I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

yeah that's crazy

their differences in "approach" are substantive, maybe. And for the most part, as Stephin Merritt once said of "sincerity" in cooking, it doesn't matter. Actions matter.

you guys want another pro-corporate pro-war supreme court justice?

lol i am not voting for someone who i think would do a shit job, sorry.

you do realize that should clinton obtain the nomination, the alternative would not be "a good job" but likely one of the following: donald trump, ted cruz, marco rubio. right?

when they discontinue your favorite frozen dinner, do you stop eating food altogether?

you guys want another pro-corporate pro-war supreme court justice?

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:40 PM (28 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

we're going to get one no matter what we "want"

xxxxxxp No, there was an Obama book that had Michelle clashing with centrist advisers

you do realize that should clinton obtain the nomination, the alternative would not be "a good job" but likely one of the following: donald trump, ted cruz, marco rubio. right?

oh i didn't realize we were talking about the future. If she obtains the nomination then i will reconsider. I am not in the habit of predicting how I will feel in advance. When do they finalize this stuff?

when they discontinue your favorite frozen dinner, do you stop eating food altogether?

― wizzz! (amateurist), Wednesday, February 17, 2016 2:40 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't eat frozen dinner.

I want the book where Michelle clashes with Barack.

I am not voting for a democrat that I like less than another democrat, so I guess I'll just settle for 4-8 years of a maniac spitefully pulling the country apart with his bare hands.

Hillary 2016: Vote for Me, Idiot!

and they say Trump is mean

I am not in the habit of predicting how I will feel in advance.

Oh, come on. That's how you avoid stepping on rakes. "Is that going to hurt? Not my problem at the moment."

4-8 years of a maniac spitefully pulling the country apart with his bare hands

oh don't be so dramatic. chances are they will be far less connected to people like Kissinger so the world may actually be a safer place

this rakes thing is great, Hillary should use that. amazing stuff.

If she obtains the nomination then i will reconsider. I am not in the habit of predicting how I will feel in advance. When do they finalize this stuff?

i thought we were talking about the hypothetical "if hillary wins the nomination"

i think the whole tone of this conversation is based on the idea that you were suggesting you wouldn't support hillary in a general election

that was explicitly the context of DJP's comment that you were responding to

if you missed that, then i don't know if you're an idiot, but you need to focus a little more on reading comprehension

multitasking takes its toll

I'll just settle for 4-8 years of a maniac spitefully pulling the country apart with his bare hands.

especially if it's a lying surveillance fuck like Obama

Something tells me that Adam won't change his mind as a result of our arguments because he finds his current ideas very comfortable.

‏@dick_nixon
Bush is alone with his pistol, Rubio will bomb Beijing, and Mrs. Clinton weeps for Mark Penn, but hell, there's baseball today.

Rubio will still lose by quite a lot but the Haley thing will give us another week of "back from the dead" nonsense.

i think we should set up adam and morbs on a date

maniac spitefully pulling the country apart with his bare hands

so we would be living in the TrumpVerse?

you guys are describing the exact scenario GOP is saying is happening right now under Obama.

where are you going with this?

over a cliff

Re: Adam Bruneau. I have clear memories of every president from Kennedy onward and a fairly good understanding of every administration beginning with LBJ. I can honestly say that every president has signed off on laws and pursued policies that I thought were harmful and contrary to good government, but I can honestly say that, on balance, more harm was done by the least harmful Republican than by the most harmful Democrat.

This is a subjective call, because it pits LBJ's Great Society initiatives and Vietnam escalation (much good & much harm) against Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon (much harm) set beside his ineffectiveness and general lack of accomplishment (I well recall Whip Inflation Now), but I think it is defensible. If it becomes a question of the aggregate harm done by each party's presidents, then the Republicans have done much more harm. By far. Reagan alone sees to that, even without the addition of Dubya.

Many years ago I read G.Stephanopoulos's memoir and iirc he made the Clinton White House sound like a battle between Gore and the political advisers (pushing to the center) and Hillary (pushing to the left) Nearly identical to takes about Obama WH btw

― Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Wednesday, February 17, 2016 7:34 PM (1 hour ago)

that's interesting. i should prob finally get around to reading that.

Charles Pierce calls him The Clinton Guy Shocked By Blowjobs.

Killer Mike getting shit from the HillBill Machine

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/killer-mike-sexism-uterus-sanders-clinton/463167/

"I'll take 'URLs that sound like Underworld lyrics" for $600"

chronic chronic chronic

Killer Mike getting shit from the HillBill Machine

saw this on WaPo - out of context it sounds bad, in context it's pretty wgaf

greil marcus on why he supports HRC:

It’s clear she’s a poor candidate. Far too many people don’t like her and they don’t trust her. Some of that has to do with a congenital inability to answer a question about some pseudo-scandal directly (even a supporter like me had to think, “How dumb do you think we are?” when she explained her e-mail account with the need to talk to her mother about Chelsea’s wedding and how it was a hassle to carry two Blackberrys when obviously she wouldn’t have been carrying any). But by comparison, has any major news item touting the e-mail story—and the New York Times ran daily or daily-multiple stories for weeks and goes back to it at every chance—have they or any major news organization brought up the fact that the George W. Bush administration routinely channeled White House Iraq e-mails and millions more on controversial subjects to the Republican National Committee server, so they would be protected from FOI and the courts, a violation infinitely bigger, more serious, and more corrupt than anything Hillary has been accused of? But a lot more of why people don’t trust Hillary is phony noise kicked up by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, which existed when she named it and exists now—then it really had a source and a center, Richard Mellon Scaife, now it’s more diffused but no less real—and the New York Times, which is congenitally unable to run a single story on Hillary without a deep dig of some kind, regardless of how harmless the story is otherwise. They still refer to Whitewater, a story they invented, or were fed, as if it ever amounted to anything.

http://greilmarcus.net/ask-greil/

"Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon (much harm)"

this was lousy but was it 'much harm'? the harm was already done. nixon never regained any credibility or favor.

Well, thanks to the Ford pardon Old Man Ronnie got a pass on Iran-Contra

established precedent that the President is above the law

xp

like, no matter what happens or nakedly criminal a President may be, he/she must not be prosecuted under any circumstances "for the good of the country" is now an established political truism

that post is, um, missing some words but you get the idea

thank you, Most Incoherent Critical Eminence of All Time, for going from A to Not-A there.

yeah my sister said the exact same words to me that KM quoted xp

(that was a ref to Marcvus obv)

at least the pardon cost Ford that squeaker of an election

xps

Ford's premature pardon of Nixon short-circuited the necessary precedents for how to handle a lawless president.

presidents have gotten away with worse since, no pardons needed.

well, worse/in the same ballpark, i dont want to have that argument again

man i shudder to look back on Marcus's pro-Clinton 90s writing, that stuff seems like it's from a whole other country now

a lot of really awful people came up in the Ford administration

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Vulcans-History-Bushs-Cabinet/dp/0143034898

i mean i guess that's true of any GOP administration from our perspective isn't it.

yeah marcus's argument that clinton was better than bush or reagan not because of his policies but because he made ppl feel "more welcome in america" or whatever seems especially ridiculous now

baby boomers

In light of the Killer Mike thing, I don't think what he said was *that* bad in context, but I'm still just gonna reiterate this (SD = Sady Doyle)

The thing is I think SD is identifying real sexism, I don't think it's just a matter of seeing everything through a distorting lens. I do see a lot of ugly, stupid comments from male Sanders supporters. Granted, we're talking about the internet, so you don't really know who you're dealing with or how many there are. But I have seen a few friends or friends of friends do it, and I really, really wish men would just stop accusing women of only voting for Hillary because she's a woman, that is just so not men's place to say, and it smacks of conservative "race card" type rhetoric. And I get how that probably makes SD feel even more like circling the wagons around Hillary.

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, February 8, 2016 5:19 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

when it comes down to it, i have a lot more respect for hillary supporters that *are* openly doing so because she's a woman, because fuck that *is* truly important, than for those who try to jury-rig up an apologetic progressive case for her

man alive otm (have not looked into killer mike soundbite)