Elections 2016 GOP/Democratic March 15th Primaries

[Anung Un Rama]

You guys are both being pretty disingenuous here.

Jack, don't root cause back to nader running, taking votes away from gore, and then saying iraq would have never happened if Nader didn't run. That consequence was totally not something we could see coming. You might have imagined the country worse off under bush, but not necessarily see that iraq war would have happened. Also, don't deny that obama has killed many innocent people under the drone actions. There may not be a better way, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened.

AUR, Jack is right, in the end hillary clinton's vote didn't make a difference either way. I can't imagine you would be voting for her now even if she didn't vote that way. Also, if thats the case, would you not vote for any candidate that runs because they made the mistake in voting for the war? On Obama, I too would have liked to see a ramp down, but I will say drone attacks are better than boots on the ground.

I'm not really being disingenuous.
Jack is framing my support of Ron Paul around Paul's economic policies, which is false and something that I have cleared up dozens of time. Not only that, he's portraying my support of Paul's economic policies as sociopathic because he says Ron Paul's policies would effect real people.

I'm arguing that throwing your support behind candidates who supported an unjust war that has killed a million innocent people, and an expanded program with has killed thousands more (the #1 reason I supported Paul over Obama, and do not support Hillary) is far more egregious and actually had real effects on real people. In fact those policies had the most profound effect on real people possible.

So the dance we're seeing is Jack avoiding admitting the truth here. Once he does that we can delve deeper, but it's important to get that baseline, especially when dealing with a chronic spinner like Jack.

And Hillary did have a real effect. She could have been a spokesperson for integrity like Paul and Sanders, but chose to cast a vote, whether for her neocon values or political opportunism, for death and chaos - and continued to do so as SoS. Furthermore, her vote is infinititely more relevant than Paul's proposed economic policy. On top of that, I'm arguing with a guy who blames Ralph Naser for the Iraq War, while exonerating Hillary Clinton.

Edit: I'm not a pacifist, so I can't say that j wouldn't vote for any candidate that voted for war. It would depend on the reasons, and it would depend on the candidates pattern. Was it a one off error in judgement or was it a one error in a long line of errors made along similar lines? For example, Sanders' FP is even a little to the right of me, he isn't against drone strikes. I'm not sure if that is bluster or flawed thinking, but I know it doesn't jive with his history re: the War on Terror and that there is no perfect candidate.

Fewer threads would be derailed if you guys spoke up sooner when Jack starts talking bullshit, and your impact would be more profound if you didn't try so hard to avoid incurring Jack's wrath.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Nah, you're wrong.
And the reason he continues to rise in popularity and has a following that is pulling in more dems and independents to the R tickets than any canidate since Reagan is... Lots of people are done buying bullshit like the kind you're selling.

Case closed.

It's okay if you wanna keep thinking that he a racist because no like Islam terrorist, and he a bigot because he no like border jumper immigrant.... and Lord knows there will be no shortage of corporate media to keep beating that derp drum with you , but the facts are to the contrary , and the voters disagree.

Lol @ "pulling in more dems and independents than Reagan"

He can't even pull in other conservatives! Both voters and politicians are jumping ship and pledging to stay home or vote 3rd party if he gets nominated.

But this is actually the sort of reasoning that he thrives off of: complete ignorance, if not outright contempt, for facts and reason. I don't give a shit what reality says, I want things to be this way, therefore that's the way they are, "case close."

Enjoy obscurity.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You missed it?

OK. I asked whether you think the Iraq War would have happened even if Clinton voted against it, and if you think it would have happened if Nader hadn't thrown the election to Bush.

And then I asked what better alternative you think Obama has had.

Looking forward to you not ducking and pretending not to have seen the questions!

Holy shit, is this real? Where did you acknowledge the thousands of deaths caused by Obama's expanded war on terror/ drone program?

Either acknowledge it now, for the first time that I'll have seen, or quote your post where you did, because I really didn't see it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not really being disingenuous.
Jack is framing my support of Ron Paul around Paul's economic policies, which is false and something that I have cleared up dozens of time. Not only that, he's portraying my support of Paul's economic policies as sociopathic because he says Ron Paul's policies would effect real people.

You're lying. You appear to be a sociopath because you lie constantly with no sense of shame or remorse, and you don't seem to care about the effects of policy on real people. Look at how in this thread, you simply refuse to answer a couple of simple questions.

I'm arguing that throwing your support behind candidates who supported an unjust war that has killed a million innocent people, and an expanded program with has killed thousands more (the #1 reason I supported Paul over Obama, and do not support Hillary) is far more egregious and actually had real effects on real people. In fact those policies had the most profound effect on real people possible.

What effect do you think that Clinton's vote to authorize military action in Iraq has had on real people? Is it your view that the war would not have happened if not for her vote? Do you think it would have happened if not for Nader's run?

While you're at it, can you say what policy you would propose to replace whatever it is you think Obama is doing?

So the dance we're seeing is Jack avoiding admitting the truth here. Once he does that we can delve deeper, but it's important to get that baseline, especially when dealing with a chronic spinner like Jack.

The dance is that after I answered your stupid questions, I asked you politely to answer mine, but you don't like the answers so you're ducking. It's pretty hilarious, actually, and totally exposes you.

And Hillary did have a real effect. She could have been a spokesperson for integrity like Paul and Sanders, but chose to cast a vote, whether for her neocon values or political opportunism, for death and chaos - and continued to do so as SoS.

So is that a "no," you don't think there would have been a war in Iraq if not for Clinton's vote? Can you clarify here?

Fewer threads would be derailed if you guys spoke up sooner when Jack starts talking bullshit, and your impact would be more profound if you didn't try so hard to avoid incurring Jack's wrath.

No threads would be derailed if you just acted like a decent human being. Just pretend you have a soul. If you have a disagreement, try presenting it without lying about what you're disagreeing with. Can you do that?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

So dramatic.

Anyhow the thousands of innocents killed by Obama....I'm still waiting.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

So I guess it's too hard for you to override your prime directive and admit Obama killed thousands of innocents people with his expanded War on Terror/ Dronestrikes. Not sure if telling or validating.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Uhhhh so you want Trump to implement his whole platform? Or do you think he's lying about certain things just to pander to get votes and his rhetoric actually isn't dangerous? Because that makes him no different than Hillary, except lying and pandering via hate rather than acceptance.

I don't believe his rhetoric is any more dangerous than the status quo.

Hillary's rhetoric has strings and puppet masters attached to it.

Trump's does not.

 

[VivaRevolution]

What good is it to get away from establishment if the other candidate could set the country back fifty years? I dislike life politicians, but I'm not going to bury the country just to be petty.

What good is it to maintain the status quo, when the middle class, rule of law, and legitimacy of the system is being eroded.

Voting for Hillary Clinton, is voting for a rallying cry for Republicans, to keep their party intact as it exists today.

A loss for the Republicans is just that, another failed election.

A win for Donald Trump is a whole sale rejection of the Republican party, McConnell, Cruz, Bush, Rove, Krystal, and everyone else.

Lastly, it isn't to be petty. Your are setting a precedent with the DNC if you vote for Clinton. You are telling them they can shove a candidate down your throat, and you will just fall in line.

 

[Execute]

What good is it to maintain the status quo, when the middle class, rule of law, and legitimacy of the system is being eroded.

Voting for Hillary Clinton, is voting for a rallying cry for Republicans, to keep their party intact as it exists today.

A loss for the Republicans is just that, another failed election.

A win for Donald Trump is a whole sale rejection of the Republican party, McConnell, Cruz, Bush, Rove, Krystal, and everyone else.

Lastly, it isn't to be petty. Your are setting a precedent with the DNC if you vote for Clinton. You are telling them they can shove a candidate down your throat, and you will just fall in line.

I can play that game. A vote for Trump tells the politicians you care more about crazy rhetoric, you have zero interest in legit policy discussion, and you hate freedom of speech.

I'd rather "fall in line" and swallow my ego than pick one arbitrary attribute (establishment) to completely disqualify candidates.

You're really naive if you think Bernie and Trump are going to tear down a two party system.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I can play that game. A vote for Trump tells the politicians you care more about crazy rhetoric, you have zero interest in legit policy discussion, and you hate freedom of speech.

I'd rather "fall in line" and swallow my ego than pick one arbitrary attribute (establishment) to completely disqualify candidates.

You're really naive if you think Bernie and Trump are going to tear down a two party system.

You really are naïve if you think one person is going to fix any of this, and not that it will take a domino effect, to actually change anything that matters.

Trump throws the Republican party into chaos.

Who is it you are rewarding for bad behavior by voting for Trump?

If your answer is Trump, my response is that Trump has no real power. The DNC has real power. Setting bad precedent with the DNC has consequences that will ring for decades to come.

 

[VivaRevolution]

That would be covered by the, "change from outside the political establishment" part.
I think healthcare was the bigger issue in the 2008 election, but Obama's record of delivery on his promises isn't that bad.
Of course if you're mostly focused on anti-interventionism and action on climate change, Obama's done a lot worse.
The idea of "rolling the dice" on a vague, flip flopping Trump, considering what Trump's actually been saying, sounds a lot like, "establishment politics is so bad, it couldn't possibly change for the worse".
An incredibly foolish assumption.

You misunderstand me. It isn't that things couldn't get worse, it is that it would be a good thing if things did get worse. It would be a good thing if things get better. What is the bad thing, is our system locked into this stale mate, where nothing that matters changes.

 

[Ruprecht]

You misunderstand me. It isn't that things couldn't get worse, it is that it would be a good thing if things did get worse. It would be a good thing if things get better. What is the bad thing, is our system locked into this stale mate, where nothing that matters changes.

How is change for the worse better than not changing? Why would the change for the worse eventually lead to some form of improvement, rather than things continuing to get worse, or a return to an even more rigid status quo?
There's no benefit to political chaos if it doesn't lead anywhere positive. Just the opposite.

 

[VivaRevolution]

How is change for the worse better than not changing? Why would the change for the worse eventually lead to some form of improvement, rather than things continuing to get worse, or a return to an even more rigid status quo?
There's no benefit to political chaos if it doesn't lead anywhere positive. Just the opposite.

See if change for the worse is accompanied by an increase in likelihood of opportunity for a change for the better, then it is the smart play.

Ever heard the phrase crisis precipitates opportunity?

 

[Ruprecht]

See if change for the worse is accompanied by an increase in likelihood in opportunity for a change for the better, then it is the smart play.
Ever heard the phrase crisis precipitates opportunity?

Sure, but that's just hand waving. What specifically about Trump making things worse would lead to an opportunity for improvement?
Is a Trump win likely to reform the Republican party in ways which are better than the reform prompted by12 years of Democratic government? Are you counting on Trump being such a spectacular failure that the entire political process is revised?
I can't see any reason why things getting worse, wouldn't simply be things getting worse.

It's a bit like the idea that things will inevitably improve because Saddam was ousted, or Assad is toppled. Do/did you support regime change in Iraq and Syria as solutions?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Sure, but that's just hand waving. What specifically about Trump making things worse would lead to an opportunity for improvement?
Is a Trump win likely to reform the Republican party in ways which are better than the reform prompted by12 years of Democratic government? Are you counting on Trump being such a spectacular failure that the entire political process is revised?
I can't see any reason why things getting worse, wouldn't simply be things getting worse.

Trump being elected shatters the status quo of the Republican party.

One of the main problems in our system, is party line politics, and the RNC/DNC controlling strings to re-election for candidates based on whether they toe the party line.

Trump shatters many sacred cows of Republican party line positions.

Trump will simply by being elected, shatter the stale mate in our political system.

 

[ucunc156]

Trump being elected shatters the status quo of the Republican party.

One of the main problems in our system, is party line politics, and the RNC/DNC controlling strings to re-election for candidates based on whether they toe the party line.

Trump shatters many sacred cows of Republican party line positions.

Trump will simply by being elected, shatter the stale mate in our political system.

I like how you conveniently left out this part:

It's a bit like the idea that things will inevitably improve because Saddam was ousted, or Assad is toppled. Do/did you support regime change in Iraq and Syria as solutions?

And FYI, republicans winning with Trump will just prove that nativism and racism can be more overt for them to win enough support. Are you stupid enough to think most republicans actually don't believe in climate change? Or that they deny it for the sake of their voter base and donors? Both parties will cater to their voter bases and donors to win elections and trump winning the nomination will show republicans that nativism and racism is a viable party platform. That is far more dangerous than the status quo.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I like how you conveniently left out this part:


And FYI, republicans winning with Trump will just prove that nativism and racism can be more overt for them to win enough support. Are you stupid enough to think most republicans actually don't believe in climate change? Or that they deny it for the sake of their voter base and donors? Both parties will cater to their voter bases and donors to win elections and trump winning the nomination will show republicans that nativism and racism is a viable party platform. That is far more dangerous than the status quo.

This is the point, if Trump can defeat the party politics, donor class, and organization of the RNC and DNC, it will prove their model is failed, which will naturally call for the destruction of said organizations.

Removing Saddam, was successful. It was the nation building we struggle at. No one is calling to rebuild the whole of our government, just to destroy the very sick and dysfunctional RNC/DNC.