U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[Delta 88 262]

I'm going to have to agree with Bill Burr here. At this point, I'd rather see Trump win - just to piss off the progressives, liberals, Hollywood celebrities, obvious pro-status quo politicians and bankers, feminists, college students, and leftist media outlets. I'd just love to see them have a complete mental breakdown if Trump won. Not that Trump would be substantially different. Don't get me wrong - I really don't like him either, and I don't personally hate Hillary. But as someone recently told me, "It's like the two worst teams are playing in the superbowl."

The media has been even more sickening than usual lately. CNN, Washington Post, and the NY Times have been especially awful offenders of liberal bias - they're not even trying to hide it anymore. Dozens of stories every day, doggedly attacking Trump and his campaign (which they do deserve to some degree) and flagrantly preaching of how much they worship their almighty god Obama and goddess Hillary. Trite material on how Obama has a big shiny gold halo above his head, and how the signs are apparently in the stars telling of Hillary's landslide victory in November. Not a single negative or even neutral comment regarding those two from said media. Nothing would satisfy me more than to see the left/media's priceless reaction if Trump wins. If nothing else, just to end their eight-year "Isn't Obama just so great?" tirade.

[LexusInfernus 908]

23 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

I'm going to have to agree with Bill Burr here. At this point, I'd rather see Trump win - just to piss off the progressives, liberals, Hollywood celebrities, obvious pro-status quo politicians and bankers, feminists, college students, and leftist media outlets. I'd just love to see them have a complete mental breakdown if Trump won. Not that Trump would be substantially different. Don't get me wrong - I really don't like him either, and I don't personally hate Hillary. But as someone recently told me, "It's like the two worst teams are playing in the superbowl."

Yeah real mature use of voting rights. Lets just vote for some $%&^! because it will piss off people I don't like. Suuuure, I know the guy is a raving bigot totally incapable of running the country, but its just so much fun to look at the shocked faces of every pretentious liberal. 

Geez, how is it possible that politics has been reduced to kindergarten levels of childishness? 

[nos.17 5,242]

On 8/5/2016 at 8:14 AM, Delta 88 said:

At this point, I'd rather see Drumpf win - just to piss off the progressives, liberals, Hollywood celebrities, obvious pro-status quo politicians and bankers, feminists, college students, and leftist media outlets. I'd just love to see them have a complete mental breakdown if Drumpf won.

 

 

his is the one world view that I really cannot tolerate. "Let's forget about the future of our country, the future of other countries, and the futures of every citizen in America. I don't particularly care about or even like Trump, but I certainly would like to see all those leftist pretentious bastards squirm." That view IMO is childish and reckless. You'd be willing to (potentially) risk everything just to see a petty revenge fantasy play out? I have no problems whatsoever with conservatism. I may disagree with it, but at least they have a coherent set of beliefs that they believe will make the country better. Trump, as far as I know, has none of it. He has yet to lay out a coherent plan (beyond catch-phrases and punch lines, that is) on how he will run the country. Details and facts are non-existent: I have seen only feel-good pathos that may get you into the Oval Office but comes back to bite once you are there.

On 8/5/2016 at 8:14 AM, Delta 88 said:

Nothing would satisfy me more than to see the left/media's priceless reaction if Drumpf wins. If nothing else, just to end their eight-year "Isn't Obama just so great?" tirade.

You forgot to add "traditional/true conservatives" too, and with President Trump as president, I believe it will only intensify.

 

14 hours ago, ggamgus said:

^ If you see Drumpf and Clinton as the same. And they are.

Ok. You might as well extend that list to most every Congressmen/women & Senators too. Throw some local offices into the mix too. That way when something doesn't work out, everyone has a convenient out: "Well I didn't help elect 'em..."

[Ocram's Razr 964]

15 hours ago, ggamgus said:

^ If you see Trump and Clinton as the same. And they are.

Gary Johnson is the best representation of a good Republican. Moderate Republicans and Log Cabin Republicans should vote for him. Voting "No Confidence" is ten times better than abstaining.

[Delta 88 262]

5 hours ago, nos.17 said:

his is the one world view that I really cannot tolerate. "Let's forget about the future of our country, the future of other countries, and the futures of every citizen in America. I don't particularly care about or even like Trump, but I certainly would like to see all those leftist pretentious bastards squirm." That view IMO is childish and reckless. You'd be willing to (potentially) risk everything just to see a petty revenge fantasy play out? I have no problems whatsoever with conservatism. I may disagree with it, but at least they have a coherent set of beliefs that they believe will make the country better. Trump, as far as I know, has none of it. He has yet to lay out a coherent plan (beyond catch-phrases and punch lines, that is) on how he will run the country. Details and facts are non-existent: I have seen only feel-good pathos that may get you into the Oval Office but comes back to bite once you are there.

You forgot to add "traditional/true conservatives" too, and with President Trump as president, I believe it will only intensify.

You give the Oval Office too much credit for it's role in our daily lives. Corporations, CEOs, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and mega-businesses (pharmaceutical companies, agribusinesses, oil tycoons) all make the decisions that affect our daily lives and it can't be changed. It took me years of activism and protests to figure that out. The outcome was always bought by whoever had the most money, even if it was in my favor. I didn't arrive at my current viewpoint without adequate experience, I used to be very involved in local politics where I thought I could at least make some difference. Somewhere in 2011-12, I divorced myself from striving for a positive outcome for this country. I don't even hope for it all to work out anymore, facing political alienation. 

Some background: A decade ago, I used to call myself a liberal democrat (it's true). I used to support the whole liberal agenda - renewable energy, hybrid/electric vehicles, social justice causes, various environmental causes - you name it. After a few years, I began to realize that these were all things that others had simply pushed onto me via political labeling, and these weren't things I honestly believed in. I saw that these were people interested in social control and social engineering - just as bad as the religious right-wing nutjobs they routinely criticize for the same reasons. Neither sides of the political spectrum, nor even most Americans in general, seemed too concerned about the more fundamental causes of society's biggest ills. They were all completely complacent in the American consumer culture and the hapless materialism that it promotes and exports to the rest of the globe. 

Another big problem I have with most people's views is that I actually find things like danger, crime, terrorism, and unrest - to be exciting, stimulating and entertaining! A lot of people want to end those things for good, which I'm at odds with. It's a belief I'd stick with even if it kills me. I prefer an interesting, dangerous world to the sterile, safe, squeaky-clean goody two shoes world the leftists and technological utopians want. Obviously, there is no candidate that could possibly share my views or adequately represent them, so I don't vote. 

Now, when I say that I'd rather have Trump, understand that I don't place any faith in him or this country, at all. I don't believe that his election will substantially deviate this country from it's current and inevitable downward trajectory. Don't get me wrong, I love this country, but I have given up on my fellow countrymen. I don't place any faith in the White House Shuffle every four/eight years. Besides, imagine the social media fallout if Trump does end up being elected. Remember the Brexit fallout? Imagine that times 100.

[Delta 88 262]

41 minutes ago, ggamgus said:

I honestly doubt you would be saying this if you were on the receiving end of terrorism, wars and imperialist violence in general. But you're not, which is why you can afford to spew edgy nonsense such as this. 

"You're not dead so you can say that"

Well, yes. Your point? Other than the fact that you simply don't like my opinion? Was that supposed to invalidate my reasoning?

Quote

*imports from

Assuming you know about trade inequities and wealth divide, you've probably noticed that most of the world doesn't have the means to engage in such materialism while still providing the Global North with the material base for the latter to engorge itself

Of course. If every country lived like Americans do, there would need to be at least four Earths to provide the resources. I was referring to the exportation of materialist values to other cultures. Like when you see a billboard advertising expensive goods (like an iPhone) in a third world country, above rows of slums. Hollywood, as well as advertising and marketing, are important sources.

Quote

In general, I think your reasoning for voting for Trump when you yourself don't support him in particular is pretty hilarious.

This is a problem with vehement anti-Trump people - their logic is that if you don't support Hillary (or Sanders when he was still in), you must be voting for Trump and "you're a bigot and a racist, etc." followed by fake laughter (I seriously doubt you were even smiling, even if it were just a sarcastic expression). Very selective and defensive logic on your part leads to some pretty massive holes in your argument. I have said time and time again - I'm not voting for Trump, I don't support Trump, hell I'm not even voting, I believe it's a waste of time. But that will probably go right over your head again.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Exactly. If you dislike America's materialism and safety obsession so much, why don't you move to Somalia and enjoy a life without any safety nets. No police to uphold all those stupid rules, just the laws the strongest group of armed thugs can impose. And the place is to poor to have your materialist luxuries, and I'm pretty sure that no one exports anything but guns and munition to Somalia, so you don't need to worry that you get a craving for convenience and order stuff online.  

[krbe 193]

I'm disappointed in Katarina Pierson today. Where are the attacks, the condescending explanations and utterly incoherent statements? 

[LexusInfernus 908]

23 minutes ago, ggamgus said:

This isn't what I was saying, so I don't know why you're saying "exactly". "Why don't you move to [insert country]" is a terrible argument regardless of the context. And depicting Somalians as "thugs" is extremely racist. 

One, the argument wasn't aimed at you but at Delta88. Two, its not. Arguing for a world where crime, terrorism, etc are constantly present is arguing for a place much like Somalia. I suppose Bagdad or Syria would also work. In any case rather than wanting to make a relatively safe country more unsafe and unstable to satisfy some idiotic idealized vision of a world gone to hell, go to a place thats already a hell. Its much easier. Three, I never depicted Somalians as thugs, I specifically referred to armed groups. And Somalia does happen to have a lot of armed and violent groups operating within its border. Calling black people thugs because they are black and therefor assumed to be part of a gang is racist, calling members of actual pirate and terrorist groups thugs because they are pirates and terrorists isn't. 

[LexusInfernus 908]

7 hours ago, ggamgus said:

I think what they're saying is that they want to continue hearing about violence happening to other people, such as the people in the countries you've listed, without any violence happening to themselves. That's what I was responding to. And what you're saying isn't much different from what they've said, since you don't seem to mind other countries being "hell" so long as you live in a "relatively safe country".

What has me minding got to do with reality? Somalia is a failed state, plagued by violence and poverty. That is an objective fact that is easily observed. Terrorist groups operate within the country, pirate gangs have made the coast unsafe for international shipping, and its going to take a very long and sustained effort of a lot of countries to stabilize the area. Its unlikely that this effort will ever get underway, so for the foreseeable future Somalia remains an unstable region. Now, I could mind (and full disclosure, I do mind) that these are the facts, but thats not going to change anything. Somalia won't suddenly turn into a functional state, Al Shabaab isn't just going to lay down their arms and those pirates won't either. The current dynamics that underpin the instability are not going to get disrupted if people mind. 

Recognize your own irrelevance to processes so much larger than simple individuals. 

7 hours ago, ggamgus said:

It actually is. The term "thug" comes from 19th century tribesmen in India who organized robberies and highway attacks to subsist and were ultimately wiped out by British colonial authorities who used the robberies as justification to kill and displace thousands of people. If by your own words, you consider countries like Somalia to be "hell", then don't you think that people who live there may not necessarily have the means to survive within legal boundaries? So yes, when you dismiss Somalians as "thugs", "terrorists", etc. you are being racist and elitist.

First, I didn't 'dismiss Somalians as thugs, terrorists, etc', I pointed out the simple, objective and verifiable fact that some Somalians choose to be terrorists and pirates, and are therefor thugs. Or are you really going to deny that Al Shabaab is a Somalia based terror group, and Somalian pirates aren't a thing? You are accusing me (or more precisely, putting words in my mouth) of dismissing EVERYONE as thugs when I have been quite specific in who I call a thug. 

Second, part of the reason Somalia is hell is exactly because people have decided the best way to survive is by resorting to illegal means of acquiring wealth. And by this point, sustained conflict and instability is exactly what those armed gangs want, because to them its extremely profitable. Al Shabaab maintains its relevance as regional terrorist group, the pirates profit from the absence of a strong central government that can stop them from getting obscenely wealthy from their pirate activities (although I suppose piracy is no longer that relevant now that there is a small fleet of NATO warships parked in front of their coast). And local warlords/armed militia can run their protection rackets without interference from the government. Is it understandable that this happened? Sure, but does that make it right? No, not at all. Hurting or killing people because its profitable is never right. 

And in any case, hell isn't going to turn into heaven as long as people continue to fight. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Breaking News

Clinton Unpopularity at New High, on Par With Trump

Former Bush defense official to endorse Clinton: 'There is no choice'

 

Have you heard of a Single Party Government? Well, the USA has a bipartisan Single-Party Government. We have the establishment of most Democrats and Republicans vs a bigoted populist as opposition. The USA is well on its way towards an Orwellian future thanks to government surveillance, militarized police, censorship, populism, violence and interventionism. We already have corporations with similar powers as those of Fascist Italy and the Axis-aligned Empire of Japan.

Some examples of titular "Republics," include Chavista Venezuela, The Soviet Union, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, DR Congo, and The People's Republic of China.

 

The best course of action is for all US voters opposed to both candidates to vote for a 3rd party candidate, or write in "None of the Above," "No Confidence," or "Reopen Nominations;" at least if they live in Democrat-leaning states or strong Republican-leaning states. If voter participation in this election is less than 50% because of disillusionment yet less than 10% of the popular vote is neither Clinton/Kaine (D) nor Trump/Pence (R), it will prove that most Americans feel powerless in this bipartisan system.

 

NOTE: Whether or not one believes The Donald personally harbors bigoted opinions, it's impossible to deny that his speeches have triggered hate crimes and his businesses discriminate.

  Edited September 2, 2016 by OcramsRzr  
Typo 100% - 90% = 10%

[matias93 7,535]

At the same time, bipartisan polarisation is on an all time high (on non-policy issues, of course), so this other scenario looks very plausible:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/294010-is-the-impeachment-of-the-next-president-an

[CapTon 592]

It appears that Trump has done some catching up recently, actually pulling ahead of Clinton in a national poll:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1182PT

I don't think any of this polling matters until after the first debate, but, me being a Trump supporter, this is pretty nice to look at.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

"Murphy Brown" would have had a field day with this election season...I'll always remember the episode with Wallace Shawn as the hapless candidate whose moneyed contributors made him adopt a few fringe positions:

Of course, twenty years ago this was silly sitcom humor.  Nowadays, it's the scary reality.

 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

I've been thinking about Bernie Sanders being Hillary Clinton's choice of VP and I think Bernie is one smart guy. There's all the rumours going around that Clinton is suffering from sporadic seizures and freezes, I think you've all seen the clips in question. I dunno why but I get the feeling Hillary could be dead in a year or two, or perhaps not mentally fit for presidency in the same time frame.

In which case Bernie becomes the president, if Hillary Clinton does win of course, and can push forward with his vision for America, a very European vision I might add. I dunno, just some odd thoughts flying around in my head.

[matias93 7,535]

I've always amused by the enormous importance US people gives to the health of their presidents: it could be reasonable in a newer country, where the chief executive has to endure physical challenges to meet their duties, or where there weren't past experiences with physically disabled presidents (as FDR, who even managed to hide his severe condition to the public eye) or untimely successions; no less than 8 US presidents have died in office, by illnesses and assasinations, and no anarchy has overcome, but always a reasonable power transfer without long term effects.

[CapTon 592]

21 hours ago, matias93 said:

I've always amused by the enormous importance US people gives to the health of their presidents: it could be reasonable in a newer country, where the chief executive has to endure physical challenges to meet their duties, or where there weren't past experiences with physically disabled presidents (as FDR, who even managed to hide his severe condition to the public eye) or untimely successions; no less than 8 US presidents have died in office, by illnesses and assasinations, and no anarchy has overcome, but always a reasonable power transfer without long term effects.

It shows how badly people do NOT want Hillary Clinton in power. I, despite being a Trump supporter and a hater of Mrs. Clinton, choose to not engage in this. I need more concrete evidence that her health is actually a problem.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

But what about the various scandals in the Clinton Presidency? Whitewater controversy, Travelgate, Clinton Pardons and others. The way the Clinton Foundation works as a charity to provide for the Clinton's personal funds and how companies make donations to the foundation is pure conflict of interest.

Conflicts of interest, scandal, obfuscation and criminal investigations just seem to abound with the Clintons. I was doing some brief looking around and it astonished me just how many scandals there were before, during and after Bill Clinton's presidency. This woman is not presidential material. Were it not for positions of power and great wealth she would be in prison.

Hillary may just be a Sith Lord because nothing sticks to her! You just can't have so many scandals and criminal investigations and then say this woman is not a crook. Vote me down, call me sexist, regressive or whatever but I'm amazed this stuff is not brought up in the media.

[matias93 7,535]

That's surprisingly common, particularly when talking of female leaders. As women face more structural barriers to leadership, only the best connected ones can normally reach the top positions, and that means they have to use any available tool. The pattern in there too be looked at: most female leaders are closely related to former male leaders (being relatives in most cases) and messed with corruption and power abuse issues, while more lawful women are hold back by structural sexism.

[CapTon 592]

Hillary Clinton has called Trump supporters the "basket of deplorables". More evidence of her hate towards average Americans and her lack of leadership ability.

[matias93 7,535]

Not surprising at all, just an artifact of polarization and oppositional identitary politics: once both sides have aknowlegded they cannot further advance into each other camp, the most rational option is to galvanize current adherents by sheer negative identification: "you are the real americans and they are deplorable losers". Once that strategy gets a hold, is really hard to avoid it for anyone pursuing public offices, so you can only get accustomed to see half your country population as an existential threat.

[Jasoncw 11,946]

On 9/6/2016 at 5:35 PM, Ln X said:

But what about the various scandals in the Clinton Presidency? Whitewater controversy, Travelgate, Clinton Pardons and others. The way the Clinton Foundation works as a charity to provide for the Clinton's personal funds and how companies make donations to the foundation is pure conflict of interest.

Conflicts of interest, scandal, obfuscation and criminal investigations just seem to abound with the Clintons. I was doing some brief looking around and it astonished me just how many scandals there were before, during and after Bill Clinton's presidency. This woman is not presidential material. Were it not for positions of power and great wealth she would be in prison.

Hillary may just be a Sith Lord because nothing sticks to her! You just can't have so many scandals and criminal investigations and then say this woman is not a crook. Vote me down, call me sexist, regressive or whatever but I'm amazed this stuff is not brought up in the media.

This is literally just decades of conspiracy theories and character assassination. The reason nothing sticks to them is because the things that are supposed to be sticking to them are not true in the first place, they're smear jobs. Also Barrack Obama is a kenyan aetheist muslim communist racist hell bent on destroying America. Also 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry wasn't a decorated Vietnam War vet, but an America hating backstabbing coward. Do you notice a trend here?

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Each side sees exactly what they want to see in the opposition, and absolutely nothing else.  

[Ceafus 88 1,870]

Spoiler

 

She was already a rag doll by the time this video starts and they drag her limp body into the van, this is a fairly concerning thing and looks a tad more severe than pneumonia.

I feel bad for her, if it is something serious she needs to get some help.

 

[CapTon 592]

1 hour ago, Ceafus 88 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

She was already a rag doll by the time this video starts and they drag her limp body into the van, this is a fairly concerning thing and looks a tad more severe than pneumonia.

I feel bad for her, if it is something serious she needs to get some help.

 

Health is pretty concerning when running for the presidency, regardless of how leftists and the media want to spin it, and while I dislike her wholeheartedly, I hope for her recovery.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

How did the debate go?

[matias93 7,535]

Paraphrasing a guy I read on twitter: Trump was much more concerned to appeal to his harder and most convinced voters, and they were convinced both before and after to vote Trump; on the other side, Clinton pointed to win women who were out of the Obama coallition she has recieved. So if there were someone who could win voters, it was Clinton.

Of course, subjetive impressions cannot show objective changes on voters preferences, so the most reasonable thing to do is to wait for polls.

...

Now, about the saucy filling, it was the kind of thing that makes you lose faith in politics and to venerate TV producers: it was such a show, that (at least for a guy that hails from a country where serious=good) you cannot feel any certitude for the US destiny: both candidates were too much concerned with showing the faults of the other one to give just a little time to real policy proposals. In the end, you simply have to trust on identities' coalitions and suppose people like you will think alike and share your material interests (which is false, by the way).

As I said before on this thread: the US needs multipartidism and a proportional Congress, otherwise this absurd will prevail.

 

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

I watched part of the debate and what really intrigued me was the moderator. In my opinion the moderator of a debate must be neutral and impartial, but in this debate he was obviously in favor of Clinton and against Trump. Regardless of which candidate people prefer, I think everyone agrees that the moderator of the debate be impartial is essential, especially being in a presidential election.

[Jasoncw 11,946]

Is there really any way the debate could have gone that wouldn't have resulted in Trump supporters claiming that it was biased and rigged by the Clinton controlled mainstream media and try to delegitimize it? 

Lester Holt is a respected journalist and is certainly a very agreeable person to moderate a debate. And while I doubt that Trump is personally his favorite brand of Republican, Holt is a Republican, not a Democrat.

Secondly, do you blame the moderator for correcting a candidate, or do you blame the candidate for constantly making blatantly false and easily proven wrong claims? 

Holt intervened three times, iirc, to Trump. When Trump responded to the question about racial harmony, Trump advocated for stop and frisk. Holt followed up saying that stop and frisk was determined to be illegal, which is correct. I think when a candidate proposes a policy that has literally already been determined to be illegal, a moderator asking for a clarification makes sense, and it's not the moderator's fault that Trump, a life long New Yorker, didn't know that he was proposing something illegal. And really, what hurt Trump more, the fact that he didn't know that, or the fact that he's trying to appeal to minorities and talk about improving race relations by proposing discriminatory policing tactics during a time when there's a lot of concern about how police treat minorities?

Holt also intervened when Trump claimed that he had opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, which is also easily proven to be false. Trump had made only a handful of public statements about the war and they were all in general support of it. He only started making statements against the war when it was already clear to everyone that it wasn't working. If Clinton made the claim that she was opposed to the Iraq war I'm sure she would have been called out on it as well. When she was asked about Iraq she didn't dig herself into a hole, she gave a simple answer and then moved on.

Holt also corrected Trump on his taxes. Trump claims that he cannot release his taxes because they are currently being audited. The IRS has stated that Trump is completely free to release his taxes at any time. 

The great majority of the time Holt just asked a bunch of the expected questions and then let the candidates talk. In my memory he's been the least invasive moderator, since usually they try more aggressively to steer the conversation where they wanted it to go, which even without any intention can help or hurt different candidates depending on their strength in those areas. Pretty much everything that really "damaged" Trump during the debate was stuff that either Trump brought up himself or stuff that Clinton baited him into saying. Trump wasn't bragging about being a tax cheat, or defending that he doesn't pay his contractors, or doubling down on calling a beauty pageant winner "Miss Piggy" (for gaining weight) and "Miss Housekeeper" (for being latina), because of anything Holt did. 

Trump also claimed that they tried to sabotage him by giving him a "defective" microphone but I can't tell what that actually means or how that makes any sense. 

[Odainsaker 2,136]

I didn't hear anything wrong with the microphone other than the nonsense being spouted into it.  The news pundits think the closing segment covering Clinton's looks and stamina, a certain beauty contest candidate, and Rosie O'Donnell was the moment when Trump completely unraveled, but I was more mortified by the incoherent, string-along, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink ramble he had tried to pass off as a nuclear weapons first-strike policy.  Woo, okay...!