Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Nov 3, 2016.
guy with common sense. ....!
An entire thread for one guy's blog post?
I am still with her.
Hillary is awesome.
Yeah, she's cute too...
In all fairness, if there are two threads on Lena Dunham we can certainly open an infinite amount of threads on bloggers.
It's the most pathetic piece of self-involved wanking I've read in quite a while. Why does this paragon of conscience feel the need to rescind his endorsement of Hillary Clinton? It's not exactly clear, but here is the first sentence in the second paragraph:
I think the term for that is Guilt by Association. And how "vindictive" are these shadowy "Clintonians"? Do they show up at your house with baseball bats and spray cans? Do they order firebombings and murder contracts? Uh, no. They make posts on social media (like this) debunking the plethora of absurd conspiracy theories created by the Breitbart imbecile machine.
Then this self-involved cretin goes on to say:
Get over yourself, César.
Because you appear to have the intellectual consistency of a flea. To quote:
Yeah. Publicly rescind your endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Because we all know Donald Trump's lifetime commitment to caring about his fellow human beings.
I don't think he will necessarily not be voting for Clinton. He reccomended people do what they pleased included not vote or vote strategically. Endorse simply means to publically approve of.
I agree with a lot of what he's saying. I've been saying it all along voting for either of these clowns I believe reflects poorly upon me.
There is, of course, the sensible option: If you simply cannot bring yourself to say something positive about Hillary Clinton, try saying nothing. Keep stumm. No one will raise alarums at the absence of anyone's public endorsement.
I think at some point the Bernie Bros need to grow up and understand the concept of the transitive property. Because a slam on Hillary Clinton has the transitive effective of increasing Donald Trump's chances. And I think the Bernie Bros, en masse, need to take responsibility for that. Upset about the DNC's lukewarm feelings towards Senator Sanders? Get over it.
Why should they? Bernie's was an ideological and political movement, which embodied several feelings (99%, OccupyWallStreet, etc.). The DNC did not just treat Sanders in an awful manner, but it destroyed any possibility for the political, ideological movement in favor of what the movement explicitly opposed. It's a much bigger issue than a candidacy.
My daughter was a big Bernie fan. So was my brother. Neither of them love Clinton, but they both agree that she has the experience, the background, and the temperament for the job. Bernie, himself, has gotten behind Clinton. He's gotten over it.
Personally, I think she was really stupid about the email thing. But that's one issue. I'd need a page to compare that single issue to the stupid things Trump has done. I'm sticking with her.
Four years of a Clinton presidency:
Sanders isn't a Democrat. Why should the DNC do anything for him? Sanders is well aware his movement would have had zero traction without him running under the Dem umbrella.
Because impartiality is in the party's by-laws?
It's already been proven that Debbie Wasseman Schultz, who was supposed to be "impartial" in her role as DNC chairman, actively screwed Bernie over at every turn.
This election is basically asking the American people to make a choice between smallpox or anthrax.....
I know right?
And if the alternative candidate (i.e. Donald trump) did or said anything that represented in any meaningful way the redistributive and progressive elements of the Sanders campaign they might have a point.
But Trump doesn't. Trump represents everything that is the absolute polar opposite of what Sanders was talking about. Do you think Donald Trump is going to make college more affordable? Is Trump going to do anything about income inequality? Is he going to diminish the power of the big financial institutions?
If you are telling yourself he will, you obviously have not been paying attention.
The people involved in OccupyWallStreet and the 99% have only themselves to blame for the failure of their movements. Their failure laid bare the fundamental flaw inherent in decentralized "crowdsourced" political movements. The African-American Civil Rights movement ultimately prevailed because it was organized. Smart, dedicated people sat down in living rooms and offices and planned out a strategy. Who was going to do what, where, and when. And guess what: Sometimes people at those meetings said dumb things. They came up with ideas that were silly, or illegal.
Today, of course, if anyone in the Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton's campaign ever says, or e-mails, a bad idea - it's helpfully hacked by Russian spies. Which the useful idiots of OccupyWallStreet etc. seize upon as evidence of how unfair life is for them.
Wisen upon, Bernie Bros: If you want a seat at the table, support Hillary Clinton. Because if Donald Trump wins, there won't even be a table to sit at.
Three words: Libya. Egypt. Iraq (*).
Whatever Trump has done pales in comparison to that.
(*) on Iraq I recognize that hers was mainly a vote and not a direct involvement in the mess.
What exactly do you think she is personally responsible for here?
As secretary of state she pushed for the so-called "Arab Spring", all happy when Ghaddafi ended up at the cemetery. Now we have a much bigger issue than dictatorship in the entire region that is on the brink of collapse from Turkey to North Africa. Cherry on the cake? A much worse dictatorship in Libya as Morsi ain't Lincoln.
She was also all happy (together with EU leaders) about Turkey, not realizing that Erdogan is a dictator.
Why should he or or anyone else say nothing? Is it because you don't want others to read his opinion and maybe challenge their view?
His personal view of Clinton has changed since the WikiLeaks emails and continued investigations exposed her and those around her for who they are: conniving, untrustworthy, lying, disgraceful politicians and aids. The Clinton corruption is real and indefensible. The rewards should stop flowing to Hillary and Bill...as should the denials from their supporters.
So you're holding her personally responsible for pushing for something (she did not have authority) and sharing her opinion (her job), and being happy? Yea, ok.
Let me know when you find something she did herself. Not something she encouraged. Not something she voted for.
Oh my Lord. Yeah, let's not keep those politicians that served in government accountable of their choices. Let me find "something that she did herself. Not something she encouraged."
Honestly I don't know if you're naive, or just disrespecting my intelligence. Do you think that they spend countless hours fixing a single line of a speech just because it's fun? No. It's because whatever come out of the mouth of an official, especially at executive level, transforms in policy or bureaucracy (or both). A word from the secretary of state can change foreign policy on many, many levels. "Encouraging"/discouraging is quite a strong weapon in the hands of the principal diplomat of the United States.
Asking for a "personal act" like the signing of a document or her shooting Qaddafi is ridiculous at least. And I am being nice here.
Under President Roosevelt, the United States suffered the disaster at Pearl Harbor. The humiliation of defeat in the Philippines. The horror the Bataan Death March. The carnage of the failed Schweinfurt Raids. The crushing defeat at Kasserine Pass.
To a greater or lesser extent, President Roosevelt bears responsibility for these military disasters. Just as Abraham Lincoln bore responsibility for some of the disasters that beset the Union forces in the first years of the Civil War.
But do you really think that tossing out those Presidents, and replacing them with individuals with neither the policy, the experience, nor the character to successfully prosecute the wars would have been a good idea?
Bad things happen in the world. Bad things have happened since humans first started walking upright. But it seems only recently that people have decided to start blaming Hillary Clinton for pretty much everything.
Interesting. All of the above are tactical mistakes/tragedies that could've maybe prevented, done in the inevitable pursuit of winning the war that was already happening.
Libya/Egypt (and Iraq), and the support of Erdogan's "free trade" are strategic blunders that take a perfectly stable situation (albeit not the best situation) and cause a boatload of issues including the fact that we're on the brink of either a massive war or a series of wars of miscellaneous scale.
Libya, agreed, was a very poor decision, - as, for one thing, I very much doubt that Colonel Gaddafy was about to commit genocide, and what has replaced him is an awful lot worse by almost every metric of calculation - but I don't blame her for Egypt.
There were few who claimed to be progressive in all of the west who didn't support what they thought was the 'Arab Spring' and the ideals that they assumed had given rise to it.
On Iraq, frankly, to blame her for the culpable and egregious policy of the administration of Mr Bush is to miss the point completely.