Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by Jimmy... Dead., Jun 19, 2014.
Space and the ocean. Two things I'm fascinated by, and two things that scare the shit out of me.
We can't even send bacteria to a foreign planet right now under current space law. No way this is a realistic timetable, at all.
Oh yeah, I should be more specific. Terra Firma. But yeah, space and the ocean are fascinating in the abstract.
That would never happen if somebody were exposed to the Martian atmosphere
So.....the Borg is planning an attack?
So Sweden can now bill USA for all the Iraki refugies who made to Sweden?
So you gonna pay for the 80 000 ref. or do we just ship them over to you?
10 years - $15000 a year and person = A fuck load of cash.
Cough it up, mofo!
Sanders attracted quite a lot of Google traffic during the debate. What did people want to know?
The Jewish question made me lol
They could have just checked his wiki.
Hilary said she didn't want to get elected for her last name being Clinton but had no problem establishing herself as the possible first woman president...and somehow attributed Obama with every white President before him, kind of weird.
Bernie had a good debate, but it would be nice to not have 3 people who have no chance and see Hillary and Bernie go into more detail
I was disappointed that Bernie deflected rather than met head-on the criticisms of his record on gun control. His foreign policy remarks weren't very inspiring either (e.g. saying we should never act "unilaterally" when even the Iraq War was a coalition). His unwillingness to attack Hillary also was to his disadvantage. I admire that he's not playing dirty but it hurts his electability, to be honest, especially when his opponent is such a polished orator.
Perhaps this was the first time a lot of people heard Sanders speak, but I felt he was repeating, word for word, a lot of the messages he's been making since he started running. It's an important message, but he could work on articulating it with more variety, especially when running against a rhetorician like Hillary.
That said, he didn't look weak, just not as powerful as Hillary. The fact that all the stock attacks on her from the Republicans were not really at issue in the debate made her appear the victor.
But yes, the other three candidates' presence was a waste of time that detracted from a more constructive debate that went into much more detail. Jim Webb was such a fucking baby who spent half his time whining that he didn't get enough time to whine. The other two were as inspiring as a block of wood.
What point are you referring to where he deflected on gun control? I thought his view on rural vs. urban is entirely valid in the debate on gun control.
Thought his foreign policy was pretty spot on. Especially in the Middle East. And of course he's not playing the scare tactic that all of ISIS is coming to America to behead everyone.
Bernie has to do that, because no one knows who he is nor his positions. And he's demonized as the "socialist." I don't think you are understanding his perspective on electability, one where attacks do not appeal but rather representing Americans, something that only Trump is trying to achieve. Hilary has leeched onto Bernie's tactic since his rise in the polls.
I don't get how Hilary looked that strong in the debate. She was confronted on a lot of issues where she flip flopped or was wrong, especially when Chaffee blasted her on the Iraq War. And the banking crisis where she looked terrible. I really don't think Hilary won that debate
I was examining the debate rhetorically. You have all valid points.
There was not enough time to elucidate that distinction, and he was jumped on before he could. I was referring to the gun control legislation in the 90's he voted against multiple times. He basically said "it's complicated" and with the, yes, valid urban-rural distinction he made, he was on his way to addressing that, but ran out of time.
He didn't appear that interested in the issue, making him look like a Rand Paul type when it comes to foreign policy (his consistent record against foreign intervention was a strength, though). I wasn't looking for a hawkish position, but one that demonstrated that he was knowledgable and passionate about it. His point about Putin was a great one, though.
You're probably right. But I think he missed the opportunity to argue how a form of capitalism and democratic socialism can be harmonized. He didn't say that, and instead came off as believing the two are fundamentally opposed.
The Mr./Mrs. Nice Guy approach is certainly to Hillary's advantage, and is making her appear to "safe" option. That's what I'm getting at.
She exuded the most confidence and seemed most relaxed, and that has an effect. But on substantive issues I agree with you. What made her look good also was that she adopted the "moderate progressive" stance, whereby instead of advocating for simple, sweeping reforms, she presents things much more nuanced and seemingly feasible.
My favorite Bernie meme to date:
Yeah, that's a solid critique. Anderson got to probe him a little bit on population of Denmark vs. USA, but obviously he couldn't go into detail in that format. I would like to hear his thoughts on the differences and how America would have to adapt etc.
He said he voted for Kosovo intervention and Afghanistan, I think those are (the only?) two legitimate intervention policies following the Vietnam war
I don't think the average American can be educated on how much socialism is in our society already, especially in a debate where everyone will jump in/attack etc. But yes, one of the problems of having the debate structured like this. I don't think I fully understand what his position is on the economy and would like to hear more.
Bernie did have a moment that Dak confronted Mort with about a month ago, when Bernie said he'd rather have everyone doing well then some doing amazing. That's a rather simplistic view on society imo and everyone can't be doing well..but alas, we did not get to have that discussion.
I don't think she was more confident than Bernie, especially in the 2nd half when it all started crumbling around her.
Moderate progressive doesn't make sense, and I think (hope) people are starting to realize the machine that has driven her political aspirations for quite some time.
Some studies have been done that showed that a majority of people would rather for no one to get anything (or even everyone lose an equal amount) than for everyone to gain, but for others to gain more than themselves. People's happiness is generally relative: If everyone else is living in one room grass huts, I'm pretty damn happy with my 2 room grass hut. If everyone else is living in 10ksqft marble mansions, I'm going to be shouting for "social justice" from my 6ksqft brick mansion.
Bernie, the accidental racist:
To borrow a phrase from the climate change caucus: "The data speaks for itself". Bernie's entire state has less homicides than the city of Baltimore does, and by quite a large margin - and with some of the laxest if not the most lax gun laws in the country.
I need to understand the opposite to this; I agreed with Bernie's response during the debate.
On Bernie's response to rural vs. urban, I read it differently. I read that Bernie represents a largely rural state with a large hunting tradition, as he and O'Malley both called it.
"The views on gun control are different in rural states vs. urban states." [actual quote, no paraphrasing] Basically turns this into a Repub (lax control) vs. Dem (more control) issue.
Bernie admitted that this was a flaw in the law..
Slate is really reaching here, I think. Would do the argument more justice if slate quoted him directly here.