| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone thinks that Trump is a better choice then "Not Trump" then it's more likely a problem with whoever or whatever is educating them on their choices.Again, you're looking to put the blame on the electorate.As one of two parts of the system with an actual brain (as opposed to the pseudo brain of "the system" ) it would be their fault.
Themselves.
There is a limit to how much blame you can put on society. I'm not sure where the line is but Trump shot past it so fast he's slingshotted around the sun and gone back in time to kill the humpback whales before they can summon the space pod of doom.
So when people vote overwhelmingly for Putin it's their fault for not being educated is it?You think maaaaaaybe there might be some factors at play in Russia that aren't at play here?
I'm kind of astonished you would even consider making that analogy.
You care to provide a credible source for of how much worse Russian Democracy is then the US? I've been hearing that Evil Empire stuff for my whole life, and I have found that riot cops beating people in the streets looks similar whether it is Moscow or New York.
I don't think the US is the fair democracy you make it out to be, especially for poor and minorities. There are serious flaws in the system, and the average person does not reap the benefit of those flaws, nor can they be directly blamed. [Is it the voters fault GW Bush got into office, even though Gore got more votes?] Would the average citizen really pick candidates with such high disapproval rates if they weren't heavily promoted by their political machines? I don't think they would, and I'm happy to agree to disagree with someone who does. It is the DNC and RNC that select who gets to be in the candidate club, and they are the organizations that promote these candidates. The politicians and wealthy reap the benefits, and they get the blame.
If these candidates spend all of this money and resources, and still have a "enthusiasm gap", maybe it is time to stop blaming the voters and look at the candidates and the system that produced them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fergie
Assassination of Boris Nemtsov
The us is definitely bad. But it's not have the guy running against you shot in broad daylight bad.
Russia owns the tv (here the tv station owns the candidates. Totally different)
Information
Thanks BNW! I'll read that tomorrow. Have a good night!
This is really going out of your way to make a random insult seem like an actual response to the point.
Indeed. I can tell you went out of your way to addres the main points instead of minutiae.
only holds if "similar beliefs" isn't christianity but a specific form of christianity that tends to earn that dislike with what they say about members of religious minorities and the LGBT community.
If you're using such a loaded, biased description of 'The Other', note it applies equally well to your example.
Those who have a 'specific form of christianity that ignores all its precepts that disagree with their political ideology, earning the dislike of any who disagree with them'.There. Now both sides are biased. Good times.
Republicans push those issues in order to get votes for the thing they actually care about: funneling more money to the rich.
Your clearly missed the part where the Democracts push their issues to get votes for the one thing they actually care about: Funneling more money to their rich.
If you want to throw down about it, it's fairly easy to find out which side has more rich, and by what degree.While democrats aren't free from the occasional idiocy or taking a good idea too far republicans are deliberately divorcing themselves from basic facts
Basic facts like what Confidential or Secret means? Basic facts like who tried to delete the papertrail exposing their corruption, including the use of hammers on devices that had it? Basic facts like getting bribes for positions of power?
No, no, please go on about which side is ignoring more 'basic facts', this is delicious.You're right about them not being idiots, though. Their level of corruption is efficient and well-refined compared to the idtiot R's on the other side the aisle.
The us is definitely bad. But it's not have the guy running against you shot in broad daylight bad.
No, it's just that, through absolutely-unshakeable coincidence, some people 'accidentally' crush themselves with weights or any who leak sensitive data just so happened get robbed to death.
---
And here I was, thinking this forum might actually be completely free of Trump supporters.
Still some progress to be made, I guess.
You're just proving that definition of 'progress' I listed to be true.
Thank you.---
It's the new popular narrative that the voters are wrong. The DNC are right, Hilary is great, but the voters are wrong. The exact opposite of how elections work.
Standard techniques from that side. Claim superiority, shame dissent, proclaim victory.
Doesn't really work as well as it used to, though.What's better is when the Outer Party doesn't realize how much the Inner Party is making from their support and devotion. What's worse is how many don't care.
---
People predicted early on that Obama would be a one term democrat.
His opposition was Mittens and McCain. Anyone who made the prediction while knowing this at the time they were running against him deserves scorn. Indeed, it's extremely rare that a standing President fails to get re-elected. They have to do something rather impressively bad for that to happen.
One, because despite what some people may think I actually believe she will be a competent president
Why, yes, if she does such a bang-up job at President as she did as Secretary of State, there will be much 'progress'.
Secondly demographics are increasingly making it difficult for a standard republican to win the office of president.
Yes, which is why it's blindingly obvious why the Democrats support the importation of more Democrat voters. They certainly won't win the demographic battle by having more kids than their opposition.
It's no wonder the Inner Party lives in gated communities with paid hirelings to defend them with firearms while publicly they speak out against such things as complaining about living with the consequences of one's choices and gun control. Woe betide the one who dares to question this stance... claim, shame, and proclaim!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, no, please go on about which side is ignoring more 'basic facts', this is delicious.
Okay!
Here's Hillary Clinton's Politifact scorecard.
Here's Donald Trump's.
I encourage you to blame the absolutely insane disparity in those two charts on Politifact's "bias." Bonus points if you mention that they're run by the Tampa Bay Times, a newspaper whose editorial board has endorsed Clinton! That will make your position look super strong.
You hate the Democratic Party with a burning passion. Fine, we get that. It really is not a great time to be a conservative. The world at large has turned against your ideology, the number of places where you can freely share your opinions with others without feeling their scorn shrinks daily, and nearly all social change coming out of our federal legislature is in the general direction of progressivism.
But your anger and frustration aren't a substitute for facts.
Claim superiority, shame dissent, proclaim victory.
I mean, it's not really our strategy (in case any of you would like to read our actual plan, instead of a right-winger's caricature of a smoke-filled-room-fantasy version, here it is!), but perhaps it ought to be. Democrats are, on balance, better; the most reliable path to social change is through shaming; and we are kind of on a winning streak, so maybe we ought to proclaim victory more often? Could be fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. I can tell you went out of your way to address the main points instead of minutiae.
You don't have a main point, and that's the problem.
All you have is an old, tired, thoroughly discredited talking point about hillary clintons email which is somehow, SO bad, that trump must be the better president without any actual consideration for trump himself.
You repeat this talking point over. And over. And over. And over. No matter whether it's on topic or not. (Hint: it's not) That's not a meaningful discussion, that's having a shame nun open in another window.
If you're using such a loaded, biased description of 'The Other', note it applies equally well to your example.
Your problem isn't that it's loaded or biased it's that its accurate.
Those who have a 'specific form of christianity that ignores all its precepts that disagree with their political ideology, earning the dislike of any who disagree with them'.
You want me to decide who the real christians are? My hat is not that fancy.
There. Now both sides are biased. Good times.
This is the very error you're denying.
Todd stole an ice cream
James burned down an orphanage.
Both people are bad.
There is a vast difference between having a point of view (that you can't actually deny) and making stuff up out of whole cloth.
Your clearly missed the part where the Democracts push their issues to get votes for the one thing they actually care about: Funneling more money to their rich.
And their rich are?
OH! it's the same people.
Democrats are trying to get through a system where they try to change things, but need enough corporate money to get elected. They give in (a lot) to corporate interest while trying to close tax loopholes for the uber rich, protect endangered species, provide some sort of social safety net, and keep the lights on and the bills paid.
If you want to throw down about it, it's fairly easy to find out which side has more rich, and by what degree.
It was, before citizens united.
One side vowed to end citizens united.
The other hired the lawyer that got citizens united made law [/url]
Let me, say that again.
In an election where the biggest problem with our government is that we've replaced democracy with an oligarchy, the guy running his campaign is the guy that set up the system where you can throw money at a candidate, that they can spend however they want, with NO limits and NO disclosure. Meanwhile you need to track every 20 bucks you give.
Hillary MIGHT be lying or overreaching. Trump isn't.
Basic facts like what Confidential or Secret means? Basic facts like who tried to delete the papertrail exposing their corruption, including the use of hammers on devices that had it? Basic facts like getting bribes for positions of power?
Evolution is true. Global warming is real. Trickle down economics doesn't work. We need to pay people for the money we spent. Deficits are lower under democratic presidents than republican ones. One party starts there, one doesn't.
No, no, please go on about which side is ignoring more 'basic facts', this is delicious.
You're not genuinely arguing here. There is nothing behind the posturing. The razzmatazz isn't even that good.
No, it's just that, through absolutely-unshakeable coincidence, some people 'accidentally' crush themselves with weights or any who leak sensitive data just so happened get robbed to death.
Probably not true (do you have any credible citations?), and still not as bad as crushing the candidate themselves. As happy as that would make me...
Read what i said again. You're doing the exact thing I accused people of doing and saying it doesn't happen.
It's an article on the Onion. You don't seriously expect anyone to believe that there aren't blind ideologues in/rooting for both parties? If so, I have a wonderful bridge to nowhere to sell you ...
Are we even referring to the same Onion article? It seems clear that we took vastly different things away from it.
I got an amused chuckle out of an article that could be readily identifier swapped across the board to apply to a whole lot of people that become party shills every 4 years.
Mileage May Vary, please top off the gas tank before returning the rental. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we even referring to the same Onion article?
Yes.
It seems clear that we took vastly different things away from it.I got an amused chuckle out of an article that could be readily identifier swapped across the board to apply to a whole lot of people that become party shills every 4 years.
And it simply isn't true that it's just as applicable to one group as the other. Hillary clinton is a career politician thats going to give us more of the same, which has been....meh. Trump is a raving lunatic thatrunning the party of trickle down economics, religious conservatism, biggotry, climate change denial and is championing the oligarchy's right to rule by buying elections.
This is not both sides have a point. This is not both sides are equally wrong. This is not the pseudo wisdom of everyone has a legitimate point of view. LOOK at the arguments for letting trump be president...."Hillary messed up emails" .... that's IT. Thats the entirety of the argument to let trump be president.
Hillary messed up emails therefore elect trump.
No. Enough with this pseudo wisdom of everyone being equally wrong. There is no parity here. Cliton is objectively the better candidate by any reality based measure unless your goal is to let people continue to buy out government. It's not cute it's not funny it's not insightful and it's definitely not true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you'll find that voters didn't get to vote on those issues, they may have been campaign promises, but few if any of those were referendum or ballets. Some have come into effect by executive action, through the courts, and some through legislative branch of government. However, if you want people to accept and vote for something you have to make them want to vote for it. You can be on the right side of history but that doesn't do you any good if you can't make other people see that.A casual glance at American history books reveals voters have been wrong many many many times. After all voters at various points were against outlawing slavery, women suffrage, social security, desegregation of schools, and most recently gay marriage (amongst other issues of course).The DNC are right, Hilary is great, but the voters are wrong. The exact opposite of how elections work.The voters can be wrong. It happens.
Funny, I seem to recall quite a bit of voting on same sex marriage... seems as though it was voted on rather frequently in fact, and nearly always in a way that showed an unpleasant side of the electorate (that I certainly believe was wrong). Even in my own state of Ohio it was voted on, with the result of codifying same sex couples as being unworthy of rights. Again, I feel this to be quite wrong.
You're right that the fixes to these problems are rarely voted on, but that also suggests there is a known capacity for electorate error.
I think you'll find that voters didn't get to vote on those issues, they may have been campaign promises, but few if any of those were referendum or ballets. Some have come into effect by executive action, through the courts, and some through legislative branch of government. However, if you want people to accept and vote for something you have to make them want to vote for it. You can be on the right side of history but that doesn't do you any good if you can't make other people see that.A casual glance at American history books reveals voters have been wrong many many many times. After all voters at various points were against outlawing slavery, women suffrage, social security, desegregation of schools, and most recently gay marriage (amongst other issues of course).The DNC are right, Hilary is great, but the voters are wrong. The exact opposite of how elections work.The voters can be wrong. It happens.
Funny, I seem to recall quite a bit of voting on same sex marriage... seems as though it was voted on rather frequently in fact, atnd nearly always in a way that showed an unpleasant side of the electorate (that I certainly believe was wrong). Even in my own state of Ohio it was voted on, with the result of codifying same sex couples as being unworthy of rights. Again, I feel this to be quite wrong.
You're right that the fixes to these problems are rarely voted on, but that also suggests there is a known capacity for electorate error.
It was certainly voted on in Wisconsin before "no gay marriages" was enshrined in our Constitution. I'm not old enough to know about the rest, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had their own elections and referenda, even if only at sub-national levels.
You're just proving that definition of 'progress' I listed to be true.Thank you.
I think you know that you're unfairly conflating scopes of goals. Progress is a pretty generic term that can mean making headway on a specific task or moving society forward (with the implication that forward is closer to an ideal society). I took Scott's comment to mean that if this is full of various forms/degrees of liberals, this thread is little more than an echo chamber. If it has more dissenting opinions, we can either (1) bring in some fresh ideas or (2) convince people with the wonder of our ideas and rhetoric.
That kind of progress is not the same as is part of "progressive." I'll agree that stamping out some ideas is part if my idea of progress at the level of "progressive," but they're ideas like "those people don't deserve basic human rights" and not ideas like "we need to remove all regulations from businesses because the free market will prevent exploitative behavior" with which I merely disagree.
Do we get to call your faith into question? Are you a "Christian in Name Only?"I am an evangelical Christian, as generally called. And I backed Sanders in the primaries. But I'm not a Democrat. And certainly not a Republican. I may be of a very tiny minority, but I don't fit properly in your description. I simply wanted to encourage a less limiting view of those who believe in God and fair treatment for all before the law.
EDIT: I do apologize for misunderstanding some of the thrust of your post, BNW.
After a bit of correspondence, I feel it only fair to acknowledge KwsM's leading retort in this venue.
It *is* unfair for me to have asked the rhetorical question that I did and to have left this response where it was.
Therefore, let's tie this off quickly so we can return to our regularly scheduled semipolitical diatribes -- if you would like to actively call my faith into question in a public venue, we can open a new thread and get that ball rolling. Since this is the Election 2016 thread, bringing in the double-whammy of faith/religion would very likely get us threadlocked in short order, and not because it was a fun derailing.
So, to directly answer the question:
Sure! Let's just sidestep over there.
__________________
ADDENDUM: I hope that this post in particular garners no ire from moderator or reader.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A colleague of mine just had a student who wrote a paper on how white privilege hasn't existed since slavery and that it was just invented by The Left to shame people and control them. This election has done some terrible things to people's perceptions of reality.
A colleague of mine just had a student who wrote a paper on how white privilege hasn't existed since slavery and that it was just invented by The Left to shame people and control them. This election has done some terrible things to people's perceptions of reality.Even Jim Crow didn't count? I've talked to people claiming it didn't exist any more, but even they would usually agree that actual legally enforced segregation counted.
Right? Or the right to vote? These are college students, mind you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A colleague of mine just had a student who wrote a paper on how white privilege hasn't existed since slavery
Shrug. it's a student. Students are generally pretty ignorant (that's why they're students, and not teachers), and they're also often in Rebel-without-a-Clue mode and simply trying to write something that will annoy the teacher as a form of passive-aggressive rebellion.
I was in sixth grade when I got mad at the teacher's annoying. mindless, tedious busy-work that she was continually assigning, so I decided to do all the math worksheets in Roman numerals. In my thirteen-year-old brain, I figured that I was, you know, actually doing the work, and it would be just as annoying, mindless, and tedious for her to grade. If I'd known more about the history of mathematics and the lingusitics of numerals, I'd probably have done some of it in Roman numerals, some in ancient Greek, some in Chinese, and some in quipus.
As I said, passive-aggressive rebellion.
standard one-term Democrat.
Name two Democrats who have served one term as president (btw, there are only 2 and odds are you're going to have to look up the second one).
More Republicans have served one term.
Are we even referring to the same Onion article?
Yes.
It seems clear that we took vastly different things away from it.I got an amused chuckle out of an article that could be readily identifier swapped across the board to apply to a whole lot of people that become party shills every 4 years.And it simply isn't true that it's just as applicable to one group as the other. Hillary Clinton is a career politician that's going to give us more of the same, which has been....meh. Trump is a raving lunatic that is running the party of trickle down economics, religious conservatism, bigotry, climate change denial and is championing the oligarchy's right to rule by buying elections.
This is not both sides have a point. This is not both sides are equally wrong. This is not the pseudo wisdom of everyone has a legitimate point of view. LOOK at the arguments for letting trump be president...."Hillary messed up emails" .... that's IT. That's the entirety of the argument to let trump be president.
Hillary messed up emails therefore elect Trump.
No. Enough with this pseudo wisdom of everyone being equally wrong. There is no parity here. Clinton is objectively the better candidate by any reality based measure unless your goal is to let people continue to buy out government. It's not cute it's not funny it's not insightful and it's definitely not true.
Blind party loyalty is a big part of the problem regardless of cycle, party and candidate.
How that got spun into grarr'ing for Trump ... damn.
How that got spun into grarr'ing for Trump ... damn.
Because trump is so far below clinton that any argument that they're almost the same is woefully biased in trumps favor.
Blind party loyalty is a problem in theory, but it's really only a major problem if there aren't really big differences between the parties ...And it simply isn't true that it's just as applicable to one group as the other. Hillary Clinton is a career politician that's going to give us more of the same, which has been....meh. Trump is a raving lunatic that is running the party of trickle down economics, religious conservatism, bigotry, climate change denial and is championing the oligarchy's right to rule by buying elections.
This is not both sides have a point. This is not both sides are equally wrong. This is not the pseudo wisdom of everyone has a legitimate point of view. LOOK at the arguments for letting trump be president...."Hillary messed up emails" .... that's IT. That's the entirety of the argument to let trump be president.
Hillary messed up emails therefore elect Trump.
No. Enough with this pseudo wisdom of everyone being equally wrong. There is no parity here. Clinton is objectively the better candidate by any reality based measure unless your goal is to let people continue to buy out government. It's not cute it's not funny it's not insightful and it's definitely not true.
Blind party loyalty is a big part of the problem regardless of cycle, party and candidate.
How that got spun into grarr'ing for Trump ... damn.
And if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. I can't really think of a situation in recent memory where there wasn't a big different between the parties, including this one. (Which party opposes Citizens United? Which party supports a woman's right to choose? Which party's candidate has explicitly campaigned on committing war crimes?)
While it's perfectly possible to believe that gay marriage, trans people using the restroom of their choice, and gun registration are sufficiently a threat to your life that you're willing to overlook minor pecadillos like war crimes,.. at least that's not 'blind' party loyalty.
standard one-term Democrat.Name two Democrats who have served one term as president (btw, there are only 2 and odds are you're going to have to look up the second one).
More Republicans have served one term.
I haven't looked it up, but I assume JFK doesn't count?
Edit: I just looked it up and found several (Polk, Pierce, Buchanan without looking through every one for party affiliation). Was there some more scoping you intended?
When it comes to committing war crimes, the Clinton's are not exactly guilt free:
"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
—60 Minutes (5/12/96)"
567,000 dead Iraqi children
I think every US President in my lifetime has committed war crimes, and I have little doubt that Clinton MkII would be little different then Trump in that respect. Perhaps the Republicans commit more war crimes, but then are exonerated by democrats, such as in the case of torture.
Both Hillary and Trump are pushing for a presidency that will have many war crimes, and neither candidate is really denying that.
A colleague of mine just had a student who wrote a paper on how white privilege hasn't existed since slavery and that it was just invented by The Left to shame people and control them. This election has done some terrible things to people's perceptions of reality.
Or they've got access to some really really good drugs.
I'm lucky to have access to caffeine and aspirin. Where's my sweet drugs, Obama?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to committing war crimes, the Clinton's are not exactly guilt free:
"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
—60 Minutes (5/12/96)"567,000 dead Iraqi children
I think every US President in my lifetime has committed war crimes, and I have little doubt that Clinton MkII would be little different then Trump in that respect. Perhaps the Republicans commit more war crimes, but then are exonerated by democrats, such as in the case of torture.Both Hillary and Trump are pushing for a presidency that will have many war crimes, and neither candidate is really denying that.
Are economic sanctions war crimes? I'm not arguing with the premise that no one's hands are clean - heavy is the head that wears the crown and all that. But there's a difference when it's the explicit strategy vs an accepted price of the strategy vs an accidental side-effect of the strategy.
But ultimately, there are no clean ways to deal with monstrous dictators. If you don't do anything, you're complicit (not the same as Guy's point above, but largely analogous). If you invade, you essentially guarantee innocent bystanders get killed and their lives get ruined in the war zone. If you impose economic sanctions and they don't cave, you're a part of inflicting avoidable hardship on innocents.
Please read the article, especially the Biological Warfare? section:
With renewed concern about biological warfare in the U.S., it’s worth noting an instance of the use of disease for military purposes that has gone almost uncovered. Last year, Thomas Nagy of Georgetown University unearthed a Defense Intelligence Agency document entitled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,” which was circulated to all major allied commands one day after the Gulf War started. It analyzed the weaknesses of the Iraqi water treatment system, the effects of sanctions on a damaged system and the health effects of untreated water on the Iraqi populace. Mentioning that chlorine is embargoed under the sanctions, it speculates that “Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons,” something that the United States disallowed for many years.
Combined with the fact that nearly every large water treatment plant in the country was attacked during the Gulf War, and seven out of eight dams destroyed, this suggests a deliberate targeting of the Iraqi water supply for “postwar leverage,” a concept U.S. government officials admitted was part of military planning in the Gulf War (Washington Post, 6/23/91).
A Dow Jones search for 2000 finds only one mention of this evidence in an American paper–and that in a letter to the editor (Austin American-Statesman, 10/01/00). Subsequent documents unearthed by Nagy (The Progressive, 8/10/01) suggest that the plan to destroy water treatment, then to restrict chlorine and other necessary water treatment supplies, was done with full knowledge of the explosion of water-borne disease that would result. “There are no operational water and sewage treatment plants and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels,” one post-war assessment reported; “further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation,” another predicted.
Combine this with harsh and arbitrary restrictions on medicines, the destruction of Iraq’s vaccine facilities, and the fact that, until this summer, vaccines for common infectious diseases were on the so-called “1051 list” of substances in practice banned from entering Iraq. Deliberately creating the conditions for disease and then withholding the treatment is little different morally from deliberately introducing a disease-causing organism like anthrax, but no major U.S. paper seems to have editorialized against the U.S. engaging in biological warfare–or even run a news article reporting Nagy’s evidence that it had done so. (The Madison Capitol Times–8/14/01–and the Idaho Statesman–10/2/01–ran op-eds that cited Nagy’s work.)
I would also point out that the battle in Mogadishu in the beginning of Clintons' term also contained many war crimes.
In more recent news, and more specific to Hillary:
Just today, there was a report released by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, in the UK. Here is a piece about it in the BBC.
Also, more about Libya:
Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention
Note: I don't know much about the FPJ, but it seems about as legit as most other internet sources.
Please read the article, especially the Biological Warfare?I'm not saying these aren't valid criticisms, I'm just saying they're not up to war crimes as far as I know.
As to the UN involvement in the Libertarian utopia of Somalia, I seem to remember there were some Canadians involved in that, but I can't really remember much more then that. The entire regiment was disbanded in shame by the way, I can't recall if the individual soldiers involved were given jail or prison time though. The 90s were a long time ago.
Wow! I had read the book, Black Hawk Down, many years ago, but don't recall anything about Canadians. As you said, it was a long time ago.
I should add that I don't think a humanitarian mission in Somalia was a bad thing, but that it was done in a way that made escalation almost unavoidable. For example, they bombed a large meeting of tribal elders, many of whom were moderates who might have supported the UN mission. There are many mistakes that have been repeated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.
EDIT:
But ultimately, there are no clean ways to deal with monstrous dictators.
Here is the way past administrations dealt with Saddam
EDIT2: And more from The Onion:Aunt On Facebook Casually Advocates War Crime
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quark: If you live in a blue or red state, by all means vote you conscience.
If you live in a purple state, please reconsider. They are at opposite ends of citizens united and will probably be appointing 3 justices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I can't vote my conscience, why am I voting?
To help the most or to do the least amount of harm.
Total dirt bags have made the presidency before and we survived.
Not everyone did. People die.
If I vote for one of them I've given up my right to call them as I see them. That is to say, I have, in effect, become part of the problem. No thanks.
You do no such thing. In fact i think it gives you a stronger position. "Look, i voted for you and i STILL hate your position on..." as opposed to the general "i hate you so I'm going to oppose you on everything"
Fergie
Assassination of Boris Nemtsov
The us is definitely bad. But it's not have the guy running against you shot in broad daylight bad.
Russia owns the tv (here the tv station owns the candidates. Totally different)
I must admit that it is difficult for me to grasp the total picture of Russian politics. However, as far as I can tell, Nemtsov was not specifically running against Putin, he was a prominent figure in opposition to Putin, but not a rival for power. Also, he was shot around midnight, not in broad daylight. (I know, not really relevant).
While several factors point to Putin, it is really no different then the political assassinations in the US during the era of the 1960's. MLKjr., Malcom X, both Kennedy's, as well as actions taken against the Black Panther movement.
You could even say that there is just as much evidence linking Nemtsovs death to Putin, as there is linking Paul Wellstone's death to GW Bush. That is to say, nothing but obvious motive and rumor. You are essentially left with the faith that Putin, Bush, Cheney, etc. just have too much morality to do something like that.
It isn't the assassination of a political figure, but we do know that the current mayor of Chicago, and Obama's former Chief of Staff, (as well as lifelong Democratic Party insider/moneyman) Rahm Emanuel did participate in the cover-up of a murder by his police force. He used $5 million in tax payer money to attempt to pay-off the family, and suppress the evidence, within days of a tight run-off election.
None of that is disputed. There is video of the murder, and you can read the false testimony in the police reports. The pay-off is public record. Rahm currently faces zero consequences for his leading role in covering up a murder.
Is Russian democracy worse them the US? Maybe, but it is not like there is a night and day difference.
Okay!
Here's Hillary Clinton's Politifact scorecard
Here's Donald Trump's.
OK, so when you define "Basic Facts", it is "Whatever Poltifact tells you it is at the time?" Oh man, that's rich. It's good to know that you have a single website from which you derive your objective truth.
Good job. Politifact says she has more 'true' claims. What does that tell us? Does that tell us she is not corrupt, didn't do pay-for-play, didn't delete specific data, didn't lie about being under sniper fire, didn't use the Clinton Foundation as a way to manipulate bribes, etc, etc?
No, it just tells you that a certain website says more of her claims were 'true'.
I don't need to make claims about Politifact's "bias". I could, but that's low-hanging fruit. I much prefer for you to logically look at your claim and realize how silly it is. Probably won't happen, of course.
But it's OK, you're doing the whole claim, shame, and proclaim bit right there in your own post, and you did it multiple times, in order!
But here, if it helps you: Yes, I hate the Democrat party. It is the absolutely most corrupt organization in the USA today. Yes, I hate the Republican party, with particular focus on those who were for unnecessary wars and an extra helping for those who just bent over for the opposition to run roughshod over what the R's claimed to want to protect (while instead trying to find a way to profit from it like jackals). No, I'm not an Conservative. Yes, it's insulting for you to call me one. No, I don't care, because you are simply misinformed. Yes, you're a fool for doing so, because in your worldview there is the binary of "Us good" VS "Them bad" with no in-between, so you can't even comprehend that there's anything else on the spectrum.
The rest was you rambling against an ideology I don't have. Good on you. Did you enjoy burning that straw man? I'll fetch some marshmallows if you like.
But your anger and frustration aren't a substitute for facts.
But your Politifact isn't either. It must be hard for you, when 'fact' is in the name, and it should be so 'obvious'.
]I mean, it's not really our strategy (in case any of you would like to read our actual plan
Claim superiority: 'I have Politifact, I must be right!'
Shame dissent: 'Don't you dare point out that it might be biased, you're a fool if you do!' (Esp note how this doesn't contradict any facts, lol.)Proclaim victory: 'Democrats are better in every way!'
Thank you for proving it is, in fact, your strategy. I appreciate it when you are so obvious. This is why you are not Inner Party, you're incapable of higher-level deception. You're too honest to be evil. There's hope.
---
You don't have a main point, and that's the problem.
Ah, so, basically as opposed to offering up any counter argument at this point, you just dismiss the other side. Do you, perhaps, then attempt to shame them by saying their system is old and discredied?
You do. Surprise, surprise.
Your problem isn't that it's loaded or biased it's that its accurate.
Of course. Everything you disagree with is 'biased'. Everything you agree with is 'accurate'.
You want me to decide who the real christians are?
Nope.
This is the very error you're denying.
Todd stole an ice cream
James burned down an orphanage.
Both people are bad.
There is a vast difference between having a point of view (that you can't actually deny) and making stuff up out of whole cloth.
Trust me, your error is worse.
Nominee A bribed, spied, deleted, lied, extorted, failed at the job when it was critical, tried to cover up countless mistakes, failed at doing that, and resulted in people dying and is part of a group which has done so for a long time.Nominee B says mean things and people that support A call him words that end in -ist and -phobe. He doesn't lead the opposition by their choice, but because he defeated them, and has already edged out the other version of A's group.
Clearly B is worse, by your reasoning.
There is a vast difference between having a point of view (that you can't actually deny) and ignoring reality on the ground.
Democrats are trying to get through a system where they try to change things,
Oh really? What are they changing that's meaningful, I mean, aside from people that provide them with money?
Is it the cities they've had dominion over for decades, with people they claim to want to represent, all the while allowing those places to fall into further squalor and disrepair?Or is it, I dunno, maybe all the unnecessary wars and conflicts they seem to encourage, while proclaiming that it's the other side's fault? Then blame the other side or an old enemy when evidence of this is provided, rather than, I dunno, realize what they did should be the focus?
See, this goes along with 'progress'. Progress is change in a direction meaningful to those who initiate it (or who write the history of it).
Doesn't necessarily make it good for everyone else who's not part of their system.
but need enough corporate money to get elected.
That's nice. Which candidate has more corporate money behind them, again? Which one has almost the entire media working for them?
And why is that necessary? I mean, how did it get into such a position where that is required?Evolution is true. Global warming is real. Trickle down economics doesn't work. We need to pay people for the money we spent. Deficits are lower under democratic presidents than republican ones. One party starts there, one doesn't.
Wait...so... "global warming" and "teaching evolution" are more important than upper portions of the government functionally committing treason? And then people want to expand that?
Wow.Also, when you have a decade and a half 'pause' in something, while decades ago people claimed it was going in the other direction, well, that's not global warming, merely climate change.
One side vowed to end citizens united.
The other hired the lawyer that got citizens united made law to be their campaign manager
So, that thing you disagree with, that the other side 'won' on, you're upset about that, and how dare someone try to replicate success by hiring the person who helped make that happen?
Welp.Also, I seem to recall that it's fairly easy to get a Super PAC like Correct The Record to do your attacks for you, doing double duty in allowing more money to come in while also making it possible to attack an opposing candidate without having yours get its hands dirty.
You can ask Sanders all about how that worked out when it was used on him. I mean, it's almost like the system was rigged.
You're not genuinely arguing here. There is nothing behind the posturing. The razzmatazz isn't even that good.
Indeed, I should have Appealed To Authority---err, I mean, Politifact. It apparently works for Betts.
As happy as that would make me...
Of course it would.
---
Progress is a pretty generic term that can mean making headway on a specific task or moving society forward (with the implication that forward is closer to an ideal society).
Indeed, I totally agree.
It does matter, of course, who is the one deciding what 'forward' means, or for that matter, whose version of an 'ideal society'. Like saying what the definition of 'is' is.In any case, it's fair to say that the actual meaning of words often is quite different from what some people mean when they use them. Pick, say, I dunno, any of the modern 'phobias' that are thrown about with aplomb when accusing half a nation's people of being deplorable. The actual term is completely different from how said people use it.
I just wrote 'progress' as how the more extreme Leftist elements actually use it. For them, it functionally means 'our side is winning', and they hope the 'unaligned' don't notice this fact.
ideas like "we need to remove all regulations from businesses because the free market will prevent exploitative behavior" with which I merely disagree.
I'd put that last as extremely disagree, but I see your point and agree with it.
---
To put it bluntly people think that same sex marriage is a sin
And they are correct in their view, as it is religious in nature. Note that this isn't an 'objective' correctness, but a 'subjective' one. Sins against God are entirely different from sins against Papa Government.
That also doesn't necessarily mean that it should be the same view as the pluralistic society as a whole which is responsible for the welfare of all its citizens, not just the religious or non-religious or differently-religioned.
And it certainly doesn't mean that crimes against such people they dislike should magically have a worse sentence than the exact same crime against a different target.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hillary put files into folder A instead of folder B in the filing cabinet in one of the most secure rooms in the world.
Trump is a delusional bigoted nutjob who has no idea what he's doing who has ran multiple companies into the ground multiple times, thus requiring bankruptcy and also getting fired from some. He has outright admitted to threatening and bribing to get what he wants.
Hillary put files into folder A instead of folder B in the filing cabinet in one of the most secure rooms in the world.
Trump is a delusional bigoted nutjob who has no idea what he's doing who has ran multiple companies into the ground multiple times, thus requiring bankruptcy and also getting fired from some. He has outright admitted to threatening and bribing to get what he wants.
The top diplomat of the United States of America is not a file clerk. As Secretary of State she almost certainly committed her fair share of threatening and bribery couched in diplo-speak to get what she wanted during her tenure. Seems to be par for the course for diplomacy and politicking.
Doesn't change the nut-jobbery she's competing against. Doesn't exonerate the behind the curtains requirements to be in political office or head of the US State Department either. They are what they are.
|
|
Hillary put files into folder A instead of folder B in the filing cabinet in one of the most secure rooms in the world.
Trump is a delusional bigoted nutjob who has no idea what he's doing who has ran multiple companies into the ground multiple times, thus requiring bankruptcy and also getting fired from some. He has outright admitted to threatening and bribing to get what he wants.
The top diplomat of the United States of America is not a file clerk. As Secretary of State she almost certainly committed her fair share of threatening and bribery couched in diplo-speak to get what she wanted during her tenure. Seems to be par for the course for diplomacy and politicking.
Doesn't change the nut-jobbery she's competing against. Doesn't exonerate the behind the curtains requirements to be in political office or head of the US State Department either. They are what they are.
Exactly, it's a matter of competency.
Hillary put files into folder A instead of folder B in the filing cabinet in one of the most secure rooms in the world.
I think what you were trying to say was "misplaced". However, outside your gross misapplication of the term, it really hould be written out like this:
"Tens of thousands of E-mails marked for specific use only on specific networks to prevent rogue actors or other nations from getting them. Then puts a server in a private residence and uses it to transmit them. Ignores markings as to their classification, then willfully removes said markings. Withholds said stored data after being ordered to turn it over long enough to delete it and destroy physical devices which contain it. Lies about doing so, lies about the markings, lies about telling other people how the markings work, lies about asking for help to lie about it, gets upset when rogue actors and opponents (unsurprisingly) gain access to the information, gets more upset that it was one in her own group that leaked it (and then potential leaker conveniently gets robbed to death), blames accessed information on actions of another party, blames political opponent for bringing it up or suggesting said wronged party should provide it after it has been taken, claims that doing so is a top-level national security risk while completely ignoring she already did that herself and was the one who made the risk possible in the first place, completely ignores the fact that she did it and tries to misdirect attention away from this fact."
There. FIFY.
Trump is a delusional bigoted nutjob who has no idea what he's doing who has ran multiple companies into the ground multiple times,
Single digit failures, triple digit successes, often in specific economies where 50/50 is considered good. Now said guy who has 'no idea what he is doing' just turned the enemy's propaganda wing on itself to his advantage like freakin Sun Tzu.
Meanwhile, the praiseworthy 'competent' one claims half the population is deplorable and rails against Nazi Frog memes.Yeah. competence.
Also, 'bigoted' no longer has meaning. When it's used against 'anyone one side doesn't like', that tends to happen. Decades of prominence in the public eye, nary a peep. Runs against Democrats, immediately branded 'bigot', 'homophobe', 'racist', 'dark', etc, etc, the whole deplorable pile.
Quark: If you live in a blue or red state, by all means vote you conscience.
If you live in a purple state, please reconsider. They are at opposite ends of citizens united and will probably be appointing 3 justices.
If I can't vote my conscience, why am I voting?
Total dirt bags have made the presidency before and we survived.
If I vote for one of them I've given up my right to call them as I see them. That is to say, I have, in effect, become part of the problem. No thanks.
Because your vote may negatively influence the lives of other people.
You should always...regardless of what political persuasion you have...vote in the way you believe will improve the country. Voting for Bernie isn't some great moral statement, not if Trump wins and is able to move the country further to the right, or nominate conservative justices who will dominate the courts decades after this election and who will strike down the kind of legislation that Bernie stood for.
We are never going to make every progress on progressive fronts if every step forward is followed by 4 steps back. And if you are a left wing voter, that is EXACTLY the situation we have been in of late.