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.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
[2016 Presidential Election] Vote Early, Vote Often
Wow. I did not expect "rational opposition is a good thing" to be a controversial statement.
I don't think anybody disagreed with that? The issue is that rational opposition doesn't exist, and hasn't for a long time, and playing "But what if we lived in an AU where facts were completely different?!" is an incredibly tiresome debate tactic.
Preacher disagreed with it pretty vehemently!
Did he? I read his sentiments as more or less "Fuck opposition for the sake of opposition." which is pretty much how I feel about it. It doesn't exist in the US and hasn't for some time, and it's super frustrating when people pretend that's not the case.
And yet we've all seen what it looks like when a decision-maker will only keep "yes-men" around them and refuses to listen to any kind of opposition. I've yet to see an example of that kind of group leadership that led to good decisions.
Edit: Bringing this back to the election: Damn, am I glad that our next President is a listener.
Cambiata on
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
+3
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Wow. I did not expect "rational opposition is a good thing" to be a controversial statement.
I don't think anybody disagreed with that? The issue is that rational opposition doesn't exist, and hasn't for a long time, and playing "But what if we lived in an AU where facts were completely different?!" is an incredibly tiresome debate tactic.
Preacher disagreed with it pretty vehemently!
Did he? I read his sentiments as more or less "Fuck opposition for the sake of opposition." which is pretty much how I feel about it. It doesn't exist in the US and hasn't for some time, and it's super frustrating when people pretend that's not the case.
And yet we've all seen what it looks like when a decision-maker will only keep "yes-men" around them and refuses to listen to any kind of opposition. I've yet to see an example of that kind of group leadership that led to good decisions.
Edit: Bringing this back to the election: Damn, am I glad that our next President is a listener.
That's assuming that the Democratic Party is a homogenous group of Yes Men which hahahaha have you seen the far left and the Blue Dogs.
Trump's director of social media has been tweeting that Newt "destroyed" Megyn Kelly and that she "made a fool out of herself. Watch what happens to her when this election ends."
I think Trump is contagious.
+9
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Trump's director of social media has been tweeting that Newt "destroyed" Megyn Kelly and that she "made a fool out of herself. Watch what happens to her when this election ends."
I think Trump is contagious.
She's going to get to demand her price to go news anchor at any news network she wants. CNN is reportedly courting her pretty hard. Seems pretty terrible!
I don't know enough about Kelly to really judge beyond what must be cherry picked clips but from that she seems like a smart person who knows bullshit when she smells it.
Her best moment for me is the paid leave for women thing.
If Fox news actually shifts to be less shilly she should be the #1 on the network. If it continues to be a shitwagon she should bail and command whatever price somewhere else.
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
I think it's almost certain she bails. She's been treated like utter shit at Fox, and despite all of Murdoch's hand waving towards "bringing it back to center", he did allow most of the shit slung at her to happen on his watch and did nothing to step in.
I don't know enough about Kelly to really judge beyond what must be cherry picked clips but from that she seems like a smart person who knows bullshit when she smells it.
Her best moment for me is the paid leave for women thing.
If Fox news actually shifts to be less shilly she should be the #1 on the network. If it continues to be a shitwagon she should bail and command whatever price somewhere else.
She is smart and capable and cares deeply about government policies that will positively impact her directly, or relates to something that happened to her/a close relative or friend of her's. Anybody else can sit and spin.
I am not going to be able to survive 2 weeks of this Obamacare premium shit.
Your healthcare system is fucked and it's everyone's fault. Grow up and join the actual first world with single payer. You're liberia right now, stop it.
I think some people are forgetting that we do have a rational opposition party to the DNC in America. They just happen to also be democrats. It's because of the tantrums from the Party of No and the realities of an american presidential election that make it currently seem like Democrats are a singular bloc of ideology. I assure you, that is not the case. Whenever the GOP lets off the pressure a little democrats start taking shots at each other and let perfect become the enemy of good. If the GOP's political pressure were to actually disappear though, the DNC would immediately go supernova.
Yeah. It looks like there's no real opposition to the Dems because pretty much all of the sane people (including a lot of former Republicans) have now crowded under the big tent (which really isn't quite big enough for all of them, but things are so bad outside they'll squeeze in anyway) to get out of the constant rain of shit, bile, and acid. If and when that ever lets up and the sun comes out again...
Trump's director of social media has been tweeting that Newt "destroyed" Megyn Kelly and that she "made a fool out of herself. Watch what happens to her when this election ends."
I think Trump is contagious.
She's going to get to demand her price to go news anchor at any news network she wants. CNN is reportedly courting her pretty hard. Seems pretty terrible!
Yep, CNN is a dead network, nobody watches it. Nobody.
The Sanders campaign puts the lie to no opposition.
And the rest of the people jammed together under the tent yelling at them to stop it, 'cause they're gonna knock it down and then everyone's gonna get... soaked.
(you may substitute another word ending in "ked" if you like.)
I don't understand why the collapse of the current conservative party would require a rebuilding from it's current base. By definition, any two party system is going to have a more conservative and a more liberal party, where they happen to exist on that spectrum is irrelevant. People will gravitate to the party that is closest to the views that they hold.
If a party formed that is the equivalent of what would currently be a moderate party, wouldn't conservative voters feel obligated to support that party?
There's no necessary reason that the parties need to be divided sharply along ideological lines; prior to the Nixon realignment the parties themselves were much less ideological, although obviously within the parties there were ideological factions.
What happened in the 60s and 70s is that various pro-business and socially conservative forces coalesced under the banner of what would come to be called 'Conservatism,' but prior to that there were what would today be called liberals and conservatives in both parties (less so for the democrats, but still.)
That's the coalition that's now cracking up, and there's no guarantee that whatever parties come after will be drawn along similar lines.
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
The parties were less ideological because they were in transition from a period when they were. Not because there wasn't an ideological split (though to be fair it was less)
That being said ideological splits is also not the reason we can't get anything done in Washington. The reason we cannot do that is because no earmarks means we cannot compensate the electoral* losers of policies.
*i say electoral because they may benefit from policies but still want to vote against them. So if the rep can go home to his district and say "yes we did some things you don't like but I built that thing you really like" he can be reelected. No carrots and no sticks means no control.
There's no necessary reason that the parties need to be divided sharply along ideological lines; prior to the Nixon realignment the parties themselves were much less ideological, although obviously within the parties there were ideological factions.
What happened in the 60s and 70s is that various pro-business and socially conservative forces coalesced under the banner of what would come to be called 'Conservatism,' but prior to that there were what would today be called liberals and conservatives in both parties (less so for the democrats, but still.)
That's the coalition that's now cracking up, and there's no guarantee that whatever parties come after will be drawn along similar lines.
If the Democrats don't also break up, with america's tendency towards a two part system, won't the pro business and deplorable bloc coalesce back together?
I don't know if it is just because it's what I grew up in, but it does seem that there are certain synergies between the state protecting and seeking to aid worker, and the state seeking to protect and aid individuals. Or whatever.
Wow. I did not expect "rational opposition is a good thing" to be a controversial statement.
I don't think anybody disagreed with that? The issue is that rational opposition doesn't exist, and hasn't for a long time, and playing "But what if we lived in an AU where facts were completely different?!" is an incredibly tiresome debate tactic.
Preacher disagreed with it pretty vehemently!
Did he? I read his sentiments as more or less "Fuck opposition for the sake of opposition." which is pretty much how I feel about it. It doesn't exist in the US and hasn't for some time, and it's super frustrating when people pretend that's not the case.
And yet we've all seen what it looks like when a decision-maker will only keep "yes-men" around them and refuses to listen to any kind of opposition. I've yet to see an example of that kind of group leadership that led to good decisions.
Edit: Bringing this back to the election: Damn, am I glad that our next President is a listener.
Who are you talking about here? Bush the lesser? Trump? Bernie?
....Nixon?
Spoit on
0
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Trump's director of social media has been tweeting that Newt "destroyed" Megyn Kelly and that she "made a fool out of herself. Watch what happens to her when this election ends."
I think Trump is contagious.
She's going to get to demand her price to go news anchor at any news network she wants. CNN is reportedly courting her pretty hard. Seems pretty terrible!
There's no necessary reason that the parties need to be divided sharply along ideological lines; prior to the Nixon realignment the parties themselves were much less ideological, although obviously within the parties there were ideological factions.
What happened in the 60s and 70s is that various pro-business and socially conservative forces coalesced under the banner of what would come to be called 'Conservatism,' but prior to that there were what would today be called liberals and conservatives in both parties (less so for the democrats, but still.)
That's the coalition that's now cracking up, and there's no guarantee that whatever parties come after will be drawn along similar lines.
If the Democrats don't also break up, with america's tendency towards a two part system, won't the pro business and deplorable bloc coalesce back together?
I don't know if it is just because it's what I grew up in, but it does seem that there are certain synergies between the state protecting and seeking to aid worker, and the state seeking to protect and aid individuals. Or whatever.
It's more the other way around. If you grant that the Democrats aren't all united on all policies and would otherwise split on, say, free trade and economic equality, the "problem" is that the difference between the Democrats on that issue - or any issue, really - is much much much smaller than the difference between them and the current Republican party. As long as the Republican party remains a political force in its current ideological form, a hypothetical black voter who supports free trade is going to continue voting with a hypothetical queer hispanic who is against free trade.
I don't know enough about Kelly to really judge beyond what must be cherry picked clips but from that she seems like a smart person who knows bullshit when she smells it.
Her best moment for me is the paid leave for women thing.
If Fox news actually shifts to be less shilly she should be the #1 on the network. If it continues to be a shitwagon she should bail and command whatever price somewhere else.
She is smart and capable and cares deeply about government policies that will positively impact her directly, or relates to something that happened to her/a close relative or friend of her's. Anybody else can sit and spin.
An articulate, rational advocate for ordinary, sane self interest - especially a female one - is something that the conservative reality bubble desperately lacks right now.
There's no necessary reason that the parties need to be divided sharply along ideological lines; prior to the Nixon realignment the parties themselves were much less ideological, although obviously within the parties there were ideological factions.
What happened in the 60s and 70s is that various pro-business and socially conservative forces coalesced under the banner of what would come to be called 'Conservatism,' but prior to that there were what would today be called liberals and conservatives in both parties (less so for the democrats, but still.)
That's the coalition that's now cracking up, and there's no guarantee that whatever parties come after will be drawn along similar lines.
If the Democrats don't also break up, with america's tendency towards a two part system, won't the pro business and deplorable bloc coalesce back together?
I don't know if it is just because it's what I grew up in, but it does seem that there are certain synergies between the state protecting and seeking to aid worker, and the state seeking to protect and aid individuals. Or whatever.
if you believe in the general truism that political factions follow urban/rural lines, a more likely outcome is some kind of rural/working-class-ish targeted party and one that's more representative of the cosmopolitan/urban/wealthier classes
the problem with that formulation in the U.S. specifically of course is white supremacy; the democrats right now essentially get to occupy both spaces, because 'working class white people' isn't a big enough demo to carry even many states any longer.
how long the current incarnation of the republican party can be carried along by non-college-educated white people is the question of the moment; once it can't anymore, who knows what happens
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
There's no necessary reason that the parties need to be divided sharply along ideological lines; prior to the Nixon realignment the parties themselves were much less ideological, although obviously within the parties there were ideological factions.
What happened in the 60s and 70s is that various pro-business and socially conservative forces coalesced under the banner of what would come to be called 'Conservatism,' but prior to that there were what would today be called liberals and conservatives in both parties (less so for the democrats, but still.)
That's the coalition that's now cracking up, and there's no guarantee that whatever parties come after will be drawn along similar lines.
If the Democrats don't also break up, with america's tendency towards a two part system, won't the pro business and deplorable bloc coalesce back together?
I don't know if it is just because it's what I grew up in, but it does seem that there are certain synergies between the state protecting and seeking to aid worker, and the state seeking to protect and aid individuals. Or whatever.
if you believe in the general truism that political factions follow urban/rural lines, a more likely outcome is some kind of rural/working-class-ish targeted party and one that's more representative of the cosmopolitan/urban/wealthier classes
the problem with that formulation in the U.S. specifically of course is white supremacy; the democrats right now essentially get to occupy both spaces, because 'working class white people' isn't a big enough demo to carry even many states any longer.
how long the current incarnation of the republican party can be carried along by non-college-educated white people is the question of the moment; once it can't anymore, who knows what happens
I read this piece a long time ago about possible Dem/Pub realignment in the future. Don't really know much about the author or the group, and I'm not sure I entirely buy everything written, but the ideas in it were quite sound and interesting, imo:
So I finally got around to listening to the show "Hamilton."
One of the interesting things about the show is how Hamilton has a choice on casting the deciding endorsement between two candidates who he absolutely hates: Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. But eventually, he comes to the decision that he's rather go with the devil he knows (Jefferson) over the Devil he doesn't know (Burr) and endorses Burr. A decision he stands by even though it literally kills him in the end.
What I'm saying is, modern Jill Stein and Gary Johnson voters are wimps.
I don't know enough about Kelly to really judge beyond what must be cherry picked clips but from that she seems like a smart person who knows bullshit when she smells it.
Her best moment for me is the paid leave for women thing.
If Fox news actually shifts to be less shilly she should be the #1 on the network. If it continues to be a shitwagon she should bail and command whatever price somewhere else.
That's actually why I think she's overrated. She was steadfastly against it with all the talking points and then she got pregnant
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
RCP gives Clinton the White House without Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina. Know hope but get as many as you can to the polls.
Speaking of Florida, she's up 3 in a Bay News Florida Decides poll that has some pretty tough crosstabs for her- Trump at 18% with Black voters, 41% of Asians and 37% of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote.
that is amazing if for no other reason than the sudden higher-than-his-normal-high pitch that Tucker Carlson's voice suddenly hits; it's like a rhetorical *RECORD SCRATCH*
also musings based on a now corrected typo, but I totally assume Tucker Carlson's alt-right nickname is Cucker Tarlson whenever he's not in their good graces
the best part is how the guy on the right puts on his incredulous face, and then since o'malley doesn't back off he has to hold it for like 45 seconds. It made me giggle
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I don't understand why the collapse of the current conservative party would require a rebuilding from it's current base. By definition, any two party system is going to have a more conservative and a more liberal party, where they happen to exist on that spectrum is irrelevant. People will gravitate to the party that is closest to the views that they hold.
If a party formed that is the equivalent of what would currently be a moderate party, wouldn't conservative voters feel obligated to support that party?
They might. And some of them might also feel obligated to run for office for that party. And to vote in primaries for people who they agree with ideologically in that party. At which point, you're right back to where you started.
0
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
that is amazing if for no other reason than the sudden higher-than-his-normal-high pitch that Tucker Carlson's voice suddenly hits; it's like a rhetorical *RECORD SCRATCH*
also musings based on a now corrected typo, but I totally assume Tucker Carlson's alt-right nickname is Cucker Tarlson whenever he's not in their good graces
I missed this when it was posted earlier. Hope dude runs in 2024, I like the cut of his jib.
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I don't know enough about Kelly to really judge beyond what must be cherry picked clips but from that she seems like a smart person who knows bullshit when she smells it.
Her best moment for me is the paid leave for women thing.
If Fox news actually shifts to be less shilly she should be the #1 on the network. If it continues to be a shitwagon she should bail and command whatever price somewhere else.
That's actually why I think she's overrated. She was steadfastly against it with all the talking points and then she got pregnant
Personal growth through experiences shouldn't be something we look down upon.
jungleroomx on
+33
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Wow. I did not expect "rational opposition is a good thing" to be a controversial statement.
I don't think anybody disagreed with that? The issue is that rational opposition doesn't exist, and hasn't for a long time, and playing "But what if we lived in an AU where facts were completely different?!" is an incredibly tiresome debate tactic.
but it's the premise of the entire point! that you dismiss it and then argue anyway isn't the fault of your opposition
What does this even mean?
the entire point is that we want a rational opposition, which we don't have.
so when someone goes 'but the opposition isn't rational, and it's so tiresome for you to pretend they are' isn't an argument against what anyone is saying.
Wow. I did not expect "rational opposition is a good thing" to be a controversial statement.
I don't think anybody disagreed with that? The issue is that rational opposition doesn't exist, and hasn't for a long time, and playing "But what if we lived in an AU where facts were completely different?!" is an incredibly tiresome debate tactic.
Preacher disagreed with it pretty vehemently!
Did he? I read his sentiments as more or less "Fuck opposition for the sake of opposition." which is pretty much how I feel about it. It doesn't exist in the US and hasn't for some time, and it's super frustrating when people pretend that's not the case.
And yet we've all seen what it looks like when a decision-maker will only keep "yes-men" around them and refuses to listen to any kind of opposition. I've yet to see an example of that kind of group leadership that led to good decisions.
Edit: Bringing this back to the election: Damn, am I glad that our next President is a listener.
That's assuming that the Democratic Party is a homogenous group of Yes Men which hahahaha have you seen the far left and the Blue Dogs.
The Blue dogs are the reasonable Conservative opposition that people have been calling for.
The GOPs lurch to the right has left a lot of conservative behind and the GOP has a significant chunk of voter support based on inertia and name recognition instead of actual policies.
Blue dogs are made up mostly of those Conservatives and their policies are the policies of said Conservative Opposition.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I don't know enough about Kelly to really judge beyond what must be cherry picked clips but from that she seems like a smart person who knows bullshit when she smells it.
Her best moment for me is the paid leave for women thing.
If Fox news actually shifts to be less shilly she should be the #1 on the network. If it continues to be a shitwagon she should bail and command whatever price somewhere else.
That's actually why I think she's overrated. She was steadfastly against it with all the talking points and then she got pregnant
Personal growth through experiences shouldn't be something we look down upon.
Late may be better than never, but if that's how she views everything then there's still a lot of problems. I don't know what all of her views are on everything but, let's say she thinks Black Lives Matter is just a bunch of rabble rousers who need to listen to the cops more if they don't want to get shot; she's not likely to ever wake up black and suddenly 'get it'.
I don't know enough about Kelly to really judge beyond what must be cherry picked clips but from that she seems like a smart person who knows bullshit when she smells it.
Her best moment for me is the paid leave for women thing.
If Fox news actually shifts to be less shilly she should be the #1 on the network. If it continues to be a shitwagon she should bail and command whatever price somewhere else.
That's actually why I think she's overrated. She was steadfastly against it with all the talking points and then she got pregnant
Personal growth through experiences shouldn't be something we look down upon.
But not caring about things that personally effect you should.
I guess how one feels about her change of mind depends on whether one thinks she learned of the problems that people may have, or if she only cares now because it affects her.
+9
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
Bloomberg/Selzer (who got Iowa pretty damn wrong in the primary) has Trump up one in Florida H2H and up two in the 4-way .
However: "Clinton gets 51 percent of the Sunshine State’s Hispanic vote and 49 percent of those under age 35 in the two-way contest".
Posts
And yet we've all seen what it looks like when a decision-maker will only keep "yes-men" around them and refuses to listen to any kind of opposition. I've yet to see an example of that kind of group leadership that led to good decisions.
Edit: Bringing this back to the election: Damn, am I glad that our next President is a listener.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
That's assuming that the Democratic Party is a homogenous group of Yes Men which hahahaha have you seen the far left and the Blue Dogs.
I think Trump is contagious.
She's going to get to demand her price to go news anchor at any news network she wants. CNN is reportedly courting her pretty hard. Seems pretty terrible!
Her best moment for me is the paid leave for women thing.
If Fox news actually shifts to be less shilly she should be the #1 on the network. If it continues to be a shitwagon she should bail and command whatever price somewhere else.
She is smart and capable and cares deeply about government policies that will positively impact her directly, or relates to something that happened to her/a close relative or friend of her's. Anybody else can sit and spin.
Your healthcare system is fucked and it's everyone's fault. Grow up and join the actual first world with single payer. You're liberia right now, stop it.
Yeah. It looks like there's no real opposition to the Dems because pretty much all of the sane people (including a lot of former Republicans) have now crowded under the big tent (which really isn't quite big enough for all of them, but things are so bad outside they'll squeeze in anyway) to get out of the constant rain of shit, bile, and acid. If and when that ever lets up and the sun comes out again...
And the rest of the people jammed together under the tent yelling at them to stop it, 'cause they're gonna knock it down and then everyone's gonna get... soaked.
(you may substitute another word ending in "ked" if you like.)
If a party formed that is the equivalent of what would currently be a moderate party, wouldn't conservative voters feel obligated to support that party?
What happened in the 60s and 70s is that various pro-business and socially conservative forces coalesced under the banner of what would come to be called 'Conservatism,' but prior to that there were what would today be called liberals and conservatives in both parties (less so for the democrats, but still.)
That's the coalition that's now cracking up, and there's no guarantee that whatever parties come after will be drawn along similar lines.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
That being said ideological splits is also not the reason we can't get anything done in Washington. The reason we cannot do that is because no earmarks means we cannot compensate the electoral* losers of policies.
*i say electoral because they may benefit from policies but still want to vote against them. So if the rep can go home to his district and say "yes we did some things you don't like but I built that thing you really like" he can be reelected. No carrots and no sticks means no control.
If the Democrats don't also break up, with america's tendency towards a two part system, won't the pro business and deplorable bloc coalesce back together?
I don't know if it is just because it's what I grew up in, but it does seem that there are certain synergies between the state protecting and seeking to aid worker, and the state seeking to protect and aid individuals. Or whatever.
Who are you talking about here? Bush the lesser? Trump? Bernie?
....Nixon?
definitely terrible for the country
It's more the other way around. If you grant that the Democrats aren't all united on all policies and would otherwise split on, say, free trade and economic equality, the "problem" is that the difference between the Democrats on that issue - or any issue, really - is much much much smaller than the difference between them and the current Republican party. As long as the Republican party remains a political force in its current ideological form, a hypothetical black voter who supports free trade is going to continue voting with a hypothetical queer hispanic who is against free trade.
An articulate, rational advocate for ordinary, sane self interest - especially a female one - is something that the conservative reality bubble desperately lacks right now.
if you believe in the general truism that political factions follow urban/rural lines, a more likely outcome is some kind of rural/working-class-ish targeted party and one that's more representative of the cosmopolitan/urban/wealthier classes
the problem with that formulation in the U.S. specifically of course is white supremacy; the democrats right now essentially get to occupy both spaces, because 'working class white people' isn't a big enough demo to carry even many states any longer.
how long the current incarnation of the republican party can be carried along by non-college-educated white people is the question of the moment; once it can't anymore, who knows what happens
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I read this piece a long time ago about possible Dem/Pub realignment in the future. Don't really know much about the author or the group, and I'm not sure I entirely buy everything written, but the ideas in it were quite sound and interesting, imo:
The Coming Realignment - Cities, Class, and Ideology After Social Conservatism
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-4/the-coming-realignment
One of the interesting things about the show is how Hamilton has a choice on casting the deciding endorsement between two candidates who he absolutely hates: Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. But eventually, he comes to the decision that he's rather go with the devil he knows (Jefferson) over the Devil he doesn't know (Burr) and endorses Burr. A decision he stands by even though it literally kills him in the end.
What I'm saying is, modern Jill Stein and Gary Johnson voters are wimps.
Who see the struggles of today as an echo of the time when America was essentially fighting a second civil war.
To be fair, Russia is doing a fair bit of sabre rattling this year
That's actually why I think she's overrated. She was steadfastly against it with all the talking points and then she got pregnant
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Speaking of Florida, she's up 3 in a Bay News Florida Decides poll that has some pretty tough crosstabs for her- Trump at 18% with Black voters, 41% of Asians and 37% of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote.
that is amazing if for no other reason than the sudden higher-than-his-normal-high pitch that Tucker Carlson's voice suddenly hits; it's like a rhetorical *RECORD SCRATCH*
also musings based on a now corrected typo, but I totally assume Tucker Carlson's alt-right nickname is Cucker Tarlson whenever he's not in their good graces
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I missed this when it was posted earlier. Hope dude runs in 2024, I like the cut of his jib.
Personal growth through experiences shouldn't be something we look down upon.
the entire point is that we want a rational opposition, which we don't have.
so when someone goes 'but the opposition isn't rational, and it's so tiresome for you to pretend they are' isn't an argument against what anyone is saying.
Yeah, but the 60s where never really about the Russians. Apart from the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Blue dogs are the reasonable Conservative opposition that people have been calling for.
The GOPs lurch to the right has left a lot of conservative behind and the GOP has a significant chunk of voter support based on inertia and name recognition instead of actual policies.
Blue dogs are made up mostly of those Conservatives and their policies are the policies of said Conservative Opposition.
Late may be better than never, but if that's how she views everything then there's still a lot of problems. I don't know what all of her views are on everything but, let's say she thinks Black Lives Matter is just a bunch of rabble rousers who need to listen to the cops more if they don't want to get shot; she's not likely to ever wake up black and suddenly 'get it'.
I guess how one feels about her change of mind depends on whether one thinks she learned of the problems that people may have, or if she only cares now because it affects her.
However: "Clinton gets 51 percent of the Sunshine State’s Hispanic vote and 49 percent of those under age 35 in the two-way contest".
So, grain of salt. And redoubled efforts.