| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Help keep poeTV running

And please consider not blocking ads here. They help pay for the server. Pennies at a time. Literally.

Comment count is 33
SolRo - 2016-05-02

I mean, you could say the same of sanders...

Spaceman Africa - 2016-05-02

Putin even

Cena_mark - 2016-05-02

I don't think so. Sander's following comes from rational points he makes, and that he's the only candidate working for the greater good.

Bort - 2016-05-02

"he's the only candidate working for the greater good"

Dude, that's total cult of personality talk.

Check out Hillary's platform, it's a solid positive Democratic platform too; she's working for the greater good every bit as much as Bernie is. Except, Bernie has really been laying into the "Hillary is bought and sold" rhetoric (which he somehow can never actually back up) and that has gone a long way towards his followers rejecting everything she says.

EvilHomer - 2016-05-02

>>and that has gone a long way towards his followers rejecting everything she says.

As well they should. There's a lot of criticism to be made about Bernie Sanders (as is the case with any candidate), but at least he's getting his followers to see Hillary for what she is, rather than what they wish she'd be.

You tell 'em, Sanders_mark!

Bort - 2016-05-02

What has Sanders revealed about her exactly? That she runs on money? So does Bernie, he just takes it from people who have less to give. But he has yet to identify a single time she voted a given way because she was paid to. If he can't make the case, then as an honorable man (that's what he is, right?) he shouldn't make the accusation.

Remember when Bernie claimed he wanted to debate platforms and not sling mud? Good times.

EvilHomer - 2016-05-02

If a pot calls a kettle black, he is correct. Accusing the pot of being a hypocrite doesn't actually change anything, because both the pot and the kettle are still black.

With that said, in the slapfight between Hillary and Sanders (a man supported by billionaires and most of the entertainment industry), the question of money-based mudslinging is an exercise in mutually-assured destruction. Rhetorically-speaking, I think it'd be far more prudent for Sanders_mark to concentrate on the fact that Sanders isn't a war criminal: he's never leaked national secrets, never sold weapons to ISIS, never actively participated in the destabilization of regimes who've got in the way of our oil interests. Hell, he isn't married to a rapist (so far as I know), and that alone should be enough to give him your vote!

But yes, let's say that Hillary has a "solid Democratic platform". This means what, exactly?

EvilHomer - 2016-05-02

(interesting aside: if Sanderistas are actually concerned about special interest groups influencing politics, then Trump - whose campaign is largely or entirely self-funded, and who is openly hated by most wealthy special interest groups - should be their next candidate of choice.)

Bort - 2016-05-02

You are speaking in the vague hand-wavey form I have come to expect from Sanders supporters. I don't even care to tease it all apart because that never ends well -- it always ends with a mess of facts, allegations, rumors, and questionable sourcing as we try to retroactively assess situations where there were often no good options (for example Libya) -- I'll just sum up my stance as, geopolitics is rarely as clean as we would like it to be, anyone with any power on the international stage can probably be called a "war criminal" by some standard, and President Sanders would doubtless become another "war criminal" pretty quickly too.

Bernie did vote against funding a transfer of the Gitmo prisoners to a stateside facility, though. He's not alone in that -- the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted the same way -- but that should have been an easy vote for Bernie to get right.

Cena_mark - 2016-05-02

You're just shills for the oligarchs.

Oscar Wildcat - 2016-05-02

If any of you are wondering what it was like way back then when Ronald Reagan was running for Supreme Leader, well, it looked a hell of a lot like this.

I don't care about Sanders or Clinton or any of that shit. I think you need to beat the Republicans, Bort. That's pretty pragmatic, don't you think? I gathered you were also a pragmatist, so on that basis, let's get down to brass tacks. You think Hillary can beat Trump? Please explain how that is going to happen. Her powerful charisma? Her broad base of support? Her consistent and explicable voting record? Her independence from the moneyed interests that are so hated now by the electorate? These are all factual weaknesses of your candidate, and the strengths of your opponent. He is hungry for the win. She feels entitled to it. I've seen this movie many times before. It always ends the same. I am sorry, I wish I could be optimistic about this.

Bort - 2016-05-02

First of all, there are pretty hard limits on Trump's support base -- primary aggrieved white men who are misogynist and don't mind being led by an obvious fraud (even more obvious than Reagan). Trump's support level can't go much up from where it is now, but it could go down.

Hillary's in the opposite position: a lot of people love her, like her, or think she is at least suited to the job, and they're not likely to change from here until November. Republicans have already done just about all the damage they can to her; she walked into this with her negatives baked in.

When we start seeing them go head-to-head, I am optimistic that Hillary will at least look professional, and even Trump's base of possible supporters are likely to stay at home rather than vote for him.

Plus the Democrats haven't even called in the big guns yet: Obama. Nobody has been better at humiliating Trump on those occasions when he has seen fit to, and let's face it, Obama wears the presidency better than Trump ever could. Even without saying a thing, Obama is a reminder of how unsuited to the presidency Trump is.

As far as Reagan goes, he was much media-savvier than Trump was; Reagan prepared for the national stage by cleaning up his act.


And if all else fails, there is the Old Zircon theory that he heard from a friend that this is all a big publicity stunt for Trump.

"And there's one area where Donald's experience could be invaluable, and that's closing Guantanamo. Because Trump knows a thing or two about running waterfront properties into the ground." -- Obama

Gmork - 2016-05-02

How is this a pot calling the kettle black situation? Sanders is consistent, Hillary has flat-out lied dozens of times about her flip-flopping on a plethora of issues. It's entirely correct to say that Sanders has far more integrity than Hillary. I don't agree with everything Sanders says, but I'll take consistent voting records and stances on issues over Hillary's leaf-in-the-wind record on the issues.

EvilHomer - 2016-05-02

Gmork - perhaps you got into the conversation late, but Mr Bort's point was about Bernie Sanders being beholden to money interests. Sanders may be more consistent (i.e. loyal), but now the kettle is calling the pot black, to the same end result.

Bort - 2016-05-02

My point was really that Hillary works towards the public good, but Bernie has been smearing her with accusations he can't back up so you may be disinclined to think there's any good in her. Integrity my ass. It's easy to be a do-nothing Senator from a very liberal white state; all you have to do is yell about all those other corrupt politicians, fellate the NRA, and ignore your black constituents, and you're set for life. Sure didn't take long for Bernie to start going negative when he discovered he was in for a hard fight. And now he thinks the superdelegates owe him their votes, because Bernie.

memedumpster - 2016-05-02

It's really cute watching you guys pretend you're biologically capable of not irrationally latching onto power animals.

Like watching little girls play at shaving their face with daddy.

Hand daddy the beer off the sink, would you, sweetheart? Don't spill any though, that's liquid love and we all need it.

Oscar Wildcat - 2016-05-02

I asked for Borts opinion, and I don't intend to argue about it. That said, I know a lot of democrats, and precious few love Hillary Clinton. I know boatloads of republicans and independents who hate her with a visceral passion that exceeds all rational discussion.

I could say there is a lot of Trump hate from the movement Left, but independents don't bear it. Plus we haven't seen what he will do once the primary is over and he reaches for the crossover vote. One thing working in Bort's favor is that Rupert Murdoch is a big supporter of Ms. Clinton so the Fox News noise machine may be curiously muted this general election. She's even got the support of Charles Koch, so there is that as well.

Oscar Wildcat - 2016-05-02

Meme: If I was king of the world, I would send Hillary a copy of Don's book and make her read it. Those quotes are terrific strategy for influencing people and winning elections. She's gonna need all the help she can get.

Spaceman Africa - 2016-05-02

Of course Hillary works for the public good, did you see her whip and nae nae on Ellen? Man she is SO woke #imwithher

Bort - 2016-05-02

New article just out today:


That graph at the end ... yow. Trump's "very unfavorable" rating is around 52%, Hillary's at 38%. That's a lot of people who will probably either stay home or write someone else in.

But I see Trump's unfavorables just going up, while Hillary's could go down. I can't see anyone saying "you know, the more I learn about Trump, the more I like him", whereas a look at Hillary's actual voting record and platform might win some people over.

EvilHomer - 2016-05-02

Mr Bort - I'm not really sure what it means to come off like a Sanders supporter, nor why that should matter even if it were true. If Sanders supporters are bringing these things to your attention, then perhaps you should listen to them a bit more carefully - instead of, as you yourself admit, ignoring them and refusing to "tease out" information that might go against your currently-held conclusions! Hillary's warmongering has been extensively documented and forcefully argued {1,2}, she was complicit in both the CIA's alleged Benghazi arms deals and the subsequent propaganda/coverup {3,4}, she has grossly mishandled (presumably leaked) classified documents, which would have been a crime were she not (literally) above the law {5,6}... and of course, there's the rape allegations {7,8,9}. None of these issues are "vague" - on the contrary, they're very specific - and while you're certainly free to take Hillary's side on any or all of the matters, rape and war crimes are hardly "handwringing"!

Also, did Obama really say that about Trump and Gitmo? I mean, REALLY? Obama, the Innocent President of Peace who's now had Gitmo open for longer than Bush did?! God, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, hasn't it.

1 {http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/hillary-clinton-unfit-fo r_b_8313372.html}
2 {http://warisacrime.org/content/hillary-hawk}
3 {http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/li bya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-cons ulate-was-attacked.html}
4 {https://www.rt.com/news/154316-benghazi-attack-us-fault/}
5 {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy}< br /> 6 {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4RQg4Qfg0}
7 {https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/11/21/rape-allegations-h urt-bill-cosby-but-sail-past-bill-clinton/YTIsUoXS2uxrW1mW2JSuRM/s tory.html}
8 {http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/bill-clinton-cosby-sexual-assault -allegations/}
9 {http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/feb/20/clinton.usa}

SolRo - 2016-05-02

Bort, you're trying to convince burniebros that the evil shrew that ruined their chance at utopia is actually not a massive entitled cunt that would have lost long ago if not for having a vagina

EvilHomer - 2016-05-02

(just to be clear, I am not, nor have I ever been, suggesting that you vote for Senator Sanders instead of former Secretary Clinton. If you must vote for anyone, I'd recommend it be either Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or J.P. Hollembaek, according to the dictates of your conscience.)

Bort - 2016-05-02

EH - This is exactly what I'm talking about. I went as far as looking at that first article of yours, and it leaves out very important details, such as:

- Our involvement in Libya was mandated by UNSC Resolution 1973, not a solo action. (Which sort of undercuts his argument that it was a War of Aggression under the United Nations Charter.)

- The alternative was to let Gaddafi massacre his civilians Rwanda style; we don't know for sure how many civilians would have been killed, but the UN resolution was based on preventing the massacre.

- I remember the discussion at the time, how Libya could devolve into lawlessness, but the alternative (civilian massacres) were an unacceptable alternative. And, Libya still could have been resolved peacefully had Gaddafi been willing to negotiate, even months into the enforcement of 1973.

That's just your first article, posted by a guy who seems to know his material well enough not only to put together a damning case, but to leave out crucial context that might inform the reader at the cost of weakening his argument.

Now imagine I have to go through that again and again, any time I'm trying to discuss politics and history with Bernie supporters. THAT'S what I'm talking about. To hear Bernie's droogs talk, governing is easy; just put Bernie in power and good things will happen and there won't be any tough choices or no-win situations. If I had to put my finger on anything about Bernie's cult that pisses me off, that is it.

EvilHomer - 2016-05-02

- UNSC Resolution 1973 was what Hillary cited in order to justify our war of aggression, but that is a fairly flimsy defense, especially in light of all the damning material within the HufPo article. One could just as easily dismiss critics of Bush and Cheney by citing UNSC Resolution 1441 (not to mention 660, 661, 678, 686, 707, etc etc). Yes, Hillary and her legal team scrounged up a single forty year-old resolution which she said gave her the right to obliterate a guy who was transitioning Africa to the gold standard, against the wishes of America's oil companies and the international banking cartels. All wars are based on pretexts. What of it?

- "we don't know for sure how many civilians would have been killed" Well, as luck would have it, we know how many civilians WERE killed - upwards of 25,000! Whether that number is more or less than the number of civilians who would have been killed *without* a war, I don't think you have the power to say - ergo, bringing it up doesn't actually help Hillary's case, it's just pure speculation and (forgive the callback) "vague hand-wringing".

- And yeah, there were arguments about whether purely-hypothetical "civilian massacres" that might result from a purely-hypothetical non-intervention scenario would be unacceptable. There are always these kinds of arguments (hell, I'm sure there are Russian, Chinese, and ISIS patriots arguing the same thing re: their pressing need to invade the United States), and if you accepted the neo-conservative warhawk position on such matters, then that is fine. If that is the sort of argument you endorse, then I hope you're willing to live in the sort of world that this kind of thinking creates.

Now look, Mr Bort, you are a very intelligent man, and I can sympathize with your pain. I feel for you, having to put up with Bernie Sanders supporters all the time. But you are strong, you are wise, and you are a survivor. Yes, indeed I CAN imagine you "going through that time and time again" - after all, if you are at all serious about politics, you sorta kinda have to. So, please go through that one more time! Rebut the rest of the first source; then, check the other sources and rebut them too. Or even agree with them, if for some reason you find them convincing.

OR, better yet, we can switch sides and you can argue the other way for a little while. I'll be pro-Hillary, you be pro-Sanders; understanding the opposition is more fun like that!

memedumpster - 2016-05-02

Damn, Homie, when did you go Super Saiyan?

Bort - 2016-05-02

Jesus, EvilHomer, UNSC Resolution 1973 isn't a resolution from 1973; it was the resolution passed in March 2011 in response to how there was a civilian massacre looming in Libya, and is the rest of the world okay with that or do we maybe want to set up a no-fly zone to restrict Gaddafi's military reprisals. If you didn't know that or couldn't be assed to Google it, you shouldn't be arguing about it.

As for the rest of that author's points, they're all variations of "every consequence of Libya is Obama's and Hillary's direct fault and therefore they are monsters". While I do agree that the US is at least somewhat culpable for the consequences of its actions, let's also factor in that there are other actors and unforeseeable events, and the alternative to action would have likely been a civilian massacre that you and yours would have bitched about.

I honestly can't tell any more whether you're doing a thing or is this just part of being the perpetually disappointed, "you could come up with a perfect solution if you really wanted to" Left. There's an analog to Poe's Law in there somewhere.

As to trying to argue Team Bernie's points to learn their perspective, I already understand it; that's why I take issue with it. It's like an evolutionary biologist being challenged to argue from the creationists' position and see if he learns anything.

SolRo - 2016-05-02

homers existence is doing a thing.

hence the term 'devil's evilhomer'

he'll join whatever side of an argument that will get people to argue with him

memedumpster - 2016-05-03

"evolutionary biologist being challenged to argue from the creationists' position and see if he learns anything."

That is an excellent comparison, since neither of those is a science, but both pretend to be.

decoy - 2016-05-02

Poetic that his epic defeat will be against a woman.

That guy - 2016-05-02

A woman who in any other circumstance would be the evil one.

Miss Henson's 6th grade class - 2016-05-02

Hopefully Vernon Reid gets a real comeback out of this.

F3AR - 2016-05-02

This might be the greatest thing ever.

Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement