I'm not sure who did or didn't watch. I did.
I thought Bernie effectively inoculated HRC and the democrats in general against more of the email bullshit with his line "ENOUGH WITH THE DAMNED EMAILS ...".
After tonight, I can honestly say Sanders/O'Malley 2016. I think Sanders saw his running mate as Clinton until tonight.
Two people who really had no business there, Chaffee who looked like an elderly burnt out Peewee Herman and Jim Webb.
Just watched Chaffee on Chris Matthews and his strategy is to basically hope everyone else dies before him.
I didn't watch it, but I have heard that the Dem debate was more like an adult discussion, while the Repube debates were like squabbling kindergartners trying to out-horrible each other.
I think the two debates honestly showed a key difference between the two sides...
The Democratic debate; God was mentioned all of three times (all by Hillary), no one was screaming over each other, no one was saying we need to fear Mexicans and Muslims, global warming was completely accepted and considered an issue to be addressed and the general theme was hope and a positive future.
The Republican debate; Fear. Hatred. Anger. Shit-slinging.
The two ideologies just appeal to two different "base" emotions; the progressive to optimism and hope, the conservative to fear and anger. There are a few exceptions on the Republican side of course, and of course just because progressives appeal to these things does not mean they will actually follow through with them... but I think it does show a psychological difference on what one must pander to if you want to win on your side.
Hate how right you are, Shir. But to affect change of any sort, I feel like I have to vote at all, and it has to be for Bernie. VT born & raised aside.....
Quote from: Shiranu on October 14, 2015, 02:05:11 AM
The two ideologies just appeal to two different "base" emotions; the progressive to optimism and hope, the conservative to fear and anger. There are a few exceptions on the Republican side of course, and of course just because progressives appeal to these things does not mean they will actually follow through with them... but I think it does show a psychological difference on what one must pander to if you want to win on your side.
I always assumed it was politicking on the RNC's part to recruit the most outrageous talking heads they could, along with one or two "real" candidates, have them scream at each other until most voters regardless of party pointed to the straw men and said "No way
those guys can be president!" and they dropped out, in effect making the one or two real candidates look like Jesus fucking Christ with a genius IQ and a record of getting shit done.
Only this time around the puppet candidates are out-crazying each other and people love it and there are like five real candidates who really suck. Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, John Kasich, and Marco Rubio are literally shouting over the din to have their opinions heard and even they've had to jump on the crazy-shit-Republicans-say train just to get any attention for themselves.
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 14, 2015, 08:08:50 AM
I always assumed it was politicking on the RNC's part to recruit the most outrageous talking heads they could, along with one or two "real" candidates, have them scream at each other until most voters regardless of party pointed to the straw men and said "No way those guys can be president!" and they dropped out, in effect making the one or two real candidates look like Jesus fucking Christ with a genius IQ and a record of getting shit done.
Only this time around the puppet candidates are out-crazying each other and people love it and there are like five real candidates who really suck. Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, John Kasich, and Marco Rubio are literally shouting over the din to have their opinions heard and even they've had to jump on the crazy-shit-Republicans-say train just to get any attention for themselves.
The rub is that every single one of the rube candidates are little more than mouth pieces for the likes of the Koch brothers and Sheldon whatthefuckerson.. Without the billionaire funding none of them stands a chance so they will keep repeating the oligarchy line as if handed down straight from GOD almighty and nearly everyone knows it. Don't be fooled by tRump either. He's appealing to the same money so the choice is stark.Oligarchy rule by an uninclusive party or Democrats.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 14, 2015, 09:25:32 AM
Oligarchy rule by an uninclusive party or Democrats.
I watched the debates last night with my husband and I thought Hillary did a bang up job. My husband hates her and gave me the stink eye when I said I'd vote for her if she ended up on the ballot (which she probably will). Then I asked him who he would vote for against Hillary, and he really struggled before saying maybe he could vote for Jeb Bush.
Yeah, exactly.
Doesn't really matter who is on the ticket, I'll vote for them over any of the Republicans. They're all a bunch of religious Zealots who want to ban gay marriage, ban abortion, and keep government out of people's lives except in those two cases.
I thought HRC came of too scripted saying things her handlers told her to say for the most part. She had a few moments, but Bernie saved her ass with the email thing. Sanders fell over his own dick on the gun issues and didn't really explain away the "socialist" labeling very well.
On the gun issue he said he's from a rural state with not much gun related problems which is all good and well except he's not running for governor of Vermont now. By implication he's basically said big cities need gun control, but not rural areas? He's just way too inconsistent there which will probably come back to bite him in the ass with people who want more gun control. He's also pretty weak on foreign policy.
Don't get me wrong. I like Bernie Sanders and I'd vote for him, but again, he's not running for governor of Vermont. He's running for president of the United States so he'll have to appeal to a much broader demographic.
I think Shultz screwed the pooch limiting the debates and letting Chaffee and Webb on stage just left me thinking that they were only there to prop up Sanders and HRC.
Quote from: NakedTracyBlack on October 14, 2015, 10:27:32 AM
Doesn't really matter who is on the ticket, I'll vote for them over any of the Republicans. They're all a bunch of religious Zealots who want to ban gay marriage, ban abortion, and keep government out of people's lives except in those two cases.
Yes and no. They want to control everything in your life including the security state. They will tell you they want small government, but once in power they want to grow government to serve themselves and nobody else.
The viewer poll said Bernie won the debate by a large margin. CNN therefore declared Hillary the winner. Interesting.
As a Ron Paul supporter in 2008 and 2012, I can't imagine what that must feel like.
Telling question and answer: How are you different from Obama?
Bernie: Policy differences.
Three other guys: Policy differences.
Hillary: I'm a woman.
if you think the democrats are not, specially someone like hillary, puppets of the big oligopoly of corporations you are deluded. A politician like hillary pisses on you while telling you it is raining that's the only nice thing she will do for you compared to a republican, who does the same for his own constituency.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019
When you have bullshit like that the phrase conflict of interest is a complete understatement. Democracy is and will remain dead as long as huge sums of money are needed to be even have a minuscule chance of being elected. This circus is not meant to be taken seriously.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 18, 2015, 12:20:58 AMTelling question and answer: How are you different from Obama?
Bernie: Policy differences.
Three other guys: Policy differences.
Hillary: I'm a woman.
Yeah, that non-answer really didn't sit well with me. Yes, we all know that Clinton as prez would be a historic first. But that's not the reason why non-idiots vote for candidates. IIRC, Obama never offered up being black as a reason to vote for him.
Another thing that kinda pissed me off in the debates:
QuoteCOOPER: Governor Chafee, Edward Snowden, is he a traitor or a hero?
CHAFEE: No, I would bring him home. The courts have ruled that what he did -- what he did was say the American...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Bring him home, no jail time?
CHAFEE: ... the American government was acting illegally. That's what the federal courts have said; what Snowden did showed that the American government was acting illegally for the Fourth Amendment. So I would bring him home.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, hero or traitor?
CLINTON: He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistleblower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistleblower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.
COOPER: Should he do jail time?
ClINTON: In addition -- in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don't think he should be brought home without facing the music.
COOPER: Governor O'Malley, Snowden?
(APPLAUSE)
O'MALLEY: Anderson, Snowden put a lot of Americans' lives at risk. Snowden broke the law. Whistleblowers do not run to Russia and try to get protection from Putin. If he really believes that, he should be back here.
COOPER: Senator Sanders, Edward Snowden?
SANDERS: I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American people to the degree in which our civil liberties and our constitutional rights are being undermined.
COOPER: Is he a hero?
SANDERS: He did -- he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that. But I think what he did in educating us should be taken into consideration before he is (inaudible).
COOPER: Senator Webb, Edward Snowden?
WEBB: I -- well, I -- I would leave his ultimate judgment to the legal system. Here's what I do believe. We have a serious problem in terms of the collection of personal information in this country. And one of the things that I did during the FISA bill in 2007, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was introduce with Russ Feingold two amendments basically saying, "We understand the realities of how you have to collect this broad information in the Internet age, but after a certain period of time, you need to destroy the personal information that you have if people have not been brought -- if criminal justice proceedings have not been brought against them."
We've got a vast data bank of information that is ripe for people with bad intentions to be able to use. And they need to be destroyed.
++ Chafee
+ Sanders
-- O'Malley
-- Clinton
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 18, 2015, 12:20:58 AM
The viewer poll said Bernie won the debate by a large margin. CNN therefore declared Hillary the winner. Interesting.
The pundits say Clinton won, the focus groups say Sanders won, the polls say Clinton won
(https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/igALpC7G4iMDt-2pBjYJ-l6ZlTA=/800x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4169462/Who%20won%20the%20debate.png)
Quote from: mauricio on October 18, 2015, 12:57:22 AM
if you think the democrats are not, specially someone like hillary, puppets of the big oligopoly of corporations you are deluded. A politician like hillary pisses on you while telling you it is raining that's the only nice thing she will do for you compared to a republican, who does the same for his own constituency.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019
When you have bullshit like that the phrase conflict of interest is a complete understatement. Democracy is and will remain dead as long as huge sums of money are needed to be even have a minuscule chance of being elected. This circus is not meant to be taken seriously.
Personally, I think democracy was a fabulous idea. Unfortunately, a fabulous idea can be corrupted, and democracy in the US has been. Every society has greedy power mongers who want it all, ideally giving as little back as they can. In totalitarian regimes, they just grab power and run the country. In a democracy they have to use more subtle means. They evolve to gain power depending on the environment of governance. But they do control and get their way in the end.
Quote from: SGOS on October 18, 2015, 08:21:02 AM
Personally, I think democracy was a fabulous idea. Unfortunately, a fabulous idea can be corrupted, and democracy in the US has been. Every society has greedy power mongers who want it all, ideally giving as little back as they can. In totalitarian regimes, they just grab power and run the country. In a democracy they have to use more subtle means. They evolve to gain power depending on the environment of governance. But they do control and get their way in the end.
The initial idea behind the American constitution was to keep the different branches of government separate - executive, legislative, judiciary. It was an unwritten rule that the President would select judges to SCOTUS because of their proven legal expertise. That prevailed for quite a long time until the Reagan administration, and since then we have a SCOTUS drawn along partisan lines. The next president might be faced with new appointees (Ginsburg is 82 yrs old, Scalia and Kennedy 79). I shrug at the idea that a Republican might be sitting at the Oval office and appointing judges from the extreme right. The damages of a partisan SCOTUS can last for generations.
Quote from: Poison Tree on October 18, 2015, 02:36:47 AM
The pundits say Clinton won, the focus groups say Sanders won, the polls say Clinton won
(https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/igALpC7G4iMDt-2pBjYJ-l6ZlTA=/800x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4169462/Who%20won%20the%20debate.png)
Clinton came across more confident and articulate and that carries a lot of weight in polls. Sanders has more to offer progressives, but he lacked the charisma Hillary showed. Win or lose? It's about winning the primary of course. Do people vote their conscience in primaries, or do they vote with an eye for the candidate most likely to knock off their opponent in the finals? I have had people tell me why voting in the primaries is so important, but the reasons given are all over the map and often contradictory.
Hillary has a lot of baggage. Maybe she deserves some of it, but probably not all of it. Yet the baggage is there and if she is elected, the Republicans will ensure that the public is continually distracted by it. She will be as hamstrung and helpless as Obama. She will do a few favors for wealthy friends and donors, and Republicans will act like they object, but they won't actually prevent her from advancing the crony capitalism they want for themselves, but forget about seeing anything very progressive. I don't think Sanders is electable in the general election. I like the guy. I like him a lot, but his election as president would be nothing short of a mysterious miracle.
I am still in the Clinton camp.
But did Webb say he killed a guy? WTF? He scared the piss out of me.
Quote from: Mermaid on October 18, 2015, 09:53:59 AM
But did Webb say he killed a guy? WTF? He scared the piss out of me.
He served with the Marines in Vietnam and received the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts.
Quote from: Mermaid on October 18, 2015, 09:53:59 AM
I am still in the Clinton camp.
But did Webb say he killed a guy? WTF? He scared the piss out of me.
I don't think you have to worry about Webb. Few in these debates come off as less presidential. If he were in the marines actually doing what marines are supposed to do in battle, not killing someone would be a failure. It's what they are supposed to do. I could forgive that in a presidential candidate as long as he could prove himself capable of doing what a president is supposed to do leading the country. They are two different jobs, with two different job descriptions. But this is neither here nor there. Webb just makes a poor impression. I have no idea what possessed him to throw his hat in the ring. He should not be allowed in the next debates, if only to save us all the embarrassment. He was overshadowed by the weakest of the other candidates.
Quote from: Mermaid on October 18, 2015, 09:53:59 AM
I am still in the Clinton camp.
But did Webb say he killed a guy? WTF? He scared the piss out of me.
Yeah, that would've played a little better with a Republican crowd. In fairness to him, the question was kinda stupid. "Who are you most proud to have as an enemy?" 'Well, gee, maybe the guy who lobbed a grenade at me. The rest of you get nasty letters from the NRA. Oh boo hoo.'
And speaking about the NRA, I thought it was stupid how much they boasted about the NRA disliking them. <sarcasm> You're disliked by the gun lobby. Wow, that must've been hard to accomplish. </sarcasm>
Is there any reason beyond "well, I think that she can beat the Republican" to support Hillary? As in policy reasons that make her better than Bernie or the unknown 3?
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 18, 2015, 03:11:06 PM
Is there any reason beyond "well, I think that she can beat the Republican" to support Hillary? As in policy reasons that make her better than Bernie or the unknown 3?
Not that I'm aware of. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not thrilled with a lot of her voting history. She voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, now she's against that war. She was for the Cuba embargo, now she's for lifting it. She was against gay marriage, now she's for it. And there's some stuff, that while I'm sure was well-intentioned, kinda bombed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset). And she's not exactly wowing me over with stuff like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act), either.
I'd support her over Trump in a heartbeat, but I'd vote for a dead dog over Trump.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 18, 2015, 03:11:06 PM
Is there any reason beyond "well, I think that she can beat the Republican" to support Hillary?
For me, no. I can't think of a good reason beyond that.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 18, 2015, 03:11:06 PM
As in policy reasons that make her better than Bernie or the unknown 3?
Bernie is a people's candidate. Hillary is more of a traditional good ole boy. The others are included in the race as filler.
Sanders says all the right things. I am just not familiar enough with him to trust that he can deliver. I think this is what it boils down to. It is not easy to distinguish Clinton from Obama, and I am a very big fan of Obama, especially now, entering his lame duck year.
I am planning to watch carefully and keep my mind open, my choice will likely shake out of the pack in the next 6 or so months. But meanwhile, it's Clinton.
Quote from: Mermaid on October 19, 2015, 08:08:47 AM
Sanders says all the right things. I am just not familiar enough with him to trust that he can deliver. I think this is what it boils down to. It is not easy to distinguish Clinton from Obama, and I am a very big fan of Obama, especially now, entering his lame duck year.
I imagine if Bernie is elected he runs a huge risk of going the way of Obama in ending up with a split Congress or entirely Republican-controlled Congress and not being able to fulfill anything on his platform.
People keep saying Obama lied: well, things change and sometimes things are beyond one's control. I've never understood this need for politicians to stay the same. I'm not the same person I was 8 or even 4 years ago either.
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 19, 2015, 08:21:37 AM
I imagine if Bernie is elected he runs a huge risk of going the way of Obama in ending up with a split Congress or entirely Republican-controlled Congress and not being able to fulfill anything on his platform.
I'm pretty sure Obama's problems are the new paradigm in American politics. There isn't anything Obama did that brought this on himself. He's not a liberal who needs to be stopped. I don't think it's because he's black. The Republicans have just found a new tactic that works. It's also influenced by the Tea Party candidates that have been elected. Mostly the Republicans believe they are onto a winning strategy with obstructionism. Obstructionism has always been a political strategy, but the Republicans have just taken it up a notch or two or four. And conservatives apparently think so too.
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 19, 2015, 08:21:37 AM
I imagine if Bernie is elected he runs a huge risk of going the way of Obama in ending up with a split Congress or entirely Republican-controlled Congress and not being able to fulfill anything on his platform.
Exactly.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/fdesd5.png)
Quote from: Mermaid on October 19, 2015, 08:08:47 AM
Sanders says all the right things. I am just not familiar enough with him to trust that he can deliver. I think this is what it boils down to. It is not easy to distinguish Clinton from Obama, and I am a very big fan of Obama, especially now, entering his lame duck year.
I am planning to watch carefully and keep my mind open, my choice will likely shake out of the pack in the next 6 or so months. But meanwhile, it's Clinton.
Considering how important foreign policy is to me, and how Obama's foreign policy has been Bush's foreign policy, and how Hillary's foreign policy is going to make Bush-Obama look lame, I cannot understand anyone saying "I like Obama so much that I love Hillary" without also saying "I like it when foreigners die."
This logic of voting for the same old reptilian overlord you do not like just so the wrong one does not the get the throne is fucking disgusting. You are literally perpetuating the system that fucks you over . I simply vote for however I think is the best choice (which usually boils down to however opposes the reptilians) fuck everything else after that. Ultimately the people get what they deserve (and with that mindset it's obvious why they do) but I will not be giving them my approval by willfully voting for a disgusting reptile. Ultimately nothing much changes, regardless of who is at the helm he won't be able to do much against a storm.
Quote from: mauricio on October 21, 2015, 02:41:13 AM
This logic of voting for the same old reptilian overlord you do not like just so the wrong one does not the get the throne is fucking disgusting. You are literally perpetuating the system that fucks you over . I simply vote for however I think is the best choice (which usually boils down to however opposes the reptilians) fuck everything else after that. Ultimately the people get what they deserve (and with that mindset it's obvious why they do) but I will not be giving them my approval by willfully voting for a disgusting reptile. Ultimately nothing much changes, regardless of who is at the helm he won't be able to do much against a storm.
It's not as simple as that. Often people vote
against rather than for someone/something, as the choices available on the ballot are not there to vote for. So you end up choosing the lesser of two evils.
But he is still right. We have many people answering that they don't actually like Hillary, that they do like Bernie, but that they support Hillary who they don't like because of a perception that she'll beat someone else they don't like. Either way you get someone you don't like.
Bernie may be safe for now ... Joe Biden formally agreed not to run.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 21, 2015, 06:12:59 AM
It's not as simple as that. Often people vote against rather than for someone/something, as the choices available on the ballot are not there to vote for. So you end up choosing the lesser of two evils.
Yes i understand that, ultimately I try to do the same, but choosing the lesser of all evils not just those who are electable. But yes I understand the logic of voting for a candidate you do not like so the worse one does not the get the presidency, but that is exactly what I find disgraceful, because we then complain about the corporate lobbying, the corruption, the imperialism... when we basically already willfully consented to it by voting in favor of the same old political class. It's like we are trapped in this kafkatrap where you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. That's why i choose to vote without caring about the viability of the candidate, because it is an absurd system when the population political power is so neutered I rather be a dissenting voice, even if my vote is meaningless, just out of principle.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 21, 2015, 08:39:43 AM
But he is still right. We have many people answering that they don't actually like Hillary, that they do like Bernie, but that they support Hillary who they don't like because of a perception that she'll beat someone else they don't like. Either way you get someone you don't like.
Hmmm, you could interpret this as people voting strategically to support the Democratic Party, rather than voting for better government. The two party system, as designed by the two parties, will be alive and well into the foreseeable future. A government for the people is still a long ways off. Perhaps, not even possible.
Quote from: mauricio on October 21, 2015, 01:19:38 PM
Yes i understand that, ultimately I try to do the same, but choosing the lesser of all evils not just those who are electable. But yes I understand the logic of voting for a candidate you do not like so the worse one does not the get the presidency, but that is exactly what I find disgraceful, because we then complain about the corporate lobbying, the corruption, the imperialism... when we basically already willfully consented to it by voting in favor of the same old political class. It's like we are trapped in this kafkatrap where you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. That's why i choose to vote without caring about the viability of the candidate, because it is an absurd system when the population political power is so neutered I rather be a dissenting voice, even if my vote is meaningless, just out of principle.
About the only issue I'm concerned is having a Republican in the Oval office since several judges of the SCOTUS may retired due to old age. Other policies can be reversed, but with the wrong judge sitting for the next 20 -25 years, and as seen with Citizens United versus FEC, the damages can be very long lasting.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 21, 2015, 08:39:43 AM
But he is still right. We have many people answering that they don't actually like Hillary, that they do like Bernie, but that they support Hillary who they don't like because of a perception that she'll beat someone else they don't like. Either way you get someone you don't like.
Eh, there's a bit of a difference there in the magnitude of the dislike. Hilary would undoubtedly enact liberal policies that, while not as desirable as Bernie's, would still be a step forward VS Trump policies that would be supremely undesirable.
Quote from: mauricio on October 21, 2015, 02:41:13 AM
This logic of voting for the same old reptilian overlord you do not like just so the wrong one does not the get the throne is fucking disgusting.
Please bear in mind that the candidate "you do not like" is somewhere in the 80s or 90s (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8464.0) with most liberals here while the GOP candidate is typically in the 30s or less.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 21, 2015, 12:35:50 AM
Considering how important foreign policy is to me, and how Obama's foreign policy has been Bush's foreign policy, and how Hillary's foreign policy is going to make Bush-Obama look lame, I cannot understand anyone saying "I like Obama so much that I love Hillary" without also saying "I like it when foreigners die."
That, plus Obama tore up the Constitution into even smaller pieces than Bush did by ramping up NSA spying, has done insane things like forcing a plane with a head of State on it to land so the US could search for Snowden, and the Police State has grown in a huge way under Obama. Militarization in a big way. I don't see how someone can call themselves a big fan of Obama and a liberal at the same time, but I'm not going to tell her what she is. Some would probably say I'm not liberal because I'm not for super strict gun control and banning a bunch of types of guns. People really get on that joker Trump for saying racist and bigoted things, but during his run for President, Obama used the strategy of pretending to be a bigot as well. He pretended to be anti-gay marriage to make sure homophobic blacks would vote for him. That's not any better than a conservative back in the day arguing against blacks and whites getting married to each other. Obama and Hillary are against guns though, so yay Hillary and Obama.
Quote from: Baruch on October 21, 2015, 12:43:55 PM
Bernie may be safe for now ... Joe Biden formally agreed not to run.
On the contrary, I think Biden sapping Clinton's voter pool was Sanders' only choice. All the polls show that without Biden, his would-be voters flock to Clinton.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 21, 2015, 06:08:45 PM
Please bear in mind that the candidate "you do not like" is somewhere in the 80s or 90s (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8464.0) with most liberals here while the GOP candidate is typically in the 30s or less.
That quiz exemplifies the issue perfectly, you have 2 candidates which are both bought by the oligopoly and they only differ on things like gay marriage which is a pretty small issue on the big picture of managing a country. But this issues are politically effective tools, the politicians jump on any successful activist movement than lines up with their constituency and has strong emotional impact to sway people to vote for them, even when it is but a minuscule part of the totality of a governance plan. If i want gays to marry i will advocate and support their right, but I won't give my approval to shillary clinton that got millions of dollars to cement the current oligopoly and the power of corporations that form it.
(http://8ch.net/pol/src/1445552075142.jpg)
Sanders defends Clinton at the debate and says let's start focusing on the issues. Clinton agrees, and what issues does she choose to focus on now? Her vagina of course, and Bernie Sanders being a big bad sexist. Shouldn't she be kissing Sanders ass right now? Sanders has already lost, and doing dumb shit like calling Sanders a sexist doesn't seem like a good idea when you have to win over the Sanders supporters after he drops out.
Quote from: mauricio on October 21, 2015, 06:52:56 PM
That quiz exemplifies the issue perfectly, you have 2 candidates which are both bought by the oligopoly and they only differ on things like gay marriage which is a pretty small issue on the big picture of managing a country. But this issues are politically effective tools, the politicians jump on any successful activist movement than lines up with their constituency and has strong emotional impact to sway people to vote for them, even when it is but a minuscule part of the totality of a governance plan. If i want gays to marry i will advocate and support their right, but I won't give my approval to shillary clinton that got millions of dollars to cement the current oligopoly and the power of corporations that form it.
I think you're missing an important point. The Democrats have little choice but to play the game, and this is due solely to SCOTUS which has ruled in favor of Citizens United Versus FEC, turning money into free speech, a ruling that has undermined democracy more that any other ruling since 1776. If there is going to be any reversal of this toxic ruling it will have to be with a SCOTUS that is made up of different judges. Right now, three judges may take their retirement due to aging, and if the next POTUS is a Republican, then kiss goodbye to overturning Citizens United Versus FEC any time in the near and medium future, and any attempt at campaign fund reform is in dead waters. So even if you don't like Hillary, she is the best bet to get the Oval office for the Democrats and the best bet to nominate judges who will overturn Citizens United Versus FEC.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 28, 2015, 07:34:59 AM
Right now, three judges may take their retirement due to aging, and if the next POTUS is a Republican, then kiss goodbye to overturning Citizens United Versus FEC any time in the near and medium future, and any attempt at campaign fund reform is in dead waters.
You forgot to mention that people should not only go out and vote for the the Democrats, but be mindful enough to vote for non-Conservative assclowns in the midterm elections to avoid the Obama's current situation which is a Republican-controlled Congress.
The whims of American voters never ceases to amaze me. Yes, let's reelect the black guy because "hope" and "change" and then two years later insist on old white guys because "status quo."
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 28, 2015, 08:22:56 AM
You forgot to mention that people should not only go out and vote for the the Democrats, but be mindful enough to vote for non-Conservative assclowns in the midterm elections to avoid the Obama's current situation which is a Republican-controlled Congress.
The whims of American voters never ceases to amaze me. Yes, let's reelect the black guy because "hope" and "change" and then two years later insist on old white guys because "status quo."
Agree, but the harsh reality of American politics dictates that gerrymandering practically assures that the incumbent will win. And that's not going to change in the near or distant future.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 28, 2015, 08:47:56 AM
Agree, but the harsh reality of American politics dictates that gerrymandering practically assures that the incumbent will win. And that's not going to change in the near or distant future.
Imagine if we shopped for clothes that way. One day we're feeling sassy so we buy the expensive leather pants and go home and realize we have no cute top to wear with them. So the next day, we go out and buy a boater jacket and a matching hat because... we not only forgot we were accessorizing leather pants, but we forgot it wasn't 1920.
Quote from: mauricio on October 21, 2015, 01:19:38 PM
Yes i understand that, ultimately I try to do the same, but choosing the lesser of all evils not just those who are electable. But yes I understand the logic of voting for a candidate you do not like so the worse one does not the get the presidency, but that is exactly what I find disgraceful, because we then complain about the corporate lobbying, the corruption, the imperialism... when we basically already willfully consented to it by voting in favor of the same old political class. It's like we are trapped in this kafkatrap where you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. That's why i choose to vote without caring about the viability of the candidate, because it is an absurd system when the population political power is so neutered I rather be a dissenting voice, even if my vote is meaningless, just out of principle.
Sounds like to me you are living in an ideal world--you need to be more objective and connected to reality. :)))
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 28, 2015, 09:06:08 AM
Imagine if we shopped for clothes that way. One day we're feeling sassy so we buy the expensive leather pants and go home and realize we have no cute top to wear with them. So the next day, we go out and buy a boater jacket and a matching hat because... we not only forgot we were accessorizing leather pants, but we forgot it wasn't 1920.
My personal fashion sense is to wear shorts and tshirts in the summertime because nobody wants to see me in a loincloth.
On the 2010 elections ... the Dems lost control of Congress, because they did stuff that was unpopular. Doing popular stuff means being a demagogue ... but unless you are ... you don't get elected. Same thing happened in ancient Athens and Rome. The Dems for example, bought some votes with ACA (which turned out to be not as nice as advertised, but this was after 2010) but it pissed off a lot of other voters who already had health insurance ... including me. And sometimes it is the how, not what. If they had done single payer, I would have supported it ... as a bailout for the health insurance companies ... they can bite me then and now.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 28, 2015, 09:13:07 AM
Sounds like to me you are living in an ideal world--you need to be more objective and connected to reality. :)))
nah I'm just cynical with still some idealism alive at my core, I don't consider voting to be very relevant. That's why it's mostly an I don't give a fuck stance rather than a hopeful if only we all voted with our hearts!
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 28, 2015, 07:34:59 AM
I think you're missing an important point. The Democrats have little choice but to play the game, and this is due solely to SCOTUS which has ruled in favor of Citizens United Versus FEC, turning money into free speech, a ruling that has undermined democracy more that any other ruling since 1776. If there is going to be any reversal of this toxic ruling it will have to be with a SCOTUS that is made up of different judges. Right now, three judges may take their retirement due to aging, and if the next POTUS is a Republican, then kiss goodbye to overturning Citizens United Versus FEC any time in the near and medium future, and any attempt at campaign fund reform is in dead waters. So even if you don't like Hillary, she is the best bet to get the Oval office for the Democrats and the best bet to nominate judges who will overturn Citizens United Versus FEC.
but what makes you believe the demorcats would overturn that law when they are also getting their piece of the millionaire pie. Once you play the game you are bound by the rules, if you break them you lose. Every institution and every agent of it seeks foremost his self-preservation if this things guarantee their campaign funding and their electability they won't change shit.
Quote from: mauricio on October 28, 2015, 02:55:23 PM
but what makes you believe the demorcats would overturn that law when they are also getting their piece of the millionaire pie. Once you play the game you are bound by the rules, if you break them you lose. Every institution and every agent of it seeks foremost his self-preservation if this things guarantee their campaign funding and their electability they won't change shit.
Democrats' Supreme Court Litmus Test: Citizens United (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-04/democrats-supreme-court-litmus-test-citizens-united)
QuoteVermont Senator Bernie Sanders, long a vociferous opponent of the 2010 ruling, kicked off the debate May 10 in an interview on CBS. "If elected president," he said, "I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice and that nominee will say that they are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision."
One week later, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton told activists in Mason City, Iowa that the Citizens United ruling was "a grave error" by the Court. "I will do everything I can to appoint Supreme Court justices who protect the right to vote and do not protect the right of billionaires to buy elections," she said.
I think Citizens United is over-hyped.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 28, 2015, 10:04:41 PM
I think Citizens United is over-hyped.
Things were already pretty messed up on campaign finance. And it does provide a poster child. But as part of the Watergate generation, I am completely against that has happened in campaigns for the past 40 years ... Nixon was just sweet potatoes.
Anyone paying attention to the Republican crybabyfest renamed 'debate'? So far as I can tell it's all about blaming CNBC for not showering them with love and softball questions even though there have been no questions of substance ..
The best line I read so far was: This may be the first presidential debate with more people in the debate than actual viewers watching.
GOP candidates complain questions are just too hard. This is important that we have a president completely incapable of answering softball questions from a media bought and paid for by them!
Let's get down to substantive questions. How do you spell A?
Can I get a hint?
I actually could not find the channel it was on. I looked for a good 5 minutes before giving up. Given the reports this morning, I apparently didn't miss much. Other than Carly Fiorina claiming to be Clinton's worst nightmare. Hahahahahahahah
Quote from: Mermaid on October 29, 2015, 08:08:00 AM
I actually could not find the channel it was on. I looked for a good 5 minutes before giving up. Given the reports this morning, I apparently didn't miss much. Other than Carly Fiorina claiming to be Clinton's worst nightmare. Hahahahahahahah
Twas on CNBC, the channel nobody really watches anyway and is pretty much a right wing shill channel so they went and attacked their own shill channel for asking questions that the 'candidates' didn't like.
On the plus side Marco Rubio (my spell check turns Rubio into dubious HA!) gets the distinct honor of getting to blow Sheldon Alderson for the rest of the election and Ted Cruz is fed up with the 'liberal main stream media' for not falling in love with him and not being super super nice to the Donald ..
Quote from: Mermaid on October 29, 2015, 08:08:00 AM
I actually could not find the channel it was on. I looked for a good 5 minutes before giving up. Given the reports this morning, I apparently didn't miss much. Other than Carly Fiorina claiming to be Clinton's worst nightmare. Hahahahahahahah
JEB tried to shoot down Rubio ... but got shot down instead. Blowback is a bitch ... go JEB (anywhere but the White House).
Here's what I wish could happen.
Bernie Sanders is a socialist pretending to be a Democrat. Rand Paul is a libertarian pretending to be a Republican. It would be cool for them to be nominated by their respective puppet parties, and then at their first debate both renounce their memberships in the party that nominated them and have an actual discussions/debate on policy issues without being tied to a ridiculous party platform.
They can then decide that on social issues, they are the same.
They can make compromises that cut spending to lots of unnecessary and redundant government programs that Paulie dislikes while reallocating a some of those funds to some of the domestic spending programs Bernie wants. They can lower taxes on individuals and corporations while closing loopholes to ensure those taxes actually get paid.
Perhaps most importantly, both "major parties" can be outraged because they were shown to be ineffective pieces of garbage whose powers are drawn from keeping us bickering over nonsense.
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 29, 2015, 12:58:51 PM
Here's what I wish could happen.
Bernie Sanders is a socialist pretending to be a Democrat. Rand Paul is a libertarian pretending to be a Republican. It would be cool for them to be nominated by their respective puppet parties, and then at their first debate both renounce their memberships in the party that nominated them and have an actual discussions/debate on policy issues without being tied to a ridiculous party platform.
They can then decide that on social issues, they are the same.
They can make compromises that cut spending to lots of unnecessary and redundant government programs that Paulie dislikes while reallocating a some of those funds to some of the domestic spending programs Bernie wants. They can lower taxes on individuals and corporations while closing loopholes to ensure those taxes actually get paid.
Perhaps most importantly, both "major parties" can be outraged because they were shown to be ineffective pieces of garbage whose powers are drawn from keeping us bickering over nonsense.
You've been watching too many Disney movies. :lol_hitting:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 29, 2015, 01:29:30 PM
You've been watching too many Disney movies. :lol_hitting:
Yeah, it's a big wish, I know. If it really were a Disney movie, the villain would be a little more defined and Paulie and Bernie would agree that settle their differences and run on the same ticket.
Here's an emoticon for the Republican debates:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/SkinningDocs/tank_chase_by_ky74n_zpsn8brz2er.gif)
I don't want Rand Paul anywhere near the white house
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 29, 2015, 01:50:36 PM
I don't want Rand Paul anywhere near the white house
No one
does, I'm just sayin'... I'd pick him on social issues over any of the other Republicant's.
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 29, 2015, 04:30:45 PM
No one does, I'm just sayin'... I'd pick him on social issues over any of the other Republicant's.
I vote TomFoolery for President!
Quote from: Baruch on October 29, 2015, 06:58:55 PM
I vote TomFoolery for President!
She has my vote--maybe I'll write her in on my ballot.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 29, 2015, 08:28:30 PM
She has my vote--maybe I'll write her in on my ballot.
You can if you like, but I'm writing in Quark on my ballot.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/nd625x.jpg)
At least he's upfront about his greed.
If only political opponents looked like a different species, they would be easier to identify ;-)
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 29, 2015, 10:09:51 PM
You can if you like, but I'm writing in Quark on my ballot.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/nd625x.jpg)
At least he's upfront about his greed.
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/hrcb.jpg) (http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/hrcb.jpg.html)
Better yet...
(http://i65.tinypic.com/b3u5nc.png)
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 30, 2015, 09:13:36 AM
Better yet...
(http://i65.tinypic.com/b3u5nc.png)
Ah, yes. That captures politics quite nicely.
Gary Oldman can personify evil as no one else. Count Dracula 1992 is a classic.
Speaking of debates ..
QuoteReince Priebus cancels upcoming NBC debate because CNBC was too mean to his candidates
What this means folks is that we can no longer expect Republicans to answer tough questions or expect to be embarrassed by the big bad mean liberal media.
By golly they're gonna show Americans just how tough they really are by not allowing the media to ask questions that might embarrass them.
Meanwhile back at Fairandbalancedcentral.....
Ok, here's a very hard question for those here.
If you had to have one of the Republican candidates win the White House, which one would it be? I know the default answer is "none of them" but it would be better to think really hard and actually choose one of them.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 30, 2015, 07:24:58 PM
Ok, here's a very hard question for those here.
If you had to have one of the Republican candidates win the White House, which one would it be? I know the default answer is "none of them" but it would be better to think really hard and actually choose one of them.
I would vote for Trump ... if there were no good D or I candidate (I think that is implied by your question). He is free of the stink of religion and RNC that the other candidates have. A business man who has experienced failure in business ... is perfect training for where the US is going ;-)
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 30, 2015, 07:24:58 PM
If you had to have one of the Republican candidates win the White House, which one would it be? I know the default answer is "none of them" but it would be better to think really hard and actually choose one of them.
I wasn't kidding when I said I'd write Quark in. But reviewing the field, the only ones that wouldn't make me ashamed to be an American are Jim Gilmore and Lindsey Graham. And no one knows who they are behind clowns like Donald Trump, Ben Carson or Mike Huckabee.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 30, 2015, 07:24:58 PM
Ok, here's a very hard question for those here.
If you had to have one of the Republican candidates win the White House, which one would it be? I know the default answer is "none of them" but it would be better to think really hard and actually choose one of them.
I'd have to go with Trump. He seems willing to shit in either camp--or both at the same time.
I think it would have to be Kaisch.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 30, 2015, 07:24:58 PM
Ok, here's a very hard question for those here. I know the default answer is "none of them" but it would be better to think really hard and actually choose one of them.
Why would it be better to think really hard and choose one of them? For that matter why think hard about any of the Democrats? All candidates of either party offer a mixture of lies and truth, and nothing they promise is a reliable yardstick, and sometimes they do the exact opposite of what they promise.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2015, 07:55:14 AM
Why would it be better to think really hard and choose one of them? For that matter why think hard about any of the Democrats? All candidates of either party offer a mixture of lies and truth, and nothing they promise is a reliable yardstick, and sometimes they do the exact opposite of what they promise.
Because this thread has many people (but not all of them) who are trying to decide between Hillary and Bernie, and pretty much despise the whole Republican offering.
I like asking Democrats which Republican they think is best, and asking Republicans which Democrat they think is best.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 31, 2015, 12:41:32 PM
Because this thread has many people (but not all of them) who are trying to decide between Hillary and Bernie, and pretty much despise the whole Republican offering.
I like asking Democrats which Republican they think is best, and asking Republicans which Democrat they think is best.
Fun herding cats, ain't it?