Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2016, 01:12:42 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 688
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The LGBT vote in Dem primary? on: February 26, 2016, 12:53:46 pm
^ Um excuse me, she also gave speeches.

Years after the fact that equality was clearly a foregone conclusion and most of the debate was pretty much over. Now she gets to be the Lady Gaga of politics or something.
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The LGBT vote in Dem primary? on: February 26, 2016, 12:43:30 pm
I feel bad for Bernie, I really do. The poor guy gets the shaft from most of the Democratic Party in favor of someone who's really a moderate Republican that adopts popular party positions when they become politically beneficial. I firmly believe he'd do far more for LGBT and African Americans than Hillary ever would, but he's not even being looked at.

I'll always have a place in my heart for that man.

As Secretary of State, Clinton helped create the Global Equality Fund, and gave one of the most comprehensive speeches on LGBT equality abroad that a US diplomat has ever given. She was the first ever First Lady to march in a gay pride parade. She consistently brings up LGBT issues at debates and rallies when not prompted. She's done more for the LGBT community than Sanders has and ever will.

Convenient, I suppose, that she did all this when she was no longer an elected politician.
28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The LGBT vote in Dem primary? on: February 26, 2016, 12:24:26 pm
And Sanders publicly opposed gay marriage until 2009.

What the f**k does this matter? Hillary didn't support it until 2013 - which was hilariously late even by Democratic Party standards - actively ran against the idea when she was campaigning for Senate, and supported DOMA (which Bernie voted against), regardless of whatever historical revisionist nonsense she gives as her logic pretzel now that it was actually a trick to support gay rights all along because she's super duper really our champion, you guys.

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons the LGBT community and activist groups can pull out of their ass for why they support Hillary now, but it certainly isn't for any substantive reason about when we needed her at the time. It's all some garbage emotional reasoning for how we're supposed to identify with her because of sexism and other superficial crap.

Or I guess if you just view her as more electable, which, hey, fine.
29  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Do you support or oppose the legalization of prostitution? on: February 26, 2016, 10:28:58 am
I find the arguments opposed to be entirely unconvincing. So I do support it with some conditions.
30  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Sanders Supporters: Will you vote for Hillary if she's nominated? on: February 26, 2016, 10:23:40 am
Almost certainly not.
31  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Opinion of the Bush family's impact on American politics on: February 25, 2016, 04:53:19 pm
6. George W. Bush.
*Bush deserves the last spot on here for being the most directly damaging Presidents on this list, as well as having the unbelievable skill of being able to f**k up damn near everything he attempted or did.

9/11? He ignored all reports and threats of terrorism before it happened. Bin Laden? Couldn't get him. (Thanks Obama!) Tax cuts? Were so wasteful and unstimulative that he did them twice. Medicare Part D is one of the most incredible stories of legislative clusterf**kery that you could ever read, and was a total mess to boot. The PATRIOT Act. No Child Left Behind? Plenty, actually. Afghanistan? Mismanaged. Iraq? A lie from the very beginning. All told, his middle eastern excursions will cost us trillions of dollars that we could've used for anything else. His first veto? Killing a stem cell research bill.

Illegal wiretapping. Torture. Rendition. Sold his plan to privatize Social Security to the public so hilariously badly that it was abandoned within weeks. Completely lied about his promise to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban. Riddled mining and oil drilling regulations with loopholes for his industry friends and raised a middle finger to every environmental cause he came across. Neutered FEMA due to a lack of any interest in qualified governing, and New Orleans paid the price. Wanted to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, for Christ's sake. Vetoed a children's health insurance program expansion bill that was fully paid for. Ruined America's image abroad and made us the laughing stock of the first world. This is just the stuff off the top of my head.

In addition to all of that, his term ended with the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, the damage of which will be felt for generations. Everyone who acts like we can't treat Bush like a terrible President because he's too recent and we're biased? Screw you. George W. Bush is one of the worst Presidents in the history of the United States. End of story.


Guess.
32  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Congrats, President-elect Hillary Clinton! on: February 20, 2016, 11:20:13 pm
A taste that Holmes is no doubt an expert on.
33  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GE 2016: Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump on: February 20, 2016, 07:48:28 pm
Third party.
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican South Carolina Primary results thread (polls close @7pm ET) on: February 20, 2016, 07:38:15 pm
So probably Hillary vs. Trump.

Should be fun.
35  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Nevada Caucus results thread (entrance poll @2pm ET) on: February 20, 2016, 05:20:54 pm
As expected. Oh well.
36  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Final poll: Who wins NV? on: February 20, 2016, 01:34:20 am
Clinton, and it's not going to be particularly close.
37  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie arrest photo found on: February 19, 2016, 10:10:19 pm
FF!
38  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: South Dakota Senate passes anti-transgender bill on: February 19, 2016, 10:04:14 pm
I feel like there's major projection issues going on whenever someone freaks out about "the perverts lurking around bathrooms to catch a glimpse and get off on strangers!" like this. They're f**king restrooms, no one is running around public restrooms naked if you're over the age of four. There's nothing sexual about the experience at all that the addition of a transgender person is going to completely disrupt or something.

I think there are legitimate reasons to separate facilities (practical reasons like needing literally different appliances and supplies for the different sexes in different restrooms) but I don't really see any "sexual" reason for separate rooms. Who cares.
39  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will the Paid Speech Question followed by LBGT Rights damage Clinton's campaign? on: February 19, 2016, 09:45:20 pm
I have no serious issue with people making compromises and not being able to stand up for the right thing way back when. Just don't try to paint yourself as this champion for gay rights - like you've always been one. It honestly disgusts me. And it makes me think less of the people eating it all up.
40  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: February 2016 Federal Election on: February 19, 2016, 07:23:51 am
President/Vice President:

1. Adam Griffin/AHDuke99
2. Leinad/Cris
3. Winfield/Poirot

Midwest Senator:

1. Gass3268
2. Write In: Dereich
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: MSNBC Las Vegas, NV Democratic town hall @9pm ET **live commentary thread** on: February 18, 2016, 10:54:11 pm
Haven't been watching, but has the coughing seriously been that bad? Both Hillary and Bernie are old folks, the campaign has to be hard on them both.
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Vermontís Black Leaders: "We Were Invisible to Sanders" on: February 17, 2016, 10:36:36 pm
But not one - including Hillary Clinton - actually put themselves out there or sacrificed anything to help end injustice against minorities.

Sincere question: What does this really mean? This is an easy thing to say, but in all of these conversations I don't understand what could possibly qualify for this. Beyond lending vocal support to these causes, being on the right side of these issues, and lending their images (as Hillary and Bernie have both done to varying degrees over their lives) what more could be done? What is the chasm in their records that shows they haven't done enough for minorities? What even is "enough"?

Very good question. Similar question: How exactly do you address the plight of African Americans WITHOUT discussing economics? There's criminal justice reform (on which Sanders is far more radical than Clinton) but beyond that, what else? How do you address that people are poor without talking about economics? Wring your hands about "White supremacy" and self flagellate over privilege? Those seem to be the only things people call for and they don't actually do anything. Certainly not compared to universal access to higher education and health care, which have very real concrete effects.

The irony is that for all the talk about "intersectionality" - this concept that issues of institutional racism and sexism are a result of a confluence of factors that are reinforcing - Hillary makes statements like "If we broke up the big banks tomorrowÖ would that end racism? Would that end sexism?" She preaches intersectionality and the idea that these issues are so much more complicated than one thing, but acts as if there's one magic pill herself, dismissing individual issues that would have a measurable effect on reducing racial and gender inequalities, because they wouldn't just solve it all at once. It makes no sense.

There was a point in one of the early Democratic debates where Hillary was asked point-blank if she would take a position on decriminalizing marijuana. She flatly said "No." When asked the same question, Bernie said he would support it. That alone would do more for reducing racial inequalities than any symbolic nonsense Hillary spews in her stump speeches, using words written by university graduates that she clearly doesn't even understand.
43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Vermontís Black Leaders: "We Were Invisible to Sanders" on: February 17, 2016, 08:59:05 pm
But not one - including Hillary Clinton - actually put themselves out there or sacrificed anything to help end injustice against minorities.

Sincere question: What does this really mean? This is an easy thing to say, but in all of these conversations I don't understand what could possibly qualify for this. Beyond lending vocal support to these causes, being on the right side of these issues, and lending their images (as Hillary and Bernie have both done to varying degrees over their lives) what more could be done? What is the chasm in their records that shows they haven't done enough for minorities? What even is "enough"?
44  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Vermontís Black Leaders: "We Were Invisible to Sanders" on: February 17, 2016, 08:47:04 pm
Economic inequality IS the root of racism though. The alternative is that people hate other people based on the amount of melanin in their skin, which is stupid. Why don't people hate other people based on their hair or eye color then? The answer is obvious. Because there are no uniform socio-economic trends among people with the same eye color or hair color. Additionally, even if racism was based solely on skin color, there's not much the government can do about it. The government can certainly have some impact on economics but it can't go inside stupid people's brains and make them not hate dark people, so there's no point in talking about that.

You have made much better posts than this.
45  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Vermontís Black Leaders: "We Were Invisible to Sanders" on: February 17, 2016, 08:45:44 pm
This one is quite disputed, but nonetheless there is an effort to desperately make Sanders into a civil rights icon at any cost.

The only reason anyone is trying to do this is because Clinton supporters are desperate to paint Bernie as a crazy old racist white guy that doesn't care about black people. No one is ever able to clearly explain how this is the case, mind you.

This is especially ironic considering Clinton's racist campaigning in 2008, but of course, who cares about consistency.
46  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders: Only one litmus test for SCOTUS - oppose Citizens United on: February 16, 2016, 11:13:38 pm
Clearly Bernie Sanders will personally ensure all women are forced to die in alleyways due to botched abortions.

I mean, it's pretty obvious that he's not saying those issues aren't important. He probably needed to have a more nuanced answer that didn't allow him to be criticised.

I agree, though I don't think the people interested in attacking him for every word that comes out of his mouth would bother with the nuance in the first place. If Hillary's running around making statements like this I don't think people are going to hesitate to strawman.
47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders: Only one litmus test for SCOTUS - oppose Citizens United on: February 16, 2016, 11:09:44 pm
Clearly Bernie Sanders will personally ensure all women are forced to die in alleyways due to botched abortions.
48  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How much Repub. obstructionism expected for Sup. Crt. nominee? on: February 15, 2016, 11:07:46 pm
Probably a ton, but I really can't imagine any scenario where it benefits them to do so.

On basically any issue the Supreme Court has or could rule on, the general public favors the Democratic side. Most people are pro-choice, most people are in favor of gay marriage, most people don't want Obamacare (completely at least) overturned, most people don't like gerrymandering, most people want the Citizens United ruling overturned, and on and on. Not only does it refocus the presidential campaign on issues that favor the Democrats almost across the board, and Clinton would never let the vacancy be forgotten the entire time, but it makes the Republicans look incapable of governing yet again, and would put immense pressure on swing-state Senate races the GOP can't afford to lose. It's just a losing proposition on like three different levels.
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which Democrat will win the Nevada Caucuses? on: February 15, 2016, 03:44:20 pm
Hillary, comfortably.
50  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does the fact that Bernie Sanders is 75 years old bother you? on: February 14, 2016, 03:07:45 pm
No.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 688


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines