Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
turbojet

The General American Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Here's something that isn't necessarily about Hillary or Trump but does pertain to Trump's supporters.

http://www.newsweek.com/epileptogenic-pepe-video-507417

This is an article by Kurt Eichenwald, a critic of Trump who posted many articles that reflected poorly on Trump. This has resulted in harassment. People have called him things I don't think I'm even allowed to post here due to the offensive content (he mentions a few in the article if you're interested). People have called for him to be assaulted, murdered, and even lynched. They've told him that they know where he lives, where his wife works, where his son goes to school-- and they've gotten all three of those details right. They've gone out of their way stalk his family, track down his son online, and tried to cyberbully his son. His son has blocked all accounts that attempt bullying and that seems to be keeping them at bay for now, but its still a scary situation. Frighteningly, Eichenwald isn't the only critic who has been treated that way-- other bloggers and journalists, particularly but not limited to those that are minorities and women, have been hit with similar abuse.

Oh, and there's Mike's Deplorable AF, a Twitter user that tried to get him killed or at the very least seriously injured.

You see, Eichenwald is epileptic and his seizures can be triggered by epileptogenic images. So Mike sent him a message publicly commenting on that with an attached video. This video contained strobe lights, noted hate symbol Pepe the Frog and various shapes flying around rapidly-- basically, everything you need to trigger a seizure. Eichenwald, not knowing of its content, had unthinkingly played the video. And he's a lucky guy, because when the seizure hit, he happened to have been standing and dropped the iPad face-down, quickly putting the seizure to an end by removing the stimulus without injury or any medical intervention. But it still stands-- Mike tried to seriously injure Eichenwald by exploiting his epilepsy. And that's deplorable.

Stuff like this also makes it difficult to want to support Trump, because how could I let guys like Mike get exactly what they want in the end through their hatred? But I also want to applaud reporters like Eichenwald, who, in the name of providing the public the most accurate information possible about the presidential candidates, refuse to back down in the face of these bullies. Who let their journalistic integrity and research determine the content of their articles, not to threats of bigots and other hateful people. Who are faced with the horrible reality of their personal safety and the safety of their loved ones being ambiguous at best, yet accept the responsibility of the journalist and bravely persist in disseminating what is, to the best of their knowledge, the truth. They are the real heroes in the situation and represent what every journalist should strive for. I doubt Eichenwald, et. al. will ever read this post, but I think somebody should say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Fucking Christ this is wrong on so many accounts I can't even. These actions aren't exclusively done with trump supporters, and I can't understand how Jack offs and extremists can do and justify these actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kurt Eichenwald is a pedo http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39957/index2.html

 

Something else in the Podesta emails I meant to mention, was Harvey Weinstein, (one of Clinton's top fundraisers) encouraging her campaign to silence Bernie's black lives matter ad with Erica Garner, with the sandy hook shooting. https://interc.pt/2dBF7sL 

 

Edited by Blue Swallow
Accidentally hit send

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously justifying the actions being done? Being a shithead to a shithead doesn't exactly make things okay.(though I'm not even sure if the legitimacy of the site and its claims) It's called be the better person. There's no world or justification where stalking and threatening children not affiliated with the fathers issues is fucking okay. It's disgusting and not sound to send fucking threats no matter how crap the guy is. Especially when they're coming from trump extremists who already are pieces of shit.(extremists I need to elaborate) 

Anyway found this and can I just say lol the fucking hypocrisy and level of denial people have. Like, wow, yeah cause trump didn't literally recently announce that he finds his way around the law to avoid paying taxes. People actually using this to elevate trump are hi-lari-fucking-ous.

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not, that's terrible, I brought that up not to defend the Trump supporters, but because Kurt was brought up and called brave, and a hero, and he's not, he's a very bad guy. But again, I think that Trump supporter, and any one else doing those kinds of things, are absolutely awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/06/hurricane_matthew_could_have_devastating_consequences_for_the_election.html

Analysts are reporting that it's quite possible Hurricane Matthew could  impact the election. Back in 2012, Sandy happened towards the end of October and led to 10% of the polling stations to be left inoperable on Election Day. Turnout also dropped several percentage points. Clinton is currently narrowly leading Trump in Florida, but this is likely to impact turnout; Florida's 27 electoral votes could possibly swing the election either way, as happened back in 2000.

In addition, 50,000 people registered in the days before the registration deadline back in 2012. This year's registration deadline is in a few days, so Matthew is quite likely to prevent the registration of tens of thousands of people. Clinton asked the Governor to extend the deadline in light of Matthew's disruption, but the Governor said that people have had plenty of time to register and declined. Notice how he didn't even use the legal argument that the Florida legislature sets the terms of Presidential elections. Unsurprisingly, the GOP once more emphasized hyperindividualism over accommodating for circumstances, emphasizing model behavior over realistic behavior.

There could also be an effect on opinions. While Obama is not running for re-election, Clinton has become very closely tied to him, and this means that his handling of federal efforts could possibly trickle down to her.

On 10/5/2016 at 8:19 PM, Patticus said:

Hopefully, a more liberal GOP will also mean the chances of real healthcare reform and the like will also improve.

In all likelihood it will. Nixon may have been willing to play up racism for political gain, but he also proposed a universal basic income. Then beyond America, you have archconservatives like Bismarck creating social security in Germany as evidence the right can absolutely have policies besides laissez-faire economics.

I think as older, Cold Warrior members of the GOP die off, the Party's going to start shifting left both socially and fiscally. Without the senior vote, limited social programs (beyond those for seniors) doesn't have the same appeal, and with a much smaller white vote, they're going to be forced to revisit policies on policing and immigration. Given the intimate relationship between racism and the disdain for social programs, furthermore, expanded minority populations are likely going to take a bite out of fiscal conservatism.

Though with the concentration of conservative thoughts in older voters, the GOP's going to be moving leftward socially as well as economically. I wouldn't be surprised if foreign policy becomes one of the main divides between the parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk I feel like the younger generation is still pretty hard headed since they've been living under the old guard and thus, attached themselves more often than not to those ways of thinking. There are tons of young conservatives with values just as damaging as the older gen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Idk I feel like the younger generation is still pretty hard headed since they've been living under the old guard and thus, attached themselves more often than not to those ways of thinking. There are tons of young conservatives with values just as damaging as the older gen.

Yes, but they are smaller in number.

Short of widespread social trauma (e.g. the Great Depression), the overall trend of social change seems to be that a small group will be open to a different idea. These ideas get passed on to the next generation, where that generation's "new ideas" group also adopts it. Eventually, what was once a novel idea becomes very mainstream, as we've seen with gay marriage.

It's believed education has a role in it as well. More educated people tend to be more open to novel ideas. Unsurprisingly, they trend towards some degree of whatever classes as liberalism in their society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at the rate were going, and with education being such a problem for many, it's probably gonna be a while before that change and reform actually becomes noticeable in our society. And it seems lately, the loudest ones in our youth that are conservative still are the ones stuck in old traditional values. Not really seeing many new age young conservatives that are vocal about reform and change 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously justifying the actions being done? Being a shithead to a shithead doesn't exactly make things okay.(though I'm not even sure if the legitimacy of the site and its claims) It's called be the better person. There's no world or justification where stalking and threatening children not affiliated with the fathers issues is fucking okay. It's disgusting and not sound to send fucking threats no matter how crap the guy is. Especially when they're coming from trump extremists who already are pieces of shit.(extremists I need to elaborate) 

Anyway found this and can I just say lol the fucking hypocrisy and level of denial people have. Like, wow, yeah cause trump didn't literally recently announce that he finds his way around the law to avoid paying taxes. People actually using this to elevate trump are hi-lari-fucking-ous.

image.jpeg

There are people who just love to hate. These bunch of Trump haters will say anything but negative things about him forever. Even though he can (or had) apologize, they'll never forgive. And sadly, meanwhile overlooking Clinton's (and Bill's) work in the office which she had *actually* harmed our country. Trump speaks a lot of crap, that's politics. (Yes, I'm aware that I called Clinton a liar earlier...yeah, where have I been for the past 15 years?)

Do you think he can actually make Mexico build the wall? BS, that won't happen. And thanks to Congress, most of Trump's ideas probably not fly. All Trump did was talk. Clinton actually did (or supported) the actions, that were bad for our country.

Again, Clinton maybe the best qualified person to run as president because "experience", but IMO one of the worst politicians I've ever seen. Why? Because of her experience! If she didn't have any like Trump, I think she would have had a much better chance.

Here's the thing. We don't know what we are getting if one of them becomes president. People fear Trump = end of America. When they are forgetting Congress and Supreme Court, these would be large barriers for Trump to cross. Clinton backtracked about her homophobia, but is it just so she can win the gay voters? Again we don't know. Is there something else she's hiding?

This is why I'm so torn at the moment on what to do. I mean, I'm actually even leaning towards voting now since one of my close friends told me that, before women couldn't vote and our legends worked their socks off to get where we are. I seriously respect these legends, and I kinda need to show that.

===

You: What is this? Are you actually defending Trump?

It does seem like it, but what's the point of defending Clinton here in SSMB? Barely anyone is questioning Clinton.

You: Okay, WTF happened to you? You still hate Trump right?

I need to clear this up. I don't hate anybody. So when I said I hated Trump and Clinton, I mean I hate on what they are doing. I don't hate them as a person.

Also yesterday I did have an almost hour-long POTUS discussion with my friends, and Trump supporters did bring up some very good points (which I won't say here, because most of you aren't Christians and probably wouldn't understand where they are coming from, and don't want to turn to a religious debate.) while too Clinton supporters did bring up points up too, I mean her China speech about women was actually pretty good, for example.

Share this post


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

Well at the rate were going, and with education being such a problem for many, it's probably gonna be a while before that change and reform actually becomes noticeable in our society. And it seems lately, the loudest ones in our youth that are conservative still are the ones stuck in old traditional values. Not really seeing many new age young conservatives that are vocal about reform and change 

 

1 hour ago, Ming Ming Hatsune said:

Do you think he can actually make Mexico build the wall? BS, that won't happen. And thanks to Congress, most of Trump's ideas probably not fly. All Trump did was talk.

If we're going to start picking politicians on what they realistically could do, it'd be better to just not vote.

Whatever comes out of Congress is going to be an average of everyone who is there. If you want to push the overall policy a certain way, you want people with dreams, not people who say "I'll pass one or two things."

1 hour ago, Ming Ming Hatsune said:

 

Again, Clinton maybe the best qualified person to run as president because "experience", but IMO one of the worst politicians I've ever seen. Why? Because of her experience! If she didn't have any like Trump, I think she would have had a much better chance.

But she knows the game. That's one of the key things.

Trump "speaks his mind." This is fantastic until you realize he's going to be responsible for bridging divides in Congress and conversing with world leaders. What's more: the President represents us as a people. It's why a President's approval rating tends to spike in the aftermath of an assassination attempt, or when they are overseas.

Clinton's not perfect but I would sure as Hell find her more representative of me than a bigot like Trump.

Even if Trump's proposal to hand all power over to Pence is true, he's not planning to resign the position and he's not known for humility. What's to keep him from reversing course?

He is just bad news in every possible way. Clinton's only bad news in a few ways.

1 hour ago, Ming Ming Hatsune said:

Here's the thing. We don't know what we are getting if one of them becomes president. People fear Trump = end of America. When they are forgetting Congress and Supreme Court, these would be large barriers for Trump to cross.

And what else is being forgotten here is the fact the President has enormous executive power. For starters, he commands the military. Beyond that, he controls millions of civilian employees through the Departments and Agencies. And most of those Agencies? They have the power to pass laws of their own so long as they don't contradict Congress.

Most government employees will not make a principled stand against a rogue President Trump. These are the same people who very seldom entertain the idea that maybe we don't need their job, even though this costs the taxpayers money. They will fall in line behind him for the sake of job security, the same as most people in every walk of life do when their boss is nuts.

President Trump could tell the Justice Department to stop reviewing cases for Civil Rights violations. President Trump could direct federal funding into more weapons for the police instead of body cameras. President Trump could singlehandedly alter the federal funding for anything that isn't specified by Congress.

President Trump can also send the military anywhere he wants without Congress' permission. There's a law that he has to request permission after 60 days, but that has been regularly ignored by Presidents of both parties. Congress has never mustered the will to really contest it, hence why guys like Obama are in love with airstrikes; Congress doesn't restrict them.

We can't afford to have an idiot be President. Congress and the Supreme Court (which he could pack, by the way) aren't looking over his every move. He has the initiative on a lot of matters, and that's why we need someone careful and calculating in the Oval Office.

1 hour ago, Ming Ming Hatsune said:

This is why I'm so torn at the moment on what to do. I mean, I'm actually even leaning towards voting now since one of my close friends told me that, before women couldn't vote and our legends worked their socks off to get where we are. I seriously respect these legends, and I kinda need to show that.

That can be said of anyone who isn't a super rich white man. Everyone should absolutely vote to try and influence society towards the most positive overall direction.

When you don't vote, you become complicit in the aftermath, since you did nothing to prevent the outcome. If you saw two people fighting in an alleyway, and kept on walking (not calling the police or intervening), the final result is now partially your fault, since you opted to do nothing when you had the power to do something.

1 hour ago, Ming Ming Hatsune said:

It does seem like it, but what's the point of defending Clinton here in SSMB? Barely anyone is questioning Clinton.

We're all fairly well aware of Clinton's faults from what we've seen. Trump's vastly eclipse hers.

Yes, Clinton is shady and her allies have shown some shady tactics. But she's not getting support because she's honest, so much as she's not proposing dialing the clock back on decades of social progress.

1 hour ago, Ming Ming Hatsune said:

Also yesterday I did have an almost hour-long POTUS discussion with my friends, and Trump supporters did bring up some very good points (which I won't say here, because most of you aren't Christians and probably wouldn't understand where they are coming from, and don't want to turn to a religious debate.) while too Clinton supporters did bring up points up too, I mean her China speech about women was actually pretty good, for example.

I have quite the interest in theology and can understand Christian arguments despite a lack of Christian belief.

By all means, you should present their "good points." I'm willing to wager they're at odds with rational analysis, or even the Bible itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a Christian and probably still wouldn't agree with whatever your friends said.

Well, yeah. That's normal. I mean at the end of it, the Clinton supporters that were there are still Clinton supporters. Vice versa. You won't simply change your vote because of what the opposition had said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ming Ming Hatsune said:

Well, yeah. That's normal. I mean at the end of it, the Clinton supporters that were there are still Clinton supporters. Vice versa. You won't simply change your vote because of what the opposition had said.

You will if you have an open mind and the opposition has a good argument.

Not changing your opinion doesn't mean you're closeminded, either. It might just be that the other side simply had a bad argument.

Which, I'm going full on partisan, I notice happens a lot more with conservative opinions than liberal ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Swallow said:

Of course not, that's terrible, I brought that up not to defend the Trump supporters, but because Kurt was brought up and called brave, and a hero, and he's not, he's a very bad guy. But again, I think that Trump supporter, and any one else doing those kinds of things, are absolutely awful.

Okay, I didn't know about that. And the source you linked seems reliable enough.

However, I don't really appreciate that being the thing that gets the most attention from you. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but it comes off like you're justifying the supporters actions with an ad hominem attack, or at the very least glossing them over-- especially since people who don't have a history like him have been treated the same way.

Sorry, I should have used an article written by a better example of a man. But in most ways, my point still stands.

Quote

You will if you have an open mind and the opposition has a good argument.

I am seconding this. It can seem like people are set in their ways, especially as the election draws near and people make their decisions. But its not impossible to change minds, especially now with all this stuff coming out about both candidates (the sexual assault condoning has seriously disgusted the Republicans that used to back Trump, the emails and information therein have damaged Hillary's credibility in the eyes of the general public). Heck, if Trump or any one of his supporters come up with an idea that's good or did something good, I'd give credit where its due, and I'm sure the others here would too (unless they had reason to dislike it, of course).

Its also true that some people are set in their ways and won't ever change. But that's not the majority. Most people can change their viewpoints-- they just need to be properly motivated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being that WikiLeaks is now a front for Putin's machinations, some of the content of its latest leak has been doctored:

Quote

At the end of her show, [Megyn Kelly] read this statement.

"Team Clinton strongly denies that she called anyone a bucket of losers. That was apparently a doctored quote and not real. We apologize for that error."

As well you should. Any journalist worth their salt would have at least qualified it before quoting it, but it's just so blatantly fake. "Basket of deplorables" is not the same as "bucket of losers" and the yokel who tried to make it look legit is an idiot.

Here is your reminder that the WikiLeaks documents are not trustworthy, nor are they to be considered legit.

And if you need more, simply rewind the video to the last 20 seconds where Megyn Kelly apologizes on-air for reading BS crafted by stupid hackers or Putiin's propagandists. Take your pick.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/megyn-kelly-forced-apologize-air-reading

The rest of the leaked content didn't seem to be that big a deal. We all know that there are lots of behind the scenes discussions and e-mail conversations about policies, when to do x or y, what to say in response to questioning, etc. It's just how politics is done across the board - rough-hewn private views being massaged into acceptable public policy, that sort of thing.

That representatives from various parties don't feel that they can have adult discussions in public about some policy positions (e.g. the corporate tax rate) is a great shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love the "Make America Great Again" mantra when it's becoming apparently very rapidly that Russia's got a clear interest in the election.

Now sure, every foreign government has a little something at stake in the Presidential election. But they usually don't get involved like Russia's clearly doing.

The fact two authoritarian leaders want Trump in charge really should say it all. Trump isn't going to be a strong leader.

Consider this. George W. Bush had his shortcomings, but he still had some pretty capable people working under him that kept him from running the country completely off a cliff. Plus there's the fact that Bush most likely recognized his shortcomings (Dick Cheney may be a douchebag of the highest order but it's hard to deny he's fairly intelligent); this is a good trait for a leader to have. Trump's been pretty adamant that he wants to run the country like a boss and not the first among equals. Even if he legitimately just gives Pence the acting Presidency, it speaks volumes that he wouldn't just resign. The moment he thought Pence was doing something stupid, he would reassert his position.

Share this post


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

If we're going to start picking politicians on what they realistically could do, it'd be better to just not vote.

Then for those who have been voting, why have they been voting if they know this guy is lying through his teeth? Do they treat politics as sports? "I'm a diehard blue!" "Red will always be in my blood". (Scratch that actually, because there ARE people who do that).

2 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Whatever comes out of Congress is going to be an average of everyone who is there. If you want to push the overall policy a certain way, you want people with dreams, not people who say "I'll pass one or two things."

I guess, but right now we got to deal with what we got. It's not like both candidates are going to change that anyway.

2 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

But she knows the game. That's one of the key things.

Trump "speaks his mind." This is fantastic until you realize he's going to be responsible for bridging divides in Congress and conversing with world leaders. What's more: the President represents us as a people. It's why a President's approval rating tends to spike in the aftermath of an assassination attempt, or when they are overseas.

Clinton's not perfect but I would sure as Hell find her more representative of me than a bigot like Trump.

Even if Trump's proposal to hand all power over to Pence is true, he's not planning to resign the position and he's not known for humility. What's to keep him from reversing course?

He is just bad news in every possible way. Clinton's only bad news in a few ways.

Yes she knows the game, I'm not arguing that. But when she was knowing her game, did she do alright? That's where it varies. As I said, she actually did things that harmed our country, and you can't exactly say that for Trump. Can Trump harm our country and dig it further to the ground? Yes, but so can Clinton. We don't know what the future entails, so when people say "Trump's gonna kill us all!!" it's their assumption.

Our next president represents us, and I agree that is important. Do I think Trump will be responsible? Maybe, he has shown calmness multiple times during speeches and not shout crazy things like a lunatic. But is he more responsible than Clinton? No, from what I've seen so far IMO. But sadly, everyone has an opinion and it's gonna be different from person to person.  

We all can safely say Trump is a bigot, because he is so open to what he thinks. That's what people like about him. But how do you know Clinton's a bigot? As I said, she was homophobic but because she's planning to run for president she had to backtrack on what she said. She may very well still be homophobic, but is now sensible to keep that to herself.

Do I also trust that Trump would give Pence the power? Yes, worst case scenario he won't. But will he? Personally I think he would. Because he is so open to what he thinks. You know he is strongly against immigrants. You know he's a bigot. You know how he wants that wall built up. If he wants something done, you know he will at least try to get it done. The Mexico wall thing, he will try and get it done. Will he succeed is a complete different story. Of course, you will have a different opinion and say he probably won't, and that's fine! This is politics after all.

Bad news in every way is over the top. You mean most. Unless you like having immigrants living in our country and literally disagree on everything Trump has said. Personally, yes I do agree that something has to be done about the immigrants.

2 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

And what else is being forgotten here is the fact the President has enormous executive power. For starters, he commands the military. Beyond that, he controls millions of civilian employees through the Departments and Agencies. And most of those Agencies? They have the power to pass laws of their own so long as they don't contradict Congress.

Most government employees will not make a principled stand against a rogue President Trump. These are the same people who very seldom entertain the idea that maybe we don't need their job, even though this costs the taxpayers money. They will fall in line behind him for the sake of job security, the same as most people in every walk of life do when their boss is nuts.

President Trump could tell the Justice Department to stop reviewing cases for Civil Rights violations. President Trump could direct federal funding into more weapons for the police instead of body cameras. President Trump could singlehandedly alter the federal funding for anything that isn't specified by Congress.

President Trump can also send the military anywhere he wants without Congress' permission. There's a law that he has to request permission after 60 days, but that has been regularly ignored by Presidents of both parties. Congress has never mustered the will to really contest it, hence why guys like Obama are in love with airstrikes; Congress doesn't restrict them.

We can't afford to have an idiot be President. Congress and the Supreme Court (which he could pack, by the way) aren't looking over his every move. He has the initiative on a lot of matters, and that's why we need someone careful and calculating in the Oval Office.

If I disagree with my boss so bad on many many things, I'll leave personally. It's not worth the torture. You're suppose to love your job, not hate it. I'm sure they wouldn't just fall in line with Trump if he what he wants to do is beyond crazy. If they decide to walk with Trump, they are preventing the crazy outcome.

But yeah, apart from that I have no comment to what you said up there...he can do those things which would be beyond catastrophic for our nation. And because you know how he is, yeah he maybe able to do those things. That's pretty scary. I'll need to read up more on this to see if what you said is actually true so I can bring this up with my friends. I mean, if it IS true, then that 90% will become 100% for me not voting Trump if I vote.

2 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

That can be said of anyone who isn't a super rich white man. Everyone should absolutely vote to try and influence society towards the most positive overall direction.

When you don't vote, you become complicit in the aftermath, since you did nothing to prevent the outcome. If you saw two people fighting in an alleyway, and kept on walking (not calling the police or intervening), the final result is now partially your fault, since you opted to do nothing when you had the power to do something.

That's a pretty good analogy. This whole thing is killing me because I don't want to vote, but more and more good arguments come up forcing me to vote.

2 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

 

I have quite the interest in theology and can understand Christian arguments despite a lack of Christian belief.

By all means, you should present their "good points." I'm willing to wager they're at odds with rational analysis, or even the Bible itself.

I have no problems discussing Christian arguments with you or any other Christian brothers and sisters in SSMB. That's not the point. It's the others who would come to this thread and bring the usual "You should separate politics and religion!", "The Bible's a made-up book!" "God isn't real" comments that I don't want to see again.

2 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

You will if you have an open mind and the opposition has a good argument.

Not changing your opinion doesn't mean you're closeminded, either. It might just be that the other side simply had a bad argument.

Which, I'm going full on partisan, I notice happens a lot more with conservative opinions than liberal ones.

That is true, I'm a perfect example of that. Two weeks ago, I was firm on not voting but day by day I'm getting less firm because good arguments like Women's rights to voting etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ming Ming Hatsune said:

Then for those who have been voting, why have they been voting if they know this guy is lying through his teeth? Do they treat politics as sports? "I'm a diehard blue!" "Red will always be in my blood". (Scratch that actually, because there ARE people who do that).

Politics is all about strategy. You seek to maximize your gains and minimize your loss. Voting major party is the best way to do this under our current system.

Quote

I Yes she knows the game, I'm not arguing that. But when she was knowing her game, did she do alright? That's where it varies. As I said, she actually did things that harmed our country, and you can't exactly say that for Trump. Can Trump harm our country and dig it further to the ground? Yes, but so can Clinton. We don't know what the future entails, so when people say "Trump's gonna kill us all!!" it's their assumption.

What were these things?

Chances are nothing that big, and in a lot of cases (like supporting the Iraq War in Congress), nothing Trump wouldn't have done as well.

Quote

We all can safely say Trump is a bigot, because he is so open to what he thinks. That's what people like about him.

Those people are awful. Speaking your mind should only be appreciated if you have something worthwhile to say, rather than ignorant rhetoric.

Quote

But how do you know Clinton's a bigot? As I said, she was homophobic but because she's planning to run for president she had to backtrack on what she said. She may very well still be homophobic, but is now sensible to keep that to herself.

I don't care what goes on in her head, just what comes out of her mouth and what she signs.

The President of Portugal was against gay marriage, but he signed the bill into law when he saw the Portuguese people were in favor. So long as Clinton serves the public good I don't care what she thinks personally.

Quote

Bad news in every way is over the top. You mean most. Unless you like having immigrants living in our country and literally disagree on everything Trump has said. Personally, yes I do agree that something has to be done about the immigrants.

Funny story, there. The last time we tried to do something about illegal entry, we actually made the problem worse, because we made it more lucrative to stay here.

Trump's way of doing things will probably not help any. Building a wall? Fantastic. You just told everyone who wants to get here to do it now, or pay a little extra to get some demolitions experts involved (unless one plans on the insane expense of monitoring the whole wall).

One has to remember. Cartels have been around for decades because they know how to get anything from point A to point B. The same routes they use to smuggle drugs, they can smuggle people through. Building a wall will just make them change things around a little.

If one really wants to solve undocumented entry, a much wiser idea would be to promote economic development in Mexico and other major sources of undocumented migrants, while also making entry and exit easier. Yes, you read that right: a way to reduce the presence of undocumented people would simply be to let them come and go freely. A lot of them do not want to stay here, and only started doing so because it became expensive and dangerous to enter due to increased border security.

People like Trump are wrong. Most people who come here illegally aren't doing it to commit crimes and then scurry back across the border (not that legal status makes a difference to destructive behavior: as I recall Americans are infamous for tearing things up with parties in Tijuana). They're coming because there is economic opportunity. We have always had people crossing the border since it was drawn in 1848, coming and going with seasonal labor. Loosening the rules for entry will not create a huge population squatting to collect benefits; it would cause some people to leave if anything, because now they can count on getting back in with little trouble.

Quote

If I disagree with my boss so bad on many many things, I'll leave personally. It's not worth the torture. You're suppose to love your job, not hate it. I'm sure they wouldn't just fall in line with Trump if he what he wants to do is beyond crazy. If they decide to walk with Trump, they are preventing the crazy outcome.

Chances are they won't. They took the positions for a steady income, not to be demonstrators. Every time talk of cutting federal jobs comes up, pretty much every federal employee fights tooth and nail to justify their position's existence. Like most people, they're primarily looking out for themselves.

Quote

That's pretty scary. I'll need to read up more on this to see if what you said is actually true so I can bring this up with my friends. I mean, if it IS true, then that 90% will become 100% for me not voting Trump if I vote.

It is. The reason Obama's made such frequent use of executive orders is to try and direct policy through his agencies, because Congress hasn't really been doing much with him.

A good example is how he unilaterally required background checks for used firearms. It was in his power to do this because Congress previously authorized federal authorities to pass firearm regulations. Then you have the time he allocated federal funding for police forces to include body cameras. There's numerous examples.

Quote

I have no problems discussing Christian arguments with you or any other Christian brothers and sisters in SSMB. That's not the point. It's the others who would come to this thread and bring the usual "You should separate politics and religion!"

I frankly think we've created a false dichotomy between the two. We can support separation of church and state as a legal policy, but the fact is politics and religion frequently bleed into each other, especially in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Politics is all about strategy. You seek to maximize your gains and minimize your loss. Voting major party is the best way to do this under our current system.

But what if for example one candidate ticks most boxes for you, but has two dealbreakers then what? (Oh and the other only ticks some).

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

What were these things?

Chances are nothing that big, and in a lot of cases (like supporting the Iraq War in Congress), nothing Trump wouldn't have done as well.

I apologize, I meant she and her husband. And trust me, her husband will make a huge influence on some of (if not all) her decisions.

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Those people are awful. Speaking your mind should only be appreciated if you have something worthwhile to say, rather than ignorant rhetoric.

Agreed. You should always keep bad thoughts to yourself. But at the same time, it just shows some honesty. It's better than being two-faced. You say something, you do the opposite. That's worse. And there's nothing stopping me from thinking Clinton can do this. 

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

I don't care what goes on in her head, just what comes out of her mouth and what she signs.

The President of Portugal was against gay marriage, but he signed the bill into law when he saw the Portuguese people were in favor. So long as Clinton serves the public good I don't care what she thinks personally.

And what makes you think she will serve the public good? This isn't a guarantee, that's what I'm saying. That's why I don't like people who keep things quiet. 

I actually forgot Cavaco (the ex-president) doing that considering I'm Portuguese. And that was even brought up yesterday in the discussion by the Trump supporters. What if Trump did exactly the same as Cavaco? Cavaco didn't keep that opinion to himself, just like Trump.

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Funny story, there. The last time we tried to do something about illegal entry, we actually made the problem worse, because we made it more lucrative to stay here.

Trump's way of doing things will probably not help any. Building a wall? Fantastic. You just told everyone who wants to get here to do it now, or pay a little extra to get some demolitions experts involved (unless one plans on the insane expense of monitoring the whole wall).

One has to remember. The cartels are some of the most crafty people imaginable. The same routes they use to smuggle drugs, they can smuggle people through. Building a wall will just make them change things around a little.

If one really wants to solve undocumented entry, a much wiser idea would be to promote economic development in Mexico and other major sources of undocumented migrants, while also making entry and exit easier. Yes, you read that right: a way to reduce the presence of undocumented people would simply be to let them come and go freely. A lot of them do not want to stay here, and only started doing so because it became expensive and dangerous to enter due to increased border security.

I'm pretty sure Trump will do something about the immigrants, but I'm telling you right now: That wall will not be built by the Mexicans. It's a flat out lie. If that wall ever gets built up, it's because we used our money and resources.

I agree there will be ways to get around the wall IF somehow that wall gets built. But it's an additional barrier for the Mexicans to go through. It will be harder to breach then it is now. It will probably need to be monitored regularly as you said, but that doesn't change the fact that it will be harder to breach than now.

Can I ask? How can you assume that most Mexicans don't want to stay in the US? You are most likely to have a better lifestyle in America, then you will have in Mexico at this present time. I mean, why do they come here in the first place? They want jobs so they can earn money. You'll have better opportunities to get a job in America than in Mexico. Until Mexico's development gets stronger and stronger to a point good jobs are in Mexico, this is going to keep happening.

And the dead end is, how can Mexico grow?

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Chances are they won't. They took the positions for a steady income, not to be demonstrators. Every time talk of cutting federal jobs comes up, pretty much every federal employee fights tooth and nail to justify their position's existence. Like most people, they're primarily looking out for themselves.

That's a shame. Cowardly behavior. But maybe I need to be in their position before I can say something like that. After all, losing a well paid job could make your life disastrous if you don't find another ASAP.

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

It is. The reason Obama's made such frequent use of executive orders is to try and direct policy through his agencies, because Congress hasn't really been doing much with him.

A good example is how he unilaterally required background checks for used firearms. It was in his power to do this because Congress previously authorized federal authorities to pass firearm regulations. Then you have the time he allocated federal funding for police forces to include body cameras. There's numerous examples.

Could Congress change their tune towards Trump if he gets elected though? Are they really that useless?

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

I frankly think we've created a false dichotomy between the two. We can support separation of church and state as a legal policy, but the fact is politics and religion frequently bleed into each other, especially in America.

Even if that is a false dichotomy, that still doesn't change the fact that there are some who hate religion, and shouldn't go near politics even if they do bleed. And trust me, when we start having Christian discussions here it will annoy one or two people and may present those comments. It's not worth it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mad Convoy said:

Okay, I didn't know about that. And the source you linked seems reliable enough.

However, I don't really appreciate that being the thing that gets the most attention from you. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but it comes off like you're justifying the supporters actions with an ad hominem attack, or at the very least glossing them over-- especially since people who don't have a history like him have been treated the same way.

I should've made my intention more clear, I apoligize.

4 hours ago, Patticus said:

Being that WikiLeaks is now a front for Putin's machinations, some of the content of its latest leak has been doctored:

There is absolutely no proof that Putin has any involvement with WikiLeaks. And the bucket of losers transcript came from some Rightwing news site, Real True News, not from wikileaks.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are people who just love to hate. These bunch of Trump haters will say anything but negative things about him forever. Even though he can (or had) apologize, they'll never forgive. And sadly, meanwhile overlooking Clinton's (and Bill's) work in the office which she had *actually* harmed our country. Trump speaks a lot of crap, that's politics. (Yes, I'm aware that I called Clinton a liar earlier...yeah, where have I been for the past 15 years?)

 

 

 

Do you think he can actually make Mexico build the wall? BS, that won't happen. And thanks to Congress, most of Trump's ideas probably not fly. All Trump did was talk. Clinton actually did (or supported) the actions, that were bad for our country.

 

 

 

Again, Clinton maybe the best qualified person to run as president because "experience", but IMO one of the worst politicians I've ever seen. Why? Because of her experience! If she didn't have any like Trump, I think she would have had a much better chance.

 

 

 

Here's the thing. We don't know what we are getting if one of them becomes president. People fear Trump = end of America. When they are forgetting Congress and Supreme Court, these would be large barriers for Trump to cross. Clinton backtracked about her homophobia, but is it just so she can win the gay voters? Again we don't know. Is there something else she's hiding?

 

 

 

This is why I'm so torn at the moment on what to do. I mean, I'm actually even leaning towards voting now since one of my close friends told me that, before women couldn't vote and our legends worked their socks off to get where we are. I seriously respect these legends, and I kinda need to show that.

 

 

 

===

 

 

 

You: What is this? Are you actually defending Trump?

 

 

 

It does seem like it, but what's the point of defending Clinton here in SSMB? Barely anyone is questioning Clinton.

 

 

 

You: Okay, WTF happened to you? You still hate Trump right?

 

 

 

I need to clear this up. I don't hate anybody. So when I said I hated Trump and Clinton, I mean I hate on what they are doing. I don't hate them as a person.

 

 

 

Also yesterday I did have an almost hour-long POTUS discussion with my friends, and Trump supporters did bring up some very good points (which I won't say here, because most of you aren't Christians and probably wouldn't understand where they are coming from, and don't want to turn to a religious debate.) while too Clinton supporters did bring up points up too, I mean her China speech about women was actually pretty good, for example.

I'll stop being a "hater(lol)" when trump actually stops being a ass. You act like we "hate" on trump for no reason like he's some helpless kid that did nothing wrong. Which isn't really the case. I'm not going to hope and bet on what ifs and he coulds, when his realistic policies regarding taxes, racial issues, and other social issues are still shit. Hilary isn't perfect, but she has more promised that will help more people in the long run, and hasn't had countless leaked things that make her massively less credible and flat out unpresidential.(being in a porno, touching women is okay when your famous,etc.) like Ogi has said, I don't care if Hilary potentially still has homophobic ideals, she knows not to say them and that it's not gonna win the audience she wants.  Trump has gone for the conservative white vote and much of his promises, even if not "realistic" are still aimed to please that group. I highly doubt upon being president, he'll suddenly shift to appealing the sensible people.

 

And it's funny you brought up the apology. It didn't even come off genuine. He isn't actually going out to do something. All he said was "sorry". Like how a kid begrudgingly apologized for getting caught doing something shit. Or how a big time company "apologizes" for some scummy thing to try and sound like they actually care. I'm not going to blindly eat up a apology that doesn't actually have anything to support it. And the idea he'll stop altogether doing those things warrants time, not again blind acceptance.

Also I find it incredibly hilarious how when trump does a basic sorry people expect us to take it and move on, but when Hilary apologizes and actually goes to show support and other ways to prove the apology, people still hold her past to her. Funny 

 

Share this post


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

But what if for example one candidate ticks most boxes for you, but has two dealbreakers then what? (Oh and the other only ticks some).

Make the strategic decision. Which one is the least damaging?

Quote

I apologize, I meant she and her husband. And trust me, her husband will make a huge influence on some of (if not all) her decisions.

Frankly, if you ask most Americans, they probably won't mind that. Bill remains one of our most popular Presidents.

Quote

And there's nothing stopping me from thinking Clinton can do this. 

Nothing to stop 99% of politicians from doing it, either. Every single one of them is documented as lying and deceiving at some point.

Quote

And what makes you think she will serve the public good? This isn't a guarantee, that's what I'm saying. That's why I don't like people who keep things quiet. 

Her policies.

If I wanted guarantees a President would do something, I'd never have reason to vote. I have to pick the President who promises the most of what I want, and if they fail to deliver, I don't turn out for them next time around.

I've mentioned time and time again that Sanders could use his success to build a powerful progressive wing of the Democratic Party. He could make or break Democratic Presidents if he was willing to throw an election to the GOP when more conservative Democrats misbehave.

Quote

I actually forgot Cavaco (the ex-president) doing that considering I'm Portuguese. And that was even brought up yesterday in the discussion by the Trump supporters. What if Trump did exactly the same as Cavaco? Cavaco didn't keep that opinion to himself, just like Trump.

If Trump is elected, we're going to have a party in power that embraces conversion therapy and repealing gay marriage on its platform. It's not going to happen.

Quote

I'm pretty sure Trump will do something about the immigrants, but I'm telling you right now: That wall will not be built by the Mexicans. It's a flat out lie. If that wall ever gets built up, it's because we used our money and resources.

He's going to do what pretty much every President does: stay the course and have Border Patrol play cat and mouse with those entering illegally. If they get caught, they try again later. More than a few agents have said that border security is almost like a game, separated from being one solely because sometimes it's lethal for those involved.

Quote

I agree there will be ways to get around the wall IF somehow that wall gets built. But it's an additional barrier for the Mexicans to go through. It will be harder to breach then it is now. It will probably need to be monitored regularly as you said, but that doesn't change the fact that it will be harder to breach than now.

The moment the wall gets approved is the moment the Cartels start digging tunnels. Trust me, it's not going to be that much of an obstacle. The Cartels have submarines already.

Quote

Can I ask? How can you assume that most Mexicans don't want to stay in the US?

Because that's always been the trend historically. The Chinese laborers were the same way.

Quote

You are most likely to have a better lifestyle in America, then you will have in Mexico at this present time.

I hear Mexico's actually calmed down a bit ever since the new President abandoned that dipshit Calderon's aggressive anti-drug policies.

I have friends in Mexico. Despite the problems, they're not in a hurry to leave. It's not some third world war zone, even with the drug violence.

Quote

I mean, why do they come here in the first place? They want jobs so they can earn money. You'll have better opportunities to get a job in America than in Mexico. Until Mexico's development gets stronger and stronger to a point good jobs are in Mexico, this is going to keep happening.

Mexico is still the home of many people. They're not going to leave for America just because it's "better." Plus your mileage varies... while America might have a better job market, we also don't have shit for social services. Mexico, by contrast, has free tuition and healthcare. They come here to take advantage of the lucrative exchange rate, not because we're just that awesome. Most of them would opt to stay in Mexico if the currencies were equal.

Quote

And the dead end is, how can Mexico grow?

Businessmen and politicians who don't cut corners. This is why we'd need a crapload of oversight from Americans on any development program.

This would be a problem given Mexico is insanely nationalistic. They insist on Mexico fixing its own problems, for better or worse, which ties our hands.

Though, let's be fair. If you're in a largely non-white society, the words "we're here to help" from a white society are some of the most terrifying ones you can hear.

Quote

Could Congress change their tune towards Trump if he gets elected though? Are they really that useless?

They absolutely could. It's historically unprecedented, though. Plus unseating any President runs the risk of angering the electorate who put them in office, which explains why impeachment tends to happen when the opposite Party is in power. Republicans probably didn't care too much about angering Democrats while trying to impeach Bill.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Swallow said:

There is absolutely no proof that Putin has any involvement with WikiLeaks. And the bucket of losers transcript came from some Rightwing news site, Real True News, not from wikileaks.

My bad! It just seems to be getting lumped in with all the other leak reporting.

And WikiLeaks is working if not for Russia, then on its behalf, because the only country that benefits from a Trump presidency is Russia, and Putin knows it - hence his overtures (there's no better way to win over a chronic narcissist than with compliments), and the repeated DNC hacks. Trump has business ties in the country, and has bragged about his personal relationship with Putin, and WikiLeaks has barely targeted Trump at all, which makes it look overtly pro-Russia in its stance.

There's no reason presently to believe that Julian Assange is anything more than a puppet of Putin these days - he hasn't even tried to take aim at Trump. He says he'll release some stuff on him in the coming weeks to prove his independence, but let's be honest, it'll be nothing near as much or as serious as what he'll be leaking on Clinton.

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.