Ocasio-Cortez beats Crowley (NY-14 Democratic Primary)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

bastardofmelbourne:

One of the things I've been trying to emphasise here is that Clinton's platform was not "keep everything the same." Clinton's platform was "keep reforming things, but gradually."

Ah, the Obama platform. Because that totally works and didn't get overturned immediately once trump got into office.

Agema:

BreakfastMan:
Bernie won the primaries in the swing states that Trump won in the general. He is currently the most-liked politician in the US.

Although it remains to be seen if that survives going head-to-head in a presidential race, when the worst dirt starts flying.

If the worst Clinton could bring against him was "Oh, he has a second house", somehow I think the republicans would not have posed too much of an issue.

Saelune:
Unfortunately, I guess the left still has a ton of sexism in its ranks. Explains why people also hate on Pelosi and Warren so much, but love Bernie.

On the other hand, rampant antisemitism is also a problem amongst our ranks, which explains the virulent reaction some people (wink wink) have to a Jewish man like Bernie Sanders trying to take a position of leadership.

BreakfastMan:

Agema:

BreakfastMan:
Bernie won the primaries in the swing states that Trump won in the general. He is currently the most-liked politician in the US.

Although it remains to be seen if that survives going head-to-head in a presidential race, when the worst dirt starts flying.

If the worst Clinton could bring against him was "Oh, he has a second house", somehow I think the republicans would not have posed too much of an issue.

The Republicans aren't so reliant on reality. Or averse to racism.

Thaluikhain:

BreakfastMan:

Agema:

Although it remains to be seen if that survives going head-to-head in a presidential race, when the worst dirt starts flying.

If the worst Clinton could bring against him was "Oh, he has a second house", somehow I think the republicans would not have posed too much of an issue.

The Republicans aren't so reliant on reality. Or averse to racism.

So? Republicans aren't the ones he needed to win over to win the general.

Agema:

crimson5pheonix:

image
Something that continued to widen under the last Democrat president. Even when they had control of the house, senate, and presidency.

I really don't think that's a conclusion that graph adequately defends. It looks to me much more accurate to say that the last Democratic president achieved no significant alteration in the gap between rich and poor.

What we might also need to consider is what the graph is measuring. If it's just income (investments and salaries) it would be flawed by not including welfare. If it includes welfare as well, it still might not be a good measure without consideration of social services. For instance, the ACA provides affordable state-paid healthcare worth thousands of dollars to millions of people. It makes them much better off, without necessarily appearing on an earnings graph.

Although that said, even if not the full picture, the graph surely does illustrate well enough a widening income gap over the last few decades that most left-wingers should want reduced.

Admittedly, it's not the climb it was under Clinton. It's still plenty reason to look at the Democrats warily.

Saelune:
snip

Says the person ok with letting it fester instead of voting for Hillary. Rip off your own damn bandaid, aka Bernie.

Oh yes, Hillary isn't the festering choice. No, Hillary is exactly the choice that accomplishes nothing.

Thaluikhain:

crimson5pheonix:
Being pro-lgbt and civil rights is good, but it's only a part of being left-wing and not even that big of a part in my opinion. Fixing the class divide is first and foremost what defines a solid left-wing candidate.

Oh...there is a lot of room for disagreement and infighting there.

Unfortunately not wrong. People are more interested in dying in the street together equally than in not dying in the street at all.

crimson5pheonix:
I mean by that point it was too late. It was, to be fair, an uphill battle carrying on the legacy of Bill and a lot of her right wing opinions and votes in the 2000's. That she went further beyond with the dirty pool against Bernie and the various scandals around that time put her on a level playing field with Trump. Which the voting showed. I was quite prescient when I said the general election was going to be a coinflip at the end of the Democrat primaries.

This was probably the biggest weakness of Clinton as a candidate; she had way too much baggage. Republicans had been treating her like the boogeyman since 1991. Democrats didn't like how her husband cut welfare and bombed Kosovo, and they didn't like her support of the Iraq War and the Libyan bombing or her position on Syria. She kind of went in bearing responsibility not just for her own actions in the Senate and at State, but also for her husband's actions in the 90s.

crimson5pheonix:
Or they stagnate. Or that they go backwards. One of the broadest and most relevant metrics to gauge effectiveness on is the gap between the rich and poor.


Something that continued to widen under the last Democrat president. Even when they had control of the house, senate, and presidency. This is what happens when you uncritically elect Democrats. Obama campaigned on making everything better forever and that didn't work out. So when Hillary comes in saying "keep making the progress Obama was making", it's no wonder people look unfavorably on it.

Well, there's a few things to unpack there.

- The Democrats had control of the House, Senate and the White House for all of two years. They spent those two years overhauling the nation's healthcare system, passing a stimulus package to pull the country out of a recession, and passing Dodd-Frank. Yes, they could have done more. But time and resources are limited; they prioritised on healthcare and stabilising the economy. That meant that other issues - such as immigration reform or tax reform - fell by the wayside. (Closing loopholes in the tax code, incidentally, takes forever; every industry has its own loopholes they exploit and every one of them will mobilise an army of lobbyists to defend it. It's doable, but not quickly.)

- I am not saying that one should uncritically elect all Democrats. For example, I cannot in good conscience advise anyone to vote for Bob Menendez in light of his corruption scandals. What I am saying is that on a critical analysis, there was not that much variance between Clinton and Sanders in terms of their domestic policy goals. Because of these similarities, I consider it unsustainable for one to argue that Clinton's platform was somehow a right-wing platform.

- Obama did campaign on making everything better forever. And it didn't work out. This is why Hillary Clinton did not go into the election promising the voters that they would have the stars and moon under her administration. She went in with realistic, planned-out policy proposals - things that she knew were doable. I can guarantee that if Sanders had won, there would be similar disillusionment amongst Berniecrats once it became apparent that no President can single-handedly reform the tax code or reverse the course of the US foreign policy establishment. A President is enabled by Congress; not the other way around.

crimson5pheonix:
This, this right here, is what we call right-wing. Being pro-lgbt and civil rights is good, but it's only a part of being left-wing and not even that big of a part in my opinion. Fixing the class divide is first and foremost what defines a solid left-wing candidate. Part of that is civil rights to not have a codified class, but being happy with defacto classes because gay people can get married is in my opinion lazy.

What does one's policy on foreign military interventions have to do with the class divide?

My statement was that the most substantial distinction between Clinton and Sanders was their policy on overseas military engagements. Their domestic policies were substantially similar; about 90% of what Sanders promised was also promised by Clinton. What distinguished them from each other was that she was a hawk and he was a dove; when it came to domestic policy, they were more-or-less saying the same shit.

So if Sanders' domestic policy was left-wing and would have closed the class divide, and if Clinton's domestic policy is largely the same as Sanders', how is it that Clinton's domestic policy was not left-wing?

crimson5pheonix:
Because that's not how the EC works. If she changes it in office, neato. But getting to office requires the knowledge that winning the popular vote is not how you win the election.

Okay, we've misunderstood each other. What I was basically getting at was that if we are investigating whether Hillary Clinton was "in touch" with American people - that she represented the popular will - the fact that she won the popular vote is very relevant. It obviously doesn't matter in relation to winning the presidency - except to indicate that the electoral process is defective - but if we're sitting around arguing over whether Hillary Clinton's platform appealed to Americans or whether it was a dumpster truck full of flaming garbage crashing into a pit, I should think that the popular vote matters.

Seanchaidh:
It's worth underlining that the electoral college is not by any stretch the biggest problem with or obstacle to representation in the United States. And that remains so even just as regards the structure of voting and ignoring how campaigns are financed. A winner-takes-all popular vote for President would be more or less the same as far as how undemocratic it is; it would just be somewhat different in its outcome in some edge cases (such as 2016 and 2000).

It's not the biggest, no. The biggest obstacle, in my mind, is either the lack of voter participation or the lack of a preferential voting system.

I think the latter would help with the former, but the latter is never going to come to pass unless the former gets going.

Seanchaidh:
For example: every Congressional candidate who gets a vote gets a seat and they get as many votes in Congress as they got votes in the election. Simple.

It's not a bad idea, but it sounds like it would be hard to keep track of.

For one thing, the actual size of Congress would vary wildly based on the number of candidates who were on the ballot. A particular county might have only one representative if they ran unopposed; a swing county might have seven. In practice, you'd multiply the number of bodies in Congress several times over.

In fact, I can picture Alternate Universe Mitch McConnell (he's the same, but with a goatee) realising that he could run every one of his voters as their own candidate and have them cast a ballot for themselves, and then he would be legally permitted to flood Capitol Hill with hundreds of thousands of representatives to prevent anyone from actually being able to cast a vote in the chambers due to the physical impossibility of getting inside the chambers.

BreakfastMan:
Ah, the Obama platform. Because that totally works and didn't get overturned immediately once trump got into office.

Mmm. This is a bit of a catch-22.

"One should not vote for Clinton, because Clinton will continue Obama's policy of incrementalism, and that policy is fundamentally flawed because when Clinton loses and Trump takes office, he will overturn all of the changes made by his predecessor. So don't vote for Clinton."

BreakfastMan:
If the worst Clinton could bring against him was "Oh, he has a second house", somehow I think the republicans would not have posed too much of an issue.

No, no. They'd be talking about his wife's alleged bank fraud.

Or, y'know, calling him a communist. These are the same guys who somehow turned Hillary Clinton's emails into an anchor that hung around her neck literally until Election Day. They're imaginative.

Saelune:
Unfortunately, I guess the left still has a ton of sexism in its ranks. Explains why people also hate on Pelosi and Warren so much, but love Bernie.

I can't say for sure that it's sexism. At least, not conscious sexism. We subconsciously interpret ambition in women as a threatening or malevolent trait without realising it. In the same way, we perceive a woman who is shouting as a harridan, but a man shouting is just being passionate. A woman who is sexually active is a slut; a man who is sexually active is virile. It goes both ways; for example, we rarely imagine domestic abusers or rapists as being female. Violence and sexual predation are seen as masculine traits.

Our preconceptions about gender are more pervasive than immediately apparent. I'm hesitant to call it "sexism." It's more like...ignorant prejudice. It can be addressed with education and dialogue.

Sonmi:
On the other hand, rampant antisemitism is also a problem amongst our ranks, which explains the virulent reaction some people (wink wink) have to a Jewish man like Bernie Sanders trying to take a position of leadership.

This is also true, but becomes apparent in different fields. For example, the left wing's willingness to criticise Israel and express support for Palestinians has the unfortunate side-effect of attracting unwanted anti-Semites, and some criticism of Israel end up subconsciously playing into anti-Semitic imagery by characterising them as a cabal of globalist conspirators manipulating world leaders for nefarious ends.

Honestly, I could have just linked to Louis Farrakhan's page on Wikipedia.

bastardofmelbourne:

BreakfastMan:
Ah, the Obama platform. Because that totally works and didn't get overturned immediately once trump got into office.

Mmm. This is a bit of a catch-22.

"One should not vote for Clinton, because Clinton will continue Obama's policy of incrementalism, and that policy is fundamentally flawed because when Clinton loses and Trump takes office, he will overturn all of the changes made by his predecessor. So don't vote for Clinton."

The point is that incrementalism is a fundamentally flawed tactic. One party can't keep the Whitehouse forever. So when you do lose, you want to make sure that your changes are big enough that they can't be immediately undone with a simple executive order. Obama didn't. Well, except for Obamacare, AKA the healthcare bill proposed by Republicans in the 90's.

BreakfastMan:
If the worst Clinton could bring against him was "Oh, he has a second house", somehow I think the republicans would not have posed too much of an issue.

No, no. They'd be talking about his wife's alleged bank fraud.

Oh no, she committed bank fraud by... not paying back a loan fast enough. Y'know, somehow, after 2008 I am not so certain the public would find this a huge issue.

These are the same guys who somehow turned Hillary Clinton's emails into an anchor that hung around her neck literally until Election Day. They're imaginative.

Dude, nobody actually cared about Hilary's emails. Definitely not to the extant that it cost her the election.

crimson5pheonix:
Admittedly, it's not the climb it was under Clinton. It's still plenty reason to look at the Democrats warily.

To an extent. However, Clinton also oversaw a pretty much the greatest increase in low and median income since the 1970s, too. So whilst the income gap grew somewhat, people on modest incomes still benefitted a great deal in that era. Throughout much of the rest of the period, their real salaries have been static or in decline.

bastardofmelbourne:

crimson5pheonix:
I mean by that point it was too late. It was, to be fair, an uphill battle carrying on the legacy of Bill and a lot of her right wing opinions and votes in the 2000's. That she went further beyond with the dirty pool against Bernie and the various scandals around that time put her on a level playing field with Trump. Which the voting showed. I was quite prescient when I said the general election was going to be a coinflip at the end of the Democrat primaries.

This was probably the biggest weakness of Clinton as a candidate; she had way too much baggage. Republicans had been treating her like the boogeyman since 1991. Democrats didn't like how her husband cut welfare and bombed Kosovo, and they didn't like her support of the Iraq War and the Libyan bombing or her position on Syria. She kind of went in bearing responsibility not just for her own actions in the Senate and at State, but also for her husband's actions in the 90s.

And not without good reason as she still represents the Third way philosophy her husband championed and popularized. And that philosophy has fallen out of vogue.

crimson5pheonix:
Or they stagnate. Or that they go backwards. One of the broadest and most relevant metrics to gauge effectiveness on is the gap between the rich and poor.


Something that continued to widen under the last Democrat president. Even when they had control of the house, senate, and presidency. This is what happens when you uncritically elect Democrats. Obama campaigned on making everything better forever and that didn't work out. So when Hillary comes in saying "keep making the progress Obama was making", it's no wonder people look unfavorably on it.

Well, there's a few things to unpack there.

- The Democrats had control of the House, Senate and the White House for all of two years. They spent those two years overhauling the nation's healthcare system, passing a stimulus package to pull the country out of a recession, and passing Dodd-Frank. Yes, they could have done more. But time and resources are limited; they prioritised on healthcare and stabilising the economy. That meant that other issues - such as immigration reform or tax reform - fell by the wayside. (Closing loopholes in the tax code, incidentally, takes forever; every industry has its own loopholes they exploit and every one of them will mobilise an army of lobbyists to defend it. It's doable, but not quickly.)

Which is to say they implemented a half-assed healthcare reform and started to undo the damage Bill did in the first place. After that they drag their feet consistently, showing that they can't really be trusted to run the country.

- I am not saying that one should uncritically elect all Democrats. For example, I cannot in good conscience advise anyone to vote for Bob Menendez in light of his corruption scandals. What I am saying is that on a critical analysis, there was not that much variance between Clinton and Sanders in terms of their domestic policy goals. Because of these similarities, I consider it unsustainable for one to argue that Clinton's platform was somehow a right-wing platform.

A lot of those left-wing policies you're claiming she championed came after she beat Sanders. Or in other words, she thought the Democrat base would buy right-wing values more than the general populace. Or she went into the race not understanding the general populace. Neither is a good look.

- Obama did campaign on making everything better forever. And it didn't work out. This is why Hillary Clinton did not go into the election promising the voters that they would have the stars and moon under her administration. She went in with realistic, planned-out policy proposals - things that she knew were doable. I can guarantee that if Sanders had won, there would be similar disillusionment amongst Berniecrats once it became apparent that no President can single-handedly reform the tax code or reverse the course of the US foreign policy establishment. A President is enabled by Congress; not the other way around.

And Hillary campaigned on doing what Obama was doing already, which was terrible.

crimson5pheonix:
This, this right here, is what we call right-wing. Being pro-lgbt and civil rights is good, but it's only a part of being left-wing and not even that big of a part in my opinion. Fixing the class divide is first and foremost what defines a solid left-wing candidate. Part of that is civil rights to not have a codified class, but being happy with defacto classes because gay people can get married is in my opinion lazy.

What does one's policy on foreign military interventions have to do with the class divide?

My statement was that the most substantial distinction between Clinton and Sanders was their policy on overseas military engagements. Their domestic policies were substantially similar; about 90% of what Sanders promised was also promised by Clinton. What distinguished them from each other was that she was a hawk and he was a dove; when it came to domestic policy, they were more-or-less saying the same shit.

So if Sanders' domestic policy was left-wing and would have closed the class divide, and if Clinton's domestic policy is largely the same as Sanders', how is it that Clinton's domestic policy was not left-wing?

Because I had no reason to believe Clinton wasn't just saying what would get her elected rather than what she planned to do.

crimson5pheonix:
Because that's not how the EC works. If she changes it in office, neato. But getting to office requires the knowledge that winning the popular vote is not how you win the election.

Okay, we've misunderstood each other. What I was basically getting at was that if we are investigating whether Hillary Clinton was "in touch" with American people - that she represented the popular will - the fact that she won the popular vote is very relevant. It obviously doesn't matter in relation to winning the presidency - except to indicate that the electoral process is defective - but if we're sitting around arguing over whether Hillary Clinton's platform appealed to Americans or whether it was a dumpster truck full of flaming garbage crashing into a pit, I should think that the popular vote matters.

Well that's different than how that conversation chain started, but the best answer is the popular vote isn't even indicative of popular support.

The US election system plays like a nationwide prisoner's dilemma. Because nobody can trust that a reasonable number of people will pick a smart option, they pick the selfish option that's actually the bad option. Or in other words, people will vote against their self interest because they don't think their self interest will win. To take the popular vote as an indicator of the popularity of a politician's policies is fallacious. Especially in an election noted for being more about the personalities of the candidates than any sort of real decision making.

Agema:

crimson5pheonix:
Admittedly, it's not the climb it was under Clinton. It's still plenty reason to look at the Democrats warily.

To an extent. However, Clinton also oversaw a pretty much the greatest increase in low and median income since the 1970s, too. So whilst the income gap grew somewhat, people on modest incomes still benefitted a great deal in that era. Throughout much of the rest of the period, their real salaries have been static or in decline.

Well that's also part of the graph and it didn't really increase under Clinton either.

crimson5pheonix:
Well that's also part of the graph and it didn't really increase under Clinton either.

It does, but it's hard to recognise because of the scaling: that graph has been optimised to compare different incomes and the detail on the lower salaries is severely squashed.

See this one instead, which has been designed to illustrate changes in median wage changes. A 15% real term improvement in ~6 years is excellent: people will have really felt that. There was a similar growth in the Reagan years too (hence a major reason Reagan was very popular), although the chart misses the first couple of years of it. It's a bit of a horror show to imagine that was the peak real median wage until the end of the Obama era, over 15 years later. No wonder people are pissed.

Purely tangentially, I find it interesting median salaries seem to drop before the recessions.

Agema:

crimson5pheonix:
Well that's also part of the graph and it didn't really increase under Clinton either.

It does, but it's hard to recognise because of the scaling: that graph has been optimised to compare different incomes and the detail on the lower salaries is severely squashed.

See this one instead, which has been designed to illustrate changes in median wage changes. A 15% real term improvement in ~6 years is excellent: people will have really felt that. There was a similar growth in the Reagan years too (hence a major reason Reagan was very popular), although the chart misses the first couple of years of it. It's a bit of a horror show to imagine that was the peak real median wage until the end of the Obama era, over 15 years later. No wonder people are pissed.

Purely tangentially, I find it interesting median salaries seem to drop before the recessions.

Fair enough and Bill was popular at the time and for a good while afterward. Though it was easy to have nostalgia with Bush around.

bastardofmelbourne:
I'm hesitant to call it "sexism." It's more like...ignorant prejudice.

Not seeing a difference. Now, sure, it's not march in the streets waving banners bigotry, but then most bigotry isn't. Lots of people say "I'm not racist/sexist/whatever, but...." and believe it.

The question is if she wants the US to implement a command-economy/planned-economy. Otherwise calling her a socialist is disingenuous for both for the right and the left.

The only true socialists are Chavez, and Maduro's Venezuela, Cuba's Communist, and getting less so by the minute, and China & Vietnam are both authoritarian capitalist.

A bunch of central Asian states may count although they are somewhat capitalist as well with mixtures of authoritarianism.

Unless one of you has a clip of her saying I want the US to move to an economy ruled by the people, or even a similar dog whistle like that I don't see it.

Also Bernie is a social democrat, and so are most "democratic socialist".

Gergar12:
The question is if she wants the US to implement a command-economy/planned-economy. Otherwise calling her a socialist is disingenuous for both for the right and the left.

Worker self-directed enterprises are also socialist.

Gergar12:
Otherwise calling her a socialist is disingenuous for both for the right and the left.

As far as I can tell, the right is already busy redefining "socialist" as merely synonymous with "authoritarian", and thus is increasingly incapable of usefully recognising something as or calling it socialist anyway.

Agema:

Gergar12:
Otherwise calling her a socialist is disingenuous for both for the right and the left.

As far as I can tell, the right is already busy redefining "socialist" as merely synonymous with "authoritarian", and thus is increasingly incapable of usefully recognising something as or calling it socialist anyway.

Indeed, there are about as many socialisms as there are socialists. It can be anything from a specific idea in Marxist theory to a general catch-all term for progressive social programs or alternatives to capitalism (in the broadest sense; 'progressive' as in not feudalism or slavery or capitalism) to how mainstream (Keynesian and neoclassical) economists speak of the government doing stuff (which is basically where the term 'mixed economy' comes from).

There's a lot of mumbo jumbo surrounding socialism; this one is a fairly good perspective on it all in my opinion.

Seanchaidh:
After being outspent 10:1. In a district that Crowley has represented since 2013 (he represented another New York district in the US House of Representatives from 1999 until then).

Ocasio-Cortez is notable for supporting the abolition of ICE, a federal jobs guarantee, medicare for all, ending private prisons, $15/hr minimum wage, a ban on fracking, and affordable housing.

Joe Crowley was notable for thinking himself possibly the next Democratic speaker of the house and having the backing of a bunch of corporations along with the rest of the Democratic establishment.

What does this say about the future of US politics?

Burnouts3s3:

Please don't post Youtube videos with no attached discussion, analysis, or argument.

Especially not when the video is of Sargon of Akkad calling Bernie Sanders an idiot.

So pretty much a DSA member won against Crowley? Talk about nominating a looney tune.

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
Michele is a competent and fair person. Your jab is not a justified argument.

Just a couple posts ago you were talking about how great democracy is then you go into setting up political dynasties. I just don't get it.

And your mad cause Hillary beat Bernie then. See, I can do that too. Yeah I am mad that Trump is President, cause I give a fuck about other people. Anyone who is not mad that Trump is President needs to re-evaluate their morals.

More accurately, you're mad at the system when the person you didn't want to win, wins. Instead of the person who was all about keeping the status quo, which would mean keeping the system you apparently don't like.

And what reason do you have to trust Trump? He straight up said he would do the opposite of most of that stuff.

Who said I did?

Again, every argument against Hillary fails when put against Trump. No one who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Trump win.

Nobody who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Hillary win.

Why does me liking a left-wing woman who is smart and dedicated mean I have to oppose voting? I would love to VOTE for her, and I bet plenty of others would too.

I miss the status quo. Way less children being put in cages separated from parents, Canada, France and Germany were our allies, North Korea and Russia weren't fucking us up the ass, we were getting Iran to toss some dangerous weapons away, and we were trading with other countries, oh and we had healthcare. The status quo is a paradise compared to this 'change'. If the status quo is a ship NOT sinking, then great!

Well, you complain about Hillary and defend Trump. You certainly are not arguing about trusting Trump, are you?

That last line is just wrong. Trump has thuroughly proven that.

If you miss the status quo where everyone is making sub par wages at their jobs, can't afford to buy food or their bills due to said horrible wages, the constant drone strikes, the NSA data collection, people going bankrupt over medical bills and student loans. If that's the status quo you want then fuck the status quo. Also quit attacking Bernie for the actions of some of his followers, don't forget that Jill Stein got a huge number of Bernie supporters voting for her and Hillary.

bastardofmelbourne:

Burnouts3s3:

Please don't post Youtube videos with no attached discussion, analysis, or argument.

Especially not when the video is of Sargon of Akkad calling Bernie Sanders an idiot.

Yeah I can't take Sargon seriously anymore, he was for Bernie, now he is against for what purpose exactly? Yeah the dude has always been a right winger.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Just a couple posts ago you were talking about how great democracy is then you go into setting up political dynasties. I just don't get it.

More accurately, you're mad at the system when the person you didn't want to win, wins. Instead of the person who was all about keeping the status quo, which would mean keeping the system you apparently don't like.

Who said I did?

Nobody who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Hillary win.

Why does me liking a left-wing woman who is smart and dedicated mean I have to oppose voting? I would love to VOTE for her, and I bet plenty of others would too.

I miss the status quo. Way less children being put in cages separated from parents, Canada, France and Germany were our allies, North Korea and Russia weren't fucking us up the ass, we were getting Iran to toss some dangerous weapons away, and we were trading with other countries, oh and we had healthcare. The status quo is a paradise compared to this 'change'. If the status quo is a ship NOT sinking, then great!

Well, you complain about Hillary and defend Trump. You certainly are not arguing about trusting Trump, are you?

That last line is just wrong. Trump has thuroughly proven that.

If you miss the status quo where everyone is making sub par wages at their jobs, can't afford to buy food or their bills due to said horrible wages, the constant drone strikes, the NSA data collection, people going bankrupt over medical bills and student loans. If that's the status quo you want then fuck the status quo. Also quit attacking Bernie for the actions of some of his followers, don't forget that Jill Stein got a huge number of Bernie supporters voting for her and Hillary.

So you want children in cages, Canada and much of Europe as our enemies, North Korea ripping us off, AND everything you just said too? Cause that's where we're at.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Why does me liking a left-wing woman who is smart and dedicated mean I have to oppose voting? I would love to VOTE for her, and I bet plenty of others would too.

I miss the status quo. Way less children being put in cages separated from parents, Canada, France and Germany were our allies, North Korea and Russia weren't fucking us up the ass, we were getting Iran to toss some dangerous weapons away, and we were trading with other countries, oh and we had healthcare. The status quo is a paradise compared to this 'change'. If the status quo is a ship NOT sinking, then great!

Well, you complain about Hillary and defend Trump. You certainly are not arguing about trusting Trump, are you?

That last line is just wrong. Trump has thuroughly proven that.

If you miss the status quo where everyone is making sub par wages at their jobs, can't afford to buy food or their bills due to said horrible wages, the constant drone strikes, the NSA data collection, people going bankrupt over medical bills and student loans. If that's the status quo you want then fuck the status quo. Also quit attacking Bernie for the actions of some of his followers, don't forget that Jill Stein got a huge number of Bernie supporters voting for her and Hillary.

So you want children in cages, Canada and much of Europe as our enemies, North Korea ripping us off, AND everything you just said too? Cause that's where we're at.

No? Don't put words in my mouth, I'm just saying the status quo that you prefer was never good in the first place.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

If you miss the status quo where everyone is making sub par wages at their jobs, can't afford to buy food or their bills due to said horrible wages, the constant drone strikes, the NSA data collection, people going bankrupt over medical bills and student loans. If that's the status quo you want then fuck the status quo. Also quit attacking Bernie for the actions of some of his followers, don't forget that Jill Stein got a huge number of Bernie supporters voting for her and Hillary.

So you want children in cages, Canada and much of Europe as our enemies, North Korea ripping us off, AND everything you just said too? Cause that's where we're at.

No? Don't put words in my mouth, I'm just saying the status quo that you prefer was never good in the first place.

Yeah, the house was on fire before, but Trump is gasoline, and throwing him onto the fire just made it spread. And now we cant put any of it out.

MAKING THINGS WORSE IS BAD.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
So you want children in cages, Canada and much of Europe as our enemies, North Korea ripping us off, AND everything you just said too? Cause that's where we're at.

No? Don't put words in my mouth, I'm just saying the status quo that you prefer was never good in the first place.

Yeah, the house was on fire before, but Trump is gasoline, and throwing him onto the fire just made it spread. And now we cant put any of it out.

MAKING THINGS WORSE IS BAD.

Seperating families has been a thing way before Trump. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/family-separation-not-trump-administrations-fault

Don't let your Trump hate blind you from looking at the facts. This shit happened under the Clinton administration under Janet Reno.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

No? Don't put words in my mouth, I'm just saying the status quo that you prefer was never good in the first place.

Yeah, the house was on fire before, but Trump is gasoline, and throwing him onto the fire just made it spread. And now we cant put any of it out.

MAKING THINGS WORSE IS BAD.

Seperating families has been a thing way before Trump. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/family-separation-not-trump-administrations-fault

Don't let your Trump hate blind you from looking at the facts. This shit happened under the Clinton administration under Janet Reno.

So why is it ok when Trump does it?

Heres the thing, its wrong, its wrong under Trump, its wrong under anyone. If the only answer people has is 'well it was already happening' WELL WHY NOT STOP IT NOW!?

Trump is not making anything better. Anything already bad he is making worse! This is not a defense.

MAKING THINGS WORSE IS BAD.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Yeah, the house was on fire before, but Trump is gasoline, and throwing him onto the fire just made it spread. And now we cant put any of it out.

MAKING THINGS WORSE IS BAD.

Seperating families has been a thing way before Trump. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/family-separation-not-trump-administrations-fault

Don't let your Trump hate blind you from looking at the facts. This shit happened under the Clinton administration under Janet Reno.

So why is it ok when Trump does it?

Heres the thing, its wrong, its wrong under Trump, its wrong under anyone. If the only answer people has is 'well it was already happening' WELL WHY NOT STOP IT NOW!?

Trump is not making anything better. Anything already bad he is making worse! This is not a defense.

MAKING THINGS WORSE IS BAD.

I never said it was ok. All I'm saying is that it's been a thing since the Clinton days, it happened under Obama as well. You stated you prefered the status quo, well it's been apart of that status quo for years now.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Seperating families has been a thing way before Trump. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/family-separation-not-trump-administrations-fault

Don't let your Trump hate blind you from looking at the facts. This shit happened under the Clinton administration under Janet Reno.

So why is it ok when Trump does it?

Heres the thing, its wrong, its wrong under Trump, its wrong under anyone. If the only answer people has is 'well it was already happening' WELL WHY NOT STOP IT NOW!?

Trump is not making anything better. Anything already bad he is making worse! This is not a defense.

MAKING THINGS WORSE IS BAD.

I never said it was ok. All I'm saying is that it's been a thing since the Clinton days, it happened under Obama as well. You stated you prefered the status quo, well it's been apart of that status quo for years now.

I said I prefer things being less terrible than they are now. Cause they are more terrible than they were before Trump.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
So why is it ok when Trump does it?

Heres the thing, its wrong, its wrong under Trump, its wrong under anyone. If the only answer people has is 'well it was already happening' WELL WHY NOT STOP IT NOW!?

Trump is not making anything better. Anything already bad he is making worse! This is not a defense.

MAKING THINGS WORSE IS BAD.

I never said it was ok. All I'm saying is that it's been a thing since the Clinton days, it happened under Obama as well. You stated you prefered the status quo, well it's been apart of that status quo for years now.

I said I prefer things being less terrible than they are now. Cause they are more terrible than they were before Trump.

Nah I think it's the same, things were always terrible.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

I never said it was ok. All I'm saying is that it's been a thing since the Clinton days, it happened under Obama as well. You stated you prefered the status quo, well it's been apart of that status quo for years now.

I said I prefer things being less terrible than they are now. Cause they are more terrible than they were before Trump.

Nah I think it's the same, things were always terrible.

...Seriously? You think things are equally as bad now as they were under Obama? Do you seriously believe that?

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
I said I prefer things being less terrible than they are now. Cause they are more terrible than they were before Trump.

Nah I think it's the same, things were always terrible.

...Seriously? You think things are equally as bad now as they were under Obama? Do you seriously believe that?

1. People are still getting bankrupt from medical bills.
2. People can barely afford to pay their student loans.
3. The NSA program that was expanded under Obama.
4.45,000 people die from lack of health insurance, even with Obamacare.
5. The wars in the middle east have not gone away. Obama ordered more Drone strikes that killed many innocent people. They have a very high failure rate.
6.Wages are stagnant, more than half of Americans live pay check to pay check. Unions are on the decline

So yes things are as equally bad during Obama's time, as they were during Bush's and Clinton's administrations.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Nah I think it's the same, things were always terrible.

...Seriously? You think things are equally as bad now as they were under Obama? Do you seriously believe that?

1. People are still getting bankrupt from medical bills.
2. People can barely afford to pay their student loans.
3. The NSA program that was expanded under Obama.
4.45,000 people die from lack of health insurance, even with Obamacare.
5. The wars in the middle east have not gone away. Obama ordered more Drone strikes that killed many innocent people. They have a very high failure rate.
6.Wages are stagnant, more than half of Americans live pay check to pay check. Unions are on the decline

So yes things are as equally bad during Obama's time, as they were during Bush's and Clinton's administrations.

1. And now it will stay that way cause Trump killed Obamacare.
2. And education is now worse off as Trump put people like Betsy DeVos into power.
3. It wont go away under Trump.
4. Obamacare was a stepping stone, a work in progress, until Trump killed it, and tons of people who needed it.
5. Warmongering Trump wont end them, and atleast those Drone Strikes kept US soldiers out of more danger, but Trump sent them back in. And he gets more civilians killed doing it.
6. Trump has deregulated everything he can and keeps pushing for more.

7. Children in cages. Way more than the handful that Trump supporters like to brag about under Obama that were for specific reasons beyond just being brown. Ya know, like making sure they actually are with their real family.

If you think things are equally bad, that is because of privilage protecting you. And yes, it is protecting me too, but I dont let that stop me from caring.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here