Now that the big party conventions are done and the tickets affirmed, let's get the slobberknocker going.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that the big party conventions are done and the tickets affirmed, let's get the slobberknocker going.
Slobberknocker, here, on these forums for this topic, more as patting each other on the back with some occasional onlookers and Chris coming in to delete posts.
Slobberknocker, here, on these forums for this topic, more as patting each other on the back with some occasional onlookers and Chris coming in to delete posts.Now that the big party conventions are done and the tickets affirmed, let's get the slobberknocker going.
Well, I can't help what others post... ;)
|
Slobberknocker, here, on these forums for this topic, more as patting each other on the back with some occasional onlookers and Chris coming in to delete posts.Now that the big party conventions are done and the tickets affirmed, let's get the slobberknocker going.
Not our fault your party and man are a complete disaster.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we've already started complaining about mods and insulting each others' parties. This should go well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking forward to the next 50 pages of partisan bashing, myself.
Second verse, same as the first!
Clinton is going to Omaha, Nebraska on Monday. Nebraska is one of two states that splits their electoral votes. It is highly unlikely that Omaha's single vote will matter, but there is a chance she could take it.
Every vote, popular and thusly electoral, matters this time.
Yeah, if you guys thought voters were mad when that one bland guy beat that other bland guy back in 2000, imagine the fallout if Trump wins the popular but loses the electoral.
I'm gonna wait, like, another 85 days or so to even begin posting on this thread, and probably won't really start giving my opinion on what happened until we're staring down the barrel of the 2020 primary. :P
;) Might be looking like a quaint discussion in 4 years.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking forward to the next 50 pages of partisan bashing, myself.
Second verse, same as the first!
If you want to write off the concerns about Trump as "partisan bashing," there's nothing anyone can do to stop you. World-weary cynicism is all the rage, and easy to affect. I get it.
I also, however, think this goes well beyond garden variety partisanship. I'll freely admit I don't think W should have been president, and I'm unlikely to find the 2020 Republican nominee any more tasteful. That's partisanship.
This isn't that. Trump is a threat to the integrity of the system and our national identity. Neither he, nor anyone like him, MUST EVER be president.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's easier to not care and make fun of both sides than it is to actually stand for something. ;)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking forward to the next 50 pages of partisan bashing, myself.
Second verse, same as the first!
If you want to write off the concerns about Trump as "partisan bashing," there's nothing anyone can do to stop you. Plus, world-weary cynicism is all the rage, and easy to affect.
I, however, think it goes well beyond garden variety partisanship. I'll freely admit I don't think W should have been president, and I'm unlikely to find the 2020 Republican nominee any more tasteful. That's partisanship.
This isn't that. Trump is a threat to the integrity of the system and our national identity. Neither he, nor anyone like him, MUST EVER be president.
So go for the quieter of the two egomaniacs I guess.
To each their own.I'm not voting for Trump anyway, and I agree he will/would be a horrible president. I also think the same of Hillary, for similar reasons.
It's fun to watch one group pretend she's going to be a better candidate even though it's only through being compared to Trump. On her own, without the comparison, still a bad, bad choice.
So, please pardon me if I convey frustration with the choices we are presented this time around through snark and sarcasm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been through six Presidential elections since I've became old enough to vote. So far I've voted red three times and blue three time, honestly I'm not too thrilled about either of the two this time around. I'm leaning towards Clinton I guess because I see here doing less damage than Trump especially on the social issues but man I really feel like I'm being put between a rock and a hard place for this election.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to vote one tag or another down the entire ballot. Pick each candidate/set of candidates on their own merits. I'd be surprised if some or many Republicans don't find the POTUS/V-POTUS candidates utterly unfit for office but were fine with the rest of their party's candidates and vote accordingly.
Look at all of the candidates though, not just the "Big Pairs". What you find might surprise you. It doesn't take a heck of a lot of effort to do minimal due diligence. Just don't rely on the blurb lines and day-of ballot sheets handed out by the volunteers as your only source of information regarding your election day ballot.
I've bookmarked mine, check it often. All that's missing right now are the candidates - the rest of the ballot is filled in. Plenty of time to decide on the non-candidate matters on the ballot.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I plan on voting. There's other local races/policies to consider.
Whether I leave the presidential one blank, or vote for Johnson is up in the air at the moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
;) Might be looking like a quaint discussion in 4 years.
I hope it does; I sincerely hope that, in four years, I'll look back at this thread and say, "I can't believe we were worried about that picayune nonsense."
And, I mean, not 'cause we'll be fighting for survival in the rubble of the cities once known as Huh'Murica. Mad Max is not inevitable!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I plan on voting. There's other local races/policies to consider.
Whether I leave the presidential one blank, or vote for Johnson is up in the air at the moment.
At least you're voting, Kryzbyn. Sadly, far too many won't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
;) Might be looking like a quaint discussion in 4 years.I hope it does; I sincerely hope that, in four years, I'll look back at this thread and say, "I can't believe we were worried about that picayune nonsense."
And, I mean, not 'cause we'll be fighting for survival in the rubble of the cities once known as Huh'Murica. Mad Max is not inevitable!
Witness me!! *splortch* (Boss) Mediocre! *drat*
-or-
"Future cloudy. Ask again later."
Edit: Hopefully we'll be having that back-look in just over 100 days. ;)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't matter for most of you anyway.Not our fault your party and man are a complete disaster.Slobberknocker, here, on these forums for this topic, more as patting each other on the back with some occasional onlookers and Chris coming in to delete posts.Now that the big party conventions are done and the tickets affirmed, let's get the slobberknocker going.
To paraphrase what I said in the DNC thread -
This time around the Republicans have saddled themselves with a candidate so profoundly terrible he can actually lose to Hillary Clinton.
In any other election, I'd consider her un-electable.
To be fair, the only person who's ever beat her in a primary is Obama, who won both terms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5 reasons why Trump might/will win. HuffPost surprises me now and then. They usually don't, but I'll take what I can get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been through six Presidential elections since I've became old enough to vote. So far I've voted red three times and blue three time, honestly I'm not too thrilled about either of the two this time around. I'm leaning towards Clinton I guess because I see here doing less damage than Trump especially on the social issues but man I really feel like I'm being put between a rock and a hard place for this election.
There's some truth to this. This'll be my eighth Presidential election and I'm still waiting for someone to vote for rather than against.
But like I've said elsewhere: you can't hire the best possible candidate, you can only hire the best applicant for the job.
It is unfortunate that we do not possess the technology to travel back in time find Teddy Roosevelt and inject him with an immortality serum to serve as President for life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just be sure to look at all of the applicants and not just the first two through the gate. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least you're voting, Kryzbyn. Sadly, far too many won't.I plan on voting. There's other local races/policies to consider.
Whether I leave the presidential one blank, or vote for Johnson is up in the air at the moment.
Maybe I'll leave a hanging chad ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theodore Roosevelt was kind of a hawk like Clinton, and had the fun bonus of being super-duper racist. If you're going to bring someone back who did lots of good and also tons of bad, you might as well bring back Nixon and have done.
I am a weirdo independent and change sides occasionally. This is probably the first overwhelmingly push to one side in my lifetime however. /shrug Would love to hear some dissenting opinions though.Wouldn't matter for most of you anyway.Not our fault your party and man are a complete disaster.Slobberknocker, here, on these forums for this topic, more as patting each other on the back with some occasional onlookers and Chris coming in to delete posts.Now that the big party conventions are done and the tickets affirmed, let's get the slobberknocker going.
Those people don't use these forums that often. Take it like a Republican in San Francisco kind of thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Theodore Roosevelt was kind of a hawk like Clinton, and had the fun bonus of being super-duper racist. If you're going to bring someone back who did lots of good and also tons of bad, you might as well bring back Nixon and have done.
They brought Nixon back as president in Futurama with reasonably good results.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theodore Roosevelt was kind of a hawk like Clinton, and had the fun bonus of being super-duper racist. If you're going to bring someone back who did lots of good and also tons of bad, you might as well bring back Nixon and have done.
Roosevelt is the only President we had that did the most good for the most people regardless of party or position.
Oh, that racism thing?
On 16 October 1901, shortly after moving into the White House, Theodore Roosevelt invited his advisor, the African American spokesman Booker T. Washington, to dine with him and his family, and provoked an outpouring of condemnation from southern politicians and press. This reaction affected subsequent White House practice, and no other African American was invited to dinner for almost thirty years.
So racist was that guy to regularly have African americans as advisors. People in different times had different values. While I'm sure you can respond with any number of what we consider "racist" occurrences with Teddy the fact that he was open minded to a fault in an era where that was not encouraged to put it mildly is a point in his favor.
In short, we need more leaders like Teddy that would work to do the most good for the most people regardless of what their party or supporters want them to do. I could give a lesson on all the great things Teddy did as POTUS but his greatest gift was the ability to not see party lines.
Theodore Roosevelt was kind of a hawk like Clinton, and had the fun bonus of being super-duper racist. If you're going to bring someone back who did lots of good and also tons of bad, you might as well bring back Nixon and have done.They brought Nixon back as president in Futurama with reasonably good results.
It is unfortunate we cannot vote for Dr. Zoidberg.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not Zoidberg? (tm)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not Zoidberg? (tm)
I actually do have and wear a Dr. Zoidberg "Why not" t-shirt in the Che art style. He would have my vote.
Teddy Roosevelt?
Theodore Roosevelt was kind of a hawk like Clinton, and had the fun bonus of being super-duper racist. If you're going to bring someone back who did lots of good and also tons of bad, you might as well bring back Nixon and have done.Roosevelt is the only President we had that did the most good for the most people regardless of party or position.
Oh, that racism thing?
On 16 October 1901, shortly after moving into the White House, Theodore Roosevelt invited his advisor, the African American spokesman Booker T. Washington, to dine with him and his family, and provoked an outpouring of condemnation from southern politicians and press. This reaction affected subsequent White House practice, and no other African American was invited to dinner for almost thirty years.
It's great that "some of his best friends were black". On the other hand, Washington was famous for being one of the most cautious, "marketable" activists of the lot, and himself had a bit of a habit of apologizing for lynching. He certainly didn't stand by activists like Ida B. Wells.
Again putting aside Teddy's hawkish foreign policy, you call him "open-minded to a fault".
I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Turn three hundred low families of New York into New Jersey, support them for fifty years in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the cowboys, who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers on the plains.
We remember what we want to remember. Nixon may have orchestrated the Southern Strategy, but he also ordered mass desegregation of public schools. I'll take his poison, thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, the second quote was meant to be discussed in a wider context, but I forgot to come back to it.
Teddy was a big advocate of the "credit to their race" rationale. If he met a black man he liked, he'd happily refer to them as "one of the good ones". But he was very willing to mock and deride the African-American's origin—they had the capacity to be good in spite of their race, not independent of it.
He regarded slavery as "a crime whose shortsighted folly was worse than its guilt" because it "brought hordes of African slaves, whose descendants now form immense populations in certain portions of the land". Contrasting the European conquest of North America with that of South Africa, Roosevelt felt that the fate of the latter's colonists would be different because, unlike the Native American, the African "neither dies out nor recedes before their advance", meaning the colonists would likely "be swallowed up in the overwhelming mass of black barbarism".
The fact is, you are very unlikely to find a historical president who had pleasant or even tolerable views on civil rights by today's standards. I am not in the habit of forgiving someone their attitudes because of their "culture".
You see Teddy through one lens. I see him through another. I love his environmentalism, but he did that for the benefit of whites first and foremost, and would probably be horrified at who uses them now. The best proof of that is how willing he was to go and kill animals he knew to be badly endangered—just not on his home turf! I love that he invited Washington, but in doing so he gave greater legitimacy to "incrementalist civil rights" and kind of hurt those who were currently being savaged by Washington's allies for being too "aggressive" about stopping lynching and discrimination. And I just hate his foreign policy. Dude was a hawk.
I think he'd do about as much as someone like Obama or Clinton. Remember, Obama campaigned on postpartisanship, too, right up until he realized it was literally impossible to "compromise" and still get things done. Roosevelt would probably be similarly flummoxed by today's political climate.
Things are polarized for a reason. This is the climax of the culture war—the great throwdown between social justice advocates and the backlash against them. Islamophobia and transphobia are fighting tooth-and-nail to protect their way of life.
The only way I could see Roosevelt ending that climate would be to compromise on things that should never be compromised, like the survival of trans students and protection of religious freedoms (actual ones, not "I don't want to bake a cake for these gay guys"). No thanks.
It was not "culture" it was the accepted wisdom of the time. Ever heard of Social Darwinism? White man's burden? This was accepted as evident truth for a very long time. I'd argue that Social Darwinism is still alive and well today quite frankly.
Picking one person out to hold them up as an example of "OMG look at the crazy things ppl said back then!" only strengthens my point that Teddy having public friendships and advisors that were black or simply non white shows how open minded in that era he was.
He was talked out of taking on Jim Crow laws after the whole dinner debacle because of fear it could incite another Civil War. I mean you can definitely find things he said that are by our standards racist, absolutely...but those were considered as common sense back then as saying grass was green or the sky was blue.
Roosevelt's accomplishments to the common man in America far, far outweigh any modern day squeamishness over his literally outdated racial views.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not Zoidberg? (tm)
I'm not hearing a no.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so picking out examples of horrible things Roosevelt said proves that he was super open-minded because "other people were probably saying even worse things"?
No. Picking out examples of horrible things Roosevelt said proves exactly that: That he said horrible things. And probably had some horrid, horrid views to go with them.
Horrid man. But so was George Washington. So was Thomas Jefferson. He's nothing special. That's kind of the point.
Nixon had some great accomplishments, too. He normalized relations with China and desegregated public schools. I'd call those some pretty good achievements, really. Andrew Jackson saved us Florida (is that good or bad?) and got us out of a disastrous war with Canada with the whole country still in one piece.
My edit got ninja'd, so reposting:
You see Teddy through one lens. I see him through another. I love his environmentalism, but he did that for the benefit of whites first and foremost, and would probably be horrified at who uses [the parks] now. The best proof of that is how willing he was to go and kill animals he knew to be badly endangered—just not on his home turf! I love that he invited Washington, but in doing so he gave greater legitimacy to "incrementalist civil rights" and kind of hurt those who were currently being savaged by Washington's allies for being too "aggressive" about stopping lynching and discrimination. And I just hate his foreign policy. Dude was a hawk.
I think he'd do about as much as someone like Obama or Clinton. Remember, Obama campaigned on postpartisanship, too, right up until he realized it was literally impossible to "compromise" and still get things done. Roosevelt would probably be similarly flummoxed by today's political climate.
Things are polarized for a reason. This is the climax of the culture war—the great throwdown between social justice advocates and the backlash against them. Islamophobia and transphobia are fighting tooth-and-nail to protect their way of life.
The only way I could see Roosevelt ending that climate would be to compromise on things that should never be compromised, like the survival of trans students and protection of religious freedoms (actual ones, not "I don't want to bake a cake for these gay guys"). No thanks.
EDIT: Also,
It was not "culture" it was the accepted wisdom of the time.
The early 1900s are a culture. And we always make excuses—"That's what everyone was saying back then!"
But it's not true. There were people, black and white, speaking out against lynchings without using dogwhistle "middle ground" rhetoric. There were people standing up for Native Americans. Teddy wasn't a wondrous visionary. He was a bad man who did some great things. I'm tired of people idolizing historical figures and ignoring their faults. Benjamin Franklin was a serial adulterer. Washington kept slaves. Teddy Roosevelt was a racist, warhawkish a~~*#+* who all-but-said "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." We don't get to excuse that.
We have higher standards today.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're opening this up to all comers, I'm very curious: Eliminate the whole Clinton/Democrat/Republican thing.
Is there anyone here who is honestly voting for Trump because he/she believes Trump would make a good president? Can you list well-reasoned arguments as to why?
I can understand the hatred towards Clinton, and I can understand, "My granddaddy voted Republican, my daddy voted Republican, and so I'm going to vote Republican, too, darn it!"
But when I look at Trump, I see:
(1) A failure as a businessman. He has four bankruptcies under his belt, and his portfolio has performed worse than a standard index fund. He seems far more interested in self-promotion than in running a successful business. Which is just fine in a businessman, but how does it qualify him to be president?
(2) An utter lack of comprehension of the nature of the U.S. government. He has cited articles of the Constitution that don't exist. He has openly stated his opposition to certain Constitutional amendments (the 1st being his favorite target). He has given me no indication that he understands how government actually works. I'd think this would be a minimal job requirement, but nope...
(3) A series of impossible promises. A wall between the U.S. and Mexico paid for by Mexico? A ban on Muslims entering the U.S.? Break trade agreements unilaterally to create U.S. jobs? They make great sound bytes, but his promises don't even make sense, much less come across as achievable.
(4) An appalling approach to foreign affairs. Considering he'll be our main negotiator, making statements such as the one he made about the Baltic states threatened by Russia are utterly inappropriate and damaging.
So I get it. Clinton's a career politician of the worst, sleaziest sort, with a lifetime history of shady deals to further her political career. You can hate Clinton. You can be a loyal Republican. But is anyone actually voting for Trump because they believe that Trump will somehow improve our country (beyond "Keeping Hillary out of office")?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna wait, like, another 85 days or so to even begin posting on this thread, and probably won't really start giving my opinion on what happened until we're staring down the barrel of the 2020 primary. :P
If you haven't already decided who you're voting for in 2024, you're behind the times.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know people who genuinely believe in Trump, and as best I can tell that belief is paired with massive cognitive dissonance.
Like the time I was told that no one should ever vote for Hillary because she doesn't believe in anything and she's a political chameleon and thus completely untrustworthy - but I should vote for Trump because he doesn't actually believe in any of the far Right promises he's making and he's just trying to win and doesn't really mean any of it and he'll make America a better place, unlike Hillary.
And yes, that really happened.
I'm gonna wait, like, another 85 days or so to even begin posting on this thread, and probably won't really start giving my opinion on what happened until we're staring down the barrel of the 2020 primary. :PIf you haven't already decided who you're voting for in 2024, you're behind the times.
I do hope that was meant in jest. :)
I do hope that was meant in jest. :)I'm gonna wait, like, another 85 days or so to even begin posting on this thread, and probably won't really start giving my opinion on what happened until we're staring down the barrel of the 2020 primary. :PIf you haven't already decided who you're voting for in 2024, you're behind the times.
What, you hadn't heard? Cyborg, time-traveling Bill Clinton, in a robot body with all the oratory powers of Michelle Obama, endorsed by a matrix of first spouses! I know, it sounds weird at first, but you've gotta admit, that candidate would nail the likability factor across party lines.