Sanders tops Clinton for the first time in new national poll!

[Anung Un Rama]

Not really, and not relevant.

yes really and yes relevant.
1. She supported and talked glowingly about the TPP while SoS 45 times.
2. She also supported the Iran Nuclear Deal while SoS.
3. If you're going to use "Hillary supported it as SoS" as your reason to pretend she isn't more likely to go to war with Iran than Donald Trump, it is 100% relevant.

 

[Jack V Savage]

hi theBLADE1,

the weird thing is, before campaign season began in earnest, one of the most popular WR topics was the endless posting of threads regarding the abusive actions of LEOs...

...yet the moment black Americans want to get in on this outrage, certain white posters in the WR are like, "oh no you don't!".

a very peculiar phenomenon.

Keeping scary minorities in line is what the cops are for, and they should have as much leeway as they need to get that job done. But when cops try to stop white people from doing whatever they want, we have a problem.

yes really and yes relevant.
1. She supported and talked glowingly about the TPP while SoS 45 times.

Er, was the deal complete when she "talked glowingly" about it? No, right? So that talking point that you keep repeating isn't honest. As SoS, the only reason for her to resign in protest would be if she had a principled stand against any international deal whatsoever (which, incidentally, would be an extremely hawkish position in reality). After it's done is the only time it is reasonable for someone involved in the process to form an opinion either way.

2. She also supported the Iran Nuclear Deal while SoS.
3. If you're going to use "Hillary supported it as SoS" as your reason to pretend she isn't more likely to go to war with Iran than Donald Trump, it is 100% relevant.

Clinton has voiced support for the Iran deal after it was completed.

 

[IGIT]

yes really and yes relevant.
1. She supported and talked glowingly about the TPP while SoS 45 times.
2. She also supported the Iran Nuclear Deal while SoS.
3. If you're going to use "Hillary supported it as SoS" as your reason to pretend she isn't more likely to go to war with Iran than Donald Trump, it is 100% relevant.

hiya AUR,

great post, but i wanted to add a comment on the bolded;

you and i agree that Mrs. Clinton flip flopped on the TPP - though we disagree on the merit of the TPP, but here's the point; Mrs. Clinton's sudden conversion on the TPP just shows how disingenuous she really is.

i have a hard time getting behind a candidate when she spends years promoting i policy i actually support, only to find her ditching said policy because she finds it politically convenient.

it speaks to her lack of conviction - and its troubling.

- IGIT

 

[theBLADE1]

hi theBLADE1,

the weird thing is, before campaign season began in earnest, one of the most popular WR topics was the endless posting of threads regarding the abusive actions of LEOs...

...yet the moment black Americans want to get in on this outrage, certain white posters in the WR are like, "oh no you don't!".

a very peculiar phenomenon.

- IGIT

I don't even understand how people could dispute it at this point. Even if you're white it's not hard to realize that it's going on when every other story in the news cycle involves some black teenager being unjustly shot down. Tamir Rice is by far the most heartbreaking story and it's an absolute fact that we live in a country where we let police officers get away with murder.

 

[Jack V Savage]

you and i agree that Mrs. Clinton flip flopped on the TPP - though we disagree on the merit of the TPP, but here's the point; Mrs. Clinton's sudden conversion on the TPP just shows how disingenuous she really is.

i have a hard time getting behind a candidate when she spends years promoting i policy i actually support, only to find her ditching said policy because she finds it politically convenient.

When a deal is in progress and you're part of the negotiations, if you don't like an aspect of it, what can do you? Starts with a "ch" and rhymes with "range" it. After it's done, you can decide if you like it or don't, right? This is not complicated. Let's not sink to Anung's level in this discussion.

 

[IGIT]

Keeping scary minorities in line is what the cops are for, and they should have as much leeway as they need to get that job done. But when cops try to stop white people from doing whatever they want, we have a problem.

hiya JVS,

yep, no doubt. its strange to me that other posters haven't noticed this weird inconsistency amongst WR posters on this issue.

- IGIT

 

[Jack V Savage]

hiya JVS,

yep, no doubt. its strange to me that other posters haven't noticed this weird inconsistency amongst WR posters on this issue.

- IGIT

It actually goes way back and manifests in other ways. The same people who say, "slavery wasn't really that bad," will also say that paying taxes is slavery (and they don't mean that it's not that bad).

 

[Anung Un Rama]

hi theBLADE1,

the weird thing is, before campaign season began in earnest, one of the most popular WR topics was the endless posting of threads regarding the abusive actions of LEOs...

...yet the moment black Americans want to get in on this outrage, certain white posters in the WR are like, "oh no you don't!".

a very peculiar phenomenon.

- IGIT

Hey IGIT,

Well said. I support BLM's message, but I can see how folks could get turned off by their methods and radical tangents. They seem chaotic and go way off message at times. I think this is a reflection of its lack of quality leadership. Its more organic like Occupy, who if you remember got a lot of support and then was opposed for the same reasons.

I also think we tend to forget that the purpose of a movement is recognition.
The Civil Rights movement made conditions better for blacks, but also perception improved amongst whites.
The Feminist movement improved conditions for woman, but also improved perception amongst men.
BLM isn't looking to take control, they're looking to make a dent in system geared against them.

Now, what may backfire on BLM is the way our leaders are being careless in their demagoguing of the police as opposed to our laws and legal system. There are bad cops (I love jumping on a bad cop thread ), but they are the minority and now their dangerous job is becoming a little more dangerous and the leaders of our country are silent.

Best,
AUR

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Neither Democratic candidate has much of a chance of getting anything major past Congress. I would vote for either of them to stop the Ryan budget, veto whatever crazy shit the GOP is trying (including more ACA repeals), continue to make progress on the environment, and not get us into any unnecessary wars.

I concur w/ this whole statement, and i'm technically a registered GOP member. I still have IRR time left, so unnecessary wars actually could effect me directly, i'm cool on that.

About the only negative way Obama's tenure has effected me, besides now having double health insurance due to being forced to enroll in Fed Healthcare despite already being covered by the VA, is that military and federal employees have gotten either no, or paltry raises...

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Er, was the deal complete when she "talked glowingly" about it? No, right? So that talking point that you keep repeating isn't honest. As SoS, the only reason for her to resign in protest would be if she had a principled stand against any international deal whatsoever (which, incidentally, would be an extremely hawkish position in reality). After it's done is the only time it is reasonable for someone involved in the process to form an opinion either way.

I think this is a huge stretch and I'm confident that a smart guy like you realizes that not only is it a huge stretch, but that we all see it as being a huge stretch. If TPP doesn't get passed on Obama's watch and Hillary is lucky enough to win the GE, you and I are going to hash out our bet regarding Hillary and TPP.

Clinton has voiced support for the Iran deal after it was completed.

Because her base supported it. If her base wasn't in favor of it, she would have flipped on it like Nadia Comaneci.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think this is a huge stretch and I'm confident that a smart guy like you realizes that not only is it a huge stretch, but that we all see it as being a huge stretch. If TPP doesn't get passed on Obama's watch and Hillary is lucky enough to win the GE, you and I are going to hash out our bet regarding Hillary and TPP.

It's not a stretch at all. Seriously, think about it. When she's SoS, the president is negotiating a huge international deal, you think she's going to say it sucks? If she thought it sucked, she'd push to change aspects of it until she liked it. When it's done, that is a different story. And you're defeating your own argument by saying that she didn't really turn on it.

I've said before that I think the reasons she gave for opposing the deal are weak, but despite the fact that the Obama administration came up with it, it seems that the party as a whole opposes it, and she's not going to fight that. That doesn't change when she's in office.

Because her base supported it. If her base wasn't in favor of it, she would have flipped on it like Nadia Comaneci.

I don't really agree with that (why wouldn't she just be a Republican, then?), but even if you're right, that illustrates an important point about all presidential elections. You're not electing a person as much as a coalition. That's why literally any Republican president is going to be more likely to go to war with Iran than any Democratic president would be. The bases just have very different ideas on it, and that does matter.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

just realized that i may in fact end up voting DEM, shit

my semiexaggerated hatred of the poor/social welfare that i espouse on here isn't enough to ignore the other good things the party tries, nor ignore the absurd non fiscally conservative views held by the GOP

 

[Quipling]

just realized that i may in fact end up voting DEM, shit

my semiexaggerated hatred of the poor/social welfare that i espouse on here isn't enough to ignore the other good things the party tries, nor ignore the absurd non fiscally conservative views held by the GOP

It's cool. Today I realized I'd signed up for a dinner event where parsnips are going to be part of the main course. I hate parsnips.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It's not a stretch at all. Seriously, think about it. When she's SoS, the president is negotiating a huge international deal, you think she's going to say it sucks? If she thought it sucked, she'd push to change aspects of it until she liked it. When it's done, that is a different story. And you're defeating your own argument by saying that she didn't really turn on it.

I've said before that I think the reasons she gave for opposing the deal are weak, but despite the fact that the Obama administration came up with it, it seems that the party as a whole opposes it, and she's not going to fight that. That doesn't change when she's in office.



I don't really agree with that (why wouldn't she just be a Republican, then?), but even if you're right, that illustrates an important point about all presidential elections. You're not electing a person as much as a coalition. That's why literally any Republican president is going to be more likely to go to war with Iran than any Democratic president would be. The bases just have very different ideas on it, and that does matter.

I thought about it plenty, it's a huge stretch.

and to hide behind Democrat versus Republican when her record show she's at neocon is disingenuous.

Her base is the left who still think the Democrats are antiwar and pro middle class. I think the shift in the polls show people waking up. Only hard-core Democrats like yourself are still rooting for them like it's The Super Bowl and not the future of our country

 

[threelions]

Hey IGIT,

Well said. I support BLM's message, but I can see how folks could get turned off by their methods and radical tangents. They seem chaotic and go way off message at times. I think this is a reflection of its lack of quality leadership. Its more organic like Occupy, who if you remember got a lot of support and then was opposed for the same reasons.

I also think we tend to forget that the purpose of a movement is recognition.
The Civil Rights movement made conditions better for blacks, but also perception improved amongst whites.
The Feminist movement improved conditions for woman, but also improved perception amongst men.
BLM isn't looking to take control, they're looking to make a dent in system geared against them.

Now, what may backfire on BLM is the way our leaders are being careless in their demagoguing of the police as opposed to our laws and legal system. There are bad cops (I love jumping on a bad cop thread ), but they are the minority and now their dangerous job is becoming a little more dangerous and the leaders of our country are silent.

Best,
AUR

The problem with BLM is they don't really have any cohesive message, plan or even demands it's hard to support a cause if it doesn't actually have a cause to support. They just cause a fuss and then boast about it on social media that's never really going to gain any support from the main stream. It doesn't help that they just let anyone protest and use the BLM name which results in a lot of racist propaganda coming out in their name even if they don't support it.

I mean it's not difficult to come up with just two or three demands they could push for.

1. Police training becomes the responsibility of the Federal Government.

2. Police training is much longer and includes a focus on how to de escalate a situation rather than the escalation that seems to happen in a lot of videos posted.

3. Stricter tests for becoming a police officer in the first place especially mental and emotional stability.

4. An independent police investigation panel like in most European countries that decide if the police should face prosecution. My understanding is that a lot of reasons police don't face charges is the prosecutors need the police on their side.

All of those seem pretty reasonable and I would think would get mainstream support.

EDIT - 5. You could also ask for the local police to reflect the ethnic make up of the community it polices but I'm not sure that would get as much support.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I thought about it plenty, it's a huge stretch.

How do you respond to the point? If you're the SoS, and the administration is negotiating a deal, would you say bad things about it publicly? Wouldn't you try to change aspects of it you don't like first?

and to hide behind Democrat versus Republican when her record show she's at neocon is disingenuous.

Her base is the left who still think the Democrats are antiwar and pro middle class. I think the shift in the polls show people waking up. Only hard-core Democrats like yourself are still rooting for them like it's The Super Bowl and not the future of our country

Oh, this is stupid. You have it completely backwards. I don't care about personalities--I want policy that I think is good for the country or at least I want to avoid policy that I think would be disastrously bad. Look at what happened in 2000, when a sleazy grandstanding politician convinced people that both parties were the same with the result being hugely regressive tax cuts, a major terrorist attack, and an unnecessary war. If you actually care about the future of our country and not rooting for people like it's the Super Bowl, you'd understand my point and vote accordingly (and that applies either way--if you genuinely think that climate change is a hoax, that taxation is immoral, that poor people just need more motivation to turn things around, etc.--you should vote for the Republican candidate in the general, even if you personally find him distasteful).

It comes down to whether you want a president who will try not to upset conservatives and will work with Republicans in Congress or one who will try not to upset liberals and will work with Democrats in Congress.

 

[speakhandsforme]

You're not the only one. McCain may have had some batshit crazy ideas, but I felt like he was a centrist and if there was a single candidate on the Republican side that even came close to McCain, he'd have my vote (Kasich is close). I honestly feel bad for McCain. He was so close to the nomination in 2000 but Bush went really dirty and it won over voters. IMO, the country (and the world) would have been better off with McCain in office in 2000.

The Democrats and left has alienated me, but the right is doing everything it can to do the same. Their economic policies are fucking flat earth levels of retardedness. At least Trump seems to have some basic understanding of the role of the Federal Reserve. And believe me, it's really hard to admit positive things about Trump.

The party of Ronald Reagan is no more, and America is worse off for it.

A) What has the left done to alienate you? If anything, the American left has naturally progressed from its place from 20 years ago.

B) I would argue that it is still very much the party of Ronald Reagan. His presidency is what greatly altered the trajectory of the party away from respectable conservatives like Nixon and Ford. He started the contradictory idea of a political philosophy of obsessing over small government as a way to validate nonsensical tea party economics while expanding the state to mobilize on the moral judgment of its citizenry and made headway for the neocons of Bush and Bush Jr

The party is unquestionably no longer the party of Eisenhower and Nixon, but I believe it is the natural extensino of a party rooted in Reagan.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

The problem with BLM is they don't really have any cohesive message, plan or even demands it's hard to support a cause if it doesn't actually have a cause to support. They just cause a fuss and then boast about it on social media that's never really going to gain any support from the main stream. It doesn't help that they just let anyone protest and use the BLM name which results in a lot of racist propaganda coming out in their name even if they don't support it.

I mean it's not difficult to come up with just two or three demands they could push for.

1. Police training becomes the responsibility of the Federal Government.

2. Police training is much longer and includes a focus on how to de escalate a situation rather than the escalation that seems to happen in a lot of videos posted.

3. Stricter tests for becoming a police officer in the first place especially mental and emotional stability.

4. An independent police investigation panel like in most European countries that decide if the police should face prosecution. My understanding is that a lot of reasons police don't face charges is the prosecutors need the police on their side.

All of those seem pretty reasonable and I would think would get mainstream support.

EDIT - 5. You could also ask for the local police to reflect the ethnic make up of the community it polices but I'm not sure that would get as much support.

I agree, they're a mess.
Even when they met with Clinton -- a HUGE opportunity -- they were all over the place.
I honestly think for them it might be so personal and visceral that they can't break it down to simple demands like this. That is where their lack of leadership/organization is most damaging. We just have to be careful not to lose the baby with the bathwater.
There are issues and reasons to protest and changes that still need to be made - drastic ones.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I agree, they're a mess.
Even when they met with Clinton -- a HUGE opportunity -- they were all over the place.
I honestly think for them it might be so personal and visceral that they can't break it down to simple demands like this. That is where their lack of leadership/organization is most damaging. We just have to be careful not to lose the baby with the bathwater.
There are issues and reasons to protest and changes that still need to be made - drastic ones.

They have some leadership (like McKesson, who I respect a lot), but anyone can call themselves a member so you have some bad apples, too.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

This is the thing that always gets me. People act like the president is a king and they are just going to walk into the white house and start doing whatever the fuck they want. Literally everything single thing that happens in our country is blamed on the president and everyone acts like the congress and senate had nothing to do with it.

I think people are slowly realizing that the legislative part is up to congress. Just a few months ago it was rarely brought up, now it's being discussed more openly.

BUT, Supreme Court appointments, cabinet appointments and foreign policy are all giant issues with tremendous consequences and the president has a strong role in all three.

Bernie would be VERY different from Hillary in these areas.