Philadelphia DNC 2016


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm willing to grant that some individuals got sucked in with good intentions and then driven out as the crazy became more obvious.

Which had to be by the time of the town halls in the summer of 2009, at the latest.

Oh, sure.

I have no doubt that lots of people believed they were part of a 'grass roots movement' seeking to empower the populace. It's just that... they weren't. The Tea Party was never any such thing.

Yeap, my friends were super sad when the wingnuts really pulled the rug from under their feet. I told them the whole thing was suspect from the beginning but they just said I was a cynic.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Edit: To make my support more transparent, if I had to just pick two completely unequivocal reasons why I support her she is the only candidate who is both not anti-vaxx and not a climate change denier. Those two things disqualify every other candidate, before we even get into economic policies, civil rights, etc.


Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Edit: To make my support more transparent, if I had to just pick two completely unequivocal reasons why I support her she is the only candidate who is both not anti-vaxx and not a climate change denier. Those two things disqualify every other candidate, before we even get into economic policies, civil rights, etc.

Not sure why you think bernie is anti-vaxx. Quick google search shows he has openly criticized the movement as selfish. Not to mention climate change was a big part of his platform about how economic interests screw the little guy.

Liberty's Edge

Caineach wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Edit: To make my support more transparent, if I had to just pick two completely unequivocal reasons why I support her she is the only candidate who is both not anti-vaxx and not a climate change denier. Those two things disqualify every other candidate, before we even get into economic policies, civil rights, etc.

Not sure why you think bernie is anti-vaxx. Quick google search shows he has openly criticized the movement as selfish. Not to mention climate change was a big part of his platform about how economic interests screw the little guy.

He's talking about Stein.


Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Edit: To make my support more transparent, if I had to just pick two completely unequivocal reasons why I support her she is the only candidate who is both not anti-vaxx and not a climate change denier. Those two things disqualify every other candidate, before we even get into economic policies, civil rights, etc.

Not sure why you think bernie is anti-vaxx. Quick google search shows he has openly criticized the movement as selfish. Not to mention climate change was a big part of his platform about how economic interests screw the little guy.
He's talking about Stein.

that makes more sense. The original comment was refering to the primaries so I was confused.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Does the nature of it not being grass roots somehow change the disgruntled attitudes of the people, or the valid ideas they were putting forth?

Yes.

Because people take that anger and use it to convince them that a lot of other false things are true


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Does the nature of it not being grass roots somehow change the disgruntled attitudes of the people, or the valid ideas they were putting forth?

Yes.

Because people take that anger and use it to convince them that a lot of other false things are true

Right, but we are discussing the people who noped out when the tea party revealed its crazy, not those who stuck with it and got dragged under.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Personally, I was VERY anti-bank and anti-bailout to a degree. I wouldn't want to lose my savings and bank accounts, but at the same time, what went around should go around. I think one of the reasons the pay of jobs haven't equaled out to the inflation is due to things like how we bailed out the banks. If we had a HARD crash, I think balance would eventually have been restored without a bailout, and pricing on homes, houses, and necessities would also have balanced out to where your average person could afford them.

I've said before, we handled the bank bailouts in about the worst manner possible - except for letting them collapse. They truly were too big to fail. Letting things take their course would have been a HARD crash, far, far worse then what actually happened. We'd still be sifting through the rubble.

The libertarian fantasy that letting the market sort itself out is best is horribly, horribly wrong.

As I said, we did it in a very bad way. Far too easy on the banks. Without the controls and requirements to keep them under control. Temporary nationalization - like the FDIC does routinely with smaller banks. Break ups to keep them from being too big to fail. Haircuts for ceos & stockholders. Perhaps bailing out the mortgages rather than the banks.

"Let it all burn" wasn't an option.

The thing is - most of them wouldn't have failed. Most of the banks didn't actually WANT a bailout. The FED strong-armed all of the banks to take it so that the general populace wouldn't know which banks really needed it and freak out.

You can tell which ones because a good chunk of the banks paid back the bailout on the first day which they were actually allowed to. (Yes - they were literally not allowed to pay back the loan too fast.)

In addition - regulations actually help the biggest banks and hurt the little guys, only encouraging them to be 'too big'. They don't work as punishment. I work for one of the big banks, and we just had a meeting today where we discussed how, while Etrade & Schwab etc. would benefit the most (since they're all self-directed accounts), we would actually also benefit from the massive new regulatory burden which is coming around from the Department of Labor this spring because, unlike the little guys, we actually have the resources to deal with all of the red tape. That is why lobbyists often actually encourage regulations, because unless they're harsh enough to shrink the entire industry, they help the big guys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The drama is getting better. Apparantly the material provided to Wikkileaks was obtained from Vladimir Putin's homegrown cyberhackers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Personally, I was VERY anti-bank and anti-bailout to a degree. I wouldn't want to lose my savings and bank accounts, but at the same time, what went around should go around. I think one of the reasons the pay of jobs haven't equaled out to the inflation is due to things like how we bailed out the banks. If we had a HARD crash, I think balance would eventually have been restored without a bailout, and pricing on homes, houses, and necessities would also have balanced out to where your average person could afford them.

I've said before, we handled the bank bailouts in about the worst manner possible - except for letting them collapse. They truly were too big to fail. Letting things take their course would have been a HARD crash, far, far worse then what actually happened. We'd still be sifting through the rubble.

The libertarian fantasy that letting the market sort itself out is best is horribly, horribly wrong.

As I said, we did it in a very bad way. Far too easy on the banks. Without the controls and requirements to keep them under control. Temporary nationalization - like the FDIC does routinely with smaller banks. Break ups to keep them from being too big to fail. Haircuts for ceos & stockholders. Perhaps bailing out the mortgages rather than the banks.

"Let it all burn" wasn't an option.

The thing is - most of them wouldn't have failed. Most of the banks didn't actually WANT a bailout. The FED strong-armed all of the banks to take it so that the general populace wouldn't know which banks really needed it and freak out.

You can tell which ones because a good chunk of the banks paid back the bailout on the first day which they were actually allowed to. (Yes - they were literally not allowed to pay back the loan too fast.)

In addition - regulations actually help the biggest banks and hurt the little guys, only encouraging them to be 'too big'. They don't work as punishment. I work for one of the big banks, and we just had a meeting today where we discussed how, while Etrade & Schwab etc. would benefit the most (since they're all self-directed accounts), we would actually also benefit from the massive new regulatory burden which is coming around from the Department of Labor this spring because, unlike the little guys, we actually have the resources to deal with all of the red tape. That is why lobbyists often actually encourage regulations, because unless they're harsh enough to shrink the entire industry, they help the big guys.

Most of them were fine and wouldn't have failed - until the next big guy went under. That whole contagion thing that was all the rage. Since the bailouts stopped the collapses, once they were allowed it was easy for most to pay the money back.

As for regulations helping the biggest banks, yeah. That's part of the "worst manner possible". Regulations requiring stress tests and tons of paperwork proving you're safe even though you're a behemoth do arguably hurt the smaller banks more. Many of the long repealed post Depression rules that simple limited what you could do, didn't. Limiting mergers and acquisitions wouldn't. Bringing back the divide between retail and investment banking wouldn't.

And wrapping this back around to on-topic, that's part of why I'm not so bothered by Tim Kaine as VP - his support for lessening bank regulation is aimed at credit unions and community banks. Those that already don't pose a real threat.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The drama is getting better. Apparantly the material provided to Wikkileaks was obtained from Vladimir Putin's homegrown cyberhackers.

Yeah, there's a lot of scary speculation going on about that. Most of currently running at the conspiracy theory level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I dunno, some pretty serious cyber-security professionals are indicating that it was, and is now being looked into by the FBI. There might be something to this


Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Yeah, yeah, "numerous possible reasons" of which you have enumerated... wait for it... none.

I'll take that under advisement.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Edit: To make my support more transparent, if I had to just pick two completely unequivocal reasons why I support her she is the only candidate who is both not anti-vaxx and not a climate change denier. Those two things disqualify every other candidate, before we even get into economic policies, civil rights, etc.

Not sure why you think bernie is anti-vaxx. Quick google search shows he has openly criticized the movement as selfish. Not to mention climate change was a big part of his platform about how economic interests screw the little guy.

I was talking about Stein, Trump, and Johnson. I didn't realize we were still talking about Sanders, as he is not a candidate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Yeah, yeah, "numerous possible reasons" of which you have enumerated... wait for it... none.

I'll take that under advisement.

Good lord, you want me to explain human sexuality to you? Well first off the bat, she could get off on being the other woman, she could not care, she could be totally fine with him having other lovers as they are both busy individuals, she could be asexual and prefer him as a friend and romantic partner rather than a sexual one. She could have a low sex-drive and he a high one so they worked out an arrangement to deal with that, she may have just forgiven him because she is truly deeply in love with him. Seriously, human sexuality is complex.

I have no evidence to suggest any of these are true as you have no evidence to suggest your theory is true. however, the complexity of human relationships pretty much guarantees that simple greed for power is unlikely.


Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Yeah, yeah, "numerous possible reasons" of which you have enumerated... wait for it... none.

I'll take that under advisement.

Good lord, you want me to explain human sexuality to you? Well first off the bat, she could get off on being the other woman, she could not care, she could be totally fine with him having other lovers as they are both busy individuals, she could be asexual and prefer him as a friend and romantic partner rather than a sexual one. She could have a low sex-drive and he a high one so they worked out an arrangement to deal with that, she may have just forgiven him because she is truly deeply in love with him. Seriously, human sexuality is complex.

I have no evidence to suggest any of these are true as you have no evidence to suggest your theory is true. however, the complexity of human relationships pretty much guarantees that simple greed for power is unlikely.

I have her apparent extended public and (as reported by friends/associates) private full-on fits of rage at Bill to make me look for some reason that ties all the facts together.

Lust for power it is.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The drama is getting better. Apparantly the material provided to Wikkileaks was obtained from Vladimir Putin's homegrown cyberhackers.
Yeah, there's a lot of scary speculation going on about that. Most of currently running at the conspiracy theory level.

3 separate cyber-security firms and the FBI all named Russia as the number one suspect - and at least one firm is claiming it can't find any evidence that the confessed hacker actually even exists.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Yeah, yeah, "numerous possible reasons" of which you have enumerated... wait for it... none.

I'll take that under advisement.

Good lord, you want me to explain human sexuality to you? Well first off the bat, she could get off on being the other woman, she could not care, she could be totally fine with him having other lovers as they are both busy individuals, she could be asexual and prefer him as a friend and romantic partner rather than a sexual one. She could have a low sex-drive and he a high one so they worked out an arrangement to deal with that, she may have just forgiven him because she is truly deeply in love with him. Seriously, human sexuality is complex.

I have no evidence to suggest any of these are true as you have no evidence to suggest your theory is true. however, the complexity of human relationships pretty much guarantees that simple greed for power is unlikely.

I have her apparent extended public and (as reported by friends/associates)...

So you have absolutely no evidence, then? At least own that, instead of trying to rely on the very worst kind of hearsay. You don't like her, for no reason, at least own it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It'll be fun to read back through this thread in four years.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

That at least we can agree on


Grey Lensman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The drama is getting better. Apparantly the material provided to Wikkileaks was obtained from Vladimir Putin's homegrown cyberhackers.
Yeah, there's a lot of scary speculation going on about that. Most of currently running at the conspiracy theory level.
3 separate cyber-security firms and the FBI all named Russia as the number one suspect - and at least one firm is claiming it can't find any evidence that the confessed hacker actually even exists.

The conspiracy theory stuff is more about motivation and what exactly "Russia as the number one suspect" means.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well, to give in to some conspiracy theorizing, Trump seems to be no fan of NATO. Weaker NATO would probably benefit Russia. But I doubt we'll ever get any true confirmation on that.


At a guess, "Russia may be trying to influence the American Presidential Election in its favor through the use of technology to acquire and release information that could be seen as damaging to the candidate(s) it does not want to win, and current evidence suggests that someone or someones affiliated with the Russian Government were involved."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
It'll be fun to read back through this thread in four years.

It was awesome reading back on the 2012 election thread last year. What a trip.

Sovereign Court

Love ya Al, worth every vote. Keep up the good work for our vets!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just saw Booker's speech, I was blown away by how positive he was about everything.
I'm from Virginia, and Kaine is my senator, but I would have preferred Booker for VP over Kaine.
Now it's a Trump "university" victim speaking.


137ben wrote:

Just saw Booker's speech, I was blown away by how positive he was about everything.

I'm from Virginia, and Kaine is my senator, but I would have preferred Booker for VP over Kaine.
Now it's a Trump "university" victim speaking.

Booker wasn't even in consideration, was he? I loved the optimism ... but good grief the jackhammering to drive the points home ... eesh.


I wish they had taken Booker but I think Hillary is worried about someone taking her job...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squeakmaan wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Edit: To make my support more transparent, if I had to just pick two completely unequivocal reasons why I support her she is the only candidate who is both not anti-vaxx and not a climate change denier. Those two things disqualify every other candidate, before we even get into economic policies, civil rights, etc.

Not sure why you think bernie is anti-vaxx. Quick google search shows he has openly criticized the movement as selfish. Not to mention climate change was a big part of his platform about how economic interests screw the little guy.
I was talking about Stein, Trump, and Johnson. I didn't realize we were still talking about Sanders, as he is not a candidate.

Johnson isn't anti-vaccine. He just doesn't think that there should be government mandates. He is pro vaccination, and I believe he's even said that he has no problem with schools requiring them. (I know I've seen some Libertarians take that position - I'm not 100% it was Johnson.)

Sovereign Court

Michelle's speech was incredible. As a single person with no children, I had completely overlooked the prez as a role model. A compelling reason to vote one way or another. YMMV


I don't know why Russia would want Trump to win, unless they like a radioactive planet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Bernie Bros were a very real thing, but that's probably because this election was post...well, I'm not supposed to talk about that, but this election has been the first major one of its kind since the "online hatemob" techniques really got perfected. It wasn't Bernie's fault, but it was real and distinct all the same. "Bernie Bros", as the media dubbed them (the media loved to paint Sanders as the "white dude" candidate, as opposed to the "young people" candidate), were actually doxxing superdelegates. They were based on the uglier corners of Reddit and 4Chan, and referred to him as a "cuck" the moment he dared endorse Hillary. It wasn't the same magnitude as the "Obama Boys".

I didn't like how much focus Bernie Bros got compared to the problems in Clinton's campaign, which, as we've known for a while, also employed plenty of unpleasant measures, but it also bugs me when people act like the Bernie Bros were just "politics as usual". Bernie has acquired some seriously s%$$ty followers.

I would not self-identify as a Bernie Bro so easily, Belulzebub. They're asshats.

Thanks a LOT.

You know what I like about Bernie...he actually IS able to compromise and figure out solutions typically.

He seems MORE honest than Clinton OR Trump (actually, this alone would be the sole reason to elect him).

He knows his ideas are crazy wild out there and have no chance in heck of being accomplished typically, but after giving his ideas he gives the realistic approach of what probably really would happen and how compromise and negotiation can bring in both sides of the equation for a better world.

As far as being that term you called Bernie supporters...

You do know the symbol of the democrat party...right?

Though I'm not so sure they'd enjoy it being made into a hat.

I can't actually tell what you're trying to say, but I did not call Bernie supporters asshats.

People really need to stop lumping all Bernie supporters in with the worst elements of the movement. Bernie supporters themselves do it. Clinton supporters do it. The media does it. It's not good.

Scott Betts wrote:
You guys just really, really want to find something external to blame your loss on. You lost because your candidate's campaign wasn't popular enough. That's all. Learn from it and move on, and vote like a responsible adult.

I mean, there was actual, literal fraud going on in Arizona, and there was borderline money laundering going on in Clinton's fundraising. And then there were issues with media depiction (like the initial blackout, and the "he doesn't have a chance" nrrative). And there's the lack of open primaries and the repeated failures across multiple states to allow new voters to register for the Democratic Party. And then there's the fact that Sanders's campaign wasn't very well set up because they didn't expect to even have a chance, and because Sanders initially refused to run a negative race.

Am I saying that Bernie was cheated? Eh. The evidence speaks for itself—it was hardly a clean race, but a lot of it was just inherent problems with the system that weren't exactly Clinton's fault.

I'm sick and tired of the "Bernie Or Bust" crowd. I'm also sick and tired of people lecturing me on how the primary was 100% fair-and-square. It was an uneven race from the get-go, but what's done is done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
I don't know why Russia would want Trump to win, unless they like a radioactive planet.

To oversimplify it, Trump views NATO (along with our other foreign commitments, like our bases in S. Korea and Japan) as a colossal waste and is pro-Putin.

Russia, China, and probably other foreign powers could benefit immensely from a Trump presidency (assuming he doesn't somehow destroy the world economy in some harebrained scheme to "win" at foreign trade =P)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
I don't know why Russia would want Trump to win, unless they like a radioactive planet.

I'll refer to the ghost again. To summarize: Trump and Putin are actually pretty tight. Trump will let Putin do whatever the hell he wants with Europe (remember him declaring he wouldn't automatically move to defend NATO allies?) in exchange for help handling Daesh. Moreover, Trump is generally regarded as weak abroad, despite his tough talk.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
I don't know why Russia would want Trump to win, unless they like a radioactive planet.

Clinton would enforce NATO and work to curtail Putin's advance reacquiring the former Warsaw pact countries and threatening the EU.

Trump seems to admire and even like Putin, he's already signaled that as PotUS he wouldn't necessarily defend all NATO members, and he thinks Brexit is a good idea.

If you were Putin, why wouldn't you help Trump?

Edit: Dang it, double ninja'd!


I simply see Trump (in my excessively biased opinion, which I try not to show, but, yes, I am not a fan of Trump to put it lightly) as someone who is narcissistic enough that if someone dared anger him, he'd actually use a nuke.

AKA...Trump is a much closer step to Thermo Nuclear War.

Which is why I have a hard time understanding why any other nation with Nukes would want to see him in office.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because Trump is a bully, not a hard-ass.

Against a nation that could actually strike back, he's all talk.


da fuk is this person doing preaching (badly) after Sanders' awesome speech?! *quintuple facepalm*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
137ben wrote:

Just saw Booker's speech, I was blown away by how positive he was about everything.

I'm from Virginia, and Kaine is my senator, but I would have preferred Booker for VP over Kaine.
Now it's a Drumpf "university" victim speaking.
Booker wasn't even in consideration, was he? I loved the optimism ... but good grief the jackhammering to drive the points home ... eesh.

I'm glad Booker didn't take it. I really, really like him, but the VP is where careers go to die.

I also really like Warren, but I'd rather have her occupy a senate seat.

When she ran for the senate, the first thought through my mind was how the Republicans had screwed up. If they had let her run the CFPB, they could have de-clawed the agency even more, then summoned her to hearing after hearing where they could ask questions and try to embarrass her. Instead, they put her on a stage and martyred her nomination, allowing her to run for the senate and now she sits next to them and they have to give her equal time during those same hearings.

You don't put your enemies out in the cold. You give them a job, then you make it suck.

Anyways, I'm glad Booker didn't take/get offered the job. He's on a good arc already, he doesn't need the VP. I'd love to see him serve another term, then move on to a governorship or cabinet position. Then run for the democratic nomination whenever all that works out. I would really like to see some executive experience on his resume.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

Because Trump is a bully, not a hard-ass.

Against a nation that could actually strike back, he's all talk.

Make him mad enough, with that kind of power at his theoretical fingertips, the bully becomes a tyrant.

Liberty's Edge

Turin the Mad wrote:
da fuk is this person doing preaching (badly) after Sanders' awesome speech?! *quintuple facepalm*

That seemed odd to me, too.

Liberty's Edge

Turin the Mad wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Because Trump is a bully, not a hard-ass.

Against a nation that could actually strike back, he's all talk.

Make him mad enough, with that kind of power at his theoretical fingertips, the bully becomes a tyrant.

His slim, slim, fingertips. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'll admit, Sanders's speech made me choke up a little. I really think this primary has redefined the left.

This was a strong first night. I remain very sad about how 2016 has gone, but I hold out hope that Bernie's ideas will take hold and go beyond him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chuck Schumer was WRONG! He said

Chuck Schumer wrote:
As Cole Porter said, "who could ask for anything more?"

But that quote is from "I Got Rhythm," which is the act I closing song from the 1930 musical Girl Crazy. The problem? Girl Crazy has music by George Gershwin and Lyrics by Ira Gershwin, and no involvement whatsoever from Porter. Schumer was WRONG!

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
And there's the lack of open primaries and the repeated failures across multiple states to allow new voters to register for the Democratic Party.

Yeah, no.

Open primaries are bad. They enable all sorts of shenanigans and in doing so destroy some of the safeguards that actually let our democracy work. Open primaries are part of the reason the GOP got Trump.

If you wish to vote in a party primary, well, than you should join the damn party!


All I know is my hope for 2024 got brighter if Cory Booker keeps on this track.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
137ben wrote:

Just saw Booker's speech, I was blown away by how positive he was about everything.

I'm from Virginia, and Kaine is my senator, but I would have preferred Booker for VP over Kaine.
Now it's a Drumpf "university" victim speaking.
Booker wasn't even in consideration, was he? I loved the optimism ... but good grief the jackhammering to drive the points home ... eesh.

I'm glad Booker didn't take it. I really, really like him, but the VP is where careers go to die.

I also really like Warren, but I'd rather have her occupy a senate seat.

When she ran for the senate, the first thought through my mind was how the Republicans had screwed up. If they had let her run the CFPB, they could have de-clawed the agency even more, then summoned her to hearing after hearing where they could ask questions and try to embarrass her. Instead, they put her on a stage and martyred her nomination, allowing her to run for the senate and now she sits next to them and they have to give her equal time during those same hearings.

You don't put your enemies out in the cold. You give them a job, then you make it suck.

Anyways, I'm glad Booker didn't take/get offered the job. He's on a good arc already, he doesn't need the VP. I'd love to see him serve another term, then move on to a governorship or cabinet position. Then run for the democratic nomination whenever all that works out. I would really like to see some executive experience on his resume.

Booker also comes from a state with a Republican governor - if Hilary wins, she needs Booker where he is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
And there's the lack of open primaries and the repeated failures across multiple states to allow new voters to register for the Democratic Party.

Yeah, no.

Open primaries are bad. They enable all sorts of shenanigans and in doing so destroy some of the safeguards that actually let our democracy work. Open primaries are part of the reason the GOP got Trump.

If you wish to vote in a party primary, well, than you should join the damn party!

The "Trump" thing is just a blatant myth. Trump carried closed primaries with almost the same level of success, and would have easily won even if all the states had been closed primaries. "He'll lose the closed primaries" was the mythology JEB and Rubio promoted to reassure investors. Didn't pan out, did it? The reasons the GOP got Trump had little to do with open primaries and a lot to do with the GOP getting overrun by asshats.

Closed primaries are a huge barrier to new voters and encourage in-party tampering in a big way. They're also one of the best tools of the mess that is the two-party system—pressure everyone to join one of the two parties for fear of losing their chance to influence the election! Especially considering that the primary is the only chance some states get to influence things, since the primaries actually often have proportional allotments. Closed primaries are devastating to those who don't like either party and don't realize that they're giving up political agency by refusing to associate.

Also, "shenanigans", huh? How about the repeated instances of the Democratic Party screwing up registering thousands of new voters, then failing to let them know they weren't registered until it was too late, preventing them from voting? Sounds pretty shenanigan-y to me, but what do I know?

And for what? To keep out the Independent "riffraff"? Independents make up the majority of registered voters. Closed primaries deny them a voice because—why, exactly? Is it to teach them a lesson for not siding with either party? Disenfranchising the majority of Americans seems like a pretty rough way to punish them for not liking two fairly subpar parties, but hey, at least it averts a very specific type of shenanigan while giving rise to other, equally devastating varities.


Well said, KC, well said.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am one of those people that does not really like either party. If a third party stood even a 5% chance of succeeding, then I would probably vote for them. Maybe.

151 to 200 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Philadelphia DNC 2016 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.