Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 I read that much. Still doesn't answer what the !@#$ it means. I'm pretty sure in Kennedy's context it was about communism vs democracies. Which ideology has the better ideas should determine the winner, not actual battles on a battlefield. In the sense of Bernie and Hillary, it's his democratic socialist ideas vs Hillary's establishment ideas. Voters are responding overwhelmingly in favor of Bernie's vision in comparison to Hillary's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) I'm pretty sure in Kennedy's context it was about communism vs democracies. Which ideology has the better ideas should determine the winner, not actual battles on a battlefield. In the sense of Bernie and Hillary, it's his democratic socialist ideas vs Hillary's establishment ideas. Voters are responding overwhelmingly in favor of Bernie's vision in comparison to Hillary's. I have a plan? Hmmmm where have I heard that before and how did that work out? Anyway that's what elections are all about. Voting for the person with the best idea or the ideas that best fit what the electorate agrees with. That's why I think the whole Battle of Ideas is asinine. Edited April 1, 2016 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 I have a plan? Hmmmm where have I heard that before and how did that work out? Anyway that's what elections are all supposed to be about. Voting for the person with the best idea or the ideas that best fit what the electorate agrees with. That's why I think the whole Battle of Ideas is asinine. Fixed that for you. Elections aren't about ideas anymore. They're about money, hype, buzz, and which candidate is more pliable to the big money donors who make or break candidacies. Hence why that article used the phrase. Bernie's clearly winning the battle of ideas within the DNC but Hillary is "winning" (stealing) the delegates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Fixed that for you. Elections aren't about ideas anymore. They're about money, hype, buzz, and which candidate is more pliable to the big money donors who make or break candidacies. Hence why that article used the phrase. Bernie's clearly winning the battle of ideas within the DNC but Hillary is "winning" (stealing) the delegates. I disagree. That was HIllary in 2008 before Barry took the stage, and prior to beating her, he was nothing but an ideas guy. (Wait. I know. Feed mayonnaise TO THE FISH...) Granted, Barry's ideas...like Sanders'...are ridiculously impossible ideas, but ideas beat Hillary last time. Won't beat her this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Great use of that clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Fixed that for you. Elections aren't about ideas anymore. They're about money, hype, buzz, and which candidate is more pliable to the big money donors who make or break candidacies. Hence why that article used the phrase. Bernie's clearly winning the battle of ideas within the DNC but Hillary is "winning" (stealing) the delegates. Ok so you're saying that the debates, town halls, press conferences, Sunday morning talk shows are not about the discussion of ideas? Sure money has polluted the process but a campaign is still about ideas, good and bad. Where the money plays into this is it takes money to get those ideas out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Ok so you're saying that the debates, town halls, press conferences, Sunday morning talk shows are not about the discussion of ideas? Sure money has polluted the process but a campaign is still about ideas, good and bad. Where the money plays into this is it takes money to get those ideas out there. I'm saying ideas are irrelevant because the elections are decided by who can raise the most money, and the people who can raise the most money are those who are more willing to sell out their ideas in exchange for a congressional seat. When it comes down to governance, both parties govern the same. Both parties have the same "ideas" at their core. Both parties are run by the same people and serve the same interests, regardless of the "ideas" they may or may not express on the campaign trail. That's not a battle of ideas. It's a battle of charlatans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 I'm saying ideas are irrelevant because the elections are decided by who can raise the most money, and the people who can raise the most money are those who are more willing to sell out their ideas in exchange for a congressional seat. When it comes down to governance, both parties govern the same. Both parties have the same "ideas" at their core. Both parties are run by the same people and serve the same interests, regardless of the "ideas" they may or may not express on the campaign trail. That's not a battle of ideas. It's a battle of charlatans. Guns, health care, taxes, women's reproductive rights, education, regulation's on Chef's business...this are all real issues that the parties have serious differences over and that are important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Guns, health care, taxes, women's reproductive rights, education, regulation's on Chef's business...this are all real issues that the parties have serious differences over and that are important bull ****. No one is changing the second amendment -- so guns are an empty talking point and political wedge on the campaign trail, it's not a real issue when it comes to governance. Women's reproductive rights is the same as guns, a wedge point on the campaign trail but no one is overturning roe v wade. Business regulations are important which is why the corporate elite who are funding both sides of the political aisle make sure only the pro business folks make it to office. Again, both parties are the same and have been bought and paid for by the same big monied interest. Your vote doesn't matter. The election has already been decided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 bull ****. No one is changing the second amendment -- so guns are an empty talking point and political wedge on the campaign trail, it's not a real issue when it comes to governance. Women's reproductive rights is the same as guns, a wedge point on the campaign trail but no one is overturning roe v wade. Business regulations are important which is why the corporate elite who are funding both sides of the political aisle make sure only the pro business folks make it to office. Again, both parties are the same and have been bought and paid for by the same big monied interest. Your vote doesn't matter. The election has already been decided. It will never happen.... that's what they always say, but what would our grandfathers think about: Gun free zones Happy meal bans Soda size maximums Gay marriages Polygamy is next Pedophiles are on deck Marrying pets and objects already suing. Gender equality and identity is a mess. Forcing churches to perform ceremonies against their beliefs. Marijuana is legal Amnesty Cuba Healthcare Safe spaces PC Culture The President refusing to enforce laws. ...yeah, we'll trust you this one time. The next step will always be up for debate. Give up one right, the next is on the chopping block. Liberalism works in steps. Just look at Colleges. What the last generation thinks is ridiculous, will be what the next generation finds normal; because they haven't seen the alternative. Look at socialism; most of us have seen it destroy countries, but the Millennials only know about Scandavia. Don't say "Black," it's offensive..... let's include "illegal" to that list... now let's try "bossy".... "monday?" I'm saying ideas are irrelevant because the elections are decided by who can raise the most money, and the people who can raise the most money are those who are more willing to sell out their ideas in exchange for a congressional seat. So how is Trump winning? And why was Bush out early? Why is Sanders losing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 It will never happen.... that's what they always say, but what would our grandfathers think about: Gun free zones Happy meal bans Soda size maximums Gay marriages Polygamy is next Pedophiles are on deck Marrying pets and objects already suing. Gender equality and identity is a mess. Forcing churches to perform ceremonies against their beliefs. Marijuana is legal Amnesty Cuba Healthcare Safe spaces PC Culture The President refusing to enforce laws. ...yeah, we'll trust you this one time. The next step will always be up for debate. Give up one right, the next is on the chopping block. Liberalism works in steps. Just look at Colleges. What the last generation thinks is ridiculous, will be what the next generation finds normal; because they haven't seen the alternative. Look at socialism; most of us have seen it destroy countries, but the Millennials only know about Scandavia. Don't say "Black," it's offensive..... let's include "illegal" to that list... now let's try "bossy".... "monday?" So how is Trump winning? And why was Bush out early? Why is Sanders losing? Nice argument! I wonder why azilian didn't write something like that? Oh ya, Azalian Can't Azalian Can't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) Sanders Campaign Fires Back At Hillary By Demanding An Apology Not surprising anyone, Hillary Clinton is lying about Sanders lying. ... According to OpenSecrets.org, Clinton has received over $330,000 from oil and gas industry affiliates. Edited April 1, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 So how is Trump winning? And why was Bush out early? Why is Sanders losing? Trump is not winning, he's going to get slaughtered in the national campaign. Sanders is also only losing due to the DNC and MSM being in the bag for Hillary. And, as I've been saying for months, this is all theater. The election was already decided over a year ago. It's Hillary's turn. She's the establishment's choice and she will win by a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 And, as I've been saying for months, this is all theater. The election was already decided over a year ago. It's Hillary's turn. She's the establishment's choice and she will win by a lot. is that why Bush #3 is out of it? Is that why a little-known back-bench less-than-full-term freshman Senator got the job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 is that why Bush #3 is out of it? Is that why a little-known back-bench less-than-full-term freshman Senator got the job? Let it go. There's a narrative in his head and he'll always clutch back to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) is that why Bush #3 is out of it? Is that why a little-known back-bench less-than-full-term freshman Senator got the job? Bush is out of it because they can't sell anyone to the public with the last name of Bush. Clinton though, still has value. They're both the same, bought and paid for by the same interests, which is why it's her turn. Had Bush been tenable to the public, he'd be the nominee and regardless of who won between Jeb and Hillary the beat would go on. Because they couldn't engineer that electoral match-up, they have no choice but to assure that Hillary wins. It's why we've seen the circus that we've seen on the right and the left. Make everyone look crazy, make everything look hopeless, and suddenly Hillary becomes the rational choice. And the beat goes on. Let it go. There's a narrative in his head and he'll always clutch back to it. Do you honestly expect any other outcome at the moment other than a HRC victory in November? Edited April 1, 2016 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Bush is out of it because they can't sell anyone to the public with the last name of Bush. Clinton though, still has value. They're both the same, bought and paid for by the same interests, which is why it's her turn. Had Bush been tenable to the public, he'd be the nominee and regardless of who won between Jeb and Hillary the beat would go on. Because they couldn't engineer that electoral match-up, they have no choice but to assure that Hillary wins. It's why we've seen the circus that we've seen on the right and the left. Make everyone look crazy, make everything look hopeless, and suddenly Hillary becomes the rational choice. And the beat goes on. Do you honestly expect any other outcome at the moment other than a HRC victory in November? No but it has to do more with how bad the Republican Party is in terms of branding and exposure than with a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 No but it has to do more with how bad the Republican Party is in terms of branding and exposure than with a conspiracy. Who's saying conspiracy? This is being done in broad daylight, not behind closed doors. Big money controls this country and the media, and the big money in this country clearly wants HRC to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Bush is out of it because they can't sell anyone to the public with the last name of Bush. Clinton though, still has value. They're both the same, bought and paid for by the same interests, which is why it's her turn. Had Bush been tenable to the public, he'd be the nominee and regardless of who won between Jeb and Hillary the beat would go on. Because they couldn't engineer that electoral match-up, they have no choice but to assure that Hillary wins. It's why we've seen the circus that we've seen on the right and the left. Make everyone look crazy, make everything look hopeless, and suddenly Hillary becomes the rational choice. And the beat goes on. Do you honestly expect any other outcome at the moment other than a HRC victory in November? You're insane. What's happening now is perfect proof that the system isn't as rigged as you say it is. The 2008 election was clear proof of that. GOP donors blew tens of millions on a handful of candidates, not just Jeb. HRC may win November by default of a very bad remaining field in 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 You're insane. What's happening now is perfect proof that the system isn't as rigged as you say it is. The 2008 election was clear proof of that. GOP donors blew tens of millions on a handful of candidates, not just Jeb. HRC may win November by default of a very bad remaining field in 2016 Something big changed in 2010... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts