TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%
Page 21 of 559 FirstFirst ... 6111617181920212223242526313641465156616671121271521 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 525 of 13962

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #501
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: London / London / London
    OK, before I try and digest all that stuff above me, can everyone who actually claimed the DNC are "pure, morally superior anti-racists" please say aye? Rather than just being a better alternative to Donald Fucking Trump, who is pretty much exactly L Ron Hubbard aimed at a different sector.

  2. #502
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    So, what was this about DNC's being pure, morally superior anti-racists?

    Good grief....these people are like the preacher that does lines of coke off a hooker's ass right before putting on his robes to lecture everyone else about sin.
    The "Taco Bowl Engagement" mentioned in that post wasn't a slur, rather a reference to Trump's poorly thought out tweet he posted on Cinco de Mayo as an incredibly lame, halfhearted attempt to court Latino demographic.

    You remember, right? This...



    But don't let reality stop you from riding your sanctimonious, faux outrage mouthbreathing fucksack "Democrats are the real racists" spiel into the shit ditch.

  3. #503
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Vivian View Post
    Dude seriously, it's her or trump. If you don't vote and trump gets in, you are fucked. Is that really what you want? Fucking swallow your pride and do it dude, the alternative is horrendous
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Letting the greater evil into power because their opponent isn't pure enough does no good and a lot of harm. We had a chance to primary Clinton again. I voted for Sanders. But November is time to shut down Trump - nothing else is as important.
    I can't do it. I'm not looking for purity. I realize that no candidate is perfect. But I believe that on balance, Clinton will work against my policy interests most of the time. It doesn't help that she's a scandal-prone liar with a bit of a paranoid streak. But I could probably hold my nose and vote for her anyway if she was more aligned with my policy views and wasn't a stooge. As far as I'm concerned, we're screwed with either of these two candidates, and voting for one or the other is just choosing a different shade of screwed.

    Besides that, I'm tired of New Democrats and their bait & switch politics. Look at Obama. All the 2008 campaign rhetoric amounted to nothing and he turned out to be like George H.W. Bush but with better speeches.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    Remember this ?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_...22_controversy
    In 2000, some democrat voters voted for Ralph Nader, in stead of Al Gore. If they wouldn't have done that (in Florida at least), Gore would have been president in 2001. Not GW Bush. I am 100% sure that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. The mess in the Middle East would have been smaller than it is now. IS would probably not have existed. There probably wouldn't be war in Syria.
    In other words, the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, in stead of Gore, are responsible for the 84 deaths in Nice last week. Just kidding. How could they have known. But there is a line of causality here. Please don't let the same thing happen in 2016. Don't allow Trump to win, just because some disappointed democrats are sulking that Bernie isn't the Democratic candidate.
    There was a study of polling results done a couple years after the election which tried to debunk the theory that Nader cost Gore the election. Here: http://www.prorev.com/green2000.htm

    I think Gore was just a bad candidate with the wrong strategy and deserved to lose that election. He was known as a conservative Democrat, not just economically conservative but a bit of a social conservative too. That is what opened the door for Nader. Gore's strategy depended on attracting independents and getting some southern voters to cross over, but the strategy failed. It failed in part because he was an uninspiring and unlikeable candidate, but also because voter dissatisfaction was running high after 4 years of scandals and gridlock. It was a low turnout election decided by base voters, and Bush was more representative of his base than Gore was, so he turned out more of it. That's why he won. Not because of Nader. If Nader had not run, most of the people who voted for him would have stayed home.

    Regarding the Iraq invasion, there have been a lot of editorial pieces suggesting that Al Gore might have done the same thing as Bush. You are forgetting the New Democrats' role in promoting the war. The Democratic Leadership Council supported invading Iraq, and so did various policy think-tanks and editorial boards who were ideologically associated with the New Democrat movement. So did New Labour, and so did a preponderance of US and UK media.

    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    America is in an isolationist phase, and she was Sec of State under Obama overseeing it. Nobody in the US wants to intervene in any Middle Eastern country short of limited bombing of ISIS oil wells and the like.
    If a half million Syrian casualties and 10 million displaced don't move the US to act, it's hard to imagine any scenario that could. The one wildcard, a nuclear armed Iran, is the one thing that's been taken out of the equation, so the East is free to eat itself alive without US involvement.
    Are you kidding me? There are about 300 special forces troops on the ground fighting in Syria, about 5000 troops in Iraq, and the US has conducted around 14000 air strikes in the Syrian civil war and against IS. There are also 9800 troops in Afghanistan, and many thousands more across the rest of the region. And those numbers don't count contractors, who are generally more numerous. The US has a military alliance of some sort with nearly every Middle Eastern country except Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. And I read somewhere recently that US CENTCOM conducts over 50 bilateral or multilateral military exercises with countries of the region.

    Worldwide, the US military still has about 150,000 personnel deployed overseas in 75% of the world's countries. And maintains something like 800 overseas military installations. The Navy patrols everywhere. The US hasn't been isolationist in a century.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Also here is what has been found in the emails. Nothing that is individually "holy shit" so far but it's more than enough to blow up the idea that the Democratic party has the right to ride the moral high horse they're currently on. Half of what they're claiming to be outraged about Trump doing (like insulting Megyn Kelly) they're doing themselves.
    Whoa, you mean the DNC is really an arm of the Clinton campaign and isn't a neutral organization after all? Tell me something I DON"T know.

    And what exactly is the problem with companies flying the diversity banner?
    Last edited by heywood; 25th Jul 2016 at 16:59.

  4. #504
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Besides that, I'm tired of New Democrats and their bait & switch politics. Look at Obama. All the 2008 campaign rhetoric amounted to nothing and he turned out to be like George H.W. Bush but with better speeches.
    As far as a good portion of his middle eastern policies are concerned, I won't entirely disagree. Though to his benefit, hammering out a deal with Iran, one of the more relatively progressive nations in the region, likely wouldn't have happened under a Republican president.

  5. #505
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    I'm not looking for purity. I realize that no candidate is perfect. But I believe that on balance, Clinton will work against my policy interests most of the time.
    On balance? Balanced against Trump? Or the pure, perfect candidate you're pretending you're not looking for?

    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    It doesn't help that she's a scandal-prone liar with a bit of a paranoid streak.
    Hillary Clinton isn't scandal prone, she's scandal targeted. People talk about her scandals as if they were unprecedented, but it's hard to think of anything she's accused of that the Bush administration didn't vastly outdo her on, usually without consequence, often without even an investigation. Deleted e-mails? Millions. Private servers? Unremarked. Embassy attacks? About a dozen. Misuse of classified information? They were straight up giving it to Fox News pundits.

    Liar? She has one of the higher truth ratings among the fact checkers. Paranoia? It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you. People made fun of her "vast right wing conspiracy" comment that has proven true at every turn.

    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Regarding the Iraq invasion, there have been a lot of editorial pieces suggesting that Al Gore might have done the same thing as Bush.
    That's absurd. Bush walked into office determined to attack Saddam Hussein and bent considerable resources to the goal of finding (and/or manufacturing) justifications. The Democrats - including Clinton, let's not forget, who at least acknowledges the fiasco as a mistake - fell in line, but there wouldn't have been a line to fall into if Gore or even McCain had been in office.

  6. #506
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Are you kidding me? There are about 300 special forces troops on the ground fighting in Syria, about 5000 troops in Iraq, and the US has conducted around 14000 air strikes in the Syrian civil war and against IS. There are also 9800 troops in Afghanistan, and many thousands more across the rest of the region. And those numbers don't count contractors, who are generally more numerous. The US has a military alliance of some sort with nearly every Middle Eastern country except Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. And I read somewhere recently that US CENTCOM conducts over 50 bilateral or multilateral military exercises with countries of the region.
    Compared to 190,000 on-the-ground soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush you're giving me peanuts, so no I'm not kidding. It's obvious we're on a non-interventionist curve compared to recent history. The situation with ISIS is an order of magnitude more dangerous & invasion-worthy than Hussain ever was. Being on a curve doesn't mean we're fully isolationist yet or ever can be in practice, just by sheer inertia. I'm really talking about national sentiment & the zeitgeist, beyond bureaucratic inertia.

    And perhaps you've also missed the entire punchline at hand here, the candidates & electorate. Obama's entire foreign policy philosophy, under Hillary, has been criticized as too hands-off and conciliatory, summed up by him as "Don't do anything stupid", which is transparent code for don't engage in big new missions. But even closer to the nerve of the country, Trump is promising to pull the US out of NATO and countries like Korea and Japan, and make allies pay for their own defense (not to mention the WTO, NAFTA of course, a few treaties, and if not dropping out of the UN, definitely not participating). He's evidently happy to let Russia and China grow their sphere of influences unchecked. If Russia gobbles up east Ukraine and the Baltic states, and China gobbles up the South China Sea from Philippines or Vietnam, or Philippines & Vietnam for that matter, it's because they were weak and deserve it. He's getting massive support for these promises. Republicans can't give the finger to the rest of the world fast enough. That's an isolationist trend in practice. But go ahead and give me more news of increased drone bombings, remnant soldiers from old missions, and peanut numbers for new missions.
    Last edited by demagogue; 25th Jul 2016 at 20:58.

  7. #507
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    But even closer to the nerve of the country, Trump is promising to pull the US out of NATO and countries like Korea and Japan, and make allies pay for their own defense.
    He's also promising to restore our supposedly gutted military and win so many wars we'll get bored of it. Doesn't sound very isolationist to me. Really, he's saying whatever he pulls out of his ass at that moment; he knows very little about international politics and cares less. Deep inside, it's just another business/attention opportunity to him; he'll profit handsomely from being president, and everything else can go to ruin for all he cares.

    Anybody else think that, even if Hillary Clinton wins, she won't win a second term? What are the odds that the Republicans nominate another utter nutbag? ...Pretty good, I suppose, there's nothing in their trajectory to suggest any sort of "return to sanity" on the horizon, but still. At the end of the day, she doesn't seem to be a very good public campaigner.

  8. #508
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Hillary Clinton isn't scandal prone, she's scandal targeted. People talk about her scandals as if they were unprecedented, but it's hard to think of anything she's accused of that the Bush administration didn't vastly outdo her on, usually without consequence, often without even an investigation. Deleted e-mails? Millions. Private servers? Unremarked. Embassy attacks? About a dozen. Misuse of classified information? They were straight up giving it to Fox News pundits.
    To some extent, yeah. Benghazi was an obvious attempt by the Republicans to use the courts for character assassinations, and the fact it's worked to a large extent is worrisome. But the email situation does show a lack of judgement on her part, both in its casual usage, and the fact she lied about receiving classified information while under oath. She can't even claim ignorance over the latter, since she was obviously aware of using said server to conduct business as secretary of state.

    And now we have this most recent scandal concerning the leaked campaign emails, released on the eve of the Democrat convention, her reputation may very well be damaged beyond salvation.


    ...though I do find it funny that said emails were mined by a Russian hacker, and their release at the worst possible moment points towards something that looks very much like a conspiracy being committed by one party against another, a fact which is conveniently being ignored by the almost reliably ultra paranoid alt-right bunch. Guess they really want Daddy to win.

  9. #509
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    To some extent, yeah.
    "Some" extent? People genuinely believe she's the most corrupt politician around, with a record that's cleaner than most and more carefully examined than any.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    But the email situation does show a lack of judgement on her part, both in its casual usage, and the fact she lied about receiving classified information while under oath.
    It was post facto classification; insofar as classified information went through that channel, there's precious little evidence it was intentional or even known (there's a few fragments of declassified documents with classification markers incompletely removed, and that's about it).

    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    And now we have this most recent scandal concerning the leaked campaign emails, released on the eve of the Democrat convention, her reputation may very well be damaged beyond salvation.
    Can someone explain to me how DNC staffers talking privately about tactics they didn't take (and in at least one case were reminded by their managers to remain impartial) constitutes HRC personally rigging the primary? Speaking of double-standards, can you imagine what the RNC e-mails must've looked like over the same period? Lol. I say if they're going to hit over this, they should release their own archive.

  10. #510
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    "Some" extent? People genuinely believe she's the most corrupt politician around, with a record that's cleaner than most and more carefully examined than any.
    Cleaner than some, not quite so clean as others. I won't say that Hillary Clinton is the devil, nor will I say she's unqualified for the position. She's obviously intelligent, and very politically savvy. Though all things considered, there is plenty of evidence showing that she has a marked tendency to play fast and loose with the rules. The fact that some criticisms against her are well deserved makes it that much more difficult for her to defend herself when her political opponents run her through yet another smear campaign.

    The Republicans are pretty much betting on the fact that, considering her reputation, it's hard to separate the truth from the bullshit they surround her with.

    It was post facto classification; insofar as classified information went through that channel, there's precious little evidence it was intentional or even known (there's a few fragments of declassified documents with classification markers incompletely removed, and that's about it).
    Some were classified after the fact. Others weren't.

    I stand by Comey's assessment of the situation. What she did wasn't criminal, but it was incredibly dense, and it would've earned anyone in a lower position an instant blackballing. She should've known better than to discuss classified information from an unverified, unsecured source. It's a complete disregard for proper protocol.

    Can someone explain to me how DNC staffers talking privately about tactics they didn't take (and in at least one case were reminded by their managers to remain impartial) constitutes HRC personally rigging the primary? Speaking of double-standards, can you imagine what the RNC e-mails must've looked like over the same period? Lol. I say if they're going to hit over this, they should release their own archive.
    Oh, I'd imagine the discussions going on behind the scenes of the RNC would be at least as damning, especially when you considering how hell bent they were on keeping Trump from winning the nomination. But we're talking about politics here, where perception is reality. The fact you have all these damning emails sitting right in front of the voting public, showing clear signs of unfair favoritism to a somewhat contentious candidate, is...uh...not a good place for them to be at the moment. What the RNC likely did behind the scenes is secondary to this reality, and any mention of it will look like a deflective move from the Democrats.

    Not everything they discussed in those emails remained in the realm of the theoretical. Shultz did keep the televised debates to an absolute bare minimum, preventing anyone else running for the presidency under the Democrat banner from shaking things up too much for Hillary. The fact they failed to keep Sanders in check only serves to throw this fact into stark contrast. Plus, there is evidence that Shultz did minimize polling coverage in areas that were likely to vote heavily for Bernie as well. She very much did stack the deck in Clinton's favor.

  11. #511
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Vivian View Post
    The LGBT "movement" (? Do you mean the existence of non-heteros?) is a corporate conspiracy? Please just shut UP, Tony! Where do you get this bullshit? And why do you not only believe it but actually sound proud that you believe it?!
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    It's a well known fact that LGBT movement is but one part of a much larger scheme to control society (snip)
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    And what exactly is the problem with companies flying the diversity banner?
    I rarely agree with Tony's views, but in this instance I think he's stating a fact in saying that LGBT activism has a lot of corporate money tied into it. There's nothing inherently wrong with that; any social movement that gains serious public traction ends up being supported and furthered by big business. But it does mean that LGBT rights aren't strictly a people-vs-the-establishment issue anymore, considering there are large establishment entities supporting LGBT activism for reasons that may not be strictly altruistic. Similarly, while the Affordable Care Act was generally presented and debated in terms of ideological principle, the actual act itself was written with heavy influence from insurance and healthcare companies, and from what I've read they've earned a killing on it. The lobbying and PR for the ACA didn't come from grassroots activists, but by companies and interest groups with political and economic leverage acting out of self-interest. There's no conspiracy or secret agenda or anything, it's just an observation that by the time progressive issues hit mainstream support, they're usually supported by corporate and private interests that could be fairly labeled as part of 'the establishment'.

    And to be honest, I've heard very similar sentiments come from the left. There are a lot of frustrated progressives right now saying that the Democrats don't represent the people, just a different brand of corporatism that adopts grassroots movements when they become politically profitable. So yeah, I kind of have to agree with Tony that it's not really fair to paint the difference between the parties as saying that the Republicans support the establishment and the Democrats don't, they just represent different flavors of establishment, one typically more progressive in policy than the other. The way the DNC systematically opposed Sanders demonstrates that they view an actual anti-establishment agenda as an outright threat, and I'm not holding my breath for a President Clinton going after Wall Street bankers or hiking up taxes on the 1%.

    Please, correct me if I've misunderstood something here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    It was post facto classification; insofar as classified information went through that channel, there's precious little evidence it was intentional or even known (there's a few fragments of declassified documents with classification markers incompletely removed, and that's about it).
    Wasn't there an email from HRC saying something along the lines of 'strip out the classification header and re-send unsecure'? That to me suggests a level of knowledge of what was going through the server. In any case, a secure network shouldn't allow for any possibility of classified information hitting an unclassified server, yet Comey stated that there were dozens of files recovered that were classified at time of sending. That alone is a tremendous breach of basic airgapping procedure and exposes classified information to attack. Renzatic is right; if a normal person did what she did I don't know if they'd be imprisoned for it, but they would absolutely never work in government again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Can someone explain to me how DNC staffers talking privately about tactics they didn't take (and in at least one case were reminded by their managers to remain impartial) constitutes HRC personally rigging the primary? Speaking of double-standards, can you imagine what the RNC e-mails must've looked like over the same period? Lol. I say if they're going to hit over this, they should release their own archive.
    I have read emails to journalists asking them to stop being so critical of Clinton and stop giving coverage to Sanders and emails about using funds from state-level Democratic parties to directly fund Clinton's campaign. Sanders supporters are now seeing proof that the primary was stacked against them despite the DNC's insistence that it was a fair fight, undercutting the depiction of the Bernie camp as just a bunch of sore losers. While I have no doubt that the RNC is just as or more corrupt, that's not really the issue people are discussing. I wasn't going to vote for the Republican nominee in the first place; but for me this makes it hard to contemplate voting for Clinton either.

  12. #512
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    I rarely agree with Tony's views, but in this instance I think he's stating a fact in saying that LGBT activism has a lot of corporate money tied into it. There's nothing inherently wrong with that; any social movement that gains serious public traction ends up being supported and furthered by big business. But it does mean that LGBT rights aren't strictly a people-vs-the-establishment issue anymore, considering there are large establishment entities supporting LGBT activism for reasons that may not be strictly altruistic.
    There's a difference between "corporations are riding the LGBT movement to make a buck, and garner some good publicity for themselves in the process", and "the LGBT movement is a corporate front using a populist position to further imbed themselves into society". I take Tony's position as aligning more with the latter, which is just paranoid drivel.

    In all situations, all movements, you do have to separate the wheat from the chaff, because there's always some person or group willing to abuse them for their own benefit. But to assume an entire movement is suspect because certain undesirable elements are attaching themselves to it from the side is idiotic at best. It's the same line of thinking that's given us the theory that George Soros is behind this recent spate of racial tensions and anti-Trump demonstrations, because Moveon.org played a part in the Ferguson protests, which does count Soros among its benefactors.

    It's all leaps of logic based upon preconceived assumptions presented as hard evidence. Because A is always a dastardly bastard, B must be equally as dastardly due to A's association. OPEN YOUR EYES, SHEEPLE! OLOLOL!

    I have read emails to journalists asking them to stop being so critical of Clinton and stop giving coverage to Sanders and emails about using funds from state-level Democratic parties to directly fund Clinton's campaign. Sanders supporters are now seeing proof that the primary was stacked against them despite the DNC's insistence that it was a fair fight, undercutting the depiction of the Bernie camp as just a bunch of sore losers. While I have no doubt that the RNC is just as or more corrupt, that's not really the issue people are discussing. I wasn't going to vote for the Republican nominee in the first place; but for me this makes it hard to contemplate voting for Clinton either.
    Right now, we need to settle for grim pragmatism than keep riding our wishful thinking. No, Hillary Clinton isn't the candidate we need, nor is it the one we really want. If we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn't be forced to swallow this bitter pills that are Trump and Clinton. We'd all be happily making a choice between Sanders or Kasich/Rubio come November, not fretting about anything other than the short term future of our favorite wedge issues.

    ...but since we don't live in that world, we have to accept the Less Bad Choice, which, in my opinion, is Hillary Clinton. Because we have a Republican house, any vote for a 3rd party will likely go to Trump. Abstaining from the polls as a vote of no confidence could strengthen Trump's position. As much as we'd rather have Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, or, to a lesser extent, Jill Stein in office, they're no longer realistic options for us.

    Hillary Clinton is pretty much the poster child of all the problems currently endemic in Washington. But hey, think of her as a holding pattern until something better comes along. We know what she is, we know what she'll do, and we know her general temperament. The next 4 years under her will be somewhat predictable, and relatively sane. Better to go with the devil we know than the one we don't.

  13. #513
    Member
    Registered: Jun 1999
    Location: Procrastination, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    The establishment school of thought is a bizarre combination of the worst aspects of socialism and capitalism that's most accurately referred to as Globalism: the idea that national identities and boundaries must be broken down for the benefit of multinational corporations and elites.
    This is somewhat tangential to the argument, but This is just standard neo-liberalism, US style libertarianism, Randism, Austrian school economics etc in action. Totally unfettered movement of labor and capital is the only true way. And it's been the backbone of conservative and, especially, business economics for fifty years.
    There wouldn't be a grain of socialism in there. Which isn't to say that those involved won't argue for and gladly accept government money. But this is usually rationalised along the lines of exploiting available opportunities being only rational, no matter where they come from. It is the responsibility of those in government to not make the money available. Exploiting such things to the fullest is only right in order to make the market distortion more obvious and argue more clearly for its correction.

    And we've all bought into it on some level. All these major parties march to the centre-right because they would not have a hope against a business, finance and corporate world, as well as press corps and public that will sound the trumpets of failing investment confidence and growth at any significant deviation from this path (unless they want to slow it down just a little for their own ...stability concerns)

  14. #514
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Right now, we need to settle for grim pragmatism than keep riding our wishful thinking. No, Hillary Clinton isn't the candidate we need, nor is it the one we really want. If we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn't be forced to swallow this bitter pills that are Trump and Clinton. We'd all be happily making a choice between Sanders or Kasich/Rubio come November, not fretting about anything other than the short term future of our favorite wedge issues.
    That's the exact same rhetoric our two main political parties have been using for the last 40 years, here in France, to make sure they get re-elected every time. It works really well and goes something like "If you vote for the Front National it will be the 3rd Reich all over again. Now, you don't want that do you? Then the only way to avoid this apocalypse is to vote for us." And this is how you bring to power the most right-wing, fascist government France has known since Vichy.

    Trump is just too absurdly ridiculous. Which is what leads me to think Clinton will win a landslide victory. If I were her I'd do everything to promote this guy and make sure he appears on every newspapers and TV shows 24/7. I mean with an opponent like Trump you barely even need to campaign. Just let him do his thing and he'll do your campaign for you. Hell, you could be a baby-eating mass-murderer and still, you'd be certain to be elected. Plus with the current "zeitgeist" (I like that word!) you've got nearly 99% of the 18-35 yo who think being a woman automatically makes you a great person. I just can't see a woman losing in this era of extreme feminism.

    If Trump does win I think it will be a case of the establishment having grossly underestimated just how incredibly stupid (or plain trollish) people can be.

  15. #515
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Compared to 190,000 on-the-ground soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush you're giving me peanuts, so no I'm not kidding. It's obvious we're on a non-interventionist curve compared to recent history.
    So are you saying that if we don't respond to every problem area with a full-scale invasion, we're in an isolationist phase? I think that's an extreme standard.

    The situation with ISIS is an order of magnitude more dangerous & invasion-worthy than Hussain ever was.
    I don't see it that way. ISIS doesn't have the military capability, training, organization, or resources to be a direct threat to anyone outside of their little enclave, which is shrinking week by week. At this point, the only danger they present outside of that shrinking enclave is inspiring terrorist attacks, and even that is pretty limited compared to what Al Qaeda was capable of circa 2001.

    If we all agree in hindsight that containment was a better option than invasion in 2003, then surely re-invading Iraq should be off the table now.

    Back in 2003, Iraq had something like the world's 4th largest army, a history of invading its neighbors, developing ballistic missiles and WMD, and we had just spent the last 12 years on continuing military operations to contain it. It was not exporting terrorism to the west, but in every other way it was a lot more dangerous than ISIS is today.

    But even closer to the nerve of the country, Trump is promising to pull the US out of NATO and countries like Korea and Japan, and make allies pay for their own defense (not to mention the WTO, NAFTA of course, a few treaties, and if not dropping out of the UN, definitely not participating). He's evidently happy to let Russia and China grow their sphere of influences unchecked. If Russia gobbles up east Ukraine and the Baltic states, and China gobbles up the South China Sea from Philippines or Vietnam, or Philippines & Vietnam for that matter, it's because they were weak and deserve it. He's getting massive support for these promises. Republicans can't give the finger to the rest of the world fast enough. That's an isolationist trend in practice. But go ahead and give me more news of increased drone bombings, remnant soldiers from old missions, and peanut numbers for new missions.
    OK, sure. There have been waves of isolationist sentiment among a portion of the population ever since the Vietnam war. Perot ran on it. GWB ran on it. Obama sort of ran on it (military withdrawal and retrenchment anyway). Sanders ran on it. Now Trump is running on it, although I think you're exaggerating his positions. But despite changing popular sentiment, American foreign policy hasn't been remotely isolationist since the early 20th century. The opposite is really true. Globalization just keeps marching along.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Not everything they discussed in those emails remained in the realm of the theoretical. Shultz did keep the televised debates to an absolute bare minimum, preventing anyone else running for the presidency under the Democrat banner from shaking things up too much for Hillary. The fact they failed to keep Sanders in check only serves to throw this fact into stark contrast. Plus, there is evidence that Shultz did minimize polling coverage in areas that were likely to vote heavily for Bernie as well. She very much did stack the deck in Clinton's favor.
    What I want to know is what kept everyone out of the race. Normally when there is an open seat there are a lot more people running.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manwe View Post
    Trump is just too absurdly ridiculous. Which is what leads me to think Clinton will win a landslide victory. If I were her I'd do everything to promote this guy and make sure he appears on every newspapers and TV shows 24/7. I mean with an opponent like Trump you barely even need to campaign. Just let him do his thing and he'll do your campaign for you. Hell, you could be a baby-eating mass-murderer and still, you'd be certain to be elected. Plus with the current "zeitgeist" (I like that word!) you've got nearly 99% of the 18-35 yo who think being a woman automatically makes you a great person. I just can't see a woman losing in this era of extreme feminism.

    If Trump does win I think it will be a case of the establishment having grossly underestimated just how incredibly stupid (or plain trollish) people can be.
    I doubt there will be a landslide because American national politics is like a team sport. 50% of eligible voters are going to turn out and vote for their favorite team no matter who the nominee is. I am fairly confident that Hillary will win, but only because this is likely to be a low turnout election won by base voters, and the Democratic party currently has a larger base.

  16. #516
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Manwe View Post
    That's the exact same rhetoric our two main political parties have been using for the last 40 years, here in France, to make sure they get re-elected every time. It works really well and goes something like "If you vote for the Front National it will be the 3rd Reich all over again. Now, you don't want that do you? Then the only way to avoid this apocalypse is to vote for us." And this is how you bring to power the most right-wing, fascist government France has known since Vichy.
    That's always a good thing to keep in mind, though the reality of our situation here shows that, yeah, taking the pragmatic approach is probably for the best in this very moment.

    If we want to elect a 3rd party into power, it'd be best to do it at the legislative level. Trying to slam one into the executive branch starting out won't do anything, save give an unintended advantage to the current majority party as you inevitably fail to gain traction in enough states. We have to accept the fact that our government doesn't make it easy for little shake-up revolutions to happen overnight. The very system that prevents random, off the wall candidates from coming in and disrupting everything to our detriment also makes it difficult to unseat our lackadaisical incumbents from the top down. If we want to change anything, we have to needle the system from below, slowly removing senators and representatives from their positions, replacing them with people we feel truly have our interests at heart. Only then will you have a chance of a 3rd party taking the big seat.

    People need to realize that the US government is staid and inefficient for a very good reason. If they want to change everything, they first need to understand how it works. Things aren't nearly so dire that we need to do something now. This belief that the country is falling apart around us, and the panicked rush to change things BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE is the reason why we're having to contend with Trump in the first place.

  17. #517
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    What I want to know is what kept everyone out of the race. Normally when there is an open seat there are a lot more people running.
    Without the televised debates, it became so much more difficult to get their faces out in front of the public. You could pretty much lay the blame for this straight at the DNC's feet. While the Republicans were fielding 50 billion candidates, and had televised debates practically every other day (which actually ended up hurting them, thanks to Trump coming out of left field, and grabbing the plurality of votes during the melee), the Democrats had like, what? Four? Shultz minimized any exposure that could harm Hillary's campaign, and the rest of the candidates paid the price for that obvious showing of favoritism, very quickly being shunted to the sidelines before they could even make an impression.

    The only reason Bernie got as far as he did, which was a damn impressive showing considering, was because he put in a tremendous amount of extra effort, going grassroots, and reaching out to as many people as people as he possibly could.

  18. #518
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Wasn't there an email from HRC saying something along the lines of 'strip out the classification header and re-send unsecure'? That to me suggests a level of knowledge of what was going through the server. In any case, a secure network shouldn't allow for any possibility of classified information hitting an unclassified server...
    The state department classifies all communiques by default and immediately declassifies the vast majority of them. As for the notion of preventing any possibility of classified information hitting an unclassified server, the way we classify data makes that essentially impossible; there's supposedly a tremendous amount of highly classified data sitting around on Wikipedia.

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    The only reason Bernie got as far as he did, which was a damn impressive showing considering, was because he put in a tremendous amount of extra effort, going grassroots, and reaching out to as many people as people as he possibly could.
    I'm pretty sure being not-Hillary helped, too.
    Last edited by Pyrian; 26th Jul 2016 at 17:12.

  19. #519
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    If we want to elect a 3rd party into power, it'd be best to do it at the legislative level. Trying to slam one into the executive branch starting out won't do anything, save give an unintended advantage to the current majority party as you inevitably fail to gain traction in enough states. We have to accept the fact that our government doesn't make it easy for little shake-up revolutions to happen overnight. The very system that prevents random, off the wall candidates from coming in and disrupting everything to our detriment also makes it difficult to unseat our lackadaisical incumbents from the top down. If we want to change anything, we have to needle the system from below, slowly removing senators and representatives from their positions, replacing them with people we feel truly have our interests at heart. Only then will you have a chance of a 3rd party taking the big seat.
    I agree that no 3rd party is going to go from having no representation in government to winning the Presidency. But that's not necessarily the point of supporting a 3rd party Presidential candidate. It's not President or bust.

    Simple goals are important to launching a party, like getting on the Presidential debate stage, getting on the ballot in all states, qualifying for federal funding, establishing a fundraising network, and creating a stable party organization that keeps working between election cycles. Achieving these goals is important to be able to compete in state & Congressional elections and sets you up to be taken seriously in future Presidential elections. The Reform Party was an example of how this can work, up until the infighting anyway.

    Another possible reason for supporting a 3rd party candidate is to force a change of platform and/or leadership within one of the major parties. In that case, you're just using a 3rd party as a temporary wedge to try to force a realignment.

  20. #520
    Member
    Registered: Mar 1999
    Location: I can't find myself
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    ISimple goals are important to launching a party, like getting on the Presidential debate stage, getting on the ballot in all states, qualifying for federal funding, establishing a fundraising network, and creating a stable party organization that keeps working between election cycles.
    Maybe start with this last one instead of trying to start with the first? People only know about the Green Party and the Libertarian Party because they keep showing up on their Presidential Election ballots. You don't get on the Presidential debate stage by fielding a candidate every four years and otherwise doing nothing.

    You don't build a party from the top down. Like the saying goes: All politics are local. Start locally and build. I would love it if the GOP finished its death throes, the Democratic Party became the new right wing, and the Green Party became the new Left, but it's not going to happen unless the Greens actually build a party properly.

  21. #521
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    There's a simple explanation for why the US won't ever have a third party alongside 2 major parties (putting aside the occasional ruptures where one major party evolves into another one). My undergrad thesis was on Third Parties in the US, and the punchline was, the successful ones are only successful as protest movements to the major parties, never as positive support in their own right. (There are ones that get positive support, either the single-issue parties or ideological ones, Libertarians & ACP, but they never get much support.)

  22. #522
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
    Maybe start with this last one instead of trying to start with the first? People only know about the Green Party and the Libertarian Party because they keep showing up on their Presidential Election ballots. You don't get on the Presidential debate stage by fielding a candidate every four years and otherwise doing nothing.

    You don't build a party from the top down. Like the saying goes: All politics are local. Start locally and build. I would love it if the GOP finished its death throes, the Democratic Party became the new right wing, and the Green Party became the new Left, but it's not going to happen unless the Greens actually build a party properly.
    I think the Green party is a lost cause for several reasons. The Greens started out internally divided about whether they wanted to be an electoral party or just an issue-advocacy organization. So through the 1990s there were two Green parties, one trying to contest elections and one focused on grass roots issue advocacy. There was an attempted unification after the 2000 election but it failed and the party that was doing most of the grass roots organizing (GPUSA) died out. So there isn't much organizing going on. The Occupy movement was a great opportunity for the Greens to pick up new members and organize but they did little other than offer some statements of support, so now there are Occupy organizations separate from the Greens which helps neither. And the Greens are still split about whether they want to contest elections or just be a protest party. Most of their candidates are not serious and won't get their hands dirty doing stuff like fundraising and campaigning.

    The other thing the Green party lacks is national leadership. It really is just a loose collection of state parties, which vary in their political aims, with no strong national leaders to pull them together. Half of the states haven't even bothered to put the national party candidate on the ballot. Ralph Nader didn't even bother to become a member of the party who nominated him.

    Anyway, rather than splitting the Democratic party to build the Greens, I would rather see the Republican party split. Currently, most of the voters who are disenfranchised by the current Dem/Rep alignment are true progressives and greens on the left. But the voting group I would prefer to be see disenfranchised are the Bible thumping social conservatives. And I think Bernie Sanders has shown that the best way to build a "new left" aka progressive party is to move the center of the Democratic party to the left. The Democratic party has been getting its ass kicked in recent gubernatorial and Congressional elections because the New Democrats suppressed the message of economic populism. They've left populism to the Tea Party and now Trump. Sanders tried reviving it but the party is still dominated by New Democrats who shut it down.

    Regarding how to build a party, I agree you can't build a sustainable party from the top down, but I believe a high profile national campaign is necessary at some point to build a national organization. Having a strong horse in the Presidential race is a unifying and motivating force that drives people to organize. Without it, 3rd parties just muddle along. Like the Greens and Libertarians have been doing. The Reform Party is a good example of what a strong national campaign can do. Ross Perot built a relevant national party quickly, and after that they started winning down ballot elections. Unfortunately, Perot was not really interested in building a party. To him, the Reform Party was just a vehicle for his Presidential aspirations, and once he stopped seeking the Presidency he walked away from the party without grooming a successor to hold it together. So it fell apart due to factionalism. To me, watching that party fall apart emphasized the need for strong national leaders.

  23. #523
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    OK, I've been on holiday and missed most of this, but can I just check that what Tony meant was that I'm only allowed to claim to be against Elitist politics is I become prejudiced against LGBT people?
    Because that is like jumping a rocket-rigged dirt bike over a grand canyon filled with great whites in terms of political discourse.
    Like, I didn't actually reckon Tony could go below ground in a limbo contest, but somehow physics don't apply to him.

    I actually need time to process this one.

  24. #524
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    There's a simple explanation for why the US won't ever have a third party alongside 2 major parties (putting aside the occasional ruptures where one major party evolves into another one). My undergrad thesis was on Third Parties in the US, and the punchline was, the successful ones are only successful as protest movements to the major parties, never as positive support in their own right. (There are ones that get positive support, either the single-issue parties or ideological ones, Libertarians & ACP, but they never get much support.)
    While we may never have a sustainable multi-party system, that doesn't mean that 3rd parties can't be relevant over the short term and influence national politics, because there are many examples of that happening, and occasional examples where one of the two major parties has been replaced. And there are a few countries with political systems that contradict Duverger's law. I worry that people who think they are being pragmatic are really just being fatalistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    OK, I've been on holiday and missed most of this, but can I just check that what Tony meant was that I'm only allowed to claim to be against Elitist politics is I become prejudiced against LGBT people?
    Because that is like jumping a rocket-rigged dirt bike over a grand canyon filled with great whites in terms of political discourse.
    Like, I didn't actually reckon Tony could go below ground in a limbo contest, but somehow physics don't apply to him.

    I actually need time to process this one.
    I didn't understand how that was relevant to the argument either. But Tony tends to complain about most forms of social activism, and the two groups he particularly seems to have a problem with are gays and feminists because I keep seeing these anti-LGBT and anti-feminist mini-rants woven into his posts various topics. If you ignore that tangent, the point he was making is that being conservative does not necessarily equate to supporting the established order. In America, we have multiple overlapping forms of conservative. There is the religious right, who associate the term with their social values. There are the small government conservatives. There are right populists. National defense hawks. Law & order types. And various combinations. Most of them don't self-align with the current established order, although they may align with aspects of it.

  25. #525
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    I worry that people who think they are being pragmatic are really just being fatalistic.
    If we're all honest about it, supporting one candidate over the other is really just a desperate attempt to hedge our bets by this point.

Page 21 of 559 FirstFirst ... 6111617181920212223242526313641465156616671121271521 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •