Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 28, 2016 at 1:55 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: Clinton is pro-LGBTQ and women's' rights? Try telling that to the millions citizens of all the dictatorships she's taken money from. We have people who live in Saudi who are active on this very forum, don't you know. LGBTQ members no less. It's so funny when people try to claim loves other women or LGBTQ people.
If Hilary was consistent then she'd be calling on a boycott of Saudi. Trouble, she loves the millions. The defence industry loves all the arms deals with Saudi. They don't care how many schools or hospitals are bombed by Saudi, so long as Hilary can help seal the deal.
She obviously doesn't care about all of the women raped by Saudi princes or the women who are raped or taken as slaves by the terrorists who have been given weapons by the United States whilst she was in the State Department. Hilary only cares about Western women. She's a massive hypocrite.
The secret pages came out about 9/11 linking it to Saudi. Where is the outrage from Hilary? That's right, she doesn't care.
Name me one politician in the past 50 years that has not made deals with our enemies? China isn't pro gay, we buy oil from the Middle East, and don't hand me crap that Bush Jr and Reagan didn't do the same thing. Unfortunately our globe is just that, and we cant get off this rock away from our enemies, and we have to deal with them, even when we don't want to.
So unless you can find a way to ship them off to another planet or galaxy, or get us to another planet or galaxy, deal with the real world we live in. No, I don't like it when we deal with our enemies, but what is the alternative, WW3? If that happens the entire species will be knocked back to the stone age or worse, go extinct.
The ride ends for friend and foe alike and we can piss on our enemies and act as if genocide will fix everything, but that is absurd and deadly and no way for a western leader to be diplomatic. If you want to follow the hollow talk of demagoguery and saber rattling North Korea and Kim Jong Un would be a better fit. But even China doesn't like him. They put up with him because they don't want a refugee problem.
I can empathize with the "vote your consciousness" argument but in the USA, that is best saved for the primary elections. Speak your mind there. You can have a great effect there. Even if your candidate doesn't win, he/she can have a powerful effect in moving the conversation left or right. Bernie Sanders didn't win but he did successfully move the conversation left. Even if that doesn't show up in a Clinton administration (if she wins) it will certainly carry over to the next Democratic primary.
In the general election, the situation is different. There will only be two viable candidates under our system. One will probably closely approximate at least some of your views. The other is likely to be anathema to you. The only logical choice is to vote for the candidate which most closely approximates your views. Then, vote your conscience in the next primary of the party of your choice.
The Republicans failed to see the writing on the wall in 2012 when it took Mitt Romney nearly the entire primary season to put away an extremely weak field of candidates. They sure as fuck will take notice of the result of their lack of vision - a Trump nomination 4 years later. The Republican primary results will definitely drive change in the party. Bernie Sanders' showing in 2016 will definitely shape 2020.
If you fail to vote for one of the two VIABLE general election candidate who most closely aligns with your views, YOU ARE A GODDAMNED, FUCKING FOOL! While the President of the USA isn't King, he/she still has a substantial amount of power. SCOTUS appointments alone will drive policy for at least two decades. A Trump victory would set us back decades of social progress. Worse still, it would derail and reverse what little progress we have made on climate change.
Sanders supporters need to grow to fuck up! They have already advanced their cause by propelling Bernie to a far better showing than the establishment expected. The progress might not be as fast as they want but if their temper tantrum results in a Trump presidency, it will be a lot worse. We will be set backwards for many decades. They might get a "true liberal" in 2020 but he/she might be tasked with leading us out of a Mad Max world. Better to vote with your head and avoid that to begin with.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
(July 28, 2016 at 1:56 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: (My emphasis.) Fixed that for you, unless you have some evidence for thinking Hillary was in league with the party but Bernie was not.
Have you seen the email leaks from the DNC? Lots of DNC officials talking and plotting about how to sabotage the Sanders campaign, not so much (at all) for trying to make Clinton appear bad. Also, check up on how the burden of proof works. I'm not making a claim about Sanders, I'm making a claim about the DNC and Clinton, which I have evidence for. If you think Sanders was in league with the DNC, that is your claim, and it is up to you to provide the proof.
You haven't addressed my point. The fact that party officials were working to favor Clinton does not mean they were working in cooperation with Clinton. You haven't said anything to establish that she was involved in the planning or execution. So essentially you are just smearing her based on the fact that the shady dealing favored her.
My point was never that Sanders was behind it. Rather, I'm saying neither do I accept that Hillary was unless you have something more to offer.
July 29, 2016 at 3:04 am (This post was last modified: July 29, 2016 at 3:10 am by ReptilianPeon.)
(July 28, 2016 at 8:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote:
(July 28, 2016 at 1:55 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: Clinton is pro-LGBTQ and women's' rights? Try telling that to the millions citizens of all the dictatorships she's taken money from. We have people who live in Saudi who are active on this very forum, don't you know. LGBTQ members no less. It's so funny when people try to claim loves other women or LGBTQ people.
If Hilary was consistent then she'd be calling on a boycott of Saudi. Trouble, she loves the millions. The defence industry loves all the arms deals with Saudi. They don't care how many schools or hospitals are bombed by Saudi, so long as Hilary can help seal the deal.
She obviously doesn't care about all of the women raped by Saudi princes or the women who are raped or taken as slaves by the terrorists who have been given weapons by the United States whilst she was in the State Department. Hilary only cares about Western women. She's a massive hypocrite.
The secret pages came out about 9/11 linking it to Saudi. Where is the outrage from Hilary? That's right, she doesn't care.
Name me one politician in the past 50 years that has not made deals with our enemies? China isn't pro gay, we buy oil from the Middle East, and don't hand me crap that Bush Jr and Reagan didn't do the same thing. Unfortunately our globe is just that, and we cant get off this rock away from our enemies, and we have to deal with them, even when we don't want to.
So unless you can find a way to ship them off to another planet or galaxy, or get us to another planet or galaxy, deal with the real world we live in. No, I don't like it when we deal with our enemies, but what is the alternative, WW3? If that happens the entire species will be knocked back to the stone age or worse, go extinct.
The ride ends for friend and foe alike and we can piss on our enemies and act as if genocide will fix everything, but that is absurd and deadly and no way for a western leader to be diplomatic. If you want to follow the hollow talk of demagoguery and saber rattling North Korea and Kim Jong Un would be a better fit. But even China doesn't like him. They put up with him because they don't want a refugee problem.
"Name me one politician in the past 50 years that has not made deals with our enemies?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The mayor of my town is a politician and they don't fly around the world making deals with enemies.
The point is, somebody like Hilary (and Donald) is inconsistent. When it comes to Iran, DPRK, Cuba etc the United States will happily bemoan the lack of democracy and human rights. The United States is eager for reforms in those countries. Whilst Saudi beheads more people than any other country and there is no outrage. Flags are flown half mast for dead Saudi kings.
If you fly your flags half mast for dead Saudi kings, then why not fly the flags half mast for the death Kim Jong-Il too? Where is the consistency? I do not expect (but I do hope for) consistency from somebody like Obama or the Clintons.
The U.S. goverment has known Saudi did 9/11 for over a decade yet they remain friendly with them. Saudi is far more of a threat than Iran but there is no outrage. That makes Hilary a hypocrite. If she's concerned about Iran then she should certainly concerned about Saudi. It's no secret Saudi finances terrorists around the world.
Saudi manufactures enemies for the West to bomb. All those Sunni terrorists in Iraq and Syria get supported by Saudi. Saddam Hussein got the blame for the work of Saudi and I'm not hearing any apologies to the Iraqi people for turning their country into the stuff of nightmares.
(July 29, 2016 at 3:04 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote:
(July 28, 2016 at 8:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Name me one politician in the past 50 years that has not made deals with our enemies? China isn't pro gay, we buy oil from the Middle East, and don't hand me crap that Bush Jr and Reagan didn't do the same thing. Unfortunately our globe is just that, and we cant get off this rock away from our enemies, and we have to deal with them, even when we don't want to.
So unless you can find a way to ship them off to another planet or galaxy, or get us to another planet or galaxy, deal with the real world we live in. No, I don't like it when we deal with our enemies, but what is the alternative, WW3? If that happens the entire species will be knocked back to the stone age or worse, go extinct.
The ride ends for friend and foe alike and we can piss on our enemies and act as if genocide will fix everything, but that is absurd and deadly and no way for a western leader to be diplomatic. If you want to follow the hollow talk of demagoguery and saber rattling North Korea and Kim Jong Un would be a better fit. But even China doesn't like him. They put up with him because they don't want a refugee problem.
"Name me one politician in the past 50 years that has not made deals with our enemies?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The mayor of my town is a politician and they don't fly around the world making deals with enemies.
The point is, somebody like Hilary (and Donald) is inconsistent. When it comes to Iran, DPRK, Cuba etc the United States will happily bemoan the lack of democracy and human rights. The United States is eager for reforms in those countries. Whilst Saudi beheads more people than any other country and there is no outrage. Flags are flown half mast for dead Saudi kings.
If you fly your flags half mast for dead Saudi kings, then why not fly the flags half mast for the death Kim Jong-Il too? Where is the consistency? I do not expect (but I do hope for) consistency from somebody like Obama or the Clintons.
The U.S. goverment has known Saudi did 9/11 for over a decade yet they remain friendly with them. Saudi is far more of a threat than Iran but there is no outrage. That makes Hilary a hypocrite. If she's concerned about Iran then she should certainly concerned about Saudi. It's no secret Saudi finances terrorists around the world.
Saudi manufactures enemies for the West to bomb. All those Sunni terrorists in Iraq and Syria get supported by Saudi. Saddam Hussein got the blame for the work of Saudi and I'm not hearing any apologies to the Iraqi people for turning their country into the stuff of nightmares.
Really? No' most of global interaction is at the Congressional Presidential level. That is what I meant. I could give a shit less about one Mayor, that is one person in out of a much bigger sample rate in any case. It is completely delusional to say we can be total isolationists, and not only is that delusional it is stupid. I don't like dealing with our enemies, but the world is a globe and there is no more room for expansion and a 3rd world nuclear war is not an option.
Yea please lecture me on flags when Bush attacked Iraq when the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Your cherry picking because China is not a western open society so be consistent.
(July 29, 2016 at 1:16 am)AFTT47 Wrote: If you fail to vote for one of the two VIABLE general election candidate who most closely aligns with your views, YOU ARE A GODDAMNED, FUCKING FOOL!
Yes, if you don't perpetuate this two-party system that has screwed us over, you're an idiot! If you're not satisfied with always having to vote for the lesser of two evils, you're stupid!
Fuck me, this is why we can't have nice things. People have become so complacent to this corrupt system that they not only willingly continue it, they've convinced themselves it's the rational thing to do. Both parties can continue to put up shit candidates, because they can always count on the mindless drones lining up to vote for whoever they find the least repugnant. The reason we're always having to choose between the giant douche and the turd sandwich is because of the simple-minded thinking presented here, and this kind of stupidity is why we can't ever see any real change in this country. Neither side ever has to nominate someone that will actually benefit the people, because they can always count on the people convincing themselves that having legitimate standards is a bad thing.
But by all means, continue telling yourself that you're the smart one for allowing this shit-show to thrive.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
I can empathize with the "vote your consciousness" argument but in the USA, that is best saved for the primary elections. Speak your mind there. You can have a great effect there. Even if your candidate doesn't win, he/she can have a powerful effect in moving the conversation left or right. Bernie Sanders didn't win but he did successfully move the conversation left. Even if that doesn't show up in a Clinton administration (if she wins) it will certainly carry over to the next Democratic primary.
In the general election, the situation is different. There will only be two viable candidates under our system. One will probably closely approximate at least some of your views. The other is likely to be anathema to you. The only logical choice is to vote for the candidate which most closely approximates your views. Then, vote your conscience in the next primary of the party of your choice.
The Republicans failed to see the writing on the wall in 2012 when it took Mitt Romney nearly the entire primary season to put away an extremely weak field of candidates. They sure as fuck will take notice of the result of their lack of vision - a Trump nomination 4 years later. The Republican primary results will definitely drive change in the party. Bernie Sanders' showing in 2016 will definitely shape 2020.
If you fail to vote for one of the two VIABLE general election candidate who most closely aligns with your views, YOU ARE A GODDAMNED, FUCKING FOOL! While the President of the USA isn't King, he/she still has a substantial amount of power. SCOTUS appointments alone will drive policy for at least two decades. A Trump victory would set us back decades of social progress. Worse still, it would derail and reverse what little progress we have made on climate change.
Sanders supporters need to grow to fuck up! They have already advanced their cause by propelling Bernie to a far better showing than the establishment expected. The progress might not be as fast as they want but if their temper tantrum results in a Trump presidency, it will be a lot worse. We will be set backwards for many decades. They might get a "true liberal" in 2020 but he/she might be tasked with leading us out of a Mad Max world. Better to vote with your head and avoid that to begin with.
Tib is right in a overwhelming majority blue state in voting third party technically wont affect the general, but in this case this is still important to stick with Hillary for the reasons I said, swing states are critical, but Trump cannot simply be beating by a hair. This has to be a wide enough margin to send a message to the GOP the next time the better not nominate such an asshat. But if he loses by a hair, it will leave open that door for him to try again, or someone else to pull the same tactics, even if he loses. This time it has to be not only a swing state issue, but a nation wide message.
