Study: Hillary Clinton’s TV ads were almost entirely policy-free
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Well, you keep replying so, yes.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
have an orgasm then.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
They're manhandling the country just fine, though.
I feel like it's a sisyphean task, only the boulder rolls further down every time.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Clinton has advocated local governments implement their own minimum wage (including Republican states)
Democrat Bob Casey on birth control; "I've said very clearly that I oppose the White House decision,"
Democrat Joe Manchin on birth control; "I feel it's wrong, the direction and the position that the administration is taking and [Health and Human Services] has taken. I think it needs to be repealed, overturned, and let's go back to where we were,"
Religion And Birth Control: Not Just A GOP Fight
This is an interesting one.. Establishment Democrats are on the same page as progressive Democrats on gun control because it doesn't interfere with their business interests
Nonsense. Establishment Democrats like Clinton and Franks do not give a fuck about financial reform. She couldn't even commit to reinstating Glass-Steagall during the primary;
"I went there and I told them to cut it out!" for fucks sake..
Same deal with gun control
Right, that's why we got the individual mandate instead of single payer.. when the Dem's had complete control of the government.. Now that's what rallies the supporters!
"Hey, at least we're not monsters when it comes to LGBTQ rights!".. Another wedge issue none of their corporate sponsors could lose money on, shocking.
7 interventions under Barack Obama, you are completely fucking nuts if you think the Democrats have a "steady foreign policy"
Bullshit. Evidence?
Sanders had the best idea for access to higher education yet you and the moderate shills shunned him for it
Doesn't affect the corporate bottom line so why not?
Another issue that doesn't affect the corporate bottom line of the campaign funders
Interesting, so why didn't Perez or Peters mention lowering the deficit in either of their interviews?
Dispensary raids rise under Obama
What's Clinton's stance on the war on drugs the private prison industry?
Like the crisis that began in 2014 in Flilnt? 2 years before Obama left office?
Hooray?
NAFTA & the TPP support corporations, not workers rights. I thought the Democratic party was supposed to protect workers rights and strengthen unions, etc.?
You can support free trade without shafting workers, but only if you don't take millions in bribes from the same corporations you're supposed to be protecting workers from..
My ass. Democratic politicians in America support Israel under all circumstances, if they don't, for example if they oppose illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land that goes against international law, they're labeled 'anti-semetic'. If they criticize the ideas of Islam, they're labeled 'xenophobic'. The reactionary left, like you, trot out any label you think might stick to people who make valid criticisms of Israel or Islam.
Examples please? Fuckin' India just passed 6 months paid leave, India! The fuck is America waiting for exactly? What is it, Republican obstructionism again? When in doubt, blame the Republicans..
An effective education reform that would be effective is universal college. But weird, you don't support that for some reason..
Empty rhetoric and platitudes. Anyone can say they support it, what has any establishment Democrat shown that they support it?
They recite bullshit, you believe it, then they never follow through and you still support them because you view the opposition as worse. If the opposition is always worse, they will continue to get away with more and more fucked up policy that benefits them and not us, and both the Democrats and Republicans ensure the opposition is always worse to their base. The fact that you have not caught onto this by now is shameful. It shows you have no understanding of American politics. You're nothing but a pretender with an unquenchable ego.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
'manhandling' is certainly a good way to put it.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
I don't know man, voting for someone because the opposition is worse isn't a terrible thing.
You mention Bob Casey. He beat Rick Santorum. I voted for Casey. Who would you have voted for between Casey and Santorum?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
write in jill stein.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
As usual, you put my misgivings about the Democratic party to words much better than I do.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you think that 48 democrats can stop cabinet appointments and having to bring in the vice president to cast a tie breaking vote on a cabinet nominee, who are usually voted in unanimously, is rolling over.
you are as bad as any right wing ideologue.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Continued support for the best of the worst perpetuates the system that exploits it
What's the difference between voting for a Republican who won't represent your interests and voting for a Democrat who won't represent your interests? One is better on social issues, hooray! I find little to praise in that platform and nothing to highlight as a Democratic "value".
This entire system s what we should be fighting against, but some of us want the best of the worst to win because the worst of the worst might win. I think these people need to take a good, long look in the mirror and ask themselves if this is truly the way they want to do business around the world and at home. It's unsustainable.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Sessions is still AG.
That says everything about our current state of governance that needs to be said.
backtracker
Well-Known Member
This is exactly what Russian hackers do they sew doubt, division and discontent all the while saying that they love the very thing that they're trashing, they say they are one but they are so disillusioned that they are thinking of going with the other side because there is no difference.
“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he
knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.” – Harry Frankfurt
In On Bullshit the philosopher Frankfurt (2005) defines
bullshit as something that is designed to impress but that
was constructed absent direct concern for the truth. This
distinguishes bullshit from lying, which entails a deliberate
manipulation and subversion of truth (as understood by the
liar). There is little question that bullshit is a real and con-
sequential phenomenon. Indeed, given the rise of communication
technology and the associated increase in the avail-ability of
information from a variety of sources, both expert and otherwise,
bullshit may be more pervasive than ever before. Despite these
seemingly commonplace observations,we know of no psychological
research on bullshit. Are people able to detect blatant bullshit? Who is most likely to fall
prey to bullshit and why? http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
This eloquently describes the stranglehold corporations and their major stockholders have on American politics.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
No I don't. That's a lie you just made up. I simply stated that for a Democratic senator to vote for any of Trump's cabinet nominees was shameful, including Bernie Sanders. Every single Democratic senator should be voting against every single Trump cabinet nominee. You disagree because you believe it's important that the Democratic party hang on to DINOs like Manchin, even though they vote with Trump more than 70% of the time, for some reason yet to be explained..
Democratic constituents don't elect Democratic politicians so they fold over under pressure, the elect them to represent their Democratic values. I can see how this is a foreign concept to you as you seem to entrust your representatives with full support. Again showing signs of very little knowledge of the workings of governments. What books have you read about this? Do you simply get all the information you believe from blogs and conspiracy sites online? Is MSNBC listed in your favorite channels? You're just as bad as any Fox News - Kynes - beenthere - AlexJones conspiracy theorist at this point..
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Why not people of each state have the representatives they like? Democrats in other states can only have the representation approved of by California liberals?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's exactly what I'm advocating
I believe actual progressives in traditionally conservative districts will win if they champion an actual progressive message, like strengthening the middle-class, increasing the minimum wage, supporting single payer and universal college, an end to the war on drugs and the private prison industry, an increase in domestic infrastructure investment, etc.. What we currently have is corporatist Democrats going up against Republicans in red districts who lose their asses in elections because none of their corporate policy positions resonate with white working-class voters. Establishment Democrats don't invest in progressive politicians because their beliefs about campaign finance reform are inconsistent with establishment values.
If actual progressives run and are not stifled by the current Democratic establishment, they will win hands down. Progressive policies as described earlier are popular among both progressives and conservatives. If a competent politician ran on a populist platform and committed to only accepting individual contributions, he/she would win, doesn't matter the color of the district.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You believe that Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida voted Trump and republican congressmen because the Democrats were not liberal enough?
Do you have something factual that this belief is based upon? Because that sounds delusional to me.
From what I see, the reason Democrats lost those states because liberals weren't addressing what they wanted. The voters chose people who they thought were more likely to support what they wanted. And the people they voted for are as conservative as the day is long. So, just the opposite of you. I see the signal from the losses in those states in 2016 as a sign that those states support more conservative leaning policies than a California or Oregon liberal would be happy with. My evidence is the election result. What information do you have that refutes this?
Do you have something factual that this belief is based upon? Because that sounds delusional to me.
From what I see, the reason Democrats lost those states because liberals weren't addressing what they wanted. The voters chose people who they thought were more likely to support what they wanted. And the people they voted for are as conservative as the day is long. So, just the opposite of you. I see the signal from the losses in those states in 2016 as a sign that those states support more conservative leaning policies than a California or Oregon liberal would be happy with. My evidence is the election result. What information do you have that refutes this?
Wilderb
Well-Known Member
Really? WTF?
THIS is why she lost.