2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

5,801 to 5,850 of 7,079 << first < prev | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The answer is simple. Hillary has these two things on her chest. Too many people those two things are not something that can be compatible with behavior we expect from the half of the human race which lacks those two things. Because when we see those two things on a person, a different set of perception filters slam into place so that the same behaviors trigger different responses.

I love that because I don't want to vote for a wholly corrupt politician that supports many policies that I hate and has made a career of lying, getting caught, and magically getting free, I MUST be sexist.

How about this...I want a woman president, just not badly enough to compromise every single bit or morality I have. I don't support abortion, especially past the midway point, so I must hate women (guess my wife and most of my female friends do too). I don't like people that lose their ability to practice law due to corruption, so I hate women. I don't like that I can find numerous top 20 Clinton Scandal lists that have vastly different scandals on them, the majority of which are true, so I hate women.
I actually am holding hope that our first woman president isn't going to be an absolute embarrassment to the entire female population. So I won't vote for Hillary....and for the record I am not fond of Trump either. If I could I would vote for a "do over".

Was Drahliana's comment directed at you? Has anyone said "Fake Healer is sexist for not voting for Hillary Clinton"?

If so, please link the post.

If not, maybe stop looking for ways to be offended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The answer is simple. Hillary has these two things on her chest. Too many people those two things are not something that can be compatible with behavior we expect from the half of the human race which lacks those two things. Because when we see those two things on a person, a different set of perception filters slam into place so that the same behaviors trigger different responses.

I love that because I don't want to vote for a wholly corrupt politician that supports many policies that I hate and has made a career of lying, getting caught, and magically getting free, I MUST be sexist.

How about this...I want a woman president, just not badly enough to compromise every single bit or morality I have. I don't support abortion, especially past the midway point, so I must hate women (guess my wife and most of my female friends do too). I don't like people that lose their ability to practice law due to corruption, so I hate women. I don't like that I can find numerous top 20 Clinton Scandal lists that have vastly different scandals on them, the majority of which are true, so I hate women.
I actually am holding hope that our first woman president isn't going to be an absolute embarrassment to the entire female population. So I won't vote for Hillary....and for the record I am not fond of Trump either. If I could I would vote for a "do over".

there are no do overs here. Appealing to a fictional resolution does not help your argument, which I am sure those who do hate women or love Trump or what have you are thankful for. Only thing better than unwitting support is begrudging support.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also Hillary didn't lose her ability to practice law due to corruption.

She lost it because she didn't keep up the maintenance needed to do so.

Bill Clinton was temporarily suspended but he can be reinstated now if he wanted to be.

Most lawyers that are elected president let their license lapse while in office.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a shame. Johnson sees pretty much all the same problems I do.
Unfortunately, his "solution" to every one seems to be "just let corporations run everything and it will all magically work out," which is outright idiocy.

Trump sees a lot of the same problems I do. Unfortunately, his "solution" is to throw a tantrum and make them bigger problems.

Clinton sees some of the problems I do. Unfortunately, her "solution" to the rest is to preserve them at all costs because they've become the status quo.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Lou Diamond wrote:
What do my liberal friends think of Terry mc caulif bribing the number man in the FBI by giving 675000 dollars in campaign money to his wife while he was in charge of Investigating Hillary?

I think it is sad that so many conservatives continue with this apparent need to be lied to. After decades of non-stop blatant falsehoods like this you'd think more of them would have 'wised up' and stopped accepting extraordinary claims at face value... but no, they seem to prefer to be deceived. Like small children who know at some level that Santa probably isn't real, but allow themselves to believe anyway.

Reality check

I have a Synchtube (a streaming service where you upload Youtube videos into a playlist so people can watch from multiple sources at the same time) channel with ~100 hours of bat-s!@$ crazy people, and I've watched every minute of every video in there. By this point, nothing really surprises me. Last night's viewing included: fundamentalist Christians preaching about how demonic Pokemon is (well, maybe the newer games...), the infamous trigglypuff, and my personal favorite, sovereign citizens. It's good to see that cognitive dissonance is alive and well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

It's a shame. Johnson sees pretty much all the same problems I do.

Unfortunately, his "solution" to every one seems to be "just let corporations run everything and it will all magically work out."

Trump sees a lot of the same problems I do. Unfortunately, his "solution" is to throw a tantrum and make them bigger problems.

Clinton sees some of the problems I do. Unfortunately, her "solution" to the rest is to preserve them at all costs because they've become the status quo.

one of the fairest critiques I have heard to date.


Irontruth wrote:

Has anyone said "Fake Healer is sexist for not voting for Hillary Clinton"?

If so, please link the post.
If not, maybe stop looking for ways to be offended.

In his defense, I've stopped looking as Facebook partly because the "If you don't support Hillary, it's only because you're a misogynist pig!" meme is starting to get really old.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Has anyone said "Fake Healer is sexist for not voting for Hillary Clinton"?

If so, please link the post.
If not, maybe stop looking for ways to be offended.
In his defense, I've stopped looking as Facebook partly because the "If you don't support Hillary, it's only because you're a misogynist pig!" meme is starting to get really old.

mayhaps, but it is getting incredibly difficult to tell if people who post that meme are Hillary supporters or Trump supporters. Then again, I am almost bad as someone living with autism at deciphering written sarcasm.

Liberty's Edge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Fake Healer wrote:
...getting caught, and magically getting free...

See, that's the thing. Magic isn't real.

So when it seems like Clinton has 'magically' escaped punishment after 'getting caught' over and over and over again... that's because she didn't really do anything illegal.

Rather, you were lied to. You blindly accepted the lie. And then, since she didn't actually do anything wrong here in the real world, she 'got away with' the thing that never actually happened.

Quote:
I don't like that I can find numerous top 20 Clinton Scandal lists that have vastly different scandals on them, the majority of which are true...

No. No they aren't. Magic isn't real. If even a few of the fictional 'scandals' Hillary Clinton were accused of having been involved in were true she'd be in prison. She isn't... because you have been lied to.

Hillary Clinton does not have magical powers.

She did not use her powers to send Terry McCauliff back in time to donate 675,000 to the wife of the FBI official who would later investigate her e-mails.

She did not kill Vince Foster with a magical spell.

She is not using mind control to stay out of prison despite her 'proven crimes'.

Et cetera.

Come back to reality. Stop rewarding conservative 'leaders' for keeping you wrapped in a cocoon of propaganda and deceit... 'safe' from that nasty real world where facts matter.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
...getting caught, and magically getting free...

See, that's the thing. Magic isn't real.

So when it seems like Clinton has 'magically' escaped punishment after 'getting caught' over and over and over again... that's because she didn't really do anything illegal.

Rather, you were lied to. You blindly accepted the lie. And then, since she didn't actually do anything wrong here in the real world, she 'got away with' the thing that never actually happened.

Quote:
I don't like that I can find numerous top 20 Clinton Scandal lists that have vastly different scandals on them, the majority of which are true...

No. No they aren't. Magic isn't real. If even a few of the fictional 'scandals' Hillary Clinton were accused of having been involved in were true she'd be in prison. She isn't... because you have been lied to.

Hillary Clinton does not have magical powers.

She did not use her powers to send Terry McCauliff back in time to donate 675,000 to the wife of the FBI official who would later investigate her e-mails.

She did not kill Vince Foster with a magical spell.

She is not using mind control to stay out of prison despite her 'proven crimes'.

Et cetera.

Come back to reality. Stop rewarding conservative 'leaders' for keeping you wrapped in a cocoon of propaganda and deceit... 'safe' from that nasty real world where facts matter.

To push it one step farther, if Clinton really was the criminal mastermind with so much power and influence over both the media and the law that she could keep from ever being punished, how is it she appears to have no power or influence to stop the constant investigations and media reports on "scandals"?

It's the classic sign of conspiracy theory: any online whacko can muster tons of evidence to show it, but nothing official can ever do so.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Magic isn't real.

;_;


Courage is the real magic. o wo/ ...And sometimes it takes courage to acknowledge the truth.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:


I love that because I don't want to vote for a wholly corrupt politician that supports many policies that I hate and has made a career of lying, getting caught, and magically getting free, I MUST be sexist.

It's because your idea of hillary as wholly corrupt politician is so far from reality that it has to be driven by some kind of irrational hate that people conclude sexism.

I think you just irrationally hate all democrats.

HOW many times have you come here ranting about something that was untrue and absurd only to have it debunked by facts, sense, and reason, and yet you KEEP on ranting as if nothing had changed? As if you were still right?

This above any other reason is why i have to oppose republicans. you are waging a war on reality. Your entire political party rests on the fictions of biblical literalism, the invisible hand of free market, that corporations are overtaxed, that corporate welfare isn't welfare, states rights instead of peoples rights, global warming as a myth, and democrats are the devil

NOTHING in your platform coresponds to reality. The entire thing is made up, it's not made up particularly well, and you are buying it hook line, and sinker.

H

Sovereign Court

Someone should start a criminal mastermind Hilary Clinton meme where her magical, time traveling, mind controlling powers are explained. For example:

In 2008 the Hillary Clinton campaign started the Birther movement in 2004.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I thought this was an historic election because a woman was a major party candidate.

I didn't realize it was historic because a Wizard was a major party candidate. Bring on the magic powers!

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Kind of reminds me of this story


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, James Franco says Clinton's Secret Service codename is Hermione because “she’s a f!cking wizard.”


Guy Humual wrote:

Someone should start a criminal mastermind Hilary Clinton meme where her magical, time traveling, mind controlling powers are explained. For example:

In 2008 the Hillary Clinton campaign started the Birther movement in 2004.

...or if not a actual wizard, HRC is the latest Gallifreyan regeneration of Romana.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Magic isn't real.
;_;

Sorry. Not the most RPG-friendly stance to take, but some people lost in escapist fantasies (i.e. conservatives) needed to hear it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lou Diamond wrote:


What do my liberal friends think of Terry mc caulif bribing the number man in the FBI by giving 675000 dollars in campaign money to his wife while he was in charge of Investigating Hillary?

WOLF! WOLF!

Nice try, BNW. We all know you're just a sheep. Here, I'll put my arm in your mouth. See? Totally safe.

Freehold DM wrote:
mayhaps, but it is getting incredibly difficult to tell if people who post that meme are Hillary supporters or Trump supporters. Then again, I am almost bad as someone living with autism at deciphering written sarcasm.

Written sarcasm isn't that bad. Spoken sarcasm is where we run into trouble.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
mayhaps, but it is getting incredibly difficult to tell if people who post that meme are Hillary supporters or Trump supporters. Then again, I am almost bad as someone living with autism at deciphering written sarcasm.
Written sarcasm isn't that bad. Spoken sarcasm is where we run into trouble.

The gap between actual reality/facts and ironic contemptuous snark... we should call it...

(•_•)

( •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_■)

...sarchasm.

YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!


....Some times you guys make the worst puns. And they aren't even the best of the worst either.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think we all know who makes the best puns. Here's a hint: he also has the best words.


Misroi,

NO! No even close.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Here, I'll put my arm in your mouth. See? Totally safe.

You know thats the EXACT same thing Tyr said...


So Garm it is then eh formerly known as Hatti?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
I am still waiting for Obama to close Guantanamo like he promised he would.

Seriously?

It's the Republican congress that won't let him! They've basically spent the last six years standing in a corner and stomping their feet.


I see we're still playing "Hillary is so corrupt...because reasons" game.

Is it November 9th yet?


bugleyman wrote:

I see we're still playing "Hillary is so corrupt...because reasons" game.

Is it November 9th yet?

You act like it won't just get worse after the election.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
You act like it won't just get worse after the election.

No doubt some people will rant on. I do hold out some hope, however, that society will pay less attention.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Has anyone said "Fake Healer is sexist for not voting for Hillary Clinton"?

If so, please link the post.
If not, maybe stop looking for ways to be offended.
In his defense, I've stopped looking as Facebook partly because the "If you don't support Hillary, it's only because you're a misogynist pig!" meme is starting to get really old.

I stopped looking at facebook cause I don't give a crap about 97% of the things people post on there years ago. I only leave my account open so that I can be invited to events.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I see we're still playing "Hillary is so corrupt...because reasons" game.

Is it November 9th yet?

You act like it won't just get worse after the election.

Historically, she's been far more popular while she had a job than when she was running for one. When she was a Senator or Secretary, her approval went up and disapproval went down.

Whether that will hold when she has the top job, I don't know.


thejeff wrote:


Whether that will hold when she has the top job, I don't know.

Whenever a dem has been in office since carter there's been an absolutely nasty smear campaign against them. I don't expect her tenure to be any different.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Whether that will hold when she has the top job, I don't know.

Whenever a dem has been in office since carter there's been an absolutely nasty smear campaign against them. I don't expect her tenure to be any different.

Certainly true. It hasn't necessarily been reflected in horrible popularity though.

As I've said before, in a sort of abstract sociological way, it'll be interesting to observe the differences between the attacks on the woman who dares to be President vs the black man who dares to be President vs the regular white male Democrat who dares to be President. Misogyny obviously plays out differently than racism.
They've already got the groundwork laid with Clinton, so there will also be plenty that isn't obvious sexism.

As things are playing out, I expect Trump's talk of "rigged elections" to carry on, not to legally challenge her, but to undermine her legitimacy. I wonder if that will be the excuse for opposing any SC nominee?


Republicans are already treating Clinton’s presidency as illegitimate


CBDunkerson wrote:
Lou Diamond wrote:
What do my liberal friends think of Terry mc caulif bribing the number man in the FBI by giving 675000 dollars in campaign money to his wife while he was in charge of Investigating Hillary?

I think it is sad that so many conservatives continue with this apparent need to be lied to. After decades of non-stop blatant falsehoods like this you'd think more of them would have 'wised up' and stopped accepting extraordinary claims at face value... but no, they seem to prefer to be deceived. Like small children who know at some level that Santa probably isn't real, but allow themselves to believe anyway.

Reality check

It's like those cops who deliberately faked evidence in the O.J. Simpson trial. They were sure he was guilty, so they felt their actions justified, as they served a needed end, a greater truth. Since Hillary is the Anti-Christ this year, any measure taken to stop her is justified, even if it's sinful, dishonorable, or outright false. As Newt Gingrich put it... "The facts don't matter."


Matt Filla wrote:
Republicans are already treating Clinton’s presidency as illegitimate

Though to be fair, in that article, they're not so much arguing that Clinton shouldn't be able to appoint Justices because her presidency is (or will be, should she win) illegitimate, but more of a "nyah, can't make me" approach. Along with a side line of "Well, we don't really need 9 Justices anyway."

I am a little perplexed by the idea that “As the Court’s size shrinks, activist majorities become mathematically harder to put together. Four votes out of seven is harder to achieve than five of nine.”
You still have to reach a majority for something. Does he expect a 7 member court to simply not reach a decision more often?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Or, people can just refuse to do anything. Here is a straight-faced proposal from a fairly well-known conservative source that essentially recommends destroying the government if she wins:

As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court literally die out

If that isn't treason, it's sure close


Reminded today of Douglas Adams.

Quote:

The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

Trump would be a good Galactic President.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The answer is simple. Hillary has these two things on her chest. Too many people those two things are not something that can be compatible with behavior we expect from the half of the human race which lacks those two things. Because when we see those two things on a person, a different set of perception filters slam into place so that the same behaviors trigger different responses.

I love that because I don't want to vote for a wholly corrupt politician that supports many policies that I hate and has made a career of lying, getting caught, and magically getting free, I MUST be sexist.

How about this...I want a woman president, just not badly enough to compromise every single bit or morality I have. I don't support abortion, especially past the midway point, so I must hate women (guess my wife and most of my female friends do too). I don't like people that lose their ability to practice law due to corruption, so I hate women. I don't like that I can find numerous top 20 Clinton Scandal lists that have vastly different scandals on them, the majority of which are true, so I hate women.
I actually am holding hope that our first woman president isn't going to be an absolute embarrassment to the entire female population. So I won't vote for Hillary....and for the record I am not fond of Trump either. If I could I would vote for a "do over".

Maybe the problem many have with your points is that they are simply not true.

1. Clinton is many things, but she is no more "wholly corrupt" than any other given politician.

2. I'm not big on abortion, but that's not the definition of "pro-choice". Pro-choice means that you don't have the goverment or some local rabid church decide the issue, that it should be a matter of a woman's PRIVATE choice on matters that deal with her own body.

3. Clinton did not lose her license due to "corruption". Being a full time politican, like almost anyone in her position, she simply stopped doing the things needed to be done to maintain it as she no longer had any interest NOR THE TIME to be a trial lawyer. Most lawyers turned politician, she let her license to practice, lapse. Because no matter how capable they are, only a fool represents themselves in court if the time comes.

4. Far from being an embarrassment, Clinton is simply THE most experienced candidate for President in the political field that has come down the pike. She is a credit to her gender in every way imaginable.

Hillary Clinton isn't Bernie Sanders, but I've got news for you... Sanders wasn't the perfect candidate either. He absolutely sucked when it came to relating to anyone whose skin wasn't as pale as his was. And that's important in anyone going to lead this country.


CrystalSeas wrote:

Or, people can just refuse to do anything. Here is a straight-faced proposal from a fairly well-known conservative source that essentially recommends destroying the government if she wins:

As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court literally die out

If that isn't treason, it's sure close

That's a good part of the problem with the current crisis.

From the article Matt linked above:

Quote:
The larger point is that at the same time they were becoming more ideologically radical, Republicans embraced an unprecedented procedural radicalism, in which they’re perfectly happy to take a sledgehammer to any and all of the norms that enable the government to function.

There are all sorts of things the Senate (or the House, or the President for that matter) aren't constitutionally required to do, without which our country will collapse.

And this is overwhelmingly a Republican issue, tied to the modern Republican philosophy that government is bad and broken. They've convinced enough voters of this that they don't pay enough of a price for breaking it.
If this doesn't change, if they don't start paying a serious electorla price for it, we're going to wind up with a very serious crisis on our hands. We've been limping along so far, but it's still getting worse.


thejeff wrote:

I am a little perplexed by the idea that “As the Court’s size shrinks, activist majorities become mathematically harder to put together. Four votes out of seven is harder to achieve than five of nine.”

You still have to reach a majority for something. Does he expect a 7 member court to simply not reach a decision more often?

That threw me a bit too. I think the point is that 4 out of 7 is a bigger percentage of the total than 5 out of 9?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's much harder to do basic math, like ratios, when your head is planted so deeply in your own ass.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hillary Clinton isn't Bernie Sanders, but I've got news for you... Sanders wasn't the perfect candidate either. He absolutely sucked when it came to relating to anyone whose skin wasn't as pale as his was. And that's important in anyone going to lead this country.

This...seems like a bit of an overstatement. Or a simplification. Sanders lost the older black vote, yes, but this was more a product of African-American voters tending more towards the moderate side of things, as well as Clinton's more established credentials. He sometimes won the Latino vote, tended to win the younger vote across racial lines, and he almost certainly won the Native American vote, considering how easily he carried Hawaii and Alaska.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of stuff to criticize Sanders over, and I think he tended to lean a bit too closely towards "racial issues are economic issues". But he promised to end private prisons well before Hillary brought it up (has she brought it up since the primary? Legitimate question—I'm hoping it'll be a steady campaign promise for her administration). He marched in civil rights protests back when his Einstein hair still had color in it. Saying he couldn't relate to non-whites is not the thing to criticize about Sanders. Try starting with his positions on firearms, or his delay in giving up the presidential race and focusing on the primaries against truly s$@@ty "Democratic" candidates like Kurt Schrader and Schultz. He let the primaries become about himself instead of his "movement", and the whole movement was crippled because of it. And now I have to vote for Kurt S&%@ter.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
It's much harder to do basic math, like ratios, when your head is planted so deeply in your own ass.

But I don't think the basic math matters. Why would it be harder to get 4/7 for an "activist" decision rather than 4/7 for a conservative decision?

Somebody's still got to get to a majority right?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hillary Clinton isn't Bernie Sanders, but I've got news for you... Sanders wasn't the perfect candidate either. He absolutely sucked when it came to relating to anyone whose skin wasn't as pale as his was. And that's important in anyone going to lead this country.

This...seems like a bit of an overstatement. Or a simplification. Sanders lost the older black vote, yes, but this was more a product of African-American voters tending more towards the moderate side of things, as well as Clinton's more established credentials. He sometimes won the Latino vote, tended to win the younger vote across racial lines, and he almost certainly won the Native American vote, considering how easily he carried Hawaii and Alaska.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of stuff to criticize Sanders over, and I think he tended to lean a bit too closely towards "racial issues are economic issues". But he promised to end private prisons well before Hillary brought it up (has she brought it up since the primary? Legitimate question—I'm hoping it'll be a steady campaign promise for her administration). He marched in civil rights protests back when his Einstein hair still had color in it. Saying he couldn't relate to non-whites is not the thing to criticize about Sanders. Try starting with his positions on firearms, or his delay in giving up the presidential race and focusing on the primaries against truly s~**ty "Democratic" candidates like Kurt Schrader and Schultz. He let the primaries become about himself instead of his "movement", and the whole movement was crippled because of it. And now I have to vote for Kurt S$$+ter.

Sanders lost the black vote by a 3 to 1 ratio. That's not just a slight loss, it's an overwhelming loss. It pretty much guaranteed that if Sanders won the nomination, the African vote would have largely stayed home, which has been a historically big problem for Democrats when they lose elections.

Fact of the matter is it's irrelevant that he marched with the Civil Righters of the sixties, if he can't relate to the Afro-Americans of today, because those are the people voting... or failing to do so.

On the other hand, I had absolutely no problem with his delay on concession. You might recall I was one of those that insisted that he should hold on until the Party Platform was worked out, and because of it the Democratic Platform IS the most progressive it's been since the Civil Rights days. Clinton has issues, but it's no because she's some evil manipulative queen. What she does have are some attitude issues which have steered her wrong on occasion.

Everyone does.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hillary Clinton isn't Bernie Sanders, but I've got news for you... Sanders wasn't the perfect candidate either. He absolutely sucked when it came to relating to anyone whose skin wasn't as pale as his was. And that's important in anyone going to lead this country.

This...seems like a bit of an overstatement. Or a simplification. Sanders lost the older black vote, yes, but this was more a product of African-American voters tending more towards the moderate side of things, as well as Clinton's more established credentials. He sometimes won the Latino vote, tended to win the younger vote across racial lines, and he almost certainly won the Native American vote, considering how easily he carried Hawaii and Alaska.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of stuff to criticize Sanders over, and I think he tended to lean a bit too closely towards "racial issues are economic issues". But he promised to end private prisons well before Hillary brought it up (has she brought it up since the primary? Legitimate question—I'm hoping it'll be a steady campaign promise for her administration). He marched in civil rights protests back when his Einstein hair still had color in it. Saying he couldn't relate to non-whites is not the thing to criticize about Sanders. Try starting with his positions on firearms, or his delay in giving up the presidential race and focusing on the primaries against truly s#~$ty "Democratic" candidates like Kurt Schrader and Schultz. He let the primaries become about himself instead of his "movement", and the whole movement was crippled because of it. And now I have to vote for Kurt S$%@ter.

That's pretty much my take on Sanders. (Though I don't have to vote for Schrader. )

Along with a dose of not being sure how he'd be at the actual work of being President. I voted for him. I liked his policies.


thejeff wrote:

Certainly true. It hasn't necessarily been reflected in horrible popularity though.

We didn't have Fox "news" angrily chasing their own tail spouting conspiracy theories that get picked up as news to fuel the conspiracy theories.


On the other hand, if Democrats pull off the miracle that thejeff seems to think they will, Sanders will become the Budget Committee head in the Senate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Sanders lost the black vote by a 3 to 1 ratio. That's not just a slight loss, it's an overwhelming loss. It pretty much guaranteed that if Sanders won the nomination, the African vote would have largely stayed home, which has been a historically big problem for Democrats when they lose elections.

Did we all just suddenly forget how badly Hillary lost the black vote in 2008? Do you think all those African-Americans would have just stayed home if she'd won? They sure aren't staying home now. And think about all the evangelicals who hated Trump! Are they sitting this one out?

Primaries don't have to involve hating the other side. Most people don't hate either candidate in a civil primary, though things did get nasty towards the end for...a variety of reasons.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Fact of the matter is it's irrelevant that he marched with the Civil Righters of the sixties, if he can't relate to the Afro-Americans of today, because those are the people voting... or failing to do so.

Fact of the matter is your only evidence for him not relating to them is that they voted for Hillary. By that logic, Hillary can't relate to them, either—remember 2008?

Drahlianna wrote:
On the other hand, I had absolutely no problem with his delay on concession. You might recall I was one of those that insisted that he should hold on until the Party Platform was worked out, and because of it the Democratic Platform IS the most progressive it's been since the Civil Rights days. Clinton has issues, but it's no because she's some evil manipulative queen. What she does have are some attitude issues which have steered her wrong on occasion.

I think she's overly conservative on a lot of issues, and I think Bernie did a great job at pressing her to go further left on a lot of them. That said, the platform? I'm not convinced it matters that much, if at all.

thejeff wrote:
Along with a dose of not being sure how he'd be at the actual work of being President. I voted for him. I liked his policies.

That's actually probably Sanders's main problem. It's not that he's racist or too extreme or too abrasive or whatever—it's that he's just not as experienced at this stuff as Hillary, which is a real flaw.

Drahlianna wrote:

On the other hand, if Democrats pull off the miracle that thejeff seems to think they will, Sanders will become the Budget Committee head in the Senate.

"Miracle"? Granted, nothing is certain, but odds are currently in favor of Democrats winning the Senate. A "miracle" would be them taking the House, or Trump winning the presidency.

5,801 to 5,850 of 7,079 << first < prev | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards