U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

[TrackerNeil]

32 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

He is a registered Democrat. He has been one for a year, or just over a year.  He was running as a Democrat. Even then, do you really want to play that party elitism shit to use it as an excuse? For the 20th fucking time I never said it took anything away from it. That doesn't mean what was said is not problematic. 

Hmm...I thought he was still an independent. Well, that doesn't change much in my book anyway. Sanders, a newly registered Democrat, wanted to run against a candidate who'd been a Democrat for decades, and was running with the tacit endorsement of the president. Sanders knows well who in this circumstance is going to get DNC support. 

Is it problematic that the DNC might have been behind the candidate who garnered the most party support? Again, not in my book. What else was that organization supposed to do?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

Hmm...I thought he was still an independent.

He is. Kinda. He hasn't registered as a Democrat as far as I can tell - it's not required in Vermont. It also appears to not matter.

 

[Boris the Blade]

28 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Hmm...I thought he was still an independent. Well, that doesn't change much in my book anyway. Sanders, a newly registered Democrat, wanted to run against a candidate who'd been a Democrat for decades, and was running with the tacit endorsement of the president. Sanders knows well who in this circumstance is going to get DNC support. 

Is it problematic that the DNC might have been behind the candidate who garnered the most party support? Again, not in my book. What else was that organization supposed to do?

So you're a party elitist. I guess you don't feel that way regarding some of Clinton's views that she changed fairly recently over the past few years though right? I mean Sanders had has had much more progressives views longer than Clinton, but that doesn't matter to you now does it since you're more worried about how long he was a registered democrat eh? What a shitty way to go about politics. If the country wasn't just a two party system, he wouldn't have had to run as a Democrat, but unfortunately people like you will not grasp that nor care to look at it that way. God some democrats are just pathetic. 

It's problematic in the way they went about it and how two faced they were. They clearly were biased yet lied about it when confronted about it. Like others have said, why bother with primaries if they have a hard on for a certain candidate? But you clearly don't care. 

 

[Maester Drew]

41 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, let's go with these stated goals. (note that most of these are from his 2011-2012 campaign; he hasn't updated his positions  since)

I just went to his 2016 campaign site, and I can't find anything to suggest that he's against gay marriage or against a woman's right to choose. In fact a lot of the stances on that website seem to contradict what you say are his positions.

47 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Johnson also wants to abolish the department of education...........

Good. Education belongs to the states, as stated by our constitution.

1 hour ago, Harakiri said:

You were taught wrong quite honestly.

My teacher gave an example when he first explained it to me and the class: Dick Cheney is conservative on many issues, but is for gay rights since his own daughter is gay. And that's how I understand it; people can be liberal on some issues, conservative on others, and moderate on more besides.

 

[TrackerNeil]

23 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

So you're a party elitist. 

It's true; in fact, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was really just a patsy. She wore the crown, but I controlled everything from the shadows. Fools, all of you Democrats! 'Twas I who made certain that Elizabeth Warren never declared for president, and who forced Joe Biden to back away from running. I purged voter rolls, bought off the media and did all that was necessary to ensure that Bernie Sanders' candidacy would fail. 

You've unmasked me today, Harakiri, but never think you've won. When Hillary Clinton sits in the Oval Office you'll pay. You'll all pay!

[Boris the Blade]

40 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

I just went to his 2016 campaign site, and I can't find anything to suggest that he's against gay marriage or against a woman's right to choose. In fact a lot of the stances on that website seem to contradict what you say are his positions.

Good. Education belongs to the states, as stated by our constitution.

My teacher gave an example when he first explained it to me and the class: Dick Cheney is conservative on many issues, but is for gay rights since his own daughter is gay. And that's how I understand it; people can be liberal on some issues, conservative on others, and moderate on more besides.

 

Because that works out so well in southern states with their revisionist history eh? No, it doesn't. 

Hell, your state is an example of why that is an absolutely terrible idea.
 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/150-years-later-schools-are-still-a-battlefield-for-interpreting-civil-war/2015/07/05/e8fbd57e-2001-11e5-bf41-c23f5d3face1_story.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/schooled/2015/07/07/texas_textbook_revisionism_new_textbooks_in_the_lone_star_state_downplay.html
http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/07/texas_new_academic_guidelines_on_history_textbooks_takes_out_mention_of/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rewriting-history-texas-tackles-textbook-debate/

Him being for states to decide whether or not abortion is illegal is highly anti abortion. He knows damn well that a good portion of states will always be anti abortion. That fucks over quite a bit of women in those states, so how exactly is that being pro choice? 

Education and women's rights, hell, civil rights in general should not be left up to the state. Especially when the state has a history of marginalizing / oppressing certain demographics.


Seriously, Johnson is terrible. 
He wants to replace the progressive tax structure with a flat one
- abolish the ACA and replace it with a completely private system
- end the fed
- enact a balanced budget rule (horrible during recessions)
- end numerous agencies like the dept of education

He's a disaster economically. 

[Maester Drew]

8 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Because that works out so well in southern states with their revisionist history eh? No, it doesn't.

I live in the South, and I never came across "revisionist" history in my education. Can you provide an example?

[Boris the Blade]

Just now, Maester Drew said:

I live in the South, and I never came across "revisionist" history in my education. Can you provide an example?

Refresh the page and look at the links I added into my edited post. 

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Harakiri said:

Clinton brought DWS on hahaha. What a fucking joke. She failed to get her elected in 2008 and was a failure as the head of the DNC. It also looks really shitty to pick her up after the emails that were leaked showed she was a biased piece of shit. Lets see how badly this fucks her in the polls.

The news coming out of this is basically what you'd expect if you thought about it for two seconds: they are giving her a way to save face.

Rumour is she was gonna fight this and they basically had to throw her a bone in the form of an honorary job and title to get her to go quietly.I even heard Obama (who, among others, has not gotten along well with DWS for years now) had to step in to broker the deal.

You don't make it to the head of a political organisation as powerful as the DNC without having the pull to not be easily muscled out. They gave her some bullshit position and in return we all got rid of her as head of the DNC. This is win fucking win.

Your gripping here and evident glee over how this will hurt Clinton kinda shows what this is really about for you though.

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, Harakiri said:

The facts are there, you are just ignoring them. You continue to think it's not an issue that they were bias just because they did not go through with certain actions, that's pathetically naive. 

Yes, strangely people tend to not be upset about things that didn't actually happen.

Was it a shitty idea for, say, some guy to suggest using Sanders' religious beliefs against him? Yes. But, hey look, no one ever actually did. The DNC never did anything on this issue which tells you the organisation looked at his idea and said "What? Fuck no, we ain't doing that." Which is what you want. How this sort of thing becomes a criticism is mystifying.

The problem in the end with all this shit is that there's a whole lot of evidence that people who worked at the DNC had opinions and a whole lot of no evidence of the DNC actually doing much. I been asking for the evidence of actions by the DNC since the start and there's still been none provided.

 

And, again, this is all coming from a source we know, aside from just being run by horrible people, is biased and editorialises in order to push their agenda. And also has links to the Russian government. Do not trust that the dump was not edited to convey a specific image.

[Boris the Blade]

5 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The news coming out of this is basically what you'd expect if you thought about it for two seconds: they are giving her a way to save face.

Rumour is she was gonna fight this and they basically had to throw her a bone in the form of an honorary job and title to get her to go quietly.I even heard Obama (who, among others, has not gotten along well with DWS for years now) had to step in to broker the deal.

You don't make it to the head of a political organisation as powerful as the DNC without having the pull to not be easily muscled out. They gave her some bullshit position and in return we all got rid of her as head of the DNC. This is win fucking win.

Your gripping here and evident glee over how this will hurt Clinton kinda shows what this is really about for you though.

I love when people reach like this, especially when they are so far off. 

Please show me where I am showing any sort of delight in my statement. I'll wait, thought it will be a while since it isn't there, but please, go on. 

I want Clinton to be president and will be voting for her in November and think she can be a good president and I really want her to win becasue I do not want a Trump presidency. I can do all that and still be pissed off at the DNC. 

 

[Maester Drew]

20 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Hell, your state is an example of why that is an absolutely terrible idea.

I was never required to read Jefferson Davis' inauguration speech. Hell, during my eighth grade, my American History teacher was a huge fan of Abraham Lincoln, and I distinctly do not recall her ever giving us a more sympathetic view to the confederacy. As for segregation, they were never downplayed in high school.

The only thing I could really complain about my social studies education was the lack of funding provided to it. See, most of the school's funding went to athletics, specifically football. And so there was limited funds to hire actual history teachers. In fact, in my sophomore year I took "World History" that was taught by the Girl's Soccer Coach. The most memorable thing about that class was watching "Kingdom of Heaven."

[Boris the Blade]

Just now, Maester Drew said:

I was never required to read Jefferson Davis' inauguration speech. Hell, during my eighth grade, my American History teacher was a huge fan of Abraham Lincoln, and I distinctly do not recall her ever giving us a more sympathetic view to the confederacy. As for segregation, they were never downplayed in high school.

The only thing I could really complain about my social studies education was the lack of funding provided to it. See, most of the school's funding went to athletics, specifically football. And so there was limited funds to hire actual history teachers. In fact, in my sophomore year I took "World History" that was taught by the Girl's Soccer Coach. The most memorable thing about that class was watching "Kingdom of Heaven."

Please tell me it was the director's cut, either way they were both historically inaccurate, but at least the directors cut fixed the biggest problems of the movie and turned it into a great experience. 

Were you in HS it after this was proposed? 

[Maester Drew]

1 minute ago, Harakiri said:

Please tell me it was the director's cut, either way they were both historically inaccurate, but at least the directors cut fixed the biggest problems of the movie and turned it into a great experience. 

Were you in HS it after this was proposed? 

Most of the articles you site are from 2015, and I graduated in 2014. However, I could ask my nephew about what he has been learning, especially since he'll be going to middle school this fall. As for the film, I do not recall if it was or not. And in any case, I knew it was historically inaccurate, like most historic movies.

PS: You should totally check out History Buff's review of Kingdom of Heaven.

[Dr. Pepper]

Not surprising, but Michael Bloomberg is endorsing Hillary and will speak in her favor at the convention. 

Quote

Michael R. Bloomberg, who bypassed his own run for the presidency this election cycle, will endorse Hillary Clinton in a prime-time address at the Democratic National Convention and make the case for Mrs. Clinton as the best choice for moderate voters in 2016, an adviser to Mr. Bloomberg said.

 

[Boris the Blade]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Not surprising, but Michael Bloomberg is endorsing Hillary and will speak in her favor at the convention. 

 

Yea, I saw that he was planning to endorse her. He really despises Trump. 

4 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Most of the articles you site are from 2015, and I graduated in 2014. However, I could ask my nephew about what he has been learning, especially since he'll be going to middle school this fall. As for the film, I do not recall if it was or not. And in any case, I knew it was historically inaccurate, like most historic movies.

PS: You should totally check out History Buff's review of Kingdom of Heaven.

Ah okay. Yea, well, I mean Texas has been trying to do it's own thing in education from trying to teach intelligent design like it is on par with science and revisionist history such as wanting to down play Jefferson and separation of church and state and obviously racism and slavery like the articles were talking about. They've been doing / trying to do it since 2007 ish I believe. 

I've actually seen that! I'm also subscribed to that channel. 

[peterbound]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

One person suggesting to use religion against their opponent isn't the DNC as a whole, it is a viable strategy and has been so for 250 years. I am not offended by it any more than I have been offended by any other political move. Why should it bother me to bring up a candidates religion? Is that some special thing that is immune to attack in politics? Are you that naive?

What opponent?  

They are both democrats, and the DNC should only facilitate the primary election, not actively attempt to get one candidate elected.  They should be the infrastructure that helps put the will of the people into action.  

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, peterbound said:

What opponent?  

They are both democrats, and the DNC should only facilitate the primary election, not actively attempt to get one candidate elected.  They should be the infrastructure that helps put the will of the people into action.  

When did they actively try to get one candidate elected?

[peterbound]

Just now, Shryke said:

When did they actively try to get one candidate elected?

By suggesting that someone call out Sander's religion, so Clinton can get more votes?  What you're trying to say is that they didn't put that plan into action, so it's alright.  No harm no foul. What I'm saying is that those types of statements support the over all tone, attitude, and bias on the part of the DNC to get Hillary the primary. 

 

How are we seeing to different things, when the truth is so blindly obvious?  

[Mexal]

As a democrat, I care infinitely more that the leaked emails went through Russian computers than I do that the DNC wanted Hillary to win. From what I've read, their influence didn't change much and she won by almost 4 million votes and 350+ delegates (w/o super delegates). The DNC couldn't close that gap if they wanted. But the fact Russia is fucking with our presidential election and wants Trump in power should scare everyone.

i have no idea why anyone is shocked or really cares. From the emails, the things they suggested weren't put in action and even if the DNC was biased, that's not Clintons fault. On top of that, te RNC tried so hard to keep Trump from getting the nomination. This is politics and isn't abnormal. What is abnormal is a foreign power hacking a political party and releasing the data in an effort to get another nominee elected. That's fucked up.