| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just saw Trevor Noah's pirate broadcast of the Daily Show from 2020, on the eve of Trump's Re-Election day. Watching Trump's Troopers cart away Jon Oliver was especially funny.
"How do you have commercials on a pirate broadcast?!"
Almost as amusing were how in Trump's America a woman's rights depended on her current rating on the Trump Meter bracelet locked to her wrist. You have to be at least an 8 to drive. Which means I guess it's a good thing that the Statue of Liberty which only rates a 4 doesn't expect to.
|
Should we allow casinos in two more countiesWhy not?
I can't comment on CBD's specific circumstances but there are a few things I can think of.
I can see a case for it either way. On the one hand, it is a blue law where a lot of the motivation for creating it has gone away.
On the other hand, removing it opens up the existing monopolies to competition and may very well sink them, as is happening in to Atlantic City.
Yep. I'm in NJ and this is all about AC. Currently that's the only county that can have casinos in the state and obviously they want to keep it that way.
If the ballot initiative passes then you could potentially have casinos much closer to New York City, Philadelphia, and northern NJ... the places most of Atlantic City's business comes from. Thus, they have been freaking out and sending me at least one flier a week explaining how evil this is.
Since they tend to support the local economies, there is a vested interest in making sure not only that existing casinos remain healthy but that the tourism industry around those casinos stays strong. Expanding casinos really hurts that tourism industry as there is no longer a need to travel to do it.
Back to the case for expansion, neighboring states are likely looking at expansion and you don't want to be the one left out. You want to be importing tourists, not exporting them.
Way too high minded... I'm torn between considerations like; Is it worse to have busloads of drunken idiots hurtling down the parkway to AC at all hours of the night... or busloads of drunken idiots much closer to where I live all hours of the day? Or... would it be more fun to stick it to Atlantic City or to casino patrons in general?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Time to start thinking about 2020.We're in the last seven days...Best news I've heard all week.
I haven't even started thinking about what I'm drinking tonight, so let's take a step back for a minute.
One Tuesday down, only 6 more days left. God help us.
*thinks in 2020 it will be 80 degrees Fahrenheit on November 8th*
I don't know where you are, but it's 83 today where I am :(
BigDT,
I'm in Morgantown, West Virginia, United States. I don't have longitude or latitude available right now...
Yep. I'm in NJ and this is all about AC. Currently that's the only county that can have casinos in the state and obviously they want to keep it that way.
It's not just about Atlantic City. The "Don't Trust Trenton" group is also getting major chunks of money from casino groups in Pennsylvania and New York which don't want competition from New Jersey.
Locally, Jersey City will also be deciding on moving it's council elections from May to Election Day, a move opposed by our local incumbent.
BigDT,
I'm in Morgantown, West Virginia, United States. I don't have longitude or latitude available right now...
flat earthers take over the department of education this week?
stuff
Not being an expert on the casino industry (I'm in Texas, so there's not a single major casino within several hours of me), this is only speculation. I would probably favor allowing more counties to be available to casinos, if only to allow whatever competition arrives to help spread the income boost to other cities, rather than centralizing it in AC.
BigDT,
I'm in Morgantown, West Virginia, United States. I don't have longitude or latitude available right now...
flat earthers take over the department of education this week?
No, I just don't have good geography skills nor did I feel like googling it, Skol.
|
|
It's not just about Atlantic City. The "Don't Trust Trenton" group is also getting major chunks of money from casino groups in Pennsylvania and New York which don't want competition from New Jersey.Yep. I'm in NJ and this is all about AC. Currently that's the only county that can have casinos in the state and obviously they want to keep it that way.
So no matter how I vote, people who annoy me suffer.
This is a tough one. :]
Locally, Jersey City will also be deciding on moving it's council elections from May to Election Day, a move opposed by our local incumbent.
Blech... IMO never a good sign when people want to hold elections at a time when fewer people will vote.
It's not just about Atlantic City. The "Don't Trust Trenton" group is also getting major chunks of money from casino groups in Pennsylvania and New York which don't want competition from New Jersey.Yep. I'm in NJ and this is all about AC. Currently that's the only county that can have casinos in the state and obviously they want to keep it that way.
So no matter how I vote, people who annoy me suffer.
This is a tough one. :]
Locally, Jersey City will also be deciding on moving it's council elections from May to Election Day, a move opposed by our local incumbent.Blech... IMO never a good sign when people want to hold elections at a time when fewer people will vote.
If you vote yes on casinos you get to annoy people in two states which are vastly larger than New Jersey, one of which is a big Red State.
Best candidate name: Rocky Roque DeLa Fuente
We've got a dude named Schmuck.
Awesome.
NPC Dave, sorry it took me several days to get back to you. Without further ado,
Re: the invitation to scrutinize whether or not these are the main issues important to billionaires, I'd certainly want to add at least one more, taxes. And that is one where the trump-vs-1% theory seems to fall down, since it's not necessarily traditional for a president to show his enmity towards the rich by cutting their taxes.
BigNorseWolf explained it better than I did…
Tax cuts are for everyone. Tax breaks are for your rich friends.
Tax cuts help anyone who pays taxes. Not just the rich. If Trump is going to look out for the 1%, he is going to offer tax breaks, not tax cuts. We can presume the tax cut is there to help everyone who gets it. Not to provide cover for helping out the 1%.
To the points that you did raise:
1) Globalization. I'm mostly OK with this one and not going to argue it. I can accept that the anti-trade platform he's run on is counter to the interests of, at least, large portions of the wealthy. Sure, put this in the W column if you're an anti-globalist.
2) Big banks. I'm not sure this one belongs on the list. I'm sure he's mentioned this stuff, but I haven't seen him make a big deal out of it and I'm not sure I'd expect much to change on this count under his administration one way or another. My understanding of his plans for being president is that he'll focus on a few high-profile, signature issues, and leave most everything else to others, and I haven't seen any sign that bailout policy is going to be at the top of his list. This pretty much means that it will stay in the hands of Congressmen, staffers, lobbyists, and the usual crowd, the people who implemented the stuff we've done in the past. Neutral/tie game here.
You are correct that bailouts have not been a big issue with this campaign, although Cruz and Trump sparred over it during the Republican primaries, where both clearly opposed TARP. Cruz accurately hit Trump for expressing his verbal support back in 2008 and 2009, Trump hit back by pointing out Cruz’s wife is a Goldman Sachs banker.
But I do see it becoming a major issue in the new few years. Another recession is going to hit sooner or later, it is only a matter of time. We have gone eight years since the last one and so it is likely to be sooner rather than later. And because the problems with the US banking system were merely papered over last time, the recession is going to result in either another government bailout or some bank failures. So even if it isn’t on Trump’s radar, it likely will be, and he won’t leave that decision to subordinates. No subordinate will want to make that call and take the blame.
And just like with TARP, the political pressure to extend a bailout is going to be tremendous. Even though many citizens were contacting their congressional representatives to vote no, most of them caved and passed TARP. So it isn’t enough to just say you will be against something like TARP, you have to be able to withstand the political and media pressure.
And Trump showed me could do that on the weekend of Oct 8th and 9th. The media hit him with everything they had, the Republicans betrayed him, and the pressure to give up was off the charts. Trump didn’t quit, he just fought back harder. Now I know he won’t quit if he is President and there is another banking crisis.
3) Political control. Far as I can tell this one belongs firmly in the L column. I'm not necessarily inclined to believe that Trump is personally not influenceable by the money of the 1% (which is his main argument on this count). If he wasn't eager for more money, he wouldn't have spent so much time this campaign pushing his products. But I also don't think that that is the most important factor. Billionaires don't get heard because they have the President on speed dial and direct deposit prearranged - which they don't. They get heard because they buy the people who influence the people who surround the President and work in the administration.
Or they serve in the administration directly. Now, the parade of non-policy-related scandals Trump has courted lately has been drowning out much talk of, say, who his cabinet will be, but last I heard (in the summer) fellow billionaires were prominent on his list (which again doesn't suggest he is crusading against them). I recall hearing of Icahn and several CEOs floated as cabinet picks.
Even if you grant that Trump himself is not corrupt (I don't, but for the sake of argument) - think U.S. Grant and his infamously corrupt administration without the suggestion of personal wrongdoing. If you aren't disciplined about managing your administration, you don't have to be personally accepting the cash in order to preside over a cesspool of corruption and influence peddling. Trump seems anything but disciplined when it comes to managing his campaign, so I don't see that changing if he ends up managing an administration. And in any case if you put other billionaires in your cabinet, then other billionaires is who you'll be hearing when you decide on policy.The gameboard changed as soon as the Trump-Billy Bush tape hit the TV networks. That was when Trump could see who his enemies and who his friends are. And he saw that he had way more enemies than he thought he had, including much of the Republican party. That wasn’t just a media bombshell or a Democratic political maneuver, it was a Republican coup.
If Trump wins, he is going to have to go to war with his own party and purge his Republican enemies from DC. That will mean he has to bring in outsiders if he has any chance of success. He said the following on October 13th…
“For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind. Our campaign represents a true existential threat, like they haven’t seen before. This is not simply another four-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we, the people, reclaim control over our government.”
No presidential candidate has ever talked like that before, and it isn’t just talk, he is backing it up with specific policy proposals now.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Monday will propose a five-year ban on executive branch officials lobbying after they leave government if he is elected, according to excerpts of a speech on fixing ethics problems in Washington.
Trump also will say he plans to ask Congress to impose its own five-year ban on former lawmakers and their staff lobbying as well as set a lifetime ban on senior executive branch officials lobbying for foreign governments.
This is going to start filtering out some of the billionaire minions who shuttle in and out of government and the corporate lobbying firms . Of course, I would prefer ten years, but five is a decent start.
Now I concede that Trump’s cabinet will likely consist of many who are in the 1%. If he is at all sincere about what he is saying, and I can’t prove that he is, then those cabinet members have to be like him…assuming he is sincere..fed up with what their peers are doing, and determined to pry the levers of power out of their hands and give it back to the people. Peter Thiel would be one such person.As long as we are going to add more issues to it, I have a fourth issue to raise that I considered before but didn’t include because it isn’t a consensus among the billionaires. That would be whether the USA is going to have peaceful relations with Russia(Trump's position), or go back to a cold war or worse(Hillary's position). Only some billionaires actually want the US to go hostile with Russia, George Soros being the foremost I can name.
Taxes/proposed additional item: In my previous post I was not following the nomenclature that BNW/you advanced, apologies if that confused my point. Attempting to use that nomenclature, it seems I should say that his plan involves a tax cut for all, plus additional tax breaks (most pertinently elimination of the estate tax and an enormous cut to the corporate tax rate) for the wealthy (which obviously is in large part made up of those who collect corporate profits).
I'm willing to use these names, but I'm not seeing how changing the name makes this anything other than a win for the rich.
1) Not disputing.
2) While I tend to agree that there is a decent chance of a recession in the next four years (under any conceivable candidate), it's not clear that it will be the type of severe recession that would prompt such enormous bailout pressure. Most recessions are milder. That said, this is kind of a dodge, so assuming that it is a severe recession, it's not clear to me why we wouldn't expect Trump to cut a deal for a bailout. I don't see where you show there is a link between his behavior in personal feuds (when attacked, counterattack) and what he would or would not do when facing a bailout question that has little to do with personal feuds and where he hasn't tied himself strongly to any particular outcome in advance.
3) I think you've got rose-tinted glasses on and are interpreting those personal feuds with some wealthy/powerful people as a battle against wealth and power. I'm not sure you've presented a convincing reason to agree with you - on billionaires in the cabinet, for example, your argument seems to basically boil down to "I'll interpret him as being this way because this is the way I hope that he would be." If you take off the rose-tinted glasses, big tax breaks (to use correct nomenclature?) for the wealthy and billionaires in the Cabinet is a damn weird way to go about hobbling the billionaire class.
Re: proposed fifth item (Russia): I'm not sure whether even billionaires are in favor of going to war with Russia, and I'm not going to debate whether they are or are not. I will however say that even if all prefer peace, it seems to me that there is room for honest disagreement about whether attempting appeasement and/or rapprochement or attempting deterrence is the best way to keep the peace, and that it's not automatically clear that the former is better. I will admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to usefully debate the merits of either approach.
One Tuesday down, only 6 more days left. God help us.
*thinks in 2020 it will be 80 degrees Fahrenheit on November 8th*
Thy Will Be Done, my Intemperate Lord!
Hmmm, the Green Party might not like this...
EDIT: Oh, my bad. But you didn't specifically say not to right? Anyway, I contacted the boys at Weather Control for you, and they said they would get it back down into the 30's before the weekend. Also, Morgantown looks like a really beautiful city.
Fergie,
I never said you specifically had to do that. Nor do I wish you to. I just believe thanks to the 75 degree Fahrenheit weather here in Morgantown, a) I'm not getting a White Christmas this year and b) I'm beginning to doubt I'll have one in 2020 either. Much less having much cool off in 2020.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to bring it up again but the field organizer in me can't help himself: it's not too late to do some phone banking! We're in the last seven days, could make a big difference in Ohio or Florida.
Also I found THIS and THIS which I'd been looking for for about the last half hour. I love a good kvetch as much as the next person but this thread is just talking itself in circles.
Favoriting for Standing Rock fundraising links and for fundraising links alone.
---
As for the whole sexism and Bill vs. Hillary thing that was going on a couple pages back:
IIRC, I was 15 when he was first elected president and it wasn't too long thereafter that I started peddling socialist newspapers with articles against his crime bill, welfare reform, NAFTA (no nationalist protectionists us, we denounced it as the "free trade rape of Mexico;" I know, I know, metaphoric use of the word "rape" is frowned upon on these boards, but that's what the papers I was peddling called it), "don't ask, don't tell," etc., etc. I've hated, despised and demonized Slick Willie my whole adult life.
What I have found interesting, however, is how this whole election cycle has made me soft on Obama. I mean, for example, if we were to go back to the 2012 election threads or round thereabouts anyway, you would find me going on about, say, the 2009 coup in Honduras, castigating Obama up and down and nary a word about Hillary. These days, I'll be watching, say, that video where he shares a cigarette with Boener and catch myself thinking "You know, he's pretty likable for a stooge of the plutocracy."
Tales from the Shopfloor
Trump Supporting Teamster and I got into it the other day about Hillary and Israel. TST went on and on about how she was friends with Saudi Arabia and other Islamic theocracies, but was an enemy of "the Jew." I said I was pretty sure the latter part was completely false and cited her speech to AIPAC earlier this year.
Anyway, I clock in this morning and am sitting in the break room when TST says "Hey, I did some research last night" (uh-oh) and started rambling about something, I'm not sure what actually, I think it had to do with calling for Israel to stop building illegal settlements. Anyway, we started arguing about Israel ("Now there's a people who understand the importance of building a wall!") and I trotted out my usual anti-Zionist talking points. He got louder and louder and then demanded to know why I hated Jews.
"Are you f#~%ing kidding me?!?" I replied. "I refuse to listen to accusations of anti-Semitism from a guy who calls the boss 'Wesley Coulliard-steen' every time he cuts our hours!" I wish I could report that that shut him up, but actually it just made him break out laughing and then he changed the subject.
Afterwards, I remembered that Trump was busted tweeting a picture of Crooked Hillary in a Star of David, or whatever it was, and wondered why I even talk to TST. (Oh yeah, because despite his retrograde politics and Archie Bunker-demeanor, he's smart and funny.)
stuffNot being an expert on the casino industry (I'm in Texas, so there's not a single major casino within several hours of me), this is only speculation. I would probably favor allowing more counties to be available to casinos, if only to allow whatever competition arrives to help spread the income boost to other cities, rather than centralizing it in AC.
I don't think casino's actually boost the local economy that much. Las Vegas ranks 80th in per capita income of major metro areas in the US.
The problem is that the profits from casinos and resorts tend to leave through the parent ownership and go some place else. Let's use Trump as an example. If Trump owns a casino in Atlantic City, but he lives in Manhattan, the money he makes from the casino doesn't go into the Atlantic City economy, it goes into the Manhattan economy.
Casinos typically employ relatively low wage workers. They aren't skilled jobs. It's entertainment, there's no value being produced. The money spent on gambling doesn't create additional value, it can't be resold or enhance a person's life. When you buy a car, you use that car to go to work, take your kids to school, etc. If you're looking to buy a new car, you usually sell the old one. When you lose money gambling... you don't get anything.
Atlantic City, a city fairly reliant on gambling businesses for it's economy... has difficulty maintaining grocery stores. They tend to be small affairs with limited choices, not the big box stores with abundant choices and competitive prices.
Casinos don't produce anything and funnel money out of a region and into the pockets of the wealthy who live somewhere else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
6 days remain until a late-morning vote and a probable all-day bender. Hopefully I'll sober up enough to view the results through bleary eyes before crawling to bed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6 days remain until a late-morning vote and a probable all-day bender. Hopefully I won't sober up enough to view the results through bleary eyes before crawling to bed.
:)
6 days remain until a late-morning vote and a probable all-day bender. Hopefully I won't sober up enough to view the results through bleary eyes before crawling to bed.:)
Amen to that. grins
Clinton does lack certain qualities present in most presidents, and I'm not just talking about a penis. Excluding both Bushes, the last few presidents have been quite excellent orators (I think she could deliver similar serious speeches like each Bush could fairly well). Even though she's had a life of public service and has stood next to one of the best orators in the country for decades, she still seems stilted and overly rehearsed.
If you look at the list of greatest orator presidents, 5 of them are in the last 70 years and in the era of radio and television (and now the internet) I don't think that is a coincidence. It almost wouldn't matter how good an orator Thomas Jefferson was, very few people would ever hear him speak. Now, the whole country can be reached and the ability to inspire and rouse with a speech is almost required.
HRC is exceptionally intelligent and hard working, but her public speaking leaves a lot to be desired (considering the scope of what she's trying to do). I don't think this makes her a bad candidate, but it leaves her campaigning somewhat lackluster at times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In today's news, Trump got the support of the KKK's newspaper, although in fairness, his campaign denounced it. ...To be honest, though, when his campaign says "Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form", it's kind of hard to take it seriously given the many hateful things he's said.
Still, you gotta wonder why they like him enough to support him. Oh, wait. They told us.
"'Make America Great Again!' It is a slogan that has been repeatedly used by Donald Trump in his campaign for the presidency," Pastor Thomas Robb wrote in the Crusader. "You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally. … But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon find out!"
"While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, 'What made America great in the first place?'" the article continues. "The short answer to that is simple. America was great not because of what our forefathers did — but because of who our forefathers were."
"America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great."
*Tosses popcorn into mouth*
You know, funnily enough, I'm a white Christian who believes in a Republican form of government... and I still think they're very wrong indeed. Who people are is not more important than what they do, and such statements are exactly the opposite of the faith they claim to support. So I'm happy to disavow their comments as the nonsense they are. o wo/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She really doesn't represent the status quo. She's a woman for one and would be the first female president in the country's history.
Kaine represents the status quo just as much, if not more than Clinton.
The day after Election Year 2000 was my wedding day. It was noted that the groom had to get the best man pried off the television electoral coverage in order to get to city hall on time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
She really doesn't represent the status quo. She's a woman for one and would be the first female president in the country's history.
Kaine represents the status quo just as much, if not more than Clinton.
(Emphasis added)
What are the other ways the former Secretary of State, Senator from Wall Street, most hawkish member of Obama's cabinet who is running on "America Is Already Great" doesn't represent the status quo?
In today's news, Trump got the support of the KKK's newspaper, although in fairness, his campaign denounced it. ...To be honest, though, when his campaign says "Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form", it's kind of hard to take it seriously given the many hateful things he's said.
Still, you gotta wonder why they like him enough to support him. Oh, wait. They told us.
"'Make America Great Again!' It is a slogan that has been repeatedly used by Donald Trump in his campaign for the presidency," Pastor Thomas Robb wrote in the Crusader. "You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally. … But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon find out!"
"While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, 'What made America great in the first place?'" the article continues. "The short answer to that is simple. America was great not because of what our forefathers did — but because of who our forefathers were."
"America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great."
*Tosses popcorn into mouth*
You know, funnily enough, I'm a white Christian who believes in a Republican form of government... and I still think they're very wrong indeed. Who people are is not more important than what they do, and such statements are exactly the opposite of the faith they claim to support. So I'm happy to disavow their comments as the nonsense they are. o wo/
So...I don't know what to make of the Klan endorsement of Trump. Actually, I do; I don't know what to make of the social media endorsement of Trump. I mean, I get it, it's pretty fitting, but I suspect the Klan has endorsed every Republican candidate since at least Reagan (although internet headlines that I didn't delve into said that David Duke endorsed Obama in '08).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She really doesn't represent the status quo. She's a woman for one and would be the first female president in the country's history.
Kaine represents the status quo just as much, if not more than Clinton.
(Emphasis added)
What are the other ways the former Secretary of State, Senator from Wall Street, most hawkish member of Obama's cabinet who is running on "America Is Already Great" doesn't represent the status quo?
ie, ways that matter.
She really doesn't represent the status quo. She's a woman for one and would be the first female president in the country's history.
Kaine represents the status quo just as much, if not more than Clinton.
(Emphasis added)
What are the other ways the former Secretary of State, Senator from Wall Street, most hawkish member of Obama's cabinet who is running on "America Is Already Great" doesn't represent the status quo?
Like I said before, when you got those things on your chest, one apparently MUST be evaluated by a whole 'nother set of moving goalposts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said before, when you got those things on your chest, one apparently MUST be evaluated by a whole 'nother set of moving goalposts.
I don't give Hillary a pass or fail based on her gender. Just like Obama didn't really do much for black people, I don't think Hillary is going to do anything special because she is a woman. Given her overwhelming support for Saudi Arabia, it is clear that women (and human rights in general), are far below her other priorities. She most certainly is not alone in these choices, and I think most of our government and a percentage of citizens unconditionally support Israel, Saudi Arabia, and various other human rights abusers.
Here is a great article about the various people and governments that Clinton has supported over the last decade or so.
Hillary Clinton, Stalwart Friend of World’s Worst Despots, Attacks Sanders’s Latin American Activism
by Glenn Greenwald
EDIT: The is also Hillary's decades long "tough-on-crime" stances and support for a variety of domestic surveillance, mass incarceration, and other police state issues.
EDIT2: Oh yeah, and here zelous support for military adventures, from Bill's days of bombing and starving Iraq, to Libya, and whatever the hell happened in the Ukraine, that is almost unmentioned in major media.
Hillary Clinton’s Neocon Resumé Includes some of the same stuff from Glenn Greenward, but also includes a few other locations.
I must admit that I find it odd that many people here, who seems to espouse "Lefty" view points, seem willing to turn a blind eye to all of these things.
PS Good article about the Clinton's in Haiti on the BBC news site.
Like I said before, when you got those things on your chest, one apparently MUST be evaluated by a whole 'nother set of moving goalposts.I don't give Hillary a pass or fail based on her gender. Just like Obama didn't really do much for black people, I don't think Hillary is going to do anything special because she is a woman. Given her overwhelming support for Saudi Arabia, it is clear that women (and human rights in general), are far below her other priorities. She most certainly is not alone in these choices, and I think most of our government and a percentage of citizens unconditionally support Israel, Saudi Arabia, and various other human rights abusers.
Here is a great article about the various people and governments that Clinton has supported over the last decade or so.
Hillary Clinton, Stalwart Friend of World’s Worst Despots, Attacks Sanders’s Latin American Activism
by Glenn GreenwaldEDIT: The is also Hillary's decades long "tough-on-crime" stances and support for a variety of domestic surveillance, mass incarceration, and other police state issues.
I must admit that I find it odd that many people here, who seems to espouse "Lefty" view points, seem willing to turn a blind eye to all of these things.
PS Good article about the Clinton's in Haiti on the BBC news site.
I supposed we're supposed to wait for a perfect candidate, then? As Jon Oliver put it, we have a choice of FOUR evils, not two. And I prefer the mostly status quo Democrat, to the libertarian who apparently could not be bothered to study basic social studies and his VP who advocates gay conversion, nor am I keen on the anti-vaxxer who thinks that wi-fi causes cancer. This leaves the odius pseudo-billionaire who got rich by foisting the costs of his numerous corporate failures and frauds on to others, who apparently has no concerns about outright robbing the people who either pay or work for him, who is so fundamentally dishonest that even his own lawyers insist on working with him in pairs. And in case anyone needs a refresher... BERNIE SANDERS IS NOT RUNNING.
The only thing that amazes me that anyone can think that Trump and Clinton are only within a hairs-breadth of each other in terms of respect for the political system, or even basic honesty.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must admit that I find it odd that many people here, who seems to espouse "Lefty" view points, seem willing to turn a blind eye to all of these things.
When your options are unsweetened oatmeal and the product of a dumpster fire of nuclear fallout you take the oatmeal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I supposed we're supposed to wait for a perfect candidate, then?
How about just being objective and rational about Hillary?
You can vote for whoever you like. Just don't pretend Hillary is above reproach.When your options are unsweetened oatmeal and the product of a dumpster fire of nuclear fallout you take the oatmeal.
I have no issues with that. I have issues when people start pretending that the oatmeal is ice cream, except that Faux news fake scandal makes people hate it or that because the oatmeal has two lumps that the oatmeal... eh, I'm going to quit before this metaphor explodes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I supposed we're supposed to wait for a perfect candidate, then?How about just being objective and rational about Hillary?
You can vote for whoever you like. Just don't pretend Hillary is above reproach.
By the Thorn Queen of Kyonin, Since when did I ever? You need to break out of this absolutist mindset where you see any divergence from your own narrow viewpoint as a 180 degree anti-christ opposite. I have laid a good deal of criticism at Clinton's.. and for that matter, at Sander's feet as well.
But the fact of the matter is we are now in the EndGame...and baring something so improbable that it's not worth seriously considering, One of TWO candidates are going to be taking the Presidential Crown next January.
And as The Wolf put it, my choice is between oatmeal that's not among my favorite dishes to a nuclear waste pile as choice of dinner being served at the Election Banquet. Just because I choose to pass on radioactive waste, doesn't mean I now think the oatmeal is ambrosia. I'd just rather choose the oatmeal, and you seem not to be able to comprehend such a choice.
By the Thorn Queen of Kyonin, Since when did I ever?
Sorry, my comments were addressed at the thread in general, not you specifically. I used your post because it was the most recent example of something I have seen many times, especially a few pages back. There seems to be a recurring Disapproval of Hillary is only due to partisan smear campaigns and misogyny, while ignoring many legitimate criticisms. I should have been more clear about that in attempting to make my point.
I have noticed your criticisms, and I wish to give credit where it is due. With that said, I genuinely don't know what you mean by this: " You need to break out of this absolutist mindset where you see any divergence from your own narrow viewpoint as a 180 degree anti-christ opposite."
Could you give me an example?
Way too high minded... I'm torn between considerations like; Is it worse to have busloads of drunken idiots hurtling down the parkway to AC at all hours of the night... or busloads of drunken idiots much closer to where I live all hours of the day? Or... would it be more fun to stick it to Atlantic City or to casino patrons in general?
A casino located at the edge of the Liberty Industrial Zone, or in the Meadowlands would have excellent access to mass transit via Light Rail and bus. So that may mean less drunk driving period.