Re: US Presidential Race

by BarrileteCosmico Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:12 pm

Swanhends wrote:I disagree with this as well. I'm not a fan of Hillary for reasons that have nothing to do with inequality or immigration (well, at least little to do), but can I imagine her debating Rubio on those topics? Absolutely yes.

Rubio has the story but that's ALL he has. So in a debate vs Clinton, he can start off about his bootstrap upbringing all he wants - but when it comes time to talk about how his policy proposals are going to help *OTHER* people get out of poverty.....what does he have? An income tax cut disproportionately benefitting the highest tax bracket and promises to gut poor people's health insurance? Enough people will see right through that to prevent his feel-good story from moving any needles, IMO...Also I would feel pretty confident that Hillary would comfortably defeat Rubio among all hispanic demographics other than Cuban expats.

Alright perhaps "toast" is a bit hyperbolic, but let me rephrase the point: Rubio is the republican candidate that would stand a best chance against Hillary in the general election. Fiorina, Trump and Carson would get dominated by Hillary, they have no broad appeal at all. Jeb is only famous because he is associated to one of the presidents with the lowest approval ratings ever and he would be forced to defend the Iraq war, so that immediately makes him in-eligible. Ted Cruz is too far to the right and Rand Paul is doing his best to alienate his libertarian base in search for a broad one, and getting no base as a result. Chris Christie has a chance, I suppose, but is unlikely to get the nomination in any event.

Rubio was not raised with a silver spoon, is hispanic, is tea-party but not crazy, is charismatic, is young and doesn't have any skeletons in his past. Rubio would have a much easier time getting the average american to relate to him. Rubio would capitalize the vote of people that are tired of 'old politics'. Rubio would be able to steal the ever important hispanic voters and broaden the base of his party, which is the main reason that Republicans would fail in a general election. Not to mention, Rubio is quick on his feet and could punish Hillary for her many screw ups (and I'm sure there are more to come). He is also the Republican candidate that has a highest acceptability rating (when people are asked "Could you see yourself voting for X?" Rubio comes out with the most positive answers).

Bonus: https://twitter.com/BanCollectivism/status/608344761758568448

by Swanhends Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:28 pm

El Messico wrote:Here is an example of what I'm talking about (ignore the headline - these are always sensationalized by editors to get more people to read the article):

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

This article fits right in with my previous points. It's an anonymous article where this professor uses ONE example of an incident from SIX YEARS AGO (where the complaint involved was immediately identified as ridiculous and dismissed, no less) and uses that single event as justification for the claim that PC is crippling college campuses...

I almost laughed out loud at this section:

"She realizes, correctly, that evolutionary psychology is flawed, and that science has often been misused to legitimize racist and sexist beliefs. But why draw that out to questioning most "scientific thought"?"

Meawhile this dude is in the middle of an article where he draws out the complaint of one student in 2009 to assert the revolution in professor-student relationships Rolling Eyes

And here is Obama's take (again ignore the title of the video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVZVCbW63lc

Obama's tactic is no different than the guy in the article.

"Ive heard some college campuses where..."

Which ones, dude?

"I don't think that college students need to be coddled"

Where is this happening, dude?

If he or anyone else is going to make claims like that, they have to be specific. With this topic if you're not providing actual concrete examples then you're doing nothing more than spitballing

This article does a far better job of debunking the campus PC myth than I ever could:

http://sevenscribes.com/straw-freshmen-why-the-war-on-campus-pc-culture-is-bullshit/

by Swanhends Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:47 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Alright perhaps "toast" is a bit hyperbolic, but let me rephrase the point: Rubio is the republican candidate that would stand a best chance against Hillary in the general election. Fiorina, Trump and Carson would get dominated by Hillary, they have no broad appeal at all. Jeb is only famous because he is associated to one of the presidents with the lowest approval ratings ever and he would be forced to defend the Iraq war, so that immediately makes him in-eligible. Ted Cruz is too far to the right and Rand Paul is doing his best to alienate his libertarian base in search for a broad one, and getting no base as a result. Chris Christie has a chance, I suppose, but is unlikely to get the nomination in any event.

I agree with all of this

BC wrote:Rubio was not raised with a silver spoon, is hispanic, is tea-party but not crazy, is charismatic, is young and doesn't have any skeletons in his past. Rubio would have a much easier time getting the average american to relate to him. Rubio would capitalize the vote of people that are tired of 'old politics'. Rubio would be able to steal the ever important hispanic voters and broaden the base of his party, which is the main reason that Republicans would fail in a general election. Not to mention, Rubio is quick on his feet and could punish Hillary for her many screw ups (and I'm sure there are more to come). He is also the Republican candidate that has a highest acceptability rating (when people are asked "Could you see yourself voting for X?" Rubio comes out with the most positive answers).

Bonus: https://twitter.com/BanCollectivism/status/608344761758568448

Rubio is a very well coached candidate who handles scripted answers well, I'm not sure I buy the idea that he's quick on his feet though. He's done well in the Republican debates because they've been almost entirely events of style, and I think he is far less comfortable debating substantive topics or talking policy

I'll believe it when I see it with respect to him beating Hillary (or any Dem candidate) with hispanics

And while I also agree that the average American is more likely to relate to him than Clinton, this is a double-edged sword: A big part of the reason why Rubio lives in the house he does is that he has had, despite making millions in income over the last few years, tremendous self-caused money problems as a result of his own terrible financial decision making.

Now I think it would be a TERRIBLE idea for Clinton to call him on this, since she is mega-rich and even if Rubio couldn't budget a grocery list there is little that a wider swath of Americans can relate to than money problems. However, while I don't think she should be the one to bring it up because of the optics...eventually he's going to have to answer for his dreadful history of financial decisionmaking if he wants to be President, right?

Whether they can relate to it or not, I have to think that there's a lot of people who would think twice about voting for someone who has consistently shown an inability to manage even his own family's finances responsibly, in spite of that fact that he's made far more than most Americans could ever dream of

Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-finances-debt-loans-credit.html

by El Messico Sun Nov 01, 2015 1:51 am

There are a lot of examples in the article, not just ONE incident from SIX YEARS AGO. If you read it properly and critically, and follow the many links attached in that article, you will have enough examples. Failing that, google is your friend.

That's it from my side, I'm not gonna engage in something I don't really care enough about.

by BarrileteCosmico Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:08 am

Swanhends as you state yourself this is kind of a moot point as Hillary can't bring up personal finances. Not to mention her comments about being "dead broke" while they were living in a multi million dollar house and charging six dollar figures for speaking fees after the white house.

by Swanhends Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:40 pm

El Messico wrote:There are a lot of examples in the article, not just ONE incident from SIX YEARS AGO. If you read it properly and critically, and follow the many links attached in that article, you will have enough examples. Failing that, google is your friend.

I mean, I read the vox article when it first came out & re-read it when you posted it here but I'm guessing you didn't do the same for the link I posted? Not sure "google is your friend" really applies here when sizable publications like The Atlantic have been giving this issue a lot of coverage and yet the extent of their sourcing is this:

Seven Scribes wrote:Even taking these bits of evidence at their strongest and considering every source’s sources, so far the evidence from within The Atlantic’s reporting on PC culture within campuses yields data points from eight known American colleges and universities, one anonymous university, twelve professors, two researchers, three comedians, and one blog. No first hand interviews or viewpoints from actual students. There are over 4,700 degree-granting institutions, almost two million post-secondary professors, and 21 million enrolled students in the United States. These sources hardly form enough to decide to pursue a question, let alone form a broad cultural commentary, and further still show that these things actually impact campus life and policy in a meaningful way.

If paid journalists from reputable publications have only come up with 15 very thin examples from 4,700 colleges comprising 23,000,000 students & professors I feel pretty comfortable saying that me going to google isn't going to unearth any groundbreaking new details. I guess you could argue that The Atlantic's reporters are trash if you want, but it's not just them. There are an awful lot of publications putting out an awful lot of pieces about PC on campus that are basically just cross-referencing eachother without the support of primary sources. Are all of these people incompetent, or are the examples just not there to be found?

by Swanhends Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:50 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Swanhends as you state yourself this is kind of a mute point as Hillary can't bring up personal finances. Not to mention her comments about being "dead broke" while they were living in a multi million dollar house and charging six dollar figures for speaking fees after the white house.

Hillary can't bring it up - but does that mean it won't come up entirely? Maybe it does, that just seems unlikely to me given how much campaigning there is left to do

The dead broke comment was beyond idiotic, but I think it bears mentioning that those comments were over a year ago and haven't slowed her down so far. As long as she doesn't make the same mistake twice & avoids that line of speaking I don't think that will come back to materially change the current course

Of course, all of this is assuming that Rubio (and Hillary, really) win their primaries. While Rubio makes the most sense and clearly has the best shot at a general election among the Republican field...lets remember that as of now at least he's getting smoked by two people in the polls.

I understand the widely held belief that Carson and Trump will both fall off (I hold that belief myself) - but there's something to be said for the fact that both of them have held such a commanding lead over the rest of the field for some time now

by BarrileteCosmico Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:48 pm

Don't particularly disagree with anything in that post.

by VivaStPauli Mon Nov 02, 2015 6:20 pm

I agree with everything Swanhends said, and for the most part it is what I was trying to say, but he's been more elaborate, and more precise.

by El Messico Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:32 am

The difference here is in the scope of our argument. I read your article Swanhends. The guy (reasonably) seems to think that the numerous articles published about PC are done with the intent of discussing policy over.

But that's not what I'm talking about, my scope is a lot more limited. I've never actually said it is something that deserves critical commentary, evidence and facts (don't even know if that's possible in this issue). I only said you can find examples of political correctness gone too far at college campuses in US/Canada, and I shared an example from my university.

As an addendum, you also have to consider that (1) a lot of incidents/situations do not occur because professors have modified their behaviour to not get in trouble (which is supported by that article I posted) (2) not every incident/situation actually makes the press. Unsurprisingly enough, no one actually cares that much about student politics. I will say this much, there have been more than a few incidents over the past few years at my university (which I'm not going to share) that are ludicrous but don't make the press.

It is not just, as you say, about treating people with respect. I welcome a cultural shift that promotes that. This is more about a body (usually student politicians) unilaterally deciding (or atleast trying) to control aspects that they have no right over, under the flimsy guise of "political correctness".

by El Messico Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:50 am

Looking back at a couple of my posts, I guess I didn't convey my intention properly. More specifically, I'm referring to the post about Obama and the commentators in the media. My intention there was to highlight the fact that if there are examples that have actually found their into the media's and even the President's notice, surely you would have to agree that you can find examples of PC gone too far on college campuses, which was my original point. My intention was neither to support the more heavy-handed assertions stated in these articles nor to support the idea that this is a topic that is worthy of commentary.

Again, I will reiterate that PC is a catch-all term used by me to describe a variety of behaviours and actions that might not fit your definition. Most of this is actually carried out on social media like facebook or twitter (although I don't know anything about twitter), which really are the least appropriate media to share political opinions. No wonder they barely make the news, but to the people actually on campus groups and other social institutions, it can be a regular occurrence.

by Swanhends Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:24 pm

El Messico wrote:The difference here is in the scope of our argument. I read your article Swanhends. The guy (reasonably) seems to think that the numerous articles published about PC are done with the intent of discussing policy over.

But that's not what I'm talking about, my scope is a lot more limited. I've never actually said it is something that deserves critical commentary, evidence and facts (don't even know if that's possible in this issue). I only said you can find examples of political correctness gone too far at college campuses in US/Canada, and I shared an example from my university.

Absolutely, of course I agree that there are examples of PC gone too far (both on campuses and elsewhere).

Messico wrote:As an addendum, you also have to consider that (1) a lot of incidents/situations do not occur because professors have modified their behaviour to not get in trouble (which is supported by that article I posted) (2) not every incident/situation actually makes the press. Unsurprisingly enough, no one actually cares that much about student politics. I will say this much, there have been more than a few incidents over the past few years at my university (which I'm not going to share) that are ludicrous but don't make the press.

These are also both reasonable considerations, although I myself am dubious about their respective prevalences

Messico wrote:It is not just, as you say, about treating people with respect. I welcome a cultural shift that promotes that. This is more about a body (usually student politicians) unilaterally deciding (or atleast trying) to control aspects that they have no right over, under the flimsy guise of "political correctness".

This part lost me though - Are you suggesting that there are Student Government bodies making decisions about the curriculum taught to students? Where has this happened?

Edit: I replied without seeing your last post. In any case, I don't think there is any disputing that there are certainly examples of political correctness gone too far (again, both on campus & elsewhere). I agree with your point about the differing scope of our points: my focus is mostly on, what I consider to be, the laughable idea that there is some type of wave of political correctness that is sweeping the country and swallowing up people for benign/throwaway comments. But the fact that examples exist of people pushing the concept to absurd levels is certainly true.

by El Messico Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:05 pm

It's not about curriculum, or atleast I'm not aware of any situations involving curriculum. I studied engineering, there is no way any student body will be able to change the curriculum.

Here is an example that actually made the news:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-u-of-t-student-union-moves-ahead-with-harrowingly-stupid-equity-plan

This rubbed me the wrong way because Engineering as a faculty deserves a vote on the council (for various reasons) a lot more than any of the dumb equity groups these guys devised.

It's not exactly what I was talking about (as I said the incidents I'm talking about usually happen on FB, and those are hard to find) but still kinda fits under the umbrella of behaviours that result from my definition of trying to be PC.

Here was the union president's (the one mentioned in the article) response:

https://twitter.com/robynurback/status/464422340042821633/photo/1

I'd kinda understand if the president was the type of guy to get involved in banter, but that wasn't his disposition at all. I am not really offended by this response because I'm not white, but come on - wouldn't you agree that this is a despicable statement that would have been widely denounced if it was about any other group?

by Swanhends Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:58 pm

I think it's exactly the kind of idiotic statement I'd expect from a shortsighted college student

Having not previously read anything on this subject though, the council overhaul itself - with the constituency groups - seems like a very interesting idea to me. And given that the article was clearly an opinion piece rather than reporting I'd probably reserve further judgement on the plan itself

by Swanhends Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:00 pm

http://forward.com/opinion/national/324013/how-i-would-rebuild-ties-to-israel-and-benjamin-neta/

Hilldog wrote:We have recently marked the 20th anniversary of the assassination of then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, a good friend, a courageous warrior and a great statesman. This somber anniversary, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington on November 9, is an opportunity to reaffirm the unbreakable bonds of friendship and unity between the people and governments of the United States and Israel.
The alliance between our two nations transcends politics. It is and should always be a commitment that unites us, not a wedge that divides us.
Ever since President Truman waited only 11 minutes to recognize the new nation of Israel in 1948, Americans have believed that Israel is more than a country — it’s a dream nurtured for generations and made real by men and women who refused to bow to the toughest odds.

My first visit to Israel, in December 1981, sparked an enduring emotional connection for me — to the land and its people — and admiration for how Israelis have built a thriving democracy in a region full of adversaries and autocrats. I was so impressed with the Israeli approach to early childhood education and to helping parents become their children’s first teachers that I worked to bring the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (commonly known by its acronym, HIPPY) to Arkansas. Over the past 30 years, I’ve worked with Israelis of all stripes and made dear friends like the Rabins and many others inside and outside of government.

On that first trip, Bill and I fell in love with Jerusalem as we walked the ancient streets of the Old City. Even amid all the history and traditions, it was a city pulsing with life and energy. I am appalled that those same streets are now filled with terrorism and fear. We now hear of daily stabbings and shootings of innocent civilians — teenagers, parents and senior citizens. Israelis have to look over their shoulders during everyday tasks, like carrying groceries and waiting for the bus. Some American citizens are among the victims, including Richard Lakin, a teacher and advocate who spent years working for tolerance and understanding.

This violence must not be allowed to continue. It needs to stop immediately, and Israelis and Palestinians must move back toward the path of peaceful reconciliation. All parties and the international community should condemn any political and religious leader who stokes tensions with irresponsible rhetoric. Many of us have seen the video of a cleric encouraging worshippers to stab Jews as he waves a knife in the air. This incitement needs to end, period.

I have stood with Israel my entire career. As a senator, I fought to get Magen David Adom accepted to the International Red Cross when other nations tried to exclude the organization. I wrote and co-sponsored bills that isolated terror groups, and pushed to crack down on incitement in Palestinian textbooks and schools. As secretary of state, I requested more assistance for Israel every year, and supported the lifesaving Iron Dome rocket defense system. I defended Israel from isolation and attacks at the United Nations and other international settings, including opposing the biased Goldstone report.

On behalf of President Obama, I convened Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for three sessions of face-to-face peace talks, the last time that’s ever happened. And in 2012 I led negotiations for a cease-fire in Gaza to stop Hamas rockets from raining down on Israeli homes and communities.

As president, I will continue this fight.

I am deeply committed to Israel’s future as a secure and democratic Jewish state, and just as convinced that the only way to guarantee that outcome is through diplomacy. And while no solution can be imposed from outside, I believe the United States has a responsibility to help bring Israelis and Palestinians to the table and to encourage the difficult but necessary decisions that will lead to peace. As president I will never stop working to advance the goal of two states for two peoples living in peace, security and dignity.

I will do everything I can to enhance our strategic partnership and strengthen America’s security commitment to Israel, ensuring that it always has the qualitative military edge to defend itself. That includes immediately dispatching a delegation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to meet with senior Israeli commanders. I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my first month in office.

The dangers facing both our nations in the Middle East require bold and united responses. We must remain committed to preventing Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon, and to vigorously enforcing the new nuclear agreement. I would move to step up our partnership to confront Iran and its proxies across the region, and make sure dangerous Russian and Iranian weapons don’t end up in Hezbollah’s hands or threaten Israel. I also will combat growing efforts to isolate Israel internationally and to undermine its future as a Jewish state, including the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. I’ve spoken out against BDS in the United States and at the U.N., and will continue to do so.

For me, fighting for Israel isn’t just about policy — it’s a personal commitment to the friendship between our peoples and our vision for peace and security.

sigh. really excited for the giant douche vs. turd sandwich decision we're probably gonna get next year.

someone please fire me into the sun with a cannon.

on a lighter note: I heard this morning that Ben Carson's politifact rating is literally zero? lmao. His personal stories are all fabrications & fairy tales, and he's leading the GOP polls! rofl

And did anyone hear his advertisement aimed at """"urban"""" voters? It's incredible.

by VivaStPauli Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:12 pm

"Urban" voters?
This is gonna be racist, isn't it?
Sorry, meant to say: ain't it?

by RedOranje Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:13 am

Not sure if this link will work or not:

https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/231659314&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true

by BarrileteCosmico Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:28 am

VivaStPauli wrote:"Urban" voters?
This is gonna be racist, isn't it?
Sorry, meant to say: ain't it?

Sometimes urban is used in a racist manner such as "These urban kids got on the bus and I got scared" clearly meaning hispanic and/or black, and sometimes it's not like "urban demographics" such as people that live near or in cities.

by RedOranje Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:58 am

In this case it's the former.

by VivaStPauli Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:45 pm

RedOranje wrote:In this case it's the former.

I'm a prophet when it comes to American politics.

by FennecFox7 Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:34 am

Co workers
"trump is not controlled by the media, so hes genuine and he will help out american citizens because he actually cares"

"also, he has realistic policies compared to bernie sanders"

Laughing

by VivaStPauli Sat Nov 07, 2015 12:48 pm

So I guess you're the smartest guy at the office?

by Swanhends Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:44 pm

So it turns out Ben Carson is literally a pathological liar, nice.

The best part is that given the state of the GOP I don't even think it will make a difference, they've fully embraced this transformation into the anti-knowledge party so this won't even be a bump in the road

by DuringTheWar Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:25 pm

It seems as though Carson lied about a meeting with Westmoreland decades ago, although it's difficult to determine the exact facts while swimming through politico's own lies..

by Swanhends Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:05 pm

DuringTheWar wrote:It seems as though Carson lied about a meeting with Westmoreland decades ago, although it's difficult to determine the exact facts while swimming through politico's own lies..

It's not even about this one story, it's beginning to look like a grocery list

Lied about stabbing a friend
Lied about getting robbed at a popeyes
Lied about getting offered a scholarship to West Point
Lied about Mannetech

And the worst part is that THIS is the kind of shit that decides our elections. Yes he lied, and yes it's bad, but at the end of the day none of these things (well, maybe Mannetech) actually hurt people. Meanwhile this dude is actively promoting policies that WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN will lead to death & suffering among the most marginalized groups...but it's not those very real policy proposals with very real consequences that will do him in, instead it's lies about relatively meaningless shit that happened 20 years ago.

Politics is the worst, man.

by Swanhends Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:19 pm

On a more cheerful note I have been laughing at this vine for like 45 mintues:

Spoiler:

by Sponsored content