Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
turbojet

The General American Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

We have absolutely no idea who the establishment candidates are going to be in 2020 at this point aside from Hillary again (I honestly don't think Trump is going to run again after this), so I feel it's impossible to say how much ground any given third-party candidate is going to gain just based on nothing but the cynicism present in this current election cycle. Feelings, economies, situations; they all change and they can change wildly. I would personally wait a bit on that.

I'm not saying that cynicism from this election will just carry over to 2020. Again, a good performance in this election by third parties, the best chance for a third party to make a good performance in six election cycles (if not twenty-six of them), guarantees perks to the current third parties that they have never had access to before. It guarantees visibility to them and their candidates, whoever they are next go around. Johnson is already close in some polling to achieving such. Stein looks like she is taking steps with straggling Bernie supporters to accomplish the same. That is a big deal for the 2020 election, regardless who the establishment candidates are for the GOP and DNC.

 

56 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Regardless, if it's pretentious to say that simply voting for third-party candidates only in the general election doesn't work is pretentious, then call me pretentious, but results don't lie. Third party candidates are not viable candidates to statistically win the general election under the current system,

I literally cannot make it more clear that I don't expect a third party candidate in the White House come November. I do not understand why you keep bringing it up.

 

56 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

and merely saying it's possible for third-party candidates to enact change is a non-starter especially since I agreed with that already.

Was that before or after you said voting for third party candidates is just a symbolic gesture?

 

Quote

That's not the point of disagreement; the point of disagreement is how viable a strategy it is. If we're not concerned with making the voting system easier for third-party candidates to get an actual realistic shot at the White House, and you instead want to work within the system, you would have to at least have a much better ground game getting the word out in local elections and work your way up there first.

Local elections already don't follow party politics anywhere near as much as national ones. Even state legislature races don't have as much of a party influence and can be dotted with independents. New York's Senate currently has 5 of them. For the past twenty years, there has usually been at least one third party/independent governor somewhere in the country. Hell, now that he has gone back to his Senate seat, Bernie is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tornado said:

And reinforcing the status quo lowers those barriers to entry? Telling people to just vote for whatever Democrat or Republican candidate is vaguely closer to whatever their political views are doesn't entrench those above things even deeper? Right now we have a candidate who has spent sixteen years of political office as a Democrat seemingly only because her husband was a (conservative, Southern) Democrat' and a Republican candidate who went into interviews and debates without even realizing what the "correct" answers were to popular Republican talking points. Both of them have decades of baggage and, other than probably the 1860 election, unprecedented disapproval of the choices provided by the political process; but the correct solution is still "just vote whoever isn't as bad as the other one?"

I have to say that, hilariously enough, yeah that unfortunately is the correct solution. Because either way, depending on where you lean on this election, it's like you're being told to take a gun and shoot yourself somewhere - regardless of what you choose (or even refuse to choose), you're gonna hurt yourself somehow. So what part will do you the least harm in shooting? The lesser of two evils is a false equivalence given that there are other options out there, but it unfortunately doesn't change the state of this election being either Hillary or Trump being president.

I wouldn't say third parties are doing it wrong, but that given the biased election for just one of the two leading candidates, it's treated like they might as well have not bothered to vote in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

I keep bringing up the White House because that was the elected position I've been talking about since the original post you quoted that started this argument. 

Your first post specifically called for people to not vote for third parties because then the major party candidate might not win; that since third parties can't win the only thing a vote for them will do is make one of the major parties lose. That is opposite of this:

1 hour ago, Nepenthe said:

and merely saying it's possible for third-party candidates to enact change is a non-starter especially since I agreed with that already.

But it's perfectly in line with this:

3 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

That becomes an entirely symbolic gesture

Nearly every post I've made since then has been trying to explain why yes, voting for a third party in this specific election, with its never before seen unpopularity in its front-running candidates and never before seen levels of independent affiliated voters and it's never before seen shitshow of an election, could have serious implications for the viability of their platforms. I explained how it could help them get into debates to discuss their views with the viable candidates. I explained how it could give them massive boosts to the funding they have when running their campaigns in future elections, so their voices don't get so easily drowned out in the election cycle.  And you still keep bringing up how third parties can't win the White House.

 

 

 

 

I only lightly glossed over the implication that Trump would pack the Supreme Court with the kind of people John Boehner would think were too extreme, an argument that read like it was copy pasted right off of tumblr or Huffington Post comments section; and didn't even touch the part of your post that essentially told people to just shut the fuck up and vote for Hilary:

On 7/26/2016 at 1:40 PM, Nepenthe said:

The fact is that the choice entitled white folks who are used to getting their political way and immature anti-establishment types are battling with right now for some weird reason is either a stable-to-progressive-ish America under an actual politician or an unstable, more oppressive wildcard America under a racist shitty businessman, either of which we will have to deal with for the next 20+ years. You better believe there's some pressure right now on people to just bite the bullet and do the smart fucking thing, and if people don't understand that and we hand this presidency off to Trump, I don't want anyone who suffers from it but still didn't vote for Hilary to bitch about it. You get what you vote for.

And to be frank, at this point I'm glad I didn't. I've seen you debate political topics for years and I've had no problem debating you in good faith no matter what the topic; and I am shocked that you've devolved your political discourse to this level. That is the sort of shit turbojet used to say when he started these threads, including this one four years ago, so he could just make veiled insults at anyone thinking of voting Republican. That's why people on this forum are so uncomfortable posting in these threads at all unless they lean left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still honestly confused.

All I'm saying, and what I originally said, was that I don't think third-party candidates can win this specific general election; literally nothing more and nothing less. I originally didn't concern myself with the implications of what the discourse surrounding the current establishment candidates would or could do for their platforms in future elections, because I was under the assumption that whomever I was even originally responding to was discussing specifically the outcome of this current election for President and only this specific election. That isn't a contradiction with my statement that I believe third-parties can enact change under the right circumstances (and the subsequent belief that I don't even think the current political parties will last for too much longer at this rate of dissatisfaction), nor is it all that far away from the very last bit you quoted which- in the context of the general- I will not apologize for. If my argument overstepped boundaries anywhere in terms of saying third-party candidates can't do anything at all, then I do apologize for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's made all the more funny by the fact that Hillary explicitly said that she's not looking to mess with the Second Amendment (gunning instead for common sense firearms legislation), and here's these jokers at the NRA who were apparently watching the Dinesh D'Souza version of her speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2016 at 9:26 PM, Hyp3hat said:

Asking foreign governments to hack your opposition is all fun and games, right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36927523

Ah, the fruits of Trump's so-called "sarcasm." I trust the FBI is investigating?

Yesterday, apparently in an attempt to calm the firestorm that is the Khan fiasco, a veteran gave Trump his Purple Heart medal, on stage IIRC in Virginia. In response, Trump reeled off this amazing line:

Quote

I've always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This is much easier than combat.

Whaaat? Naturally, he has been slammed for that mind boggling statement.

He also criticized the New York Times, threatening to blacklist them as he did the Washington Post, saying that "they don't know how to write good."

He is an actual child in a man suit.

 

Cracks in the GOP's facade of unity are widening:

Quote

Donald Trump will not endorse Paul Ryan as Republican splits widen

Republican nominee also refuses to back John McCain, despite being endorsed for presidency by both men

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/02/donald-trump-paul-ryan-john-mccain-re-election-endorsements 

 

 

This is going to make a fantastic HBO mini-series someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, Trump has shown that he is even more insane than we realize. During a national security meeting, he outright asked why we don't just use nuclear weapons to solve our problems. Now I have a mental image of him getting criticized and going "U DISAGREE WITH ME! YOU GO BOOM!" and pressing a firing nuke button like a candy dispenser.

Speaking more seriously, this is legitimately horrifying. If he wins the elections, we're essentially giving the keys to a nuclear apocalypse to a sociopathic child in a business suit.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/3/1556175/-Donald-Trump-could-go-nuclear-in-seconds-and-there-s-no-mechanism-to-stop-him

Sources provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SenEDtor Missile said:

Welp, Trump has shown that he is even more insane than we realize. During a national security meeting, he outright asked why we don't just use nuclear weapons to solve our problems. Now I have a mental image of him getting criticized and going "U DISAGREE WITH ME! YOU GO BOOM!" and pressing a firing nuke button like a candy dispenser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT4YbO_1mvA

i dunno why this isn't embedding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

i dunno why this isn't embedding

Quote

Embedding disabled by request

There's your problem. Video's on point, though; Trump's going to be a scary, scary president - if he wins, which still remains unlikely.

 

Today's Trump Headlines (Because Hillary Isn't Fucking Scary):

A Fox national poll released last night has Clinton up by 10 points, 49%-39%, though obviously we have a long way to go yet:

Quote

The Fox News poll was conducted from July 31 to Aug. 2, reaching 1,022 registered voters nationwide via both landlines and cell phones. Among those polled, 370 were Republicans and 434 were Democrats. The margin of error for the full sample size was plus-or-minus 3 points, while the margin of error for Republicans and Democrats was plus-or-minus 5 points and 4.5 points, respectively.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-clinton-fox-news-poll-226641
 

Remember when Trump denied having ever met Vladimir Putin? Well...

That camp dubbing. Jesus. But still...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would've voted for Ben Carson if he was still a major nominee than Trump, but even going for the "lesser evil" BS that is Clinton, I would refuse. Heck, I'd write down Sarah Palin's name on the ballot than vote for her.

Still can't trust Hillary because of how much scandal and controversy she is steeping in with the Benghazi situation and the current email scandal which seems to ring true about Bernie Sanders's suspicion with the DNC being rigged with the recent Russian Wikileaks. Not to mention the whole facade of "Unity/Stronger Together" won't last long until Dems manage to beat Trump and if she gets elected and inaugurated, it'll be back to square one in divisions among the party. And with Trump out of the picture, I'm sure Repubs will set their sights on her as prime target amidst again the same scandals/controversies that persist and with her in the White House "hot seat", she'll definitely try to scapegoat and dodge many of it (as most politicians do), but if she adds more to the list, it'll be mostly on her head and potential subject for impeachment. Also, definitely be a hard sell for dems for support.

Speaking of which, no matter how you twist it, these candidates feel like one-term fodder for sure until next election when both parties vie for "better" ones. Well, Clinton might get another one due to "First Female President" and "feminist" support but still don't see it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand what so damning about these emails or whatever, especially compared to anything that's come out of the Trump campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

I still don't understand what so damning about these emails or whatever, especially compared to anything that's come out of the Trump campaign.

Mainly because the stuff she sent if it were anyone else would be in jail over it. Work in the government for a bit. That sort of slip up is what ends up causing you to lose a job, clearance, and jail depending on the level it was sent. But the media turns a blind eye to it and would rather run a story about trump having a noisy baby removed from a speech as just evil pure evil he did that to that baby lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Meta77 said:

Mainly because the stuff she sent if it were anyone else would be in jail over it. Work in the government for a bit. That sort of slip up is what ends up causing you to lose a job, clearance, and jail depending on the level it was sent. But the media turns a blind eye to it and would rather run a story about trump having a noisy baby removed from a speech as just evil pure evil he did that to that baby lol.

According to the director of the FBI in his testimony, what Clinton did would have been cause for disciplinary actions only for workers still on the government payroll, i.e. if you leave before anyone finds out, they can't or won't do anything.

There's a difference between being really careless and being guilty of gross negligence, an offense which, by the by, nobody in the federal government has been charged with in a century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patticus said:

According to the director of the FBI in his testimony, what Clinton did would have been cause for disciplinary actions only for workers still on the government payroll, i.e. if you leave before anyone finds out, they can't or won't do anything.

There's a difference between being really careless and being guilty of gross negligence, an offense which, by the by, nobody in the federal government has been charged with in a century.

Gross negligence. Having a private server is gross negligence. You know darn well they would not touch a hair on Clintons head lol. No even when your gone your not allowed to go blabbing about things you sent or have done. You can still be jailed. People get fired all the time for sending emails to the wrong people or talking about things marked classified. But I suppose your right, once you get to such a high rank I guess no one could or would touch you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Meta77 said:

Gross negligence. Having a private server is gross negligence. You know darn well they would not touch a hair on Clintons head lol. No even when your gone your not allowed to go blabbing about things you sent or have done. You can still be jailed. People get fired all the time for sending emails to the wrong people or talking about things marked classified. But I suppose your right, once you get to such a high rank I guess no one could or would touch you.

Has Clinton been blabbing about things that were sent or done on that server? I haven't heard anything about that at all - be a dear and provide a link, I think we'd all like a look at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww man, I missed the third party debate. But I'll chime in anyway.

It's a prisoner's dilemma thing. Yes, a third party candidate could absolutely win this election... but it's the same in any other. People have to actually turn out.

Ross Perot probably would have been President with 40% of the popular vote had everyone turned out for him. Instead, only 20% of the vote went to him, as most bought into the two-party system and switched their vote by Election Da.

Going third party is an all or nothing bet. Yes, you can win much bigger, but you also run the risk of being a spoiled vote. In the end, most make the rational decision: pick one of the two realistic candidates. Plus, there's tactics here: you can always promise an opposite-minded person to go third party... and vote for a major party anyway, giving your side the advantage.

Really, until we have preference voting, don't bother with third parties barring some incident that really gets them off the ground. It's possible we'll see third parties gain in strength in future elections, but they will need local/state power first. There are several multi-party first past the post systems, but you need local power. Once third parties gain a few Governorships, cities, etc. (and hold them), a third party President/Congress becomes realistic. It's very telling Bernie Sanders, an independent, signed on to the Democratic Party just to try for the nomination.

Now then. I have seen a lot of people make a principled stand against voting for Clinton on the basis of corruption or the like. I have thought on this, and I have a way to tear this down. You don't want to enable the system. You don't want to vote for the lesser evil.

But, here's the thing. You live in a capitalist society. The moment you agree to a job, you're already enabling the system. You tell your boss it's okay if he confiscates the bulk of the fruits of your labor, on the basis that this option is preferable to being a hermit (yay, you're free! ..oh crap, now you have to provide for your needs in practically everything) or risking injury to yourself in the form of protest and revolution. You are already choosing the lesser evil in your day to day life, because that is what this society requires you do to be a part of it. You could absolutely be the visionary who tries to change the system... but chances are you will still work within it.

Voting Clinton is par the course. Until the capitalist system is torn down, you will always be choosing the lesser evils in your life decisions. To be frank, to me, it seems voting third party or abstaining from voting is simply a way to try and convince oneself one has some real power in this socioeconomic model when really... one does not. Not much at all.

Change requires collective action and decisionmaking (consider this: our political system and North Korea's are both based on complacency, because it is disadvantageous to go against the system due to a lack of guarantee others will do the same). Until we come together as a collective, we will have first past the post, capitalism, a two-party system, the works. These are all big things to change, so... start small. While backing the Democrats nationally, back third parties locally. More specifically, push towards political reform that will give third parties an equal footing - preference ballots, proportional representation, etc. Until you change first past the post, there's little to gain and much to lose from going gung ho on third parties or not voting.

7 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

I still don't understand what so damning about these emails or whatever, especially compared to anything that's come out of the Trump campaign.

Really, it's just supposed to highlight how incompetent she is at best or corrupt at worst.

Unfortunately, she's still better than Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way this election is turning out in my eyes is becoming more a question of who I trust more as commander in chief more than who I trust as a presidential nomination. Which is kind of sad when you think about how it came to this, yes, but it also makes the choice pretty easy.

Trump has displayed himself as a bigot on virtually every scale I can possibly fathom - race, religion, even gender in varying amounts, and has constantly preyed on xenophobia to propose locking out if not outright bombing the shit out of anything that doesn't rub him the right way (which is fucking ironic because alienating minorities is exactly what ISIS wants, in practically their own words no less), and it's kind of hard to imagine the government working in a coordinated fashion under him when even his own party is starting to rebel against him.

Clinton... mishandled her email service. Umm, okay? Is that all? Trump supporters seem to latch onto this tidbit like she microwaved a fucking dog or something, and I just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Blacklightning said:

Clinton... mishandled her email service. Umm, okay? Is that all? Trump supporters seem to latch onto this tidbit like she microwaved a fucking dog or something, and I just don't get it.

There's also the various shenanigans that propelled her to win the nomination, which has left a bad taste in the mouths of many Bernie supporters as well as some moderates.

However bad the DNC and media's methods were (I still get pissed when I think about what the superdelegates did prior to the California primary), however, what's done is done. She is the nominee, and even Bernie understands it's better to back her than strike out on his own.

She has adopted most of Bernie's platform ideas, and Bernie's decision to return to independent status indicates that he's not going to be her lapdog in future elections if she doesn't keep her end of the bargain. Clinton is not omnipotent, and will be in trouble if she doesn't act in good faith towards Sanders. As I've mentioned, he had 45% of the delegates and awakened a good chunk of the American population as well as the Democratic base to his ideas. He can make or break her in future years if he'd be willing to sink the Democratic Party.

It really is no contest if one was at all supportive of Sanders. If one was on the fence, the fact Trump is so casually suggesting nuclear first strikes is reason enough to vote Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

I still don't understand what so damning about these emails or whatever, especially compared to anything that's come out of the Trump campaign.

I missed explaining this, but the central reason the emails are damning is because it was a textbook case of corruption that she benefited from.

But yes, compared to what's coming out of Trump's campaign (although it's doubtful he'd have leeway over the extreme shit like nuking anyone he doesn't like given how secure we have nukes to prevent them from being that easy to use nowadays), this is really a matter if who is actually more competent to running a government: would you rather someone many are calling a criminal who knows what the hell they're doing and at least avoids bigotry, or would you rather have a non-criminal that has no clue how things work and appeals to bigotry? 

That would be a false dilemma in any other circumstance, but that's really how it'll end up regardless of how anyone votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

I missed explaining this, but the central reason the emails are damning is because it was a textbook case of corruption that she benefited from.

But yes, compared to what's coming out of Trump's campaign (although it's doubtful he'd have leeway over the extreme shit like nuking anyone he doesn't like given how secure we have nukes to prevent them from being that easy to use nowadays), this is really a matter if who is actually more competent to running a government: would you rather someone many are calling a criminal who knows what the hell they're doing and at least avoids bigotry, or would you rather have a non-criminal that has no clue how things work and appeals to bigotry? 

Really, it's "better the enemy you know" at this point.

Clinton is a member of the political elite and favors the status quo. She'll make a few changes here or there, and keep change at a steady pace.

Trump will legitimately shake things up in an undesirable way. Whether it's his racism, willingness to use weapons of mass destruction that make comparisons to Hitler seem less like hyperbole, or his simple incompetence on issues of government or geopolitics, his severe conflicts of interest on matters of business and foreign policy towards Russia, there is no reason to back him at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, the worst I can see Trump doing is ruining years of diplomatic work previous presidents have made between other countries. And that in itself is too much damage to US relations that it's not worth it, because it would take years and lots of resources that didn't need to be wasted to fix the mess he'll likely make even in a short amount of time. Nevermind that somethings won't be the same as a result given the intention ms of other great and even middle powers out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.