Are you finally with her? The Hillary Clinton paradox- Ignore Hillary Clinton at your own peril
- Thread starter Knuckle Ball
- Start date
That you still think what I am saying is that no one is allowed to have a different opinion than me is a sign of how locked into your thinking you are here.
I'm sorry that people pointing out the flaws in your (or this guys) reasoning is so upsetting to you. Maybe you should just put me on ignore.
Yes.
That you have a childish and limited understanding of voting has been well established.
Not sure why we are retreading ground we already covered.
But yes, when his point is that Biden has to lose for his position on Gaza then he is saying that Biden should be punished electorally for his position on Gaza.
It would have.
Yes.
The context in which various actions are taken has to be included.
Would DeSantis have wanted to push for opening faster?
Of course.
Would his options for doing so have been different in the context of a different federal response?
Of course.
Very possible.
As I said in my original response, especially if the question was from late 2023 or early 2024 and it was "Should Hilary Clinton replace Joe Biden as the Dem nominee" I would expect her numbers to be in the single digits.
Only thing I can find that is actual favorability data that claims to be recent has her back with higher positives over negatives. (+12%)
I don't know how reliable I would find that polling, though.
Last edited:
I love it when you flip out when forced to try and course correct your bullshit.
Ah well.
That was fun, I guess.
If you are going to pretend to believe the world is complex now, I consider it a win.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
I consider you more often delusional than lying.
Yes, you're pushing the same argument again, that your reasoning is superior and supporting genocide is 'pragmatic'.
Votes are earned, if Biden supports genocide lots of people will say he hasn't earned their trust and vote.
Lots of voters think they are being punished while Israel are being rewarded for genocide, if you really want to use that language.
Personally, I find it rather anti democratic that you say you don't choose to support a politician, you can only choose to punish them or not.
At the start of the pandemic he downplayed the threat of the virus, Trump admitted it himself. He put his son-in-law in charge of procuring PPE which culminated in a bunch of companies that have no business getting government contracts getting government contracts, this was where Pillow Man got a government contract and made his grand entrance into MAGAland. He gave Kodak 900 million to make HCQ. He told his supporters to vote in person and then he got Covid so bad that he had to be on oxygen which basically put the nail in his own coffin. He made fun of Joe Biden saying he is hiding in his basement while Trump was going around catching and spreading Covid. After Trump got Covid he did not isolate himself and instead just spread it around. That is just the stuff off the top of my head, there is a lot more that I forget.
Congress approves all spending. Its amazing how many think the President is a dictator when it suits their politics.
As to the rest I agree. But again it is governors that decided and implemented policy. On both sides. And would have done the same policies despite who was in charge. Just like Democratic States degied Trump, GOP states eould have defied Clinton.
Trump did fund the research. And really did give Fauci power.
You mean congress funded the research.
When convenient blame congress, when convenient blame the president, you live in a very convenient fantasy world. I am envious.
And if they understand that's their choice, fine.
It's the one pretending this means they aren't electing Trump in a two-party system that I am objecting to.
If you are clear - "I prefer Trump in charge because Biden has lost my trust" then while I disagree with you, I won't mock you.
It's the people who pretend that isn't what they are doing that I am critiquing.
Because pretending reality isn't what reality is doesn't help anyone.
That's not what I said.
I pointed out that your Australian said that was the motivation.
Biden did something bad, so he must be punished.
What he is upset by is people pointing out that this means putting Trump in.
I've told you repeatedly, if you are saying that Trump winning is your preferred outcome because Biden has "lost your vote" then while I think that's a terrible decision, that's one that shows you know what you are doing.
It's the deluded idea that your vote is about "who you support" and not "who you prefer to be President" that is the problem.
Congress funded the research.
But OWS as a goal-setting approach, emphasizing private-public partnership, and coordinating the money was primarily an executive branch thing and the Trump Administration should get the kudos there.
Your political worldview is pretty bleak, valcazar.
It seems to operate under the assumption that political change is impossible so you have to actively vote for the least evil of the likely winners every time. That the short term is more important than long term change to the system. As if having the choice between voting between two evil choices means you still have to vote for evil instead of not voting or voting for an independent that won't win. Even using your 'punishment' narrative is based on the concept that you can change party policy by not supporting evil, which is way more positive than its 'pragmatic' to vote for evil.
I understand you think rump is still competent enough to destroy US democracy and you think that justifies voting for genocide elsewhere.
What you are missing is the massive movement that is trying to implement change and trying to support that change instead of voting against it.
Even while this shows support for Israel it also signals massive change to US policy.
What you fail to recognize here is that his Frankys love for hamas is far greater than who will be the next POTUS....his hate fore the Jews is far greater...he will vote Trump tomorrow if Trump will guarantee Israel will not get any support and will be on their own...
Keep your love of genocide to the proper threads, rich.
This is about choosing which 80 year old is slightly less evil and whether the wife of another ex POTUS would have been a better choice than the farty old codger who spends all his time in court.
You know you would be in bed with Trump in a heartbeat if he will support Hamas...that's just how it is...accept it...
Wow.
You misunderstand how political systems work even more dramatically than I thought.
That's sad.
But not unexpected.
I don't miss that at all.
I am the one who advocates actually doing things that will accomplish that change instead of working against it.
What part of that signals a massive change to US policy, exactly?
How, in particular are you going to argue that I'm not understanding how the US system works?
Really?
I haven't heard you advocate for any change, only that its pragmatic to vote for some genocide and the dems as they are now.
Maybe not massive, but this is a shift to see so many vote against funding weapons for Israel.
Because you don't.
You don't seem to understand electoral systems very well and your view of politics in general seems naive.
But I'm not going to do an entire course on the subject just to catch you up.
I accept you have an unrealistic view of things and it just is what it is.
Like I said.
You don't seem to understand things at all.
So no change in policy at all since they lost the vote, is what you are saying.
You aren't talking about what was actually approved as policy - that just isn't something you care about?
