All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Tendrin]

Look guys, it's clear numberthirty doesn't like Hillary, doesn't trust Hillary, won't vote for Hillary, won't piss on Hillary if she were on fire, and nothing is ever going to change his mind. So, why keep on banging your heads against the proverbial wall arguing in her favor? It's a lost cause.

I'm not arguing to convince him.

[jeanvaljean]

Look guys, it's clear numberthirty doesn't like Hillary, doesn't trust Hillary, won't vote for Hillary, won't piss on Hillary if she were on fire, and nothing is ever going to change his mind. So, why keep on banging your heads against the proverbial wall arguing in her favor? It's a lost cause.

In his defense, he is unlikely to notice that she is on fire and might piss on her anyway.

[Mister Mets]

On his way out the door to New Hampshire for more presidential campaigning on Sunday, Chris Christie was said to have snarked that no one died in the aftermath of the nor'easter. Wrong, chubby, reports have it that five people died as a result of Saturday's storm.

He acknowledged that 14 people died nationwide on Saturday.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ows-immaturity

Again, he hasn't said anything along the lines of "I have a forty year record of fighting against homophobic inequality."

Once you've said that, it is perfectly fair for me to say "You didn't sound like you were fighting against homophobic inequality in that Ellen interview."

It is possible to have an imperfect 40 year record on an issue, but still generally be on one side.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Post that five times or five hundred.

It doesn't change that a woman who wouldn't support gay marriage just said she has "always" fought for LGBT rights.

If you have to make up a fake quote to support your argument, then maybe it isn't very strong. She did not use the word "always" and she did not say it that way. She said she had a 40 year record of fighting all forms of inequality, with homophobic inequality one of the bullet points. Although she didn't support gay marriage publicly until late in the game and she didn't smash all homophobia in one instant blow from atop her magic unicorn like you seem to expect, it's accurate to say that during her 40 years of public life homophobic inequality is one of the things she's opposed. That's why the Human Rights Campaign just endorsed her.

And not Bernie.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I think you're all wrong. While she may or may not have been for full or partial equal rights for LGBT couples and individuals for the past 40 years privately, that means absolutely nothing.

She always has and always will (and that includes in the unlikely event public opinion starts to swing back the other way) taken the safest position there was to take at the time. As she's the wife of a former Democratic President she decided to run as one. The safe stance as a Democrat in 2016 is full marriage rights for homosexual couples, so that's where she is today.

This is why I'll never vote for her, even against a Trump or Cruz, even in a swing state where votes count, because there's nothing there for me to vote for. You could nominate one of those floppy wind-puppets from a used car dealership that's hooked up to a machine that tabulates popular/safe stances on every issue and acts accordingly and there'd be zero difference. Well, zero scandal/baggage to worry about in the general but that's her problem (and the problem of those who support her).

Think about voting for Jill Stein, instead, then. She's a good candidate for the Green Party, and she probably passes more of your and Numberthirty's ideological purity tests.

http://www.jill2016.com/

If the Greens had a chance of winning, I'd vote for Jill.

[Shawn Hopkins]

If you settled for one bit of inequality, you do not have a "Forty year record of fighting against homophobic inequality."

She has done just that on many occasions.

Things are absolutely black and white for you when it comes to people you don't like, aren't they? But I bet Bernie's gun compromise, and all of the other compromises he's made over the years because he's an adult who knows you sometimes have to do that to get things done, are examples of good governance.

[jeanvaljean]

Realpolitik usually hurts, but this is not the world of "My Little Pony".

Sadly.

[MindofShadow]

I think you're all wrong. While she may or may not have been for full or partial equal rights for LGBT couples and individuals for the past 40 years privately, that means absolutely nothing.

She always has and always will (and that includes in the unlikely event public opinion starts to swing back the other way) taken the safest position there was to take at the time. As she's the wife of a former Democratic President she decided to run as one. The safe stance as a Democrat in 2016 is full marriage rights for homosexual couples, so that's where she is today.

This is why I'll never vote for her, even against a Trump or Cruz, even in a swing state where votes count, because there's nothing there for me to vote for. You could nominate one of those floppy wind-puppets from a used car dealership that's hooked up to a machine that tabulates popular/safe stances on every issue and acts accordingly and there'd be zero difference. Well, zero scandal/baggage to worry about in the general but that's her problem (and the problem of those who support her).

I.... agree with all of this.

Makes me sick to my stomach I'd even think about cruz/trump but... I would think about it hard if Hillary wins the nom. then again, I don't know if I could vote for the old man socialist either.

Third party it is I guess. Swing state be damned.

[Malvolio]

I think you're all wrong. While she may or may not have been for full or partial equal rights for LGBT couples and individuals for the past 40 years privately, that means absolutely nothing.

She always has and always will (and that includes in the unlikely event public opinion starts to swing back the other way) taken the safest position there was to take at the time. As she's the wife of a former Democratic President she decided to run as one. The safe stance as a Democrat in 2016 is full marriage rights for homosexual couples, so that's where she is today.

This is why I'll never vote for her, even against a Trump or Cruz, even in a swing state where votes count, because there's nothing there for me to vote for. You could nominate one of those floppy wind-puppets from a used car dealership that's hooked up to a machine that tabulates popular/safe stances on every issue and acts accordingly and there'd be zero difference. Well, zero scandal/baggage to worry about in the general but that's her problem (and the problem of those who support her).

Will you stay home on Election Day if Hillary's the Democratic candidate? Because you could leave the Presidential box blank and vote for candidates you support for the House, Senate and State legislature. The Presidency is not the only important election. Let's not let the Republicans use Hillary to maintain a majority in Congress and the State governments.

[worstblogever]

Sometimes I think folks are watching Game of Thrones and mistaking Hillary Clinton for Cersei Lannister, for how bad they claim she is.

[CSTowle]

Realpolitik usually hurts, but this is not the world of "My Little Pony".

Sadly.

Realpolitik's fine. Every candidate does it (see Coates' breakdown of Bernie's stance on reparations). But some f##king leadership, anytime, anywhere, when it wasn't completely 100% safe to do so (which by definition is following, not leadership) would be a start. I'd pay money to have Kerry back as our candidate. And I think he's the biggest mistake the party's made in my lifetime (though that'll probably change soon).

Will you stay home on Election Day if Hillary's the Democratic candidate? Because you could leave the Presidential box blank and vote for candidates you support for the House, Senate and State legislature. The Presidency is not the only important election. Let's not let the Republicans use Hillary to maintain a majority in Congress and the State governments.

Oh I'll go and vote down-ticket for those I think deserve it (don't just tick off boxes with a D-, and D- can mean a lot of different things the more rural you get). If there are bad Dems down-ticket they'll get the same skipped box treatment.

I might vote for Stein, I won't write in Bernie because he'll have stopped running (don't think he'd run 3rd party if he could).

Sometimes I think folks are watching Game of Thrones and mistaking Hillary Clinton for Cersei Lannister, for how bad they claim she is.

Cersei is a f##king boss. She's led, she's made unpopular decisions, and family means more to her than just the Lannister name and what it brought her (though covering up for a d-bag in the family seems to be a weakness, at least in Cersei's case it wasn't because she depended on him for status but because she loved him). She's bold and decisive. I wish Hillary had an ounce of Cersei.

[numberthirty]

Yeah, I am sure a sketch on Saturday Night Live that Hillary willingly participated in reveals her for the true homophobe that she is.

You are the only one talking about Clinton being a homophobe.

Everyone else just wants to know why Hillary was bringing up the rear on marriage equality.

[numberthirty]

But some f##king leadership, anytime, anywhere, when it wasn't completely 100% safe to do so (which by definition is following, not leadership) would be a start.

I'm not even asking for the woman to lead. Just not be one of the last people who supports what needs to be done.

[numberthirty]

FNC having to stick up for a free press...

Odd.

[Michael P]

Look guys, it's clear numberthirty doesn't like Hillary, doesn't trust Hillary, won't vote for Hillary, won't piss on Hillary if she were on fire, and nothing is ever going to change his mind. So, why keep on banging your heads against the proverbial wall arguing in her favor? It's a lost cause.

Challenging bullshit is virtuous in its own right, regardless of whether the bullshitter ever concedes.