Myshkin Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Thread title is mostly an excuse for me to post the awesome T. Rex song: Also I want to address Bonesy's post from last thread, wherein he accuses us of all lining up to suck Hillary's hypothetical dick. I can only speak for myself, but I'm more than willing to have an adult conversation about the candidates. If you're a Sanders supporter that's great, I have zero problem with that. If you have problems with Clinton's record or actions, good, air them, let's talk about them. But if your idea of supporting Sanders over Clinton is to repeat the smears and conspiracy theories of the extreme right wing, well then I suggest you take a good, hard look at the path you're going down, and ask yourself if it leads to a place you really want to be. Unfortunately it seems that as the way forward gets narrower for Bernie some of his supporters have decided to adopt the playbook of the extreme right wing. I'm not okay with that. On a related note, as Bernie's options begin to run out the revolution seems to have begun devouring its own. Over the past few days I've seen at least three different "articles" (quotes because it's getting hard to tell the difference between an article and a blog post masquerading as an article) about how Elizabeth Warren is a traitor who sold out to corporate interests. Her crime? Failing to endorse Bernie in a timely fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 From the very last post of the previous thread: Quote As to the barking ad, I've seen no one talking about it anywhere. It was mentioned briefly on npr - but because the Russians took offense being labeled as one of America's greatest enemies and were thinking of legal action. Clinton wasn't mentioned at all. I've seen articles dedicated to it in quite a few place (e.g. Time, Fortune). Not bad at all for political ad given that very few of them get any media attention. It's not a game-changer though -- Trump will need more clever propaganda to take on Clinton (though a steady stream at this level of quality wouldn't hurt). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Myshkin said: On a related note, as Bernie's options begin to run out the revolution seems to have begun devouring its own. Over the past few days I've seen at least three different "articles" (quotes because it's getting hard to tell the difference between an article and a blog post masquerading as an article) about how Elizabeth Warren is a traitor who sold out to corporate interests. Her crime? Failing to endorse Bernie in a timely fashion. Fucking BernieBros. I wish Sanders would jerk their chain on shit like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Hermit Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Clinton is certainly favored in the primary, but the more recent general elections match-ups I've seen show Sanders performing better against Trump, and much better against Cruz who Clinton trails slightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 47 minutes ago, BloodRider said: Fucking BernieBros. I wish Sanders would jerk their chain on shit like this. He does not control them. The media drastically overstates the impact both Sanders and Trump have on their followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 So I was talking to my brother this morning about the primaries and such, and he is actually debating voting for Trump in the general based on the idea that this is the quickest path to substantive change or revolution. Pretty shocking to me as my brother is just about one of the leftiest people I know. Interesting idea, but I don't know that I want to see what that might look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted March 20, 2016 Author Share Posted March 20, 2016 43 minutes ago, Red Hermit said: Clinton is certainly favored in the primary, but the more recent general elections match-ups I've seen show Sanders performing better against Trump, and much better against Cruz who Clinton trails slightly. You can't really trust these GE matchup polls this far out, mostly because the GE campaign hasn't started yet. And just about anything can happen between now and then to change the dynamic of this election. Another financial crisis could give Sanders and his economic platform a huge boost. But then a terrorist attack or state sponsored act of aggression against American interests could put Bernie's economic platform on the back burner. Then there's the fact that the Republicans haven't yet started to seriously go after Bernie. They've spent the last quarter century hitting Hillary with everything they have. Her flaws as a candidate are "baked into the cake", as the saying goes. We don't yet know how the voting public will react when they start seeing ads with Bernie's face superimposed over the Hammer and Sickle, or for that matter how Bernie will react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 12 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: So I was talking to my brother this morning about the primaries and such, and he is actually debating voting for Trump in the general based on the idea that this is the quickest path to substantive change or revolution. Pretty shocking to me as my brother is just about one of the leftiest people I know. Interesting idea, but I don't know that I want to see what that might look like. It makes sense. Trump has already done considerable damage to the status quo -- the Republican party is coming apart at the seams. If he is elected and does not improve the lot of the working class, it is very likely that a substantial fraction of them will not go back to the Republicans. It's too bad that there is no way to do something similar to the Democrats (most African-Americans are still loyal to the Democrat establishment, despite it having done about as much good for them in the past couple of decades as the Republicans did for the white working class). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 14 minutes ago, Altherion said: It makes sense. Trump has already done considerable damage to the status quo -- the Republican party is coming apart at the seams. If he is elected and does not improve the lot of the working class, it is very likely that a substantial fraction of them will not go back to the Republicans. It's too bad that there is no way to do something similar to the Democrats (most African-Americans are still loyal to the Democrat establishment, despite it having done about as much good for them in the past couple of decades as the Republicans did for the white working class). Yeah, that was basically my response to him. I'm enjoying watching what he's doing to the GOP, but I'm not sure I'm ready to see him affect the whole country in a similar fashion. That being said, I have to agree with him that Hillary is likely to be more of the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yeah, that was basically my response to him. I'm enjoying watching what he's doing to the GOP, but I'm not sure I'm ready to see him affect the whole country in a similar fashion. That being said, I have to agree with him that Hillary is likely to be more of the same. I was on Capitol Hill trying to a federal law passed, and one staffer actually said he wanted to allow the problem to develop because his side of the aisle would have the advantage over the other side. If the problem develops it will disrupt our food system and cost companies ten of millions... How can government be this disfunctional? I do not think Trump is the answer to anything, but we have to do better than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 20 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said: I was on Capitol Hill trying to a federal law passed, and one staffer actually said he wanted to allow the problem to develop because his side of the aisle would have the advantage over the other side. If the problem develops it will disrupt our food system and cost companies ten of millions... How can government be this disfunctional? I do not think Trump is the answer to anything, but we have to do better than this. Yeah, tearing it down is a pretty attractive proposition at this point. Also a very scary proposition in terms of what that might look like and how ugly it is likely to get before things normalize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yeah, tearing it down is a pretty attractive proposition at this point. Also a very scary proposition it terms of what that might look like and how ugly it is likely to get before things normalize. That is my concern. The rest of the world functions this poorly most of the time, so I am not sure if we tear it down we don't end up in a worse position. My hope, albeit a slight one, is that this is a wake up call to the powers that be and they somehow improve. I also hope we get a moderate in office, Clinton is about the closest to that of those currently running. We need a George HW Bush (daddy Bush) or someone else in the middle right now. Romney may have been that...Bill Clinton was largely that (last balanced budget was under him) I do not think these current republicans realize that Reagan was once a democrat and he was more centrist than anyone running now on that side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Hermit Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 9 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said: That is my concern. The rest of the world functions this poorly most of the time, so I am not sure if we tear it down we don't end up in a worse position. I feel like too many people have an overly romantic view of what revolution and the potential anarchy that can follow it is like. We've gotten so accustomed to our relatively stable lifestyles that we take many government services for granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Just now, Red Hermit said: I feel like too many people have an overly romantic view of what revolution and the potential anarchy that can follow it is like. We've gotten so accustomed to our relatively stable lifestyles that we take many government services for granted. The money in politics is clearly making it worse, and the Citizens United case must be overturned. The few are running things, at the expense of most: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/04/the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent-in-2014-mega-donors-fuel-rising-cost-of-elections/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 4 hours ago, Altherion said: From the very last post of the previous thread: I've seen articles dedicated to it in quite a few place (e.g. Time, Fortune). Not bad at all for political ad given that very few of them get any media attention. It's not a game-changer though -- Trump will need more clever propaganda to take on Clinton (though a steady stream at this level of quality wouldn't hurt). Probably wouldn't hurt, but highly unlikely to help either. It was a ridiculous video that is only entertaining to Trump fans and Hillary haters, so it's not really swaying opinion in his favour. I read an interesting article in our paper today about the negatives of Hillary. A small lie rather irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but apparently when she visited Nepal as Sec State(?) she said she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary. But when she was born, the world had no clue who Edmond Hillary was because he was merely a humble beekeeper with aspirations of mountaineering greatness. He climbed Everest 6 years later. Perhaps her parents just called her "girl" until some famous event happened which would determine her name. The other critique was about her lack of action when the democratically elected govt of Honduras was overthrown. I'd never hear about what happened in Honduras, but if what the article reported is accurate it's a pretty shitty part of her Sec State legacy and rather off-putting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 13 minutes ago, Red Hermit said: I feel like too many people have an overly romantic view of what revolution and the potential anarchy that can follow it is like. We've gotten so accustomed to our relatively stable lifestyles that we take many government services for granted. Absolutely. I don't romanticize that possibility at all. It scares the living shit out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Hillary certainly has negatives, but Trump has had a lie or misstatement nearly every five minute in his speeches. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 So Mitch McConnel has backtracked from 'we won't consider anyone' to 'we won't consider anyone not approved by the NRA'. Who says politicians aren't honest about where the money comes from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted March 21, 2016 Author Share Posted March 21, 2016 9 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said: So Mitch McConnel has backtracked from 'we won't consider anyone' to 'we won't consider anyone not approved by the NRA'. Who says politicians aren't honest about where the money comes from? The GOP won't consider anyone until a Democrat wins the election, at which point they'll try to fast track Garland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: So I was talking to my brother this morning about the primaries and such, and he is actually debating voting for Trump in the general based on the idea that this is the quickest path to substantive change or revolution. Pretty shocking to me as my brother is just about one of the leftiest people I know. Interesting idea, but I don't know that I want to see what that might look like. If you brother is a lefty and thinking of voting for Trump he ain't paying attention or is kinda dim on these matters. Trump's platform is right-wing in basically every way. His populism is pure race-baiting and authoritarianism. Trump is not the quickest path to anything except corruption and terrible frightening policy. This is a guy who still harasses people who said his hands were tiny back in the 80s. You don't want that kind of person running anything. 1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yeah, that was basically my response to him. I'm enjoying watching what he's doing to the GOP, but I'm not sure I'm ready to see him affect the whole country in a similar fashion. That being said, I have to agree with him that Hillary is likely to be more of the same. Clinton is explicitly running as "another Obama term" so take that as you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.