|
GlyphGryph posted:Didn't over 55% of likely voters believe Obama was a socialist last election, and yet he won anyway? I really do think the accusations against Obama have done a lot to mute the word's effect. According to one poll by James Carville in 2010. So I don't think its that convincing.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Bush and Walker sucking wind in these polls makes me oh so happy. Supposedly even Freep isn't a big fan of the extreme anti-labor platform Walker put out today so I'm not sure how he's going to get his numbers out of the toilet any time soon. What are they saying about it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Oh hey if the slap fight is back on, has Hillary apologized for her previous views on gay marriage at least? She talked about her evolving views, yes. I don't think she said "I am sorry gays" but, frankly, she doesn't and shouldn't have to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:She talked about her evolving views, yes. I don't think she said "I am sorry gays" but, frankly, she doesn't and shouldn't have to. I dunno I think going on national media and saying "marriage is for men and women only" might be worth an 'oops' statement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:She talked about her evolving views, yes. I don't think she said "I am sorry gays" but, frankly, she doesn't and shouldn't have to. I think she absolutely should have to apologize for having bigoted views.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I dunno I think going on national media and saying "marriage is for men and women only" might be worth an 'oops' statement. Then she did that. Radbot posted:I think she absolutely should have to apologize for having bigoted views. I don't think she needs to say "I apologize." She said "I was wrong and I have evolved on the issue." Which is sufficient for me, an actual LGBT person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
I take more issue with her past support for "tough on crime" legislation and the drug war than her past stances on gay rights (saying this as a gay male) because she still thinks those positions were legitimate. When she was questioned by BLM activists she seemed to think that the incredibly harsh and draconian prison sentences were a legitimate response to the crime wave, I completely disagree and think that they were a flawed and deeply immoral response. Sure Hillary no longer supports those policies because we no longer have sky high crime rates, but would she change her mind again if crime started going back up?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Ladies and Gentleman, the American Right: Mujahideen 2: Electric Bugaloo
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Then she did that. I love her "evolving" views.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I take more issue with her past support for "tough on crime" legislation and the drug war than her past stances on gay rights (saying this as a gay male) because she still thinks those positions were legitimate. When she was questioned by BLM activists she seemed to think that the incredibly harsh and draconian prison sentences were a legitimate response to the crime wave, I completely disagree and think that they were a flawed and deeply immoral response. Sure Hillary no longer supports those policies because we no longer have sky high crime rates, but would she change her mind again if crime started going back up? whoa cool it with the  tia
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I take more issue with her past support for "tough on crime" legislation and the drug war than her past stances on gay rights (saying this as a gay male) because she still thinks those positions were legitimate. When she was questioned by BLM activists she seemed to think that the incredibly harsh and draconian prison sentences were a legitimate response to the crime wave, I completely disagree and think that they were a flawed and deeply immoral response. Sure Hillary no longer supports those policies because we no longer have sky high crime rates, but would she change her mind again if crime started going back up? She said that they were the right idea, at the time. Which, even a lot of criminologists have said was what they were suggesting at the time. It's only now, with 20~ years of data can we say it was bad policy. She has said, repeatedly, that we need to end the era of mass incarceration and work towards community-based solutions for crime. Khisanth Magus posted:I love her "evolving" views. Given that the majority of Americans had that same general trajectory. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:She said that they were the right idea, at the time. Which, even a lot of criminologists have said was what they were suggesting at the time. It's only now, with 20~ years of data can we say it was bad policy. She has said, repeatedly, that we need to end the era of mass incarceration and work towards community-based solutions for crime. I too think that things 'the majority of Americans' support are a good indicator of moral righteousness
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:I too think that things 'the majority of Americans' support are a good indicator of moral righteousness The fact that you think primaries should be about "moral righteousness" indicates a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's only now, with 20~ years of data can we say it was bad policy. Edit: Trabisnikof posted:The fact that you think primaries should be about "moral righteousness" indicates a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:
Policy effectiveness, policy ideas, ability to represent the party, ability to enact the platform, litmus tests, ability to motivate the party, ability to win the general, movement leadership, etc. Take your pick, but "moral righteousness" is usually not the staple of effective statecraft or policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:You're joking, right? You don't need data to not be a bigot. She changed what she said because it became inconvenient, not because of any moral reasons. Uh, the view on mass incarceration has slowly evolved among academics in the field over the last twenty years or so, I am not sure how you can say that with a straight face. But arguing over Hillary's "motives" is basically completely unproductive and goes no where because for some people nothing will ever make them think she's not some cold, hardened evil person who only does that her polls tell her to do. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Policy effectiveness, policy ideas, ability to represent the party, ability to enact the platform, litmus tests, ability to motivate the party, ability to win the general, movement leadership, etc. Why should we support a cruel and unprincipled policy just because it accomplishes its goals? That makes things worse, not better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Policy effectiveness, policy ideas, ability to represent the party, ability to enact the platform, litmus tests, ability to motivate the party, ability to win the general, movement leadership, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Why should we support a cruel and unprincipled policy just because it accomplishes its goals? That makes things worse, not better. What are you talking about? I was just listing other common reasons for supporting a candidate in a primary. I think you'll also find even Sanders isn't perfect in his "moral righteousness" since he still supports Israel, droning, etc. But obviously, that is a compromise that you find acceptable. Its why one person's "moral righteousness" is another's "moral hypocrisy". twodot posted:If you aren't crafting policy based on morality, then how can you expect the policies you create to be good? I don't care how effectively someone can go to war with Iraq, it was a bad idea. I don't think a President that robotically and effectively enacts whatever polls at 51% is a good idea. You don't go to war in Iraq because it is bad for American policy interests. I can make all sorts of valid moral arguments for the invasion of Iraq, but I can make far fewer arguments that it was in American policy interest. Hell, the one person who voted against the GWOT in the house did so because she couldn't write a blank check not because she opposed war on moral grounds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fact that you think primaries should be about "moral righteousness" indicates a lot.  maybe try reading before posting I was responding to the notion that saying "Hillary's 'evolving' stance on same-sex marriage was totally understandable because the 'majority of Americans supported it'"
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:
Except it is totally understandable? Like I am not sure what magical world you live in wherein major politicians from both parties didn't hold that view until like, the last four or five years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What are you talking about? I was just listing other common reasons for supporting a candidate in a primary. why is it that no criticism can ever be levied towards HRC without the dedicated Hillary 2016 campaigners ITT coming out with 'well Bernie is terrible because ___________'
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Except it is totally understandable? It's not really, though? The LGBT movement didn't begin in 2013
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:why is it that no criticism can ever be levied towards HRC without the dedicated Hillary 2016 campaigners ITT coming out with 'well Bernie is terrible because ___________' It is kinda shocking that not every thread has become a pro-sanders echo chamber this one was the last outpost
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:It's not really, though? The LGBT movement didn't begin in 2013 Every major politician from both parties from the last two decades have held that same view, as did a large majority of the American people. Like even HOWARD DEAN wasn't pro-gay marriage in 2004.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Uh, the view on mass incarceration has slowly evolved among academics in the field over the last twenty years or so, I am not sure how you can say that with a straight face. You big doofus, people knew it was wrong 45 years ago when Law And Order was Nixon's answer to antiwar and antiracist riots! People knew back then what it was all about and that people like Clinton, Giuliani, Reagan, and Nixon were all wrong about crime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:You big doofus, people knew it was wrong 45 years ago when Law And Order was Nixon's answer to antiwar and antiracist riots! People knew back then what it was all about and that people like Clinton, Giuliani, Reagan, and Nixon were all wrong about crime. Giuliani is pretty much proof why Democrats couldn't be "soft on crime" and survive for a long time. Thanks for proving the point!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:She said that they were the right idea, at the time. Which, even a lot of criminologists have said was what they were suggesting at the time. It's only now, with 20~ years of data can we say it was bad policy. She has said, repeatedly, that we need to end the era of mass incarceration and work towards community-based solutions for crime. Here is the offending quote, she still seems to be defending the policies when she should just admit they were wrong and call it a day. quote:It’s important to remember — and I certainly remember — that there was a very serious crime wave that was impacting primarily communities of color and poor people. And part of it was that there was just not enough attention paid,” Clinton said then. “So you know, you could argue that people who were trying to address that— including my husband, when he was president — were responding to the very real concerns of people in the communities themselves. Yes there were real concerns but it's not like there was no one there pointing out the potential consequences of "throw everyone in prison" or offering alternatives. I've brought this argument up before and someone linked an issue of Ebony from 1989 which featured different black perspectives on how to address the crime issue, most of them even had the prescience to see that just locking everyone up wasn't going to fix the problem. I think the attitudes that were very prevalent in society then and still are now, that criminals and drug users are human scum, made it politically easy to just push the lock 'em up rather than try to find a better alternatives. At this point I think it's best to just admit that mistakes were made rather than trying to present them as appropriate for the time. For the record, I think Martin O'Malley has a far worse record on this issue and is even more stubborn about admitting that he screwed up, so I'm not just trying to pick on Hillary here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Every major politician from both parties from the last two decades have held that same view, as did a large majority of the American people. Like even HOWARD DEAN wasn't pro-gay marriage in 2004. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:You big doofus, people knew it was wrong 45 years ago when Law And Order was Nixon's answer to antiwar and antiracist riots! People knew back then what it was all about and that people like Clinton, Giuliani, Reagan, and Nixon were all wrong about crime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:You big doofus, people knew it was wrong 45 years ago when Law And Order was Nixon's answer to antiwar and antiracist riots! People knew back then what it was all about and that people like Clinton, Giuliani, Reagan, and Nixon were all wrong about crime. They were wrong, but the actual policy makers and specifically, criminologists certainly didn't agree that they were wrong, re: Broken Windows theory. And it's only in the last 5-10 years that consensus has largely shifted away from it towards more community oriented policing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
So now that this thread has devolved into "THAT BITCH! THAT WHORE!! WHO WOULD VOTE FOR THAT SLUT?!? i'll vote for her if bernie loses," can we gas the whole election forum? Because I thought it existed to contain that from D&D, and it's failing horribly. Seriously, six pages of this loving poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
don Jaime posted:So now that this thread has devolved into "THAT BITCH! THAT WHORE!! WHO WOULD VOTE FOR THAT SLUT?!? i'll vote for her if bernie loses," can we gas the whole election forum? Because I thought it existed to contain that from D&D, and it's failing horribly. says the person contributing to it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
don Jaime posted:So now that this thread has devolved into "THAT BITCH! THAT WHORE!! WHO WOULD VOTE FOR THAT SLUT?!? i'll vote for her if bernie loses," can we gas the whole election forum? Because I thought it existed to contain that from D&D, and it's failing horribly. yeah that's exactly what the thread has devolved to really cutting analysis there
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
I agree with the sentiment though. The last set of pages has been a really crappy back and forth and focused on something I think would be a lot better in RSF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They were wrong, but the actual policy makers and specifically, criminologists certainly didn't agree that they were wrong, re: Broken Windows theory. What does everyone in any academic field actually agree about? What kind of ridiculous goalshifting is this? Some criminologists or sociologists believed making Black Lives Not Matter so anyone who disagreed with the Insane Racist War On (Some) Drugs has no grounds to say they're right today? Plenty of criminologists, lawyers, sociologists and other experts today would assert that the broken windows theory really is true! Who are we to naysay them? your analysis totally overlooks the fact that the people negatively affected by these policies have always been around and have always been speaking out, whether or not a leading presidential candidate or some given percentage of Americans agreed with them. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:What does everyone in any academic field actually agree about? What kind of ridiculous goalshifting is this? Some criminologists or sociologists believed making Black Lives Not Matter so anyone who disagreed with the Insane Racist War On (Some) Drugs has no grounds to say they're right today? You'll note I said consensus, but what I am saying is that when people say that "back in 1993" the Clinton's should have "known better" it's ignores what was actually considered to be the correct course of action and that, by and large, they were working with the information that was available to them. It's silly, imo, to say that we should judge someone in that way. Though this is sort of a weird derail, since she's said that's now how she wants to proceed as President and admitted that the policy was bad. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
How old were you in 93? I was nine years old and I know that you are full of poo poo to pretend welfare reform was uncontroversial or that Democrats hadn't just spent the last decade defending it from overwhelming Republican assault.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Politicians who supported gay marriage (or any sort of gay rights) simply would not have been electable 10 years ago. 5 years ago, even. If you want a person who's been outspoken and perfect on gay rights for their entire career, wait 30 years. Then disdain them for not being outspoken on whatever sort of rights we suddenly decide are essential at that time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Politicians who supported gay marriage (or any sort of gay rights) simply would not have been electable 10 years ago. 5 years ago, even. If you want a person who's been outspoken and perfect on gay rights for their entire career, wait 30 years. Then disdain them for not being outspoken on whatever sort of rights we suddenly decide are essential at that time. There's a certain fellow from Vermont... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:How old were you in 93? I was nine years old and I know that you are full of poo poo to pretend welfare reform was uncontroversial or that Democrats hadn't just spent the last decade defending it from overwhelming Republican assault. I was specifically talking about the policy of war on drugs, I did not address welfare form. Those are separate issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:05
|
|