| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the system allows for a Donald Trump, allows people to think he's a viable candidate, then how is that on the voter?
When the candidate demonstrates repeatedly that he's a racist, misogynist, fraudulent, lying flip-flopper, and the voter puts his chop down for him anyway, it so is on the voter.
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.
To be fair, Russia simply does not have a tradition of democratic government. The post-Communist Presidents rule like dictators, and the pre-Communist Czars were as brutally autocratic as one could ask for.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so, basically as opposed to offering up any counter argument at this pointyou just dismiss the other side. Do you, perhaps, then attempt to shame them by saying their system is old and discredied?
Yes.
Because you are using a blatant rhetorical technique where you state things that do not make your point and then treat them as if they do , so that they need to be refuted when they don't need to be refuted because they don't make your point.
Clinton did not handle emails according to security protocols. I do not NEED to deny that to vote against trump.
It's entirely true.
It's also such an inconsequential thing that giving it any weight, much less making it the ONLY weight, shows desperation to arrive at the pre ordained conclussion of "trump" (or more likely "the republican candidate"). You cannot trust that much desperation.
Your argument is horrible. A better idea would have a better argument for it and this is the ONLY argument I've seen for Trump.
You do. Surprise, surprise.
Your ability to tell the future by scrolling down, and still get it wrong, is amazing.
Of course. Everything you disagree with is 'biased'. Everything you agree with is 'accurate'.
Project much? This is your entire shtick. You're the one claiming that bias dismisses the point without showing that something is wrong or incoherent.
Look at this conversation. If you want to know what IDEAS i agree with hillary on it's pretty obvious. Where do you align with trump except that he's on your side?
Nope.BigNorseWolf wrote:
You want me to decide who the real christians are?
Then don't accuse me of bias if that's my other option, and you CERTAINLY don't handwave "bias" as an excuse to dismiss the point.
They identify as Christians
They wrap their opinions in a not entirely inaccurate reading of their holy text.
They are a large chunk of the christian population in this country
They not only say very hurtful things, they are a very influential force in getting hurtful laws passed or kept in force.
And they are christians. Deal with that.
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.
Who died? Because until then you could have been describing either candidate.
Clearly B is worse, by your reasoning.
B is worse for a lot of other reasons.
Oh really? What are they changing that's meaningful, I mean, aside from people that provide them with money?
Just Environmental protection, LGBT rights, workers rights, healthcare, women's rights, minority rights to vote and, you know, not be shot, ending citizens united, funding education, energy reform, getting a less regressive tax system, fighting climate change, changing a ridiculous and ineffective "War on drugs", NOT invading countries for oil..
You know. a few minor details.
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 the problem is bigger than a city.
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?
This is IMAX level projection.
Yes. Democrats intervene. they send in some bombs, some planes, a few CIA spooks running around. Yes there are civilian casualties. Usually they're trying to keep something from devolving into genocide.
Republicans send in the entire army, to the WRONG country, for oil, and we wind up with 5,000 of ours and 100,000 of theirs dead.
No intervention is NOT an option on the table. Less intervention is. Insisting that you can't have no intervention so you have to vote for more intervention isn't just another subjective opinion it's sheer lunacy.
That's nice. Which candidate has more corporate money behind them, again?
You can't tell anymore. THATS THE PROBLEM. Thank you citizens united.
Which one has almost the entire media working for them?
Trump. He's gotten about 2 billion in free advertising by playing the media like a harp
And why is that necessary? I mean, how did it get into such a position where that is required?
We have a constitutionally required winner take all system, a national media, and voters that vote more on grarg than for any particular reason.
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?
You cannot complain that i am unfairly casting your argument for trump as a speak and say with one option when you use the speak and say as a retort to everything.
If you do not have a better response to a serious issue than to dismiss it with a hyperbolic complete non sequitur you are proving my point
Nothing she did remotely counts as treason. To try to raise what happened to that level given the reality of the situation is foaming at the mouth level lunacy.
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.
This is the soert of objectively wrong, counterfactual thinking that you deny needing to use
Publicity has surrounded claims of a global warming hiatus during the period 1998-2013. The exceptionally warm El Niño year of 1998 was an outlier from the continuing temperature trend, and so subsequent annual temperatures gave the appearance of a hiatus: by January 2006, it appeared to some that global warming had stopped or paused.[5] A 2009 study showed that decades without warming were not exceptional,[9] and in 2011 a study showed that if allowances were made for known variability, the rising temperature trend continued unabated.[9]
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?
Are so hung up on the sides that you cannot understand a legitimate, factual disagreement on a substantial issue when it's waving a flag in your face?
This is not about sides. This is about the fact that citizens united is a terrible idea that opens our government up to unparalleled levels of manipulation from the rich both foreign and domestic. All china needs to do is rent a PO box in delaware and they can start shoveling money to the candidates they want. (as opposed to the previous system which was a raisin scoop)
It isn't good for anyone,the entirety of your reason for supporting it is -grarg! Hillary emails!-, and you want to be offended because people aren't treating your opinion as legitimate?
Indeed, I should have Appealed To Authority---err, I mean, Politifact.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authorites are in disagreement or the authority isn't one in the area under discussion. If you have a problem with reality's well known liberal bias take it up with the universe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was my original position, but after reading more of Hillary's statements on issues, I eventually decided she was an acceptable candidate after all. Not perfect - I certainly continue to disagree with her on a number of things, and not all of those things are minor - but as a whole, I think she's acceptable. I think it helped that Bernie pulled her left on a few issues, and it'd be nice if she actually followed through.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My job isn't to divine all possible futures. It is to vote my conscience.
You're deciding that an incredibly minor association is more important than actual, physical effects on real people.
Frankly I think global climate change and global terrorism will have a bigger impact on the future than the next 3 SCOTUS nominees ever will.
The next 3 scotus nominees will probably have an impact on global warming. (global terror isn't going anywhere)
Its not paranoia when they are out to get you.
My job isn't to divine all possible futures. It is to vote my conscience.You're deciding that an incredibly minor association is more important than actual, physical effects on real people.
Frankly I think global climate change and global terrorism will have a bigger impact on the future than the next 3 SCOTUS nominees ever will.The next 3 scotus nominees will probably have an impact on global warming. (global terror isn't going anywhere)
Its not paranoia when they are out to get you.
A lot of what Trump said earlier in his campaign on muslim immigration (before his staff put a muzzle on him) were things that would probably run afoul of constitutional law. A Supreme court that agree with Trump could have the potential to rubber stamp some bad legislation which could increase the "US vs THEM" stance that groups like ISIS thrive on, which could worsen situations on the terrorism front.
and of course...environmental legislation including those affecting global warming WILL be dealt with by the Supreme Court.
I mean...it must be nice to live in such a perfect bubble that NOTHING either candidate will do will influence you in any way for the worst, but most people don't have that security.
The Vietnam War would like to have a talk about Democratic administrations escalating matters into boots on the ground on a large scale for a protracted period, reversing the second Iraq war's Republicans started/Democrats finished it.
Let alone the staggering number of "brush fire wars" across both parties' administrations since World War II and especially after Vietnam.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Vietnam War would like to have a talk about Democratic administrations escalating matters into boots on the ground on a large scale for a protracted period, reversing the second Iraq war's Republicans started/Democrats finished it.
Let alone the staggering number of "brush fire wars" across both parties' administrations since World War II and especially after Vietnam.
Which was ~40 years ago...
The politicians behind Vietnam debacle are retired or dead. Many of the politicians pushing for the Iraq War are still in office
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm trying to say is that if he's not called out on his racist, misogynist, fraudulent, lying flip-flopping and the media don't immediately call him out on that, then invite Trump supporters onto their shows to defend Trumps position, well that gives the notion that there's some debate about his reprehensible actions. The voter gets to think maybe Trump's right. Trump is entirely a monster of the media and if he wins they're bare most if not all the blame.If the system allows for a Donald Trump, allows people to think he's a viable candidate, then how is that on the voter?When the candidate demonstrates repeatedly that he's a racist, misogynist, fraudulent, lying flip-flopper, and the voter puts his chop down for him anyway, it so is on the voter.
This is a chicken and egg situation. You are assuming that the media, by not calling him out on his nonsense, are misleading voters, and are responsible for Donald being a nominee.
When in fact Trump won the primary by APPEALING to a base of voters who are excited to have a candidate so bluntly state all the stuff they agree with, or don't feel personally bothered by them.
The Media is certainly not blameless on this, but information on all the presidential candidates is not difficult to find. A not significant number of voters, the voters that put Trump in his current position, are fully responsible for there votes
BNS pullin' up on Arturius with that birdman steez.
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?
Yup, couple more I missed. No, JFK doesn't count. Particularly if you're trying to establish "standard one-term Democrat". There are no similarities with Jimmy Carter, for example, on why they both didn't receive second terms. If you compare JFK's approval ratings with just two term presidents, he comes out very favorably (he has one of the highest while in office) and probably would have won a second term.
The term "standard one-term Democrat", or similar insinuations get thrown around quite a bit.
You've got Polk, Van Buren, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson and Carter. I could see an argument of consistency in the period from 1837 to 1869, that something about Democrats and how they ran the country led to them having one term. But then you have a 106 year gap, and I don't think we can draw a lot of parallels between Carter and the rest of them.
Republicans have had more 1 term presidents in the 20th century than Democrats. They've had more just after WW2, than the Democrats had all century.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump's always been big on message control. He works hard to kill the messenger for negative statements about himself and to promote the positives whenever he can even if they aren't real.
Basically he has been a bully that could get away with it because he had money and power for the position he was in. Now he's in politics which is a different field.
He really doesn't like the fact his message control isn't working as well as it has before but at the same time he did choose the party that has been making its own reality for a while which works well with what he wants too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Vietnam War would like to have a talk about Democratic administrations escalating matters into boots on the ground on a large scale for a protracted period, reversing the second Iraq war's Republicans started/Democrats finished it.
Let alone the staggering number of "brush fire wars" across both parties' administrations since World War II and especially after Vietnam.
Which was ~40 years ago...
The politicians behind Vietnam debacle are retired or dead. Many of the politicians pushing for the Iraq War are still in office
Democrats don't get to keep credit for the Great Society by extension of the same logic, as the politicians behind it are also dead or retired.
This includes:
- the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968,
- the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,
- the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
- the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965,
- the Food Stamp Act of 1964,
- the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
- the Higher Education Act of 1965,
- the Bilingual Education Act of 1968,
- the Social Security Act of 1965 (Medicare and Medicaid),
- the Social Security Amendments of 1965 and 1967 and
- the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965
- and some others I'm certain that I'm not remembering.
"What have you done for me lately?" sucks when it applies unilaterally.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Vietnam War would like to have a talk about Democratic administrations escalating matters into boots on the ground on a large scale for a protracted period, reversing the second Iraq war's Republicans started/Democrats finished it.
Let alone the staggering number of "brush fire wars" across both parties' administrations since World War II and especially after Vietnam.
Which was ~40 years ago...
The politicians behind Vietnam debacle are retired or dead. Many of the politicians pushing for the Iraq War are still in office
Democrats don't get to keep credit for the Great Society by extension of the same logic, as the politicians behind it are also dead or retired.
This includes:
- the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968,
- the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,
- the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
- the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965,
- the Food Stamp Act of 1964,
- the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
- the Higher Education Act of 1965,
- the Bilingual Education Act of 1968,
- the Social Security Act of 1965 (Medicare and Medicaid),
- the Social Security Amendments of 1965 and 1967 and
- the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965
- and some others I'm certain that I'm not remembering.
"What have you done for me lately?" sucks when it applies unilaterally.
Meh. Not really. Democrats also have (off the top of my head):
+The Affordable Care Act
+Sen. Murphy's soon-to-be passed mental health care reform (assuming some senators stop trying to tack on gun addendums)
+78 Months of consecutive job growth from a recession CAUSED by a Republican.
+The 9/11 First Responders Bill.
+Literally everything Cory Booker has ever done.
+Gay Marriage!
+Transgender people can now use their chosen gender (preemptive apologies if that isn't the proper term) on their passports.
Off the top of my head, I'm struggling to think of positive contributions made by the Grand Old Party. So, no. It doesn't suck unilaterally. It only sucks for the people poisoning the well of American politics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
------------------------------------------------
Greetings fellow political Paizazoians
It has just come to my attention that the moderation staff are grappling with some important issues. Like all grappling, this is a complex and time consuming task, and it is difficult to have an outcome everyone agrees on. I think it would be a good time to dial back the gnarr just a little, and focus on sharing information, rather then engaging in heated back-and-forth posting. Or better yet, post in a more positive thread about the game we all love, instead of the game we hate.
This post is not based on anything but my own opinions, and I don't speak for anyone on the moderation team. Also, this post is a few days later then it ideally would have been posted.
-------------------------------------------------
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a chicken and egg situation. You are assuming that the media, by not calling him out on his nonsense, are misleading voters, and are responsible for Donald being a nominee.When in fact Trump won the primary by APPEALING to a base of voters who are excited to have a candidate so bluntly state all the stuff they agree with, or don't feel personally bothered by them.
The Media is certainly not blameless on this, but information on all the presidential candidates is not difficult to find. A not significant number of voters, the voters that put Trump in his current position, are fully responsible for there votes
I think you'll find the egg always came first. Trump has always been in the media, he's been portrayed as a smart savvy business man and self made billionaire, and that was fine when that meant nothing. Now he's trying to run for president, it's time for the media to correct the record, and failing to do that is bad for the country.
Now without a doubt some of his followers are racist, sexist, intolerant, and xenophobic, but is that half to 40% of the country? Some of the folks that support him are just folks who watch right wing media like Faux news. This is the fault of Faux news as well, make no mistake, but the viewership of Faux news is no where near close to half the country. Trump doesn't exist on the national level without all the free coverage from the big media companies. He got far more coverage then the other candidates during the primaries then his opponents and he continues to feed off all the free coverage he still gets. It's unavoidable now that he's the republican nominee but they can at least try to fact check him now.
Trump got the nomination because he catered to a very angry Republican base by appealing to the worst natures of the party, in a blatant way. He had...what 40%? of the republican vote at the time. There is an exceptionally large fraction of the party who went for him, despite the wishes of the party itself and even the right wing news media.
People are not empty vessels, who form no opinions until shown one on TV. Fox news helped maintain certain idealogies and somewhat shift them, but they would have failed as a network if there wasn't already a large consumer base interested and only interested in a rightward leaning conservative slant on reality. The media is not innocent in the long term of the current slant and direction of the Republican party, nor are the republican's political strategies. But to imply that voters are innocent in this silly. Voters were already primed for a Trump candidate long before he entered the field.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In news that matters: I, Thomas Seitz, had my drow noble wizard 8/archmage 4th tier run away from a fight with a young treant broken soul barbarian and a broken soul nymph swashbuckler.
Mostly because of the goblins with rocket launchers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am the Eggman! I am the Walrus!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am the Eggman! I am the Walrus!
Koo! Koo! Kachoo!!
Wu-Tang Vs. The Beatles
Enter The Magical Mystery Chamber
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, don't forget the media's goal here - make the race look as close as possible so it's more interesting, and thus sells more ads. They're a business, not an independent bastion of truth, and like many businesses they will go to quite some lengths in order to make a profit.
------------------------------------------------
Greetings fellow political PaizazoiansIt has just come to my attention that the moderation staff are grappling with some important issues. Like all grappling, this is a complex and time consuming task, and it is difficult to have an outcome everyone agrees on. I think it would be a good time to dial back the gnarr just a little, and focus on sharing information, rather then engaging in heated back-and-forth posting. Or better yet, post in a more positive thread about the game we all love, instead of the game we hate.
This post is not based on anything but my own opinions, and I don't speak for anyone on the moderation team. Also, this post is a few days later then it ideally would have been posted.
-------------------------------------------------
*Picks up Fergie*
RIOT
------------------------------------------------
Greetings fellow political PaizazoiansIt has just come to my attention that the moderation staff are grappling with some important issues. Like all grappling, this is a complex and time consuming task, and it is difficult to have an outcome everyone agrees on. I think it would be a good time to dial back the gnarr just a little, and focus on sharing information, rather then engaging in heated back-and-forth posting. Or better yet, post in a more positive thread about the game we all love, instead of the game we hate.
This post is not based on anything but my own opinions, and I don't speak for anyone on the moderation team. Also, this post is a few days later then it ideally would have been posted.
-------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Fergie!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of how they handle the ultra wealthy, they are the same.
No.
For the quality of their results in foreign interventions, they are the same.
No.
Assessing the utility of their programs to spend taxpayer dollars, they are the same.
No.
How well they want other perspectives to be in the debate, they are the same.
One of them literally has a democratic socialist (and their sole significant primary competitor) campaigning on their behalf this next week. The other just wishes his primary opponents would shut up about how much of a hack he is.
Etc., the are the same.
Low effort.
I'm voting for Bernie. He is by far the best candidate who actually ran for president. I don't care that he officially endorses another at this point. Actually I do care and it makes me sad that the "protest candidate" rolled over and became part of the problem. Still, maybe this time next year he will wake up and get back to work.
Or he's just more interested in accomplishing something meaningful than in pointless protests. Your candidate of choice has an ounce of practicality in him. You don't. He's a smart guy. Ever think, "Gee, maybe he has a reason for all of this?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so when you define "Basic Facts", it is "Whatever Poltifact tells you it is at the time?"
Nah. Politifact is just a great example.
Oh man, that's rich. It's good to know that you have a single website from which you derive your objective truth.
I have literally hundreds. Politifact is simply the most insurmountable for your argument.
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?
Actually, it literally refutes a number of those claims. So, yes, in some cases.
No, it just tells you that a certain website says more of her claims were 'true'.
I mean, or you could actually read the articles.
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.
Serious question - do you honestly believe you're coming across as having the stronger position? Not to me, I mean. To the rest of the people reading your posts. Do you believe that each time you post, you are improving your position in the estimation of those listening?
Yes, I hate the Democrat party. It is the absolutely most corrupt organization in the USA today.
I doubt even you believe that.
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 insulted, but no, you don't care? Which is it? You can either be insulted, or you can not care. You can't choose both.
Regardless, I love when right-wingers try to pretend they aren't right-wingers by disagreeing with the Republican Party in a couple of areas. No one believes that. It's just a different shade of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!"
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.
Not in "my worldview." Just in this election. You have two choices.
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're jumping at shadows. You're fighting a war with your own imagination, and you're losing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I have literally NEVER met anyone angry at the term "bigoted" who didn't deserve the label. In order to be that upset with a word, they have to have been hit with it repeatedly and by a range of people. And anyone who is being called a bigot repeatedly and by a range of people is almost certainly an actual bigot.
If you don't like being called a bigot, try not being a bigot.
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?
Yup, couple more I missed. No, JFK doesn't count. Particularly if you're trying to establish "standard one-term Democrat". There are no similarities with Jimmy Carter, for example, on why they both didn't receive second terms. If you compare JFK's approval ratings with just two term presidents, he comes out very favorably (he has one of the highest while in office) and probably would have won a second term.
The term "standard one-term Democrat", or similar insinuations get thrown around quite a bit.
You've got Polk, Van Buren, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson and Carter. I could see an argument of consistency in the period from 1837 to 1869, that something about Democrats and how they ran the country led to them having one term. But then you have a 106 year gap, and I don't think we can draw a lot of parallels between Carter and the rest of them.
Republicans have had more 1 term presidents in the 20th century than Democrats. They've had more just after WW2, than the Democrats had all century.
I'm not so certain that's all that great of a comparison. If I counted right there have been 10 Republican Presidents in the 20th century vs. 7 Democrat (11 republican if you count McKinley). The biggest anomaly is actually Roosevelt (FDR) who served so many terms (and was so popular) that Truman could have coasted without doing much at all and still won based off of FDR's popularity.
JFK is obvious, he died in office.
Of those 7 elected, Truman got handed the Presidency (much like Ford did as well) for one term, and only actually got elected to one term as President.
Same thing occurred with Johnson. Note, who knows if they would have won a second election, they didn't run and weren't allowed to from what I remember. Jimmy Carter (and the most honest one of the bunch) was also elected to one term.
Of those remaining, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and William Clinton were the only ones that were chosen and elected TWICE as president of the United States. Others had multiple terms (normally part of one, and a second one after that), but only those three were elected more than one term.
Of course, in that light, there is really no support for any term that indicates that Democrats are normally one term presidents. The average length of their term for the 20th century seems to be longer than one term.
If you look at the past 35 years, the Republicans still had more presidents (Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr) than Democrats (Clinton and Obama) and overall, more terms collectively (Republicans have had 5 four year terms to the Democrats 4 four year terms), but overall it's been pretty even in regards to the back and forth of who controls the presidency. If Clinton II wins, it would even up the score to round out the 40 years with 5 four year periods for each party.
As election cycles move in a circular pattern, it's a little difficult to know whether the Democrats are actually gaining ground or not. It is obvious that the Democratic party own MOST (as in, those who control those outlets are HEAVY democrat supporters) of the US media right now (with the exception of the Fox network outlets), and if one goes by media control, it definitely is going democrat...but that's still new ground and not a definitive realization yet.
Now, if Clinton wins this election and stays for two terms, and then the president after that is also Democrat...it could probably be authoritatively stated that the Democrats have definitely gotten control of the Presidency and the Republicans are waaay into a downward spiral in their control of it...but right now, looking at the recent history, I'd say it's too early to tell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.I have literally NEVER met anyone angry at the term "bigoted" who didn't deserve the label. In order to be that upset with a word, they have to have been hit with it repeatedly and by a range of people. And anyone who is being called a bigot repeatedly and by a range of people is almost certainly an actual bigot.
If you don't like being called a bigot, try not being a bigot.
WHOA...let's stop...right there.
When we start calling people names like that, it's starting to get REALLY nasty.
Mean and nasty. Maybe it's time we all took a step back and said...whoa...let's not toss that term at ANYONE here or imply that we are nasty enough to use that term towards anyone else right now...at least in the way we've been discussing politics.
A quick google search (typed the term into google) had it's terminology right at the top of the page for that to define it as
{a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.}
Think about that...and perhaps we can all think how that may apply to all of us, and perhaps none of us.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.I have literally NEVER met anyone angry at the term "bigoted" who didn't deserve the label. In order to be that upset with a word, they have to have been hit with it repeatedly and by a range of people. And anyone who is being called a bigot repeatedly and by a range of people is almost certainly an actual bigot.
If you don't like being called a bigot, try not being a bigot.
WHOA...let's stop...right there.
When we start calling people names like that, it's starting to get REALLY nasty.
Mean and nasty. Maybe it's time we all took a step back and said...whoa...let's not toss that term at ANYONE here or imply that we are nasty enough to use that term towards anyone else right now...at least in the way we've been discussing politics.
A quick google search (typed the term into google) had it's terminology right at the top of the page for that to define it as
{a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.}
Think about that...and perhaps we can all think how that may apply to all of us, and perhaps none of us.
No. And I reject your philosophy. The bigotry I oppose has a narrower definition, and I'm quite sure you know what it is - it encompasses racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other similar ugly prejudices. When someone is called a "bigot" in modern parlance, they mean that the person in question exhibits a collection of those prejudices.
Bigotry is a topic in this election, unfortunately. And at least one user here is trying to push the notion that it is a label that is being used unfairly. That notion is tripe, and it's typically peddled by people who don't like the label because others frequently apply it to them.
Bigotry is a topic in this election, because one of the two candidates for President is a tremendous bigot, and tailors his message to appeal to other like-minded bigots. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is a liar at best, and is almost certainly a party to that bigotry.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
“I’m sure there are some people who come to a cross-burning because they just really like making s’mores. But once you get there and you see the burning cross and you don’t leave? At that point you have chosen to be at a cross-burning.” -- Jay Smooth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNS pullin' up on Arturius with that birdman steez.
Thanks. I think...
*flashes back to airplane*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My job isn't to divine all possible futures. It is to vote my conscience.Because your vote may negatively influence the lives of other people.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.
Ultimately, history shows us emphaticallly, that greateness is born from out of the box thinking, unconventional approaches, a willingness to stand firm with your convictions and critically an ability to accept unpopularity to get the job done.... NOT from conformity and middle of the road timidity.
HC does not posess any of the attributes for greatness and ergo will achieve nothing for the USA....
Trump (even if you cant stand him as a person) does at least represent some of those things and thus ergo might deliver greatness to the USA
HC is the epitome of the saying "Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity"
Vote HC is you desire nothing but 'rinse and repeat'
Vote Trump is you want a chance at something actually happening
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vote Trump is you want a chance at something actually happening
You realize that the argument for trump you're using here would work equally well for The Zombie Apocalypse right?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, history shows us emphaticallly, that greateness is born from out of the box thinking, unconventional approaches, a willingness to stand firm with your convictions and critically an ability to accept unpopularity to get the job done
Which people from history are you thinking of here?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, history shows us emphaticallly, that greateness is born from out of the box thinking, unconventional approaches, a willingness to stand firm with your convictions and critically an ability to accept unpopularity to get the job done.... NOT from conformity and middle of the road timidity.
HC does not posess any of the attributes for greatness and ergo will achieve nothing for the USA....
Trump (even if you cant stand him as a person) does at least represent some of those things and thus ergo might deliver greatness to the USA
HC is the epitome of the saying "Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity"
Vote HC is you desire nothing but 'rinse and repeat'
Vote Trump is you want a chance at something actually happening
There is a nonzero chance some people might get superpowers from handling radioactive materials, but you don't see rational people risking it, do you?
Clinton has been besieged for nearly 30 years by salacious prying, rumormongering, smear attacks, misinformation, and out-right lies. When she guards herself, she's criticized as being secretive and aloof; when she opens up (like her medical records, her tax returns, her charity, turning over those emails instead of deleting them as Colin Powell & the Bush Jr. admin) it is never enough, while Trump skates past with minimal challenge. Through it all, none of her opponents has ever found anything substantial enough to stick except tarring her image in the public through "fling enough sh!t at her and eventually everything stinks."
Clinton has been hammered, tempered, and battle-tested by numerous enemies for decades, and she's still standing, still trying to make her country and the world a better place. She is the textbook definition of standing her ground and upholding her convictions in the face of massive unpopularity. And as she's gotten older and wiser, she has continued to move further Left politically, when even now conventional campaign wisdom tells her to move back to the middle. She hasn't backed off confronting everything wrong that Trump has openly rallied to his side, forces that would happily destroy everything great about this country just so white hetero guys can continue to snuggle up unchallenged in their warm fluffy privilege....
...but sure, vote Trump if that's how you feel.
Edit: And while I'm at it, please enjoy this educational filmstrip on protecting yourself from syphilis.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vote Trump is you want a chance at something actually happeningYou realize that the argument for trump you're using here would work equally well for The Zombie Apocalypse right?
Look, don't worry, we're gonna build a wall. A beautiful wall, with a big door in it, and it's gonna be huge. They won't be able to get over it. There's no way they could get over it. I know walls. I'm the best at walls, the greatest of all. Everyone can't shut up about my walls. I build so many walls—so many. I do good walls. And I stop lots of zombies real good, too. We won't have a zombie problem. I'm an expert on zombies, so don't worry, I know how to do zombies. It's easy. I could get them to vote for me if I wanted. I'm the most good at it.
Look, don't worry, we're gonna build a wall. A beautiful wall, with a big door in it, and it's gonna be huge. They won't be able to get over it. There's no way they could get over it. I know walls. I'm the best at walls, the greatest of all. Everyone can't shut up about my walls. I build so many walls—so many. I do good walls. And I stop lots of zombies real good, too. We won't have a zombie problem. I'm an expert on zombies, so don't worry, I know how to do zombies. It's easy. I could get them to vote for me if I wanted. I'm the most good at it.
Vote Trump is you want a chance at something actually happeningYou realize that the argument for trump you're using here would work equally well for The Zombie Apocalypse right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Ummm, not to worry you, but...
You are just jealous of Trump's Genius.