Sorry Loki, while I may have voted for Rubio, I would never vote for Trump, but I should as hell would never vote for Clinton either.
I'm done with the 2 major parties, and your mind set will NEVER get us out from under them.
Sorry Loki, while I may have voted for Rubio, I would never vote for Trump, but I should as hell would never vote for Clinton either.
I'm done with the 2 major parties, and your mind set will NEVER get us out from under them.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Are you really going to equate the two? Clinton is your typical politician, with all the pros and cons that entails. Trump is an egotistic, racist (in policy), wannabe dictator who's explicitly rejected half of the Bill of Rights. If he was elected, he'd be the least competent and more authoritarian president since Jackson. If Clinton was elected, she'd be the worst president since Bush Jr.
And it's not a "mindset" that perpetuates our two-party system. It's the first-past-the-post electoral system. No amount of third-party whining will change that.
Hope is the denial of reality
This pretty much sums up my voting philosophy for as long as I've been going to the ballot.Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
How has that worked for you? Third parties getting more votes than before?
Hope is the denial of reality
Well, I'm by no means a mathematician, but by my calculations I have increased the number of votes given to third party presidential candidates by one every four years. Of course, not being dead or from Chicago significantly hampers my ability to vote more than once.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 07-13-2016 at 09:16 PM.
Honestly seems like the best strategy for independents to pursue would be to work within the two party system and hold a randomly selected party hostage every election
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Trump is a turd but the nice part about our political system is that we do actually have checks and balances. Which is why Obama's executive orders should make a lot of people cautious. Too many people are happy with their desired outcome even if it was done in the 'wrong' way. What one party can do - so can the other.
I suspect Trump won't dramatically change life as we know it. He'll have his enemies list and he'll get us into a trade war that increases the costs of basic goods and services. (Assuming he's even telling the truth about it). The sky is falling is a bit overplayed on the side of both parties.
You mention Obama's executive orders, and promptly assume Trump won't use even more...You're also forgetting that the president is in charge of the bureaucracy, including the military. He can do a hell of a lot of damage before anyone is able to stop him. This is a man who spits on freedom of speech, religion, and the press. You'd have to be pretty deluded to think this won't inform his policy decisions.
Hope is the denial of reality
Jackson was, and remains, a fairly popular President though, however unwise we think he was. You and I may think people who are hostile to the idea of Hillary as President as they are to Trump are wrong but if they do think that they're right to vote for third parties or not vote at all.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Still, no harm in trying to persuade a person to re-examine the specific issues that may underlie an apparent belief in the two being equally bad.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The president has way less direct control over the bureaucracy (including the military) than you're pretending. Authority is not the same as power. I've said it before, Trump can't accomplish much more than being absolutely obnoxious unless the rest of the government wants him to and helps him do so. And that's not as likely as you seem to think it is. The apt comparison is to Berlusconi, not Mugabe.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Berlusconi seems a perfect comparison. Hopefully less bunga bunga.
Jackson had to deal with a tiny bureaucracy, a handful of problems, and a world that didn't give a damn about the US. And with that, he still managed to commit genocide and undermine economic progress by a generation.
Hope is the denial of reality
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...ican-democracy We can now add an elevated chance of a race war if Trump gets elected to the list. Apparently, pissing off Hispanics and Muslims wasn't enough.
Hope is the denial of reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
This amused me.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"From 1999 to at least 2007, she continuously opposed same-sex marriage while consistently supporting civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. She also spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal ban on gay marriage in 2004 and said she supports states making the decision for themselves in 2006.
Clinton reversed course and announced her support for gay marriage in 2013, as the viral video accurately notes. However, the video samples a 2014 interview Clinton did with NPR’s Terry Gross in which she seems to deny her changed position."
What changed? This is a serious question. Either you are for states making the decision or not. Here is how it really went down. Clinton was in favor of same sex marriage internally. She probably has been for decades (it is a liberal position). However she knew it wasn't popular for the mainstream electorate so she didn't support it openly, only along the edges. Do you really doubt that was the case?
""I’m a progressive," Clinton says in the video before it cuts out to the next topic.
Here’s her next sentence: "But I'm a progressive who likes to get things done. And I know how to find common ground, and I know how to stand my ground, and I have proved that in every position that I've had, even dealing with Republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly.""
More Clinton bull shit. Is she far left, left, or left of center or center. Its a simple question. Her answer will be depending on if she running during the general election or if it is a primary. Now to be fair, plenty of politicians do this but the sound bites are telling. Pick your position and go for it but STOP LYING.
"Clinton says she has turned over about half. Out of over 60,000 emails on her private server, Clinton and her staff deleted 31,000 emails she says were personal and released the remaining 30,940."
Yes 30k 'personal' e-mails. Really? /boggle
Also in the age of text messages I have a hard time thinking she really e-mails her husband frequently on personal matters.
"A clip of Clinton from the 2015 Las Vegas debate saying she told Wall Street to "cut it out" in 2007 is followed by chopped up comments Clinton actually made in 2007, in which she seems to hold homebuyers, not Wall Street, responsible for the housing crisis. This gives a misleading impression."
I actually don't even have a problem with her original statement. Just wish people would hold her feet to the fire. "So given your concerns about home buyers, mortgage companies, insurance companies can you give us a % of where the blame lay?" She loves having it both ways. Frankly she's worse than John Kerry when it comes 'nuance.'
Universal health care segment basically agrees she's a hypocrite.
They agree she's basically a liar on the sniper fire bull shit.
NAFTA they agree and TPP is a full flop.
So... yeah mostly full of lies with a few bits of misleading editing (Bill Clinton's comments years before the e-mail scandal).
I don't actually know because Americans are so fucked up when it comes to gay marriage. I am more inclined to believe that she has always wanted gay marriage to be legal. I am uncertain about how she felt about leaving it up to the states. I am certain that, if she had come out in support for legalizing gay marriage at the federal level, she wouldn't have been able to get as much done because, as I said, Americans are kinda fucked up when it comes to gay marriage (aka. "marriage").
It actually isn't a simple question. For example, you generally behave as if the world is a binary one where people are either librulz or Michael Bay movies but now suddenly you want to distinguish between different degrees of leftyness. Clinton's answer is as straightforward as you can get. She's progressive (whatever that means) but she believes it's crucial for a progressive person to be able to get things done, which in the US means making deals with deranged and degenerate asshats aka. Republicans and focusing on some issues more than others. So she's saying to potential voters that she'll make deals if that's what it takes to get important things done, but that she isn't going to compromise on just everything. This is important information to voters across the spectrum. It's also educational to an unfortunately pretty large portion of the potential Democratic voter-base.More Clinton bull shit. Is she far left, left, or left of center or center. Its a simple question.
Giant shrug. I don't know how many of those e-mails will be found to be personal after review, but 30k personal e-mails isn't exactly so unlikely as to be impossible. You may not do it but many people do communicate extensively via e-mail, with mails ranging from a few words to several paragraphs and filling the same function as both IMs, conferences and letters rather than text-messages. Your mistake lies in assuming that "personal e-mails" = purely social e-mail exchanges with her husband or grandma which is not the case. You also assume that 30 is a mind-boggling number. 30k is like 16 emails per day over five years, eight e-mails with one reply each. It's nothing for someone who uses e-mail a lot. It's nothing if one uses e-mail in a way similar to how other people might use IMs. It's nothing if one's e-mailing is the equivalent of other people's habit of posting on online forums. You could double or triple that amount and it would still be unremarkable. The only way to determine whether or not they really were personal is to review them.Yes 30k 'personal' e-mails. Really? /boggle
Also in the age of text messages I have a hard time thinking she really e-mails her husband frequently on personal matters.
Unlike you, she actually has to work with these people, so there are some limits to how far she can go to pander to outraged voters.I actually don't even have a problem with her original statement. Just wish people would hold her feet to the fire. "So given your concerns about home buyers, mortgage companies, insurance companies can you give us a % of where the blame lay?" She loves having it both ways. Frankly she's worse than John Kerry when it comes 'nuance.'
Nevertheless:
But the video leaves out the part when she also names irresponsible mortgage lenders and brokers, the government and regulators, credit rating agencies, speculators and Wall Street "which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending."
As PolitiFact has previously reported, Clinton called for more oversight and transparency in the financial sector in several speeches and dating back to March 2007. From then to 2008, she repeatedly suggested and introduced a bill to establish national standards and regulations for loan brokers and lenders.
The video also points out Wall Street has been contributing to Clinton’s campaign. This is accurate. PolitiFact looked into a viral image highlighting Clinton’s top 10 donors and found that five were financial firms, two were law firms that do a lot of corporate work, and two were media conglomerates.
Yeah but no. Again, her focus is on getting things done. Now you have taken a step on the road to providing universal healthcare so she can build on that. There was a time when even that step would have been inconceivable and thus not worth spending too much time on for a pragmatist who has to get other important things done as well.Universal health care segment basically agrees she's a hypocrite.
Accurate.They agree she's basically a liar on the sniper fire bull shit.
Except that even this isn't straightforward. Politics aside, there are years between her initial positive views and her later skeptical views. In that time a lot can happen to change a person's view as they see how eg. a trade deal ends up in its final form compared to how it was conceived, as well as how things play out in reality over the course of a couple of decades. A person should be able to change her views if new information warrants it and a person who won't change her views when it's warranted is a dangerous ideologue. Now if you really want to punish someone for flipflopping in a similar way you should probably go by RB's house to egg or TP it. But you'd be wrong to do so because RB says changed his views about the EU and Britain's membership as he learned and thought more about it, not simply for the sake of getting votes. He can be criticized for being wrong about the facts or for any number of other things, but I don't think he can be fairly criticized, in principle, for changing his mind about something. The same goes for Clinton.NAFTA they agree and TPP is a full flop.
But maybe you guys want boneheaded fanatics running your country? Or should I ask that question in the thread about the Republican candidate instead?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I won't reply to everything but your arguments basically boil down to 'she has her reasons, she couldn't get elected, she has to work with these people etc.' IE she lies and panders to people to get elected which is the primary thrust of the video.
TPP and EU are completely different. The ONLY reason she changed her mind was because Bernie was proving a serious challenger. That's it. This is the family that while Bill was in the white house had their polling team do focus groups on WHAT KIND OF DOG SHOULD BE THEIR FAMILY PET. /Boggle. She is a massive liar and has no principals. She will say anything to be elected. Other politicians do similar things , I'm not ignorant of that fact but not to this insane degree.
what
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Also I think it's safe to say Trump lies (and changed position) even more.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Not true. Both Dread and I wanted it to come from more of the states and not SCOTUS, as plenty of posts testified, but both of us were in favor of gay marriage. You're trying to conflate the end-goal and the process. I'm not opposed to gay marriage now that it's here just because it came from a 5/4 SCOTUS decision, it just did not come in a way that I felt would have given it additional stability, nor does it mean I don't celebrate the decision. I most certainly do, I'm quite glad for it and its effects.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Honest question Fuzzy. Do you think the prevailing political views of gay marriage among the electorate led to Clinton changing her position?
No argument here.
No, I don't think her position changed. She wanted gay marriage and wanted it to come from the states themselves. Not all that terribly different from your position in the past, IIRC. You just insist on putting the cart before the horse with it actually being achieved, whereas she (and I) do not.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-sex-marriage/
"Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006.
As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013.
It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance, but on same-sex marriage we give Clinton a Full Flop."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3peAGxL5P0
Another fun video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GvCeEpnXxA
Truth is stranger than fiction... /boggle
You're right, it's pretty frickin' strange to make a big deal about it.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Seriously? This is the father of a terrorist. A terrorist who murdered dozens of people. Lets think about the absurdity for a moment. The guy supports Clinton, why would he give an interview? In what way would that help Clinton? Is he just looking for his 15 minutes of fame? Because that's pretty disgusting to do it off the backs of murdered Americans. Perhaps he doesn't have it all there, maybe there is no malicious intent and/or desire for fame. It is still really, really bonkers.
Dude, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote