Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

what we need right now is some really serious bipartisan activity.

We cannot continue down this path of your side my side, it is creating a near-insurmountable deadlock in the U.S.A.'s basic functions, and from my perspective that is totally unacceptable.

THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
ALL THE THIS.

[Baffler]

I don't want Hillary as president because regardless of what she stands for (if anything) and how she votes, she is polarizing as all get out, and what we need right now is some really serious bipartisan activity.

Wasn't that precisely what Obama promised, and tried to deliver? Doesn't seem like a good reason to oppose Hillary.

And it's not like Bernie "Democratic Socialist" Sanders is going to be any less of a polarizing figure than Hillary.

[NullForceOmega]

Mind you Helgo, I'm ignoring all of my own personal issues with the woman here.  That statement is purely based on the simple fact that the republicans, to a man, hate her with all of their souls and will oppose her at every turn.

And yes, Bernie is just as polarizing, but the repubs don't flat out hate him (to my knowledge, and he also has precious little chance at actually being on the ballot).

[Frumple]

The republican electorate would shit itself if bernie got elected president. His voting record may not be as left as his rhetoric, but the fact that he has socialist anywhere in his description is enough to bring the red scare rising back up like a senator on viagra. The only reason you don't see unmitigated and unceasing vitriol spat towards him by the conservative portions of the country is because they don't think he matters. They flat out hate not only him, but everything he represents.

I'd love to hear who you think would be the best candidate for promoting bipartisanship, though. Sadly enough, clinton's one of the better options for that, and I can't think of any of the republican ones that would even attempt to build bridges instead of burning everything down.

[alway]

Obama tried bipartisanship. He got burned for it, hard. The Republican party does not accept compromise or negotiation; they are willing to shut down government to get every last item on their wish list. This has been shown time and again. That is what they have gerrymandered the districts for, and so that is the way it will be until they are driven out of office en masse and forced to change tactics.

[NullForceOmega]

Bipartisanship is the entire point of our government (this is somewhat hyperbole, partisan politics has always been anathema to our system, the point is for the congress and senate to debate and find compromises that will help all parties concerned).  If this problem cannot be resolved then the U.S. will burn.

[smjjames]

There are still a few who actually want to compromise (Graham is one of those, or was it Pataki? I think it was Graham), but those are very much in the minority.

One of those that are running for House Speaker wanted to put the default on the table, but I don't know if the guy was using it as a serious option or wanted to use it as an anti-carrot or something.

[Powder Miner]

One would do well to note we didn't burn down in 1800, 1824, even the 1860s, 1920s, 1964, or the 1990s. Conflict of this sort may be a problem but acting like it's the end of the country is just alarmism: today's polarization may indeed be an issue but we're not forming entire parties just to oppose one dude (Whigs), one issue (Dixiecrats), we're not literally punishing newspapers for having differing opinions (Sedition Act), and we're not about to start the Second Civil War. This PALES in comparison to history's trials, and generalizing the Republicans as ruthless destroyers of America and the Democrats as paragons of reason and cooperation won't change that (and yes I'm exaggerating).

[penguinofhonor]

.

[mainiac]

The truly amusing part about the situation is how CNN (among others) are blathering about how Clinton carried the debates, but every post-debate poll has given the edge to Sanders by a pretty substantial margin (I'm talking 80%+ of respondents saying that he took them). It's about as blatant as media favoritism gets.

Bernie Sanders can be president of the internet then, I guess.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/14/1432486/-First-Post-DNC-Debate-Poll-Results-Gravitas-Marketing

The only results of a telephone poll by a polling firm that I'm aware of point to:
The race is about where it was before
Democrats like both Sanders and Hillary and dont dislike either
O'Malley has secured third place while still being way behind and Webb and Chaffee are flatlined.

For some reason the anyone can answer internet polls of people who watched online rather then on tv seemed to give high markets towards the candidate who polls highest among young, white liberals.

[werty892]

Spoiler: Yay! America! (click to show/hide)

And TWC(Time Warner Cable)donated to Hillary. Guess who owns CNN?

[mainiac]

Can't wait to see the unskewed polls.

[Dorsidwarf]

1) Does HRC stand for Her Royal Clinton? I hope it does.

2) When americans throw around "You're drinking the kool-aid man' in political debates, is that an actual serious thing? Like, something other americans take seriously as an argument tactic? I'm just curious, because as a brit, whenever I see that phrase it's like the spam filter in my brain auto-dumps the writer into the pit marked "Nope", along with 9/11 truthers and History Channel presenters (ALIENS!). It doesnt matter how good the actual argument is, it just seems like a phrase that instantly dumps credibility and puts a mental "SKIP" button over the post. Does anyone else feel like that?

[mainiac]

1) Does HRC stand for Her Royal Clinton? I hope it does.

Her Royal Clintonness.

[SalmonGod]

2) When americans throw around "You're drinking the kool-aid man' in political debates, is that an actual serious thing? Like, something other americans take seriously as an argument tactic? I'm just curious, because as a brit, whenever I see that phrase it's like the spam filter in my brain auto-dumps the writer into the pit marked "Nope", along with 9/11 truthers and History Channel presenters (ALIENS!). It doesnt matter how good the actual argument is, it just seems like a phrase that instantly dumps credibility and puts a mental "SKIP" button over the post. Does anyone else feel like that?

Yes.  I personally hate the phrase.  I don't toss out the content of people's words when they use it, but I want to.