@snood,
Quote:It doesn't matter as far as you're concerned hawkeye, because if we talked about it here, you'd show up and **** up the discussion.
I see, a different opinion or proof of something you disagree with has no place in your fascist world. Your unwillingness to accept the facts about certain things distort your view of everything, and you intend to impose it on others. Not nice.
@gekko,
gekko wrote:
Quote:It doesn't matter as far as you're concerned hawkeye, because if we talked about it here, you'd show up and **** up the discussion.
I see, a different opinion or proof of something you disagree with has no place in your fascist world. Your unwillingness to accept the facts about certain things distort your view of everything, and you intend to impose it on others. Not nice.
It has nothing to do with simple disagreement or anything else that commonly happens when adults discuss and debate, hawkeye. It has to do with the fact that you are a puerile feckless smudge who thrives on flaming threads and stirring up witless conflicts. You **** up every discussion to which you bring your stench. Now eat my ignore.
@snood,
Quote:It has nothing to do with simple disagreement or anything else that commonly happens when adults discuss and debate, hawkeye. It has to do with the fact that you are a puerile feckless smudge who thrives on flaming threads and stirring up witless conflicts. You **** up every discussion to which you bring your stench. Now eat my ignore.
Since gekko is not me your argument falls apart. Seriously, you are so clueless as to think that I would play those kind of games? When have I not been willing to say exactly what is on my mind? So why would I have use to drive another avatar? And I am all about the combat of ideas, playing those kinds of games would be a huge diversion, and a waste of my time. And the language styles are different. I have 35,000 posts on A2k, my language use patterns are a known quantity. And I could probably come up with a half dozen onther ways that we can know that you are full of ****, but I have all my kids home.
@snood,
snood wrote:
My opinion is that the American way of national election is bloated with a hundred corrupt concerns (mostly related to trying to milk the process from nose to tail for every media or corporate penny) that have nothing to do with the Democratic selection of people's choice for best leader.
There is some truth here, but I believe you are imagining it exists only among those people whose choices are different from yours.
Certainly the media, both left and right, are influenced by the profit motive and the desire to cultivate a reliable audience for their oferings. There are, after all certain fairly reliable differences in the central tendencies in the offerings of (say) Fox News and MSNBC, just as there are between those of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Is one altogether correct and the other equally wrong? I don't think so.
Corporations, Labor Unions, academic establishments, non profit organizations all try to influence the actions of a government that is becoming increasigly intrusive into their and our lives. The greater the reach and impact of government actions the greater the effect it has on everyone involved and the more important is actiuon to protect one's own interests. I believe that fairly obvious effect explains most of what you appear to be worried about. I also suspect that when you refer to the noise and cacophany of our continuing political discxorse and campaigning you are referring mostly to the actions of those whose expressed views are different from your own, as opposed to the "ever reasonable" expressions of Bernie Sanders, Hillary, etc.
When one considers the political turmoil across the world there is no consistent difference between Presidential and parliamentary systems of government in terms of the orderlyness and decorum attendant to their political proicesses. Russia, like us has a presidential system and election campaigns that are a model of order, compared to ours. What does that rell you? Both Canada and Greece have Parliamentary systems and yet there are vast differences in the character and efficacy of their governments and political processes. The action is in the unresolved issues, not the process.
I think what you really want is the suppression of those whose views are different from your own. Your fairly stupid insulting remarks to Hawkeye and others are good iullustrations. You exhibit far less tolerance of others than you appear to demand for yourself.
@gekko,
OMG, that is great for Trump!
Democrats dont like people who will not say what the D's want them to say. On the important matters they are almost completely intolerant, their vaunted tolerance is largely confined to the petty.
@georgeob1,
Quote:I think what you really want is the suppression of those whose views are different from your own. Your fairly stupid insulting remarks to Hawkeye and others are good iullustrations. You exhibit far less tolerance of others than you appear to demand for yourself.
I already said fascists, didn't I?
Quote:When asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday about Trump's status as the Republican front-runner, Clinton said Trump's appeal was rooted in his long stint as a reality-television star.
"I don't know, because he's a reality-TV star," Clinton said. "I mean, tens of millions of people have watched him for more than a decade on TV, and he is part of the celebrity culture and he will say whatever he wants to say."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-stephanopoulos-asked-hillary-clinton-172448246.html
Of course she does not have a clue, she is politically incompetent. And the fact that she does not understand the rise of Trump means that she is not the person we need in the POTUS chair right now.
@hawkeye10,
Quote:On the other hand, there is a good strategic reason not to vote for Hillary, and it boils down to this: If progressives fall in line, it shows the DNC and the party’s structural elite that they can have our loyalty for nothing. It sets a terrible precedent for the future. To steal a crass expression, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Rowing in behind Clinton only justifies the establishment logic — “just feed the lefties a few scraps in the primary, wax poetic about the Republican bogeyman in the general, and they’ll shut up.” Progressives would be giving something quite important — their votes — for a party that hides behind fear-based arguments to maintain intimate ties with Wall Street while ignoring its supposed base.
But consider this: What if we didn’t vote, and Hillary lost as a result? Like it or not, that makes a profound statement. It would likely force the Democratic party to move left on economic issues and, fearing another schism, throw its weight behind a far more progressive candidate in 2020. Bernie Sanders himself says that we need a political revolution to enact real change, and if progressives plan to build a lasting movement in America, it has to start with making our voices heard on a national scale. Sending a message to the party that we won’t be placated by politicians who stand in the regressive center is one hell of an opening salvo.
If progressives like myself still believed that the party could right the ship of state without our intervention, perhaps this would be a very different discussion. But that’s not happening — since Bill Clinton, Democrats in Washington have slipped to the right one heartbreaking concession at a time, and the voters are the only ones who can stop that inertia. If we want the party to move left, we have to turn the ponderous ship around and drag it there ourselves.
There’s an analogy here to the far-right conservative movement, which has become so influential in the Republican party that establishment candidates are finding no traction in their own circus of a primary contest. Unlike progressives, the conservative far right has realized the extent of its power — they had a certain psychological advantage in the early days, propelled as they were by religious fervor — and for Sanders supporters to do the same, it’s imperative that we don’t capitulate to the Democratic party’s big money wing. If we do, we’ll never be taken seriously
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/06/just_let_the_republicans_win_maybe_things_need_to_get_really_bad_before_america_wakes_up/
Pretty much that is the same argument for voting for Trump regardless of what he says, regardless of his chances of betting Hillary. We need to give the Elite a tune-up before we can get busy Making America Great Again, so lets get on with it.
"SUPREME COURT! SUPREME COURT! SUPREME COURT! SUPREME COURT! SUPREME COURT!" is no longer a good reason to delay, first because the court is already fucked up, and because we delayed a long time already partly based upon that argument and Washington has responded by getting even more corrupt. Kicking the can down the road is no longer a reasonable rational strategy, we need to bite the bullet and get busy making changes. It will hurt.
VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT A REPUBLICAN NEXT NOVEMBER!
From another site, but great questions never the less:
Let’s leave the personal attacks at the door this time, hm? I’m going to offer a list of actions that, in my opinion, disqualify anyone taking them from seeking — let alone gaining — the Presidency of the United States of America, the most powerful elected office in the world. In the comments, I would like you to explain either a) how Hillary Clinton has not taken them; and/or b) how those actions don’t disqualify her from the office. In no particular order:
1) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, cast as one of her first votes in the Senate a vote in favour of bankruptcy “reform” that the credit card companies had spent many millions lobbying for, and which made it vastly harder to re-start one’s life after bankruptcy?
2) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, cast a vote in support of invading another sovereign nation (Iraq) without even reading the National Intelligence Estimates that cast significant doubt on the Administration’s casus belli?
3) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, push (within the Obama Administration) for more military intervention in Libya and in Syria during her time as Secretary of State?
4) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, give multiple speeches immediately after leaving her Cabinet Post, to Wall Street audiences and paid for by Goldman Sachs, at which her message was that bankers were being unfairly treated in the wake of the 2008 meltdown?
5) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, vote for both the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and its reauthorisation in 2005 while in the Senate?
6) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, repeatedly and explicitly support Israel’s de facto apartheid policies against Palestinians while still a Senator?
7) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, speak in favour of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on no fewer than 45 occasions?
7b) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, refuse to lobby Congress to block the TPP after belatedly opposing it?
8) Has Hillary Clinton, or has she not, claimed to be both a progressive and a moderate in rapid succession?
9) Does Hillary Clinton, or does she not, support the use of the death penalty to this day, despite the many and obvious flaws in the US justice system?
10) Has Hillary Clinton, or has she not, spoken against lifting the cap on income taxable by FICA, calling it “a tax increase on the middle class” despite the cap already being at $117,000 p.a. income?
These are not alleging criminal actions on Clinton’s part, nor slamming her for things she did before entering politics. They are not actions that Hillary Clinton took while subordinate to another person. These are statements of what Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton has done, herself, that have made the world worse or indicated a desire to make the world worse, or that speak to a lack of character on her part.
If you are intending to rebut these criticisms, please respect my diary’s guideline and limit your rebuttals to an explanation of either
a) How these actions and words are not/were not Hillary Clinton’s doing and/or responsibility; or
b) How these actions are not, singularly or in toto, disqualifications for the support of progressives for the most powerful elected office on Earth.
@bobsal u1553115,
No, they aren't great questions. They are misleading or begging the question or based on factually incorrect statements.
1. Voting for bankruptcy reform doesn't disqualify anyone for President. I am curious how a bill passed in 2005 was one of Hillary's first votes in Congress when she took office in 2001.
2. Misrepresents the NIE created by the administration. Here are opinions of several on that NIE and how it was flawed and created to push us into war.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/nie.html
3. If true it doesn't disqualify her for the Presidency. (At this point I question the accuracy of what any question is based on since the first 2 were so wrong.)
4. Giving speeches doesn't disqualify her for President. The content of those speeches is not in evidence.
5. Voting for the Patriot Act doesn't disqualify her for the Presidency.
7. Really? She spoke 45 times so that is reason she can't be President?
Nothing listed disqualifies her for the Presidency. All I see is someone with an ax to grind trying to find reasons but not presenting many facts.
@Frank Apisa,
I agree the stakes are just too high. I sure wouldn't want a panel of Justice Scalia's determining the laws of our country.
Justice Scalia Under Fire For Comments About Black Students
the Hillary hate is not rational, especially considering the stakes.
