U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

12 minutes ago, krbe said:

A female attorney doing her bloody job? Dear God, that's not really permissible, is it now?

They should all get disbarred and sent home to the kitchen counter. And stay away from that Oval Office; presidency is not square enough for a woman to handle.

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

5 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

True, not fair of me to indict all Liberals. But I suspect that even the Sanders supporters will be forced to abandon their principles on this issue and vote for her else The God Emperor will be president. (lol too many Trump memes).

The God Emperor has much better hair than Trump does (unless you weren't referring to WH40k). Anyways, if you have a choice between two real candidates, then voting for the one you consider the least worse is a viable voting strategy. You could of course stamp your feet and not vote at all out of 'principle', but that just might give the one you absolutely dislike a bigger lead. And then what, you stood up for your principles and you ended up with Trump as president? 

5 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Could you give me an example of such a Republican? (Not that I doubt they exist, but I'm wondering if you have a specific person in mind)

You yourself have defended Trump saying stuff that was blatantly misogynistic arguing that it really wasn't. Technically you could qualify for such a person, at least in the mind of many liberals/democrats. Another example that comes to mind is Newt Gingrich, who bailed on his sick wife to mess around with other women and then had the guts to try and impeach Clinton for messing around with a secretary. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

The God Emperor has much better hair than Trump does (unless you weren't referring to WH40k).

lol, didn't know "God Emperor" comes from WH40k.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Anyways, if you have a choice between two real candidates, then voting for the one you consider the least worse is a viable voting strategy. You could of course stamp your feet and not vote at all out of 'principle', but that just might give the one you absolutely dislike a bigger lead. And then what, you stood up for your principles and you ended up with Trump as president? 

It's a fair justification I guess.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

You yourself have defended Trump saying stuff that was blatantly misogynistic arguing that it really wasn't. Technically you could qualify for such a person, at least in the mind of many liberals/democrats.

You think what he said is misogynistic, I beg to differ, but that's not what we're talking about.

I'm asking if you know of a Republican who has gotten a free pass on the national stage despite having a string of allegations of sexual misconduct like Bill Clinton. Maybe you could point to someone like Dennis Hastert, but I strongly suspect that had he run for President, he wouldn't have gotten a free pass. Also, I don't know if he got a free pass as much as most people didn't know about his history until recently. I don't know if his victims ever went public, and it's not like he was ever popular.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Another example that comes to mind is Newt Gingrich, who bailed on his sick wife to mess around with other women and then had the guts to try and impeach Clinton for messing around with a secretary. 

Yeah, but it's not like Gingrich has a Cosby-esque string of mistresses who've accused him of harassment and even rape. He's a sleazy guy, that's for sure.

Clinton wasn't impeached for messing around with an intern. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice because he lied under oath. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Remember that?

[igotthis 12]

On 5/7/2016 at 8:06 AM, MilitantRadical said:

Well I'm not the Republican establishment. And plz. The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in congress and the senate are corporate puppets.

Is that a bad thing?

Durh, you should just know more. If you watch the News or paid more attention you'd know what I'm talking about. What was it you said? Oh yeah: " you need to pay attention to politics if you are going to post on a politics thread". (I'm still a bit butthurt over that comment)

The source of the claim doesn't invalidate the information either. It's ignorant discount it because it's from a conservative source. By that reasoning Liberal sources are just as tainted, only they're more likely to support what you believe. Can't you see you've constructed an echo chamber around yourself?

The CNN piece spins it to make it look like no big deal, but just imagine if this was Trump for a second. You'd never give him the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/hillary_clinton_defended_an_alleged_rapists_feminist_lawyers_are_right_to.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/12/bill_clinton_s_sexual_past_can_still_hurt_hillary.html

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2016/01/19/what-liberal-media-wont-tell-you-hillary-bullied-bills-victims

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/?page=all

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick

And one from breitbart just to piss you off.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/31/rap-sheet-the-women-who-claim-to-be-victims-of-bill-and-hillary-clinton/

If Bill Clinton was a Republican he would never have gotten away with all this sexual misconduct. But since Liberals have double-standards, he isn't at all labeled a misogynist, even though he has a long track record of using his positions of power to prey on women.

Oh and lets not forget Bill's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein...

It seems much harder to reply to things now from when I was here before. So many comments, with no known way (for me) to reply comment by comment.

Yes, both parties are puppets, getting corporate money and SuperPACs to fund their campaigns (thanks for Citizen's United, SCOTUS, you buggers). This is why I am a Bernie voter. I will still vote Blue, no matter who.

As to Trump funding his campaign by getting money from his companies and then getting donations to pay it back - yeah, it is underhanded, just like him.

I think it was LexusInfernus that mentioned not all Liberals are comfortable with the Clintons. This is true because I am one of them. I don't really like the whole situation. I have to vote for her, though (she will get the nomination) because I simply cannot have a Republican in office. Especially a racist, misogynistic, flippy-floppy, insulting bully in office.

As to "the claim"... of course the source makes a difference. That is why I don't bother with either Republican or Democratic stations, for the most part. All should be taken with a grain of salt and international news is better because they tend to be more objective. Realize that Trump gets something like an hour and a hlf of coverage from media compared to about 30 seconds for Bernie. It doesn't matter if one thinks the media is right or left. Everyone should just recognize that they are all about ratings. They don't do news anymore unless they think it will get more viewership. It is ridiculous.

IGT

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

21 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

lol, didn't know "God Emperor" comes from WH40k.

Well its not like Games Workshop invented the idea. But a lot of the God Emperor jokes on the internet do seem to go back to WH40k.  

21 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Clinton wasn't impeached for messing around with an intern. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice because he lied under oath. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Remember that?

Well they tried, they didn't succeed. The point was that they made a big deal out of Clinton messing around with his secretary, but ignored Gingrich. There weren't any hearings on him leaving his wife now where there? He never got to the point of maybe lying under oath because his own party didn't think it was worth starting a spectacle over. 

But okay, you want another example, Josh Duggar. Assaulted his sisters, cheated on his wife and still plenty of Duggar fans are 'praying for Josh' or just outright denying that any of it was his fault. Then the guy can say hes 'addicted to porn' has 'demons inside him', apologizes to everyone and move to the background for a bit, supposedly to pray the sinner right out of him, until people have forgotten about it enough so that he can come back to spout his family values stuff again. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Well he was impeached by the House of Representatives.

You seem to make it sound like it's not a big deal that he made Lewinsky, his intern (she was an intern), give him a blow job in the oval office.

Leaving your wife and getting a blow job from a female co-worker, or intern in this case, in your office are two different things. One thing, Gingrich's, is in his private life.What Clinton did was highly inappropriate for a work environment. Wouldn't you agree? How, as a feminist, do you square that circle? I mean, it's the epitome of chauvinism. Isn't it?

Heck, at least Gingrich left his wife when he wasn't in love with her anymore.

This kind of thing is a pattern with Bill Clinton. (I think Gingrich has been married like 3 times, but that is nowhere near Clinton. Also, getting remarried is different than cheating on your wife by sexually assaulting women)

And the real problem isn't with Bill now, it's with Hillary, who used her voice to discredit the people who spoke out against him. We're not talking about just a handful of women either. What kind of self-proclaimed feminist could stay with a man like this?

 

I know, it's a meme from a conservative source, but I already provided links that talk about these allegations. And hey, they may be just that. But if you think Cosby is guilty, then you should apply that same standard to Clinton.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

He never got to the point of maybe lying under oath because his own party didn't think it was worth starting a spectacle over. 

This is a confusing statement. What? He did lie under oath. Are you saying that didn't happen or are you talking about something else?

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

But okay, you want another example, Josh Duggar. Assaulted his sisters, cheated on his wife and still plenty of Duggar fans are 'praying for Josh' or just outright denying that any of it was his fault.

Who, a minority of fans? Can you get a metric on that? When I heard of this Duggar thing I was like: "who?"

I mean, I guess some people who were fans tried to justify it or excuse it. However, I would argue that the Christian principle of forgiveness and salvation is more in line with how people reacted to the Duggar case than how feminist typically act around people who are accused of sexual assault and rape. But I get your point, which I think is that fans will go out of their way to make excuses no matter what side of the political spectrum they're on.

4 hours ago, igotthis said:

I think it was LexusInfernus that mentioned not all Liberals are comfortable with the Clintons. This is true because I am one of them. I don't really like the whole situation. I have to vote for her, though (she will get the nomination) because I simply cannot have a Republican in office. Especially a racist, misogynistic, flippy-floppy, insulting bully in office.

I was just contesting your claim that Hillary is actually a feminist. Also pointing to the fact that when it comes to actual misogyny, not just saying mean things, the Clinton's hands are way dirtier than Trump's.

If Trump is a misogynist, then Clinton is a rapist, and by voting for Hillary, you are putting a rapist back in the White House and his wife who protect him.

4 hours ago, igotthis said:

As to "the claim"... of course the source makes a difference.

The veracity of the information is most important, not the source. Yes, the source may skew any information, so of course you have to adjust your view to look out for bias, but attacking the source is just an ad-hominem.

4 hours ago, igotthis said:

All should be taken with a grain of salt and international news is better because they tend to be more objective.

Says the person who said this: "Not to sound too negative, but I think that anyone outside the US posting about candidates have no real clue about America's politics because it is not anything like Europe or Asia, or even Canada & Mexico, for that matter."

International News is just as bias, they just pretend to be "objective". From what I've noticed places like BBC are quite left slanted.

4 hours ago, igotthis said:

Realize that Trump gets something like an hour and a hlf of coverage from media compared to about 30 seconds for Bernie. It doesn't matter if one thinks the media is right or left. Everyone should just recognize that they are all about ratings. They don't do news anymore unless they think it will get more viewership. It is ridiculous.

Okay, but the point still stands. Hillary Clinton defended a pedophile and got him off the hook using what feminists would call "rape myths" and she went after the credibility of Bill's accusers despite saying: "Every survivor of sexual assault should be heard, believed, and supported." Verdict: not a real feminist.

Also, if you're going to condemn Trump for not remembering who David Duke was in some contorted attempt at guilt by non-association, then you might want to consider Bill Clinton's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Oh yeah and lets not forget Hillary's mentor was an ex-KKK grand dragon or wizard or whatever they call themselves. Yes, he was an ex-kkk member, but again, I believe you would not give Trump the benefit of the doubt if he claimed to have a mentor who was ex-KKK.

 

In other news

Sanders Vows Contested Convention, Makes Case for Superdelegate Flips

The cynical side of me thinks this is all just a show to bring energy to the convention and ultimately have Sanders reconcile with Hillary. The other side of me wonders if this kind of thing could fracture the Democrats the same way the Republican establishment is. I want to see Sanders beat Hillary, but I don't think it will happen.

Earlier people were worried about Trump supporters rioting at the convention, now it looks like it could be the Sanders supporters

Dem convention host: Sanders supporters better 'behave themselves' when he loses

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

28 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

And the real problem isn't with Bill now, it's with Hillary, who used her voice to discredit the people who spoke out against him. We're not talking about just a handful of women either. What kind of self-proclaimed feminist could stay with a man like this?

A feminist who views those victims as collateral damage? Who saw those women as people who got in the way of her achieving what she felt was the 'greater good'? Whose overriding purpose is to get into a position of power so she can get stuff done, stuff she thinks is important? What good is it to bail on your ride to the top over a few principles? Well, an idealist might say that it would be better to ditch the ride and stick to your principles, but a realist would never do that, and Hillary is a hardcore realist. I don't like it, which is why I don't like Hillary Clinton. 

28 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

This is a confusing statement. What? He did lie under oath. Are you saying that didn't happen or are you talking about something else?

I meant that Newt Gingrich never had to show up for any hearings about how he bailed on his wife. Or how he started affairs, including one with one of his staff (so yeah, inappropriate in the workplace as well). And that for someone who has been extolling the virtues of family values. The point being that the Republicans only went after Bill Clinton because he was a democrat, not because they have such high moral principles when it comes to people sleeping with their staff. 

28 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Who, a minority of fans? Can you get a metric on that? When I heard of this Duggar thing I was like: "who?"

I mean, I guess some people who were fans tried to justify it or excuse it. However, I would argue that the Christian principle of forgiveness and salvation is more in line with how people reacted to the Duggar case than how feminist typically act around people who are accused of sexual assault and rape. But I get your point, which I think is that fans will go out of their way to make excuses no matter what side of the political spectrum they're on.

Plenty of evangelical Christians love the guy, or at least will defend him from any blame. Though to see it, you probably need to go to a place that is frequented more often by evangelical Christians. 

[krbe 193]

On 08/05/2016 at 6:36 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Spoiler

 

(Picture alleging Hillary Clinton defending men committing sexual crimes is tantamount to the 'following orders'-defence used during the Nuremberg trials.)

Yes, isn't it unfortunate that the United States of America isn't yet bowing down to your particular strain of militant feminism? Are you sure the Duterte of the West will dispense with fundamental rights in America?

34 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

 

Spoiler

 

(Picture alleging that Hillary Clinton is not a feminist due to allegations against her husband.)

That every victim of sexual assault is to be heard, does not imply that every alleged victim of sexual assault is to be heard and believed by everyone. It is a point so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever and sophisticated person could fail to grasp it.

However, why would the wife of a rapist make a worse president than a rapist? Is being a rapist considered presidential, or are Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump running for president in a country that does not manage to deal with rapists?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

2 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

I meant that Newt Gingrich never had to show up for any hearings about how he bailed on his wife. Or how he started affairs, including one with one of his staff (so yeah, inappropriate in the workplace as well).

In his private time. Not at work.

The hearing in which Clinton perjured himself weren't just because of his infidelities. They were already investigating Clinton for other stuff. Yes, it was a partisan attempt at going after him

5 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

 And that for someone who has been extolling the virtues of family values.

He's a hypocrite, yeah. Doesn't change what Clinton did and no way can you compare the scale of what Clinton has done (allegedly) to Gingrich.

6 minutes ago, krbe said:

Yes, isn't it unfortunate that the United States of America isn't yet bowing down to your particular strain of militant feminism? Are you sure the Duterte of the West will dispense with fundamental rights in America?

Is this a question for me. Huh?

7 minutes ago, krbe said:

However, why would the wife of a rapist make a worse president than a rapist? Is being a rapist considered presidential, or are Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump running for president in a country that does not manage to deal with rapists?

Not questioning her ability to be President based on these allegations, just questioning her credentials as a feminist. Also questioning the standards of anti-trump people.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

41 minutes ago, krbe said:

(Picture alleging Hillary Clinton defending men committing sexual crimes is tantamount to the 'following orders'-defence used during the Nuremberg trials.)

I get your point. There is a difference. I was being extreme. I was just wondering how feminist, who are so against the defense of rapist (or throw a tantrum when it happens), can support Hillary. She used a "rape myth" to defend a guy who molested an underage girl. For the sake of argument, maybe she was 100% right. Maybe that 12yo girl did want to have sex and did seduce the guy. Even if that is true, it's not the type of thing feminists can typically accept. Yet somehow Trump is a misogynist and she isn't.

43 minutes ago, krbe said:

(Picture alleging that Hillary Clinton is not a feminist due to allegations against her husband.)

The issue isn't what Bill did, it's what she did to discredit and intimidate his victims (allegedly).

[krbe 193]

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

I get your point. There is a difference. I was being extreme. I was just wondering how feminist, who are so against the defense of rapist (or throw a tantrum when it happens), can support Hillary. She used a "rape myth" to defend a guy who molested an underage girl. For the sake of argument, maybe she was 100% right. Maybe that 12yo girl did want to have sex and did seduce the guy. Even if that is true, it's not the type of thing feminists can typically accept. Yet somehow Trump is a misogynist and she isn't.

Sure you were, and sure there are feminists who find civil rights abhorrent. But I believe they are unlikely to back Mrs Clinton, so the point is moot: The young crowd -- typically people who hold a black and white worldview -- have already found their candidate and managed to develop suppression techniques for the instances where he does not appear infallible. Then you have the pragmatic bunch; and while the mememakers would probably have cheered on Madeleine Albright's Iraqi killing spree, they fail to realise that she probably have the best words between them and able to think in longer sentences in a coherent manner, even at her advanced age.

The fact of the matter is that unless you are exceptionally inflexible in your approach to fundamental rights and the role of lawyers in a democratic society, and wholly unable to separate private life from professional service, as well as expecting an infallible candidate, Mrs Clinton's legal work and stormy marriage is unlikely to sway her supporters. It's a notion that will be particularly hard to understand for everyone who has been brought up in a sheltered, cushioned community where your passion defines your entire persona; for everyone else living in the real one will have the ability to see the grey areas, even without becoming completely French.

Not to mention the fact that if rape is good, the Donald might not be able to eclipse Bill Clinton's track record (typical of low-energy candidates) thereby their respect for Mrs Clinton  should be boosted due to her association with her husband; if rape is bad, Mr Trump is still a rapist under the 'Bill Clinton is a rapist' standard. In short, they cannot win.

That being said, I find it deplorable if the intention is similarly to intimidate the alleged victims.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Isn't this getting a little off track?  Hillary's fitness for office has been beaten to death, and there is no question that neither she nor Donald Trump are fit for the high position to which they aspire. 

What about Bernie Sanders?  Would he make a good president or is he just more of the same old, same old?  He claims to be a socialist, but in American terms it means a slight shade left of centre.  He is a sitting Senator, and seems to have enough experience.  He seems to be the only candidate left (no pun intended) who might be a proper prisoner of the Oval Office.

EDIT:  A BBC article caught my attention.  Could there be three?

The Libertarian party may be just the place for disaffected Republicans to land.  Mr. Johnson might run his train right up the middle, divide the vote and win the presidency.  This seems like a good compromise between the rabid right of the Republican candidate and the utterly same old guff of the Democrats.

[igotthis 12]

There is a lot to say here. Since no one has explained how to reply to posts on a line by line basis, I will continue to just post my mind.

As I have said a few times, I don't really like Hillary. I am a Bernie guy. I just know that he won't win because the 'Establishment' is against him. However, I do find it funny to see the nonsensical attacks against Hillary by Republicans. They constantly whine and moan about Benghazi, as if she did something wrong. She has now been through ELEVEN Commissions and was found not at fault for anything. It is all so stupid that I can't even believe just how dumb people can be.

And then we have these Trumpeters who seem to think that he is awesome because "he will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it". Get a grip, people. Mexico is not going to pay for it, and like it or not, we live in a global community. Threats to remove money from our closest neighbor (Canada is stable) is a threat to us and them. Again, stupidity.

Trump also has said that anyone should have nukes. What a moronic thing to say.

Lastly, some child that thinks that my comment about international people expressing knowledge of US politics somehow equates to international journalistic reporting on politics is the same thing bothers me. It shows just how much we have destroyed our educational system and the encouragement of analytical thought.

IGT

[LexusInfernus 908]

23 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

In his private time. Not at work.

Sleeping with one of your staff pretty much qualifies as at work.

[Sabretooth78 808]

22 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

EDIT:  A BBC article caught my attention.  Could there be three?

The Libertarian party may be just the place for disaffected Republicans to land.  Mr. Johnson might run his train right up the middle, divide the vote and win the presidency.  This seems like a good compromise between the rabid right of the Republican candidate and the utterly same old guff of the Democrats.

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and I would vote for him again.  Seems to be he was quite popular in New Mexico when he left office and left them in rather decent shape.  I didn't know he was going to run this time around; honestly, I hadn't heard anything.  Then again, we're still nowhere near November so perhaps those who would run for office and who would espouse reason and decency are eschewing the circus.  Imagine that?

Libertarians should be able to gain a sizeable portion of the republican carcass but you have to remember who these voters are.  They're rather mindless and most respond only to jingoism and blind "patriotism".  Many of them think patriotism consists of flying a flag off the tailgate of a pickup truck.  Their simple minds have been suckling at the propaganda for so long that they wouldn't be able to bring themselves to accept concepts such as non-interventionism and social tolerance and surely their concept of economic conservatism would be shattered when their own pet subsidies were put on the chopping block.  We already have a libertarian party and we have a Donald Trump, concepts which are about as 180° as you can get; see who is attracting more attention.  A libertarian is no more able to fix stupid than anybody else.

As for idle speculation in the inane statistics department, we've already had 2 President Johnsons who have completely blown chunks, so bad that their standard of wretchedness has arguably withstood four terms of intense challenge from George W. Obama.  Maybe the 3rd time would be the charm?

14 hours ago, igotthis said:

Trump also has said that anyone should have nukes. What a moronic thing to say.

The best, most ironic thing is that most of his supporters would probably say they like(d) Ronnie Reagan.  You know, the guy whose perhaps most admirable goal was to rid the world of nukes.  Go try finding logic in a republican voting "conservative" (with a lowercase 'c'), though.

Full disclaimer; I was raised "democrat" (something I and my parents no longer identify as) and pretty much skipped the "republican" phase of my life.  Even before I woke up (about 10 years ago) I was able to see that it just didn't make sense and wasn't worth the bother.  They were the last party I ever did register under, however, back in 2004 to support a grassroots campaign for Dick Green (I think was his name) to upset self-proclaimed (but really anything but) libertarian Craig Benson in the New Hampshire republican primary for governor.  It came surprisingly close but ultimately fell short, though it ultimately didn't matter as he lost in the general election anyway.  Just as his entrepreneurship, businesses, marriage, etc. before, his heavy-handed, micromanaging political career turned into a failure.  His only interest was rigging things just right to make his own life easier.

[igotthis 12]

I really wish that we (the US) weren't pinned up in a two-party system. I was born into a Democratic household and I have never leaned Republican, although 90% of my entire family tree is. I know a lot of people go through transitions and there is this "you get more conservative as you get older" idea, but that is a special group of people, I think. My beliefs haven't changed and I certainly am not going to shift away from liberal ideals. I did most of my exploration as a kid and it has only been reinforced by world travel. When I recognized (or should I say discovered?) atheism in college, it was the final nail in the coffin for any sort of conservatism that might have existed in my head. I am and always will be for the free will of people to be religious or not, to have a support structure from the government (who's place it is to care for it's citizens), to vote how they please, to respect differing opinions, to leave a woman's body to herself, to let people be themselves. It is openness that improves society, not restriction. Restriction only leads to conflict.

IGT

EDIT: I digressed. If we had a successful multi-party system, I would probably go Green. This election is too critical for me to vote anything but Democratic.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I will vote for neither Hil'inton or D'ump. I will vote for a libertarian or a write-in.

[Larks2242 251]

Hillary Clinton is a vile vile woman, Donald Trump is a classless NY blowhard, One of them will be our next  president, If there was anytime to refuse to serve your county, Now would be that time.

 

As far as I am concerned,  The American people have made it clear  they are not even worth defending, We are truly a lost nation....

 

Well, Time to try applying for a new citizenship.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

2 hours ago, igotthis said:

<snip>

EDIT: I digressed. If we had a successful multi-party system, I would probably go Green. This election is too critical for me to vote anything but Democratic.

I've never taken notice of what your Greens are like, but ours are mostly west coast (B.C.) and they have one seat in the House of Commons.  They'd probably do better if they stopped squabbling among themselves.

I think that unconsciously most Americans are really libertarians.  They believe in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", so what has happened to take this goal out of sight?  Currently, the voices of reason are being drowned out by the Trumpeters on the right, and the apathetic on the left, if either party can be considered anything but centre.

There are so many divisive factions in the U.S. of A. these days, it is surely like keeping a zoo full of large, hungry cats.

[Delta 88 262]

4 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

I've never taken notice of what your Greens are like, but ours are mostly west coast (B.C.) and they have one seat in the House of Commons.  They'd probably do better if they stopped squabbling among themselves.

I think that unconsciously most Americans are really libertarians.  They believe in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", so what has happened to take this goal out of sight?  Currently, the voices of reason are being drowned out by the Trumpeters on the right, and the apathetic on the left, if either party can be considered anything but centre.

There are so many divisive factions in the U.S. of A. these days, it is surely like keeping a zoo full of large, hungry cats.

Most of the Liberterians themselves are complacent in this madness just as much as the left and right. The fact that everyone gets easily excited by Black Friday, self-driving cars, hoverboards, various other fancy toys, etc. Everyone actively participates, advocates and perpetuates these shallow materialistic values and the American consumer culture. The left bothers me more because they think slapping a few solar panels on their rooftops validates it all, like they're doing the world a favor. You would need fundamental change there, and we won't do that. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

3 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

Most of the Libertarians themselves are complacent in this madness just as much as the left and right. The fact that everyone gets easily excited by Black Friday, self-driving cars, hover-boards, various other fancy toys, etc. Everyone actively participates, advocates and perpetuates these shallow materialistic values and the American consumer culture. The left bothers me more because they think slapping a few solar panels on their rooftops validates it all, like they're doing the world a favor. You would need fundamental change there, and we won't do that. 

That certainly says something about the consumerism and the associated propaganda with which we are continuously deluged.  The latest ploy on the TV is to sneak a little pop-up in the lower left corner of the screen during the entertainment programming.  All in all the commercials are now longer than the shows, so it is no wonder that streaming outfits are going to kill broadcast TV.  The FCC needs to slam the door on Mad. Av. hard, as should the CRTC up here.

Meanwhile, what is going to happen in the election?  Will anyone care about the Congressional contests being matched by the POTUS circus?  Americans have a great chance to slip it to the traditional parties by upsetting each and ever Congressional apple cart, but I suspect they are too apathetic.  What would Der Donald do if he found himself in the Oval Office facing a Democratic Congress?  General repugnance might just make that happen, and when it comes to the ballot box we are talking about a five star general.

[crishy 57]

I would take Clinton over Trump any day. There is a reason even Republican themselves are panicking.

Although worst case scenario, much of the exuberant (i.e. controversial) promisses that Trump is using to attract voters are never going to see the light of the day anyway, either he is going to "forget" them after he is elected (like usual), or if he really insists, they are going to be outright blocked.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Of course, the problem with electing Hillary would be eight more years of the same old BS.  It only puts off the inevitable for a short time.  The American electoral system badly needs revision.

[krbe 193]

18 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

Well, Time to try applying for a new citizenship.

Just curious -- what country would most closely appeal to the Cruz values, or at the very least, the Bush/Obama values?

[Larks2242 251]

3 hours ago, krbe said:

Just curious -- what country would most closely appeal to the Cruz values, or at the very least, the Bush/Obama values?

I'm looking at a house in Panama.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ How's your Spanish?

[crishy 57]

8 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Of course, the problem with electing Hillary would be eight more years of the same old BS.  It only puts off the inevitable for a short time.  The American electoral system badly needs revision.

After these eight years one would hope that Trump would be long gone by then. He makes W. Bush look like F. D. Roosevelt.

I agree with a strong revision for that matter. Gerrymandering comes to mind for example. It is a disgrace in the US.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

2 hours ago, crishy said:

After these eight years one would hope that Trump would be long gone by then. He makes W. Bush look like F. D. Roosevelt.

I agree with a strong revision for that matter. Gerrymandering comes to mind for example. It is a disgrace in the US.

There is no doubt that the practice of Gerrymandering is some sort of satanic curse. 

I think it will take a constitutional amendment to fix that awkward tripartite set up in the capital.  The president should have a seat in the House and be the leader of the majority party.  The cabinet must be sitting members of Congress.  This is the only way they can be made fully accountable to the electorate.  Separate vote for the president then becomes unnecessary, and the silly circus can go away. 

A five year limit on the term of Congress would force an election every five years with the possibility of the government falling on a no confidence motion or the failure to pass a budget bill.  If this sounds outrageous, this is the basis of the Westminster system, and it greatly simplifies the whole mess.  Election campaigns should be short affairs less than two months from the dissolution of Congress.  All primaries would be done away with.

And elections for members of the Justice and Judiciary system need to stop.  D.A.s and Judges should be hired on merit not on popularity contests.  The same applies to all municipal ranks below the office of councillor.  It is unnecessary to spend money to elect dog-catchers.

Think of the money that is currently wasted running two year campaigns in the current system.  Has the appearance of a potlatch.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Well, my Spanish comprehension (written and spoken) is excellent and I can brush up on fluency quickly. I'll be on Academic Probation without scholarships or financial aid come Fall Semester and my lease expires in November (after which I rent month-to-month) so Mexico seems like a reasonable gap year (or fresh start for education if I go for a student visa) if The D'ump is elected.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

How are the foreign student fees in Mexico?  In Canada they are rather murderous.