dagblog - Comments for "Our Complicated, Uncompetitive Primary"

Great post, mm. I don't have

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:08:37 +0000

In reply to Our Complicated, Uncompetitive Primary

Great post, mm. I don't have much to add, because I'm with you. I like them both. I'm supporting Hillary, but am pleased Bernie is keeping the primaries real.

And like you, I'm not interested in vilifying either candidate. I liked both Hillary and Obama last time around.

Hal, we love ya. Nothing in

Oxy Mora — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:15:06 +0000

In reply to I have not once in any of my

Hal, we love ya. Nothing in life is as lopsided as you sometimes make it sound. A one armed economist doesn't fit in around here.

Hal, the reason you're called

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:03:33 +0000

In reply to I have not once in any of my

Hal, the reason you're called "idjit" and such is because you repeatedly hurl out things that frankly are idiotic and unthought out. Some of your stuff is supported by the typical URL thta then leads to some contentious article that by no means is case closed. Some are comments that plainly ignore basic facts, such as many times you've discussed Hillary's background with either intentional or astounding ignorance. And other times it's plain insulting claptrap such as the impugning some of Hillary's supporters as just being interested in their wealth as part of the 1%. Or some insulting ideas re: women that only Wattree manages to top. And then there's pile-on shit disturbing, like the hyperventilating screaming for the judges over Hillary's purported playing the gender and racist cards - one suspects if you played soccer you'd be rolling around on the turf holding your knee half the time.

You seem greatly invested in the rightness of your cause and your reasoning. Life is complex, yet none of that seems to touch your core causes and evaluations. You might have noticed that basically no one here is attacking Bernie - they're attacking you & how you represent him, or moreso how you trash Hillary. Many/most here are pro-union, pro-workers, pro-environment, pro-doing-something-about-global-warming, anti-war, anti-US-Mideast policy, anti-gun-nuttiness but understanding of non-wingnut uses, anti-WallStreet profiteering, anti-CitizensUnited-bought-off-government, pro- bringing a working wage back to the poor and middle class, anti-police-abuse and surveillance state, and so on. As a friend used to say, you're trying to teach granny to suck eggs, but in this case with her butt. It's amazing and probably a compliment that people take their time to reason with you, but is your only takeaway that we're just rejecting your argument like you reject ours? It's only differing opinion? When you say that Hillary's never supported the poor, only the 1%, that's valid opinion, not rather dubious spin on reality? I guess Rumsfeld's officially cocky thanks to George Sr, but his known unknowns and unknown unknowns applies here - Hillary has a track record, and some things are well-known, and some are repeated mistruths that continue to gain legs, and then there are some mysteries about what she'd do in office, but she's not such a sphynx and enigma.

I have not once in any of my

HSG — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:18:00 +0000

In reply to Our Complicated, Uncompetitive Primary

I have not once in any of my posts or comments belittled anyone here. I rely in my arguments on facts and occasionally speculations that I believe the facts strongly support. In response, I have been cursed out, called an "idjit", a "privilege" wielder, my motives have been repeatedly impugned, and several are openly scoffing at the prospect that my express opinions are of any value at all.

I get that the Clinton supporters here reject my arguments, just as I reject theirs. Fine. That's why we have elections. I am prepared to see the candidate I support lose in the Democratic primaries. I hope that my assessment of the probable winner is incorrect. I also expect a more restrained and respectful response confined to my words and arguments rather than, largely incorrect speculations, about my motives and pathologies.

Worse is he seems to place

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:11:29 +0000

In reply to I think we are... it's a

Worse is he seems to place her akin to a Democratic Carly Fiorina. I guess they both have tits, and I suppose she's this year's "GOP's got women too" entrant and happens to be lucky that this is their year of the non-politician politician. Short of that, even bringing her up is insulting. No, women haven't been waiting to elect an unqualified woman - they've been waiting and fighting for acknowledgment that they're first tier candidates and managers. Fiorina makes a mockery of that. But Hal even manages to insult the daughter of Ann Richards, the quintessential tough-ass pol from Texas. As far as Hal's concerned, theyre faceless bowling pins to knock down - he has his candidate, and nothing else exists or existed to compare.

Hal's built a mythology

Michael Maiello — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:02:53 +0000

In reply to I think we are... it's a

Hal's built a mythology around this election where people who "should" be voting for Bernie have either been fooled or are fooling themselves, into supporting Clinton. I do hope that this is not going to be the position of the hardcore Bernie supporters more broadly. All the whining about Clinton saying she wasn't shouting about gun control does seem to suggest that this is a bigger problem. It's dangerous to believe that your candidate deserves to win the election and somehow can't lose fair and square. It's really never great to see progressive men lecturing progressive women that they have misplaced their support. It smacks of some kind of privilege, doesn't it?

I think we are... it's a

tmccarthy0 — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:23:15 +0000

In reply to I think that you, Ramona and

I think we are... it's a concern though that Hal doesn't see her as a full human being, that he sees her as a cartoonish Lady Macbeth, one that seeks only to advance herself. I just.. it's just... I mean..What does one say to that, how does one reply to that, it's a one-dimensional view of a woman, a real live human being, one of us. I feel like that kind of irrational view of her is how many men in the working world feel about women. It just, this just feels wrong in so many ways and it also really pisses me off. And yeah, is Hal worth it, no he isn't, because he wants to Atwater her, he wants people to view her as a cartoonish Lady Macbeth, a person with no dimensions. Her past and current work doesn't count towards anything he says, it can only be recent work that counts, but that isn't the case for her male counterpart, the man he supports, all of his work over a life time counts towards his character and can be used to indicate what a great president he would be. Such a fucking double standard... It's just that men have been doing this kind of thing to working women since I've been a working professional.

Yeah we three are on the same page.

Sound of a door shutting.

Ramona — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:55:32 +0000

In reply to I think that you, Ramona and

Sound of a door shutting. Feels so good.

I think that you, Ramona and

barefooted — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:47:07 +0000

In reply to You wrote: "Don't we want a

I think that you, Ramona and I are on the same page - Hal just isn't worth the effort.

Agreed.

barefooted — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:42:12 +0000

In reply to Hal this has been going on

Agreed.