全 113 件のコメント

[–]zzzzz94Minister of Bourgeoisie Enlightenment and Propaganda 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

here is the live results/interactive map

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

/u/urnbabyurn /u/wumbotarian should we sort this by new?

[–]urnbabyurnPezzonovante 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Done

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

<3

[–]IntegraldsI am the rep agent AMA 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Clinton has a political machine that has been carefully honed since 1991 to ruthlessly win elections.

Bernie has thousands of door-to-door volunteers.

Bernie: man of the people. Hillary: shill for Big Automation.

#feeltehbern

[–]Homeboy_JesusI'm Mr. Mises look at me!!! 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I know the rules are changing constantly under the tyranny of the mods but I think you're supposed to shitpost in the silver thread.

[–]IntegraldsI am the rep agent AMA 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm politically shitposting in the SUPAH TUESDAY thread

[–]pm_me_utils 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Republicans: party of racists, or party for racists?

[–]urnbabyurnPezzonovante 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most kangaroos have tails but not all animals with tails are kangaroos.

[–]centurion44Vox Bourgeosie 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Rubio is disgustingly low in VA for YES right now on Predictit. Snatch some of those up. Really wishing I had put some on Shillary in CO when she was low. I should have had more faith in those pot smoking skiers.

[–]lord_of_the_rallyPraxxing my way through college 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

If Sanders ends up losing everywhere but Vermont, there will be no reason to think he still has a shot.

So go Oklahoma and Minnesota, do the right thing and put an end to this.

[–]urnbabyurnPezzonovante 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I see him as doing what Huckabee did by staying in the race after losing the math. It's to keep the message going.

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And, more importantly, push Hillary to the left. I suspect that was the main reason of his campaign to begin with, I cannot imagine he actually ever thought he could win this.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

So exit polls look like we're not seeing a Trump sweep - Kasich might win VT, Rubio might win VA, Cruz might win TX.

[–]bdubs91You Can't Scrub The Dub 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Plz America

[–]urnbabyurnPezzonovante 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok, now Rove is using his clipboard so this should get fun.

[–]brauer1REAL UNEMPLOYMENT IS 99% 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

[–]Vagabond21They call me "Bond" because the return on my comments is fixed. 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I must be in the minority of minorities who have it.

[–]wshanahana slightly less shitty libertarian 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

saw this in another thread.

Bernie Sanders right now

[–]urnbabyurnPezzonovante 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Remember how Bill Bradley had such a lasting career after 2000? Me neither.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right, but even by challenging the sitting Vice President and almost winning, he showed that the American People had a Hunger for CHANGE!!!!

/s

[–]Kai_Daigoji 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm already half thinking Bernie's going to get Vermont, and that's it.

[–]elev57 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Massachusetts should be interesting. All the others should be Clinton.

[–]Vagabond21They call me "Bond" because the return on my comments is fixed. 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

[–]urnbabyurnPezzonovante 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can't decide whether to buy Trump shares to hedge against my anger from hm potentially winning, or to buy Clinton who I think will win with higher chance than the market predicts (blasphemy, I know).

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 3ポイント4ポイント  (14子コメント)

Being a right winger was a lot more fun when the biggest threat to the right was losing to Hillary, but still maintaining control of most local/state govs and congress.

[–]EveRommelDAY TUK UR JOBZ, didn't want it anyways, already replaced[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (13子コメント)

This sub actually brought me more center than I used to be and I'm terrified of 3 of the 5 left and the other 2 are still frightening

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 2ポイント3ポイント  (12子コメント)

Same. Who's your candidate for GOP? I'm rooting for Cruz at this point as the lesser of the three evils that actually has a shot of winning the nomination.

[–]irondeepbicycleI got 99 problems but technological unemployment ain't one 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Mr Gold Standard himself? Interesting.

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In a field of candidates who are comically badecon, support of gold standard becomes something I can look past. Which really just says something about how awful this field is.

[–]PonderayFollows an AR(1) process 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

I'm curious. Why Cruz instead of Rubio?

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

Civil liberties and foreign policy. Rubio wants to restore the NSA and expand it, criminalize gay marriage, shut down mosques, restaurants, and other areas extremists might gather (and monitor them if they aren't shut down). Rubio's foreign policy, at least from what I've gathered from the debates, seems to be "bomb everything that moves and then send in a shitload of troops."

Rubio is better on econ but the civil liberties stances alone are unforgivable to me, and I'm not looking for NeoConservatism on steroids when it comes to foreign policy.

Cruz certainly has many flaws, but he's the only one I can vote for without hating myself for doing it (besides Kasich but by the time PA votes he won't be in the race).

[–]centurion44Vox Bourgeosie 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm sorry what. This is outright falsehoods especially when comparing Rubio with Cruz.

Rubio wants to restore the NSA and expand it

So does Cruz, lets look back to the idiotic apple stuff. Rubio was the only one saying we shouldn't 'boycott apple and let them die'.

criminalize gay marriage,

Lmao, yeah, Ted Cruz is a shining example of supporting gay marriage. Oh wait no, he hates it and wants to get right of it. "Criminalizing gay marriage" Apparently Marco Rubio is Uganda. All I've heard him say is let states decide but keep Doma. I find this distasteful but huge misrepresentation.

shut down mosques, restaurants, and other areas extremists might gather (and monitor them if they aren't shut down)

Ted Cruz

Sound sjust like what Rubio said, close down mosques with 'extremists' or any place with extremists. Which the government already does. You aren't allowed to foment violent insurrection or assaults on the government as it is.

Rubio's foreign policy, at least from what I've gathered from the debates, seems to be "bomb everything that moves and then send in a shitload of troops."

Sorry, but this is the biggest load of shit I've seen. The debates to date have consisted of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump trying to one up each other on how to carpet bomb isis and kill their families fastest while Rubio says shit like http://www.wmur.com/politics/granite-state-debates/2016-gop-debate-marco-rubio-on-fight-against-isis/37862572

Please.

[–]magnax1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, Cruz is so far right of Rubio its not close. He also wants to shut down basically every Government agency worth noting, and Cruz wants to bomb ISIS until "The sand glows in the dark." Whatever that means.

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

So does Cruz, lets look back to the idiotic apple stuff. Rubio was the only one saying we shouldn't 'boycott apple and let them die'.

No Cruz doesn't, his position on the NSA is damn near Paul's. He pushed the USA freedom act (I'll agree it was a very weak remedy but it signals his position) for example and in one of the recent debates went after Rubio over surveillance in which Rubio was clearly to the right of him on that issue.

Apparently Marco Rubio is Uganda. All I've heard him say is let states decide but keep Doma. I find this distasteful but huge misrepresentation.

They both suck on this issue and want to overturn the court ruling.

Sound sjust like what Rubio said

Damn that's concerning as hell... He doesn't say he will shut down Mosques at least but it certainly doesn't look good... Is it too much to ask for a viable candidate who actually cares about due process, freedom of speech/assembly, and the right to privacy? I'm not convinced they're talking about just violent speech, why would they mention it if what they're referring to is attempts to incite violence that are already covered by the law?

each other on how to carpet bomb isis and kill their families fastest while Rubio says shit like

I didn't know ISIS was the only area of concern of foreign policy, and don't thrown in Trump in here because I'd obviously prefer Rubio to him.

You haven't sold me on Rubio, but now I'm definitely reconsidering supporting Cruz.

[–]2x4yPhilosopher King 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've been waiting for you to show up. Its unfortunate Kasich is diverting some of his votes, even as much as I like him he is only hurting the moderate non-trump crowd

[–]centurion44Vox Bourgeosie 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, despite the above I'm still super soft on Rubio. I just think he's better than the goblin who is Ted Cruz. I really wish Kasich would drop out. I like the guy but I think the country will be better for a Hillary/Rubio race regardless of who wins. Or maybe the Republican party just needs to blow up. I wish the US was structured differently so that there could feasibly be more than two parties.

[–]PonderayFollows an AR(1) process 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

I guess I always assumed that Cruz was as if not more socially conservative then Rubio. Which from what you're saying may have not been a good assumption.

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Cruz is also a Constitutional Conservative/Tea Partier, so apart from abortion which he believes falls under the federal government's role of protecting life, I'm fairly positive he's mostly a state's rights guy when it comes to the other social issues.

[–]PonderayFollows an AR(1) process 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

On his website he boasts about his success in opposing gay marriage and championing for religious freedom. I'm skeptical that state's rights actually means libertarianism. It seems to be a coded word for a certain set of socially conservative policy.

[–]PonderayFollows an AR(1) process 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

So if things go as badly for Bernie as the polls are suggesting how long do you think he'll stay in the race?

[–]EveRommelDAY TUK UR JOBZ, didn't want it anyways, already replaced[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

Defiant till the convention?

[–]lux514 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, he stated during the first debate, iirc, he's determined to stay in it until the convention.

[–]PonderayFollows an AR(1) process 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

I don't think so. I think he'll feel a decent amount of pressure to drop out earlier to unify that's party for the general election.

[–]magnax1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who knows, he may even run independent

[–]centurion44Vox Bourgeosie 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

He has raised quite a bit of money to still pump out his message.

[–]weezer3989Fiat currency can't melt gold bars 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'd buy that argument more if he actually was a democrat or cared about the party itself. I just don't see him being swayed by arguments about what's best for the Democratic party, when he's only been in the party for slightly longer than he's been running.

[–]theskepticalheretic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's always stood with the Dems as an independent. It's not reasonable to say he's only now a democrat.

[–]PonderayFollows an AR(1) process 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

He voted with the Democrats before this election. He was a Democrat in all but name. I would think he would at least have an interest in making sure the GOP nomine didn't win. But I could be wrong, I didn't expect him to throw the former CEA chairs under the bus.

[–]Sogsworth 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

He doesn't need to drop out in order to pivot to attacking Trump and emphasizing his agreement with Hillary on core principles.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 22ポイント23ポイント  (55子コメント)

I wrote the following on a friend's facebook wall, when they asked for reasons to support Sanders vs. Clinton. I was the only pro-Clinton comment.

I am very worried about the future of evidence-based policy in a Sanders administration.

Sanders has been promoting a an economic analysis of his policies that has a fiscal multiplier of 8.1, while the economic literature suggests that it is somewhere between 0.8 and 1.5 (http://econweb.ucsd.edu/.../res.../JEL_Fiscal_14June2011.pdf). Using a parameter that is 20 (!) standard deviations away from the empirical estimates is fairly absurd, and economists (including every former Obama Chief Economic Adviser) have written detailed explanations as to why (https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com/.../rome..., http://www.nytimes.com/.../uncovering-the-bad-math-or...).

The Sanders campaign's reaction is to imply that the economists are being bribed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQkdnAfasFA&feature=youtu.be) (he doesn't say by who - the Clintons? Wall Street? Neither are true).

I think one of the most important qualities a President should have is being able to weigh advice from different outside experts - even when they disagree with you. Sanders' manichaean worldview limits his ability to do this.

[–]wumbotarianArbitrageur in the rare pepe market 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's some good pasta you cooked up. I may alter that for future consumption - mind if I do?

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Go for it!

Note that my estimates of 20 SDs is a bit hand-wavy. I assumed Ramey's 0.8-1.5 range covered a SD in either direction.

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 3ポイント4ポイント  (51子コメント)

Do you think we should put any weight on Clinton's scandals, constant flip flopping, and term as Secretary of State? Because I agree purely on policy (assuming her current policies are actually what she stands for which is a big assumption) she's much better than Sanders (and at this point just about the entire GOP field too), but I personally would rather see a Sanders victory due to those problems with Hillary.

Granted, I'm a registered Republican in a closed primary state so my vote will be to whoever looks like they have the best chance of stopping Trump (please don't be Marco "let me shut down Mosques/restaurants/public places where extremists might be gathering" Rubio).

[–]Webby911What is RIII? 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

No.

The president shouldn't be the best "person", it should be the best politician. Clinton is the best politician, I have no doubt in her abilities to carry out her vision, one which I agree with. I have no doubt in her ability to handle a crisis.

Honestly, and y'all gonna hate me for this, I don't really care if she cheats to win either. I'd consider a public service to keep Bernie/Trump out of the White House. And I know gets into the whole "that's condescending" to dismiss the views of the voters, but if we're being the average voter is dumb, and a decent amount of "smart" voters have bought into fallacies/don't understand politics.

If I can't have my formal Technocracy, Hillary is the best choice.

Edit: Y'all don't hate me for that....you some scandalous heathens

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh don't get me wrong I'm a complete elitist myself, if there was a way to rig elections for candidates without risking undermining our freedom and turning into an authoritarian shithole, I'd be all for it. I share your views on the average voter.

[–]Jericho_Hill#StickyLivesMatter #SupportTheMods 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I voted for Kasich today.

[–]theskepticalheretic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you think we should put any weight on Clinton's scandals, constant flip flopping, and term as Secretary of State?

As for scandals, it depends on which one, many are made up of pure politics and lack substance. Flip-flopping I think shouldn't necessarily be seen as a bad thing. Changing your mind isn't a bad thing, especially when it is in light of new evidence. To oscillate between a yes and no position depending on who you're talking to is a bad play though. With regards to her term as SecState, what would you say are the problems?

EDIT: Nevermind, I see you went into detail below.

[–]flyingdragon8Retro Neoclassical Kanyesian 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

I legit can't think of any Clinton scandal that would make me want to vote for anyone over her. Like if it came out that she straight up killed a dude 10 years ago, I would still vote for her. The upside from her superior policies far exceeds the downside from any imaginable scandal she might have. Unless like I dunno she literally sold warhead designs to Putin or something.

Unless it's just a question about electability in the general, in which case the scandal would have to be one hell of a scandal to make her less electable than a self declared secular socialist.

Her flip flops on closer inspection aren't as flip floppy as people think. And she consistently pushes for positions I support, but only up to the point where it runs against overwhelming political consensus (like say on LGBT rights). Which is reasonable, I can respect her realism. Biting off more than you can chew is counterproductive.

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Like if it came out that she straight up killed a dude 10 years ago, I would still vote for her

I mean I don't even know what to say here, it's just horrifying that you would even say that voting for someone who was involved in a violent conspiracy (and just so people don't misinterpret me I don't buy that she actually had someone killed, we're both going off the hypothetical here) is OK because of "good policy."

[–]flyingdragon8Retro Neoclassical Kanyesian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Being vaguely 'horrified' is not that damaging to my, or others', well being, except for the one dude who died. Maintaining world peace, protecting the environment, stabilizing the economy, etc. has far more impact on far more people. Presidents already make life and death decisions constantly, and some of those deaths are almost certainly avoidable. I'm not going to stop looking at the bigger picture. Do I have reason to believe they intend to kill many more people if elected? No? Then whatever.

Now this is all a little hyperbolic to prove a point, because if this was a real scenario, the damage to the rule of law would be considerable and VERY serious, and in reality probably prevent me from voting for them. The point here is, nothing that Hillary has done, as far as I can tell, even remotely rises to the level where it would be enough to outweigh her good policies.

[–]Webby911What is RIII? 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Like if it came out that she straight up killed a dude 10 years ago, I would still vote for her.

True.

Her ambition happens to line up with what's best for the country so I'm kinda okay with any shit she needs to pull to get into power.

[–]Bastardly_Poem 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

A person of that nature (i.e. a murderer) has no right to be the leader of our nation. How would that reflect our values to the world?

Edit: This is hypothetical

[–]flyingdragon8Retro Neoclassical Kanyesian 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes the damage to our image would be not insignificant and would have some ramifications surely. But I weigh that against the damage to our well being that would result from electing any of the other candidates and I think Hillary still wins.

[–]Bastardly_Poem 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I completely get your point here and I absolutely agree, I'd much rather have a leader with a bad reputation but a strong resume than someone with little to no political experience. But I would hope that those weren't our only options between a rock and a hard place

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 15ポイント16ポイント  (39子コメント)

scandals

Honestly, the anodyne nature of the emails we've seen so far are probably the most encouraging thing. If I had to release every email I've sent in the last 4 years, you'd find much worse!

constant flip flopping

I have no idea what flip flops she did. Clinton seems to be fairly ideologically stable to me.

term as Secretary of State

Well, of course.

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

Honestly, the anodyne nature of the emails we've seen so far are probably the most encouraging thing. If I had to release every email I've sent in the last 4 years, you'd find much worse!

Well given how she deleted a bunch of the emails, I can't help but think she might have had something to hide, and if she did she would not have been stupid enough to release them when she was deleting her "personal" Emails. There have been a lot of others though, you know like foreign leaders from oppressive nations giving the Clinton Foundation lots of money while she was Secretary of State? That seems like a conflict of interest to me. Then there's the whole going after all the women who accused Bill of assaulting them, lying about some scenario where she ended up in Bosnia under sniper fire, having to be brave/surviving this dangerous encounter that never happened. And I really hate to bring it up because the Reps have been absolute idiots with the way they've gone about this (nobody gives a fuck about the whole video nonsense, GOP!!), but the fact that she refused for months to send the Benghazi consulate the plane they were requesting and other aid that they wanted because they knew the region was really damn insecure (I'll have to find my previous writings on this but from memory the consulate had received multiple bomb threats, had been attacked once, and the Red Cross had already left the area due to violence) and they wanted to be able to escape is quite a big problem in my mind.

I have no idea what flip flops she did. Clinton seems to be fairly ideologically stable to me.

Iraq (and no this wasn't a "I was fooled but then realized it was a mistake after we didn't find WMDs type flop. She was still for it in her 2008 campaign Misread source, was corrected. She was effectively against it by then). Gay marriage, she came out in favor of the year it hit 50% in the poll. She once said "the war on drugs can't be stopped because there's too much money involved" now she's not so much in favor of the war on drugs. That alone shows how poor her judgment can be, in my opinion, because obviously the reason there's so much money involved is the fact that they are illegal so there's a huge risk premium which pushes up the prices. She helped negotiate the TPP and has now said it isn't up to her standards (and she's been similarly confusing about everything trade related flopping on NAFTA, opposing CAFTA). She was tough on crime, now not so much. She was against ground troops in Syria, then flopped on them, and now supports a no fly-zone on top of that. She was "adamantly against illegal immigrants," now she's pro-amnesty.

I understand changing one or two positions over time as either new evidence shows up (which clearly doesn't dictate her view changes - see her trade flops) or to garner votes from another candidate but when you flop on so many different positions, seemingly based on whatever is politically expedient at the time, that says to me your main concern is getting elected, not doing what is right or sticking to any sort of principles.

I can understand someone who recognizes these issues and still considers her the better candidate, just through prioritizing things differently than I do. What I don't understand is why people trust her or act like she's such an incredible candidate who really is going to be a phenomenal president. Perhaps more importantly, I'm worried about the kind of message this sends. We all want a woman to be president someday, in part because we want to signal to young women that they too can get into politics and achieve this (or anything else they wish to). Yet I worry what kind of signals it would send to those young women if the first woman elected is someone who a) only wins by being so connected and running against Donald Drumpf of all people, and b) is known for being corrupt, untrustworthy, and someone who has fought against women etc). Also think of the ammunition that might give sexists for opposing female presidents in the future. These are my concerns, although I'd be happy to be proven incorrect.

[–]theskepticalheretic 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

She once said "the war on drugs can't be stopped because there's too much money involved" now she's not so much in favor of the war on drugs. That alone shows how poor her judgment can be, in my opinion, because obviously the reason there's so much money involved is the fact that they are illegal so there's a huge risk premium which pushes up the prices.

She said that not due to how much money was in the drug trade, but how much money was locked up in enforcement budgets. It was a political statement about the landscape and officials supporting a continued war on drugs.

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is there anything suggesting that was what she meant/giving any context? I certainly interpreted the statement differently but I could be wrong, and I hope I am because the drug war is awful and since she'll probably be the next President I hope she'll be willing to try to push us in the right direction there.

[–]theskepticalheretic 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is there anything suggesting that was what she meant/giving any context?

It looks like I'm thinking of someone else. I went and dug up the original quotes from the Mexican press interview and it doesn't look good for Hill-dawg.

Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

Clinton: I don’t think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work.There is just too much money in it, and I don’t think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 15ポイント16ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yeah, none of this is especially convincing to me.

Remember, the human brain is a pattern-matching machine with a crazy tendency to find false positives. Yes, Hillary was pro-Iraq War and anti-gay marriage in 2002, but not 2016. The same is true of the vast majority of people. Yes, she hasn't released every e-mail she has ever written. So what?

If you want to find a pattern where's she's untrustworthy, you can. That doesn't mean it's there. She's been in the public eye for 30 years, so if you want to find whatever pattern you want to, you can.

[–]wumbotarianArbitrageur in the rare pepe market 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah, I also was anti gay and pro Iraq war.

No one yells at me for flip flopping.

[–]say_wot_againSend complaints to hrod17@clintonemail.com 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

YOU FLIP FLOPPING FUCK!!!! HOW CAN SOMEONE LIKE YOU POSSIBLY BE A MOD!?!?!?!?

#MAKEAMERICABERNAGAIN

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wumbotarian is clearly a shill. He changed his opinions on the Iraq War and Gay Marriage before he ran for moderator in a subreddit that is largely anti-Iraq War and pro-Gay Marriage.

He also has not released the mod mails for a full audit, as I have requested numerous times.

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, Hillary was pro-Iraq War and anti-gay marriage in 2002, but not 2016. The same is true of the vast majority of people

I mean I pointed out she supported the Iraq invasion in 2008 as well, and I really have a hard time believing someone in their sixties had a revelation that they were wrong in their religious beliefs, let alone the same exact year it became more popular than not.

EDIT: Nope memory incorrect and misread what I was looking up on Iraq.

At this point though I'm just so disappointed at how things have gone and my expectations are so low that as long as Trump doesn't win I'll be reasonably happy. I'll certainly vote for her if it comes down to that.

[–]moistest_grampa 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

Iraq (and no this wasn't a "I was fooled but then realized it was a mistake after we didn't find WMDs type flop. She was still for it in her 2008 campaign).

On April 26, 2007, she appeared with seven other Democratic candidates at the first debate of the campaign, held at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, South Carolina and broadcast on MSNBC. Of her initial Senate vote to approve the U.S. role in the Iraq War, she stated, "If I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted that way." She further stated, "If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I’m president I will."

[–]vShockAndAwevSupply don't real 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep you're right there. I stand corrected.

[–]EveRommelDAY TUK UR JOBZ, didn't want it anyways, already replaced[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sure the responses were either crickets or did you earn your shill card points for the day?

[–]jsmooth7 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

So many discussion threads to choose between today!

[–]say_wot_againSend complaints to hrod17@clintonemail.com 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are... Free to Choose

[–]IntegraldsI am the rep agent AMA 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 26ポイント27ポイント  (1子コメント)

BRONZE THREAD

[–]urnbabyurnPezzonovante 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, or a commodity basket.

To be honest, these ST results are turning out to be less exciting than I had anticipated. My only hope at this point is to see Rove on Fox News having a meltdown over Trump winning and start denying the results because some suburb hasn't reported yet.