General Politics Discussion (V) [ARCHIVED] • Page 823

shaming Sarandon is the bottom of the liberal barrel

 

Stop putting any blame Carolyn Bryant for what Roy did

 

Serena Joy isn't responsible for June's situation at all

 

I mean, she deserves all the shade for insinuating Clinton would be worse than Trump. All the Hillarybots just need to STFU already though.

 

Wow

 

Hundreds of activists, including actress Susan Sarandon, arrested for protesting Trump immigration policy

She continually fights for marginalized people unlike clinton supporters and democrats who try to make us eat shit because other shit tastes worse

Sarandon deserves support and praise, not shade

 

Focusing on implying that Clinton would be worse than Trump instead of addressing the fact that a clinton presidency would mean american bombings overseas, death of foreign people, and continued and increased natural gas development globally just gives me no hope for change in the democratic party

 

She said something really fucking stupid and deserves to be dunked on for it, get over it.

And fuck the Hillarybots who go above and beyond and disregard everything good she does. They suck too.

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...rd-member-was-removed-from-hurricane-duty-for

 

We've had this conversation way too many times before.

Small steps in the right direction are better than big steps in the wrong direction. It's obviously not ideal but that's the truth

 

Maybe its just semantics or rhetoric but Clinton wasn't a step in the right direction. It was in many ways just not as large of steps in the wrong direction. 8 years of Obama and fossil fuel companies continue to go on strong, people were deported in large numbers, we bombed 8 or 9 different countries, and the banks and wall street were bailed out while people lost their homes and students piled up crushing debt. This is the wrong direction. Again, I understand if you're saying a Clinton presidency would be better for many people and ultimately the future of the country because of the SC. I just don't understand why you'd fault someone for drawing what seems like a reasonable moral line: the destruction of the earth as we know it and using american tax dollars to kill foreign people because of american financial interests. Why not fault the party for giving these good people a choice they didn't feel like they could make?

 

You can fault them all you want, while also faulting the idiots who said there was no difference/Clinton was just as bad/etc.

 

Coal production went down and clean energy went up got cheaper under Obama. Dodd-Frank was passed and signed. Obama signed DACA and DAPA while president. You are naming all of the wrong steps that Obama took but failing to mention that with each wrong step on policy he took a step forward as well. You are right in areas it may not have been a step in the right direction and with Clinton it wouldn't have been, but overall it was.

Would I love to be able to elect people who want to get rid of fossil fuels completely asap, stop bombing all of these countries, hold Wall Street completely accountable, and so on? You bet, but siding with those who say there is no difference or that Clinton was worse doesn't seem very productive in going forward when it could end up electing people that put us on those large steps in the wrong direction

 

Obama wasn't President for the bank bailouts in 2008...

 

By most scientific accounts natural gas development permits enough unregulated methane into the atmosphere that emissions might be even worse, but certainly enough to significantly heat the earth, so wrong direction. Yes, rules were in place to stifle coal production but at the same time they were designed to promote natural gas development which has been heavily promoted globally by democrats, including Obama. Its still movement in the wrong direction if you think about the purpose of moving off of fossil fuels. Dodd-Frank was absolutely necessary to restore enough public trust in the industries that tanked the economy, it was part of propping them up when they should have been dismantled in my opinion. I can concede more regulation on wall street and banking practices is the right direction, but it really does seem lacking in light of what the country suffered. Would it have been worse under a republican, such as Bush? Hell yes. But my point is that its not really the right direction, its just a little better. Its a silly distinction and I have better things to do unfortunately (working on the weekend sucks), so I'll bow out.

 

He signed onto it and egregiously failed to meaningfully prosecute anyone responsible.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...nancial-policies-were/?utm_term=.4573f1424c8e

" A financial system in collapse has to allocate losses. In this case, big banks and homeowners both experienced losses, and it was up to the Obama administration to decide who should bear those burdens. Typically, such losses would be shared between debtors and creditors, through a deal like the Home Owners Loan Corporation in the 1930s or bankruptcy reform. But the Obama administration took a different approach. Rather than forcing some burden-sharing between banks and homeowners through bankruptcy reform or debt relief, Obama prioritized creditor rights, placing most of the burden on borrowers. This kept big banks functional and ensured that financiers would maintain their positions in the recovery. At a 2010 hearing, Damon Silvers, vice chairman of the independent Congressional Oversight Panel, which was created to monitor the bailouts, told Obama’s Treasury Department: “We can either have a rational resolution to the foreclosure crisis, or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. We can’t do both.”"

 

Oh it’s 2016 again.

If you can look at the last two years and not just admit Clinton would have been *massively better* than what has happened sense ... I dunno what to even say anymore.

 

DO NOT WANT.

 

We already get flooding and amber alerts on our phones

 

Can't wait till phone carriers get scrutiny and something something company to own the libs

 

Switch to Cricket Wireless to own the li——***Tweet not sent, No Service***

 

Ben just eats chicken fingers