| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right. Don't let a meaningless reason to hate gary johnson distract you from the meaningful reasons to hate gary johnson.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I thought this was the election year where we ignore the meaningful reasons altogether! Ignore Clinton's hawkish foreign policy and focus on her emails. Ignore Trump's pandering to neonazis, blatant corruption and ties to Russia and focus on his comments about his daughter. Ignore Cruz's wild bigotry and general hatefulness and focus on him being the Zodiac Killer. Ignore Kaine's antiabortion and pro-abstinence-only beliefs and focus on his bad Trump impression. Ignore Johnson's extremist libertarian views and concentrate on a single gaffe. Ignore Stein's crappy attitudes on autism and vaccines and focus on...
Haha, just kidding, nobody cares about Jill Stein.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Her bulldozer decorating skills?
I left out Pence because Pence being a total piece of hateful garbage should go without saying. What do people even criticize, aside from the garbage? I've heard some Republicans gripe that he's "nothing new". Scares me that people could think the furthest-right Republican we've had this close to the presidency in years is "boring".
I also left out Rubio, but not because he deserves it. The media gave him too much of a break from the beginning. Trump in a better suit. But there were just too many candidates for me to snipe about them all.
I left out Pence because Pence being a total piece of hateful garbage should go without saying.
If you can articulate why it might be handy. I don't know him that well and I pick up a lot of information here.(yes that's sad, but i could be getting my information from networkd news or something..)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But putting aside that little bout of antifeminist hogwash: is politics:
Tried to pass a law that mandated funerals for aborted fetuses.
Suppports diverting taxpayer money towards conversion therapy for gays.
Supports basically all motions toward free trade, which is interesting, since Trump doesn't.
Wants to partially privatize Social Security and potentially raise the retirement age.
Opposes use of condoms, promotes abstinence-only education. Wikipedia: In 2002, Pence criticized a speech by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell where Powell stated that it was "important for young people... to protect themselves from the possibility of acquiring any sexually transmitted disease" through the use of condoms. Pence called Powell's comments a "sad day" and expressed his support for abstinence education.
Pence stated that: "despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill." Pence's state has one of the worst smoking problems in America, probably because his record opposes virtually all limits or regulations on the tobacco industry.
This article is pretty biased, but Pence went after Nancy Reagan for supporting stem cell research.
Pence in 2009: There is a "growing skepticism in the scientific community about global warming”. Resists any efforts to limit climate change or find renewable energy sources.
... good call
More reason to keep trump from pretending to be president.
As a reminder for anyone who may have forgotten, a President Trump would probably delegate quite a lot (i.e. both foreign and domestic policy, if the Kasich offer is to be believed) to his Vice President, while he just focuses on "making America great again". Whatever that actually means. Accordingly, his VP's views are more important than usual - not just what would happen if Trump is removed from office by any method and his VP steps in, but what's likely to become the policy right from the start.
Note that Pence was probably going to lose his reelection. He's a rejected governor poised to become a rejected vice president. Hopefully. This niggling fear at the back of my mind wonders if the GOP are planning an impeachment gambit to get Pence as president if Trump wins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has it been mentioned yet how Pence created a new competing organization when someone he did not like got elected to head of education?
Note that Pence was probably going to lose his reelection. He's a rejected governor poised to become a rejected vice president. Hopefully. This niggling fear at the back of my mind wonders if the GOP are planning an impeachment gambit to get Pence as president if Trump wins.
Why question his legitimacy when he can just be president cheney 2.0 ?
Ok, so what is so bad about the abstinence education part?
He'll probably be more Cheney than Cheney ever was. Remember, Trump likely has very little interest in most affairs of state. He's in this for attention and, probably, the hopes of getting some financial advantages from the job. A reverse Chester A. Arthur, if you will. Except Chester started out terrible and became honest, while Trump...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so what is so bad about the abstinence education part?
Mainly that it doesn't work. Abstinence-only education shames people for sex, which makes no sense to begin with, and doesn't actually teach kids what they need to know to be safe, since plenty will just ignore their teachers' advice to "just don't do it, mmkay?" The kids that take the advice will grow up with stupid misconceptions about sex and virginity (virginity itself being a mythological construct), and the kids that don't will be in just as much danger as they were before.
Trump may also be putting on an act. Pence has a long track record that shows he is a true believer.
Note that Pence was probably going to lose his reelection. He's a rejected governor poised to become a rejected vice president. Hopefully. This niggling fear at the back of my mind wonders if the GOP are planning an impeachment gambit to get Pence as president if Trump wins.
Actually, per Indiana state law, Pence couldn't run for both VPotUS and Indiana governor. Pence dropped his bid for re-election as governor, and he was replaced on the ballot by current Lt Gov. Eric Holcomb (R).
Yeah, I didn't say he was running. I said he would have likely lost reelection had he stayed in the gubernatorial race.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I thought this was the election year where we ignore the meaningful reasons altogether! ...Ignore Kaine's antiabortion and pro-abstinence-only beliefs and focus on his bad Trump impression.
PillbugFact rates these claims as :
Q: When you first ran as Lieutenant Governor, you were classified as a pro-life Democrat. You're now not considered a pro-life Democrat. How would you describe your abortion position?
KAINE: People use labels all the time. But I'm kind of a traditional Catholic. I don't like it personally. I'm opposed to abortion. And personally I'm opposed to the death penalty. I deeply believe, and not just as a matter of politics, but even as a matter of morality, that matters about reproduction and intimacy and relationships and contraception are in the personal realm. They're moral decisions for individuals to make for themselves. And the last thing we need is government intruding into those personal decisions. So I've taken a position which is quite common among Catholics. I've got a personal feeling about abortion, but the right role for government is to let women make their own decisions.
KAINE: I strongly support the right of women to make their own health and reproductive decisions and, for that reason, will oppose efforts to weaken or subvert the basic holding of Roe v. Wade. We all share the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The right way to do this is through education and access to health care and contraception rather than criminalizing women's reproductive decisions.
Tim has co-sponsored legislation to protect female workers and expand access to affordable health care for women. Tim will continue fighting to protect women's right to make their own choices about their reproductive health. He supports increased access to contraception and introduced legislation to restore the contraceptive coverage requirement guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
Yes, back in 2005, Kaine did support abstinence-only education. However, in 2007:
Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has cut off state funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, citing recent studies finding that teenagers should also be taught about birth control and condoms to protect against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
...Delacey Skinner, Kaine's communications director, said the governor believes that effective sex education programs must include information about contraceptives as well as abstinence.
"The governor supports abstinence-based education, but the governor wants to see us funding programs that are evidenced-based," said Skinner, who added that Virginia will now offer "more comprehensive" sex education.
Kaine sure sounds like a VP whose opinions evolve over time, and stands firmly in support of access to abortion and contraception.
Yes, Kaine has learned to toe the party line. But his personal beliefs are pretty clear.
In 2009, Kaine signed a bill to create a "Choose Life" license plate, among the more than 200 Virginia specialty plates already offered, the proceeds of which would partly go to Heartbeat International, a Christian organization that operates anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America expressed disappointment in Kaine's decision. Kaine considered such license plate messages a matter of free speech and added that the move was "in keeping with the commonwealth's longtime practice of approving specialty plates with all manner of political and social messages."
Nothing I've heard has indicated his views actually changed from this:
In 2005, when running for governor, Kaine said he favored reducing abortions by: (1) "Enforcing the current Virginia restrictions on abortion and passing an enforceable ban on partial birth abortion that protects the life and health of the mother"; (2) "Fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education"; (3) "Ensuring women's access to health care (including legal contraception) and economic opportunity"; and (4) "Promoting adoption as an alternative for women facing unwanted pregnancies."
Look, as long as his actual policies aren't shit, I'll vote for him, but his personal beliefs about sex, and about women's rights, are not particularly ambiguous. Is that important? Eh. Like I said, it's policy, not belief, that matters. I don't really buy Clinton's dedication to LGBT rights, either (that Nancy Reagan "gaffe" doesn't appear in a vacuum). What matters is what policies they choose to enforce.
It's certainly not something we should be so eager to airbrush away.
And that is why I didn't bother attempting to refute the "Clinton's hawkish foreign policy" narrative.
Edit: If you are a practicing Roman Catholic, the Vatican line is No Abortion, No Contraception. That's it. That's what Kaine was taught, that's what I was taught. If you don't believe the words coming out of Kaine's mouth, or the actions he actually took in office, that demonstrate he can separate his personal religious beliefs from actual government policy, programs, and laws... I don't know what else to tell you. I imagine Secretary Kerry's and all the Kennedy clan's Catholicism would be a similar black mark too. Hell, I'm full-on atheist, but maybe you can't trust my positions ever can truly deviate from the Catholic doctrine I was raised on?
If you want an ideologically pure & perfect candidate that you'll agree with 100%, then you'll need to run for office yourself. Anyone else is a compromise.
I take that mostly from her time as Secretary of State. The Kaine stuff there's room for argument on—I don't see how you can not see her foreign policy as aggressive. She wanted to send an aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea after North Korea sank a South Korean ship. She was one of the biggest voices in convincing Obama to intervene in Libya. She advocates going further than what President Obama has done in Syria. She criticized Obama for being willing to negotiate with Iran without preconditions. She tried to push Obama to take a more aggressive action in Afganistan. She antagonizes China. She leans on Kissinger for advice.
Even putting Iraq aside, Clinton is much more aggressive in her foreign policy than Obama, and probably Trump (though for decidedly different reasons—Trump follows neonazi "America First" propaganda, after all). You can argue that all these policy differences are strengths and that Obama was wrong, but compared to him, she's a hawk. That's just objective math.
Unlike the "Clinton is dishonest and heartless" narrative, the "hawk narrative" has endured for a reason.
EDIT: With regards to your edit, like I said, I'm still voting for Clinton/Kaine. Doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge their weaknesses. And am I supposed to like Kerry more for some reason? Stop assuming my affiliations. I can support Sanders, and Obama, and Clinton, and Kaine, while still acknowledging their problems. Furthermore, "toeing the party line" is not a substitute for serious belief, because someone who toes the party line can get away with a lot of passivity. Someone who toes the party line on transgender rights, for instance, might just support transgender people in the military, then immediately drop it, like that's all it takes. That's why Kaine's personal beliefs do matter a little.
Incidentally, just to be fair and equal: "Ignore Sanders's clear apathy towards serious gun control action and focus on how many times he waves his fingers in speeches."
Lots of stuff about Governor Pence
And that's the tip of the Pence iceberg.
Governor Pence is a slightly less-detestable Ted Cruz powered by a Dan Quayle-like intellect.
All I know is that now the Libertarians are groaning in their beer about today's debacle.
Pence at least believes most of what he says. Mike Pence is your dumb relative who hates gay people and posts lots of conspiracy theories about the evils of Planned Parenthood. Ted Cruz is that octopus in Penguins of Madagascar pretending to be human so he can render all penguins into hideous monsters.
K-Cleaver,
So you're saying he's like Cthulhu's distant cousin or something?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think he's one of the people Cthulhu is getting ready to wake up.
Not sure I follow but I'll at least agree with the statement, K-Cleaver.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
K-Cleaver,
So you're saying he's like Cthulhu's distant cousin or something?
How do you say "shame of the family" in aklo?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you say "shame of the family" in aklo?
Mnahn'bthnk.
Or thereabouts. o wo/ More literally, it's "Worthless body", but my dictionary's kind of limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Mike Pence believes that it is "inarguable" that Putin is a "stronger leader" than Obama.
Only a child or a fool mistakes aggression for strength.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Mike Pence believes that it is "inarguable" that Putin is a "stronger leader" than Obama.
Only a child or a fool mistakes aggression for strength.
Their stance on Putin hasn't gone unnoticed by Garry Kasparov:
Governor Pence, Vladimir Putin is a strong leader in the same way arsenic is a strong drink. Your country should be ashamed of you.
No sophistry. Calling a strongman like Putin "strong" is redundant, and so it is praise not for the individual but for dictatorship itself.
So Mike Pence believes that it is "inarguable" that Putin is a "stronger leader" than Obama.
Only a child or a fool mistakes aggression for strength.
Shrug. Our shame democracy is little different then Russia's sham democracy. If anything, it looks like their lower tier (third and fourth party candidates) get more votes then our lower tier candidates. I've watched police in the US beat and arrest protestors, I know about the resistance to Occupy Wallstreet at a national level. I spent time in the filth cages they set up to detain thousands of people during political events. I really can't think of a major difference between our democracy and media and theirs short of Us and Them. (Auctually, I think we have a far greater percentage of our population in prison/jail/parole then they do).
Green Party Candidates Arrested, Shackled to Chairs For 8 Hours After Trying to Enter Hofstra Debate To be fair, the headline is a little sensational. She was handcuffed to the chair for eight hours, not shackled. Note, they were plastic zip cuffs, which are very uncomfortable, and have a tenancy to become overly tight as you wear them... ask me how I know...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shrug. Our shame democracy is little different then Russia's sham democracy. [...] I really can't think of a major difference between our democracy and media and theirs short of Us and Them.
I'm not surprised. But that says more about you than it does about the actual reality-influenced state of the world.
Shrug. Our shame democracy is little different then Russia's sham democracy. [...] I really can't think of a major difference between our democracy and media and theirs short of Us and Them.I'm not surprised. But that says more about you than it does about the actual reality-influenced state of the world.
Tell me why I'm wrong based on the "actual reality-influenced state of the world".
The US is a 2 party system, despite the formal existence of other parties. Russia is a 1 party system, despite the formal existence of other parties.
That really is a huge difference.
When both parties are paid for and serve the same special interests, and agree on 90+% of policy, it really is not a huge difference. Choosing between two near identical options is not a legitimate choice.
Both countries have allowed politics, and disallowed politics, and a media that enforces it. (See the invasion of Iraq in 2003) The rest is just window dressing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shrug. Our shame democracy is little different then Russia's sham democracy. [...] I really can't think of a major difference between our democracy and media and theirs short of Us and Them.I'm not surprised. But that says more about you than it does about the actual reality-influenced state of the world.Tell me why I'm wrong based on the "actual reality-influenced state of the world".
Thejeff already answered this one.
When both parties are paid for and serve the same special interests, and agree on 90+% of policy, it really is not a huge difference.The US is a 2 party system, despite the formal existence of other parties. Russia is a 1 party system, despite the formal existence of other parties.
That really is a huge difference.
And this statement here illustrates just how unrealistic your vision is. A simple example among many: health insurance. The Democratic position is that health care should be a public right; "Obamacare" should be available to all as a form of universal health insurance -- and even "Obamacare" is a compromise because there weren't enough votes to provide a genuine NHS-style public health system.
Having been unable to prevent Obamacare from being passed, the Republicans have systematically resorted to lawsuits to restrict the availability of the public option. The difference in health care outcomes shows a clear difference between the two parties.
Another illustrative example is Keynesian vs. Austrian economics, and specifically the role of economic stimulus against austerity measures; again, the difference is clear, partisan, and easily read in various economic outcomes.
(ETA: A third illustrative example is LGBT rights. It's easy to dismiss this if you aren't personally affected, but the right to gay marriage has created literally life-altering changes for many people. As a result of the recent changes, gays now have a legally enforceable right to visit and make decisions on behalf of hospitalized partners, to bring their non-citizen partners with them into the States [and give them the right to work],to pass their estates, retirement accounts, annuities, and pensions to their partners with less burden when they die, and to pay less in taxes when only one partner works. Of course, they still don't have the right to put pictures of their partners on their desks at work without being fired, the right to use the bathroom matching the clothes they are wearing, and many other rights the majority has long taken for granted. Again, LGBT equality has been a partisan issue for decades, with the Democrats pushing for it and the Republicans still pushing against it (most recently suing to keep Obama's bathroom equality policy from being enforced.] There's a clear difference between the two parties here as well.)
I really hope Clinton hammers Trump's fire all the generals comment in areas with heavy military populations.
What makes you think that this idea won't also be supported by many of the Military.
Afterall, they've done a LOT of cuts over the past 8 years, and almost all of it comes from those who are NOT the high brass.
They've had token brass cuts, but nothing really hefty, and a LOT of the high brass didn't fight back against the cuts by stepping down or doing other things. Instead, the high brass supported kicking a LOT of the veterans to the curb.
In addition, (don't know if it's been stopped or better now) there was a terrible thing happening in the Army where you'd have people that were injured and then instead of having the right way of having a medical board meet for a long time and an evaluation, they were simply dropped overboard and kicked out without further ado. This meant a LOT of disabled veterans were suddenly out on their butt without any support system.
This happened far more to those with PTSD and other afflictions (of which we've seen some of the results of in a few of the military base shootings and other areas) WITHOUT the proper support.
They have the VA, but the VA sometimes takes a while to get it done (personel that they've asked the government to buff up their employee count so they can actually handle the higher number of disability claims hasn't actually been met by Congress, so they are doing what they can with the partial staff they have to try to figure out the claims).
So, I don't know.
You may be right, but I wouldn't be surprised either if that is actually a bad call by Trump, or if it would actually be wise for Clinton to hammer down on that point or not.
I take that mostly from her time as Secretary of State. The Kaine stuff there's room for argument on—I don't see how you can not see her foreign policy as aggressive. She wanted to send an aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea after North Korea sank a South Korean ship. She was one of the biggest voices in convincing Obama to intervene in Libya. She advocates going further than what President Obama has done in Syria. She criticized Obama for being willing to negotiate with Iran without preconditions. She tried to push Obama to take a more aggressive action in Afganistan. She antagonizes China. She leans on Kissinger for advice.
Even putting Iraq aside, Clinton is much more aggressive in her foreign policy than Obama, and probably Trump (though for decidedly different reasons—Trump follows neonazi "America First" propaganda, after all). You can argue that all these policy differences are strengths and that Obama was wrong, but compared to him, she's a hawk. That's just objective math.
Unlike the "Clinton is dishonest and heartless" narrative, the "hawk narrative" has endured for a reason.
EDIT: With regards to your edit, like I said, I'm still voting for Clinton/Kaine. Doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge their weaknesses. And am I supposed to like Kerry more for some reason? Stop assuming my affiliations. I can support Sanders, and Obama, and Clinton, and Kaine, while still acknowledging their problems. Furthermore, "toeing the party line" is not a substitute for serious belief, because someone who toes the party line can get away with a lot of passivity. Someone who toes the party line on transgender rights, for instance, might just support transgender people in the military, then immediately drop it, like that's all it takes. That's why Kaine's personal beliefs do matter a little.
Incidentally, just to be fair and equal: "Ignore Sanders's clear apathy towards serious gun control action and focus on how many times he waves his fingers in speeches."
Well, I never viewed her as a Hawk until now. You mentioning that doesn't make me feel all that great about her either. You've actually convinced me though...and that's sort of scary in regards to how much international intervention and warlike activities we've done in the past 20 years.
Is Johnson or Stein a Hawk?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shrug. Our shame democracy is little different then Russia's sham democracy.
This is so ignorant it makes my head spin.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is Johnson or Stein a Hawk?
No. Neither.
Neither are they Doves.
They're both, fundamentally, Dodos.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're both, fundamentally, Dodos.
I see them a bit like carrion birds. Circling packs of major-party voters, focused on picking off the wounded, diseased, or disaffected.
All I know is that now the Libertarians are groaning in their beer about today's debacle.
Linky?
All I know is that now the Libertarians are groaning in their beer about today's debacle.Linky?
The Aleppo gaffe, I think.
The Aleppo gaffe, I think.All I know is that now the Libertarians are groaning in their beer about today's debacle.Linky?
Oh. I know that he needs to be gaffe free with as little tv time as he gets but I didn't view that one has as horrible as it could be.
Of course I could just be grading him on a curve... compared to Trump's gaffes his seem rather pedestrian...