Print

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

[smjjames]

If you can't see how Clinton is riding the Woman President hype train as an electoral strategy, then you are willfully ignorant of it.

I can see her trying to do that, yes and she has been trying, but that hype doesn't seem very hype-ey. I mean, it's nowhere near the same level as it was for Obama.

I'm totally cool with a woman president (I think she would be kind of the American equivalent of Margaret Thatcher), just would be nice if we had more choices besides Clinton.

Not sure Maggie is the best thing to be compared to... but I'm Scottish, so I'm like, super-biased in that respect. She was also super conservative.

Maggie was polarizing enough she had a state funeral and the week she died "The Witch is Dead" was number one in the charts.

*shrug* She's really the first person that I thought would be comparable.

(I think she would be kind of the American equivalent of Margaret Thatcher)

Oh god know.  I would vote for Trump to avoid that.  I want my first time with a woman president to be something special.  Someone who will transform me into a more complete and mature citizen.

I'm just trying to compare her to something to better visualize her or something I guess. Maybe there isn't really anything comparable. I have no clue what I'm talking about with comparing with Margaret Thatcher anyway.

[mainiac]

The good thing about Thatcher is that she is remembered for more then being a woman.  The bad thing about Thatcher is that she is remembered for being a reactionary radical.

[IronyOwl]

In the time I've been on this forum, I've seen "agree with me or get banned" shit several times, and I've never let it lie fallow. There's no worse kind of attitude to a discussion thread.

In your haste to be incensed, you seem to have missed that that was not even remotely what rol said.

I dunno, I got less of a "the next time I see intentional flamebait, I'm reporting it" and more of an "I'm angry at this discussion and I've seen other people get banned, so the next time someone says that I'm getting them banned" vibe.

But then, I have no idea who this contemptible certain someone is.

[Rolan7]

I'm sorry for threatening to report...  Honestly I think the bans have been coming too easily recently, but that's offtopic and just my opinion.

[misko27]

Hi guys. I just wanted to say that I really do like having this thread, and it makes me feel better having an outlet to discuss politics with people that isn't reddit or someplace incredibly stupid, and I'd be really unhappy if Toady closed the thread. Can we all try to not let it get to that point? This is an effort that requires everyone's cooperation. Back on track, discuss the election! There's plenty to say that isn't flame-bait.

[Rolepgeek]

I saw 'rol' used as shorthand and got real worried for a second.

On less flamebaity (albeit less immediately relevant topics...), is it better to vote for someone competent or someone who shares your views? And by competent, I don't mean 'good at politicking'. I mean 'actually debates, can be convinced/convincing, judges things based on reason, digs into the heart of matters', etc.

Would you rather vote for someone who only shared a few of your views but was obviously intelligent and could be persuaded to have a different opinion if presented with a convincing enough argument, or someone who will stick to their principles, rarely if ever change, and push for your ideals, regardless of whether they're right?

Are politicians leaders who decide collectively on our course of action, and we try to elect the most competent (and fail at it), or tools, mouthpieces for the public that serve to emulate the intellectual and ideological clash of a diversified's nation's millions against each other until a satisfying resolution emerges (rarely)?

[smjjames]

Well, being competent would be a great start. Though the theme this election season seems to be 'toss competency and experience out the window and set it on fire', despite people complaining that Obama is weak (and he is) on foriegn matters among other stuff. So, things are kind of wierdly counterintuitive this election season.

edit: My definition of 'competent' would be 'knows what the heck they are doing'.

Are politicians leaders who decide collectively on our course of action, and we try to elect the most competent (and fail at it), or tools, mouthpieces for the public that serve to emulate the intellectual and ideological clash of a diversified's nation's millions against each other until a satisfying resolution emerges (rarely)?

That whole paragraph sounds like a pretty good description of Congress actually.

[Rolepgeek]

How would you define weak, smj?

I'm honestly curious because I haven't paid a lot of attention to how Obama's been handling foreign affairs. Last president I know was weak on foreign affairs was Bill Clinton, not enforcing sanctions on Iraq and whatnot.

[Rolan7]

I saw 'rol' used as shorthand and got real worried for a second.

On less flamebaity (albeit less immediately relevant topics...), is it better to vote for someone competent or someone who shares your views? And by competent, I don't mean 'good at politicking'. I mean 'actually debates, can be convinced/convincing, judges things based on reason, digs into the heart of matters', etc.

Would you rather vote for someone who only shared a few of your views but was obviously intelligent and could be persuaded to have a different opinion if presented with a convincing enough argument, or someone who will stick to their principles, rarely if ever change, and push for your ideals, regardless of whether they're right?

Are politicians leaders who decide collectively on our course of action, and we try to elect the most competent (and fail at it), or tools, mouthpieces for the public that serve to emulate the intellectual and ideological clash of a diversified's nation's millions against each other until a satisfying resolution emerges (rarely)?

It's a good question Rol ().
I actually do think Sanders is impressively competent, and I absolutely love that he doesn't have a superPAC.  I was going to vote for him and I'd still like to!  I think he'd be a good president, even with congress being the right-of-center morass of corruption that it is.  I'm just leaning towards the idea that Clinton, as an insider with more moderate ideas, can better swing the country the direction I want.

Also I had a problem with a tiny subset of Sanders supporters who are dumb.  There are dumb people in every camp, I probably shouldn't have brought it up :X  I'm more disappointed in the two I know personally than anyone in this thread.

[Morrigi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LltnLzLXs7U

fucking lol, nice work MSNBC

[smjjames]

I don't remember that much about Bill Clinton as far as what he did (mostly because I was a kid, but also because I didn't pay much attention to politics at the time). The whole Monica Lewinsky stuff and the Bosnian war comes to mind mostly.

Weak on foriegn would be, well, not really being a leader and also not putting his/her foot down when neccesary (remember those bunch of red lines on Syria?), you know, something like Teddy Roosevelt, except with a heck of a lot less imperialism, not sure. Only having really known two adminstrations ( George W. Bush and Obama), it's not fully solidified yet I don't think, dunno.

While I think Clinton would definetly be competent, she hasn't really shown what she would do for foriegn stuff, it's just not clearly separated from Obamas for me. Yes, I know she's carrying on Obamas legacy, but what would her policy be and I know she is quite a bit more hawkish.

[mainiac]

I'm honestly curious because I haven't paid a lot of attention to how Obama's been handling foreign affairs. Last president I know was weak on foreign affairs was Bill Clinton, not enforcing sanctions on Iraq and whatnot.

He must have been too busy ordering bombing campaigns on Iraq them to realize what a pushover he was in the eyes of the Iraqis. 

I remember when I was young there was some news segment about how we had killed a bunch more Iraqi soldiers in an airstrike.  My father was upset about people dying.  My sense of morality had not yet become sophisticated enough to understand what he meant.  They were the bad guys so if we were killing them we were winning.  But in the eyes of my father at least, Bill Clinton was lamentably trigger happy.

[nenjin]

Similar half-remembered news stories from my youth about the same thing in the Balkans. And the same thing in Afghanistan. I think Cruise Missiles were to Clinton what Drone Strikes are to Obama: the newest and best way to have an impact without risking US troops.

Clinton wasn't a saber-rattler. But that doesn't mean he wasn't doing things. He just did them without all the public fanfare of support building that we've kinda come to expect from presidents post-9/11 engaging in overseas operations. In that respect, I think Obama is a lot like Clinton. They're more than willing to take calculated military action. They're just not going to crow about it or make it a central part of their public administration track record, unless it's something monumental like killing Bin Laden.

[smjjames]

We've only had a sample size of 2 since 9/11. Obama was responding to the war weariness and anti-war sentiment that was going on in 2008 and vowed to not get us into any further conflicts. Aside from Libya and then Syria started it's slow implosion and then ISIS happened.

Whether we pulled out from Iraq too soon or not can be debated on end and would be better suited to the Armchair Army General thread than this.

[mainiac]

Huh?  We were talking purely the political side of it.