Agreed, but given “we should torture more” and then actually torture more, or “torture is horrible and should never happen” and then go on torturing, I’m sitting out.
Interesting choice of adjective.
And by “interesting” I mean “‘shrill’ is almost exclusively used as a gendered insult against public speakers to the point of being a tired cliché.”
19 Likes
5 Likes
I haven’t yet seen evidence suggesting the Obama administration has used torture in any way that comes close to what the Bush administration did.
(ETA: which is not to say the Obama administration has clean hands as far as human rights violations go, but my main problem with them is all those drone strikes.)
11 Likes
Again, consider the source.
3 Likes
That may or may not be true. It doesn’t change the fact that the author of that article is still right, though.
Or at least that’s the story that Republican politicians tell. The irony being that they’re usually projecting.
No, they don’t! Nothing he says makes sense! Literally nothing! There’s not a single speech he’s given where he’s intelligibly making statements that add up to something that’s reality-based and reasonable. That anyone would even say that indicates how totally insane things have become for some percentage of this country.
What, compared to sleaze-king Trump? He’s engaged in decades of rampant theft, scams, con-jobs and other illegal activity. It’s delusional to even compare them - and yet the media do, constantly, out of a (sometimes disingenuous) need to be “balanced.”
What, the guy who has displayed literally zero understanding of any issue that’s been discussed, much less any proposals for dealing with them? His repeated “I’ll figure it out the first month in office using the people who have so far failed to figure it out for years” statements are like perverse jokes. One would have to be breathtakingly ignorant and lack any semblance of critical thinking skills to think he somehow has solutions to anything.
Yeah, maybe - but they seem to be running against a media fixated on false equivalencies, giving free press to Trump and some really dysfunctional political/media dynamics.
Even if true, that they could manipulate things enough for that to be possible indicates something is profoundly fucked up with the American voting populace.
17 Likes
I both like and disagree with your point. Incremental change is the very best kind of change, because it has sticking power. Revolutions are all grand and dramatic, but look at their history. They ping-pong back and forth from oppression to anarchy and back again with no stability and no prosperity. If you really care about the quality of life of all of the people in a country, then slow and steady wins the race. All ships rise with the tide.
I get that you’re presenting the perspective of the “redeemable” basket of Trump supporters. What Hillary needs to get through to people is that she represents the right kind of change - steady, persistent, incremental improvement for the largest group of Americans.
5 Likes
[quote=“tekk, post:82, topic:85956”]
given “we should torture more” and then actually torture more, or “torture is horrible and should never happen” and then go on torturing
[/quote]…
But HAS the Obama administration continued to perpetrate acts of torture? It’s certainly possible that they have, but early in his administration Obama issued an executive order explicitly banning waterboarding. Which is VERY different from “I love waterboarding, and I’ll do a hell of a lot worse” Trump. Is that not a very meaningful distinction in your mind?
16 Likes
Thanks. I agree that Clinton isn’t the solution, but I don’t agree that’s the fault of liberals and moderates. The country has moved SO far to the right that it’s amazing that Sanders got as far as he did. Liberals are so vilified by the right wing that it’s hard for any of them to get traction in elections any more, except in special cases like Elizabeth Warren.
9 Likes
Yes! Ruling the country should involve cooperation and compromise. We have had NONE of it for years – President Obama was told in 2010 “we are not going to let you pass anything,” including a refusal to even consider a Supreme Court nominee, despite not doing so would mean a year with one justice missing.
17 Likes
I’ve actually got an associate that’s stated he’s going to vote for Trump because he can’t bring himself to vote for Clinton. This potential voter is very openly gay and, while not exactly the smartest person I know, isn’t really someone I’d call stupid either. Again, it’s not that he’s really a Trump supporter, but he just doesn’t want to vote for Clinton that much.
Personally, I feel this would be like burning down your house because you didn’t want to clean the kitchen. I’ve at least made an attempt to get him to either vote for a third party anybody or to just not vote for a presidential candidate. (Yes, vote, of course, but if both of these people sicken you that much, the skip that section.) At the same time, if you can’t figure out which of these two really is the lesser of two evils, then maybe there’s just not much hope for you.
12 Likes
I am. I absolutely believe that the race is nowhere near as close as it’s being painted as. I still look back at 2012, and I do not believe that 2012 Obama was markedly less unpopular to the Right than Hillary Clinton is now. But in 2012, you didn’t have a #NeverRomney movement on the Right. You didn’t have George H.W. Bush considering voting for Obama. Romney was quite popular among Republicans, both before and after his 47% gaffe, and yet that election was not particularly close. No landslide, but neither was it a squeaker.
And now half the Republican Establishment has abandoned ship, specifically because of Trump. Of the 2012 Obama voters, how many of them does anyone seriously believe will pick Trump over Clinton? Seventeen? I’m trying to envision any of the Trump-voters I’ve ever met contemplating for one moment supporting Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, and I’m coming up dead empty.
I’ve said it before and I’m gonna keep saying it: this election will not be close. Trump never had a serious chance.
If I’m wrong, you can have my bicycle.
15 Likes
My bicycle’s pretty damn snazzy, so before I take this bet you’re going to have to tell me about yours.
2 Likes
I hope your associate is okay with the fact that he’s voting for someone who has stated that he will eliminate major gay rights legislation “day one”.
16 Likes
As a liberal in a “flyover” state, this statement confuses me. Seriously, i’m having doubts about my own existence. 
28 Likes
You don’t exist. It’s OK. Existing isn’t as much fun as the brochures said it would be.
7 Likes
Often true, though I’d cite things like the Electrification of America, Social Security, the Moon Landing and the advances that brought, Women’s & LGBTQ rights as examples where one or more “step changes” occurred (even if we’re still in the midst of some of them). Perhaps like evolution, it’s a combination of slow, steady change plus the occasional radical mutation.
I agree that radical change can have dire consequences. I like Bernie’s approach of building and changing from the foundation. I think a lot of the 99% and Occupy folks support that.
One thing I think often gets missed is that while there’s a convenient divide between the rich 1% and everyone else, there’s also a divide between the 40% or so, folks who are comfortable enough, aren’t worried about putting food on the table, have affordable insurance, enough saved for a decent enough retirement…, and the 60% who will have to work until they are too ill and have to go on Medicaid, who will never pay off their bills, whose children will be worse off than they are.
I’m not denying that slow and steady can win the race, just pointing out that there are many people who have been slowly falling behind in this race under neo-liberal/neo-conservative rule for the past 40 years and, in the words of Howard Beale, they’re as mad as hell and they’re not going to take this anymore!
There is frustration on an epic level, and if the Democrats continue to give more lip service than action (and yes, I do prefer the Democrats over the Republicans, at least the current definitions of the parties) the consequences will be dire.
I highly recommend watching Network sometime before the elections. A great movie. (Then watch Wag The Dog for a chaser…)
9 Likes
I’ve never seen a NYT op-ed do this. Could you please point to several examples?
2 Likes
Just to add to the fun, he told a group of us this as we were hanging out in our college’s LGBTQ Resource Center. Needless to say, the temperature dropped noticeably as soon as he said it. He’s not the most socially aware person, but he picked up on that pretty damn quickly and did start trying to justify it. He did say he’d consider voting 3rd party, at least. I’m still kind of disappointed in him, though.
9 Likes
