General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 290

We didn't even make it a full 24 hours.

 

Well, if we're getting into semantics, the point was made that folks said they're the same, not similar. There's an actual difference in those two things, particularly when referencing policy. So, cool.

 

Yeah, 1993...good times. It seems like she had much different views and was running on them 20 years later, probably more pertinent to the whole who should I vote for thing....

Kind of like the Dems being horribly racist in the 1940s meant not very much when the Dems of the 1960s were doing the complete opposite.

 

The new "make your status a giant colored image" thing on Facebook reason enough not to vote for Zuck.

 

I think I should migrate over to the communism thread, ask lightning thread ban liberals from there and just discuss the immortal science of dialectical materialism.

 

No, the point was that there was a false equivalency being made. And there was. And it was bad and very wrong.

 

Surprisingly, still doesn't make me want to vote for someone like that.

 

Stalinism is Facebook but better at it

 

It's really weird how, when it comes to the Clintons, liberals become much similar to the white people who have confederate flags and say things like "slavery was two hundred years ago".

 

I mean, to be fair, I hope no one is arguing that Hillary isn't a racist, an enactor of racist policy, etc. It's just that we should vote for that

 

Genuinely asking - how can one (not talking about Hillary, people in general) learn and evolve on their viewpoints, change their platforms? Not erasing past issues, but realizing one was wrong and learning from it?

 

I wonder if the admitted disparaging of "liberals" who ostensibly agree with 99.9% of one's platform is a good way to build consensus around the ideas.

 

Except those people aren't literally running on ideas and policies that are near or complete opposites of what they said 200 years ago. Trying to the compare the two is intellectually dishonesty at best.

 

I can tell you that running for President with the most left leaning platform in modern history is not one way to do it, or so it seems.

EDIT: So, I'm thinking time machine is the safest bet.

 

A platform doesn't mean anything

 

Zuckerberg is just a more successful Jared Kushner, he would probably be an awful president

 

Imagine being the kind of person who thinks voters are swayed by going to HillaryClinton.com/platform and DonaldJTrump.com/platform and creating a line item list of who you agree with more. That's not a thing. There are 0 people who do that. No one cares

 

apparently if you used to be something you are still that thing no matter what.

 

Someone running on enacting reforms to the justice system, crack down on private prisons, etc. doesn't make you want to vote for them because they previously believed in the wrong policies in the past?

Considering how much changes due to studying an issue and scientific break through and etc, that seems like a terrible litmus test to choose a candidate. "Well, they're agreeing with me NOW, but not so much with what I would have believed 25 years ago had I been old enough to have beliefs, sooo...no." (That's a dangerous game to play, BTW, because available info and surroundings play a pretty big role in shaping beliefs)

 

Just completely wrong.

 

That's not what I saw, like, two pages ago. The straw man was something like "now watch, someone will say they are the same".

 

Man, your friends sound super boring

 

Message>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>platform. These are different things