Print

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

[smjjames]

When he was in his 20's, I don't think we even had any trade agreements with China at the time.

Oh so I'm just supposed to believe that he is sincere in these new beliefs because of some excuse like that?  Oh dont worry you stupid white people, he is really on your side!  No, no, it's not racist to think white people are that stupid.

I'm stating a fact (though maybe I could have stated it better), trade relations between China and the US didn't resume in the 60's (which is when Bernie would have been in his 20's), they resumed in the early 70's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Economic_relations

Also, are you really assuming he suddenly adopted those ideas a month or whatever before he ran for president?

Responding to the start of the exercises, Kim threatened Monday to unleash a "preemptive nuclear strike of justice."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/07/469470564/north-korea-threatens-preemptive-strike-as-u-s-south-korea-hold-military-exercis

can we just crush them already? china would be delighted if they just disappeared one day.

You're probably looking for the NK thread....

They most likely won't since unleashing a nuke would definetly mean the end of his reign, but then again, Kim Jong-Un seems rather unpredictable and unstable.

[Willfor]

As patronizing as it sounds, that's your opinion, and many disagree. For example, here's a couple of things wrong with your example; we have the ability to get organs from other sources, and while it's not enough for the demand, it's still there in significant enough quantity as to be feasible. The same does not hold true of artificial wombs. Furthermore, organ extraction often or always kills the donor, except in the case of liver and kidneys, I believe. Pregnancy is not quite the same level of risk. Finally, if you believed abortion was killing babies; like you honestly believed that it was approximately equivalent to allowing an infant to starve because breastfeeding them was too difficult/painful (I don't hold this opinion; others very well could), would you really say 'well it's the mother's choice'? If it was that easy, it would be solved.

The people who believe this are usually also people who believe that killing in self-defense is justifiable.

I'm not going to say it's not a complicated issue, it's just that if it were any other issue I would see a virulent defense in the same vein as I am giving about the right of the individual. Hell, most would say it's not even the government's business to know whether you were pregnant or not. But as soon as a baby is involved all of these personal freedom and property rights defenses are suddenly tossed out the window? That's why I find it so hypocritical. Why can't the same justifications that are used by Americans to justify the rest of their beliefs be applied to their standards for abortion? Well, mothers should be given the option to stand their ground if homeowners are afforded the same.

[Wolock]

As a Canadian I need someone to explain to me why Clinton is that much of a bad choice. While Bernie would fit my own belief better but he's still not getting more than 50% of the pledged delegates. To me Clinton is pretty much a middle-of-the-run/business-as-usual politician with good experience in politics. Yes the expectations are low but she won't trash the USA either. I also understand that people in the USA are fed-up with the status quo, but Bernie is losing the candidacy, Trump is at best unpredictable and at worst is downright dangerous and Cruz is a reactionary.

If I had to choose I'd go with Bernie but I wouldn't mind Clinton too. Seriously, why a President Hillary CLinton would be that bad?

[mainiac]

Also, are you really assuming he suddenly adopted those ideas a month or whatever before he ran for president?

Sure, just the same as Hillary Clinton suddenly cared about black people and financial regulation a month or whatever before she ran for president.

What we've got to understand is that Bernie isn't the same as Hillary.  He is racist against white people and a lot worse then Hillary.

((almost forgot to include a racism accusation that time!))

[i2amroy]

Also, are you really assuming he suddenly adopted those ideas a month or whatever before he ran for president?

Wasn't there like a recent interview where he actually pointed out that originally his reason for running for president wasn't really to be elected, but rather to simply force discussion on his particular set of issues (IIRC the interview included him mentioning that his wife was rather put out that he couldn't come up with a better way to force discussion)? I seem to remember reading something about that recently, though I'm having a bit of difficulty locating the original source due to all the news going on. :/

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Responding to the start of the exercises, Kim threatened Monday to unleash a "preemptive nuclear strike of justice."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/07/469470564/north-korea-threatens-preemptive-strike-as-u-s-south-korea-hold-military-exercis

can we just crush them already? china would be delighted if they just disappeared one day.

You're probably looking for the NK thread....

They most likely won't since unleashing a nuke would definetly mean the end of his reign, but then again, Kim Jong-Un seems rather unpredictable and unstable.

DPRK THREAD INVASION IMMINENT

As patronizing as it sounds, that's your opinion, and many disagree. For example, here's a couple of things wrong with your example; we have the ability to get organs from other sources, and while it's not enough for the demand, it's still there in significant enough quantity as to be feasible. The same does not hold true of artificial wombs. Furthermore, organ extraction often or always kills the donor, except in the case of liver and kidneys, I believe. Pregnancy is not quite the same level of risk. Finally, if you believed abortion was killing babies; like you honestly believed that it was approximately equivalent to allowing an infant to starve because breastfeeding them was too difficult/painful (I don't hold this opinion; others very well could), would you really say 'well it's the mother's choice'? If it was that easy, it would be solved.

The people who believe this are usually also people who believe that killing in self-defense is justifiable.

I'm not going to say it's not a complicated issue, it's just that if it were any other issue I would see a virulent defense in the same vein as I am giving about the right of the individual. Hell, most would say it's not even the government's business to know whether you were pregnant or not. But as soon as a baby is involved all of these personal freedom and property rights defenses are suddenly tossed out the window? That's why I find it so hypocritical. Why can't the same justifications that are used by Americans to justify the rest of their beliefs be applied to their standards for abortion? Well, mothers should be given the option to stand their ground if homeowners are afforded the same.

I will shoot literally everyone who looks at my individually owned blades of grass.

I don't think it's appropriate to contextualize it as "not a moral issue but a body autonomy issue". Obviously that then makes it a moral issue all over again.

As a Canadian I need someone to explain to me why Clinton is that much of a bad choice. While Bernie would fit my own belief better but he's still not getting more than 50% of the pledged delegates. To me Clinton is pretty much a middle-of-the-run/business-as-usual politician with good experience in politics. Yes the expectations are low but she won't trash the USA either. I also understand that people in the USA are fed-up with the status quo, but Bernie is losing the candidacy, Trump is at best unpredictable and at worst is downright dangerous and Cruz is a reactionary.

If I had to choose I'd go with Bernie but I wouldn't mind Clinton too. Seriously, why a President Hillary CLinton would be that bad?

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head yourself. Clinton is the essence of the status quo, and that status quo is slowly killing us, mind and body alike. In that kind of scenario Hillary Clinton is the worst possible candidate because she strengthens everything that is wrong with the now.

This is without even talking about her amorphous pandering pragmatism or the fact that she's an escaped military android created by the CIA in the mid-60s to castrate communists, but there are plenty of other things as well.

[smirk]

Jeez, I left a perfectly good comment this morning equating Hillary to Nixon and it straight-up gets ignored for an argument over the definition of a deliberately nebulous label. Why do I even try? 

As patronizing as it sounds, that's your opinion, and many disagree. For example, here's a couple of things wrong with your example; we have the ability to get organs from other sources, and while it's not enough for the demand, it's still there in significant enough quantity as to be feasible. The same does not hold true of artificial wombs. Furthermore, organ extraction often or always kills the donor, except in the case of liver and kidneys, I believe. Pregnancy is not quite the same level of risk. Finally, if you believed abortion was killing babies; like you honestly believed that it was approximately equivalent to allowing an infant to starve because breastfeeding them was too difficult/painful (I don't hold this opinion; others very well could), would you really say 'well it's the mother's choice'? If it was that easy, it would be solved.

The people who believe this are usually also people who believe that killing in self-defense is justifiable.

I'm not going to say it's not a complicated issue, it's just that if it were any other issue I would see a virulent defense in the same vein as I am giving about the right of the individual. Hell, most would say it's not even the government's business to know whether you were pregnant or not. But as soon as a baby is involved all of these personal freedom and property rights defenses are suddenly tossed out the window? That's why I find it so hypocritical. Why can't the same justifications that are used by Americans to justify the rest of their beliefs be applied to their standards for abortion? Well, mothers should be given the option to stand their ground if homeowners are afforded the same.

I'm not gonna jump into the moral side of abortion rights, but as far as harm to women goes: Guess what are coming back into fashion? Coat hangers. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/the-return-of-the-diy-abortion.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

As a Canadian I need someone to explain to me why Clinton is that much of a bad choice. While Bernie would fit my own belief better but he's still not getting more than 50% of the pledged delegates. To me Clinton is pretty much a middle-of-the-run/business-as-usual politician with good experience in politics. Yes the expectations are low but she won't trash the USA either. I also understand that people in the USA are fed-up with the status quo, but Bernie is losing the candidacy, Trump is at best unpredictable and at worst is downright dangerous and Cruz is a reactionary.

If I had to choose I'd go with Bernie but I wouldn't mind Clinton too. Seriously, why a President Hillary CLinton would be that bad?

She wouldn't be all that bad, so far as I can tell. But as you say, she's a politician's politician and a centrist in a time when people are increasingly polarized and see centrists as sell-outs or panderers. She's been a target for a lot of groups for a long time now, so there's an ingrained level of vitriol towards her at the gut level of a lot of people. That's not to say that there aren't good reasons not to like her, but personally I can't see Trump v. Clinton as any sort of dilemma. Four years of "Goddammit, I guess *heavy sigh*" is still better than giving an egomaniacal gold-plated skin flake access to the launch codes.

[Baffler]

The whole "Hilary/Bernie is SJW" conversation seems oddly prescient now that this thing is flooding my facebook page. TIL white people cannot be poor and that $CURRENTYEAR.

[smjjames]

Also, are you really assuming he suddenly adopted those ideas a month or whatever before he ran for president?

Wasn't there like a recent interview where he actually pointed out that originally his reason for running for president wasn't really to be elected, but rather to simply force discussion on his particular set of issues (IIRC the interview included him mentioning that his wife was rather put out that he couldn't come up with a better way to force discussion)? I seem to remember reading something about that recently, though I'm having a bit of difficulty locating the original source due to all the news going on. :/

Yeah, there was something said somewhere. Besides, it's seeming like his reason for running is not so much to run for President than get to the convention and try to put his ideological stamp on the democratic agenda, or at least influence it.

There was some article about Jessie Jackson doing a similar thing in the 80's, I'll try to find it.

[Wolock]

As a Canadian I need someone to explain to me why Clinton is that much of a bad choice. While Bernie would fit my own belief better but he's still not getting more than 50% of the pledged delegates. To me Clinton is pretty much a middle-of-the-run/business-as-usual politician with good experience in politics. Yes the expectations are low but she won't trash the USA either. I also understand that people in the USA are fed-up with the status quo, but Bernie is losing the candidacy, Trump is at best unpredictable and at worst is downright dangerous and Cruz is a reactionary.

If I had to choose I'd go with Bernie but I wouldn't mind Clinton too. Seriously, why a President Hillary CLinton would be that bad?

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head yourself. Clinton is the essence of the status quo, and that status quo is slowly killing us, mind and body alike. In that kind of scenario Hillary Clinton is the worst possible candidate because she strengthens everything that is wrong with the now.

This is without even talking about her amorphous pandering pragmatism or the fact that she's an escaped military android created by the CIA in the mid-60s to castrate communists, but there are plenty of other things as well.

Good, but why the people going for Bernie either seems to go for "not at all" or for Trump. Change for change's sake can be worst...

[Shadowlord]

So I just blazed through the last five or six pages and apparently maniac has decided to just outright troll now?

Uggghhh.

[mainiac]

So I just blazed through the last five or six pages and apparently maniac has decided to just outright troll now?

Uggghhh.

I am in a perfectly adult and responsible fashion pointing out that Bernie Sanders is racist against white people.  Please desist from your unprovoked personal attacks.  We have established that it is reasonable to call a politician racist and that it is not acceptable to make personal attacks like you are making now.

Actually, better idea.  Would you prefer if every time someone accuses the Clinton camp of racially tinged rhetoric I ask them to stop trolling?  It is a perfectly acceptable compromise to me if we decide that we will simply consider such behavior trolling.

[Egan_BW]

Regardless of your opinions, I can't see any way to view the way you're acting as anything but childish.

[nenjin]

From someone who has little to no involvement in the greater discussions in this thread...

maniac, you know what you're doing. You add an extra layer of smarm to just about every post where you perceive someone disagreeing with you.

You can make your point without constantly being snide about it. It's not something reportable, but it makes this thread about as toxic as a portapotty tank. I know you believe you're right in just about everything, but, can you maybe dial it back for the sake of discourse?

[Frumple]

If I had to choose I'd go with Bernie but I wouldn't mind Clinton too. Seriously, why a President Hillary CLinton would be that bad?

She most likely wouldn't be, really. Most signs point to her probably being about as "bad" as Obama, who... did pretty alright. Not as good as a lot of people would prefer, but not bad in most areas. Even on that change front a lot of people felt/still feel he was badly stymied on... dude got some work done, if a lot of it pretty low-key.

Mostly what you're running into is a lot of propaganda/built up vitriol/personal dislike, etc., etc, more than her actually being some kind of nightmare scenario. I couldn't really tell you exactly why folks are saying if not!bernie then trump, though, other than either tongue-in-cheek or (hopefully) temporary insanity. Maybe a bit of (incredibly) childish 'If I don't get what I want, fuck everyone' sentiment. Some of that incredibly stupid sentiment that you have to burn everything down to fix a problem. Probably some general dislike for the party establishments. Not really a single 'reason', just a bunch of different ones leading to communal suicide.