The Clinton Victory Thread

[ScholasticSpastic]

Are you allowed to publish private messages on this forum? There's a reason, as I stated in the message, why I didn't want to post in the thread. Why are you publishing it in the thread?

Report it and see what happens. I suspect that he's taken a calculated risk because he's getting sick of your shit-posting in what's supposed to be a discussion forum. We generally prefer conversations that are at a level above what you find on one of the chans.

[Bernoulli]

"shit-posting"? ok.

[ScholasticSpastic]

"shit-posting"? ok.

I have to admit to a certain amount of bias against you because I assumed you were a physicist or a mathematician when I saw your user name and now I suspect that you are neither. This may have adversely effected my perception of your posts.

If you're thinking, "What emotions should go with this post? Am I being insulted, is Spastic kidding, or is he just weird?" the answer is yes.

[Bernoulli]

Well you get credit for admitting bias.

[Macdoc]

FFS get a room....tiresome the lot of you

[Bernoulli]

That's why I took it out of the thread. I'm utterly uninterested in ridiculous bickering. But I will defend myself when people start getting hysterical or personal.

[ScholasticSpastic]

Well you get credit for admitting bias.

It's important to try to identify our biases, and to attempt to differentiate between reality and what we may be perceiving as a result of our biases. This is especially the case regarding politics, where reality is seldom seen and bias runs rampant. For example: It is tempting to blur the line between neocon and neoliberal because the two major parties in the US have both shifted so far to the Right. But there are still differences, and it still behooves us to recognize those differences, despite whatever personal resentments we may harbor because we feel abandoned by what we used to consider our party.

Grownups understand that politics is about compromise, and that compromise is usually about nobody being particularly happy. They don't take their ball and go home just because they don't feel like winners all the time.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Are you allowed to publish private messages on this forum? There's a reason, as I stated in the message, why I didn't want to post in the thread. Why are you publishing it in the thread?

Report it and see what happens. I suspect that he's taken a calculated risk because he's getting sick of your shit-posting in what's supposed to be a discussion forum. We generally prefer conversations that are at a level above what you find on one of the chans.

I am fully prepared to accept the consequences though when originally posting it, I thought this might be acceptable.
FIW, I've started a feedback thread on this specific rule here:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedback/posting-pm-t52982.html

To allow for Moderation to elaborate, I'll hold off on posting the subsequent responses from Bernoulli.

[Thomas Eshuis]

That's why I took it out of the thread. I'm utterly uninterested in ridiculous bickering. But I will defend myself when people start getting hysterical or personal.

Except I did neither in the post that prompted you to send me the initial PM.

[Blip]

!	GENERAL MODNOTE A post publishing content from a PM from one member to another, without permission, has been removed from view.

[Blip]

!

GENERAL MODNOTE Thomas Eshuis, publishing content from another member's PM without that member's permission contravenes the Forum Users’ Agreement, specifically section 1.2i. Please do not do this again. Any comments on this modnote or moderation should not be made in the thread as they will be considered off topic; they may be removed without further warning. We note that a Feedback thread has been opened on the prohibition concerned.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Fair enough.

[Wilbur]

It is tempting to blur the line between neocon and neoliberal because the two major parties in the US have both shifted so far to the Right. But there are still differences, and it still behooves us to recognize those differences

You obviously don't know what one or both of those terms mean and you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about. They're not mutually exclusive and there's definitely no line between them. Neoliberalism has to do with things like privatization, deregulation, austerity, market fundamentalism etc., it's also known as the Washington Consensus. It's not referring to political spectrum liberalism. Neoconservatism is all about interventionist militarism, unilateral preemptive aggression, American exceptionalism, basically the Bush Doctrine.

[Oldskeptic]

The question was really how long has she been in favour of this stuff?

Stuff like this stuff? For around fifty years. Working for civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, children's rights, economic rights, the right to affordable healthcare, the right to affordable college education.

From Hillary Rodam's 1969 commencement speech:

Part of the problem with just empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have viewed politics as the art of the possible. And the challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3 percent of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage. We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends? The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective.

[Oldskeptic]

That's why I took it out of the thread. I'm utterly uninterested in ridiculous bickering. But I will defend myself when people start getting hysterical or personal.

Well that deserves a bit of a snicker coming the guy that wrote the below in response to me writing "The guy is religious, so fucking what?":

This is an atheist forum, right? I didn't accidentally stumble upon a religiotard forum, did I?

[Bernoulli]

The question was really how long has she been in favour of this stuff?

Stuff like this stuff? For around fifty years. Working for civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, children's rights, economic rights, the right to affordable healthcare, the right to affordable college education.

No, the specific things I listed.

[Oldskeptic]

The question was really how long has she been in favour of this stuff?

Stuff like this stuff? For around fifty years. Working for civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, children's rights, economic rights, the right to affordable healthcare, the right to affordable college education.

No, the specific things I listed.

What makes you think that those things you listed are the defining characteristics of a progressive? They might be the defining characteristics of Bernie Sanders' platform but Bernie is not the defining character of progressivism. Nor does he own progressivism.

And you brought up her being able to deliver on the progressivism she's been talking about, not the progressivism that Bernie Sanders has been talking about.

Back to talking about a Clinton victory and whether she'll actually live up to the progressive rhetoric she's be spouting so far.

You say, "progressive rhetoric she's be spouting so far" as if It's something new or just convenient for her in this campaign when the truth is that going back almost fifty years Hillary Clinton's positions, focus, and efforts have been progressive.

[Bernoulli]

The question was really how long has she been in favour of this stuff?

Stuff like this stuff? For around fifty years. Working for civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, children's rights, economic rights, the right to affordable healthcare, the right to affordable college education.

No, the specific things I listed.

What makes you think that those things you listed are the defining characteristics of a progressive?

Nothing. What makes you continually strawman and misrepresent? I never said they were the defining characteristics of a progressive or that I was wondering if she would live up to the defining characteristics of a progressive. I asked if she will follow through with her progressive rhetoric. I then listed some of the things she has said she will do if elected. You said she's be talking about this stuff for 50 years. You've yet to back up that claim. Not least because she only flip flopped on the TPP less than a year ago.

And you brought up her being able to deliver on the progressivism she's been talking about, not the progressivism that Bernie Sanders has been talking about.

That's why I listed her proposals.

[Wilbur]

The question was really how long has she been in favour of this stuff?

Stuff like this stuff? For around fifty years. Working for civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, children's rights, economic rights, the right to affordable healthcare, the right to affordable college education.

From Hillary Rodam's 1969 commencement

Well I guess you would have to put up some of her rhetoric as proof, because it sure as hell ain't in the pudding. She may have been talking the talk for fifty years, I could cite some speeches that contradict even that, but she's also been working from the radical center as a third way corporatist for those 50 years and I think that's what actually matters.

[Bernoulli]

Yeah, this was my whole point about her current speech (like all politicians' speeches). Talk is cheap. Politicians are about as truthful as your average used car salesman.