It isn't looking too good for Sanders in these primaries. In the link below, at the time I posted this thread, it shows that Hillary is ahead by *almost* double of what Sanders has. Approximately an 800 delegate difference. There is still a chance Sanders can win the primaries, but it would be a mistake to think he is guaranteed in. A dead stupid mistake. I'm a realist. I want Sanders to be the winner of these primaries, so it's him against whatever Republican candidate there is, but as realists, we need to be real here for a second. It's looking pretty grim. Hillary is closing the gap and there are only (as of now) about 1,600 delegates left.
https://g.co/kgs/fQbco
So Sanders supporters, what is your backup plan? Are you "Bernie or bust"? Like a few people I know of? Or will you vote for someone and not throw your vote away for the lesser evil, if you have to? Like I've said before on this site, I don't want to have to vote for Hillary, but if Bernie doesn't win the primaries and I'm left with the choice of Hillary or Trump, Or Hillary and Cruz, I'm voting Hillary. I'm not going to throw away a vote and not go to the ballot box on voting day. And I'm not voting for an independent because they have no chance at winning. That Democratic endorsement guarantees a huge amount of votes over any independent candidate, so voting independent is just as good as not voting and letting the Republicans have their voters put their votes in.
Lets be clear here. We've had many worse presidents than what Hillary would be. Hillary can't be much worse than Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton was actually a pretty good president. The problem is, we have Bernie Sanders, who seems like a god-send and he is such a good candidate that it makes everyone else, even the other decent candidates look like pieces of shit...
Let's hope Bernie gets the win, but you guys that are Bernie or bust better start thinking about what your plan B is, in case he doesn't, which is a very real possibility.
If there is a maniac behind the wheel, you have to at least try to keep the car somewhat on the road.
(http://film-grab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/45-car.png)
If Bernie doesn't make it, I'm going Hillary. It's the best choice (among the remaining options). It's going to be hell to convince other Bernie supporters, though. And if it's Hillary VS Trump, expect record low turnout, which typically doesn't bode well for the Dems.
My plan b is for highly intelligent aliens to come adopt me as a pet and take me back to their homeworld where I can learn basic tricks to the delight of my owners who will rub my belly and feed me grapes.
I guess plan c is vote for Hillary.
Well, if it comes down to Clinton or Trump, that would be a tough call. The problem is that if you don't stop voting for these shitheads, they will never go away. Now if Hillary invited me out for a beer because she wanted to hear what I thought, and if she promised to just shut up and listen, I might consider her. But then if Donald called me and promised to teach me how to say stupid shit and still have people thinking I was really brilliant, then I'd feel slightly indebted to him. It would be really hard to decide. Right now, I don't have a plan B, although I'm considering Jill Stein. I probably won't know until I get to the election booth. There is really no big rush. The election is still far away. Maybe I'll have a plan B by then. Consider me sort of a trivial super delegate. I am not obligated to vote a certain way, and I can even be bought.
I don't have fond memories of Bill Clinton ... though I bought his charm during the 92 campaign, as I did Obama during the 08 campaign.
I don't agree with Bernie's policies ... though I think he is a nicer person than the other candidates, in the same way that Carter was nicer.
I think who the VP will be, for either party, is crucial. I can see Hillary getting impeached immediately, so the VP will be the real president. Hillary is thinking of putting a second woman on the ticket. I think she has the lesbian hots for the current Dem Party leader. I would like a Hispanic VP ... who will promote the idea of expelling all the Anglos ;-)
The Republicans might try the same trick with Trump ... so his VP choice is crucial too. If JEB is the VP, then the fix is in big ;-(( I think people are too focused on the SCOTUS replacements ... in Roman politics, the guy closest to you is the most interesting, particularly if he is popular with the MIC.
I'll probably vote for Trump as a plan b, given the option. I'd go into my reasoning, but I don't really want to type an essay on my phone.
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Quote from: SGOS on April 23, 2016, 09:08:24 AM
Well, if it comes down to Clinton or Trump, that would be a tough call.
I do not understand this.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 23, 2016, 10:55:33 AM
I do not understand this.
I don't really either. I mean, I get that on a character level they're practically the same. They both lie, overstate their records and abilities, suck big money's dicks and pretend like they're the only ones who can fix America.
But one is a flagrant racist who spews words out of his mouth without thinking about them and switches sides on issues more often than Old Navy has a 2 for $5 sale on flip flops.
So really, if you want to vote for Bernie and he doesn't get the nomination and you consider it better to vote for Trump instead of Hillary because you think he'll do a better job, you should take a pretty careful inventory of your values. You might as well say you were going to vote for Tyrion Lannister but since he didn't get the nomination, it's best to vote for Ramsay Bolton instead, because you just don't think Jamie Lannister has the chops.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 23, 2016, 10:55:33 AM
I do not understand this.
I said that with tongue in cheek just to make a point about my opinion of Hillary. I'd take it with a grain of salt.
Ah, I missed the sarcasm. I have heard people say this before, without irony.
I mean... it would be a tougher call then if it was Sanders vs Trump.... but I would say it's still a no brainer to pick Hillary over Trump... or Hillary over Cruz
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 23, 2016, 11:46:17 AMI mean... it would be a tougher call then if it was Sanders vs Trump.... but I would say it's still a no brainer to pick Hillary over Trump... or Hillary over Cruz
A no brainer for us liberals. But I wouldn't bet on independents or people who don't often vote to mobilize for Clinton. And like I said, some of the Sanders supporters are going to be a tough sell. They're looking for significant reform and giving them a candidate perceived as status quo isn't going to impress anyone. And while Clinton currently has an edge over Trump (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-poll-hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-but-voters-view-both-unfavorably/) that lead will probably narrow as both parties select and rally around their nominee. Both frontrunners are viewed unfavorably, so it looks like no matter who wins, the electorate's going to be unhappy on election day.
I am pretty sure that Sanders absolutely must (and will) endorse Clinton when the nominations are decided, otherwise I think we may get Trump in office.
I feel that this would be absolutely devastating.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 23, 2016, 12:57:08 PMAnd like I said, some of the Sanders supporters are going to be a tough sell. They're looking for significant reform and giving them a candidate perceived as status quo isn't going to impress anyone.
This is basically my reasoning for Trump being my Plan B vote. I would prefer Bernie, but if voting for Trump is what it'll take to break the status quo, I'll take it. I look at Trump's record more than his campaign rhetoric (because I think actions speak louder than words), and he's a relatively sensible guy for the most part.
Besides, if Trump became that bad of a president, Congress might actually take some bi-partisan action for once.
2020 EDIT: I was wrong. I was so horribly wrong.
(http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m8xSuezsmSHWedbp2b38ikg.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Yf2BA4sO0
Quote from: gentle_dissident on April 23, 2016, 11:14:18 PM
(http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m8xSuezsmSHWedbp2b38ikg.jpg)
I might write this dream team in on a ticket if it came down in some weird way to Trump and Hillary, and then Hillary got indicted. Seriously.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/suzqy8.jpg)
Any candidate who says "More Umax" has my vote ;-)
It seems to me that both major parties are trying like hell to rip themselves apart. Among D's of course is HRC vs Bernie and among the Rs it's Trump vs the whole damn party..
This may or may not be a good thing or it may also just be a setup to get the electorate to fully embrace the status quo..
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 23, 2016, 10:54:26 PMThis is basically my reasoning for Trump being my Plan B vote. I would prefer Bernie, but if voting for Trump is what it'll take to break the status quo, I'll take it.
A lot of Bernie supporters are making this argument and I sympathize with that somewhat. This system desperately needs reform and whatever it takes to make it happen, so be it. But Trump seems like too much of a loose cannon. I don't know what to expect from the guy, and his rhetoric isn't particularly reassuring. In fact, it's more than a little frightening how he garnered so much support for comments appealing to Americans' xenophobic leanings and entertaining conspiracy theories ranging from Obama's citizenship to vaccines to global warming. I can't trust what he says (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) and I can't trust him. Ultimately, I think he's just as liable to push us in the wrong direction as the right one.
If I had to choose between a lamentable status quo and possible catastrophe, I pick the status quo. Obviously, waiting another 4 years is not ideal, and these problems are only getting worse in the meantime, but I'd rather be stuck with the mess we have now for a while longer than deal with a whole new one immediately.
QuoteI look at Trump's record more than his campaign rhetoric (because I think actions speak louder than words), and he's a relatively sensible guy for the most part.
What record? He's never held public office as far as I can tell. He might be a decent guy unfairly portrayed by the media, but I have no way of knowing that. His speeches and debates are all I have to go on and those include infantile name-calling and a literal dick-measuring contest.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 24, 2016, 12:39:17 PM
infantile name-calling and a literal dick-measuring contest.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Trump
I want to know who dreamed up his Merry Prankster candidacy.
Status quo folks want an Ivy League graduate (a real one, not fakes like George W or Barak), with poly-sci electives, and a JD degree, but not a trial lawyer, an corporate attorney who has always practiced in both government side and corporate side.
And that is exactly the kind of person I can't support. The status quo guarantees that we will drive off the cliff with Thelma & Louise ... 1929 all over again.
The current status quo isn't keeping things the same, it is keeping a financial revolution going that started with Reagan and deregulation. Casino America.
I kind of want to do what Hijiri might do and vote for Trump... and hope that the country collapses in a way that people in the senate will realize something is wrong and we need to fix it... The only problem is, I highly doubt that the people in the senate, and congress and the people behind the scenes that own the companies that really run this country will even want to do anything about it. If the country collapses, it won't even effect them, so why would they?
It's definitely tempting though. Like I said in Hydras april fools joke thread...
It's kind of like when you stand on an edge of a cliff... you almost want to jump off to feel the rush of what it's like right before you die... but you don't actually want to die. I don't want to die, so I don't jump off cliffs, maybe one day with a parachute, if I get ballsy enough, but not any time soon. Same thing goes for Trump. Not voting for trump...
It is very profitable to destroy corporations and governments ... just ask Romney ... or the guys who are squeezing blood from the turnip that is Argentina. In a corrupt economy, one doesn't have to make constructive change or investment, to make a killing.
Right now economic hitmen and tearing Brazil to pieces.
I almost wasn't even going to vote for Trudeau, so I don't think I'd be able to vote for Clinton if I were American. Who knows though. Maybe I'd feel differently if I was born and lived my whole life in the States. The Liberals were the number 3 party in Canada not too long ago, and I said I would likely vote Liberal even if they were not considered a top two party anymore. The Liberals went from third to first.
When it comes down to it, I don't think anyone here really needs to worry much about Bernie supporters. Most of them will vote Hillary. The rest are not needed. Clinton is murdering Trump in the polls and Trump's unlikeable numbers are massive, so we're not going to see a complete 180 in the polls. Clinton will win against Trump, and the low voter turnout will send a message to the establishment, that next time you better nominate someone more progressive if you want to have a shot against a Republican that is not a complete clown like Trump (or more likely they will ignore liberals wanting someone more progressive, and they'll just give you a better salesman than Hillary. Someone who's a smooth talker like another Obama rather than a robot who lacks a personality like Hillary). The one thing you have to worry about is the GOP not nominating Trump if he doesn't reach the magic number. Cruz or Rubio or Kasich could still very well be the nominee, and in that case, the left over Bernie supporters won't matter, because with or without them, any Republican but Trump would completely destroy Clinton on voting day. As long as Hillary is facing Trump, you should have no worries.
Hhhhhhhmmmmmm????????? Do I detect a note of dissatisfaction amongst the Donkeys?
As jiggered as the GOP is; in favor of their establishment-----the sad truth should be blindingly obvious by now--the Democratic party is far more elitist/mainstream----and just as prone to orthodoxy (with in their world view) and authoritarianism as the GOP. Think being ruled by the "corporation" would be bad---------you're right it would be. What's the difference between being under the thumb of the Board of Directors, or the Committee for Harmony and Social Justice? Not a lot of daylight between them; that I can see. The first wants to teach you what to think, the second how to.
If you want change--------be sure and vote for the same parties that are responsible for it and the Ruling Class we all so admire.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.phpb Pretty equally divided (numerically) between the Elephants and Donkeys.
In case you're wondering................I voted Republican from 1972-2004; when I dropped out.
To those of you who suggest maybe we need of a collapse to reorganize/restructure..........................I'd suggest you've never lived in a country that has, or you wouldn't suggest that. If you'd like to try it; there are any number of interesting places to get your fill of theoretical poly sci, and cultural/religious Darwinism.
I entirely agree we need a thorough reorganization of the Federal Government to fix a number of institutional deficiencies--------I can easily forego the "collapse" part of the party though. Been there--didn't enjoy that; it wasn't that bad for me...........but watching what the locals were dealing with; due to our efforts and effects, but mostly due to their own; made a true believer out of me.
I want Berne. I don't want Clinton. The argument that I should vote for Clinton just to avoid a Trump presidency holds no weight or merit with me. If she can't beat a pandering twat like Trump without rebound votes from Sanders then she doesn't deserve to win and the rest of us truly deserve what we get.
Quote from: Nonsensei on April 25, 2016, 04:16:10 PM
I want Berne. I don't want Clinton. The argument that I should vote for Clinton just to avoid a Trump presidency holds no weight or merit with me. If she can't beat a pandering twat like Trump without rebound votes from Sanders then she doesn't deserve to win and the rest of us truly deserve what we get.
Will you vote if Sanders doesn't win the primary?
Quote from: Mermaid on April 25, 2016, 06:32:33 PM
Will you vote if Sanders doesn't win the primary?
No.
I think Trump would be a fucking show, if the pubs let him live that long. If he gets the nod, I think he gets waxed before he ever signs his first paper. So look for a reasonable VP.
Quote from: aitm on April 25, 2016, 08:41:17 PM
I think Trump would be a fucking show, if the pubs let him live that long. If he gets the nod, I think he gets waxed before he ever signs his first paper. So look for a reasonable VP.
He's looking at Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/mary-fallin-countrys-worst-governor-243539011803) right now. Oh the puns I could come up with...
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 25, 2016, 09:10:41 PM
He's looking at Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/mary-fallin-countrys-worst-governor-243539011803) right now.
My goodness. What a dream team.
That way the Dems are happy too, for the first woman President ... after the CIA waxes her boss.
Plan B: vote for Hillary, of course. The worst Democrat* is still far better than the best Republican. And not voting, or voting third party, is tantamount to voting Republican.
*And Hillary is really not as bad as many seem to imagine: most of the negatives going around about her are the result of decades Republican smearing.
Quote from: Baruch on April 23, 2016, 09:32:25 AM
I think who the VP will be, for either party, is crucial. I can see Hillary getting impeached immediately, so the VP will be the real president.
Oh, they'll definitely at least
try to impeach her. There hasn't been a Democrat President since Carter who the Republicans didn't openly talk about at least trying to impeach because, in their tiny little minds, it's actually illegal for them to lose an election. I remember talk of impeaching Obama 2 months before he was even elected. And let's face it, the whole "birther" thing was every bit a grasp at straws to try to find a way to remove him from office.
But even if they do manage to get her impeached that still doesn't mean they can remove her from office, which would be their ultimate goal. I haven't followed the whole email debacle too closely, but I very much doubt they would have the grounds to do more than impeach her on a technicality. After all, they have been throwing shit at the walls for years hoping something would stick, opening multiple investigations into her, personally, just
trying to find [/i]something, ANYTHING[/i] that she might have done which would disqualify her altogether. They even timed this one to hang over the election. And this is the party who has disenfranchised perhaps millions of likely Democrat voters, the party with the audacity to actually rig an election under the premise that they were trying to stop the election from being rigged. So yeah, they'll start talking about
how they're going to impeach her as soon as it's obvious she has the nomination. Maybe sooner. And you can be damned sure they'll try like hell. But every other bullshit story they have dug up about her so far as been nothing more than a monkey throwing his shit. I have no reason to believe the email thing or anything else they might come up with is any different. The is both the party of cheaters and the party of "The sky is falling!!!", after all. I take EVERYTHING they say with a grain of salt...and then throw it out completely because there's a VERY high probability that it's shit.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 25, 2016, 06:32:33 PM
Will you vote if Sanders doesn't win the primary?
Quote from: Nonsensei on April 25, 2016, 06:48:31 PM
No.
:high5:#Trump2016 :clap: :celebrate: :lolhitting:
Hooray for another Trump vote that is not opposed!!!! :bravo2: :thanx: :clap:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ca10BuVvWxQ/hqdefault.jpg)
I am a Sanders supporter, but not a fan of Sanders... too much of a one-trick pony and I think that killed him more than anything. But I will take a status-quo poiltican like Hillary, despicable that may be, over someone who wants to be even worse than the status quo. "Cutting your nose off to smite your face", or some such, by not voting for Hillary because you don't like her and think Trump has any legitimate right to lead a country if the people think so.
My heart says Sanders but my head says Clinton.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 26, 2016, 06:06:38 PM
:high5:#Trump2016 :clap: :celebrate: :lolhitting:
Hooray for another Trump vote that is not opposed!!!! :bravo2: :thanx: :clap:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ca10BuVvWxQ/hqdefault.jpg)
This may shock you, but i don't consider Clinton to be a better choice than Trump.
On the one hand we have a guy saying whatever he has to to keep the dimwits supporting him. What will he really be like as president? Nobody knows. Will he be able to do any of the shit he is talking about like building a wall or deporting Muslims? Nope.
On the other hand we have a woman who can't be trusted, and is in the pockets of more corporations than I can count. What will she really be like as president? Nobody knows. Will she be able to accomplish anything in office? Maybe, but, being the Tostidos(tm) presidential candidate, in my opinion the better questions is "do we want her to?"
My vote goes to Bernie because he is capable of displaying some tiny shred of concern for Americans. Some regard beyond the facade of patriotic yes we can nonsense required to get himself into office. Neither of the other candidates have shown even an iota of that. In my estimation, Trump and Clinton are equally reprehensible.
Yet according to you I am required to vote for one of those pieces of shit over the other or I'm burying my head in the sand. Well fuck you very much. I get to decide who I vote for and whether or not I cast my vote. I am not required to fall in line for another 4-8 years of sure and steady economic stagnation while our rights continue to circle the drain just so that I can vote for YOUR choice between the lesser of 'who cares?'
Quote from: Nonsensei on April 26, 2016, 06:48:02 PM
This may shock you, but i don't consider Clinton to be a better choice than Trump.
On the one hand we have a guy saying whatever he has to to keep the dimwits supporting him. What will he really be like as president? Nobody knows. Will he be able to do any of the shit he is talking about like building a wall or deporting Muslims? Nope.
On the other hand we have a woman who can't be trusted, and is in the pockets of more corporations than I can count. What will she really be like as president? Nobody knows. Will she be able to accomplish anything in office? Maybe, but, being the Tostidos(tm) presidential candidate, in my opinion the better questions is "do we want her to?"
My vote goes to Bernie because he is capable of displaying some tiny shred of concern for Americans. Some regard beyond the facade of patriotic yes we can nonsense required to get himself into office. Neither of the other candidates have shown even an iota of that. In my estimation, Trump and Clinton are equally reprehensible.
Yet according to you I am required to vote for one of those pieces of shit over the other or I'm burying my head in the sand. Well fuck you very much. I get to decide who I vote for and whether or not I cast my vote. I am not required to fall in line for another 4-8 years of sure and steady economic stagnation while our rights continue to circle the drain just so that I can vote for YOUR choice between the lesser of 'who cares?'
Oh. Ok. At least you acknowledge that you not voting makes it easier for Trump. I'm going to have to disagree with your suggestion that Trump is a better candidate than Clinton but at least you know that you're basically indirectly voting for Trump by choosing to bury your head in the sand.
In regards to burying your head in the sand. Point out where I'm wrong with that and I'll take it back.
One of the arguments I've heard by a Hillary supporter, and I'll paraphrase because I don't remember the wording verbatim, but I do remember his point:
Quote*I really would like Bernie to be president, but I don't think anyone in office would work with him. Everyone that hears that says "well then if you think no one will work with him, we need to vote in people to office that will." Everyone thinks that is so much easier than it is. Sure. We'll just swap out the entire senate... easier said than done. I really like Sander's policies, although I still am completely unsure how his foreign policy works or if it would even work at all and I don't agree with a lot of the things Hillary says and has as policies, but if we're going to get the most done in this country and obtain the most progress, I think having Hillary in office is the way it's going to get done.*
Not that I agree with him 100%, but it is probably the best argument for Hillary that I've heard.
OH. And nonsensei. If you really think Trump is a better candidate than Hillary... and the instance comes where it's Hillary Vs Trump, why not help secure Trump's victory?
It is of course your choice to bury your head in the sand and let whatever happens happen, but this is the head of our country we're talking about. It's important to have your voice heard.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 26, 2016, 06:51:16 PM
Oh. Ok. At least you acknowledge that you not voting makes it easier for Trump. I'm going to have to disagree with your suggestion that Trump is a better candidate than Clinton but at least you know that you're basically indirectly voting for Trump by choosing to bury your head in the sand.
In regards to burying your head in the sand. Point out where I'm wrong with that and I'll take it back.
Pretty sure I went out of my way to make it clear that Clinton and Trump are equally shit in my view. I like how your mind warped that into me suggesting Trump is better. Kind of telling.
I think its really more a case of you burying your head in the sand rather than me not doing so. The idea that Hillary Clinton is preferable to Donald Trump as president demonstrates a precious, terrifying sort of naivete on your part. The only major difference between them so far is that Trump is vocally on one side of social issues neither of them will ever be able to do anything about, while Clinton is on the other side of those issues neither of them will ever be able to do anything about.
But its all fruitless belching really. Ive seen you post here. You have no intention of taking anything back because this is the internet and you refuse to be wrong.
Anyway this "indirectly voting for Trump" thing is the biggest steamiest load of bullshit ive ever smelled and I think you know it. Hillary Clinton had an opportunity to earn my vote and she failed. Am I to be blamed for that? Is it my fault your precious candidate can barely command a majority of members of her own party? Is it my fault that she is not worth the time or effort I would have to expend to write her name on a ballot?
Your level of conceit is towering. I don't owe her or you anything, and if she loses to Donald Trump it isnt my fault because I didn't vote for her. Its HER fault because she gave me reason not to.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 25, 2016, 09:10:41 PM
He's looking at Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/mary-fallin-countrys-worst-governor-243539011803) right now. Oh the puns I could come up with...
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/mary-fallin-countrys-worst-governor-243539011803
I live in Oklahoma. I've never met her, but I've always imagined her to be pure evil.
Why have a government at all? Would actual anarchy be any more anarchic than the present system? Without the rule of law, there is no government. And the "ends justify the means" folks keep undoing the rule of law.
And no, the idea that any candidate can be my representative ... is so much Santa Claus. They represent the lobbyists ... who represent the people with the real power and real money ... aka not you or I. Would it be a bad thing if the curtain was pulled back from this false legitimacy?
And how can we consider someone we don't actually know, as pure evil? How can we even entertain the idea of pure evil, if there is no G-d?
Quote from: Nonsensei on April 26, 2016, 06:48:02 PMWhat will she really be like as president?
Well, unlike Trump, we do have her Senate legislative record and Department of State experience to go on. She's had some blunders for sure, but overall not terrible, imo. Expect interventionist foreign policy (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html) combined with moderately liberal social and economic policy. Basically, a slightly more conservative and more hawkish Obama.
My main gripe with her (besides the assorted scandals and issue flip-flopping (https://imgur.com/gallery/yZ0LZDP/new) more indicative of political expedience than "evolving" one's stances) is that you can ask her a direct question and get a bunch of bullshit in response (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/15/hillary-clinton-invoked-911-to-defend-her-ties-to-wall-street-what/). It's extremely off-putting and I can't blame you for staying home on election day.
But this election will almost certainly determine at least one new Supreme Court justice. At least with her, I'd be a liberal appointee.
Quote from: Baruch on April 26, 2016, 07:35:44 PM
And how can we consider someone we don't actually know, as pure evil? How can we even entertain the idea of pure evil, if there is no G-d?
LOL
Quote from: Nonsensei on April 26, 2016, 07:30:42 PM
Pretty sure I went out of my way to make it clear that Clinton and Trump are equally shit in my view. I like how your mind warped that into me suggesting Trump is better. Kind of telling.
I think its really more a case of you burying your head in the sand rather than me not doing so. The idea that Hillary Clinton is preferable to Donald Trump as president demonstrates a precious, terrifying sort of naivete on your part. The only major difference between them so far is that Trump is vocally on one side of social issues neither of them will ever be able to do anything about, while Clinton is on the other side of those issues neither of them will ever be able to do anything about.
But its all fruitless belching really. Ive seen you post here. You have no intention of taking anything back because this is the internet and you refuse to be wrong.
Anyway this "indirectly voting for Trump" thing is the biggest steamiest load of bullshit ive ever smelled and I think you know it. Hillary Clinton had an opportunity to earn my vote and she failed. Am I to be blamed for that? Is it my fault your precious candidate can barely command a majority of members of her own party? Is it my fault that she is not worth the time or effort I would have to expend to write her name on a ballot?
Your level of conceit is towering. I don't owe her or you anything, and if she loses to Donald Trump it isnt my fault because I didn't vote for her. Its HER fault because she gave me reason not to.
I misexpressed myself.
Let me reword it and expand as well.
If you think Trump and Hillary are both going to steer this boat of a country in to a river of shit, don't you think it would be a good idea which river of shit it is? If you truly believe they are equally as bad you must at least understand they are bad in different ways, correct? Because they have a huge amount of differing policies. We can steer this boat in to the right river where the river of shit has bits of corn and pumpkin seeds, or we can steer it to the left where it has strands of spinach. What do you want caught in the motor of this boat?
There are 2 choices and a hidden 3rd. You look at the river to the right and decide that corn isn't as bad as spinach when it's caught in the boat's motor, or you can look at the river to the left and say, well spinach isn't that horrible to get tangled in the turbines. At least the corn isn't damaging the blades. orrrr you can say, I'm gonna go below deck and let this boat go where it goes, I don't want to make this decision. AKA burying your head in the sand.
It's your choice, and by hell I agree you have the right to it, but don't try bullshitting your way around saying that it's avoiding facing the hard truth that the golden boy of the election was eliminated out of the primary choices. Just because it's not as easy of a choice as Sanders vs [insert republican here], you are avoiding making a choice of "who do I not want in office, because it will screw up the country in ways that I don't like more than the other person. Because of the fact that if Sanders is in as the primary winner, you are going to be taking the easy and obvious choice and voting for him, sticking your head in the sand is a perfect way of describing what your "Bernie or Bust" choice is.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 26, 2016, 08:25:55 PM
If you think Trump and Hillary are both going to steer this boat of a country in to a river of shit, don't you think it would be a good idea which river of shit it is?
True. Josef Stalin and Jimmy Carter were both terrible leaders, but to take a note from Tolstoy's page, great leaders are all alike; every terrible leader is terrible in his or her own way.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 26, 2016, 08:25:55 PM
I misexpressed myself.
Let me reword it and expand as well.
If you think Trump and Hillary are both going to steer this boat of a country in to a river of shit, don't you think it would be a good idea which river of shit it is? If you truly believe they are equally as bad you must at least understand they are bad in different ways, correct? Because they have a huge amount of differing policies. We can steer this boat in to the right river where the river of shit has bits of corn and pumpkin seeds, or we can steer it to the left where it has strands of spinach. What do you want caught in the motor of this boat?
There are 2 choices and a hidden 3rd. You look at the river to the right and decide that corn isn't as bad as spinach when it's caught in the boat's motor, or you can look at the river to the left and say, well spinach isn't that horrible to get tangled in the turbines. At least the corn isn't damaging the blades. orrrr you can say, I'm gonna go below deck and let this boat go where it goes, I don't want to make this decision. AKA burying your head in the sand.
It's your choice, and by hell I agree you have the right to it, but don't try bullshitting your way around saying that it's avoiding facing the hard truth that the golden boy of the election was eliminated out of the primary choices. Just because it's not as easy of a choice as Sanders vs [insert republican here], you are avoiding making a choice of "who do I not want in office, because it will screw up the country in ways that I don't like more than the other person. Because of the fact that if Sanders is in as the primary winner, you are going to be taking the easy and obvious choice and voting for him, sticking your head in the sand is a perfect way of describing what your "Bernie or Bust" choice is.
With all due respect to TomFoolery, I don't believe the difference between Hillary and Trump is as wide as it is between Carter and Stalin.
Of course, I have no way to know. Both of them are pounding on the fakery button pretty hard and they will continue to do so until one of them wins. And herein lies my primary objection to your river of shit argument. You don't know the composition of either rivers. Neither do I.
Theres two rivers of shit. They are clearly made of shit and you know it because of the overpowering smell, but the surface is completely murky so you cant make out whats in either river. And of course the only clue you are given is a sign in front of each river asserting that they are both totally shit free and safe to drink.
What sane person proceeds? Wouldn't the obvious choice be to turn away?
Quote from: Nonsensei on April 26, 2016, 08:45:32 PM
What sane person proceeds? Wouldn't the obvious choice be to turn away?
Real life only moves forward, whether you turn away or not.
Quote from: Nonsensei on April 26, 2016, 08:45:32 PMWith all due respect to TomFoolery, I don't believe the difference between Hillary and Trump is as wide as it is between Carter and Stalin.
Is that because bad leaders can only be truly bad if they operate gulags? Truly, Saddam Hussein got awards from UNESCO for his literacy programs and expanded state health insurance. He also buried his enemies in soccer fields. So really, what is worse? A dictator who runs a country moderately well and oppresses its citizens, or a pushover who tanks the economy and bungles international affairs but never committed human rights atrocities? It's apples and oranges, which is why I say there's a lot of ways to be bad, and finding ways to measure them is subjective.
Quote from: Nonsensei on April 26, 2016, 08:45:32 PM
You don't know the composition of either rivers. Neither do I.
But I can see the ways the tides are turning.
When countries like Britain try to pass measures barring Donald Trump from entering their country and every day someone like Mexico, Japan, or South Korea is saying "WTF Donald?!" it at least gives a secondary measure of what paddling down Shit River might look like.
I'm a Sanders supporter, but the thing is this: regardless of how much I detest the idea of a Clinton presidency, I will vote for her without a second thought because my rights are at stake. My rights as a gay person, and as a worker, are at stake. It might be nice to vote for Trump as a protest vote when you're on the sidelines, but I'm in the middle of this. I'll be damned if I let the same type of business man who got us in this shit actually be president.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on April 26, 2016, 09:02:56 PM
I'm a Sanders supporter, but the thing is this: regardless of how much I detest the idea of a Clinton presidency, I will vote for her without a second thought because my rights are at stake. My rights as a gay person, and as a worker, are at stake. It might be nice to vote for Trump as a protest vote when you're on the sidelines, but I'm in the middle of this. I'll be damned if I let the same type of business man who got us in this shit actually be president.
In addition to lgbt rights, we need to think about how it will affect us as atheists with one candidate over another.
Since both D and R parties are conservative, not liberal (with the exception of Bernie) ... in what way is the current LGBT situation not a Pyrrhic victory (a victory that costs too much)? Unless you get a liberal electorate, electing liberals to Congress, the WH, and the SCOTUS ... your current victory is as shallow as a spring rain in the desert. Given the current conservative turn, I can see the civil rights won by women and African-Americans getting reversed ... back to 1960 with us! Symbolic electoral victories and MSM noise ... isn't real victory for your position. Even waiting for Baby Boomers to die off won't help ... in my experience, conservatives arise in every generation. The amount of back-tracking from 1980 that I have seen astonishes me. Non-litmus test liberalism is almost extinct.
Here is the updated primary results (https://g.co/kgs/E6TCl). Basically, Sanders needs to win every single remaining one to be nominated. So most likely, gg I guess.
Coorect me if i am wrong but isnt the current elections and chaos only about selecting, on one side, a candidate for the democrates and on the other side a candidate for the republicans? Why should what democratic candidate you vote has anything at all to do with the republicans???
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 26, 2016, 08:25:55 PMIf you think Trump and Hillary are both going to steer this boat of a country in to a river of shit, don't you think it would be a good idea which river of shit it is?
Not if you like a little excitement in your life. :lol:
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 27, 2016, 02:15:15 AM
Not if you like a little excitement in your life.[emoji38]
Hey. I play Russian Roulette with the best of them, but this scares me haha
-Sent from your mom
Quote from: TomFoolery on April 26, 2016, 08:51:13 PM
Is that because bad leaders can only be truly bad if they operate gulags? Truly, Saddam Hussein got awards from UNESCO for his literacy programs and expanded state health insurance. He also buried his enemies in soccer fields. So really, what is worse? A dictator who runs a country moderately well and oppresses its citizens, or a pushover who tanks the economy and bungles international affairs but never committed human rights atrocities? It's apples and oranges, which is why I say there's a lot of ways to be bad, and finding ways to measure them is subjective.
I dont think either of them will be bad. I don't think they'll be good either. I think our political apparatus is designed to reject any real change the president tries to make, forcing whoever it is to the middle of the road and keeping them there. Thats why comparing our leaders to dictators like Stalin or Hussein sounds so silly. They were notable because of their virtually unlimited power. We refer to the POTUS as the leader of the free world, but for such a lofty title they have relatively little power especially if theres an opposition majority in congress. Donald Trump will not build a wall between the US and Mexico or deport all Muslims because he will be slapped down for trying. Whatever Hillary tries to do will be similarly mangled beyond recognition.
I am a firm believer in the sluggish ineptitude of our government. Presidential power is restricted by sheer entropy.
QuoteBut I can see the ways the tides are turning.
When countries like Britain try to pass measures barring Donald Trump from entering their country and every day someone like Mexico, Japan, or South Korea is saying "WTF Donald?!" it at least gives a secondary measure of what paddling down Shit River might look like.
Its all crap. In order for Donald Trump to challenge the RNC, he needed to activate a voter block that has lain dormant for half a century. That of disgruntled racist blue collar dipshits tired of not being able to yell at someone for being a "fag" in public without being looked at like they were Satan incarnate by literally everyone around them.
And boy did he ever succeed. He zoned right in on racist, religious bigots and their persecution complex with stunning success. So he keeps up the rhetoric, maintains his voter base and rides them into the general election. The drawback is he cant ever let up. He can't ever be less rabid than he is right now or he will lose people shockingly fast. He needs people to believe he will return America to the good old days where transvestites were consigned to a mental institution, gays were beaten to death by everyone in town, and niggers werent allowed to drink from the whites only fountain or sit in the front of the bus.
Its a clear cut strategy, but if he ever makes it into office he wont need those idiots anymore. Thats why I keep saying we dont know anything about President Trump, the statements of candidate Trump notwithstanding. Remember, this man was a Democrat a little over a decade ago. Hes every bit the chameleon that Clinton is.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 24, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
I kind of want to do what Hijiri might do and vote for Drumpf... and hope that the country collapses in a way that people in the senate will realize something is wrong and we need to fix it... The only problem is, I highly doubt that the people in the senate, and congress and the people behind the scenes that own the companies that really run this country will even want to do anything about it. If the country collapses, it won't even effect them, so why would they?
LOL It never works that way. If Trump wins, people would adopt to that so fast you wouldn't believe what is happening in front of your eyes.
About people in the senate and congress, more than how much all this affects them or not, don't you think they would do something before it arrived to this point if they could or would?
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 26, 2016, 07:40:46 PM
My main gripe with her (besides the assorted scandals and issue flip-flopping (https://imgur.com/gallery/yZ0LZDP/new) more indicative of political expedience than "evolving" one's stances) is that you can ask her a direct question and get a bunch of bullshit in response (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/15/hillary-clinton-invoked-911-to-defend-her-ties-to-wall-street-what/). It's extremely off-putting and I can't blame you for staying home on election day.
This is EXACTLY what made me hate her in her match-up with Obama. I don't remember the exact debate or words used, but for one moment in one of the debates it became utterly obvious that she was nothing more than a lawyer trying to win an argument in the debate, not at all sincere, and his response was that of an ordinary person. I wish I could remember the wording, but she was doing some word play with him, something along the lines of "you refuted X but you didn't condemn X" (pretty sure that's not right, but as close as I can remember) and his response was simply, "Okay, then I condemn X" like an ordinary person would when some bitch was playing head games with them. For me, it was a powerful moment, the moment I decided that I really didn't like her that much.
Since then, however, I have realized that what I liked in Obama was his biggest weakness. He was honest and sincere. Politicians can't be honest and sincere. The American people actually DEMAND that our politicians lie to us, as absurd as that sounds. When they are asked a question, we don't want the truth. We want to see how close they can come to what we want to hear without being caught in a lie. Case in point, when Biden was asked something about whether he would let his family ride a train with some threat of the time looming and he responded honestly that he would not. There was such a blow up that soon after (the very next day, maybe?) Biden, our Vice President, was riding the train, public transportation. That's something the Vice President would normally NEVER do. But because he didn't lie to us like he was expected to and assure us that everything was okay so that the train companies wouldn't lose any money over his words he HAD to ride the train himself to show that it was safe. We not only expect, but DEMAND that our politicians lie to us. It's a sad fact of the sorry state of our political system, and probably the reason it's mostly lawyers who apply for the jobs.
Quote from: Nonsensei on April 27, 2016, 05:44:32 AM
I dont think either of them will be bad. I don't think they'll be good either. I think our political apparatus is designed to reject any real change the president tries to make, forcing whoever it is to the middle of the road and keeping them there. Thats why comparing our leaders to dictators like Stalin or Hussein sounds so silly. They were notable because of their virtually unlimited power. We refer to the POTUS as the leader of the free world, but for such a lofty title they have relatively little power especially if theres an opposition majority in congress. Donald Trump will not build a wall between the US and Mexico or deport all Muslims because he will be slapped down for trying. Whatever Hillary tries to do will be similarly mangled beyond recognition.
I am a firm believer in the sluggish ineptitude of our government. Presidential power is restricted by sheer entropy.
Its all crap. In order for Donald Trump to challenge the RNC, he needed to activate a voter block that has lain dormant for half a century. That of disgruntled racist blue collar dipshits tired of not being able to yell at someone for being a "fag" in public without being looked at like they were Satan incarnate by literally everyone around them.
And boy did he ever succeed. He zoned right in on racist, religious bigots and their persecution complex with stunning success. So he keeps up the rhetoric, maintains his voter base and rides them into the general election. The drawback is he cant ever let up. He can't ever be less rabid than he is right now or he will lose people shockingly fast. He needs people to believe he will return America to the good old days where transvestites were consigned to a mental institution, gays were beaten to death by everyone in town, and niggers werent allowed to drink from the whites only fountain or sit in the front of the bus.
Its a clear cut strategy, but if he ever makes it into office he wont need those idiots anymore. Thats why I keep saying we dont know anything about President Trump, the statements of candidate Trump notwithstanding. Remember, this man was a Democrat a little over a decade ago. Hes every bit the chameleon that Clinton is.
What I find interesting about the people that are all of a sudden doing the "I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils" "The president isn't even the one that makes the changes" is that most of these people are the same people that would enthusiastically vote for Sanders.
So which is it? does the president not matter and no matter what big change it is, it won't happen, like it seems you're saying in this? In that case, why even vote for Sanders if he gets in?
or
Does the president have some say after all and you just don't feel like making the choice, if it's not the clear-cut one.
I'm getting a conflicting set of opinions from you. Just want to know which it is.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 27, 2016, 02:55:04 PMSo which is it? does the president not matter and no matter what big change it is, it won't happen, like it seems you're saying in this? In that case, why even vote for Sanders if he gets in?
I have no illusions about how Congress would react to a Sanders presidency. They would obstruct him as much as they'd obstruct Trump. I just like Bernie better; but I would settle for Trump. I'm more interested in showing how broken the US government is than in the policies of one man, at this point.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 27, 2016, 04:16:37 PM
I have no illusions about how Congress would react to a Sanders presidency. They would obstruct him as much as they'd obstruct Trump. I just like Bernie better; but I would settle for Trump. I'm more interested in showing how broken the US government is than in the policies of one man, at this point.
Even though that I agree that they would obstruct both of them 90% of the time, there is that 10% that I don't like that will go through if Trump is elected. At least if Sanders is elected, if it's only a few policies out of many that are allowed to go through, it's still better than none. And even none is better than the chance that some would go through if Trump was elected. I really hope that Sanders can win these last primaries, but it is really looking grim.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 27, 2016, 05:07:10 PM
Even though that I agree that they would obstruct both of them 90% of the time, there is that 10% that I don't like that will go through if Trump is elected. At least if Sanders is elected, if it's only a few policies out of many that are allowed to go through, it's still better than none. And even none is better than the chance that some would go through if Trump was elected. I really hope that Sanders can win these last primaries, but it is really looking grim.
Putting aside that I'm pretty sure Trump is not nearly as right-wing, racist, crazy or stupid as he's pretending to be and taking him at face value, Congress not obstructing him would be the least of our worries. Everything from Congress has been hyper-partisan since we elected a
black guy Democrat as President. I wouldn't worry so much about what
they would let
Trump do as I would worry about what Trump would sign should it cross his desk. If he's really the right-wing nut he seems to be today Congress would quickly jump on it and start sending shit to his desk left and right, needing only enough votes to get it to his desk, no longer enough to override a veto. And that's what makes that ACTUALLY crazy, arrogant, self-important, uncompassionate, uncaring, self-absorbed, power-hungry piece of shit Cruz even scarier.
Quote from: Nonsensei on April 26, 2016, 07:30:42 PM
The idea that Hillary Clinton is preferable to Donald Trump as president demonstrates a precious, terrifying sort of naivete on your part.
I don't think this is fair to say.
Plan B: Vote for trump, just to see Americas Destruction
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on April 27, 2016, 06:00:36 PM
Plan B: Vote for trump, just to see Americas Destruction
rm -rf /
Factory reset.
Quote from: widdershins on April 27, 2016, 05:56:05 PM
Putting aside that I'm pretty sure Trump is not nearly as right-wing, racist, crazy or stupid as he's pretending to be and taking him at face value, Congress not obstructing him would be the least of our worries. Everything from Congress has been hyper-partisan since we elected a black guy Democrat as President. I wouldn't worry so much about what they would let Trump do as I would worry about what Trump would sign should it cross his desk. If he's really the right-wing nut he seems to be today Congress would quickly jump on it and start sending shit to his desk left and right, needing only enough votes to get it to his desk, no longer enough to override a veto. And that's what makes that ACTUALLY crazy, arrogant, self-important, uncompassionate, uncaring, self-absorbed, power-hungry piece of shit Cruz even scarier.
Cruz does scare me more than Trump, but I am still very afraid of the very big possibility of Trump.
I do agree, and I don't feel that Trump is nearly as conservative as he seems right now, but other than a wishful hunch, I don't really know what else to base that off of. He didn't seem this bad in the past, but who knows if he actually felt this way back then as well. Or if he changed in to this person. I hope he isn't as radically conservative as he seems, but I don't think any of us can know that until it happens... if it happens that he is president.
You bring up another huge issue. What is Trump going to be approving as it comes to him during his possible presidency? Congress is a bunch of asswipes and we need someone to enforce the checks and balances in this country. I feel like Trump would barter policy for policy. He'd approve one of their shit policies if they approve one of his. Not a fun thought.
Reducing US government to one man. That isn't American. Perhaps some of us would support General Franco? If you don't like Congress, get rid of your Representative/Senator. Politics requires a bear hug of all three branches. Sick and tired of people re-electing their Representative/Senator and then bitching about it.
Quote from: Baruch on April 27, 2016, 06:49:30 PM
Reducing US government to one man. That isn't American. Perhaps some of us would support General Franco? If you don't like Congress, get rid of your Representative/Senator. Politics requires a bear hug of all three branches. Sick and tired of people re-electing their Representative/Senator and then bitching about it.
Who is reducing the US government to one man? we're talking 1 of the 3 parts of the rock/paper/scissors that is our government's checks and balances system.
With the wrong people in those spots, shit goes down. We still have to make sure the courts and Congress have the right people, but if we elect the wrong president it's a full third of the system that we're stuck with for 4 years.
The other branches are an issue as well, but that isn't the topic at hand.
Inseparable parts ... some people have to have their Great White Hope (or insert other skin color or gender). Just changing one person, won't make much difference, even if it is the White House. The current corruption is the result of 50 years of shit. Magic Obama didn't make a bit of difference for me, a total Uncle Tom.
Quote from: widdershins on April 27, 2016, 05:56:05 PM
Everything from Congress has been hyper-partisan since we elected a black guy
Obama was recently interviewed on NPR. Steve Inskeep asked why he thought some people had problems with his policies. The President of the United States actually said, and I kid you not, it's because he is black. Steve was on the verge of laughter when he asked the man holding the highest office in the land if he was actually going to play the race card.Obama said he sticks by it.
Quote from: widdershins on April 27, 2016, 05:56:05 PM
And that's what makes that ACTUALLY crazy, arrogant, self-important, uncompassionate, uncaring, self-absorbed, power-hungry piece of shit Cruz even scarier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsUCRcK7QYc
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 27, 2016, 02:55:04 PM
What I find interesting about the people that are all of a sudden doing the "I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils" "The president isn't even the one that makes the changes" is that most of these people are the same people that would enthusiastically vote for Sanders.
So which is it? does the president not matter and no matter what big change it is, it won't happen, like it seems you're saying in this? In that case, why even vote for Sanders if he gets in?
or
Does the president have some say after all and you just don't feel like making the choice, if it's not the clear-cut one.
I'm getting a conflicting set of opinions from you. Just want to know which it is.
Its not a conflicting opinion, just an incomplete one. Heres the other piece: the president is pretty useless, but the one area in which he seems to have virtually unlimited power is in situations where the American people get actively screwed. Gonna restrict peoples rights? Gonna fuck someone to the benefit of the elite? That shit is going through no problem. The president has carte blanche to fuck us.
Thats another big reason why I will vote for Berne and nobody else. Berne: less likely to fuck us.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 27, 2016, 06:36:24 PM
rm -rf /
Factory reset.
People really need to wake up, what more by giving them what they truly deserve and find the stupidest son of a bitch we can find that will start a war which will delete a portion of our planet's habitat and people.
It is a logical conclusion that those who were indoctrinated with Critical Theory (see Frankfurt School) will vote for a communist president in the USA.
Some mentioned here the phrase "lesser of the two evils" incidentally, which is still evil.
Out of 320 million this is the best? A choice between a communist or a criminal?
Really?
Why do you hate your country so much? Hasn't Obama done enough damage already?
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 27, 2016, 11:57:16 PM
USA#write erase
USA#reload
sudo yum install bettergovernmentinterface && remove church-in-stateEDIT: On a quick side note, if you are running Linux.... NEVER uninstall perl. even if it isn't updating properly and you think it's not working. Trust me, it's working better being there than if you removed it and you can't boot your computer up again. I learned that the hard way a few years ago
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on April 27, 2016, 10:20:43 PM
People really need to wake up, what more by giving them what they truly deserve and find the stupidest son of a bitch we can find that will start a war which will delete a portion of our planet's habitat and people.
I'd actually prefer not to die in the next 4 to 5 years.
Quote from: Poison Tree on April 28, 2016, 01:24:56 AM
I'd actually prefer not to die in the next 4 to 5 years.
Me neither.
Quote from: pr126 on April 28, 2016, 12:59:54 AM
It is a logical conclusion that those who were indoctrinated with Critical Theory (see Frankfurt School) will vote for a communist president in the USA.
Some mentioned here the phrase "lesser of the two evils" incidentally, which is still evil.
Out of 320 million this is the best? A choice between a communist or a criminal?
Really?
Why do you hate your country so much? Hasn't Obama done enough damage already?
Democracy was BS even in ancient Athens. This is Sparta!
Quote from: Baruch on April 28, 2016, 06:44:57 AM
Democracy was BS even in ancient Athens. This is Sparta!
Sparta? More like Idiocracy.
In a true democracy every citizen would each have a vote that is weighted equally with any and all other votes. In a true democracy our options would not be artificially restricted by primaries. In a true democracy the voters would not be divided into senseless voting districts designed to empower the minority and suppress the majority. In a true democracy, our votes would not be tossed together in a state based winner take all scheme that pretends everyone voted the same when it was really 51 to 49.
The United states is an oligarchy. The people we have elected to represent us have used their power to restrict how much say we have in our own elections. We are dominated by a tiny minority of ultra powerful people who couldn't care less about us.
Clinton and Trump are both members of this tiny group. A vote for either of them is a vote for more of the same, a vote for the continuation of policies and practices that are responsible for rendering the voice of the American people irrelevant.
Quote from: pr126 on April 28, 2016, 09:35:33 AM
Sparta? More like Idiocracy.
Ever see the gay version of 300? Meet the Spartans? What does England have? Benny Hill?
Quote from: widdershins on April 27, 2016, 05:56:05 PM
crazy, arrogant, self-important, uncompassionate, uncaring, self-absorbed, power-hungry piece of shit Cruz
Boehner calls Cruz 'Lucifer in the flesh'
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/john-boehner-ted-cruz-lucifer-stanford/
QuoteI have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 27, 2016, 06:42:59 PM
I feel like Trump would barter policy for policy. He'd approve one of their shit policies if they approve one of his. Not a fun thought.
Fuck, I never even thought of it that way. Double penetration every time we got screwed by the hyper-right.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on April 27, 2016, 07:01:29 PM
Obama was recently interviewed on NPR. Steve Inskeep asked why he thought some people had problems with his policies. The President of the United States actually said, and I kid you not, it's because he is black. Steve was on the verge of laughter when he asked the man holding the highest office in the land if he was actually going to play the race card.Obama said he sticks by it.
But is it "playing the race card" if it's true? They hated Clinton, but no military personnel ever spoke up to say that they wouldn't follow his orders under certain circumstances, suggesting those circumstances were a real possibility. Nobody ever got in his face and bitched him out like Brewer did. Congress didn't interrupt and heckle him. It wasn't career suicide to work with him. The Tea Party didn't change from a useless group of racists into a force to be reckoned with over night to fight him. While they did impeach Clinton, they waited until AFTER he was elected to start talking about it. Nobody ever accused Clinton of not being an American. Nobody ever suggested that he was a traitor who wanted to hand our country over to Muslims. I don't remember any talk of concentration camps for Christians about Clinton. Nobody questioned his right to be President or demanded that he prove he had that right.
Granted, I have only seen 3 Democrat presidents in my life and I barely remember Carter, and the right has always been a little...shall we say...frantic? But I have never in my life seen a president get this level or frequency of disrespect. Not even close. A minor group in the extreme right essentially sprung up overnight and took over the Republican party, a group known to have a much higher than normal level of racist components, a group which loathes this president with more veracity than I have ever seen, a group which will turn on each other in an instant if one of them so much at talks politely to the President. I've seen Democrat Presidents before and this didn't happen. In the beginning, Obama tried very hard to work with them, so it's not that he's unreasonable, as they claim. And somewhere along the line the word "compromise" came to have a definition which closely resembles the definition of the word "extortion".
So, playing the race card? Not a situation I'd use that phrase, but maybe. But playing it unfairly? Absolutely not.
Quote from: widdershins on April 28, 2016, 04:38:37 PM
So, playing the race card? Not a situation I'd use that phrase, but maybe. But playing it unfairly? Absolutely not.
The same goes for Hillary. I'm going to get all kind of hate for saying this, but I have my flame retardant suit on, go ahead.
Anyway, I feel like the deep amount of passion people put into hating her when she isn't really that drastically different than any career politician is a bit baffling. I've looked at other explanations, such as maybe people don't like her because she is married to Bill and they hate him, or she pretends like she's somehow both from Arkansas and New York, or she thinks she's above the law with this whole server thing, or they don't like what she did as Secretary of State with Benghazi, or there's evidence of her lying and flip-flopping on issues.
Somehow I don't think any of those are truly it, because it's impossible to be an electable politician and not bend the rules, lie, make false promises, fuck up, take money from corporate America, or pretend you're someone you're not. Ask Bernie how well it's working out for him by trying to be that guy.
I only have two other explanations. She's somehow like the Nickelback of politicians and people hate her for reasons they can't put their fingers on, or they hate her because she's a woman.
Now, as to the second one, I don't think they
consciously realize they hate her because she's a woman. Just like the way hiring managers don't
consciously sift the resume of a guy named Jackmerius Xaahvier Washington to the bottom of the pile. It just "happens" based on preconceived biases that we're unaware of. She's not the first woman to run for president but she's the first one who has ever had a decent shot at actually getting there. People say they vote for the candidate and they have no problem with a woman president... so long as it's not
her. I think Elizabeth Warren was wise not to run: her legacy will stand up much better without being completely torn apart by daring to run for president.
Quote from: Poison Tree on April 28, 2016, 01:24:56 AM
I'd actually prefer not to die in the next 4 to 5 years.
We are headed there anyway, why not in the next year
Quote from: TomFoolery on April 28, 2016, 11:44:45 PM
The same goes for Hillary. I'm going to get all kind of hate for saying this, but I have my flame retardant suit on, go ahead.
Anyway, I feel like the deep amount of passion people put into hating her when she isn't really that drastically different than any career politician is a bit baffling. I've looked at other explanations, such as maybe people don't like her because she is married to Bill and they hate him, or she pretends like she's somehow both from Arkansas and New York, or she thinks she's above the law with this whole server thing, or they don't like what she did as Secretary of State with Benghazi, or there's evidence of her lying and flip-flopping on issues.
Somehow I don't think any of those are truly it, because it's impossible to be an electable politician and not bend the rules, lie, make false promises, fuck up, take money from corporate America, or pretend you're someone you're not. Ask Bernie how well it's working out for him by trying to be that guy.
I only have two other explanations. She's somehow like the Nickelback of politicians and people hate her for reasons they can't put their fingers on, or they hate her because she's a woman.
I've heard something similar from a Sarah Palin supporter back in the 2008 race. She was big on "reading between the lines" and didn't want to accept that people disliked Palin for their stated reasons for disliking her. Apparently, she wasn't psychologically comfortable with the answers she got and decided to invent new ones, ones that coincidentally made Palin look good and her detractors look bad. She was serious about the "Party of Lincoln" and "Party of Jim Crow" stuff, too. What a headcase.
Tomfoolery - why do I hate Hillary? All the reasons you mentioned. That and it is proven in simulations that a civilian woman is most unstable with nuclear weapons (a male military person is the most stable). Hillary is a known war-monger. Sexist? Men and women are different, and the people who ignore that are idiots. And I think people who run for office are idiots as well. This goes back to ancient times ... they want to be coronated, not elected ... because the plebs have BO.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 29, 2016, 03:54:47 AM
I've heard something similar from a Sarah Palin supporter back in the 2008 race. She was big on "reading between the lines" and didn't want to accept that people disliked Palin for their stated reasons for disliking her. Apparently, she wasn't psychologically comfortable with the answers she got and decided to invent new ones, ones that coincidentally made Palin look good and her detractors look bad. She was serious about the "Party of Lincoln" and "Party of Jim Crow" stuff, too. What a headcase.
I believe people don't like Hillary for their stated reasons for not liking her. I just don't know why they don't mind other politicians who also exemplify those same stated reasons. People hate her for what she did as the Secretary of State? I guarantee half of them don't even know what the Secretary of State does or who the current one is. Being married to Bill I think is an interesting argument, because I've heard people rail about things that he did when talking about her, and then go on to say, well, they're the
same person. So in that case it's less of a woman thing and simply a consequence of being married to a former president, which just so also happens to make her female.
I think it could also just be that she's the wrong person for
this election. People seem very inclined to buck the status quo this go around. Had Barrack not come around in 2008 I think she
might have made it. But the fact that people are falling for Trump (and even Sanders I have to admit) shows that people are tired of career politicians, and that's the best phrase I have to describe her.
As far as career politicians go Bernie is actually the most experienced politician of the people still in the race for president. He has held an elected government position for more than 34 years. Kasich is close with 26. Hillary has 12 if you count her time as Sec State. Cruz only has about 4 years experience as an elected official and another 5 as the Texas solicitor general. As far as I know Trump has never held a government position.
Quote from: TomFoolery on April 29, 2016, 07:32:58 AM
I believe people don't like Hillary for their stated reasons for not liking her. I just don't know why they don't mind other politicians who also exemplify those same stated reasons.
This is such a common idiosyncrasy in the behavior of voters that the psychological dynamic should be given a name of it's own.
Quote from: TomFoolery on April 29, 2016, 07:32:58 AMI think it could also just be that she's the wrong person for this election. People seem very inclined to buck the status quo this go around. Had Barrack not come around in 2008 I think she might have made it.
If Obama hadn't run in 2008, she'd have been a shoe-in for sure.
Quote from: SGOS on April 29, 2016, 10:09:20 AM
This is such a common idiosyncrasy in the behavior of voters that the psychological dynamic should be given a name of it's own.
I thought I already named it: the Nickelback effect. :)
I don't care what race or gender the president is. I just want an honest one who works for my far left wing vision. Obama has made some token gestures, but he's also pandered. I admit, I was hoping that someone who ran such a classically performed ancient campaign would be able to take the USA in MY direction by using his manufactured charm. It was a long shot, but the only one I had.
Hillary and Bill have shown me over the years that they're deceitful and counter productive to MY interests
I've always despised politicians. They're playas. Expressing this has caused people to tell me that I should just be glad I'm not in whatever other country. That attitude toward dissident has changed thanks to the internet. We now admit our concerns and dreams to each other. We're discovering that we've been fooled time and time again. We are going to find the faults of all politicians as a think tank, no matter their racial background or gender. People are more vocal about their disgust today because they are educated and liberated, and not the other way around.
Above all, I want a president who will communicate thoroughly in their OWN voice. I want the president to tell the Americans that I disagree with, that their world will change for the better. I want the president to pull out visual aids to explain well thought out plans. If we as a nation have to change course to get the results, I want the president to show us how we will overcome the stumbling block before we execute the changes as a nation. I want a president who lets the public know they're wrong and why, no matter the financial backlash by committee.
Gentle-dissident ... gotta get a time machine, go back and vote for FDR. Otherwise you better move to Canada.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on April 29, 2016, 12:17:23 PMAbove all, I want a president who will communicate thoroughly in their OWN voice.
With that criterion, it's Sanders or Trump.
Quote from: Baruch on April 29, 2016, 01:15:18 PM
you better move to Canada.
My family thinks about this.
Quote from: Baruch on April 29, 2016, 01:15:18 PM
Gentle-dissident ... gotta get a time machine, go back and vote for FDR. Otherwise you better move to Canada.
My wife and I did think about that several years ago. Even made inquiries--but was told we were too old and Canada did not want us.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 29, 2016, 09:51:34 PM
My wife and I did think about that several years ago. Even made inquiries--but was told we were too old and Canada did not want us.
Looks like I'm going to have a make a difference in my own country then.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on April 29, 2016, 10:13:56 PM
Looks like I'm going to have a make a difference in my own country then.
Yeah--that's what we said. :)
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 29, 2016, 09:51:34 PM
My wife and I did think about that several years ago. Even made inquiries--but was told we were too old and Canada did not want us.
They used to award points for things like wealth, education, and other desirable assets. Age would be a factor, too. If you move there after retirement and start using all their services without being able to make some kind of contribution, you are a potential drain.
I totaled my points up from their list a few years ago, and I was actually short a couple of points, at least the way I figured. But I got the impression they might weigh in some other intangibles too. When I was living on my boat, I wintered in Victoria BC one year, and since I was going to be there for more than 6 months, I had to go through a process that was somewhat more intense than a routine check stop at a border crossing. They didn't talk about their point system, but they spent a couple hours rummaging around on my boat, and interviewing me. They said if I planned to stay more than a year, they would eventually need to talk to me about applying for citizenship.
That doesn't mean I would be granted citizenship automatically, of course, but I was already retired, so I got the definite impression that age was not a non-starter. And I always wonder how cut and dried governments are with regulations that on the surface seem very clear. I would think that being strong in other assets would compensate for something as arbitrary as age.
Canada would be a good place to live, but I'd want to keep my us citizenship, although I can't really give a good reason for holding on to it. Habit and familiarity, I suppose.
A few places allow dual citizenship. Israel for example. But I differ too much from them to consider it, even if I thought it was safe to live there. I considered Mexico, until the drug gang crime wave came.
Immigration to NZ and Australia have been popular at times, but I understand they are difficult to transfer to now. Ireland was also welcoming, particularly for certain professions, but they are under IMF tyranny now. And GB is under the Tory lash.
There are always places, including Canada, that will take anyone, if you have enough money ;-) Spend $10 million for a $200,000 house in Vancouver, and they are cool with that. The new PM might seem very liberal ... but I suspect other things are going on under the carpet.
Quote from: Baruch on April 30, 2016, 10:06:17 AM
A few places allow dual citizenship. Israel for example. But I differ too much from them to consider it, even if I thought it was safe to live there. I considered Mexico, until the drug gang crime wave came.
Immigration to NZ and Australia have been popular at times, but I understand they are difficult to transfer to now. Ireland was also welcoming, particularly for certain professions, but they are under IMF tyranny now. And GB is under the Tory lash.
There are always places, including Canada, that will take anyone, if you have enough money ;-) Spend $10 million for a $200,000 house in Vancouver, and they are cool with that. The new PM might seem very liberal ... but I suspect other things are going on under the carpet.
You can never control the political situation in any nation where you live. Although I do like Canada's social politics, it wouldn't be the main reason for leaving the US. In the US, if politics were my main concern and I couldn't leave the US, I would move to Vermont or Oregon. But for whatever reason, I always seem to end up in Red Neckville, often smack day in the middle of conservative areas where I'm surrounded by blindly religious neighbors, because I first seek out mountainous rural areas just because of the physical surroundings which are most important in my life. However, I make an effort to get along with my neighbors, and try to look past their narrow minded reasoning out of necessity. They usually have redeeming qualities (most of them anyway), and as long as I steer clear of political and religious discussions, we get along. It does reduce the opportunities to make intensely close friendships, however.
While boating in British Columbia, I've found Canadians unusually welcoming, and have found it easy to establish early friendships. But I lack the courage (I guess) to pull up stakes and move there, because I'm still leery of first impressions. They may not be lasting, as I have found with many people I have met in my life. My closest friends all live 3000 miles away, some going back 45 years. But I do well being by myself. But my first consideration is the serenity I get from forests and wild areas with abundant wild life, and there is still that in the United States, but it's getting harder to find.
Quote from: Baruch on April 30, 2016, 10:06:17 AM
The new PM might seem very liberal ... but I suspect other things are going on under the carpet.
What have you heard?
Quote from: SGOS on April 30, 2016, 10:52:45 AM
But my first consideration is the serenity I get from forests and wild areas with abundant wild life, and there is still that in the United States, but it's getting harder to find.
Looking out my window, I only see trees and pasture. Looking the other direction, I see a city. It's samallish, so it's like the town/city I grew up in, It too was on the edge of town. Looking out my window, all I could see were wheat fields. Looking out another window, I saw the fruit orchard in our backyard. My friends and I would frequently leave to explore different streams and forests. Our parents were weird enough to let us kids sleep in the wilderness. We'd get dropped off, set up camp, throw weapons and blow things up. Thinking about it, we sure spent a lot of time outdoors. I still go exploring this stretch of land out my front door.
I'd like to live in the woods, but I'm too poor to get started, and no friends to make up for it. I have been wanting to go off grid for years. Perhaps I could talk my GF's roller derby team into helping out.
When I was in Canada, I spent a week at the good old Crystal Beach with some Buffalo Bohemians. I wish I had pictures to go with the memories.
I found a Pintrest page with pics of the park. 'Twas a small part of that good time.
https://www.pinterest.com/tnj1956/crystal-beach-amusement-park/
The Chinese corruption in BC is proverbial. So is the oil corruption in Alberta. And there is always unrest in Quebec.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justin-trudeau_us_56ddec4ae4b03a405679827c
With all that corruption, the new Canadian PM makes nice noises. But you have to wonder what is going on behind closed doors, with the conservative goal of undoing Canadian universal health care for example.
Long thread. Has anyone mentioned a Clinton/Sanders ticket, with Bernie as VP?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 01, 2016, 07:41:51 AM
Long thread. Has anyone mentioned a Clinton/Sanders ticket, with Bernie as VP?
I've wondered about that, but it doesn't seem like it would have the same impact of inviting a Baptist minister onto the ticket to draw in the religious right. Sanders and Clinton don't fit together. At least their public images are so contradictory that it would just add confusion to the messages each were trying to articulate. Maybe that's good. It might make people lose sight of Hillary's devotion to the wealthy, and start thinking , "Maybe she does give a shit about the average American who can't afford entry into the same country clubs where she and her best friends hang out."
If Bernie actually means half of what he says, it would come out looking like Hillary was bragging to the American public, "Look here. I've got Bernie kissing my ass so all can see what a hypocritical twat he's been all along."
"Hypocritical twat," may be a little harsh. I think it would show a unity that the Republicans can't muster, and it would be pragmatic.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 01, 2016, 07:14:13 PM
"Hypocritical twat," may be a little harsh. I think it would show a unity that the Republicans can't muster, and it would be pragmatic.
"Hypocritical Twat" was an exaggeration. I meant it to be funny. Obviously Clinton wouldn't say anything like, especially about her pick for VP. Sanders as VP could happen, I just think there's too much difference between them. Sanders would have to throw out most of what he stands for and support things he has opposed. That would significantly tax his credibility, but maybe he would want the job enough. It would first be up to Hillary, and I don't think she would see him as a good match. But nothing here would surprise me very much, either. Unity in the cabinet under Clinton wouldn't impress me, anyway. It would be like, "Oh look, the Democrats have come together in unity. Just more of the same old same old.
I'd actually like to tell you some day that I was wrong. I'm just not expecting I'm going to feel that way, but it would be wonderful if the situation turned out to warrant it.
As it stands now it looks like HRC is going to win the Democratic nomination for better or worse. I'll take HRC ANY DAY over anyone from the rubes..
Clinton allies fume over Sanders's vow to fight on
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/278463-sanderss-persistence-irks-dems
This election is one of the most amazing things I've seen in my life.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on May 02, 2016, 09:38:22 PM
Clinton allies fume over Sanders's vow to fight on
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/278463-sanderss-persistence-irks-dems
This election is one of the most amazing things I've seen in my life.
Hell, gentile, we are not even half way through. I agree with you so far--just, fucking, amazing!
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 01, 2016, 07:14:13 PM
"Hypocritical twat," may be a little harsh. I think it would show a unity that the Republicans can't muster, and it would be pragmatic.
Yeah, it'd be a good play. That's why I doubt the Dems would do it.
Unrelated (well, vaguely related), but did you guys see the White House Correspondents Speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA5ezR0Kh80)? I would actually pay to see this show. Some great digs on Hillary and Republicans and a fucking amazing clip Boehner worked with Obama to make (do you remember when Republicans used to work with Democrats on things? It's actually pretty cool to see it again).
Quote from: widdershins on May 03, 2016, 11:30:05 AM
Unrelated (well, vaguely related), but did you guys see the White House Correspondents Speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA5ezR0Kh80)? I would actually pay to see this show. Some great digs on Hillary and Republicans and a fucking amazing clip Boehner worked with Obama to make (do you remember when Republicans used to work with Democrats on things? It's actually pretty cool to see it again).
I liked it as well. Obama has a future as a stand-up comedian. He is a smooth talker and is one of the easiest politicians to listen to than I've ever heard.
Quote from: widdershins on May 03, 2016, 11:30:05 AM
Unrelated (well, vaguely related), but did you guys see the White House Correspondents Speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA5ezR0Kh80)? I would actually pay to see this show. Some great digs on Hillary and Republicans and a fucking amazing clip Boehner worked with Obama to make (do you remember when Republicans used to work with Democrats on things? It's actually pretty cool to see it again).
That's funny stuff.
Sanders seems to have played his cards by making HRC choose between her loyal servant and DRC chair Debby Wasserman Shultz and the rest of the Democratic party..
If she picks Shultz the party and the deligates may just pick Sanders.. We shall see..
Shultz is corrupt as they come and the party base knows it.
I'm enticed with the idea of #BernieOrBust. Let's just write his name in :-)
Meanwhile, hopes for a less conservative and more middle of the road Trump, seem to be going down the drain. But that really shouldn't be a big surprise.
Quote from: wolf39us on May 23, 2016, 10:24:43 AM
I'm enticed with the idea of #BernieOrBust. Let's just write his name in :-)
The problem with that is it's the same reason Bush was elected instead of Al Gore. The votes were split too much between Nader and Gore and caused Bush to become elected... I really don't want another George Bush. We've already had two of them... and 3 terms of them...
Quote from: wolf39us on May 23, 2016, 10:24:43 AM
I'm enticed with the idea of #BernieOrBust. Let's just write his name in :-)
That seems like a really good way to get Trump elected president.
@Mermaid I agree it probably is. With HC on the dem side though, I'm not sure which I dislike more.
I'm either voting for a guy who both the Dems and the Republicans dislike, or voting for corporations to keep ruling the same way they've always ruled.
Seems like a lose/lose to me.
I do not understand how Trump and Clinton are equally bad for the white house. That just doesn't compute at all.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 23, 2016, 11:21:07 AM
The problem with that is it's the same reason Bush was elected instead of Al Gore. The votes were split too much between Nader and Gore and caused Bush to become elected... I really don't want another George Bush. We've already had two of them... and 3 terms of them...
I doubt that Trump would be as bad as George W. I have no way of knowing for sure, but it's really hard to imagine.
Quote from: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 11:51:39 AM
I doubt that Trump would be as bad as George W. I have no way of knowing for sure, but it's really hard to imagine.
I guess that is comforting.... a little.... i guess
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 23, 2016, 11:52:50 AM
I guess that is comforting.... a little.... i guess
It's hard to imagine any president taking on an undertaking of such grandiose proportions as a Mideast invasion, while at the same time failing to think it through, and lacking an exit strategy or much of anything beyond just imagining a vital democracy springing forth from the ashes as if guided by the hand of an unseen god.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on April 29, 2016, 10:13:56 PM
Looks like I'm going to have a make a difference in my own country then.
It seems I'll have to pack in a few years too...see you in Vancouver. We'll find somewhere to turn into a commune.
Quote from: SGOS on May 23, 2016, 11:51:39 AM
I doubt that Trump would be as bad as George W. I have no way of knowing for sure, but it's really hard to imagine.
I think he is far far less qualified. Keep in mind, he will have access to nuclear weapons.
@Mermaid True, but he would still need approval from the secretary of defense and can be overridden. Pretty sure the president can't just willy nilly order nuclear strikes.
Quote from: wolf39us on May 23, 2016, 01:37:13 PM
@Mermaid True, but he would still need approval from the secretary of defense and can be overridden. Pretty sure the president can't just willy nilly order nuclear strikes.
Trump is a business man. I have a fear that he would barter policy for policy and action for action. If he wants to bomb something, the possibility of that happening is not as far fetched as you might think.
Everyone (well.......most anyway; including me until '08) bitches about the Dems & GOP; then votes for one of them anyway! What's that definition of insanity I'm trying to remember???????? Oh, yea!
Don't like the way things have been/are going? There is a real alternative to the shit covered coin that is Trump/Billary; Dem/GOP.
http://www.lp.org/
People think I am crazy when I say this -and I wish I was often wrong as often as people think I am crazy, nowhere even close- BUT Trump would get very good behind the curtain with the likes of what we have around here. Match made in heaven. They religious party here and the Republican party there fits like square peg in square hole, doesn't matter what colour they are. :sad2:
Both the US and Turkey favor strong-man dictatorships right now. And I can understand this drift, since democracy clearly has failed once again, as it did in ancient Athens. There are no good government forms, Plato and Aristotle were optimists. The nature of humanity is to be nasty, brutish and short ... but enough about my Ex ;-)
Quote from: Mermaid on May 23, 2016, 11:25:14 AM
I do not understand how Trump and Clinton are equally bad for the white house. That just doesn't compute at all.
The future First Husband engaged in sex with underage girls while aboard a plane run by a plutocrat, to be outside of regular jurisdiction. He is a satyr like Kennedy, a Caligula. Hillary is Messalina ... the out of control wife of Claudius, when she isn't being an Agrippina ... the next wife of Claudius who murdered him to make way for her own son, Nero. This is how history repeats itself, with empires. The US is an empire, disintegrating.
So vote for a non-D/non-R. You do have a choice. I still don't know if I will vote for Trump ... but I won't be voting for Messalina/Agrippina ... though at least she didn't have a son to carry on the family psychosis.