• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About alguien

  • Rank
    formerly "nadie"
  • Birthday 06/09/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Seattle, WA

Recent Profile Visitors

6,446 profile views
  1. US Elections - From Russia with Love

    Pretty much agree with all of this, but I wanted to let you know that I'll be trying out your metaphor with some members from my giant, Irish Catholic family who are Eisenhower Republicans (you're correct, the sane kind do exist) and despise Trump. Some of them have are on the fence about voting for Clinton, and as they all love football, this might a good metaphor to push them toward doing so.
  2. US Elections - From Russia with Love

    Fair point. Though I've watched better delivery, his story, especially when he took out his copy of the constitution, was an effectively compelling bit of of political theater. Hadn't thought about this. It is a little concerning, because it's one of the areas I'm most critical of Hillary Clinton (saying "well, at least she's not a neocon" isn't quite good enough, IMO), and while it seemed the Sanders contingent was moderately successful in achieving some buy-in for their domestic agenda, I haven't seen any major adjustments from Clinton's platform foreign policy-wise.
  3. US Elections - From Russia with Love

    Nope, that can't be. I was assured last thread that Trump and Pence would never try something so far-reaching with the Supreme Court.
  4. US Elections - From Russia with Love

    Haven't watched much of tonight, but from what I saw, and maybe I'm just an old softy, but I found the speech by the father of the fallen Muslim marine to be moving.
  5. Shockingly, it turns out Roger Ailes was a racist, sexist homophobe pretty much all the time. But that's OK, I'm sure it didn't affect Fox's journalistic integrity. (incidentally, typing "fox" then "journalistic integrity" nearly made my keyboard combust)
  6. US Elections - From Russia with Love

    ... We have almost reached peak irony.
  7. U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

    So far, about 15 minutes into his speech, Bill Clinton is killing it. When he's on, the man's a very good speaker.
  8. U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

    I remember a law school professor who knew the Obamas telling Jon Stewart that he always thought it would be Michelle who ran for public office.
  9. U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

    Not according to Bernie Sanders, himself. This is actually pretty true, I think. Listen man, if you want to vote 3rd Party, you are certainly welcome to do so, but at least vote Stein. Green Party would not be a betrayal of Sanders's ideals. (it might, however be a vote for those ideals over pragmatism.) I would not. Though I also don't "love" any politician I vote for. I do, however, admire what their platforms stand for. From what I recall, you've said you're in Texas, yes? It may be that your vote will count for little, but if you're progressive (which I think you are from your posts), support what Bernie stands for, I would suggest you vote for Clinton. If you just can't bring yourself to do it, then I would suggest voting for Stein, which at least would send a message that the country is moving in a more progressive direction. A vote for Gary Johnson does the opposite. Which is totally cool if you really believe in his positions--but then, I don't see how you'd have been a Sanders supporter in the first place. Sanders platform is democratic socialism--pretty much as diametrically opposed to libertarianism as I can think of.
  10. U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

    The GOP refused to condone that rep, and thus tacitly supported his actions; not to mention that this was the only pushback you had against my list of unprecedented obstructionism, so I'm still going to go with nitpicky here. If this unicorn of a Sanders supporter went from Sanders to Trump to Stein... well that'd be some awesome weed they were smoking. But I'd seriously question how much of the election election was about actual policy rather than who they thought was just "the coolest." You should. You should also keep in mind that you're not just voting for president, not just for putting a liberal majority in the SC (which itself is huge), but most likely 3-4 justices--so a HUGE majority. As I recall, they all seemed to like him just fine when he was my Senator. This completely changed after he won. But it's interesting you felt that's what Obama should have done. Do you know who actually is famously good at making alliances and friendships across the aisle even in the midst of vicious attacks? (rhymes with Pillary Hinton)
  11. U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

    I think my point is that it starts with squabbles, chipping away at these things, until one side can get enough justices (and this presidential cycle could see 3-4) where you could take that big step. Pro-life legislation is being pass through state legislatures all the time, and with the right court, they'd be giddy at the prospect of moving it up the ladder.
  12. U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

    But if he were president, he'd be appointing the next Supreme Court Justice, and he'd appoint someone who'd overturn Roe v Wade. Like it's great that he said it should be up to individuals but his policies would eliminate that right. (along with a whole host of others) I hope you don't mean you think Stein would pull from Trump? That's... an interesting theory. In any event, no, when I see multiple comments in political articles of "Jill, Not Hill!" I think the comparison to Nader is pretty apt and far more relevant then the Clinton elections. The collective "they" in this case, which is a pretty common rhetorical device. If your response is going to devolve into nitpicking, then I don't know where we can go from here. In any event, I'm still not hearing from you what more Obama could have done to reach out to the GOP, aside from caving into their demands--which would have made the hard left scream even louder than they have been doing.
  13. U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

    For example, from Wikipedia: Plus, supporting states' rights basically means dismantling 60 years of Civil Rights progress in the South. I'm not sure what your point is? (and also, 1996 doesn't apply, right?). Clinton beat Bush in the electoral college and the popular vote by significant margins. Is having a plurality of over 50% some sort of constitutional requirement? I've never heard of this. <taking deep breath> <trying to pretend that the last 8 years haven't been filled with the most obstructive opposition in the history of the presidency> Dude. Seriously? Dude. Republicans hate Obama. They hate, hate, HATE him. They scream out "Liar" during his State of the Union. They've done everything in their power to stymie him every, single step of the way. They referred to beating the ACA as "his Waterloo." Obama tried to work with them on numerous occasions and they shut the government down. I cannot think of a single thing he could have done to make this happen. The GOP used fearmongering every. single. time. Guantanamo was brought up, turning it into a scare tactic that "Obama wants to release terrorists on our home soil!" (again, Clinton, for the record, urged Obama to do everything he could to shut it down, I can't help but remind you.) I mean, please, tell me if I'm wrong, or if you can think of an alternative he should deployed. Frankly, given the insanity fueling his opposition, I'm super impressed with what he's managed to get done.
  14. U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

    I don't know what that has to do with anything, but Clinton beat Bush by six million votes in 1992 and Dole by 8 million in 1996, with a 5% and 8% voting majority respectively. Per Tywin et al two posts in the last thread: Context that matters. Especially when trying to push through historic legislation. I'm still confused. You'd rather vote for someone who'd dismantle your agenda rather than someone who supports it, because the person who'd destroy what minorities and LGBT have worked so hard for over the past 50 years would do so more efficiently because he has experience at governance? I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any logic in your decision-making process, just a betrayal of Sanders's principles.
  15. U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

    So the vague hope that Johnson would be stopped from doing anything really crazy is how you justify voting for him? Despite the fact that his policies are opposed to yours? Why not vote for Clinton, someone who literally supports and would advance every cause you listed? (who, incidentally, would also be held in check by those balances you mentioned). Jill Stein, though I'm troubled by her and see her as Nader 3.0, would at least be ideologically consistent for a Sanders supporter. Yes, really. He tried to close Guantanamo.* Multiple times. If he'd had a Congressional majority for more than like 50 days, he might have succeeded. Instead, he chose to spend that window on healthcare--you know, fulfilling the policy goal he stated he would do. *You might be interested to know that Clinton's last letter to Obama before she left as SoS was to URGE him to keep trying to close Guantanamo.