TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#112501: Feb 19th 2016 at 6:25:42 AM

Also, it is not "obvious" that any person's opinion is irrelevant solely based on their occupation. People in the financial industry are paid a lot of money to understand these issues, and the financial industry is essential to our economy (note that Bernie has never disputed this). One can allow for the possibility of bias without dismissing unfavorable arguments out of hand.

What bugs me more than anything is that the rhetorical tactics being employed by many Sanders supporters are indistinguishable from the tactics of the hard right: establish your own body of custom facts and attack anyone who points out flaws with them as tools of the system. I've known for a long time that the left wasn't immune to the lure of "truthiness" — witness the anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO'ers. But now it's becoming clear that the difference between right and left in terms of ignorance of how facts work is less stark than I had hoped. sad

edited 19th Feb '16 6:27:37 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#112502: Feb 19th 2016 at 6:32:10 AM

It is if you actually trust them. I trust Krugman, and no one's given me any reason not to.

I don't. I agree that dismissing him out of the blue as a Clinton stooge is excessive, responding to that claim with "Clinton is no paragon of virtue" quote of his is dishonest as well, because it's missing the rest of the paragraph of him praising Clinton for everything she's done, 90s policies included (sans Iraq, because no one is that stupid). That's a road even many actual Clinton supporters won't travel, instead they would try to disassosiate Clinton of the past from Clinton of the present, to support her current "Me too! I'm a progressive now too! Sometimes..." campaign line.

That's been given. I don't have time to hunt up sources at the moment, but I can later if you want me to. Krugman is not the only one to criticize Sanders' plan as being overly optimistic.

If they had been given, Clinton campaign would have worn them like battle flags by now. Instead all I see is single unconnected claims, unsupported by everything else, and a bunch saying "Well, my feelies say it is so, fuck you." I'd like to emphasise repeatable analysis. If Sanders plan has such obvious glaring flaws, as "the feelies" argument claims, they should be evident and obvious enough to get repeatedly being pointed out by numerous independent sources.

This, essentially. The old saw about reality having a liberal bias? That's not because reality changes to suit liberal policy, that's because liberals change their policy to suit reality. If Sanders isn't doing that, then that's extremely problematic. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool reality at all, ever. If your policies aren't based in reality, then your policies will fail. That's the concern we have with Sanders.

I have issues with what is passed as "reality". The term is often substituted for cynicism deeply rooted in fear of change, that comes from a conflicted desire to both be seen as "progressive", but have the status quo they've grown accustomed to kept. Claims that America is somehow uniquely incapable of having basic necessities the entire rest of the first world and some other parts have had for generations are either cynical defeatist sentiments or willfully dishonest misdirections in absense of ways to argue against the undesired ideas. I'm sick of "reality" being used exclusively for "never, ever happen".

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#112503: Feb 19th 2016 at 6:45:44 AM

Claims that America is somehow uniquely incapable of having basic necessities the entire rest of the first world and some other parts have had for generations are either cynical defeatist sentiments or willfully dishonest misdirections in absense of ways to argue against the undesired ideas. I'm sick of "reality" being used exclusively for "never, ever happen".
Bad ideas are not an exclusively right-wing concept. You have to develop filters to distinguish what is possible from what is impossible, what is practical from what is impractical, what is feasible from what is infeasible.

Other nations have single-payer, sure. However, any attempt to make single-payer happen in our nation, here and now, will fail due to Republican control of the House of Representatives, something that Sanders' purported "revolution" won't be able to fix before 2020 at the earliest. And if Sanders wants to implement it, he needs to be straight with the voters about the costs.

Right now, there is a huge chunk of our population that is fully invested in the Republican Kool-Aid, and you cannot simply ignore these people. They will reflexively vote against anything that smacks of socialism; they will vote according to what some nincompoop tells them the Bible says; they will oppose anything that appears to transfer privilege from whites to minorities. There are also a lot of people who aren't explicitly racist or whatever, but they will resist any attempt to overhaul the status quo out of fear that they might come out behind. They must be accounted for in any political calculus. Forget the bankers and plutocrats.

edited 19th Feb '16 6:49:06 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#112504: Feb 19th 2016 at 6:47:56 AM

Interestingly enough, Krugman's column today examines this exact issue

Clearly, he is a troper

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#112505: Feb 19th 2016 at 6:56:59 AM

[up] Nah, I bet Fighteer just e-mailed him to ask for an article to help him win an argument on the internet.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#112507: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:07:36 AM

Sanders' specific economic plans won't survive contact with congress (including one that's over 66% Democrat), and he's basically admitted as such. I mean come on, Bernie isn't an idiot, this an obvious moving the Overton Window left tactic to argue from a better position, because it's a lot easier to get "Healthcare like Canada's" from starting at "Healthcare like Scandinavia's" than starting at the former. Even then, the worst that can be said about his specific policies at the moment is that the government has to go more into debt (which, really, is this really a bad thing on this thread) for a few years at most before the massive economic rebound of consumers flush with cash kicks in.

I mean hell Fighteer, you're the guy who'd love basic income to be implemented, Sanders' plans are comparatively Plutocratic in comparison.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#112508: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:13:59 AM

I've known for a long time that the left wasn't immune to the lure of "truthiness" — witness the anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO'ers.

Don't forget the anti-drone and anti-nuclear crowds, we've got enough crazy on the left to go around.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#112509: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:15:11 AM

Bad ideas are not an exclusively right-wing concept. You have to develop filters to distinguish what is possible from what is impossible, what is practical from what is impractical, what is feasible from what is infeasible. Other nations have single-payer, sure. However, any attempt to make single-payer happen in our nation, here and now, will fail due to Republican control of the House of Representatives, something that Sanders' purported "revolution" won't be able to fix before 2020 at the earliest. And if Sanders wants to implement it, he needs to be straight with the voters about the costs.

The filters are far too often left on the "moderate" setting, which these days means "basically right wing but with some lip service".

As I've said before, even if Sanders plan isn't implemented, he shall be able to create a political climate for implementation of the next plan, the cause for which Clinton will not raise a single finger for. Though I still would like to actually see real proof that it's bad instead of confirmation bias feelies and random single source numbers I've seen so far.

Right now, there is a huge chunk of our population that is fully invested in the Republican Kool-Aid, and you cannot simply ignore these people. They will reflexively vote against anything that smacks of socialism; they will vote according to what some nincompoop tells them the Bible says; they will oppose anything that appears to transfer privilege from whites to minorities. There are also a lot of people who aren't explicitly racist or whatever, but they will resist any attempt to overhaul the status quo out of fear that they might come out behind. They must be accounted for in any political calculus. Forget the bankers and plutocrats.

Ignoring those people is the only way to achieve any progress. They are already dead-set on opposing you on princple, trying to meet them on the common ground will plunge you right back into the arms of Corporate Right. Furthermore, the increasing populariy of Sanders is proving those people are not the significant majority of the United States population.

You should be worried about those exact people who feel attracted to the Clinton campaign instead. We've seen it in this very same thread. In the wake of, let's face it, utter collapse of the Republican party into a bunch cartoonish Columbian nutjobs already does and will cause those votes to shift towards Clinton, and with a voter base like that, her already too meek and moderate claims to progressivism will burn. That is, if they weren't already burned by her base of corporate support.

Any candidate to whom Comcast feels comfortable donating is alarming.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#112510: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:17:02 AM

Don't forget the anti-drone and anti-nuclear crowds, we've got enough crazy on the left to go around.

Oy I'm not crazy!

...Ok, I am, but if you dare call me a radical extremist I am going to personally stab you, your books, your family, and your wee bunny too

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#112511: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:17:11 AM

Don't many companies donate to everyone, even if they don't agree with their politics it's at least worth trying to curry favour for the company.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#112512: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:18:18 AM

[up][up][up]We can only ignore them once they stop holding the House and the Senate and almost all of the local power in the US.

Right now they're actually the ones in charge.

edited 19th Feb '16 7:18:25 AM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#112513: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:18:29 AM

And while we're speaking of how our current batch of politicians are ruining America ... they don't even want you to leave!

Revenues are up for the US, as it jacks up the fees required to surrender US citizenship.

Show me the money! Uncle Sam is raking in millions of dollars from the record numbers of Americans giving up their citizenship each year.

'The U.S. government has collected about $12.6 million in fees since fall 2014, after quintupling the amount it charges for renunciations, according to a CNN Money analysis of official data. That's more than double the total it garnered over the six previous years. U.S. citizens and long-term residents now pay $2,350 apiece to ditch their passports or green cards, up from $450 previously. The higher renunciation charges have come at a time when more people than ever are cutting ties to the U.S.

Last year, 4,279 Americans bid Uncle Sam farewell, up 20% from 2014. That's 18 times as many as in 2008, and the third year in a row that's set a new record. Increasing fees is a way for the U.S. to capitalize on the rising trend, according to Dianne Mehany, a tax attorney who assists with renunciations.

"We are in a difficult economic climate, and the government is looking for any method by which to increase revenue, defray costs," she said.

The renunciation charges are far from a straightforward gain for the U.S. government's coffers, though. The fee hike helps offset the costs for the American embassies and consulates around the world that have to process all these renunciations.

In the past, "if you had five people expatriate, it wasn't that complicated," said Chris Mc Lemore, who handles international tax planning for expats at the law firm Butler Snow. "But if suddenly, 10 times the number of people are expatriating, you do start looking at your bottom line."

And while some U.S. citizens get slapped with a giant "exit tax" bill — sometimes in the millions of dollars — when they renounce, experts say it still amounts to a fraction of what the government might have generated from them in future taxes. For expats, a higher renunciation fee is increasing the cost of what's already an expensive affair. Even in relatively simple cases, Americans often need to spend big — easily at least $20,000 — hiring a team of accountants and lawyers to help with the renunciation paperwork, estimates Mehany, who works at the law firm Caplin & Drysdale.

And the high cost of saying goodbye to Uncle Sam could climb even further, according to Vincenzo Villamena of Online Taxman, a firm that specializes in filing expat taxes. "It is a revenue generator, and as more people want to renounce, then I do see them raising the fee," Villamena said.

Many of those severing links are Americans living overseas who are tired of dealing with complicated tax paperwork, a headache that has worsened since new regulations came into effect.

The U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which requires businesses around the globe to report all assets held by Americans, seeks to recoup the hundreds of billions the U.S. says it loses each year from tax evasion.

It's aimed at fat cat tax cheats, but the law has made life more difficult for expats. Some international banks have even dumped U.S. customers rather than wrestle with the complicated law. But getting rid of Americans doesn't mean banks can wash their hands of the situation entirely. For example, they still need to develop a process to identify new Americans looking to open accounts, according to the U.S. Treasury.

Many expats say tossing the blue passport is a practical choice, but it's certainly not an easy one to make. Donna-Lane Nelson, who gave up her U.S. citizenship in 2011, said she threw up outside the embassy after renouncing. "I broke down," she said. "It was like getting a divorce. America gave me my education, a good career path, and I came from a beautiful part of the country. This was very hard."

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#112514: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:22:25 AM

Revenues are up for the US, as it jacks up the fees required to surrender US citizenship.

Alternative title: United States making its people tired, poor; sends them out as wretched masses from its teeming shore.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#112515: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:22:25 AM

What I would like to see and what I believe to be possible are different things. The reason why Sanders' economic plans are problematic is that he has apparently been fudging the numbers. I've joined in the chorus of disdain for Republican plans that contain magic asterisks; if I am to remain intellectually consistent, I have to do the same for Democratic plans.

Why is it so hard for Bernie to give us the real data? Is it because he thinks it would be too hard to swallow, or because he doesn't actually have it?

On his other ideas...

  • I'm in favor of a higher minimum wage, and we have studies proving that it would not cause serious harm. That's a check mark in Bernie's box.
  • Dissolving big financial institutions is something of a windmill. It might improve economic stability to have a more widely distributed base of risk, but I don't think that there would be any immediate gross economic benefit. For whatever it's worth, some big institutions have come out and openly said that they are too large. Yay Bernie.
  • Reinstating Glass-Steagal is another windmill. Folks that I trust have come out and said that it wouldn't have prevented the 2008 crash, so the idea that we need it to prevent a future one seems more like rhetoric than fact. I don't have any super-strong opinion on this one, though.
  • Environmental stuff: Clinton and Sanders seem aligned on this for all intents and purposes.
  • Killing Citizens United: Again, both campaigns are in agreement.
  • Racial equality: There's no easy or cheap fix for this. Sanders says that we need to instill economic equality and that will carry forward into social equality. I think this is more likely to be true than a piecemeal approach involving gun control and police reform, even though we need those too.
  • Wealth tax and other forms of redistribution: These are grossly necessary.
  • On free trade: While I agree that TPP and TTIP are being sold deceptively as "free trade" agreements when they are in reality "free capital movement" and "IP protection" agreements, I don't believe that we would benefit in the long run from a withdrawal from global trade in a general sense. We don't need to "bring jobs back from China"; that's a windmill. What we need is to get cracking on social supports and MBI, and fix our tax policy so that corporations can't dodge income taxes by moving their supply chain overseas. That will solve many of the problems organically without a brute-force approach.

Ignoring those people is the only way to achieve any progress. They are already dead-set on opposing you on princple, trying to meet them on the common ground will plunge you right back into the arms of Corporate Right.
You can't ignore voters. That's not how a democracy works. If you want to win a national election, you have to cast a wide net, and you have to remember, as noted by others, that the reactionary right controls a huge number of state governments.

It should be illustrative, and deeply alarming, that many of the voters who express support for Sanders have also indicated Trump as their second choice, and vice versa. Bernie is tapping a deep well of ignorant, reactionary liberalism that is different from ignorant, reactionary conservatism only in being less racist.

edited 19th Feb '16 8:00:20 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#112516: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:38:55 AM

We can only ignore them once they stop holding the House and the Senate and almost all of the local power in the US. Right now they're actually the ones in charge.

Well, that has to be fixed, doesn't it?. Which is something I trust Sanders to actually start doing, and expect Clinton to give precisely zero shits about.

You can't ignore voters. That's not how a democracy works. If you want to win a national election, you have to cast a wide net, and you have to remember, as noted by others, that the reactionary right controls a huge number of state governments.

Well, you can ignore voters you were never going to get anyway. That's what Sanders is doing and it works. It'll work even better if he has to go against Trump, as it looks like he will. "Anyone but Trump" is godscend of a voter base. And state government control won't be fixed by inaction and lip service.

It should be illustrative, and deeply alarming, that many of the voters who express support for Sanders have also indicated Trump as their second choice, and vice versa. Bernie is tapping a deep well of ignorant, reactionary liberalism that is different from ignorant, reactionary conservatism only in being less racist.

Considering Bernie is openly supportive of Black Lives Matter and openly opposed of any immigration restrictions proposed by Trump (AND Clinton, more on that real quick below), I find it hard to believe this is "deeply alarming". So this is alarming for you, but Clinton's claim that unaccompanied migrant kids should be "deported to send a message" isn't? This is what's "moderate, yet progressive" now?

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#112517: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:43:48 AM

I remember seeing a video of people in a Trump rally, and them saying, that the only reason they'll vote for him is to see a presidential assassination in their lifetime. So there's that.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#112518: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:46:47 AM

[up][up] I'm not sure that you and I are reading the same article. Clinton said that unaccompanied minors should be reunited with their families, and that sending them over the border alone is hazardous. That sounds like common sense to me in the absence of a more comprehensive reform policy.

We can't have an honest conversation until people stop using hyperbolic misinterpretations of each others' positions.

Well, you can ignore voters you were never going to get anyway.
Alienate enough of them and you lose the election. Sanders' claim is that he will energize the folks who don't normally vote because of their disdain of the system. That's well and good, but it has yet to show up in the polling numbers or in the primary counts. If he can't pull that off, then he's going to faceplant hard.

edited 19th Feb '16 7:50:50 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#112519: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:46:47 AM

Didn't Sanders oppose immigration until recently? I don't mean to sound like a concern troll.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#112520: Feb 19th 2016 at 7:48:49 AM

[up] More or less. Sanders has reportedly come down in favor of the "immigrants displacing American jobs" argument in the past, which is mostly false. I don't have a source on him saying it, though.

edited 19th Feb '16 7:49:09 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#112521: Feb 19th 2016 at 8:02:46 AM

I'm not sure that you and I are reading the same article. Clinton said that unaccompanied minors should be reunited with their families, and that sending them over the border alone is hazardous. That sounds like common sense to me in the absence of a more comprehensive reform policy. We can't have an honest conversation until people stop using hyperbolic misinterpretations of each others' positions.

You're ignoring the last part of that paragraph - "which sometimes requires them to stay in the United States". And sending them back is hardly going to discourage anyone(if a child is so dead set on leaving Mexico they're moving through the freaking border alone, they're not gonna be stopped by that, but you are going to plunge them back into the hell they have escaped), which is a horrific line of thinking as it is - "If this child finds food, shelter, and relative peace in our wealthy first world country, other children might too! The horror!"

Alienate enough of them and you lose the election. Sanders' claim is that he will energize the folks who don't normally vote because of their disdain of the system. That's well and good, but it has yet to show up in the polling numbers or in the primary counts. If he can't pull that off, then he's going to faceplant hard.

And if he can pull that off, the cynical goal posts will be moved again, as it was with the 60%.

If anything, Clinton is fighting to take Sanders voters back from him, with that "I'm a progressive too now! And a moderate! I'm everyone!" campaign line I mentioned earlier, which no Sanders voter has bought as of yet.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#112522: Feb 19th 2016 at 8:06:23 AM

Again, you are intentionally reading Clinton's statement in the worst possible light. Frankly, those kids aren't likely to find "food, shelter, and relative peace in our wealthy first world country". They'll find immigrant camps, underfunded child services programs, intense racism, and a web of poverty and deprivation only different from what they experience at home in terms of degree, not kind. The long-term solution to Mexico's problems does not involve sheltering all their children any more than it's a solution for Syria's problems. We can be humane to them, of course, but the United States cannot absorb Mexico.

This sort of thing is why I can't take your arguments at face value. It's intentionally reading things in the most unfavorable light for Clinton whilst treating Sanders' statements as gospel despite them not having the backing of evidence. Yes, we get it, you hate the status quo, but you can't fix it by using the same tactics that the right uses. You act as if questioning Sanders' policies is in some way synonymous with being a Clinton teat-sucker.

edited 19th Feb '16 8:09:25 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#112523: Feb 19th 2016 at 8:07:03 AM

[up][up]Um, I don't think it's mostly the children dead set on doing that. They're just doing what their parents or families tell them to do most likely.

edited 19th Feb '16 8:07:17 AM by LSBK

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#112524: Feb 19th 2016 at 8:23:21 AM

Again, you are intentionally reading Clinton's statement in the worst possible light. Frankly, those kids aren't likely to find "food, shelter, and relative peace in our wealthy first world country". They'll find immigrant camps, underfunded child services programs, intense racism, and a web of poverty and deprivation only different from what they experience at home in terms of degree, not kind. The long-term solution to Mexico's problems does not involve sheltering all their children any more than it's a solution for Syria's problems. We can be humane to them, of course, but the United States cannot absorb Mexico.

Do you really think they don't know that? In terms of degree is the most important line, because to them, that's still favorable to their home no matter how you slice it. Nobody chooses to live like shit, they can only choose to live like shit as opposed to living like shit and poop. And no deportations are going to change that. Until a long-term solution is made, you're going to get kids and adults all over your borders, whether you like it or not.

This sort of thing is why I can't take your arguments at face value. It's intentionally reading things in the most unfavorable light for Clinton whilst treating Sanders' statements as gospel despite them not having the backing of evidence. Yes, we get it, you hate the status quo, but you can't fix it by using the same tactics that the right uses. You act as if questioning Sanders' policies is in some way synonymous with being a Clinton teat-sucker.

You're misreading my argument and making assumptions on my behalf yet again, just like in our last exchange. Because I don't want to jump on the "healthcare plan is bad" bandwagon without actual proof, that makes me a blind loyalist? Because I'm not concerned with sucking up to the Republican establishment the moderate Democratic base tries and repeatedly fails, because it opposes them anyway?

Where's your proof for "many of the voters support Trump and Sanders" alarmism you literally just claimed? How is that not painting Sanders in the worst possible light, while excusing Republican Clinton supporters, whom, unlike for your claim, we have seen right here?

This is a bad faith argument. It's beneath you.

Um, I don't think it's mostly the children dead set on doing that. They're just doing what their parents or families tell them to do most likely.

That's merely the reason for them being dead set on that. Nobody crosses a border without conviction.

Cronosonic (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#112525: Feb 19th 2016 at 8:35:23 AM

I will admit that Sanders isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I'd still take Clinton as a reasonable second choice, even if I have my own personal beefs with her - she's both a weathervane and someone who is all over the place in terms of focus, which is a very bad sign. Sanders you know will stick to his commitments even if he can't implement them, I'm just not sure I can trust Hillary to promise certain things and then not immediately break her promises upon election. I'm not keen on trusting someone who in bed with big business. Sure, she's not Tony Abbot, who promised he wouldn't make cuts to a lot of things and then proceeded to do so anyway, but still. I'd rather take her over any GOP candidate any day, but I'm not expecting much of her.

Sanders does have a very reputable history as a senator, though, he's called the "amendment king" for a reason, and likely greatly respected by less crazy Republican senators, at least, so that's an asset for him. But I suppose the problem is still whether being ambitious is a good thing or not. I mean, the GOP loathes Hillary with a passion, does anyone really think they'll be less obstructive towards her than Sanders or even Obama?

edited 19th Feb '16 8:38:06 AM by Cronosonic


Total posts: 417,856
Top