Jul 24, 2016 The irony here is almost too much, but I'll entertain it for a second. On what? Let's break it down here. Be specific. My suspicion is you don't know s--- about policy... ...or, like, basic history? Time must rly be a flat circle because I'm still struggling to understand how someone who posts so much about it knows so little about politics or current events. Hillary's Iraq vote has always been her single biggest political liability--by the time she finally ran for president, it was even bigger than her gender. This becomes doubly difficult when the Republicans can more or less skate by on the issue: Trump has no record, Rubio is too young, Cruz only had the light advising role with Bush. If she had ended up running opposite someone who projects competence--or even now with Trump, and couple that with the bs email story--Hillary's foreign affairs record creates infinitely more problems than a pacifist one. Let's go a step further, though, and talk about your flimsy notion that Sanders is "better" for America on the subject. Sources from Bernie's own campaign leaked that they were frustrated with his lack of evolution on foreign policy. It was always a mushy spot on his resume, but he exhibited a poor grasp on the middle east shortly after he declared, and was hit even by many of his supporters when he was basically in the same spot between the second and third debates, back when O'Malley was still in. Even without predicting this recent rash of terror attacks, Bernie gave the impression that he was in completely over his head, and most people who have covered his campaign would concede that he was. According to whom? I have never, not once in your history of posts, seen you make so much as a single thorough argument about a policy. Not even a bad one! Again, how is Bernie "better for America"? Be specific. But here's another case where there are actually multiple levels to how stupid your case is: if Clinton is the better candidate, she's the one the party should back. That is such an indisputable ideological pillar of party politics that I'm sincerely embarrassed for you. The irony of this is rich, too. I continually dismantle your posts slowly and systematically, with substance and specifics. You whine and show precisely zero grasp of any issue at hand. You absolutely humiliate yourself re: police reform on this board, what, daily? Get it together.
Jul 24, 2016 Defending the morals behind this is absolutely ludicrous. Prepare the tin foil hats folks.
Jul 24, 2016 I have no particularly warm feelings for the Democratic party. But this is such a naive post to make. It's naive to think Hillary having a private email server is some departure from normal procedure. The server itself might be, but doing most serious business off of the government servers is literally standard practice. You could--maybe should--argue that that's an epidemic that should be scrubbed from the hill. You might be right. But so, so, so many people who come out of congressional offices or statehouses talk about this. Why do you think there were no emails that directly tie Christie to the bridge closure? They're on his Gmail. This has been an epidemic since the FOIA was put into law. It's naive to not see that this is a ploy by the Russians to get Trump elected. Speaking of Trump, it's naive to think that these DNC leaks are anything but child's play compared to what the RNC's must look like with regard to their eventual nominee. You want to see a party making a concerted effort to get someone to top out at second place? Give me a break. Now, look, the DNC looks f---ing moronic simply for the nature of their internal culture and this will be a massive political hit. But let's live in the real world for a second.
Jul 24, 2016 If you think for a second that having a right-wing foreign policy is a political liability than you're insane. The majority of Americans support drone strikes. Not to mention America's complete and unequivocal support for Israel which, again, has huge support from the public. America sees itself as the world police, and Hillary is ok with that. In fact, she wants to expand America's role. Sanders is an idealist, which is fine. It's not as if a Sanders presidency would consist of him sitting in a room, making every decision regarding foreign affairs. He'd have many knowledgable advisers. Equip that with a foreign policy objective of being less interventionist, and you have a great candidate. Who cares about the Iraq vote when there's audio of Trump supporting it? And let's get off of foreign policy for a second. Bernie's approach to everything from Health Care to gun control has been head and shoulders above every other candidate in the race. And lol at this nonsense of ever beating me in an argument. You've taken so many Ls Remember when you tried to argue that people don't have different opinions about sexual assault Or when you tried to argue for dismantling the police force You're sooooo pathetic.
Jul 24, 2016 This is not a fringe opinion--it's not even in dispute whether these emails are yield of this Russian hack: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html and "According to security firms who spoke to the Washington Post, that was the work of hackers associated with the Russian government, raising the possibility that a foreign government is trying to manipulate the US election." http://www.vox.com/2016/7/23/12261020/dnc-email-leaks-explained
Jul 24, 2016 Let's talk about 2008 then? Iraq is absolutely toxic. If you're soooooooooo sure her hawkish history isn't a liability, explain to me why Trump is hitting her on that vote so hard/touting his (fake) opposition? You have to remember that "strength" and "hawkishness" do not read the same way to voters and are not perceived to be similar qualities, even though the actual distinction might be little more than semantic. Add to that Clinton's gender and you have a uniquely difficult sell on that front. And it has been already! I mean, dude, did you watch a second of that convention? You're telling me her foreign policy experience is an easy sell? I'm going to assume you didn't see a single speech. Uh, it's one of the most divisive issues in America? General Israel approval hovers somewhere in the 60s, which is very good, but in polls that filter for how important voters think the issue is, it's incredibly contentious. Have you been in a coma? Ummmmmm.............voters (and politicians) on both sides of the aisle are becoming increasingly isolationist. Again, are you posting from 1996? Voters don't think they're picking a delegator in chief. Maybe they should know that, but it's been shown time and time again that this has nothing to do with a candidate's perceived strength. JESUS CHRIST have you even pretended to follow this election? I asked for specifics and you listed topics? I guarantee you that if we were having this debate in person you couldn't tell me for a second what the varying Sanders/Clinton positions are on virtually anything. I'm profoundly embarrassed that you believe that. Once again, your reading comprehension is staggeringly poor. I would never, ever say that people don't have different opinions and definitions--it's one of the most pervasive, toxic parts of our culture. I argued that there is actually no ambiguity. I'm being nice here. I could rip you to shreds.
Jul 24, 2016 First of all, linking Vox is not going to take you too far. Second, assuming that you're trying to insinuate that the Russian hackers manipulated the emails to attack Hillary's campaign, why would they target Trump too? This is the "evidence"? "New America Foundation fellow" Give me a break.
Jul 24, 2016 Please note that I'm not necessarily denying the participation of the Russian goverment in the hacking, just saying that we don't have any rock solid evidence to confirm that this was a "ploy to get Trump elected". What they are doing is absolutely disgusting.
Jul 24, 2016 Uh, why? Vox was founded by extraordinary journalists and is tremendously respected. Regardless, linked to Wapo and cited security firms that worked with the latter. Foreign hackers of all stripes target virtually every facet of our government all the time (and it's not a one-way street, of course). The dump is designed specifically to hamper the Dems. This is not a fringe theory, this is pretty popular theory. Who?
Jul 24, 2016 Russia probably does want Trump to he president, because he isn't influenced by old billionaires who desperately want to start another cold war and Trump wants peace with Putin and Assad.
Jul 24, 2016 Uh, where? Also, my point wasn't exactly that: Vox is literally Pro-Clinton. I don't care about "popular theories" from your circle of liberals, I want sources, proof and legitimate information. The DNC and Hillary Clinton. I mean, giving money to minorities to vote? Referring to them as "Commodities"? Manipulating media? Buy DNC delegates? Censuring and f---ing paying teenagers to harass Bernie's supporters online? I don't care about the legality of any of this, it's absolutely terrifying.
Jul 24, 2016 You know, calling me a troll and lol'ing at what j say is a pretty s-----y counter argument. If we want to talk about Russia, how about this gem of a deal? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/2...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html Oh no we won't talk about this it's conspiracy junk but Trump and the Kremlin are totally in cahoots.
Jul 24, 2016 You're citing a wikipedia section, which in turn cites negative comments from: a barely-better-than-tabloid magazine, the cartoonishly partisan Federalist, and The Washington Times, which flits back and forth between a joke and semi-respect. I'm at the very least journalism-adjacent, and let me tell you that Vox has undoubtedly become a very, very respected outlet. I'm citing media outlets. (I'm also not a "liberal" but okay.) If you're horrified by a single thing in these emails you are wildly naive as to the nature of American politics. Also: do you understand what the DNC is? What its functions are, and the limits of those functions? (LMAO in particular at the thing about "harassing Bernie supporters online"--they paid people to support Hillary online the same way every campaign in American history has paid for newspaper letter-writing campaigns, because it's f---ing 2016. Jesus.
Jul 24, 2016 So... Hilary wants to start another Cold War because of her backers. And Putin and Assad, believing Trump to a more peaceful person (ignoring his dropping bombs comment and volatile manner) want him to win for that reason. Ok man
