The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Blue vs Red: [Democratic Primary] Edition

1235792

Posts

  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited November 2015
    Marathon wrote: »
    Any serious candidate is "in it to win"

    That's a blatant lie. A lot of GOP candidates are "in it to win", and they're nowhere near serious.

    notdroid on
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Any serious candidate is "in it to win"

    wait you mean to tell me the purpose of a presidential run isn't to sell books? well i've got this all wrong.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    Bends herself to win is just the fact that somehow representing voters is a critical flaw while being unflinchingly committed to the stances you had twenty years ago is a positive.

    it's a positive if the stances you had twenty years ago were pretty good

    I know everyone hates Sanders around here but the guy was pretty fucking spot on about Iraq and I don't see how anyone can see Clinton's support of the invasion as anything but a huge unqualified negative for her as POTUS

    but I mean, what's the alternative, a Republican? hah

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited November 2015
    milski wrote: »
    Bends herself to win is just the fact that somehow representing voters is a critical flaw while being unflinchingly committed to the stances you had twenty years ago is a positive.

    it's a positive if the stances you had twenty years ago were pretty good

    I know everyone hates Sanders around here but the guy was pretty fucking spot on about Iraq and I don't see how anyone can see Clinton's support of the invasion as anything but a huge unqualified negative for her as POTUS

    but I mean, what's the alternative, a Republican? hah

    To rehash old arguments Sanders wasn't good on gay rights, gun control, or the bank bailout 20 years ago. But that doesn't fucking matter at all now. (E: To be clear, Sanders is still not great on gun control or bank bailouts)

    People here don't hate Bernie. Stop pretending they do for righteous furor points. I literally have to point out I prefer Bernie on most issues every time I respond to you because I don't hate Clinton.

    Clinton herself calls Iraq a mistake. I am concerned by her hawkishness but not because of that particular aspect.

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    Bends herself to win is just the fact that somehow representing voters is a critical flaw while being unflinchingly committed to the stances you had twenty years ago is a positive.

    it's a positive if the stances you had twenty years ago were pretty good

    I know everyone hates Sanders around here but the guy was pretty fucking spot on about Iraq and I don't see how anyone can see Clinton's support of the invasion as anything but a huge unqualified negative for her as POTUS

    but I mean, what's the alternative, a Republican? hah

    Hates Sanders is... A little much.

    I don't think he has a shot at winning the primary or the general.

    Other people want him to be more vocal on guns. (I don't really care)

    And it is a pretty realistic criticism that he'd have a heck of a lot of trouble actually implementing his platform.

    Personally, I think Hillary comes across as a totally mainstream politician, and I don't think she brings much else to the table besides being an effective campaigner who will represent the party.

    Bernie is further left in a way that more represents my views. But... Shrug.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • HandgimpHandgimp R+L=J Family PhotoRegistered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    vote.

    Well I get that, but I've become a bit disenfranchised since the last election (daily/weekly calls from the Democratic party about wanting money from me doesn't help). I haven't done any research on any of the Democratic nominees but I suppose right now it really doesn't matter until they become the choice on the ballot. But neither Bernie or Hilary have that "gotcha" like Barack Obama did 8 years ago so it's hard for me to feel energized.
    True enough, but I will be camping outside my polling place if Trump or Carson end up on the ballot.

    After the first two debates and the forum, I've become much more excited for Hillary. As stated upthread, tying herself to Obama is helping.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    notdroid wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Any serious candidate is "in it to win"

    That's a blatant lie. A lot of GOP candidates are "in it to win", and they're nowhere near serious.

    That doesn't contradict his statement. Denying the consequent is a logical fallacy (A then B does not mean not B implies not A)

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • This content has been removed.

  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    If I had the power to appoint the President, I would not pick Sanders, or even a gun control supporting version Sanders. While I think he has some good positions, I don't think he has actual legislative/legal structure to most of those plans that will be effective and resistant to judicial appeal, plans to get his policy goals enacted, the temperament to implement such plans, methods to implement them legislatively, or the leadership to actually be PotUS.

    I like him as a strongly liberal Senator because I agree with many of his positions. But he's not even a top 3 New England Senator to me, especially when effectiveness is taken into account. He's serving exactly the purpose I hoped he would when he announced: pushing the debate left. But I think expecting more than that is not a realistic look at political reality

    Would you choose Hillary though? In my view, the entire slate on both sides is abysmal this election.

    Personally, I would choose Bloomberg. He was an outstanding mayor, is not afraid to stand up to opposition, and is as committed to
    Gun control as anyone in America.

    wooo stop and frisk for everyoneeeeee

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    If I had the power to appoint the President, I would not pick Sanders, or even a gun control supporting version Sanders. While I think he has some good positions, I don't think he has actual legislative/legal structure to most of those plans that will be effective and resistant to judicial appeal, plans to get his policy goals enacted, the temperament to implement such plans, methods to implement them legislatively, or the leadership to actually be PotUS.

    I like him as a strongly liberal Senator because I agree with many of his positions. But he's not even a top 3 New England Senator to me, especially when effectiveness is taken into account. He's serving exactly the purpose I hoped he would when he announced: pushing the debate left. But I think expecting more than that is not a realistic look at political reality

    Would you choose Hillary though? In my view, the entire slate on both sides is abysmal this election.

    Personally, I would choose Bloomberg. He was an outstanding mayor, is not afraid to stand up to opposition, and is as committed to
    Gun control as anyone in America.

    I am not PantsB, but I imagine your question could be answered by changing "I don't think he..." to "I think she..." and finishing that sentence.

    I ate an engineer
  • ZomroZomro Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    Bends herself to win is just the fact that somehow representing voters is a critical flaw while being unflinchingly committed to the stances you had twenty years ago is a positive.

    it's a positive if the stances you had twenty years ago were pretty good

    I know everyone hates Sanders around here but the guy was pretty fucking spot on about Iraq and I don't see how anyone can see Clinton's support of the invasion as anything but a huge unqualified negative for her as POTUS

    but I mean, what's the alternative, a Republican? hah

    Who has even remotely hinted at the bolded? Have you actually read any threads that have discussed Sanders?

    It's much easier to have a discussion if you didn't straw man the entire forum.

  • edited November 2015
    This content has been removed.

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Space, many people hate lawyers. Would you argue that when those people need legal counsel, they should hire an inexperienced and unflinchingly idealistic lawyer, or a career lawyer with a proven track record of extreme competence but, unfortunately, somewhat flexible morals?

    I ate an engineer
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Keep in mind that having a woman president could be quite inspiring to young women of the next generation. And if you truly care about developing a strong bench for the Dems, consider getting involved in local/state politics or your state party apparatus.

  • This content has been removed.

  • Wraith260Wraith260 Happiest Goomba! Registered User regular
    Space, i asked this before, but with the speed that these threads can move at at times i understand you may have missed it. how do you feel about the talk that Hillary may pick Julian Castro to be her running mate? would the inclusion of a young, up-and-coming Democrat on the ticket help allay some of your misgivings about a Clinton Presidency?

  • This content has been removed.

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    Space, many people hate lawyers. Would you argue that when those people need legal counsel, they should hire an inexperienced and unflinchingly idealistic lawyer, or a career lawyer with a proven track record of extreme competence but, unfortunately, somewhat flexible morals?

    Nothing is really comparable to the POTUS but lawyers are a particularly bad example, I think, because lawyers are required to act in the best interest of their client irrespective of personal feelings, and the skills to do the job can only be learned by doing the job (no one has xperience being POTUS until their are elected to that job).

    Then what reason do you have for believing Trump and Carson are not serious candidates capable of being POTUS? If you are basically saying "There's no way to know how good somebody will be as President," then there's no reason not to just vote for your most preferred brand of crazy. If there is a way to at least get an idea of how good somebody will be as president, then it will almost certainly be through success in the same political system you claim to hate.

    I ate an engineer
  • PowerpuppiesPowerpuppies drinking coffee in the mountain cabinRegistered User regular
    edited November 2015
    milski wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Space, many people hate lawyers. Would you argue that when those people need legal counsel, they should hire an inexperienced and unflinchingly idealistic lawyer, or a career lawyer with a proven track record of extreme competence but, unfortunately, somewhat flexible morals?

    Nothing is really comparable to the POTUS but lawyers are a particularly bad example, I think, because lawyers are required to act in the best interest of their client irrespective of personal feelings, and the skills to do the job can only be learned by doing the job (no one has xperience being POTUS until their are elected to that job).

    Then what reason do you have for believing Trump and Carson are not serious candidates capable of being POTUS? If you are basically saying "There's no way to know how good somebody will be as President," then there's no reason not to just vote for your most preferred brand of crazy. If there is a way to at least get an idea of how good somebody will be as president, then it will almost certainly be through success in the same political system you claim to hate.

    They each say really stupid things all the time! It's really hard to hire a great employee but it's easy to know the guy who calls the interviewer an idiot is a bad choice. I think it makes perfect sense to say Washington experience doesn't mean a lot with regard to knowing someone will be a good president but saying really dumb and odious things means a lot with regard to knowing someone will be a bad president.

    Powerpuppies on
    sig.gif
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that the electoral college suppresses the vote, because if you're, say, a Californian who only cares about the presidency, there's really not much reason to vote in the general. California ain't going red any time soon.

    This is how I feel as an Alabama Democrat too, so it cuts both ways whether you're part of the majority or part of the minority in any non swing state.

    I vote in the general just so I can say I did, but the only thing I actually care about is the primary where my mom and I strategize about who the best Republican loser who still has a chance to win the Alabama primary and thus keep the Republican clown car burning as long as possible is, and then vote for him.

    Last time it was Santorum. Yes, I voted for Santorum in the last presidential primary. And he won our state. Mwahahahaha. It helped prop up his campaign and extended the fight for Romney.

    This time we are thinking Ted Cruz is our man.

    Of course I only support Republicans in the primary who are utterly unelectable in the general, I'm not dumb.

    But come general election? My vote doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter in local and regional stuff since the gerrymandering. I may as well skip the general election, it's basically a waste of time.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Keep in mind that having a woman president could be quite inspiring to young women of the next generation. And if you truly care about developing a strong bench for the Dems, consider getting involved in local/state politics or your state party apparatus.

    Especially since the Democratic Party is majority women. Kind of wasting a lot of potential talent. (Also in STEM fields as a society, but this is a personal hobby horse)

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Yeah, you don't have to be excited to take an hour to go out and vote. But you still gotta do it.

    Wait, voting takes an hour?

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Warning for people bugged by this, but linking to Sanders subreddit. Fiegan, a primary candidate for US Senate in Iowa had an AMA over there. You can take the statement with as much salt as possible, but apparently at a Democratic fundraiser, his introduction included an endorsement of Sanders which was edited out from the teleprompter by those running the dinner.
    Then when I got into the hall, I saw that the Democratic Party had erected barricades between the people at the tables who paid $120 - $1,000 for their meal, and the people on the bleachers who paid $50. It sent the message that the Democratic Party did not want the people on the bleachers mingling with the people at the tables. It also made it seem like the people on the bleachers were second class citizens.

    So when it was time for me to be introduced, I took the sign with me. Prior to the event, all of the candidates were required to submit a 150 word introduction. Mine included an endorsement of Bernie Sanders. When I got on stage, I saw the Teleprompter. It had my endorsement edited out. When I saw that, I held the sign above my head. The place just exploded. The cheers from 2/3 of the crowd shook the hall. Other people told me that it was like a bomb went off. The only place completely silent? The $1,000 a plate tables at the edge of the stage. They sat there frozen like they were made of concrete. I think they knew or sensed at that moment that the people power can and will overwhelm their money.

    Curious to note if they asked people at the fundraiser to not endorse any candidates or not. Would make for a disappointing omission of context if so, but if not....that's kinda skeevy.

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited November 2015
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Warning for people bugged by this, but linking to Sanders subreddit. Fiegan, a primary candidate for US Senate in Iowa had an AMA over there. You can take the statement with as much salt as possible, but apparently at a Democratic fundraiser, his introduction included an endorsement of Sanders which was edited out from the teleprompter by those running the dinner.
    Then when I got into the hall, I saw that the Democratic Party had erected barricades between the people at the tables who paid $120 - $1,000 for their meal, and the people on the bleachers who paid $50. It sent the message that the Democratic Party did not want the people on the bleachers mingling with the people at the tables. It also made it seem like the people on the bleachers were second class citizens.

    So when it was time for me to be introduced, I took the sign with me. Prior to the event, all of the candidates were required to submit a 150 word introduction. Mine included an endorsement of Bernie Sanders. When I got on stage, I saw the Teleprompter. It had my endorsement edited out. When I saw that, I held the sign above my head. The place just exploded. The cheers from 2/3 of the crowd shook the hall. Other people told me that it was like a bomb went off. The only place completely silent? The $1,000 a plate tables at the edge of the stage. They sat there frozen like they were made of concrete. I think they knew or sensed at that moment that the people power can and will overwhelm their money.

    Curious to note if they asked people at the fundraiser to not endorse any candidates or not. Would make for a disappointing omission of context if so, but if not....that's kinda skeevy.

    Yes, they almost certainly did, because it was a democratic party fundraiser and introduction to candidates for US Senate candidates; using your brief "introduce yourself" time to stump for somebody else is pretty gauche.

    E: Further, for people who complain about obviously political moves, people are eating out of his hand for an obviously political move.

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Yeah, you don't have to be excited to take an hour to go out and vote. But you still gotta do it.

    Wait, voting takes an hour?

    If you live in Ohio.

    r-VOTING-PROBLEMS-large570.jpg


    Well, if you're poor and live in Ohio....

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    That story doesn't pass the smell test.

    You're muckin' with a G!

    Do not engage the Watermelons.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that the electoral college suppresses the vote, because if you're, say, a Californian who only cares about the presidency, there's really not much reason to vote in the general. California ain't going red any time soon.

    This is how I feel as an Alabama Democrat too, so it cuts both ways whether you're part of the majority or part of the minority in any non swing state.

    I vote in the general just so I can say I did, but the only thing I actually care about is the primary where my mom and I strategize about who the best Republican loser who still has a chance to win the Alabama primary and thus keep the Republican clown car burning as long as possible is, and then vote for him.

    Last time it was Santorum. Yes, I voted for Santorum in the last presidential primary. And he won our state. Mwahahahaha. It helped prop up his campaign and extended the fight for Romney.

    This time we are thinking Ted Cruz is our man.

    Of course I only support Republicans in the primary who are utterly unelectable in the general, I'm not dumb.

    But come general election? My vote doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter in local and regional stuff since the gerrymandering. I may as well skip the general election, it's basically a waste of time.

    I kind of hope that the inverse of 2000 happens relatively soonwith a Dem President who lost the popular vote (though dear god not this election) because its the only way I can see reform happening.

  • This content has been removed.

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited November 2015
    That story doesn't pass the smell test.

    Eh, I don't doubt it happened mostly as described, just not so politicized.

    He went to an event. Security screening took a while, because it tends to do that, but it's important because it shows him as down to earth and dealing with the same shit as everybody else.

    The people in the bleachers were separated from the people who bought expensive places, because you can't have tons of people milling in the seated area and expect food service to be good or for the people to not have their views blocked. This is embellished because it promotes the "us against the rich" narrative and connects him with the Bernie supporters who flooded the $50 plates.

    He did come in with a Bernie sign, because he's using his candidacy to stump for Bernie and (moreso) the image of stumping for Bernie to advance his campaign and was at a Bernie rally earlier.

    His introduction did have supporting Bernie Sanders edited out, because it's an Iowa DNC event about US senate candidates and not a national DNC event, but omitting that context furthers the "us against any form of the man, including the DNC" that Reddit Sanders supporters believe in.

    The crowd did cheer, probably disproportionatly in the cheap seats, because Bernie supporters from the rally bought $50 tickets to stump for Bernie inside. The people up front probably didn't cheer because they're public figures and didn't pay in solely to stump for somebody irrelevant to the event taking place, but it's important to note they looked terrified because, again, it plays into the "we can beat the rich with numbers" narrative.

    Like, it's probably a pretty true story that happened, but it's also an amazing example of putting political spin on a mundane (and slightly stupid) event in order to play to a specific crowd.

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Yeah, you don't have to be excited to take an hour to go out and vote. But you still gotta do it.

    Wait, voting takes an hour?

    If you live in Ohio.

    r-VOTING-PROBLEMS-large570.jpg


    Well, if you're poor and live in Ohio....

    I wait an hour from a relatively well off family in suburban Ann Arbor. If you're poor in Ohio you should almost bring a tent.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    That story doesn't pass the smell test.

    Eh, I don't doubt it happened mostly as described, just not so politicized.

    He went to an event. Security screening took a while, because it tends to do that, but it's important because it shows him as down to earth and dealing with the same shit as everybody else.

    The people in the bleachers were separated from the people who bought expensive places, because you can't have tons of people milling in the seated area and expect food service to be good or for the people to not have their views blocked. This is embellished because it promotes the "us against the rich" narrative and connects him with the Bernie supporters who flooded the $50 plates.

    He did come in with a Bernie sign, because he's using his candidacy to stump for Bernie and (moreso) the image of stumping for Bernie to advance his campaign and was at a Bernie rally earlier.

    His introduction did have supporting Bernie Sanders edited out, because it's an Iowa DNC event about US senate candidates and not a national DNC event, but omitting that context furthers the "us against any form of the man, including the DNC" that Reddit Sanders supporters believe in.

    The crowd did cheer, probably disproportionatly in the cheap seats, because Bernie supporters from the rally bought $50 tickets to stump for Bernie inside. The people up front probably didn't cheer because they're public figures and didn't pay in solely to stump for somebody irrelevant to the event taking place, but it's important to note they looked terrified because, again, it plays into the "we can beat the rich with numbers" narrative.

    Like, it's probably a pretty true story that happened, but it's also an amazing example of putting political spin on a mundane (and slightly stupid) event in order to play to a specific crowd.

    That's what I meant.

    You're muckin' with a G!

    Do not engage the Watermelons.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Yeah, you don't have to be excited to take an hour to go out and vote. But you still gotta do it.

    Wait, voting takes an hour?

    If you live in Ohio.

    r-VOTING-PROBLEMS-large570.jpg


    Well, if you're poor and live in Ohio....

    I wait an hour from a relatively well off family in suburban Ann Arbor. If you're poor in Ohio you should almost bring a tent.

    I have heard tell some amazing stories of your land from my wife, who was fortunate to have escaped from it.

    Do you really not get your driver's license, like, 5 minutes after you get your picture taken? Though getting a quarter from any grocery store you remembered to bring pop cans to seems nice. And Founders.

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Yeah, you don't have to be excited to take an hour to go out and vote. But you still gotta do it.

    Wait, voting takes an hour?

    If you live in Ohio.

    r-VOTING-PROBLEMS-large570.jpg


    Well, if you're poor and live in Ohio....

    I wait an hour from a relatively well off family in suburban Ann Arbor. If you're poor in Ohio you should almost bring a tent.

    Damn, and people still vote?

    I don't think I've ever had to wait more than 5-10 minutes. Often there is no real line at all.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Yeah, you don't have to be excited to take an hour to go out and vote. But you still gotta do it.

    Wait, voting takes an hour?

    If you live in Ohio.

    r-VOTING-PROBLEMS-large570.jpg


    Well, if you're poor and live in Ohio....

    I wait an hour from a relatively well off family in suburban Ann Arbor. If you're poor in Ohio you should almost bring a tent.

    I have heard tell some amazing stories of your land from my wife, who was fortunate to have escaped from it.

    Do you really not get your driver's license, like, 5 minutes after you get your picture taken? Though getting a quarter from any grocery store you remembered to bring pop cans to seems nice. And Founders.

    Really excellent ginger ale is another perk.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    What better way to depress the vote than by making it harder for...certain communities?

    You're muckin' with a G!

    Do not engage the Watermelons.
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    @spacekungfuman

    But the thing is, it's very likely that the next president will have a oppositional Congress. As much as I love Obama, he's had a very tough time providing more than principled stances and increasingly wearied sighs. We don't need another four years of principle.

    But it's the "ugh, Washington establishment" attitude that I really don't get. It seems like a pre-2000 concern, like you're really worried Hillary won't prepare us well enough for the Y2K bug. My entire politically aware life has been spent watching the GOP do their level best to grab the wheel and swerve the car into oncoming traffic. Next to that, a worry that our potential leaders will be foolish enough to take not quite the fastest route or corrupt enough to overestimate their mileage on the reimbursement form doesn't even register.

    Disliking the establishment in general is such a bullshit complaint. It says, "I'm unhappy but I don't understand why." There are actual reasons for why the system isn't doing what it should be doing, and none of them boil down to "ugh". Maybe there was a time when the problem with politics was politics--inauthenticity and corruption and cronyism and laziness. But things are way worse than that now. Christ, give me the days when they skimmed off the top of their legislation and gave their friends jobs, because in those halcyon times they passed legislation and did those jobs.

    But no, black is white and up is down and it's time to let people who don't know what they're doing take a turn at the rudder. That'll work.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Honestly, I give zero fucks if the president really-truly-for-reals believes their positions, or if they're just supporting them because it's good politics, to the extent that I believe they're actually going to work towards them. Hillary could be a Secret Objectivist and I wouldn't much care, because I think that the smart and cynically opportunistic thing for a Democrat in the White House to do is to govern more or less like Obama has. And I like how Obama has governed.

    So how Hillary feels in her heart of hearts is, to me, kind of a bullshit argument used largely by people who realize that "I refuse to vote for her because I personally dislike her" sounds stupid and petty when discussing the well-being of 300 million people.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Honestly, I give zero fucks if the president really-truly-for-reals believes their positions, or if they're just supporting them because it's good politics, to the extent that I believe they're actually going to work towards them. Hillary could be a Secret Objectivist and I wouldn't much care, because I think that the smart and cynically opportunistic thing for a Democrat in the White House to do is to govern more or less like Obama has. And I like how Obama has governed.

    So how Hillary feels in her heart of hearts is, to me, kind of a bullshit argument used largely by people who realize that "I refuse to vote for her because I personally dislike her" sounds stupid and petty when discussing the well-being of 300 million people.

    I have come, more and more, to the view that prioritizing or wanting to know what a politician really thinks/feels/wants is just the more bourgeois/"intellectual" version of voting for who you want to have a beer with.

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    @spacekungfuman

    But the thing is, it's very likely that the next president will have a oppositional Congress. As much as I love Obama, he's had a very tough time providing more than principled stances and increasingly wearied sighs. We don't need another four years of principle.

    But it's the "ugh, Washington establishment" attitude that I really don't get. It seems like a pre-2000 concern, like you're really worried Hillary won't prepare us well enough for the Y2K bug. My entire politically aware life has been spent watching the GOP do their level best to grab the wheel and swerve the car into oncoming traffic. Next to that, a worry that our potential leaders will be foolish enough to take not quite the fastest route or corrupt enough to overestimate their mileage on the reimbursement form doesn't even register.

    Disliking the establishment in general is such a bullshit complaint. It says, "I'm unhappy but I don't understand why." There are actual reasons for why the system isn't doing what it should be doing, and none of them boil down to "ugh". Maybe there was a time when the problem with politics was politics--inauthenticity and corruption and cronyism and laziness. But things are way worse than that now. Christ, give me the days when they skimmed off the top of their legislation and gave their friends jobs, because in those halcyon times they passed legislation and did those jobs.

    But no, black is white and up is down and it's time to let people who don't know what they're doing take a turn at the rudder. That'll work.

    Eh maybe not the heydey of super corruption and cronyism, but at least give us back pork. Pork wasn't even spending 0.5% extra on personal projects, it was allocating 0.5% of money already spent on specific projects. That's a really small power to give Congress if it makes them work together.

    I ate an engineer
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2015
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Yeah, you don't have to be excited to take an hour to go out and vote. But you still gotta do it.

    Wait, voting takes an hour?

    If you live in Ohio.

    r-VOTING-PROBLEMS-large570.jpg


    Well, if you're poor and live in Ohio....

    I wait an hour from a relatively well off family in suburban Ann Arbor. If you're poor in Ohio you should almost bring a tent.

    Damn, and people still vote?

    I don't think I've ever had to wait more than 5-10 minutes. Often there is no real line at all.

    America is not very good at democracy in some ways. To some extent, it's deliberate too.

    Voting lines like that are insane yo.

    shryke on
This discussion has been closed.