Jump to content

EvilFerret

Member
  • Content Count

    520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

161 Good member.

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    No Party/Other

Profile Fields

  • Website URL
    https://bardicproject.org/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

3,404 profile views
  1. Warren swatted away almost every question. The only thing I wish she would do is call out the moderators on their right-wing -- will you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for healthcare -- questions. I know why she's not giving a yes/no answer, and that's because she doesn't want to give the Republicans that soundbite. But she's also right in that it will be a net cost reduction. So she needs to start hitting back at them. Beyond that, very strong night for her.
  2. First of all, this poll is taken of "swing" voters who went for Trump in 2016. That's a very narrow selection of people, and I think they are offset by the number of people who are excited and invigorated by AOC and the rest of the Squad. Also, to be honest, Congress is pretty much despised by *everyone*, so dislike of a representative does not necessarily translate to who will be chosen for President. The lesson here is NOT to shut up these brave congresswomen. The lesson is to promote POSITIVE news about progressives. In short, it doesn't matter squat if these swing voters vote Democratic if the base is apathetic because we have the same tepid dishwater candidates as before. Also, neither Warren NOR Sanders are far left. We need to really re-educate Americans on that. Political Compass
  3. Well, as my first pick was sadly wrong, here's my second pick: Since the One Ring was destroyed on the 25th March 3019 of the Third Age, it seems only right and just that Trump's presidency should fail on 25 March 2019 of whatever age this is, when he is finally ruled mentally incompetent. Pence will be impeached on the 6th June 2019, because that is my birthday. Unfortunately, that leaves us Nancy Pelosi as President, but she won't be able to cause too much harm, because she'll pander to the liberals, as by then we'll have gained momentum and she'll think if she panders to us we'll elect her in 2020.
  4. Actually, if we *could* flip the House, yes, then the presidency would fall to the Speaker of the House should we get a twofer. So maybe if we can get rid of Trump and Pence in early 2019... that might actually be the best-case scenario..... Flipping the Senate is more likely, I think, but the President Pro Tempore of the Senate is still fourth, not third, in line of succession. So we need to flip the House.
  5. He will die at Mar-a-Lago on September 2nd, 2018. As Hurricane Kirk passes by offshore on its way to a Washington D.C. landfall, Trump, calling reports of global-warming-enhanced beach erosion and high tide as "fake news" and "conspiracy science", refuses to evacuate and dies in a roof collapse. Two days later, his body is recovered, though not much is left, as the remainder has been consumed by the alligators who have reclaimed this land. Sadly, little more than his hair remains. Is that May 10th or October 5th? Not sure which numbering system you're using.
  6. I personally liked, "And Jake Tapper left journalism to join CNN."
  7. Here's the thing, though. Most people aren't asking for 100% of what they want. Most people would like to get a good majority of it, though.
  8. At this point, the only thing that will heal the divide will be her *actually* moving to the left. If she will end fracking and lay down her war-hawk stance, if she will put people before corporations, and if she will work for single-payer healthcare and for the environment, if she will promise to at least make the attempt and be sincere about it, I might be willing to vote for her. But I don't see any of that happening.
  9. The problems in our education system are too many for a simple thread. No Child Left Behind and Common Core are wonderful concepts, but the implementation has been terrible. Unfortunately, a lot has been pushed out of schools in order to 'teach to the test' and improve scores, but higher scores alone don't improve quality of education. In fact, they seem to be detrimental. Funding is interconnected from the local to the federal level, and if one party fails in its funding obligations, then the schools are in trouble. When playing politics is valued over fixing funding problems, then the schools are in trouble. But it isn't just funding that makes the schools fail. It's teachers who have given up, or teachers who have their hands figuratively tied and can't initiate change. It's parents who don't value education and those who knowingly or not teach their kids to not value education. It's parents who expect the school to take over the responsibility of raising their children. It is a society which calls the educated 'elitists' and other derogatory names. It's a culture that values money over intelligence, that teaches one set of kids they're only good for this, another set of kids they're only good for that. It's the kids too worried about food or shelter or earning enough money to live on to care about education. It's the kids who have been brainwashed by gangs or peers or media that education isn't their best future. It's the economically crippling or economically unobtainable reality of higher education and the lack of viable alternatives. How, precisely, is private, for-profit, education going to solve this, exactly?
  10. First off, I am not a Constitutional literalist. That said, I think it is pretty clear that corporations are not protected under the Constitutions, which is why Citizens United is such a big deal and so very VERY wrong. As for how it would be interpreted after a huge attack, action in primal fear does not mean the action or interpretation is correct. It does not mean the rationalization is correct. I don't think the Supreme Court is anything other than human. However, I think the Supreme Court is increasingly polarized and partisan, caring more about ideology than actually ruling on Constitutionality based on the law and legal precedent. What I find strange about literalists is that when they argue for their weapons rights, they seem to forget about the well-regulated militia part of the Second Amendment.
  11. I'll also note that regulation of businesses is not equivalent to loss of individual freedom, because businesses =/= people. Also, last time I checked, regulating businesses was permissible under the constitution. The Patriot Act? Not so much.
  12. Shall we submit our "attacks" in writing to ensure they are not considered sexist before complaining about Hillary not caring how much she inconveniences people going about their everyday for a photo op? By the way, Hillary claims that she has ridden the subway before. If she is telling the truth, then she'd know what a dick move cutting in line is.
  13. First off, I said *I* would say the same thing. Hence, I do not consider the use of 'Queen' here automatically sexist. Rather, I consider its use to reflect her acting like an anointed monarch in this specific instance. Calling Hillary Clinton a whore is repugnant and should not be done. Whether it is being done in a sexist manner or because most of the nastiest swear words happen to be gender-based, it is wholly inappropriate. Yes, sexist remarks have been made about Hillary. I do not deny that. I do not make them. However, the use of queen *in this case* is not sexist. By the by, saying that there's a special place in hell for women who don't 'help out' other women.... is also sexist. And that is from the Clinton campaign.
  14. Point one: I am a woman, and I am sensitive to sexist commentary. In context, no, the comment isn't sexist. Again, if it had been any of the other candidates, I would have said hail to the king. Point two: For that matter, I have referred to other candidates in the past King, Your Majesty, Your Highness, and Himself. So no, not sexist. Point three: As far as the bodyguards go, they generally will keep people from getting too close, and only move people out of the way if the people are blocking the path of the person they are protecting. However, here, Hilary decided to make a photo op of doing something normal people do. And what she did is quite rude by those standards. Point four: Moving people out of the way =/= cutting in line. Point five: If Hillary had wanted a really realistic photo-op, she would have waited instead of allowing herself to be pushed to the front like some entitled monarch. Point six: I despise this type of behavior in any candidate, regardless of sex.
×
×
  • Create New...