| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump supporters are too lazy to riot.
Not to mention decapitated by Hillary's guillotines. ;-)
I think we'll be fine as long as we keep the Sportsball game on.
All bets are off once we get to the Lady Gaga Superbowl halftime show though...
The WP confirms my opinion that if Hillary wins...we could see some very violent responses, especially if Trump blames the system or Hillary for the lost.I don't doubt that Trump will shift the blame to anything/everything but his own behavior, or doubt that his hardline supporters could be driven to violence, but that's just another reason not to vote for him.*Nods*
You don't give in to bullies, and you don't give in to tantrums.
Oh I know...I am voting for Hillary. But it depresses me to no end that any sense of victory I feel with Hillary winning the day after the election is going to be tinged with worry on how exactly some sore losers are going to respond.
|
Oh I know...I am voting for Hillary. But it depresses me to no end that any sense of victory I feel with Hillary winning the day after the election is going to be tinged with worry on how exactly some sore losers are going to respond.The WP confirms my opinion that if Hillary wins...we could see some very violent responses, especially if Trump blames the system or Hillary for the lost.I don't doubt that Trump will shift the blame to anything/everything but his own behavior, or doubt that his hardline supporters could be driven to violence, but that's just another reason not to vote for him.*Nods*
You don't give in to bullies, and you don't give in to tantrums.
The same way sore losers always respond, viciously and impotently.
|
|
At least we can expect them not to snipe random cops in the back with assault weapons.The same way sore losers always respond, viciously and impotently.Oh I know...I am voting for Hillary. But it depresses me to no end that any sense of victory I feel with Hillary winning the day after the election is going to be tinged with worry on how exactly some sore losers are going to respond.The WP confirms my opinion that if Hillary wins...we could see some very violent responses, especially if Trump blames the system or Hillary for the lost.I don't doubt that Trump will shift the blame to anything/everything but his own behavior, or doubt that his hardline supporters could be driven to violence, but that's just another reason not to vote for him.*Nods*
You don't give in to bullies, and you don't give in to tantrums.
That is an assumption you are having.
I'm not saying you're wrong about state level representation, but the tea party has taken over the Republican party Presidential nomination process by running their candidates as Republican at a local level. That approach seems much more expedient than amending the state constitution,...
If you want to see an end to the two-party system in the U.S., you need to accept that short of either 1) rewriting the founding documents, or 2) full-scale burning-in-the-streets, thousands-of innocents-dying revolution, it ain't going to happen.That's not quite true. Something could be done at the level of individual states, for example. Right now, all the Constitution says about state-level representations is how many each state gets. All the other rules are set by the state. Even the existence of districts is a state-level decision. New York could decide that all representatives are elected on a statewide basis, and that the top N vote getters (currently 27) get seated. This would make third-parties competitive in New York State, even if they weren't competitive in Alabama (and it wouldn't do anything at all for Wyoming, which would still be a winner-take-all state with only one representative).
Similarly, New York could decide that presidential electors are elected individually (which is how they were supposed to be elected back in 1789) and in a nonpartisan fashion (ditto). Right now, I'll be honest, I don't even know who I would actually be voting for if/when I vote for Clinton, because the electors themselves are meaningless, chosen to be party hacks, and required by (state) law to vote for the candidate whose slate they appear on. But, of course, since the Presidency is still a winner-take all election, I'd still be better off voting for a bloc pledged to a single candidate (rather than splitting my support), and I'd be better off voting for one of the top two candidates -- and again, this is just math, not propaganda.
First, I don't think anyone suggested amending state constitutions. Second, the rise of the Tea Party didn't actually address the issue of two-party dominance at all; it just replaced the Corrupt Plutocrat Party with the Bonkers Lunatic party.
You're absolutely right in that if you want to see a hard-line liberal president of the United States within our lifetimes -- or, for that matter, a Monarchist -- it would be much easier to do by running Monarchist candidates within one of the existing parties for dogcatcher and school board in 2018, then running for state senator in 2020, governor in 2022, and president in 2024. The Republicans would rather co-opt a grassroots Monarchist movement than allow themselves to be supplanted. (As would the Democrats.) But even if that's the case, the structure of the election laws as currently written will more-or-less enforce upon the United States a choice between the Monarchist and Anti-Monarchist parties, and there still won't be room for a viable Green or Libertarian candidate.
...<snip> a viable Green or Libertarian candidate.I've been waiting for one of those too.
You won't get one. For approximately the same reason you won't get a four-sided triangle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No,those were actual, recorded attacks on police by extreme right wing zealots. Currently, the most dangerous group to police officers are Sovereign Citizens, who also happen to be extreme right wing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No,those were actual, recorded attacks on police by extreme right wing zealots. Currently, the most dangerous group to police officers are Sovereign Citizens, who also happen to be extreme right wing.
|
|
I have no idea what you're trying to say.At least we can expect them not to snipe random cops in the back with assault weapons.No, we can expect them to blow random cops away while they're eating pizza.
Or attack a courthouse with assault weapons, tear gas and smoke grenades.
Or ambush them outside state police barracks.
Says you with no data to back it up.
As a cop, you're far more likely to die in a car accident November 9th, than be shot by a Trump supporter.
Well, you didn't offer any data either.
All of those were real, right wing attacks in the last few years, by the way. From before this election cycle got going, so I don't know if they're really Trump supporters, but they're linked to groups or movements that generally do.
You're right about being more likely to die in a car accident, but that's pretty much always true of cops.
As Rysky would say, "That is an assumption you are having." Or in your case, many assumptions.
;D
Just your garden variety "trying to sound cool and edgy by quoting a lunatic" arguer :3
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was just gonna post this in my commie thread, but then I decided it deserved a wider audience:
Inmate Who Beat Up Dylann Roof Was Given So Many Donations He’s Out On Bond Now
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I quote Rysky because Rysky is cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a strange situation for me.... I wouldnt describe myself as pro-Trump per se, but I am most definitely anti-Clinton!
I look at Trump and I see flaws... definitely, but I look at Clinton and I see the same old nonsense.
We need more people in all countries running for office who arent 'born into politics'. We need risk takers. Nothing comes from middle of the road conformity....the 'try and please everyone and end up achieving nothing philosophy'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a strange situation for me.... I wouldnt describe myself as pro-Trump per se, but I am most definitely anti-Clinton!
I look at Trump and I see flaws... definitely, but I look at Clinton and I see the same old nonsense.
We need more people in all countries running for office who arent 'born into politics'. We need risk takers. Nothing comes from middle of the road conformity....the 'try and please everyone and end up achieving nothing philosophy'
That's pretty much the underlying process behind democracy though. If some politicans are elected based on position A, and others are elected on the diametrically opposed position B...you either compromise or hope that those for position A so dominate the political landscape that you can ignore position B.
I would rather see gradual improvement and change rather than risks which could drive the economy or foreign policy off a cliff
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its a strange situation for me.... I wouldnt describe myself as pro-Trump per se, but I am most definitely anti-Clinton!
I look at Trump and I see flaws... definitely, but I look at Clinton and I see the same old nonsense.
We need more people in all countries running for office who arent 'born into politics'. We need risk takers. Nothing comes from middle of the road conformity....the 'try and please everyone and end up achieving nothing philosophy'
Donald Trumps idea of risk is to gamble other peoples money and then take a cut whether he wins or loses. Do you really think he's going to close the tax loopholes that save him 56 million dollars a year?
If donald trump becomes president, the political system will become more gerrymandered towards republicans, citizens united will remain law, the rich will still dodge taxes, and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems. Yes, hillary clinton is the same old (#*$ but donald trump will be taking that same #@()#$* and cranking it up to 11. If you're complaining about that same old (*#$#$ how the bloody hell is doing MORE of it supposed to make things better?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Donald Trumps idea of risk is to gamble other peoples money and then take a cut whether he wins or loses.
*Looks at Trump's failed Casino businesses*
....They speak for themselves, really.
It's also probably worth remembering that Trump isn't truly an outsider. If you don't like special interests "lobbying" politicians, it's good to keep in mind is that Trump is one of the people doing the lobbying.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I look at Trump and I see flaws... definitely,
This isn't a good person with a few flaws. This is a bombastic bully outside with an inner core of scum. He is mean. nasty. He derides people and goes absolutely ballistic when anyone says anything bad about him- especially when it's true (and it often is). His response to accusations that he called a woman fat for not staying at pageant weight was "well she was fat" while his pear esque keister smugly watched her work out. He responds to a reporter telling the truth by doing a mocking imitation of their physical disability, and he snidely accuses Hillary of cheating on Bill because she trounced him in the debate.
He lies, he cheats people, he stiffs people on bills the second getting a lawyer to sue them is cheaper than paying them. He touts his business acumen when he really just inherited the company from his father in bits and pieces: he not only got a "small loan" of a million dollars (in 1972 money), he also got his father's company when his father retired. He somehow thinks this makes him a self made man.
Most damning to me is that he has no respect for reality, facts, evidence, or consistency. He either honestly believes or is willing to project the idea that Obama is not a citizen, global warming is a chinese conspiracy, trickle down economics will solve everything, and he simultaneously holds the idea that the national debt is a huge problem AND that he's smart for not paying taxes.
I would not find this man qualified to operate the tiltawhirl at gypsy carnival, much less have the nuclear launch codes. If he has a single redeeming characteristic as a human being I have yet to see it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I look at Trump and I see flaws... definitely,This isn't a good person with a few flaws. This is a bombastic bully outside with an inner core of scum. He is mean. nasty. He derides people and goes absolutely ballistic when anyone says anything bad about him- especially when it's true (and it often is). His response to accusations that he called a woman fat for not staying at pageant weight was "well she was fat" while his pear esque keister smugly watched her work out. He responds to a reporter telling the truth by doing a mocking imitation of their physical disability, and he snidely accuses Hillary of cheating on Bill because she trounced him in the debate...
Not to mention he didn't even wait a full 24 hours after the pulse shooting to say "I told you so". Given that I live within 5 miles of where that took place, I found that so disrespectful that I wouldn't vote for him, even at gunpoint.
I look at Trump and I see flaws... definitely, but I look at Clinton and I see the same old nonsense.
We need more people in all countries running for office who arent 'born into politics'. We need risk takers.
Actually, most risk taking is stupid and counterproductive. A lot of very smart people have worked very hard to get the world to the state that it's in, to the point that radical change is much more likely to result in a complete disaster than otherwise.
For example, you might (justifiably) be concerned about the side effects of statins (drugs that are often prescribed to lower cholesterol). But do you really want to be a "risk taker" and try something entirely different and unproven? Would you really prefer to try Dr. Quest's Fantastick Cholesterol-Lowering Elixir (now available in convenient bottles; one teaspoon at night before retiring)?
I hope not. Because high cholesterol can kill you, and statins are known to be some of the most effective way of treatment. By contrast, you don't know what is in my elixir, and even if I told you it had oil of rhubarb, powdered amber, and sulphur hypothalamate in it, you wouldn't know what those actually do.
Trump is selling snake oil. Please don't buy any. You -- and the whole world -- will probably regret it if you do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am ashamed of my country and my species that this is a race at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Knight: No, no, the Trump Foundation didn't solicit donations, they were voluntarily given to the Foundation after Trump showed up for events and waived his fees like a charitable billionaire, and so there was never any reason to register. He has done absolutely nothing wrong and now New York State is unfairly targeting him an-
*Coughs*
...Sorry, I can't do it anymore. XD But I wanna see if any defense the Trump campaign makes is close to my prediction there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am ashamed of my country and my species that this is a race at all.
This is nothing compared to how bad things are in other areas of the world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fear not, Dunker. o wo/ The only person liable to snatch my body is Yidhra, and if she says anything, she's usually just trying to be funny. And/or serious. ...She's basically an ice cream koan.
Mostly, I just wanted that post up for the record as a comparison. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If donald trump becomes president, the political system will become more gerrymandered towards republicans, citizens united will remain law, the rich will still dodge taxes, and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but I should point out:
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, the political system will become more gerrymandered towards democrats, citizens united will remain law, the rich will still dodge taxes, and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.Meh. If you don't want more trickle-down economics, don't vote for either of them!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If donald trump becomes president, the political system will become more gerrymandered towards republicans, citizens united will remain law, the rich will still dodge taxes, and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.I don't disagree with anything you said, but I should point out:
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, the political system will become more gerrymandered towards democrats, citizens united will remain law, the rich will still dodge taxes, and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.Meh. If you don't want more trickle-down economics, don't vote for either of them!
Except that the Democratic platform (and Clinton's speeches) have specifically included planks about addressing Citizens United. And on economic redistribution (e.g., changing trickle-down economics).
Basically, what you're saying is that if you ignore all the ways in which we know the two candidates to be different, they're exactly the same. Similarly, if you ignore the actual score, the Steelers-Chiefs game was a tie last night.
False equivalence is not just a fallacy, but it's a particularly stupid argument.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, the political system will become more gerrymandered towards democrats
Possible, but unlikely... and in any case, the president has NOTHING to do with drawing of political districts.
, citizens united will remain law,
Highly unlikely given that it was a 5 to 4 (and just blatantly WRONG) decision, and Clinton has vowed to appoint justices who would over-turn it.
the rich will still dodge taxes,
Most of them certainly will... but the government won't be going so far out of its way to help them.
and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.
Umm... no. Trickle down economics is solely limited to the stupider segment of the GOP. Hilary has never supported it.
Meh. If you don't want more trickle-down economics, don't vote for either of them!
You either have no idea what you are talking about or are engaged in some form of sarcastic humor that I am completely missing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. If you don't want more trickle-down economics, don't vote for either of them!
She has a reasonably good chance of ending citizens united.
Districts cannot be "more gerrymandered" in the democrats favor because right now they are heavily gerrymandered in the republicans favor. Democrats are unlikely to be able to pull the same trick on republicans that republicans pulled on them 10 years ago.
trumps plan is cranking up the trickle down economics. Hillary will probably try (and succeed to a small degree) in lessening the trickledown. A smidge. This isn't what we want, but its better than increasing it, which is trumps plan.
Voting for neither of them isn't a meaningful choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that the Democratic platform (and Clinton's speeches) have specifically included planks about addressing Citizens United. And on economic redistribution (e.g., changing trickle-down economics).Basically, what you're saying is that if you ignore all the ways in which we know the two candidates to be different, they're exactly the same. Similarly, if you ignore the actual score, the Steelers-Chiefs game was a tie last night.
False equivalence is not just a fallacy, but it's a particularly stupid argument.
I'm not making a false equivalence at all, nor am I ignoring the differences between the candidates. I'm simply pointing out that Hillary Clinton has pushed trickle down economic policies, and general neoliberalism, for decades.
I don't really care what either candidate says or what planks they have in their platforms. Both of those things are absolutely worthless. Both are simply propaganda to sucker people into voting for them. Politicians lie during elections to get votes. Just look at Obama's promises to fix NAFTA when he was a candidate - lies to fool people who should have known better. Did Obama even put forward a supreme court nominee who will overturn the Citizens United ruling?
You are welcome to believe that either candidate is going to suddenly change completely, and go against everything that got them to where they are now, but... how did you end your post... it would be "particularly stupid" to do so.
Possible, but unlikely... and in any case, the president has NOTHING to do with drawing of political districts.
1) There's a few cases working their way up to be decided by the supreme court about how far states can go gerrymandering. (some districts were ruled unconstitutional) President picks the supreme court.
2) People tend to vote for a party when they go to the polls, so lots of hillary votes= lots of local democrat votes= democrats control the legislature= democrats contorl the district.
Umm... no. Trickle down economics is solely limited to the stupider segment of the GOP. Hilary has never supported it.
Its the ENTIRE platform of the GOP. Their goal is all power to the .1%. The God in government and bigotry is how they get the other 99.9% to vote for it.
You either have no idea what you are talking about or are engaged in some form of sarcastic humor that I am completely missing.
The later. mostly. i think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.Umm... no. Trickle down economics is solely limited to the stupider segment of the GOP. Hilary has never supported it.
The Clinton and Obama administrations disprove your opinion.
"Neoliberalism gained prominence in the United States in 1981 with policies put into place by the Reagan Administration which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion. Congress followed Reagan's basic proposal and cut federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[61][62]
During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration also embraced neoliberalism by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[62][63][64] The neoliberalism of the Clinton Administration differs from that of Reagan as the former purged it of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues."
If you still think I am wrong, please find a different theory to explain this graph. If it isn't deliberate, it is one of the worst economic policy f&#%-ups of all time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not making a false equivalence at all,
That's true. False equivalence relies on equating vastly different things. You aren't doing that. Rather, you are saying things that are just plain false.
I'm simply pointing out that Hillary Clinton has pushed trickle down economic policies
Based on your subsequent post you are apparently defining 'trickle down' as 'anything which does not end wealth inequality'. By that measure EVERYONE has pushed trickle down economic policies... even the socialists. However, if we are talking about more usual definitions of the term (i.e. 'supply side economics') then no... Hilary has not pushed such nonsense.
Did Obama even put forward a supreme court nominee who will overturn the Citizens United ruling?
Well, given that he appointed Sonia Sotomayor... and she actually voted against it. Yeah, we know that at least one of the three justices Obama chose (the only one ON the court at the time) would overturn it.
1) There's a few cases working their way up to be decided by the supreme court about how far states can go gerrymandering. (some districts were ruled unconstitutional) President picks the supreme court.
True, but those cases are efforts to allow Republicans to gerrymander even MORE than they have thus far (and thus would not result in the claimed Dem gerrymandering)... and the biggest ones have already been decided.
2) People tend to vote for a party when they go to the polls, so lots of hillary votes= lots of local democrat votes= democrats control the legislature= democrats contorl the district.
Still doesn't help. State legislatures and governors control the redistricting process in most states... and it'll be those in power after the 2020 census who do so. Ergo, the 2020 election will likely have a bigger impact than the 2016.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is nothing compared to how bad things are in other areas of the world.
That's the problem. falling to your baser instincts when someone is shooting at you is one thing. Falling to them because fox news and an orange demagoguesay angrily and loudly repeat easily falsifiable cowflops
is unconscionable.
I'm not making a false equivalence at all,That's true. False equivalence relies on equating vastly different things. You aren't doing that. Rather, you are saying things that are just plain false.
I'm simply pointing out that Hillary Clinton has pushed trickle down economic policiesBased on your subsequent post you are apparently defining 'trickle down' as 'anything which does not end wealth inequality'. By that measure EVERYONE has pushed trickle down economic policies... even the socialists. However, if we are talking about more usual definitions of the term (i.e. 'supply side economics') then no... Hilary has not pushed such nonsense.
I define trickle-down economics as, "if the wealthy get more, then that extra wealth will boost the economy for everyone."
As mentioned in the link I posted, several of the laws Bill and Hillary were pushing very predictably made the rich richer, with little benefit for the vast majority of Americans. This is indisputable. The only thing in question is if there was any thought of how it would affect the poor and middle class. I would like to think that the Clinton's thought "a rising tide lifts all boats" even if that turned out not to be true, because the only other option is that they just didn't care about the poor and middle class.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is this idiot still in the running? I mean... seriously? Republicans seem to have abandoned all standards.
You know, The Apprentice turned into The Biggest Loser so gradually, I didn't even notice.
I am ashamed of my country and my species that this is a race at all.This is nothing compared to how bad things are in other areas of the world.
And you haven't seen the politics on Sigma Draconis 4 either.