I’m not. I’ve never had any faith in the wisdom of the Republican base.
Let me fix that for you. She keeps losing small states and winning big states. How UNFAIR! (Btw, who has won more states? I forget. And while you’re at it, who has a substantial lead in the popular vote?)
Blame the Republicans for the relative lack of incremental changes. How much more could have been done if they weren’t spending their time trying to repeal ACA a ludicrous number of times? Why? Because Obama.
There’s that word again. “Believe.” Nevermind that you have no evidence. And don’t even start with how she made money when she wasn’t in public office.
If you cannot pass a law with its basis in the real world then you have no business being in a position to pass laws. One painfully obvious example is all of the Christians trying to (and often succeeding) pass laws making abstinence the only form of sex ed kids get. All of the evidence shows that this leads to more teen pregnancies and more teens getting stds, but hey thats not what their personal interpretation of the bible tells them so forget the world we live in and substitute their fantasy world instead.
these 2 sentences in a single post are kinda funny.
Let me fix that for you, reading comprehension is your friend. your response is miles off target from what I wrote. I am not talking about big states, little states, or the popular vote, I am talking about is thisKind of bullshitright here.
It is her behavior during the election process to supposedly place a democratically human into the oval office.
that only accounts for the last painfully shitty 8 years, both parties have been fucking off for far longer than that when it comes to actually making America a better place for all Americans instead of a tiny few.
Okay, but I often want my beliefs to be made into law. I believe people should have health care, on the taxpayer dime if necessary. I believe in poverty prevention and free choice for abortion. Aren’t most laws about what we believe?
ETA: I should also mention that Bernie Sanders is not super good at basing things on evidence, even when there is evidence. Is it okay when he pushes against nuclear power and for GMO labeling and champions woo?
My lack of faith is based on evidence. Your belief is based on rumor and insinuation, both things which Pubbies are masters at, and the base buys hook, line, and sinker.
QUOTE=Critical1;19349731]these 2 sentences in a single post are kinda funny.
[/QUOTE]
My lack of faith is based on evidence. Your belief is based on rumor and insinuation, both things which Pubbies are masters at, and the base buys hook, line, and sinker.
The whole thing is a straw man regardless. No matter how you slice it, Bernie loses in every scenario.
Her behavior. She was the one calling Bernie out as unqualified, right? Yeah, dassit.
Once again, my memory must be faulty. Who was the last President to balance the budget? Which one passed (and prevented the repeal of) the ACA against the most intransigent Congress in history? Which one passed the Civil Rights Act? They must all have been Republicans. Oh, wait, none were.
I mean he’d push for increased executive powers, similar to the Patriot Act only more extreme. Increased surveillance; increased ability to operate the military without congressional oversight. Laws put in place that suspend the rights of noncitizens in the United States. Attacks on media outlets who question him. Attempts to impeach Supreme Court justices who get in his way.
I mean, I can imagine a lot of specific actions he might take, but overall I’d expect him to do his damnedest to consolidate power and to make it difficult for those who oppose him. It’s true that a lot of Americans would oppose him in this, but I have zero faith that he’d have any sense of self-control or respect for limits on his power, and given the fervor for him among Republicans and most frighteningly in the military and police, I’m not convinced that he’d be brought up short by other powers in our country.
I’m definitely of the opinion that Bernie should shut it down when it comes to his presidential candidacy, but I’m also increasingly of the opinion that Clinton is a weak candidate – Bernheads are probably right about that. Clinton needs Sanders’ energy - whether it comes from Sanders himself or Elizabeth Warren or someone else as VP. I think that whatever visions of the race she and the DNC had coming into the 2016 cycle have to be reevaluated. Nobody saw Trump getting this far. Nobody saw Sanders making this much noise. Clinton probably can’t win by running a completely conventional campaign. She needs the appearance of authenticity in the eyes of voters.
As for the over 90 percent, I believe it, but do you have evidence for that?
Despite wanting to see more evidence, I agree with your basic point.
A Sanders endorsement of Clinton is important. If he graciously endorses her, I believe that the thread poll becomes meaningless, and Trump loses. However, if Sanders runs for President under the Green Party, which doesn’t pick its nominee until August, and seems willing to nominate him, Trump probably wins.
Since Sanders, as a young man, repeatedly ran as a third party candidate, I don’t think we can rule out the worst-case scenario.
I’ve been banging on about Sanders and how he should drop out and so forth, but I’ve increasingly come to the conclusion that the once unthinkable might happen: Clinton might tap Bernie to be her VP. And if he isn’t interested, then maybe he accepts that Elizabeth Warren would be the Veep and that he becomes labor secretary or something like that.
I’m (probably) done trashing Sanders and Sanders voters, provided that they can accept the fact that their ideal version of a progressive might not be at the top of the ticket. I don’t necessarily see them running a hard campaign through June as a problem, as long as they agree to support a DNC that is flexible enough to accept them in return. If Hillary can make space for a more strident leftism, then Bernie and his supporters ought to accept that graciously.
I think maybe that’s the big takeaway here. There are opportunities for both the mainstream democratic party and the Bernie Sanders wing. I think Barack Obama’s final few months in office will actually in some ways establish the trail that both wings of the party ought to follow. Obama will pull Hillary to the left and Bernie more to the mainstream, because Obama is going to try to make progressive ideas more mainstream. I hope so anyway.
This is so widely believed by my fellow liberals that I guess I should always ignore it. But, since I haven’t posted on this in years, here is an accurate assessment of the evidence:
The problem with using the power of government to indoctrinate school students concerning sex is not that it backfires. The problem is that it doesn’t work.
Then why were you a Republican and still praise Reagan and Bush Sr.?
Except you know for all the times Sanders has said this election cycle that he will support the Democratic nominee for President. By your logic since Clinton, as a young woman, was a self-described “Goldwater Girl”, I don’t think we can rule out her governing as a conservative Republican.
I haven’t praised Reagan since he was in office, and I stand by my support of 41. However, since neither is part of the Republican base, your comment is beyond tangential.
“Keeping It 1600” podcast run by two media gurus who worked on Obama’s campaign. The statistics are their citations, for what it is worth. I believe it was the podcast from 2 weeks ago.
FTR, I actually do like Hillary Clinton and fully intend to vote for her come November. However, even this thread demonstrates the wrongheaded arguments many of her supporters are making in order to persuade Sanders supporters (of course many of them also make very bad arguments) to vote for Clinton. I’ll support Clinton in the general because I think she’s pretty good and getting better on the issues- I support her plans to build on the the gains of the New Deal, Great Society, and the Obama administration through measures such as giving the government the power to negotiate on pharmaceutical prices, a public option for the ACA, raising the minimum wage, paid maternity and sick leave, keeping Social Security and Medicare. As a liberal internationalist, I also like her foreign policy approach better then Sanders’s. The other main reason I intend to support her is because I think she is tough and in many ways a Democratic Richard Nixon who has been a target of great hatred but always proven their detractors wrong by amassing new political coalitions to steamroll her opponents. While I certainly don’t approve of the shady behaviour of the Nixon administration, I do harbour some hopes of Clinton remembering all the slander and libel her right-wing enemies have heaped on her for the past 25 years. Certainly there are lots of names who deserve to be on her Enemies List and she can do plenty of more or less legal harm and humiliation to their careers.
By contrast, the wrong way to go about advocating for Clinton is prominent on display here as well as some of the SJW corners of Twitter (people like Arthur Chu, Sady Doyle, Imani Gandy, and the like come to mind) and blogs such as Shakesville. Here the approach is essentially to blackmail Sanders supporters by saying they must vote for Clinton if TRUMP is not to win regardless of what they feel about the issues. The other main argument they take, which shows their culturally left-bourgeoisie tendencies, is that Clinton is somewhat the “real” or “more” progressive candidate because she’ll be the first woman President, has the support of blacks, has the support of homosexuals, is more “intersectional” rather then “narrowly focused” on socioeconomic issues, and so forth. An important element of this is tying Sanders to the antics and abuses of his “Bernie Bro” supporters (who granted do exist and probably deserve to be shot) before going on to denigrate the Sanders coalition as a whole by deeming it motivated by misogyny and racism due to the disproportionate support he gets from working-class whites (and often they engage in typical bourgeoisie virtue-signalling moralism against the WWC as a whole as “racist”, “stupid”, “inbred” etc.)
The other wrongheaded approach to Clinton support is by the neocon intelligentsia, the pundit class, and similarly useless people who run her as some sort of a vanilla “national unity” candidate whose main virtue is not being “divisive” or following the “wisdom” of the Very Serious People on foreign policy, trade, immigration, and other issues. Unfortunately there is some evidence Clinton herself is trying to appeal to these dysgenics by suggesting she might nominate a businessman as her running mate. At any rate, the problem again is that such a bland campaign that’s basically “Clinton’s the Unity Candidate Let’s be positive and not attack anyone :)” has no real narrative and thus excites nobody (except for maybe David Brooks and the residents of Fairfield County, CT), making it highly vulnerable to a polarizing candidate who nonetheless runs on a compelling ideology. Due to all the polls predicting victory, Thomas Dewey essentially took the strategy of speaking only in platitudes to avoid offending anyone even as Harry Truman ran a populist, give 'em Hell campaign and as a result Dewey got crushed by Truman despite a three-way split in the Democratic Party. Clinton must run as both ideologue and pragmatist just as FDR and Nixon did, if she wants to assure the victory of her campaign and not simply rely on demographics.
Without giving any reasons each time I brought it up.
Neither is TRUMP by that reasoning since in purely demographic terms a New York City billionaire isn’t exactly representative of the Republican electorate. However, Reagan and Bush 41 couldn’t have been nominated without the support of a majority of the Republican base suggesting they appealed to them much as TRUMP did to win this year.
The explanation I’ve heard is that teens in abstinence programs believe they’ll abstain and therefore don’t obtain contraception; indeed, planning for sex is seen as significantly worse than surrendering to passion, so they’ll actively reject contraception even if they suspect they’ll have sex.
Please don’t bother trying to justify your non sequitur by moving the goalposts. As a matter of fact, I gave an answer for why I liked 41. You should know how to do a search by now. Try Desert Storm. However, believe me, I feel not the slightest obligation to explain any further to you. Maybe sometime I will, but I guarantee it won’t be at your behest.
Give it up. You misread my post and thought you could score some points, and I slapped you down. Move along.
Most of it was spent claiming that I couldn’t have an opinion because I was born after his administration.
“I tell you Stalin was a great man who advanced the Proletarian Revolution and saved the Motherland in the Great Patriotic War! Why I was there with the Red Army at the liberation of Berlin…”
Yes because American/Coalition victory in Desert Storm was totally due to Bush 41’s Napoleonic genius and not due to the overwhelming military and technological superiority of the world’s last superpower and her allies against a Third World conscript army equipped with second-rate old Soviet equipment. :rolleyes::dubious:
Erhm no. Read your previous post. You were talking about how you weren’t surprised the Republican base voted for TRUMP.
You know the opinions of historians you read in books who often widely vary among themselves. I lived it. I really don’t care whether you believe it or not, but there’s a gulf of difference.
Please overstate some more your apparent contention that I attributed every facet of planning to Bush himself. However, in case you forgot, it was he who appointed them. Meanwhile Dubyah and his ‘handpicked’ cronies involved us needlessly in an extremely costly war with no endgame, for no good reason.
Last answer. I’m rapidly losing patience with wriggly responses. Even when I was a Republican, I was a moderate. I’ve never been in step with the religious right or any of their BS. Atheist, remember? That was also 25 years ago, longer than you’ve been alive. Beliefs can (horrors!) change in that time. Now go find somebody else to throw mud at. It ain’t sticking.
Yes and when historians disagree, the response should be to present the contrast evidence and weigh them. Instead you just “I lived through it, so take my word for it”. And of course, “people who live through” an event have disagreeing interpretations-go ask Michael Dukakis about Bush Sr.
And what I’m saying is that whatever Bush did including who he appointed had very little to do with American victory in Desert Storm as opposed to underlying structural factors that gave us overwhelming superiority in conventional warfare. Hell, the Iraq War of 2003 demonstrates this pretty well-we wiped the floor with Hussein’s army in a matter of weeks, it was the subsequent occupation that was the problem.
As I pointed out then, there was lots of continuity between Bush 41 and Bush 43 national security appointees.
Most obviously Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defence under Bush 41 and then Vice President under his son.
Secretary of State James Baker under Bush 41 continued to advise Bush 43 on Iraq War related matters.
Condolezza Rice who would go on to become National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State for George W. Bush, started out as Director of Soviet and Eastern European Affairs as well as Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
Leading Iraq War advocate Paul Wolfowitz served as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy under Bush 41.
Need I go on?
I never said anything about your beliefs. I said simply that the same Republican base that supported Trump also by and large supported Bush Sr. in 1988 and 1992.
I wouldn’t care if you simply were an ex-Republican since I was too. However, you continue to defend conservative Republican Presidents like George HW Bush.
Let’s be positive and not attack anyone :)” has no real narrative and thus excites nobody (except for maybe David Brooks and the residents of Fairfield County, CT), making it highly vulnerable to a polarizing candidate who nonetheless runs on a compelling ideology. Due to all the polls predicting victory, Thomas Dewey essentially took the strategy of speaking only in platitudes to avoid offending anyone even as Harry Truman ran a populist, give 'em Hell campaign and as a result Dewey got crushed by Truman despite a three-way split in the Democratic Party. Clinton must run as both ideologue and pragmatist just as FDR and Nixon did, if she wants to assure the victory of her campaign and not simply rely on demographics.