Print

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

[smjjames]

I think it's more that it's gone beyond the  point of 'I disagree on some/all of this, here's my peoples compromise' to 'I RABIDLY DISAGREE AND MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!!!'

At least from my view of congress anyway.

[mainiac]

so even though she directly and indirectly opposes things I support that I should still back her to avoid partisanship, and as maniac said in that post literally because she wants to be President?

No, you should vote your conscience.  But you should accept that I think she is a damn fine example of liberalism.

[Dorsidwarf]

Not the point, man. It's not maniac, it's Clinton. It's just not a valid argument to begin with, as if my support is obligated to someone who does not represent me just...because? What, because she has a (D) next to her name, so even though she directly and indirectly opposes things I support that I should still back her to avoid partisanship, and as maniac said in that post literally because she wants to be President?

And that said, it does replicate one of the things about Clinton that most repulses me, and that's her sense of entitlement to the Presidency and the loving support of everyone who doesn't think Trumpmania or the Cruzocracy is a good idea.

You're not obligated to support HRC, you're obligated to not act like the views of her and her supporters are automatically idiotic/misguided/evil/foolish/wrongbad because they're different to yours.

All political positions have some level of validity ( except MRL party over in Blighty), but that doesn't mean that we have to be pan-political, only that we not reject the ideas out of hand because they aren't ours.

[Flying Dice]

Not the point, man. It's not maniac, it's Clinton. It's just not a valid argument to begin with, as if my support is obligated to someone who does not represent me just...because? What, because she has a (D) next to her name, so even though she directly and indirectly opposes things I support that I should still back her to avoid partisanship, and as maniac said in that post literally because she wants to be President?

And that said, it does replicate one of the things about Clinton that most repulses me, and that's her sense of entitlement to the Presidency and the loving support of everyone who doesn't think Trumpmania or the Cruzocracy is a good idea.

You're not obligated to support HRC, you're obligated to not act like the views of her and her supporters are automatically idiotic/misguided/evil/foolish/wrongbad because they're different to yours.

All political positions have some level of validity ( except MRL party over in Blighty), but that doesn't mean that we have to be pan-political, only that we not reject the ideas out of hand because they aren't ours.

See, I might buy that line if I hadn't seen people repeatedly get attacked in here for suggesting that Her Clintoness isn't the perfect model of progressive values. Which she ain't. She's a corporate tool worse than Obama was, tends to change her policy positions with the political wind, and has repeatedly supported noxious undemocratic positions.

And I would put money on me being attacked for saying that literally less than a page after people were talking about how horribly they were being oppressed for supporting Clinton and can't we all just THINK THE WAY I WANT US TO accept that we've got differences of opinion.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

so even though she directly and indirectly opposes things I support that I should still back her to avoid partisanship, and as maniac said in that post literally because she wants to be President?

No, you should vote your conscience.  But you should accept that I think she is a damn fine example of liberalism.

Fine, accepted. If that's the source of all the intra-thread combat over the past year it's not an issue. But not accepting that you accept HRC as a paragon of liberalism does not really seem to connect with the objections you've raised against me and RK previously.

You're not obligated to support HRC, you're obligated to not act like the views of her and her supporters are automatically idiotic/misguided/evil/foolish/wrongbad because they're different to yours.

All political positions have some level of validity ( except MRL party over in Blighty), but that doesn't mean that we have to be pan-political, only that we not reject the ideas out of hand because they aren't ours.

Nobody goes out of their way to say things like that about the other people in this election, though. It certainly smacks of underhandedness when general rejection of HRC is taken as saying she's Mecha-Hitler-Satan. I freely admit she is not Mecha-Hitler-Satan, and even that taken on a spectrum of all possible rulers she's probably above the 90th percentile. But the thing is, taken in our modern context and how we should evaluate our leadership, that is plenty enough to be wrongbad. I'm not going to pretend that banning Muslims from the USA isn't wrongbad just because it has a level of validity, and so I will not do the same for the neoliberal consensus.

[mainiac]

Nobody goes out of their way to say things like that about the other people in this election, though. It certainly smacks of underhandedness when general rejection of HRC is taken as saying she's Mecha-Hitler-Satan.

Literally by fucking who?  Because I'm THE guy who stands up for Clinton in this thread.  It's kinda been noticeable for a while now.  Hell, it was noticeable before I even made up my mind between the candidates (Sheb noted this at one point but it seems most people missed that).  So when did I do that?  When did I exaggerate and say that anyone who has a problem with Clinton is hyperbolic?

On the other hand we JUST had something where I made a normative statement about probabilities and RedKing (notice that I named a specific person and incident) started trotting out HRC as a wicked witch.

THIS IS THE BEHAVIOR I AM TALKING ABOUT.  You misconstrue my views and in doing so treat it as illegitimate.

[sluissa]

Nobody goes out of their way to say things like that about the other people in this election, though. It certainly smacks of underhandedness when general rejection of HRC is taken as saying she's Mecha-Hitler-Satan.

Literally by fucking who?  Because I'm THE guy who stands up for Clinton in this thread.  It's kinda been noticeable for a while now.  Hell, it was noticeable before I even made up my mind between the candidates (Sheb noted this at one point but it seems most people missed that).  So when did I do that?  When did I exaggerate and say that anyone who has a problem with Clinton is hyperbolic?

On the other hand we JUST had something where I made a normative statement about probabilities and RedKing (notice that I named a specific person and incident) started trotting out HRC as a wicked witch.

THIS IS THE BEHAVIOR I AM TALKING ABOUT.  You misconstrue my views and in doing so treat it as illegitimate.

While there's a lot I want to say, most of it is unkind, so I'll just stick with this one.

You are NOT the only Clinton supporter in this thread, by far.

[Rolan7]

Edit:  Yeah, but...

This is a pretty pro-Bernie thread.  Which is totally fine, as long as people don't drive away the dissenting opinion.
Not that it's just Mainiac (and me sometimes) but it's pretty unbalanced, and sometimes feels a little hostile.  Still better than pretty much any other forum, though.

[Owlbread]

Perhaps I'm just not so jaded yet that I'd settle for someone who is best placed to endure Republican bullshit, I'd rather support the candidate whose views and proposals most closely match my wishes for the country. That said, I do see where Mainiac is coming from and respect his position; I can understand why he and others back her, even if I don't. There are of course some reasons that, if compelled to choose between her and Trump I would probably waste my vote on a third party candidate if I was American, as with most elections. If it's of any note, the Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is Clinton's biggest fan.

It's a great pity Elizabeth Warren isn't running. I'd probably still back Bernie because he seems the more radical of the two.

EDIT:

I know it's inappropriate and I know it's the exact kind of thing Mainiac was talking about, but I just can't get the description in the first part of this quote out of my head:

The Democratic frontrunner is Hillary Clinton, a ruthless, steel-haired troll doll. Hers is the face that would haunt a lot of Libyans’ nightmares, if they were still alive. Unfortunately for her election prospects, Hillary has never quite learned to introduce humour or compassion into her speaking voice and on a good day sounds like an android trying to trick the last human out of a bunker. (...) And yet no matter how bad the choice is, we’ll always have a preference. Clinton will be offering an expanded kill list of official enemies, secret corporate courts, and her first speech about Palestine will sound like it was written by the Hulk. A lot of otherwise rational minds will be praying for her to win.

[Helgoland]

The Democratic frontrunner is Hillary Clinton, a ruthless, steel-haired troll doll. Hers is the face that would haunt a lot of Libyans’ nightmares, if they were still alive. Unfortunately for her election prospects, Hillary has never quite learned to introduce humour or compassion into her speaking voice and on a good day sounds like an android trying to trick the last human out of a bunker.

Sounds like a compliment to me.

Maybe I should lay off the Merkel for a while.

[Flying Dice]

It's a great pity Elizabeth Warren isn't running. I'd probably still back Bernie because he seems the more radical of the two.

S'truth. She's a compromise candidate I'd be able to vote for without feeling morally bankrupt and I wish she was willing to run (though I certainly understand why she doesn't).

Though at this point I'd be willing to vote for just about anyone who isn't literally Stalin or a two-faced corporate sockpuppet. Maybe even Nader.

[Rolan7]

I actually think Bernie Sanders is great, and I hope he's changing the dialogue by running.  He's an actual progressive, an actual liberal even, and it's impressive how much support he's getting.  I think that's a good sign.

I just think that, as president with an uncooperative congress, Clinton will get more done with incremental change.  Sander's ideas are perfectly reasonable, except congress won't pass them.  Obama had good ideas too (mostly).

Though to be fair, just because I think Sanders is pretty cool, doesn't mean that other people should automatically hold Clinton in the same regard.  I don't get why they treat her like the fucking antichrist, and act like the reasons are so obvious that they need not be shared, but they're welcome to their strong opinions.

[Helgoland]

Quick question about Sanders: Is what he (and his supporters) call 'socialism' actually supposed to mean 'social democracy'?

If yes, follow-up question: Why do they insist on calling it 'socialism'? Is it just to be edgy/to have a nice catchy word? Because it certainly isn't helping the discourse.

[mainiac]

You are NOT the only Clinton supporter in this thread, by far.

Yeah, I phrase that wrong.

Quick question about Sanders: Is what he (and his supporters) call 'socialism' actually supposed to mean 'social democracy'?

I think his prefered label is social democrat but he owns the socialist label because if you aren't owning it they will say you are running away from it.

[Frumple]

It is, and they do it because americans wouldn't know what social democracy was if it rammed a cactus up their ass.

Yes, nevermind that the US itself is a social democracy. The electorate still largely has no idea what the blazes one is, and "socialism" is about the only way to get the point across.

And that, I guess.