have all jumped on such terrible ideas if it wasn't resonating with the base in some way.
What sort of asinine logic is this? Someone who can out-Trump Trump would never be for the establishment because they would lose the number one reason Trump is doing so well. He is a fucking outsider and he does not listen to the establishment. Seriously, talk to a Trump supporter, or if that is too unpalatable, see some of the interviews with them on TV. This is the same reason Carson and Fiorina also got their moments in the spotlight, however brief they might have been.
You just remarked how Trump wasn't topping 40%. So at least 60% some other candidate would have to work with. Cruz is Trump light, if the party had a stronger establishment candidate like NOT Rubio who was as loud and as obnoxious as Trump I think they would have an easier time bleeding from Trumps 40% and consolidating the 60% around them. I think Fiorina would definitely play ball with the party which is why I brought her up earlier. Christie also fits that bill. He's known for speaking his mind and is no stranger to earning flak for saying shit only his party could agree with. With the support of the party I think as the field shrunk he would have been a better choice to run against Trump than Rubio. This is all speculation but it's less asinine than speculating that if a person was a completely different person he'd have had a shot at winning.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
But he doesn't have a brain. A team of people working with him and all the money in the world didn't give him a brain or make him more articulate. You didn't mention Kaisch in your first reply but it's better to bring him into this than repeatedly vouching for a candidate potentials on the basis of qualities they do not possess.
And no one cares about Bridgegate. The only people who care are liberals who didn't like him in the first place.
The reason why Trump has been so hard for the party to deal with is because he represents all the bullshit the party has been spewing for decades. So they can't openly revolt against the things he says because they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. That's why it would be important for the establishment to find a candidate who could stand equally with all that garbage but would also be for the establishment. That's what I called the need to out Trump Trump and that should have been the parties goal if they wanted to actually win with the candidates they had to pick from.
You're saying they should have picked Rubio, and they did, and he was garbage. But he was only garbage because he was Rubio. If he hadn't been..
-
RE: Ghostbusters reboot
I want to like this movie and I'm going to see it but I didn't laugh once in that trailer.
That being said I didn't laugh much when I saw the original as a child but I still liked it a lot, it was a very cool movie. I appreciated it more when I got older.
I think the CGI isn't helping. Like the ghost could be grosser and creepier or maybe I'm just not as easily creeped or grossed out. It's off. Hoping when I see it it comes together.
-
RE: Chapter 818: In The Whale
@bolded the GL is pretty big. The GL has countries like Albasta that had a 10km river run thru it and it looked small to the country itself and despite its size it was nowhere near any other country.
And there other countries like that as said by nami.
So GL is not small at all
I know the Grand Line isn't tiny but it's size is limited.
We know that Raftel is at the end of the Grand Line so that already constrains the area that it can exist in. Going off a model of the Op world that looks like that, the more islands we know exist in the NW the smaller the area that Raftel can exist in becomes. Even Luffy was able to traverse Paradise after stopping at only like 7 islands. The NW journey hasn't been in a straight line but assuming it takes the same amount of Islands to get to the end that doesn't leave a lot of room for Raftel to exist.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
At the point in the race when Jeb started flailing I still think it would have been a smart choice to prop up Christie. After Sandy he had a lot of bi-partisan appeal and even if his approval ratings weren't the best they had ever been coming into this I think his personality would have done better against Trump and he still would have been as establishment as they needed him to be. Scandal really just comes with NJ so while that might be a nice place to attack him I don't think it would have hurt him too much especially in the eyes of the base. Trump is full of scandal and nobody over there gives a shit.
Really they needed someone who could keep up with Trump that they knew would follow the party lines and the only people who displayed those qualities to me were Christie and Fiorina. With the right campaigning I think they could have out Trump'd Trump. You can talk about how Rubio was born for this role but like you said, he completely wilted under fire and he lacked the ability to recover. Even if he got the nomination Clinton would have destroyed in the ensuing mech battle. I don't think he'd do well against Bernie either.
No one cares about Rand Paul. He goes on stage and might as well be talking to himself. I honestly forgot about him. He's that much of a non-factor in all of this.
You're probably right about Clinton but I really don't want that to be the case so I'll hold on until all Bernie drops out or he wins.
-
RE: Stephen King Dark Tower Movie
Huge fan of the books and huge skeptic of this movie plan but I do applaud going with Idris. He's perfect for role and I just wouldn't think they would give a black actor something like that unless they had major major star power which he doesn't have so I'm delighted.
McConaughey as flag is a solid choice as well.
I heard they were going to ditch the first two books and start at The Wasteland which is probably the easiest place to start turning the books into a modern movie. Huge setting. Lots of action. Cliffhanger ending.
The first book is really slow and not a lot happens. Drawing of the Three is extremely chaotic but not in a blockbuster kind of way. If that rumor is true I understand why they would do it.
Like I said initially huge skeptic of this. It would have been better as a TV show like GoT I think. But we'll see.
-
RE: Chapter 818: In The Whale
Raftel has always been made to be the end of The Grand Line so there should be a limited space in which it could be. After all the the known islands and before meeting the Red Line, obviously. But even if that space were extremely large which wouldn't really make sense from what we know about the world geographically it still wouldn't stop people from eventually just sailing through it until they found the island. They've had 800 years to do that.
My point is I don't see how the location of Raftel could be a big secret. I always thought what was stopping people from getting there was some type of physical obstacle like whirlpools or upside down ocean or something crazy.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
There was nothing illogical about him being the Republican nominee. The base not immediately dismissing Trump as a joke was a bad sign. Everyone knew that the party and the money was backing Jeb but he was doing terrible. They should have backed Christie but by the time they realized Jeb wasn't going anywhere no matter how much money they put into him Christie was practically out of the race and they went and backed Rubio instead which was stupid. There's Kaisch who was never going to amount to anything. Fiorina who, no matter how much she embodied what they probably needed, was a woman and therefore ineligible. Everyone else is just a different shade of Trump and all of them faded into the background when put next to the real thing.
Really once you realized how much money the party was putting into Jeb and how it was getting them nowhere you knew the inmates were running the asylum. It will be interesting to see what they do about this when it comes time to back him, but also irrelevant to the outcome of the general.
I'll also agree that I don't see Trump beating Hilary or Bernie. I don't even think it will be close. I don't think that will stop everyone from acting like this is a do or die moment for the country and every vote WILL matter etc though. The real presidential race will be decided with the democratic primary.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
If the establishment fields it's own third party candidate in opposition to candidate their base has chosen that would be suicide.
It means they've given up on the whitehouse because they're willing to split their base.
That will tell the majority of their base's active voters, who choose trump, that the establishment does not support them.
That will result in every local and state level election that isn't already a fight between an establishment Rep and a tea party Rep becoming just that increasing their chances of losing seats at all levels of government due to infighting. If Trump's strong showing is any indication more than likely the Tea Party reps will win most of that infighting lowering the power the establishment has even further. With the numbers they have now they were able to force Boehner out. With more numbers, the establishment won't stand a chance so they have a lot more to lose by playing this game.
They might still do that only because they have no idea what to do at this point but it's not a smart move. They don't have any smart moves left. Just ones that will hurt them less.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Except no. There will obviously be issues where candidates differ more or less, and cases where no candidate has the view or track record one would hope for. But saying there's no difference, in ANY area, is completely lazy and/or naïve. And I'm still shocked by this tunnel vision people have in thinking that what happens during a presidential term reduces entirely to a few events you can point out for a candidate.
except no one is saying that. That post especially is talking about a specific issue not marking her as Trump's equal across the board.
I've said before that on the things I care about, the NSA, banks/wallstreet, trade regulations, removing money from politics, and healthcare, her and the reps are probably equal. I'll kick healthcare off that list, maybe that was extreme. I don't think she'll improve on Obamacare though, I think she'll coast on it.
The point being I have no idea why I'm being quoted here.
You heard it first on AP, folks! What a president does during their term has no bearing on their re-election!
Not really. I was pretty okay with McCain taking it. Had it not been for his VP of Palin, and him following up Bush Jr., and had he not been up against Obama, he would have been an all right choice. Basically, had he been in any other eletion. (And he probably should have run and won in 2000).
The republican party is full of crazies at the head right now, but they aren't and haven't always been bad, and the Dem nominee isn't always great. But I imagine both parties are going to have to adjust some after this election cycle in a lot of way given Trump and Bernie. And either side can run a much more central, reasonable intelligent candidate if they can find them.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, ALL the candidates running right will be past 70 by next year. They might not be up for running again in 2020.
McCain before running was the darling right of the left. McCain during and after, not so much. They're basically two different people so saying you supported pre-election McCain is almost a non-statement because as soon as he started running that guy disappeared.
And didn't you guys just look down memory lane to find when the republican party went crazy. I think you all were still looking by the end of that.
Besides we're not where we were 50 or 60 years ago or even 10 years ago. The seeds the republicans have been sowing for decades have come to fruition in the form of the tea party. I don't see that getting fixed in 4 years. If anything it'll get worse. So them being able to field someone who won't still be trying to get rid of gay marriage and lock up womens vaginas is unlikely. Since that is what the people who keep saying "vote dem just so the reps don't get it," are actually voting for, that will not change come Hilary's reelection, so the rhetoric here will not change.
I can't see the future but I'm not pulling this entirely out of my ass.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
When you're giving private talks to wall street. When you and your husband have always backed big banks and their deregulation. When your son-in-law works for Goldman Sachs. When your top contributors are banks.
You can't just go the reason why she won't make headway on banks is because she's trying to compromise and get reelected, it's because she doesn't want to. Plain and simple.
If there is one issue where she and Trump are probably on the exact same page it's banking/Wall Street. She loves them. He loves them. That is the worst issue to discuss when you're trying to contrast the two.
To that I say this: She's a politician. If she gets the nomination, you can be your ASS she 'll understand right off the bat that there's gonna be another election in 4 more years. That's the big thing here. If she even has a HOPE of getting re-elected in 2020, she NEEDS to try to keep her campaign promises.
Why would she need to do that. She'll be an incumbent democrat. I 100% guarantee that everyone here who is saying vote Dem just to keep the Reps from getting it will be saying the exact same thing 4 years from now no matter what she does. So if that mentality draws enough votes to get her the seat in the first place it will keep her there.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
I don't know who those people are either. Ask Kaiolino.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
@Purple:
What if people just in general prefer Hillary because they prefer someone who's moderate? Or people in general who acknowledge that Bernie and Hillary have voted similarly on many of the same issues in government? Are all those people lowering the standards of democracy just because they don't ascribe to your particular set of beliefs such that you'd prefer to burn the whole country down with Drumpf?
Well what about the people who have seriously weighed Hilary and Bernie's record and find Hilary lacking in a lot issues that are important to them? What if on those issues they do not see a difference between her and the republicans? Are all those people crazy irrational bernie bros just because they don't ascribe to your particular set of beliefs such that you'd prefer to settle for a republican who is OK with gays getting married.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Maybe they're extremely frustrated with a base that is willing to settle for someone like Hilary Clinton and the Democratic politicians who use that apathy as shield to remain unaccountable to their party. I know coming here and reading this pretentious bernie bro crap makes me think more and more that the left needs a serious division. You people lower the standards of democracy.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
If Sanders had been getting the black vote Hilary supporters would be saying the same thing.
But no lets pretend like this an attitude that has only arisen now and only in the Sanders camp instead of something that comes up every election. Those lame bernie bros.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
You don't need to explain the site. I read the site and listed off some of the inconsistencies I found with it.
In the context of the discussion of whether Hilary is to the left or right of Obama I don't think that site is a good citation.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
These are obviously drawn from information provided by the individual campaigns by the way.
So basically Hilary says she's to the left of Obama so that website says she's to the left of Obama.
Hilary is Strongly comfortable with Gay marriage but the president who ended the policies she championed is less.
Hilary disagrees that marijuana is a gateway drug but when ever you talk about legalizing it she goes on a tangent about why we shouldn't because of heroin.
The stimulus being better than a market led economy, all of her biggest donors support a market led economy.At defense and international issues they give two green to Barack, Hilary is all red even though she supported the TPP initially, and they come out even.
I don't really like that website, not just because it disagrees with what I've been saying but how it disagrees.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
There's a difference between the things Hilary says she stands for and the stuff she actually does and most likely will do based on the past.
On the overall I'd say she's right of Obama.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
What outerspec said. I would have used more insults though. Classy ones, lightly peppered throughout so I didn't come off like a thug and drag my entire race into the toilet.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
I just told you the most obvious thing they've done to benefit black people recently. They have also held many peaceful sit ins and provided support to the families of those killed by police brutality.
How are they making things worse for the black community? Like are their statistics that show since BLM have started blacks have seen a decrease in employment or health or something? There are things that have actually hurt the black community like the crime bill that started this tangent. Or the recession which hit blacks the hardest and from which they have recovered the slowest. Or stop and frisk policies. Those are real things that hurt the black community.
Please explain the damage BLM is wreaking on me and my community.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
That's like pointing out a particular act of terrorism as a reason for why Islam is bad.
As far as giving black people a bad rep why the hell should we have live under the shadow of a reputation that we are constantly responsible for upholding at all times least we make ALL black people look bad. wtf?
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Well they're the only reason why race was brought into the discussion for the Dems at all during the debates. Forcing the candidates to talk to black america is still affecting the election and how people are deciding.
Not everything they do is popular but they do a lot that doesn't get as much attention.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
You're allowed to have good intentions…
I mean I read your whole post but that pretty much sums up how disconnected you are from the reality that the article is trying to explain.
These weren't good intentions. This is was following the long standing american tradition of treating the black population as something to be controlled and contained. They got the result they wanted.
They don't want to fix it. In all of American history they have never wanted to fix it. At this point I don't think they can fix it because if you have something that been left to rot for 300 years and you treat it like it just started rotting 25 years ago you're not going to solve shit. It's not even worth praising the attempt because it would be so feeble compared the task at hand it would border on insulting.
-
RE: Chapter 817: Raizou Of The Mist
Raizou was nice and all but a red poneglyph cast a shadow over everything in the chapter
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
You keep obsessively hammering on Hilary's changed stances, but why are you ignoring that Bernie, as recent as 2007, was virulently anti-immigration until he wasn't anymore? Scumbag flip-flopping pandering politician to be honest.
Any opposition Sanders has had to immigration reform has always come in the defense of US labor. And I believe that concern is serious and genuine. Any immigration reform he is proposing now will certainly keep US labor at the front of his mind.
There's no flip flopping. His stance hasn't changed if you look at his overall record on the subject. He hasn't bent over backwards to make immigration reform happen but he's also not asking mexicans to think of him as their abuelo.
I think if you take all the shots jokes and criticisms levied at very candidate in this thread Hilary by far has taken the least here. If you exclude my comments she's the most uncriticized candidate by a mile. Hammering everyone else is par for the course, hammering Hilary..
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Hilary has been throwing minorities including the LGBT community to the wolves for years. It's not just that she only endorsed marriage equality after it became the cool thing to do, it's that she supported DOMA and DADT.
It's not hyperbole. She literally could not give a shit about gays until her rejecting them could cost her votes or money. If suddenly the social climate of the country shifted and gays became unpopular she would be right at the front putting people back in the closet. She blows with the wind.
The social climate of the country doesn't look like it might blow that way so it she probably won't but don't confuse that with her giving a shit. And don't expect her to stick up for transgender rights (they're a part of the LGBT community too you know) anytime soon.
If there's genuinely people voting for Hillary JUST because she's a woman, they need to have some reason slapped into their sexist face.
What about all the people who voted for Obama because he was black? I'm sure they would have voted Democrat anyway but trying to have serious discussion about Obama's credibility with other black people, especially older black people around 2008 was basically impossible. It was "Are you stupid? We could have a black president. A. Black. President."
Is because she's a woman any better reason than because he's black or because she's a democrat.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Not really circles, it's the whole political party system, nothing new.
I'm curious, what do you propose for someone who support Bernie to do if he does not win the nomination to help fulfill the goals he's been setting for his presidency? Just simply not vote at that point? Or vote to get the candidate most likely to get those things done into office and then put pressure to get those things done.
Well that depends on why you're voting for Bernie. He has an excellent and consistent record when it comes to a lot of issues. Some people are voting for that consistency which Hilary couldn't possibly bring. Some people are voting for his education reform or his tax plan or health care reform or some combination of all of these. Some people just don't trust Hilary in that position. So depending on what you want Bernie to accomplish, which might be different from what he's able to accomplish and it might not be, but depending on what you want from him Hilary may be an acceptable substitute.
If she's not acceptable then I think if you're an active voter your vote has more power in not showing up for Hilary. If you're not an active voter but you decide to vote for Hilary anyway it either sends the message that you really agree with her or you really disagree with the republicans. If you're not an active voter and you don't vote you don't send any message at all.
At the end of the day neither side is campaigning for the the vote of people they know will show up and vote for them. They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to move people who might not show up, who might not vote for them, who's opinion isn't made up yet.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Bernie has been trying to run his campaign as cleanly as possible. It might be out of his character to slam Hilary as badly as his supporters are but the complaints are not fictions imagined up to fuel some desire to rebel against the system and if the differences between them was actually nuanced I doubt he would have the amount or kind of support that he does.
Also he might actually believe that either of them is better than any republican candidate, he wouldn't say otherwise though. Some people who are voting for Bernie want to vote for Bernie, not against whatever the republicans come up with so that kind of message is unlikely to have any impact on them even if it comes from his mouth.
I think an argument could also be made for the shortsightedness of always voting along the party lines nationally simply because the other candidate is worse. The counter argument here will be the other candidate is worse. Then circles.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
We just signed a deal with Iran so no matter what the Ayatollah goes on about I think the government there won't try to do something shady. Speaking about Russia is basically Syria and Ukraine and she's seems to know how to wants to handle these issues, since she was secretary of state Russia probably understands how she wants to handle these issues as well. Even China is getting tired of North Koreas shit so if they do something to piss us off they'll have more immediate problems. As far as China we've already made some moves testing their claim on the South China Sea. They don't seem like the type of nation to want to rock foreign boats. If anything has they attempt to build up their claim in the region with real military support we'll be testing them, something I'm sure Hilary won't be afraid to do. They could mess with currency but they're still having problems with their economy so they have more immediate concerns that would benefit from at least a good economic relationship with the US.
I don't like all her foreign policy positions but I feel that's an area that she has real global experience in and has put in the time to build relationships with other countries so they know the type of person they're dealing with.
-
RE: Venture Brothers
I thought it was great but I'm just so glad to have the show back. I was also glad to see a lot of the stuff from the trailer all in that one episode.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
So as far as the delegate count goes Bernie and Hilary will probably get the same, maybe one more than the other. Which is good. I don't think anyone expected him to crush it in Iowa.
Cruz's victory is less surprising than Trump and Rubio being so close. I did not think Rubio would be a contender at this point.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
But no, you'd rather throw a tantrum that the media will shrug off as the usual "Democrats are fickle apathetic voters".
Seriously, if you think they're gonna sit down and comb over the voting records of every single person who didn't vote, you're fooling yourself. The Fact that you voted Democrat in the last 6 elections won't matter. You're part of a group who are known for being no-shows at the polls sometimes. They'll judge you as part of the group and be on their way.I don't have health care. Haven't had it for 10 years. The ACA is huge improvement. She wants to keep it, it would be her death if she said otherwise BUT maybe she also likes it, fine. I don't think she's going to improve it. She's being paid by pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies to not improve it. A Rep get's elected, you're right the ACA goes away. Hilary get's elected, I see no major efforts to curb insurance companies or the rising cost of healthcare. For me, on healthcare, there is no difference either way. For you, I can see why keeping what you have is better than the risk of losing it. I think in the big picture besides me and you much more effort needs to be made on this issue. I don't see Hilary leading that charge though and by not leading it she would be making it worse in the long run.
You listed two issues and LGBT as your second one is puzzling because like you've said it's got a ton of criticism. Right now Gay and Lesbian are fine words to say so Clinton will say them. Can she say Transgender? Will she? If your best argument for her in this corner is that she won't say something bad about it, you're right, that would be dicey. I don't really look to silence on LGBT issues from my politicians though. DADT was silence made into law. I think when it comes to LGBT issues she would do whatever appeals the best to the people who she thinks will keep her in office. That doesn't always translate as good, sometimes it translates into things like DADT. This is a weird corner to fight for her from on an issue that actually effects me a lot but I don't really care about right now.
I don't think you'd respect me if i voted for Ted Cruz btw. Clearly I give a damn because I've spent a lot of time here explaining all the things I give a damn about. It doesn't matter if you keep calling it a tantrum either. You were fast with google when it came to spouting endless articles about low democrat turnout but you're not as fast when it comes to google how election results are analyzed. Should I say it a 7th time? I'm not. But calling me a no show at the polls is stupid. It is a comment based completely in ignorance of me because you don't know me. In the same paragraph you argue that they'll judge me as a no show and insist they they won't bother to even comb the over the voting records of the no shows but they wouldn't know that i was a part of a "group who are known for being no-shows" unless they went over my past voting record. I don't have any other word for that than stupid.
You can try again with the things I LITERALLY listed that were important to me. Or you can, as I think you already have, decided they're not important enough to risk losing things like your healthcare which is understandable. But I also don't think you could make a strong argument for Hilary with the other ones. Healthcare was the low hanging fruit and even then she promises to just not undo Obamacare which is her shtick. Not being a republican.
Because it's not like the GOP hasn't pushed back against regulating banks and Wall Street, promoted suspicion of certain elements of the population that they would undoubtedly increase surveillance on, or appointed Supreme Court Justices who have continually upheld and expanded the Federal Goverment's right to spy on its citizens.
And we all know how hostile the Republicans are towards things like rights for business.
But it's not like the Democrats have made any strong attempts. They had the Presidency and control of congress when they passed Dodd-Frank and the banks were curtailed a bit, wall street not enough at all especially considering the damage they were able to do. They also had 2 years to remove the surveillance and they didn't, the administration did double down on it really introducing new programs.
So where the Dems aren't agreeing they're apathetic. Which you can argue is better than being overzealous but it's still ends up as a continuous increase over the years.
This boils down to the explosion of negative impacts on these issues or the steady downward spiral. I still don't see that as a choice I want to make and the best way for me to show that is to show the party that would have had my vote that they need to make changes. If they win and decide they don't need it, cool. But if they lose odds are they'll try harder to get it. Unless there's another option I'm not seeing?
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
I fail to see why you think a Republican Presidency wouldn't double down on all of those policies along with a long litany of things like rolling back gay rights and health care coverage rather than merely continuing them.
Why does the Republican have to double down on those things? They could just continue the work of the previous democrat and you'd have similar results. Both parties seem content to do nothing about citizens united and keep the PATRIOT act in force. The TPP has been slammed from both sides but I think for different reasons. The long litany of things I already said even if they negatively impact me I won't prioritize their importance over the major things.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
So…. if BERNIE SANDERS HIMSELF told you that the next best thing to him winning the presidency was for him to try to get the things he wants passed from his present position, and that Hillary Clinton in the white house facilitated that better than a Republican.
If he said Trump was the next best thing to vote for does that mean I should vote for Trump? If he said what you typed about Hilary I would have no reason to believe him other than his word which is nice thing but it doesn't erase her list of donors and voting history.
So your choices are "Option A: There's a fair chance you might get some of the things you wanted" or "Option B: You will definitely not get any of the things you wanted"…. you would be PERFECTLY FINE sitting back and letting Option B happen LITERALLY NO REASON but "I'm salty because the guy I wanted didn't win" with absolutely positively no actual tangible results?!?!
I gave a list of the things I care about and how Hilary Clinton is, in my view, opposed to them. Those are the things I want. I think the only thing that I also care about that I can't think Clinton would damage is education but I also have no reason to think she'd make any major positive strides in that area. So it's not a matter of me being salty. And I "LITERALLY" gave you several real reasons on issues that are extremely important and why I think she would damage those issues. Again, the only thing you can think of as a reason why I should vote for her is because she's not republican. And again, I think that's a bad reason to vote for someone when I don't have to.
Can you say you'd rather have a currently running Republican candidate take the White House over Hillary Clinton? Can you truthfully say it really doesn't matter? Even you, who sees no major difference between Hillary and everyone running on the Republican side, will recognize their are in fact differences. They might not be as important to you but that does not take away how important they are to others.
I see no major difference on the things that are important to me. I can see that there are differences though. A republican in the white house with the backing of a republican house, even a slightly divided one, would impact my life in a lot of bad ways. Possibly for decades to come. But I think the ways in which they can do damage don't outweigh the damage that would be done by continuing our surveillance programs, continuing to let banks run wild, continuing to push trademark laws and intellectual property laws which keep power in the few and allow the easy exploitation of many. Immigration is important, affirmative action is important, gay rights are important, women's rights are important and I understand that to a lot of people these type of things are the things that matter the most when it comes to this election or really any election. There is a sense that no one will actually change anything major so it's best to just vote for someone who can give you more of the things you do want like all that stuff I just said was important. But to me those things increasingly seem like they distract from the real problems of the country. I don't want to support a candidate that isn't willing to deal with the major things and I don't want to further enable candidates to think they can win just by promising to help deal with the obfuscating issues.
I think the best way to send that message is by not voting for Hilary. I typically vote democrat nationally and locally and I'm an active voter (6th time i've said that?) so contrary to what Robby and Demon Rin have said, that matters and makes a difference. There's a difference between someone registered democrat who is inactive vs someone registered independent who is inactive vs someone registered democrat who is inactive locally and active nationally vs etc etc. All of that makes a difference. They look at the age of the area. The ethnic demographics. Past voting trends. All of that information is scrutinized heavily so that they can determine who can show up, who will show up, and what will make them show up. So when I don't vote for Hilary, yes it's true someone might use that information as a piece of an article that laments low voter turnout. Someone will write an article about Bernie supporters throwing a tantrum. But when national and local politicians look at that data they will be looking for the why, and how they can influence a change in it if they need to. I hope if it gets to that my non-vote tells the story I want it to tell.
I don't know what happens then. It's possible that if it results in a Trump victory the republican's destroy the country and by 2020 the nuclear war he would have started would have ended mankind. It's also possible that just like after Obama's victory in 2008 the left could see an extremist surge like the Tea Party emerge, a group that demands their senators and representatives don't compromise an inch on left issues they think are important. It's possible that after 4 years of Trump the democrats will be so desperate to get anyone else into office they will settle for ANYONE who isn't republican to get into that office. It's possible Hilary will win and disgruntled Bernie supporters still make that extremist surge. I think it's off to consider not compromising on the issues I listed as being considered an extremist but I'll take the label if Ubiq is the one throwing it out. It's possible Hilary get's elected and the rhetoric of the right gets louder and worse and they sweep congress some more resulting in gridlock on all the other things people think are important but no gridlock on the major things that people feel they wouldn't be able to change anyway. About that stuff I don't know. But I know what happens if I help elect Hilary. Or at least I think I do. Maybe she'll surprise me. Retain, even in opposition, your capacity for astonishment. Maybe she'll get my vote 4 years from now. But not now.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
If he said all that it doesn't solve my problems with Hilary in an executive position. The reps control congress and they control most of the states where they have rep Governors. I'm don't think the democrats will gain much in congress. The trouble the party has had nationally isnt as badlocally. So Bernie staying there isn't going to amount to much. I also don't think being called out on her promises will make Hilary fulfill them. Like I said if she wins the primary her odds of losing an incumbent position with the Reps in this state is low so with so many people willing to vote for her just because she's not Republican if she wins the primary she has 8 years to do whatever she wants with no real challenge.
So no it wouldn't make me vote for her. I'm on my phone so I can't really go over all those links or post my own but its an issues I've addressed before so I'll just be reposting the same stuff. Low voter turnout is examined heavily. That's why Bernie made so much noise when they cut off his access to that information. Becuase it matters a lot who didn't show up and why and when they look at the data that's what they try to figure out. Why they didn't show up so they can get them to the next time.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
@Robby This is the exact same conversation we've already had. I lay out a list of reasons why Hilary is not a suitable candidate. Not small things but major things that will impact this countries future like trade regulation and domestic security.
You just say she's not Trump then make several paragraphs about the importance of voting that don't apply to me because I've already said about 5x in this thread that I do vote locally. So trying to make it seem like I only come out every 4 years is a shit argument that's already been debunked.
Since we're repeating ourselves I'll just say again that consistently voting along the party lines is not the way to change anything. You said you vote third party sometimes. I don't think that's a better alternative for an active consistently democratic voter to just not click Hilary's name if its the option. They send the same message. A democrat who was supposed to vote demcrat didn't show up.
Everyone else here gets to make their arguments for voting anyone who isn't Republican into office so you don't even have to bother posting either because everyone else will just say what you're saying. I think that's a bad reason to vote for Hilary. If you're tired of hearing that I'm equally tired of hearing why its a good reason.
@demon rin
My point is that they're similar in superficial ways. About things that I dont think really matter. Or at least don't matter as much as the things they're different on. I know people don't want Bernie to lose. But I also don't think for the reasons I listed that Hilary is a viable alternative. She's just as bad for our country as the right in a lot of ways. So on the things that matter to me and I think they matter to a lot of people, voting for her just becuase she's not Trump isny acceptable because the results on the things that matter to us will be the same.
You can characterize that as being willing to blow the country up if I don't get my way but I can characterize your reaction as being willing to watch the country slowly burn because you're afraid of what could happen if you stop pushing the button.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
So what you're saying is, if Hillary gets the nom, you're willing to sit it out and let Trump win.
Got it.
You want to discuss why any of that is wrong or are you still going to dodge with that terrible argument about not voting that I already proved, was in my case, garbage?
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
I think Bernie and Hilary are only similar when you compare them to the Right. You're getting two very different things when you compare them to each other. You can't think Hilary is just as good and will basically do the same things because she won't. They don't have the same goals. They don't have the same intentions. Even a supreme court nominee would be vastly different between the two of them.
Hilary voted for the TPP. She changed her mind after it became unpopular but Obama is still pushing it and Hilary is very much in the same vein as him. His intentions should be a good idea of where the party leaders want to go. They might go back to the drawing board. They might change the name. They might still try to push it through congress as is but it should not be forgotten of where she initially stood on it. Odds are if she becomes the incumbent she will win again, especially with the republican party in the state it's in. So if she gets to where she wants with no real incentive to change or anyone to challenge her things like the TPP renamed and readjusted will more than likely be back on the table. Bernie was against it. He was against the way it was trying to be fast tracked. I doubt he would sign any version of it into law.
Her top 5 biggest contributors are banks and financial institutions. Her husband supported and signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall which was pretty picked over by then but removing it entirely was definitely an act of deregulation. We know where she stands when it comes to banks which is where she has always stood. There is nothing genuine in a statement from Hilary Clinton about reigning in big banks and wall street. The idea that she would turn on the people who have been supporting her her entire career makes no sense. Now the criticism is that Bernie's plan is too ambitious and he'd never get it through congress and maybe that's true but he could spend 4-8 years trying. At the very least he might be able to prosecute some people or hold them accountable for the damage they did.
Hilary's other big contributor is drug companies from which she's received more money than any other candidate. These companies would benefit greatly from the TPP btw. That aside if you're being paid by the drug companies and the insurance companies how can you promise health care reform. She's already said that Bernie's plan is too big and it is big. Again I would rather see him try and fail than no one try at all because we voted someone who never really had any intention of reforming the system into office. You could argue that this is more on congress anyway but Obama lead the charge to reform healthcare and even though they had congress and they did nothing with it they still managed to pass a watered down version of what they intended. At they very least someone needs to lead a charge and I don't think Hilary will do that in any meaningful way.
Hilary wants tech companies to provide backdoors into the products they give to the public. She also thinks encryption is a "problem" and wants to solve it by creating a project that would allow the government to break through any encryption. This just shows more of a lack of understanding of the technology than anything but again, it gives a clear idea of direction she's heading. She says this would be used just to fight terrorism but thanks to the PATRIOT Act which she voted for, twice, domestic terrorism is a broad definition that only requires the appearance of the things that define it, not even proof. This I think is the worst thing about her. She will be type of president who will continue to punish whistleblowers be they government workers or just journalist. She will be the type of president who will expand the network the US has already built for domestic spying. She will keep pushing this agenda that Obama has been quietly pushing without much opposition that really undermines everything this country claims to stand for. I don't think that's hyperbole either but I am a bit paranoid. Technology will advance in so many ways in the next 8 years. I don't want that advancement to take place under the watch of a president who thinks the government has a right to private information.
There's a lot of little things I don't like about her. Like her supposed claim on the black community even though she only stopped taking donations from private prisons in Oct 2015. Her opposition to decriminalizing marijuana even though the war on drugs has mostly just been used to gut black communities and justify crap like stop and frisk which also affects black people. That could be appealing to moderates or it could be trying to appease her pharmaceutical base, either one pisses me off. Her flip flopping on LGBT issues until when it was convenient for her. You can call it being a politician. I call it being a shitty person when you can support things like DOMA and DADT that dehumanize a group of people because it's politically the in thing for you to do. I'm not voting for that even with a Trump pointed at my head.
To me it seems like she will say anything and do anything and take money from anyone to get into that office and once she is in I don't know what people expect her to do because everything she's said is so clearly a lie. You can't say that at least she'll take a stab at healthcare because they're literally paying her not to. You can't say she'll take a stab at the banks because they're also paying her not to. You can't say she'll take a stab at income inequality because she's being paid by wall street not to. A vote for Clinton in the primary is basically saying "I just don't want the Republican's to win" because you can't say anymore about her than that. Name something and you can bet she's flipped on it. Probably recently. She's less of a fighter, more of a survivor.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Exactly what tone are you talking about? That Bernie Sanders has a chance to beat Hillary Clinton? Sorry to break it to you but we always knew he had at least a chance. We always saw Hillary Clinton as the establishment candidate with the most name recognition and initial support but at the same time we saw Bernie Sanders as the guy who garnered the most interest and was really well liked, so of course we knew he stood a chance. Hell, my first post in this thread was about Bernie Sanders.
Eh. Just because every comment was prefaced with "I really like Bernie, I hope he wins" doesn't mean that they didn't all in end "he has no chance against Hilary" "Hilary will be the nomination"
I'm sticking with my position on Trump. His campaign has two massive flaws; first, he's made too much of it around everybody else being a loser and him being a winner. Any chink in that armor is really going to hurt him. Second, those setbacks are going to be made worse by his basic personality. He's a very brittle person who can't take criticism and would meltdown if the focus ever switched to him. That's not to say that he can't win the nomination; the primary calendar is favorable to him especially with people refusing to drop out and targeting each other instead of him. If Iowa and New Hampshire make a bunch of them drop out and he underperforms in either of the early states, there's a pretty good chance that the wheels will come off his campaign quickly.
But there's no indication that he will underperform in those states. Polls have been wrong before, but these aren't insider polls reflecting what the party wants to hear being reported by sources who want to tell the party what they want to hear. He's a terrible candidate but if he pulls through, which everything is indicating, that momentum will more than likely lock up the nomination for him.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
@TLC:
I like how we've gone from Hillary is an unstoppable beast who no one can beat to Bernie JUST MIGHT PULL IT OFF.
The shift in tone here has finally caught up to what every non-major media source has been saying for months. And now the major ones are finally uttering his name. I was reading front page stories all last week about how shaken up Hilary's campaign is by Bernie's momentum. Feelsgood.
And I still stand by my conviction that Donald Trump will not be the party's pick for president of the United States. The GOP is not so dumb to throw away an election like that. Trump does not energize the Republican party like Bernie energizes the Dems. Trump just makes headlines and gets media grabbing attention for the stupid things he says. The only people he revitalizes are the far-right folks in his party. The moderate Republican will not flock out in the numbers necessary to vote Donald Trump as our next president. It just won't happen.
Well it would be too much to expect the thread to shift on all of it's positions at once.
I've gone over this argument before. It's weak. It's even weaker now that it's between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. No one cares about those two. Even if you can't see people voting for Trump, and his polling has him destroying the others, do you still think Republicans will come out in large enough numbers in support of Cruz or Rubio to stop him? Because that's what it's going to take at this point.
People voting for Ted Cruz.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Rubio is there and has been getting points he hasn't earned because he's not Trump. Now Cruz is probably going to be getting some points because he's not Trump but he is Ted Cruz. This will be interesting.