Sure you can find some dumb democrats - but the consistency with which these same viewpoints come up for the republican side is frighteningly high. It's truly representative of the vast majority of trump's supporters.
Hillary is a horrible cunt, but you really should vote for her.
Some I know posted a funny, but accurate summary:
"I'm not voting for the establishment candidates, I'm voting independently for GARY JOHNSON!"
Johnson: "BAN ALL PUBLIC EDUCATION."
"Ok, nevermind, I'm voting for Jill Stein."
Stein: WIFI CAUSES CANCER AND HOMEOPATHY IS VIABLE MEDICINE.
"Ok, I'm voting for Clinton."
Why I think Hillary is disliked:
1) The Left is desperately, cravenly afraid of being "sheeple". That means they won't get behind a candidate whom the Right has deemed "controversial" because of scandals real or imagined. "Whoa hey, I'm no mindless Democrat-bot, you make legitimate points about Hillary being a dishonest untrustworthy human being."
2) Hillary has a great many skills, but she is a terrible salesperson. A good salesman can prepare a sales pitch and make it sound natural and believable; Hillary doesn't have that skill. But talk to her long enough that she's exhausted the prepared pitch and is just speaking from the gut ... she's golden.
3) Hillary has been consequential long enough to have negatives in her record. Her critics on the Left have never done anything that would make them matter.
4) The "economics first, everything else last" stance on the Left requires villains. It's not enough that our economic system runs largely on self-interest and a little crab mentality, and that even our best politicians are human beings trying to balance a variety of interests and there are no perfect solutions. The wealthy are trying to destroy the common man, and any politician who isn't actively trying to destroy the wealthy is complicit. (The only people who aren't complicit: those who eagerly buy the products sold by big business and thus make them wealthy enough to be the enemy. Sorry kids, the first rule of being a "revolutionary" is to not collaborate or fraternize with the enemy.)
My first choice would be another Obama term, but that can't happen. My second choice would be a Barney Frank presidency, but that won't happen. Hillary comes in at number three and I'm good with her.
Did you guys forget about the wars in the Middle East/East Africa/Central Asia that we were supposed to get out of? Or the War on Drugs we're still waging? Or the growing Surveillance State? Is that really less important than Jill Stein's position on Homeopathy? (Which are totally unregulated under Obama and Bush, and will continue to be unregulated under Clinton)
Hillary did start making noise about single-payer a few days ago, finally. If she keeps that up, maybe I'll give a shit. Otherwise, Jill Stein's getting my (symbolic) vote.
Also, the Daily Show will never be funny again. It just won't.
Miss Henson's 6th grade class
I like Bort's comment, but I also think that it's genuinely okay to be nervous about Hilary's more hawkish tendencies. At the same time, I wish more people wold see this particular binary choice as a choice between not-so-good and awful, rather than a test of ideological purity. There are political spaces where you can, in fact, decide exactly where your political energy goes, but the presidential election is not one of them.
You seem to be hung up on some rather small issues. The Wars, The War on Drugs, the incarceration epidemic, runaway Wall Street speculation, global warming and the surveillance state are all more important to me than making sure GMO stay unlabeled.
"Is that really less important than Jill Stein's position on Homeopathy?"
Yes, because Jill Stein has had less opportunity to fuck things up and still she has done her best to. She can't even stand up to her idiot fan base; how's she going to deal with complex situations where there are no perfect solutions?
"Hillary did start making noise about single-payer a few days ago, finally."
And you think that matters? Didn't Bernie explain that there's no way to make single payer happen without overwhelming Congressional majorities? And did he even mention that Green Mountain Single Payer crashed and burned in his own state because medical COSTS are still out of control, and until we tackle that, single payer will be no improvement over what we've got now? Welcome to the real world that keeps crowd-pleasing answers from working. It's a shame that Bernie was unwilling to be straight about any of that, and Jill Stein is no better.
Also, plz cite where she's linking vaccines to autism or even implying a link.
"I like Bort's comment, but I also think that it's genuinely okay to be nervous about Hilary's more hawkish tendencies."
I have my cocnerns about that as well. But I am optimistic that she's smart enough to learn from Obama. Prior to Obama, it was hard to sell the public on how Democrats are the party of safer foreign policy, but Obama has proven pretty well that it's not necessary to out-tough the Republicans to do a better job. Hillary's no dummy and I think she's going to take after Obama more than Bill.
The Dem party could have pushed for filibuster reform if they actually wanted to accomplish anything during the Obama presidency. They hamstrug themselves at the behest of their doners. Why would I keep voting for that? More war, more incarceration, more Bush. Seriously, how long are you willing to stay in Afghanistan. Forever?
Here's Jill Stein MD on vaccines in general:
And here is Jill Stein MD backing down from firmly saying there is no evidence linking vaccines to autism:
She's dancing a very delicate dance to not offend her idiot fan base. Once again I ask: if she can't even stand up to these bozos, what happens when she has to make some genuinely tough choices?
I agree that Reid et al should have pushed for filibuster reform at the start of the 2011 and 2013 terms. That's an insane miscalculation on the part of Reid and friends, but it doesn't follow that "they hamstrug themselves at the behest of their doners." Quit making shit up.
"Way too much conflict of interest. Like Paul Offit, who profits off of the vaccine he invented [Offit is a co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine RotaTeq], is the expert on television and on boards to say which vaccines are safe and which vaccines belong on the schedule, including his own. So for us parents, we say: “Can we have an honest board here? Who’s policing us and our child’s safety when a profiteer is on the board, judging which vaccines should be on the schedule?”
That doesn't sound like a legit conflict of interest to you?
Quit making shit up, lol.
Hilary Clinton never did anything to regulate homeopathy. She also incarcerated and deported more people as secretary of state than did Condoleezza Rice.
"That doesn't sound like a legit conflict of interest to you?"
It might, if the demonstrated history of vaccines hadn't shown that they are safe, reliable, and successful. The anti-vaxx movement can't really dispute the point, so they're left saying "Teach The Controversy" like intelligent designers: the hypothetical possibility of conflict of interest is equivalent ot them that vaccines can't be trusted.
Hey, did you know that climatologists sometimes get grants? They have a financial incentive to make like global warming is real too.
And again, I don't think Jill Stein MD herself believes there is any controversy, but she has so little spine that she can't even tell her idiot base: "guys, vaccines are safe, just get your kids vaccinated already". Why are you shilling for her?
Derp, second link on Google
"I am certainly not hostile to science. I’m not anti-science. I believe that asking questions is part of our responsibility as scientists. And as physicians, we always need to be asking those questions."
Except for the word "physicians", that entire paragraph comes straight from the intelligent design playbook on how to sell their position.
And again, Jill Stein MD is smart enough to know that "those questions" have been answered a thousand times over. She is just too much the coward to stand up to idiot fan base. And you keep shilling for her as the answer to America's problems.
As Bort pointed out, Jill Stein is either a coward or a wackjob, but that's not even my main problem with Princess Wi-Fi. My issue is that even if she were the perfect candidate with no ideological flaws to point to, she'd still make a shitty president, because her party is a joke. There's no Green Party infrastructure, not a single member anywhere in congress. Nothing she'd want to get done would have any chance of passing congress when there's not a single member of her party there to go out and whip votes. You thought Obama was getting roadblocked by the GOP? Now you've got a president whose every idea will be roadblocked by both parties. If the Greens are serious about a third party revolution, it CAN'T start from the White House; you have to build that shit up from the ground floor. Start at the state level, get some guys in congress, show the people that your party's more than just a novelty, then you can make a run at the big prize. The instant gratification approach doesn't work; the most it can accomplish is get people like George W. Bush and Donald Trump elected. The Greens are irresponsible and have no idea what they're doing. Until they get their act together, they aren't worth taking seriously.
Also, Jill Stein's only elected office is as "town meeting representative" in some small hippie town in Massachusetts. The presidency is not an entry-level job.
Geez. We've finally reached the point where people are so entrenched in the idea of voting 3rd party to prove they're a not a sheeple, that they're saying we should "ask questions" about the "controversy" of vaccines?
Remember, every word out of Hillary's mouth is suspect, but pandering to anti-vaxxers doesn't call Jill Stein MD's integrity into question in any way.
Jill Stein just came out as anti-nuclear power. The Green Party also failed to register in time to even get on the ballot in all states. But yeah, they can run a country.
I am glad that the American left has finally stopped treating Bill Clinton like an untouchable saint, though. It's unfortunate that it only happened because he can be used as a weapon against a woman.
"I am glad that the American left has finally stopped treating Bill Clinton like an untouchable saint, though."
I can assure you that the Left was sick of Bill by 1996, and by 2000 they were convinced there wasn't that much daylight between Bill and his predecessor(s). What they didn't anticipate was, there was VAST daylight between Bill and his successor (to say nothing of what the rest of the GOP would quickly become).
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>Hillary is a horrible cunt, but you really should vote for her.
Can I get that on a bumper sticker?
"haven't all wars been started by men?"
Leaving aside the fact that Mr Daily Show Correspondent is quite obviously unaware that history existed outside of the United States, then - NO, actually! We've had quite a lot of wars "started by" women since Hillary got into the State Department.
In fact, now that Turkey is thinking of defecting from NATO, following that wee little failed coup attempt by Hil-dawg's terrorist buddy, there is really no way to play the anti-war card against Trump. At least, not if you have any respect at all for your viewership's intelligence and ability to think critically for themselves.
Do you legit believe that Hillary Clinton is secretly behind the Turkish coup
The CIA is, and it's not a secret. Hillary, for her part, is merely one of the primary political and financial backers of Fethullah Gulen - she and Bill have been close friends with him for decades, ever since he fled Turkey and took up asylum here in the Land of the Free.
I'm not saying you have to like Trump, but given all the shady dealings Hillary has been involved with - both on-screen, like brokering the wars in Libya and Syria, and off-screen, like Gulen and the possible WW3 repercussions - one must conclude that Trump is the less war-prone of the two. And if being "anti-war" is now, once again, a narrative en vogue with the Democratic faithful, then it is a simple matter of logical deduction to show that Trump comes out ahead of Hillary.
I'm just sayin': surely the people working for the Daily Show are smart enough, and informed enough, to realize this. Which leaves us with the question of, why might the Daily Show think so little of its own audience, that it would make such a blatantly flawed argument, presenting it as a humorous "gotcha moment", when even a minute's reflection can show us this is not the case?
... and like I said, that's just talking about the United States, recently, and directly involving Hillary. There are also things like: the Crimean War, the Boer War, the Icini Revolt, the 1585 '"panish Armada" War, the Nine Years War AND the Desmond Revolt, all of Catherine the Great's invasions of Turkey ::hillary joke::, Zenobia's Conquest of Egypt, and the Trojan War.
Hell, between the two of them, Victoria and Catherine alone probably accounted for about fifty wars of varying sizes all across the globe.
I understand the guy was wrong to say "All", but certainly most were started by men. The guy just needed a quick quip to smack her down with.
Trump got over with his hawkish swagger, I find it odd that she finds starting wars to be so awful. It's probably a case of a Hilary started war is a bad war, while a Trump war is awesome!
"smack her down with"
I dunno, Cena, that sounds pretty sexist to me. "He was engaging in micro-aggressions" is not a good defense of his behavior! And at any rate, whether "all" or even "most" wars were started is irrelevant to that poor lady's point. Instead, the information we would be looking for is the average rates of war-starting by sex.
"while a Trump war is awesome!"
You joke, but I've been following DemoniusX's podcasts for a few months now, and one of the many reasons he gave for supporting Trump was "all the badass wars we'd have".
man, the CIA is really slacking these days.
Well, in the CIA's defense, they're dealing with a lot of stuff right now. You can't bring your "A" Game 100% of the time - sometimes you'll get an Iranian Revolution (which is STILL thought of as a genuine anti-American movement, despite the BBC's recent leaks), and other times, you'll get the Bay of Pigs.
This time, they got the Bay of Pigs.
But it's alright; if overthrowing your erstwhile allies in favour of violent Islamic regimes is the kind of foreign policy you support, Hillary will pursue your platform quite vigorously.
I think Clinton can be sinister and vicious, and I believe that is what our country needs right now. Not a spray tanned turducken with a camera fetish.
|Doc Victor |
What an absolute clown show. Cannot believe how far these guys have fallen since the days of Kilborne. I cannot help but imagine this is probably quite similar to the programming that would be on nightly if the nazis won the war.
If the Nazis had won the war, we'd be watching impeccably produced propaganda on the two-way holoscreens that were installed in every living unit on the moon colony.
This is North Korea-tier propaganda.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|