|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EGranwN_uk
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:
#4 is the root of the other two. Like there's no serious way you can justify #2 without saying at some point "well sure she says progressive things but I don't believe her". Hell, it's the root of the Iraq War vote hate as well. Or do you wonder why no one gives Joe Biden poo poo for it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:Princess and the Frog, maybe? That one is about a girl who works too hard and her resolution is to chill out and let her man do some work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Some people make the association between policy and political ideology, #4 from the left comes from the suspicion that she's ideologically a closet conservative. Nah, #4 existed originally and justifies the other feelings. #4 exists because of the decades of propaganda against her.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
call to action posted:Can we just cut out all the bullshit and say what we want to say, which is that "if you're against military adventurism or economics that favor the investor class, you're a sexist and probably a racist" You have to be white too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:*I'm mostly using Bill Clinton's presidency as a starting point here, since it's kind of irrelevant if she were more left-leaning before that and then shifted towards more third-way/centrist views during her husband's presidency. I mean even leaving the whole "Let's judge a woman by the actions of her husband" aside, Hillary's stated goals were far to the left of Bill's administration. The whole Hillarycare debacle is proof of that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:No it was racist. It's not an understandable "mistake", it was her actual thoughts. That the nice innocent whites have to be protected, you know, from those people. This makes her sudden pandering to black issues extremely suspect. I would think if anyone would be "Suddenly Pandering" it'd be Bernie Sanders, who signed the exact same crime bill and notably didn't care about anyone outside of Vermont* until a year ago. *especially regarding nuclear waste dumps in Texas
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
call to action posted:Well there's literally no legitimate criticism of her, so if you don't agree with her, you're a sexist, right? I'm trying to understand here. Either that or you're brainwashed by the media that, apparently, only targets and has only targeted one politician since her birth. No, just since your birth.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:To add to this, it's interesting to note how the thread quickly tilts from "why people on the left hate Hillary" to her supporters immediately deflecting criticisms with demands for alternative candidates, or refusing to acknowledge she has any flaws and that the only possible reason anyone could hate her is misogyny, her political experience, and lies they heard. It doesn't help when you repeat lies and vaguely disguised misogynist statements.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Would you like to actually point to a concrete example, or would you rather do that thing you usually do where you get people to try and guess what your argument is? You have made accusations that the Democratic Establishment intentionally keeps progressive candidates suppressed in order to cater to big business donors and their interests.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're going to have to prove that that's a lie (as opposed to him just being incorrect or whatever) "Lie" in this context refers to a deliberately false statement spread by someone and repeated by others. He doesn't have to believe it's a lie in order for it to be one. Like the recent statement about Hillary calling Bernie supporters losers who live in their parents' basement - someone took it out of context in order to spread it to uninformed people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:You still haven't actually bothered to point to a concrete example, Bernie is a rarity. Most of the time, there is no progressive primary challenger, or--as we can see with Bernie/Hilary--the Democratic party puts barriers in front of those candidates and strongly backs incumbents or more moderate/conservative candidates. This makes it an uphill fight for populist, left-leaning candidates, and so the Democrats shouldn't be surprised that after decades of suppressing the left side of their party, the party is more right-wing, and left-leaning voters don't like it. In case you can't tell, this is a direct quote of you literally saying the Democratic Establishment conspires to suppress Progressives. computer parts fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:
Here is a direct link to said post If you're still going to deny reality. If you want I can take a screenshot too, maybe try to get the Google Analytics of that time period so we know exactly how many people were online then.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This statistic may or may not actually be useful. If the majority of Democrats vote the same on the vast majority of bills, this doesn't actually mean that agreeing on 93% of votes makes their politics similar; it just means 90+% of bills are ones where the vote is obvious (at least for Democrats). If only 5% of bills actually represented significantly left-wing policy, for example, that statistic wouldn't be useful. It disarms the "well obviously she's in bed with bankers, look at her voting record" argument. That's the point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Benghazi happened after Ghaddafi had been killed and Libya 'liberated' Libyans are people too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:The best outcomes for overthrowing dictators are usually when the educated population overthrows the leader and the infrastructure of the country is left in place - look at the overthrow of Ceausescu in Romania, Franco in Spain or Salazar in Portugal for good examples. The "overthrow" of Franco was basically him dying and his successor not being a total poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:quite, I am not sure how much the Spanish would have appreciated having Madrid levelled in an attempt to get rid of him NATO style before he died. So you admit he wasn't overthrown. Like at all. Like he literally died happy that the Spanish monarchy would endure.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States. So the plan for Ghaddafi is "wait till he dies, hope his successor will voluntary give up power, and if that doesn't work welp better try again in 50 years". I guess the French should've just waited for their Monarchy to give up power too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:
Oh that's a new one, pretending that Libyans fighting against Ghaddafi didn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I am not pretending they didn't exist, Yeah you did, you literally just said that armed rebels are not part of the population of Libya.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:
So the US should support a dictator is what you're saying.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:it's not exactly a break from policy in the region or around the world, and would probably have a better outcome for the majority of people in the region. So why are you opposed to them supporting Sisi? After all, he's keeping those dreaded Islamic Fundamentalists out of power too. Hell, lots of those dictators fall under that same designation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:The Muslim Brotherhood was the long time opposition in Egypt and was not ISIS, the west hosed over the people of Egypt. So why did you list Morsi as a dictator supported by the US?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:because technically he was, at least after he instituted his increased powers which gave the military an excuse to overthrow him. The US had to be seen to support him, when in reality they were probably very happy that the military overthrew him in short order and got a military dictatorship back in Egypt. So the Muslim Brotherhood was simultaneously supporting a dictatorship and was the long term opposition of a dictatorship (and by implication "legitimate" in representing the people).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:favourable media treatment Heh.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:I guess the deal with people who hate Hillary is that they are idiots. Obama for the last 8 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
Lyesh posted:All of those are useless to people who don't have kids and can't work though, which is my loving point. Lots of poor people have kids.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 06:07
|
|