|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 22:45:22 GMT -5
While Sanders is working to get the approval of voters, Clinton is working to get the approval of campaign financiers and super delegates. She's made quips about her delegate support already. No, she hasn't broken a law, but I don't like the way she does politics. But is there anything surprising in that she is campaining there and htat Sanders isn't since he won't find much support there? Is it a surprise tactic? It just seems the order of things in the way both of them were aware of long before either of them entered the campaign. Sanders must have known about that, right? So either he thinks he stands a chance with the rest of the delegates, or he entered the run fully aware he'd lose and has another agenda, and therefore isn't more honest with you whom he led to believe he was running with the sole and obvious goal to win the primary while Clinton never hid her strategy, especially since she opperated the same way 8 years ago... I'm not saying this is a good situation, just that nothing in this should surprise anyone at this stage. They play the rules, they know the stakes and rules, either they're bluffing or are advancing with an open hand. I don't think it should be a tactic at all, and I think campaigning, and serving office, should be done for the benefit of the voters. At least Republicans pretend shilling for corporations will somehow benefit the people. Clinton acknowledges it doesn't and is simply saying "Oh well, the delegates are going to nominate me anyway." |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 22:48:21 GMT -5
this makes me so sad, as I always have thought of you as smarter than this:
Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years.
because the repercussions would be HUGE (and a guaranteed far right, conservative, Supreme Court). Who gets to appoint Supreme Court justices for the next four years is a huge consideration. My district is going blue anyway so it doesn't matter, which is why I normally don't even bother to vote at all. The only reason I registered was to support Sanders in the primaries. If he wins the primaries, I'll vote for him in the election. If he loses the primaries because he was the less popular candidate, I won't vote at all, and Clinton will collect the California electoral votes. If he is the most popular candidate and loses the primaries because Democratic overlords decided he was too good for the people at the expense of our Wall Street lords, I'll be submitting a protest vote for whoever will hurt them the most, which isn't going to be a third party candidate. And Clinton will still collect the California electoral votes. And while she didn't break a law, I suspect something pretty scandalous is going on regarding debate schedules. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 14, 2015 22:55:05 GMT -5
Seven of the Most Offensive David Brooks Quotes Ever Yes. This is the David Brooks I remember. An extremist posing as a sensible, thoughtful moderate by occasionally making a super-obvious point to seem sensible and thoughtful, with no shame about indulging in stereotypes, talking points and logical fallacies. I found a hilarious point-by-point takedown of a David Brooks column, but it was from a few years ago and it was also very rude. It was also a very typical Brooks column, with some very obvious straw-manning, the kind of thing from Brooks that induced much eye-rolling and head-shaking from me in the many many years I read Brooks regularly. I remember the Eqypt thing (they called him on that on Tom Ashbrook's show I think)... and one or two of the others. Clearly he's better at being a talking head on NPR/PBS than he is at writing a column... even out of context, those are pretty bad (and could be even worst with context, depending). |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 14, 2015 23:02:12 GMT -5
Credit where credit is due department: Here's a recent column by Bobo that gets it exactly right: The Republicans' Incompetence Caucus. It's about something that was obvious four years ago, but I still he think he should get credit. ACtually, I totally disagree.. this is one of the stupidest comments for an American to make I've heard. You know, us guys that rebelled against the British a few years back... every revolution tends toward anarchy and ends up devouring its own. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 15, 2015 1:17:36 GMT -5
Credit where credit is due department: Here's a recent column by Bobo that gets it exactly right: The Republicans' Incompetence Caucus. It's about something that was obvious four years ago, but I still he think he should get credit. ACtually, I totally disagree.. this is one of the stupidest comments for an American to make I've heard. You know, us guys that rebelled against the British a few years back... every revolution tends toward anarchy and ends up devouring its own. I agree with you on that point. But it was, overall, a pretty good column for Bobo, especially compared to his usual drivel. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Nov 15, 2015 4:42:31 GMT -5
this makes me so sad, as I always have thought of you as smarter than this:
Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years.
because the repercussions would be HUGE (and a guaranteed far right, conservative, Supreme Court). Who gets to appoint Supreme Court justices for the next four years is a huge consideration. And it will affect minorities and poor people the most. I find it's usually people with white, straight and quite likely male privilege who can afford the luxury of voting (or not voting) "on principle" and allow a Republican president. It's shades of Nader in 2000 all over again. And how many people died because of Nader voters giving Bush the presidency? |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Nov 15, 2015 6:33:08 GMT -5
There is more than just not being insulting, as I stated before; his point is evident, he frames his argument clearly and he then lays out points that he feels support his arguments. I don't support his premise, and I certainly don't follow the points to his conclusion but there's nothing inherently illogical to his point of view and at no point is there a sense of an attack against those who would disagree and there's nothing there that would make me feel like he would simply ignore me if I mounted a counter argument. So yes, being polite is part of being sensible and thoughtful but there is more and he exhibits it. Thwhtguardian, Did you notice the part where he said that the people responsible for the Penn State child rape case couldn't be expected to know that raping a ten-year-old boy is wrong because they were confused by 30 or 40 years of a society that - he claims - told them they could do whatever feels right? Not "sensible and thoughtful" in my book. I did indeed notice it...you know, as I 'm fully capable of reading, and as I said I don't agree, but I still don't see a completely illogical premise. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 15, 2015 8:35:52 GMT -5
this makes me so sad, as I always have thought of you as smarter than this:
Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years.
because the repercussions would be HUGE (and a guaranteed far right, conservative, Supreme Court). Who gets to appoint Supreme Court justices for the next four years is a huge consideration. That is always the deal-breaker. Holding one's nose is often a necessary prerequisite for voting, but well worth it as you look at the Supreme Court team photo and see the likes of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. Talk about the gift that keeps on giving. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 15, 2015 10:36:35 GMT -5
Thwhtguardian, Did you notice the part where he said that the people responsible for the Penn State child rape case couldn't be expected to know that raping a ten-year-old boy is wrong because they were confused by 30 or 40 years of a society that - he claims - told them they could do whatever feels right? Not "sensible and thoughtful" in my book. I did indeed notice it...you know, as I 'm fully capable of reading, and as I said I don't agree, but I still don't see a completely illogical premise. I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion, that you realized that Brooks had said the people responsible for the Penn State child rape case couldn't be expected to know that raping a ten-year-old boy is wrong because they were confused by 30 or 40 years of a society that - he claims - told them they could do whatever feels right. We'll have to agree to disagree on the not-completely illogical nature of his argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 15, 2015 11:20:34 GMT -5
Oh, dear, I completely missed the Democratic debate!
I went to the library and spent several hours finishing Chapter Seventeen of my novel, and I took the bus home and by the time I got there, it was dark and I was tired. I was on CCF for a bit (I posted a short review of Marvel Team-Up #7), I walked the dogs and by then I decided to just watch a couple of movies from the DVR and go to bed. So I watched Their Own Desire (a 1929 film with Norma Shearer that's very dumb but very short and very charming) and Crime and Punishment (a 1935 film with Peter Lorre - yes you heard right - Peter Lorre is Raskalnikov!) and went to bed.
And I woke up this morning and the first thing I see is an article fact-checking the Democratic debate! I'll have to do a little catching up this morning. And I also have to see if I missed an episode of "S#!T My Neurosurgeon Says!"
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Nov 15, 2015 18:46:57 GMT -5
Oh, dear, I completely missed the Democratic debate! I went to the library and spent several hours finishing Chapter Seventeen of my novel, and I took the bus home and by the time I got there, it was dark and I was tired. I was on CCF for a bit (I posted a short review of Marvel Team-Up #7), I walked the dogs and by then I decided to just watch a couple of movies from the DVR and go to bed. So I watched Their Own Desire (a 1929 film with Norma Shearer that's very dumb but very short and very charming) and Crime and Punishment (a 1935 film with Peter Lorre - yes you heard right - Peter Lorre is Raskalnikov!) and went to bed. And I woke up this morning and the first thing I see is an article fact-checking the Democratic debate! I'll have to do a little catching up this morning. And I also have to see if I missed an episode of "S#!T My Neurosurgeon Says!" It was a pretty decent debate, though the fact checking on Bernie about the tax rate gauls me a little bit, sure factually most nurses and truck drivers are going to be less than billionaires but the fact remains that the difference shouldn't require you to split hairs in order to illustrate that difference. The whole point of that argument is to highlight the vast difference in income compared to the percentage paid in taxes, on one side there is a HUGE gulf in incomes and yet the tax rate isn't equal to that difference in pay so to say it's an incorrect statement that needs to be checked just seems wrong. On a side note, I really think there should be equal talking time, it felt like it was very much focused on Clinton. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Nov 16, 2015 1:55:26 GMT -5
The debates need to be taken away from the RNC and DNC and put back in the hands of the League of Women Voters. But they asked hard, policy-specific questions and we can't have that.
Cei-U!
I summon the good old days!
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 16, 2015 8:06:05 GMT -5
The debates need to be taken away from the RNC and DNC and put back in the hands of the League of Women Voters. But they asked hard, policy-specific questions and we can't have that. Cei-U! I summon the good old days! I wish that the Republicans be grilled by Democratic sympathizers and vice versa so that we'd see less fawning and more feet being held to fires on both sides. The relationship between the questioners and the candidates in these "debates" is about as adversarial and challenging as that between somebody from Entertainment Tonight and Justin Bieber. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 16, 2015 11:43:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 16, 2015 12:23:29 GMT -5
"Take them out?" Dr. Ben must be channeling the unkinder, not so gentle Kid Carson. |
|
