|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Satie
|
- #261
- Posted: 02/03/2016 21:47
- Post subject:
|
|
I guess "being a mean dad with shitty jokes" counts for charisma in an age where people don't communicate in person often enough to know what such a thing as charisma and charm would look like.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Lowkey
Gender: Male
Age: 26
|
- #262
- Posted: 02/03/2016 22:29
- Post subject:
|
@Rocky, Satie, Mecca, anyone wondering what I think about what Rocky posted
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0Np27IQNhkA
I was driving whilst reading your post and I'm better at talking than typing, so here you go
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
meccalecca
Voice of Reason
Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
- #263
- Posted: 02/04/2016 01:11
- Post subject:
|
| Lowkey wrote: | @Rocky, Satie, Mecca, anyone wondering what I think about what Rocky posted
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0Np27IQNhkA
I was driving whilst reading your post and I'm better at talking than typing, so here you go |
Thanks Lowkey. It actually seems as though you don't agree with Cruz's views all that strongly. One of the ones that you did was the death penalty. Have you watched "Making A Murderer"? A lot of people's biggest problem with the death penalty is that the justice system fails from time to time and people are wrongly convicted just as Steven Avery was wrongly convicted of murder. It's scary to think not only could you be sent to jail for a crime you didn't commit but you could even be put to death for that crime. I've also heard that it actually costs more but i'm not sure of any numbers.
In regards to the concepts of ambition and self-control. Ambition is very easily stunted by a poor education system and enormous wealth gap. Those who grow up poor are less likely to jump to higher class and succeed because there are a multitude of factors in the way.
As for self-control and personal responsibility in regards to abortion. Let me remind you that Ted Cruz wants to outlaw abortion in all cases and shut down Planned Parenthood entirely. So this includes cases of rape in which the woman has zero control. Planned Parenthood also provides a lot of important services for women way beyond abortion. So defunding would leave a lot of women without these important services especially in poorer neighborhoods.
I think what many don't really think about in regards to social welfare, medicaid, etc is that these things are in place for many more reasons beyond giving poor and disabled people free stuff. By giving poor people healthcare, you enable them to see doctors before ailments turn critical. This ultimately saves the taxpayers money because early preventive treatment costs significantly less than ER/surgery/etc. It also keeps them from dying with their only crime being that they lacked wealth. From a moral standpoint, it's hard not to feel obligated, even if there are handfuls of people who game the system. Similarly, some parents are total deadbeats living off welfare with no intention of ever getting a job. But they have kids. So do you pull welfare and let the kids suffer for their parents faults.
I've heard a decent amount of criticism in regards to Bernie Sanders not being pragmatic, that he's too idealistic. Progress is formed on idealism. Settling and accepting things as is lacks the ambition that you spoke of. Idealism and ambition go hand in hand.
From what you've said, if appears that for the most part you're pretty centrist, believing that there is a grey area between the two extreme positions. Meanwhile Cruz is about as extreme to one end as possible. His views are extreme, all or nothing, stances which tend to disregard any notion of nuance.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash
Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts
|
- #264
- Posted: 02/20/2016 21:51
- Post subject:
|
Clinton's currently leading 52-48 in Nevada with 45% of precincts reporting. Apparently some of her strongest precincts have yet to report, so it's looking good for her. She also has a wide polling lead in South Carolina. If she wins these two, she'll have won 3 out of the first 4 states. What do you all think? Does Sanders have any shot at the nomination, or is Clinton sure to be the nominee? I lean toward the latter position.
_________________
Add me on RYM
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash
Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts
|
- #265
- Posted: 02/20/2016 21:52
- Post subject:
|
(Full disclosure: I'll be casting my first vote in a presidential primary very soon, and it's going to be for Clinton.)
_________________
Add me on RYM
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland
Moderator
|
- #266
- Posted: 02/21/2016 19:22
- Post subject:
|
| baystateoftheart wrote: | | (Full disclosure: I'll be casting my first vote in a presidential primary very soon, and it's going to be for Clinton.) |
Out of curiosity, why? What do you like about her?
_________________
2023 Chart
Early Psychedelic Rock
Electronic Chart
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Hayden
Location: CDMX
|
- #267
- Posted: 02/21/2016 19:27
- Post subject:
|
Being a Canadian, my opinion doesn't truly matter, but I feel like I need to point out that if Trump wins, Canada will be fucked. If he gets rid of NAFTA, it could lead to another great depression here.
So please don't vote for him 
I can't think of a single reason why people aren't voting for Sanders against Clinton... how is he being portraying in American media? 
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Satie
|
- #268
- Posted: 02/21/2016 19:40
- Post subject:
|
| Hayden wrote: | | I can't think of a single reason why people aren't voting for Sanders against Clinton... how is he being portraying in American media? |
He's just seen as an unrealistic choice for the most part. Many doubt his economic policies are feasible. There's also been this very strong campaign by the Clinton camp and their supporters to play up the inherent progress of a female President and to set up a lot of PR opportunities for Clinton to show goodwill towards the major social justice groups of the day. Sanders can't really keep up with the manipulation of mainstream identity politics that Clinton so expertly exploits with the help of professional white female journalists, who likely see in her a surrogate for their own struggle in white collar male-dominated spaces. Clinton also benefits a lot from the fact that Americans have historical amnesia to the point of barely being able to recall the political goings-on of a year ago, much less almost twenty when she was campaigning viciously to distance the Democratic Party from working-class and minority interests in favor of currying the favor of the white middle class that had kept the Republicans in solid power for decades. Sanders supporters don't do much to help the problem, as the most vocal ones are quite possibly the most obnoxious, moralizing, condescending dudebros I've ever encountered. It's probably tangential to the primary season as it stands, but I think it's worth pointing out that Sanders is really banking on the mobilization of the youth vote, and his supporters' presence on at least my college campus and many others (so I hear) is so toxic that many of the youth voters I know who should be being mobilized to help him out are getting very cynical about his campaign and sitting out.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash
Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts
|
- #269
- Posted: 02/21/2016 20:14
- Post subject:
|
| RockyRaccoon wrote: | | Out of curiosity, why? What do you like about her? |
Honestly, I believe the difference between Clinton and Sanders is extremely small when it comes to actual voting records and policy positions. It's mostly a difference in rhetoric and political philosophy, which won't mean a heck of a lot in their practical execution of duties. Based on DW-nominate scores, a useful measure of ideology (albeit imperfect), Clinton's voting record is more liberal than Obama's or Biden's were. Back before "sniper fire in Bosnia"-gate, I supported her for months in 2008 because her policy proposals, from healthcare to energy policy to education, were much more in line with progressive values than Obama's were. Similar to now, it was a difference of style more so than a difference of substance. And since 2008, she's had a fairly strong record at the State Department of promoting equitable development and women's empowerment around the world.
I think she's being viewed in the context of her husband's regressive policies. This is partly fair, as she's promoted his record on the campaign trail. But it's partly unfair, because she should be judged on her own record, which is substantially more leftist. And as a political science student, Sanders' strategy for making change once in office strikes me as dangerously naïve. While activists can and should push for revolutionary change, and I'll be happy to stand among them, the President of the United States needs to have a capacity for moving policies forward pragmatically and, sadly, incrementally. This is what Obama has done so well on many issues, and I am confident that Clinton can do the same.
I actually love Bernie Sanders. He's long been a favorite Senator, and I agree with him on most things. But for me the main issue is electability. As poll after poll shows, a majority of Americans say they will never vote to elect a socialist. While Sanders may be performing well in general election head-to-heads, the opposition research hasn't been publicized on him yet. And there's a lot in there that will make him highly unappealing to the average voter. In contrast, Clinton has been viciously attacked for roughly two decades. Republicans have the dirt on Sanders, but they're holding their fire because they want him to be the nominee. They know they can absolutely tear their opponent apart with negative ads in a way that would be harder to do if Clinton were the nominee. The prospect of any Republican winning the White House is extremely scary to me. The next president will likely pick a few Supreme Court nominees. A conservative court would screw over the public on issues like minority rights, unions, money in politics, and environmental regulation. Not to mention the very real chance that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. The negative impact would last decades, if not a century. If a Republican wins the presidency, they will also hold both houses of Congress. They will be able to gut Medicare and Social Security, go to war with Iran, give the wealthy massive tax cuts, deregulate big business, cut food stamps, and pile another trillion in debt with a harebrained fiscal plan. Just look it up: nonpartisan analysts conclude every Republican candidate's tax plan will blow a trillion-dollar hole in the budget.
Many may say these reasons are cynical, and privilege fear over hope. That's fair, but I think my reasons are logical, because there is so much at stake.
_________________
Add me on RYM
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Pentagonal
|
- #270
- Posted: 02/21/2016 23:13
- Post subject:
|
Honestly, the best reason to vote for Clinton is the terrifying prospect of a Trump presidency. I can definitely see Trump winning the general election by painting Sanders a deep shade of red and riding the resulting wave of fear. Ironically, the only thing that might make general election voters okay with Sanders' self identification as a socialist is that FOX News has been telling them for years that Obama is a socialist and the sky has yet to fall.
Privately, I'd been kind of rooting for Trump because I think he's terrible for the Republican party, an ugly byproduct of Republicans having courted the lowest common denominator for over a decade. But that was all on the assumption that he couldn't actually win the general election...
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 27 of 67 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
