|
Post by TNF on Jul 28, 2016 12:06:16 GMT -5
Is there a thread or folder dedicated to politics here, or is this it?
I know where brothers Scooter, Gbg, and Duh are at, and I think I know where Rock is at.
Quick survey...gun to head...Trump or Hillary...no third party options...
|
|
|
Post by TNF on Jul 28, 2016 12:07:55 GMT -5
I can't stand the Clintons, but it's Hillary for me. Trump is scary dangerous, not to mention completely unqualified.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Jul 28, 2016 12:13:54 GMT -5
This is not an election of left versus right. Or Republican versus Democrat. It's a choice between an insane man and not insane woman. Or, as Michael Bloomberg said last night, vote for the sane competent candidate. Pretty simple.
|
|
|
Post by Camby's Left Nut on Jul 28, 2016 12:28:40 GMT -5
Is there a thread or folder dedicated to politics here, or is this it? I know where brothers Scooter, Gbg, and Duh are at, and I think I know where Rock is at. Quick survey...gun to head...Trump or Hillary...no third party options... Hillary is a POS cuntsicle, for sure. But to me her being president would just be more of the status quo. Which, as fucked up as our government can be, is a hell of a lot better than whatever the f**k Trump "plans" on doing. I honestly think if Trump were to win, WW3 would be imminent and the end of civilization would be near. Out of all the shitbag pieces of s**t that have run for POTUS, he is by far the worst and most dangerous. It legitimately baffles me at the amount of people who support him. But I guess that goes to show you how f***ing dumb the people of this country are.
|
|
|
Post by jimijam28 on Jul 28, 2016 12:34:53 GMT -5
f**k Trump its that simple
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Jul 28, 2016 12:38:41 GMT -5
I can understand anger at the status quo. A lot is wrong with our government and political system. Too much money and corporate interests in control. That said, bringing in an insane arsonist to fix the status quo is just incredibly ignorant. Our electorate is dumb. And I fear the choice they could make. I think Hillary will win in November, but this is just entirely too close for comfort. The world is at risk and I would think America's image overseas has taken another hit. Sad.
CLN, you must have read that Tony Schwartz interview in New Yorker. He calls Trump a sociopath and thinks there is an excellent chance of a nuclear war if Trump wins.
|
|
|
Post by TNF on Jul 28, 2016 16:46:58 GMT -5
I agree that Trump is BY FAR the most dangerous candidate who could actually win in American history. Remember when Trump said he loved the under-educated? Polls show that's exactly who he's drawing. He gets KILLED by anyone with a college degree, and KILLS among those with high-school or less.
I love Bernie, but he is right to support Hillary now, and his supporters who don't get it could lead to the next Dubya/Nader/Gore situation, except Dubya, as dumb and dangerous as he was, was VASTLY more qualified than this freaking nutcase as*hole potential Hitler.
Nixon was god's gift to humanity by comparison, and I hated that bastard.
|
|
|
Post by brick2 on Jul 28, 2016 18:05:28 GMT -5
Not my quote but I like it: this is like having to choose between cholera and gonorrhea.
I'm choosing gonorrhea (Clinton) just because of the Supreme Court nomination(s) in play. But oh does it burn.
|
|
|
Post by LotharBraunBrownBryant on Jul 28, 2016 18:21:50 GMT -5
My thoughts:
1) Hillary is more of a "selfish evil" -- she's not out to ruin the world, she just wants to do whatever benefits her and her friends. Trump is more of an "ignorant evil" -- he's not out to ruin the world, he just thinks there's something wrong with black people, Mexicans, "The Gays", and so on.
2) Neither of them have the capability of unilaterally starting WWIII. Congress has to authorize the start of any war. And, contrary to popular belief, neither Russia nor China are stupid enough to start a war just because the president said something insulting.
3) When it comes to the Supreme Court, both Hillary and Trump have similar records in terms of what they think makes a good judge. They're both likely to nominate pro-corporate, pro-choice, pro-big-government, pro-tax-the-middle-class-to-death types. Hillary is more likely to have a list of people she owes favors to, while Trump is more prone to being manipulated, but fundamentally there's a reason they've been close friends for decades.
4) Net result: one of these two idiots is going to win in November, and I don't think it makes a big difference which one. Even though Trump is much more prone to stupid outbursts, it mostly won't matter. So my plan is to send a message to both parties by voting third party (Gary Johnson/Libertarian in this case), and hope that enough other people do it that both R and D think "man, we could've walked away with that election if only we hadn't nominated such a loser" instead of "well, we won, but we got the worst president since US Grant out of it" or "well, we lost, but it was close". I want there to be a high enough third-party turnout that both parties think "we have to move back toward the rational center" so that next election we can get like... Kasich vs Webb instead of Joker vs Two-Face.
|
|
|
Post by Camby's Left Nut on Jul 28, 2016 23:30:25 GMT -5
I'll agree with you there. It's been a debate in my mind since Hillary won the nomination. Either vote for her sorry ass, literally for no other reason than to keep Trump from winning. Or vote for a guy like Gary Johnson to not sacrifice my soul, while knowing he has zero shot to actually win. But that said, while he wont win, it will at least send a nice message (if enough people vote that way) to the system that this two party, rigged system is complete bullshit and that maybe in the future, other third party candidates will be taken more seriously. It'd be nice to get away from all the puppets being thrown in our faces by the establishment. It's really sad how corrupt the US government is, in conjunction with corporate America. It'd be cool if we had a president who, you know, actually gave a s**t about the American people. But we'll have to wait at least another four years for that now.
|
|
|
Post by truch on Jul 29, 2016 0:56:01 GMT -5
It's probably not my place to comment really, seeing as though the outcome doesn't really effect me in a great deal, but I do feel bad for the situation you've found yourselves in. Either a) You vote hillary in, you accept living in the status quo for another (at least) 4 years, and you get to pretend everything is ok or b) you get 4 years of Trump saying a whole bunch of stupid s**t but not being able to change anything because thankfully, while incompetent in itself, congress will choke up and nothing will pass. I almost hope Trump does win just for the fact it will be hilarious for anyone not living in the US, but also, it will likely bring about massive change in the way the Democrats pick their candidate in the future.
I was really excited (as were a lot of Australians) about the prospect of Bernie gaining the democratic nomination (as I thought you guys might get to taste some great aspects of life that us Aussies and Euros have such as universal health care and a decent minimum wage) but once it was inevitable that Hillary had got it the excitement has definitely worn off and now the commentary on the whole election over here is basically as deep as "lol trump"
|
|
|
Post by game on Jul 29, 2016 10:39:20 GMT -5
Shout out to all the people tearing down Obama since before he even stepped foot in the White House. Not looking so bad now, is he? He absolutely killed his speech the other night. I don't even care. I'm gonna miss that dude. +1 Hillary. She's not my favorite, but I also consider the visceral hatred for her overstated. I have no delusinos about the type of president she'll be, and I'm cool with that given the alternative. Trump is a legitimate sociopath, by all accounts. For instance, 99.9% of politicians wouldn't even notice something like this, or would be so used to the game that they'd move past it in no time. It's an ex-NBA player, for crying out loud. Not Trump: www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/09/02/heres-how-donald-trump-responded-to-my-essay-about-him/
|
|
|
Post by LotharBraunBrownBryant on Jul 29, 2016 15:08:14 GMT -5
while he wont win, it will at least send a nice message (if enough people vote that way) to the system that this two party, rigged system is complete bullshit and that maybe in the future, other third party candidates will be taken more seriously. www.facebook.com/GetCafe/videos/1664500880539465/
|
|
|
Post by JB on Jul 29, 2016 18:17:01 GMT -5
I don't think Hilary is more of the same, she is far worse than Obama when it comes to foreign policy. she voted for the Iraq war, pushed for the disastrous intervention in Libya and wants to increase support for the salafist-jihadist dominated rebellion against the secular regime in Syria. Trump is a nativist demagogue, but Hilary is a neo-con similar to Dick Cheney. her actions have destabilized the entire Middle East, which led to Isis and an unsustainable refugee crisis in Europe.
if Hilary gets her wish and topples Bashar al-Assad and her "moderate" rebels take Damascus, we're talking millions of Alwaties, Shia, Druze, Christians, Armenians etc.. that will flee Syria and seek refuge in an already volatile Europe. that scares me more than Berlusconi with a worse tan.
|
|
|
Post by jimijam28 on Jul 29, 2016 19:10:12 GMT -5
hilary is no way close too begin Dick- the man who lied us into 2 wars and started all this s**t with isis. her party will never start other war, trump will have us leave Nato and leave russia too take control of east europe.
|
|
|
Post by JB on Jul 29, 2016 19:28:06 GMT -5
hilary is no way close too begin Dick- the man who lied us into 2 wars and started all this s**t with isis. her party will never start other war, trump will have us leave Nato and leave russia too take control of east europe. but her party did start another war, remember that once stable country called Libya? the NYtimes ran a fantastic article on her involvement in that war, Hillary was basically the devil on Obama's shoulder pressing him to invade. Trump wants to appease Putin, but Hillary wants a no-fly zone in Syria which would drastically increase the likelihood of war with Russia -- I consider the latter more frightening.
|
|
|
Post by JB on Jul 29, 2016 19:34:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimijam28 on Jul 29, 2016 20:28:50 GMT -5
the middle east has been a f**k mess for a long time - but i still wont vote for that crazy ass trump.
|
|
|
Post by JB on Jul 29, 2016 20:36:21 GMT -5
if there's one thing the last 15 years intervening in the middle east taught us, it's things can always get worse jim.
still, I would never advocate voting for Trump. in the words of Jill Stein, a vote for a lesser evil is still a vote for evil.
|
|
|
Post by Number 1 Bonerrrrrr on Jul 30, 2016 18:12:50 GMT -5
I'll vote Hillary. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. They are organizations, not ideas. My training is as a historian, especially with 20th Century American politics, so I understand the history of those two organizations and how drastically they have changed over time. I apologize in advance is this is longwinded. Feel free to ignore it if you like.
I think blaming a destabilized Middle East and Libya (which is in North Africa, not the Middle East) on HRC is not a particularly coherent concept when considering the history of that region after WW1 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The entire West has had no idea what to do with that region since they began interacting with them in an organized way with the Greeks and Persians.
You have to consider the regional context before blaming anything on Hillary. Before HRC even began arguing for an overthrow of Gaddafi (something Trump has also done) the Arab Spring had been in full effect for some time, putting increased pressure on multiple countries, in both North Africa and the Middle East. Egypt's government had been overthrown just months earlier with basically no support from outside nations. Before HRC was Secretary of State under Obama there was a little thing called the Iraq war that completely destabilized the region, increased Iran's involvement with their neighbors (in terms of direct military involvement as well as supporting insurgent groups) and further polarized the divide between Sufi and Shia. Even within Libya there had already been a decades long existence of armed resistance groups. Their presence was ongoing, not new.
There is also the matter of multiple recent wars in the region, from the Gulf War, to the Iran-Iraq War. Both the Kurds and the Israelis have been engaged in some sort of military action (often defensive) intermittently for decades. And even the most staunch supporter of Israel has to admit that their presence in the Middle East has and will continue to be a source of regional instability. These are also younger countries, mostly about 100 years old. Their borders were drawn by European powers after WW1, and are not based on any historical precedent, but on the gamesmanship of victorious Allied Power diplomats and proposed areas of nominal control. They don't have the kind of history behind them to back up public support of the state. Instead the status quo is tribalism, where people have ties not to their country but to their historical ethnic group, of which each of these countries has hundreds or thousands. There might actually be nothing anyone, including the US, can do to ultimately stabilize the region, so to try to pin instability on one US Secretary of State (whose job is chiefly to advise the President on their ultimate decision) seems both shortsighted and inaccurate to me.
I don't like where HRC stands with regards to corporate interests, especially with money she has made speaking at Goldman Sachs. But she represents the status quo of American Politicians over the last thirty years. She isn't some new, more corrupt political animal. But at least she has experience running a major political office. She's fighting a years-long effort by the Republican establishment to hurt her reputation, especially in the form of the multiple Benghazi related committees that have utterly failed to find anything tangible or actionable against her. It's been going on for so long that people say 'Benghazi' and there is a false assumption of guilt, even though HRC basically obliterated the committee and Rep. Dowdy the last time they questioned her. The FBI has recommended no further investigation or action against her and is historically one of the most conservative law enforcement organizations in the nation.
Meanwhile, trump is being investigated for bribing officials. he is being sued for millions of dollars for ripping people off with his 'university'. he has been accused of sexual harassment multiple times, including groping, which is sexual assault (for which he has settled out of court on multiple occasions). he has been accused of not reading a book since grade school by the ghostwriter of his own biography, who is also the person quoted as saying trump would probably cause nuclear war. he has run multiple businesses into bankruptcy, including some of his biggest assets like his casinos. he is one of the biggest beneficiaries of government tax breaks in recent memory. he has publicly cheated on multiple wives and bragged about it.
For those who think trump can't actually ban all muslims because it is unconstitutional, i'd have them look up the Chinese Exclusion act. Sometimes these things actually happen, and last a long time before going away. I'd have them look up Japanese internment during World War 2. If you think Congress will never go along with trump's agenda, remember: both houses have a Republican majority. Look at how the party has rallied around him, with only a few exceptions. Look at how trump treats journalists and the press, restricting them to pens during his rallies 'for their protection'. Look at how he talks about Mexicans as criminals and rapists, and has even suggested deporting people of Mexican descent who were born here in the US. Look at how he has violated campaign finance rule by supporting his campaign with trump business resources without properly reporting it as donations. There have been plenty of very real warning signs from trump, where he's retweeted the words of fascist dictators. He's even encouraged Russia to try to damage the DNC by hacking HRCs emails, or releasing more illegally obtained information to wikileaks. Like them or not, the DNC is an American political organization. To even suggest a foreign power attack them and intervene in our elections is borderline treason or sedition. Yet, he now leads Hillary in some national polls, and specifically in battleground states like Ohio and Florida. This worries me. It tells me that in spite of everything awful he has said and done, the public supports him. I am worried that that same public would continue to support him if he did illegal, unconstitutional or even despotic things. I'm worried that his base of support who wants to 'build the wall' and ban muslims 'until we figure out what's going on' will continue to support him against all reason because their hatred that drives their support is irrational in the first place.
he wants 'law and order' despite our country being safer from violence than it has been in decades. what is his idea of law and order?
As for Jill Stein and her 'lesser evil' comment, I think there are millions of dead Germans, Italians and Japanese who would disagree. Hitler was elected, Mussolini was elected, and the ultranationalistic pre-war Japanese government was elected, all peddling the same fear that trump does. how many would change their votes if given another chance? For Stein to imply that she is the only candidate that isn't evil in some way is in itself highly questionable. Are we supposed to believe that she is some perfect, wholly moral candidate who has never made a mistake and represents the interest of all Americans in a faultless and unwavering way?
Ask people who voted for Nader in 2000 how great they feel after 8 years of Bush Jr., after he lied to Congress and the UN about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction to re-involve the US in Iraq. Ask them how 'clean' they feel after a deregulated financial and banking sector steered the world economy into the worst collapse in nearly 80 years.
But here is my biggest reason for voting for Clinton. I have a daughter on the way. I want her to grow up in an America where she thinks that women are valuable and have the same opportunities as men. I do not want her to grow up in an America where the President publicly shames women for their appearance. I do not want her to grow up in an America where the President speaks about her normal biological functions as something horrific and negative with 'blood coming out of her eyes, and other areas'. I do not want her to grow up in an America with a President who has a trophy-wife with very little education whose boobs he points at in front of every major network's camera in the country. I want her to grow up in an America where the President conducts themselves like an adult, not a ten-year old, hurling insults at people they dislike or who piss them off. I want her to grow up in an America with leaders who acknowledge, rightfully, that our country is still great, with more freedom for more people than any other time in our history.
rant done. sorry again.
edit: I know the difference between sunni and sufi, that's my typo/brain fart.
|
|