DescentBB

vision, apologies for waiting a bit to address your post, but had to run a bunch of grandkids about. Now, to pick a few nits and lay out some context:

vision wrote:Up until 2013, Hilary Clinton was against gay marriage. We now have gay marriage in a Republican controlled legislature.

can you find her opinion stating she was 'against' it. She was just rather non-committal, as were most politicians. Our system of elections instills a lot of slowness to change. Often, that is good. As to the latter statement, the legislature didn't do anything the courts had not dictated happen.[quote

In 2008 some people didn't like the way things were going and formed the Tea Party.

which, though never a true independant party, still managed to get representatives elected at all levels. Note, no suggesting we have a Tea Party President, to start out.

Eight years later the Republican Party nominated a RINO and the Democrats nominated a Neocon while suppressing a candidate to the left of the nominee.

RINO? Hell, that is evidence of the problem. When some group tries to narrowly define a party in terms of ideology, you start to hear terms like RINO, or DINO, to a lesser degree. That is not how the parties function best. For over a century, both the Dems and Republicans had far more inclusion of thinking, and far less ideological rigidity. That allows for far more productive political discouse, ie--getting stuff done, the function of politics. I was on the ground enough to know that the idea that anyone 'suppressed' Sanders to the extent of preventing his victory, were he capable of it, is ludicrous. Just didn't happen. Did power brokers pick favorites? Sure. But, had Sanders been able to instill an ounce of minority support, or been able to articulate anything pasts a pure economic message, he would have easily been able to carry the day. He didn't.

Things can change fast, Slick.

well, maybe your definition of 'fast' differs from mine, but I'll say this much: I've been on this earth for 61 years, and can't think of one example of the US systems changing 'fast'. Perhaps you can cite some examples, so we both know what the definition is here. Actually, our system, as I stated earlier, is designed to be SLOW, almost glacial, to effect serious changes. For a reason, or several, all of them valid.

Talking about ideas is the first step to making them happen. Some of the Green ideas are really good and worth pursuing.

agreed, and if they could learn how to form real coalitions, I think the good ideas could be achieved, or even more hopeful, made even better. However, I've grown rather frustrated with younger 'progressives' who seem to eschew any notion of compromise, consensus building or coalitions, and seem hell-bent on doing the same ideological purity nonsense that is currently killing the GOP.

Not all of course, but some, and that's my whole point. Political parties and elections don't have to be all or nothing. That's what got us in the this ridiculous divide in the first place. Party loyalty be damned.

I think we see the same core problem though different lenses. As an older person, with a lot of experience with politics actually getting things done at times, I see the issue not as party loyalty, but party purity. When the radical fringes are determined to define a political party narrowly, punishing ideological outliers, we've sown the seeds of utter futility. In some sense, what I see hope for in the Clinton candidacy is a rather clear attempt to rebuild a more centrist and inclusive Democratic party for many of the reasons I laid out above. I think what we might be heading for is a period with a centrist party(the Democrats), a Progressive party, and a more conservative/libertarian party. It would be nice if ALL THREE won a voice in the House and Senate, as well as legislatures nationwide. Still, as I'm aware, change comes real slow to the US, so my vision might not be a reality for a few cycles, but we do seem to clearly be at a watershed moment for at least one and maybe both major parties. And, to return to my theme, Stein is merely going to prolong the process by her lack of intellect, her lack of political instinct and seeming lack of interest in actually reaching out and compromising to achieve some of the goals(which would require far more prioritizing of goals,as one cannot expect everything at once).

apologies for the long-windedness, but your post deserved some thought in a response.

callmeslick wrote:Stein is merely going to prolong the process by her lack of intellect....

You keep saying things that aren't true. Just want to point that out to you. Just because you don't like her or agree with her doesn't make her stupid. She's sharp as a tack and much more on the ball than Mrs Clinton.

sorry, Vision. I've spent considerable time in rooms with both Ms Stein as well as her inner circle. They are VERY weak intellectually. Sure, the woman is bright enough to earn a MD, but as Ben Carson demonstrated, that doesn't translate into the sort of well rounded savvy and intellectual honesty to do the job as an effective politician. She is given to a conspiratorial view of global politics, of economics and of military realities that borders on the laughable, except that she clearly believes the ★■◆●. She is dismissive of compromise or even ANY difference of opinion. In fact, a noteworthy element of much of the far left(can't speak to the extreme right with as much personal experience) is that anyone who DARES question the 'leadership' of whatever 'movement'(generally self annointed blowhards from what I've seen) is an enemy. No, I'll stand by my opinion, and if you wish to go spend a solid 8 hour stretch in Dr. Stein's presence and get back to me, I'll be sympathetic to your complaints, if you still have them.

edit, comparing to Ms Clinton---I've never been around Ms Clinton to hear her expound at length. I have, like all Americans, seen and heard from her since around 1992. She can, on the well rounded, open-minded type of intellect the job calls for, and that, frankly, I find impressive(deliver me from one note experts or anyone who accepts anything as an unchallenged given), Clinton can clearly think rings around Dr Stein. I would far more trust Ms Clinton to actually solve a problem, any problem, in the REAL FREAKING WORLD, than Dr Stein, and the choice isn't remotely close.

callmeslick wrote:can you find her opinion stating she was 'against' it. She was just rather non-committal, as were most politicians.

I'm going to repost this, since apparently you missed it the first time around.



It's literally the very first issue addressed, and she is quite obviously not just "non-committal". Hillary is a liar and a snake in the grass, plain and simple.

posting some hack video of spliced together out of context nonsense is more intellectual garbage. Post as much as you wish, it won't convince me of much past your lack of ability to handle the discourse.

so, this 'snake in the grass' has attempted to bring Universal Health care to all(1993), achieved a bipartisan compromise to insure Children(1995), spent years prior, not in any way involved in politics fighting for fairness in education, childcare and health access, wasn't even in elective politics until 2002, has only run for Senate once, President twice, and yet we still have nitwits describing her as somehow a career politician? Every fact check organization has given her the highest marks of this entire campaign of all 20 candidates, but she's the 'liar'? Give me a break, all I'm sensing is the collective dim minds of the electorate, and if you all get Trump(still convinced THAT won't happen), you sure as hell deserve it. If this is what passes for millennial generation thinking, or parsing of deeper thought, heaven help us all.

if you'd like to ponder the matter a wee bit more in-depth, read this, and remember while reading(she'll remind you along the way) the writer is NOT a favorite of either Clinton, and has been investigating the two of them for about 30 years out of professional necessity, not out of preordained spite.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... l-abramson

callmeslick wrote:posting some hack video of spliced together out of context nonsense is more intellectual garbage. Post as much as you wish, it won't convince me of much past your lack of ability to handle the discourse.

She said "I have been very consistent over the course of my entire life. I have always fought for the same values and principles."

2002:
When asked "Do you think New York State should recognise gay marriage?" her answer was "No."

2004:
She said "I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

2010:
She said "I have not supported same-sex marriage." (Leaving out the filled pauses because that's not what this is about.)

2013:
She said "I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law."

None of that is nonsense. She clearly stated that she did not support same-sex marriage in the past, she says she now supports it, and she says her views have not changed - ever - despite evidence to the contrary. I find it hard to imagine those phrases uttered in those situations in any other realistic context. I don't think it's very intellectually honest of you to write it off and imply it to be the video equivalent of a photoshopped image (and therefore fake).

callmeslick wrote:so, this 'snake in the grass' has attempted to bring Universal Health care to all(1993), achieved a bipartisan compromise to insure Children(1995), spent years prior, not in any way involved in politics fighting for fairness in education, childcare and health access, wasn't even in elective politics until 2002, has only run for Senate once, President twice, and yet we still have nitwits describing her as somehow a career politician? Every fact check organization has given her the highest marks of this entire campaign of all 20 candidates, but she's the 'liar'? Give me a break, all I'm sensing is the collective dim minds of the electorate, and if you all get Trump(still convinced THAT won't happen), you sure as hell deserve it. If this is what passes for millennial generation thinking, or parsing of deeper thought, heaven help us all.

I'm not sure why you're bringing all this up. I don't support Trump either, he's a grandstanding charlatan.

callmeslick wrote:if you'd like to ponder the matter a wee bit more in-depth, read this, and remember while reading(she'll remind you along the way) the writer is NOT a favorite of either Clinton, and has been investigating the two of them for about 30 years out of professional necessity, not out of preordained spite.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... l-abramson

The very article you linked says the following:

Like most politicians, she’s switched some of her positions and sometimes shades the truth. In debates with Sanders, she cites her tough record on Wall Street, but her Senate bills, like one curbing executive pay, went nowhere. She favors ending the carried interest loophole cherished by hedge funds and private equity executives because it taxes their incomes at a lower rate than ordinary income. But, according to an article by Gerth, she did not sign on to bipartisan legislation in 2007 that would have closed it. She voted for a bankruptcy bill favored by big banks that she initially opposed, drawing criticism from Elizabeth Warren. Clinton says she improved the bill before voting for passage. Her earlier opposition to gay marriage, which she later endorsed, has hurt her with young people. Labor worries about her different statements on trade deals.

Emphasis mine, I thought maybe if you heard it from your own source you might believe it.

And upon following the in-article link to politifact.com, I see that the majority of recent statements involving Hillary are "mostly true" at best. Furthermore, from there I found a list of five big lies from this election year, two of which are hers and have to do with the server business! Oh, and as I neglected to point it out before, here is my favourite lie she has told.

callmeslick wrote:Every fact check organization has given her the highest marks of this entire campaign

The shiniest turd is still a turd, man.

dude, if you cannot accept change in a political person on controversial issues, or the fact that mostly true is vastly superior to most(including Stein, including Johnson when being evaluated, Clinton still comes out on top), heaven help you finding a political spokesperson for your points of view.

callmeslick wrote:dude, if you cannot accept change in a political person on controversial issues, or the fact that mostly true is vastly superior to most(including Stein, including Johnson when being evaluated, Clinton still comes out on top), heaven help you finding a political spokesperson for your points of view.

I can accept a person changing their views. I cannot accept that person blatantly denying reality despite there being hard evidence that says otherwise.

By the way, I fully support Hillary and I always have, both politically and personally. I have never said otherwise. ... see how sketchy and mindboggling that sounds?

Oh, and if you could provide an evaluation source that includes Stein alongside Hillary, I'd appreciate it.

MD-1118 wrote:I can accept a person changing their views. I cannot accept that person blatantly denying reality despite there being hard evidence that says otherwise.

like Stein views vaccines? Or, like Johnson claims we shouldn't bother addressing climate change because the sun will eventually destroy the earth?

By the way, I fully support Hillary and I always have, both politically and personally. I have never said otherwise. ... see how sketchy and mindboggling that sounds?

Oh, and if you could provide an evaluation source that includes Stein alongside Hillary, I'd appreciate it.

I suspect the major gap between your views(and those of vision and others here)and mine are far more generational(age) related than ideological. As for the head to head, are you referring to the truthfulness part alone, or by platform positions?

callmeslick wrote:like Stein views vaccines? Or, like Johnson claims we shouldn't bother addressing climate change because the sun will eventually destroy the earth?

I don't approve of Stein's stance on vaccines and her statements regarding that stance, yeah, but then you already knew that because I already said it. I don't particularly care about Johnson, although that's a stupid claim to make as well.

I suspect the major gap between your views(and those of vision and others here)and mine are far more generational(age) related than ideological. As for the head to head, are you referring to the truthfulness part alone, or by platform positions?

I was referring to the truthfulness comparison, but if you can find a comprehensive platform position comparison as well, by all means.

As for the gap in views, I'm sure some of it may very well stem from generational difference.There is definitely some ideological difference of opinion as well, though.