sorry haven't you heard? It's the year of the rat.
hoping Pete brings Iowa home.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
sorry haven't you heard? It's the year of the rat.
hoping Pete brings Iowa home.
lol it wont matter
he aint brining anything else home but a gigantic L
Can y'all calm down with the hate and hyperbole please? You can have your preferred candidate without calling other candidates rat fucks.
You must also believe there was no quid pro quo, because Trump said as much.
If you have a reason to believe VoteVets is lying I'd love to see it.
I actually agree with... nearly everything you said. But I'll play this game!
Pros:
- Bernie: Solid and clear voice on foreign policy, climate change, and income inequality.
- Bloomberg: Limitless pockets of money to run anti-Trump attack ads while not actually being competitive for the nomination?
- Biden: 100% confident that Biden would, based on his experience and network, quickly restore institutions in the federal government to a position of trust and effectiveness.
- Buttigieg: He's basically Macron. I also think that he'd work to restore institutional trust. Finally, I think his time while deployed exposed him to both the importance of alliances and potential peacekeeping operations under a UN mandate, while also guarding against adventurism.
- Klob: Popular in the Midwest. Institutional experience. I think she's Most Likely to Run a Gaffe-Free Presidency (Except For Lame Jokes).
- Warren: She's got policies and backup research data for literally everything, and I agree with pretty much everything she's running on.
- Yang: The UBI discussion's important.
- Bernie: I don't trust, for a minute, anyone Bernie would appoint on his behalf. I don't mean judges. I mean I want him to actually make an informed, safe pick to run something like the Office of Personnel Management, and I don't believe he'd do that. And a non-trivial portion of his online supporters are toxic.
- Bloomberg: I don't take him seriously enough as a candidate to actually enumerate cons.
- Biden: Reaching across the aisle is dead, and while I understand saying things for political reasons, I think Biden actually believes it.
- Buttigieg: Not viable because of < 0% minority support; lack of experience. I want the POTUS to represent more than a given subset of the population. I still rep Pete as VA Secretary or something
- Klob: She actually doesn't HAVE any cons, but she doesn't really have any pros, either. On paper, she's honestly a solid candidate and could get the job done while inspiring absolutely zero excitement: the Side Salad of Candidates.
- Warren: I seriously question her political acumen.
- Yang: Simply not viable. Great Special Assistant to the President on Technology Transformation.
I want every candidate to be referred to as an animal by the end.
I mean, I don't have any reason at this moment to doubt them. I Just wanted to share their response.
The people need to know the fursonas of our candidates before they can make a decision.
Dehumanizing candidates and their supporters as animals, like say, rats and snakes, only makes those doing it terrible.
Too late. Bernie Sanders is now Birdie Sandpiper in my mind.
Behold your VT Senator's true form!
User Banned (1 Week): Ignoring the staff post in regards to hostility
Really, this shit isn't cute and as a deflection, maybe stop or find another way to contribute to the thread.Too late. Bernie Sanders is now Birdie Sandpiper in my mind.
Behold your VT Senator's true form!
Heh—I knew one of these (admittedly several) examples was coming.
I often don't know how to grapple with these thoughts. There will never, ever be a president who does a perfect run on foreign policy and mitigates all preventable loss of life. It's virtually guaranteed that every president has and will have blood on their hands—whether directly or indirectly—due to military action or inaction they take, the amount of funding they direct to some nations but not others, the arms deals that even when justified always result in some amount of weapons in the wrong hands, the trade decisions that could make or break random people's lives depending on their location and profession, and on and on and on. The near-infinite amount of spiraling ramifications a president causes no matter which action they do or don't take is too complex for me to even wrap my head around.
Some of these actions are far more egregious and shameless than others, of course, but I don't know how to completely write-off a candidate based strictly on whether or not they've ever done anything that resulted in casualties (or if, like most candidates, they've not been close to the white house before but would ultimately end up responsible for needless death in one way or another regardless).
Funny, because I absolutely have no problem writing off individuals for crimes that happen on a personal scale. Murder one person? Rape one person? I wish nothing but misery and eternal damnation for you.
But a president who can and will be responsible for preventable deaths somehow, somewhere just seems like such an inevitable reality that it's going to happen even if there's no malice or malfeasance. Politics already makes me miserable enough as it is, so if I start viewing every viable democratic candidate through the lens of the biggest mistakes they've made, I don't quite think my mind could take it. I recognize there's a degree of incongruity in my thought patterns here—being so readily able to run an individual transgression through my mental perspective of justice but not a decision that could cause far greater destruction than any interpersonal crime ever could—but I don't know how to rectify it.
Granted, everyone's breaking point is different. I have my own lines, obviously, and I would turn on any candidate if they crossed them. But that's going to be different for each person, based on issues they're close to and the causes they're passionate about.
I readily admit I don't keep up with the nitty gritty of middle eastern conflicts. Not at all because those issues aren't important, but because I have no direct link to anything regarding Israel or Palestine. And though a direct link isn't required to be involved in an issue, horrendous violence and mass tragedy occur everywhere across the world on a daily basis. I'm just as likely to be angry over Netenyahu's war crimes as I am about a random African warlord's. Sustained and focused rage can justifiable be focused in those directions, but there's only so much caring any one human is capable of, and the injustices that get me riled up lie elsewhere.
Don't interpret any of this as a defense of Joe Biden specifically, either. He's easily my least favorite candidate in the race (unless Delaney is still running... is he?), and I'll be crushingly disappointed if he's the nominee. It just seems inescapable that (again, completely reasonable) metrics of judgement like the one you brought up could ultimately be applied to any potential president throughout the rest of time.
Sanders would be fine as president. The republicans bitched and moaned about Obama for 8 years because of racism and xenophobic conspiracy theories, but he was never harmed. With Sanders they will have their antisemitic rants and make up their conspiracy theories about america becoming a communist stronghold, but nobody outside of the bigot fantasy land they live in will care.
Here's what the Hamburglar actually looks like instead of what seems to be a photoshop.
It's a total fabrication that was promoted by right wing trump accounts to sew discord in the Democratic primary. Predictably a bunch took the bait willingly and spread the rumors. Widely dispelled in the Iowa thread.
If you want to call him a rat, but all means, continue. Just realize a lot of us will immediately peg you as a terrible human being.
[/QUOTE]
I think it's from this user created video:
I think it's from this user created video:
Oh, please. These people are running to be the most powerful figure in the western world and will deliver policies that will impact hundreds of millions of people. It's alright to call a candidate an innocuous pejorative if you don't like them. Don't be this guy.
From what I understand this isn't an accident or conspiracy, just another example of the overcomplications and shittiness of the caucus system.
And we'll say you're doing all this over a man who fired the first black chief of police of his city. I'll still vote for the god damn rat of he get the nom.
Like I said, feel free to call anyone an animal however you, just know it's a still a terrible look and a lazy invective. Go to town, just don't expect good results.
Apparently this is done correctly.
If there's leftovers they're first assigned to the highest.
Jesus Christ, save the finger-wagging for your bathroom mirror.
- Status