|
comingafteryouall posted:But they also need the questionable mental state needed to lie about absolutely everything, complete absence of morals, lack of a voting record, and charisma. Plus, Trump has been building his reputation as a tough negotiator and smart businessman for a long rear end time. Hey, I get that reference. Tis a good song.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
Night10194 posted:Jesus gently caress, how can anyone still support Maduro? It's a byproduct of being on the political periphery. No one sane is going to be your candidate because if they're sane they can just roll with the D"s or R's so you get weirdos at the best and really objectively awful people at the worst. This is one of the reasons I was really shocked to see Bernie do as well as he did, and I think he did a great service to political discourse and representation in America. If not at the Federal level, I can have hope that seeing Bernie run on his platform and do well will, if not outright galvanize a local movement, at least inspire someone else to try the same thing in their community.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Stacks is an idiot and I'm voting for her, but this thread, and a large swath of the Internet, does have a tendency to go completely ballistic when you suggest Hillary is an imperfect candidate. It happens less now that the Orange Ball of Hate is dominating the news cycle but there was a time in primary season where various people would speak both about how Hillary was the only candidate moderate enough to beat trump and simultaneously more progressive than Sanders. I mean sure it was just generic primary spin but it was loving obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Where are you seeing this? Anyways, it's not like I'm saying she's some perfect candidate. I'm not tactically compelled to vote for Hillary, and beyond that I don't think it really makes a difference who I pick. So I looked into it briefly and it seems Gloria is the best leftist candidate I can find. So basically the only reason I'm voting for her is that she's better than Stein. 4th paragraph in her bio. The paragraphs, in order, are:
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Colonel Corazon posted:One more time for the night! I love your never ending supply of Michelle Obama gifs
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:I'm a progressive/socialist/whatever who registered as an independent in California because I dislike the Democrats as a whole (and was still feeling the anti-establishment frustration at the time), I wholeheartedly supported Sanders in the primary, and I'm telling you, please, please don't vote third party at the national level, unless maybe you're a Republican who's fleeing Trump but can't bring yourself to vote for Hillary or something (which you presumably aren't). It's dumb and a waste of your time and if you understand our voting system at all you know it won't accomplish anything because neither party cares at all about your vote. this a, thousand times this. Especially if you are in anything that is considered a swings states this year. I supported Sanders, bumper sticker and everything. But I knew his purpose was to push to the left, not win, and I bet deep in his heart he knew that was his purpose. He succeeded, Hillary knows the left exists and will work with what she gets, with the end result being if liberals are elected down ballet she will push left if given the chance. She is realistic in knowing she will get what she can win, that's what I can hope for in an executive. Vote (D) down ballot we may see, the Clinton Third way is a way of moving the ball forward, whether you have control or not, as much as that's distasteful to the FULL COMMUNISM now in me, I'd rather see poo poo get done. 1.) a public health care option, freeing small business from the burden. 2.) infrastructure spending not seen since WWII, gently caress the 1%. 3.) maybe just maybe banking regulation that serves the rest of the 99% 1.) and 2.) are totally achievable in 4 years of Hillary if she pull in the House and Senate. everything else in our Gov will be better decided with Hillary than the Donald so keep that in mind, unless you really want a wall on our southern border. This is my BlueBlazer endorsement. Bring it  Hillary, otherwise I have join the Trump Black shirts and that isn't going to be pretty. I'm pretty sure Fascism is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Stacks is an idiot and I'm voting for her, but this thread, and a large swath of the Internet, does have a tendency to go completely ballistic when you suggest Hillary is an imperfect candidate. It happens less now that the Orange Ball of Hate is dominating the news cycle but there was a time in primary season where various people would speak both about how Hillary was the only candidate moderate enough to beat trump and simultaneously more progressive than Sanders. It's a really interesting phenomena. I wasn't as politically active back in 2004 so I don't know how people handled the Kerry critics, but I really distinctly remember the Obama critics being taken much more seriously than people going against Hillary. Not necessarily here, but it seems like a lot of people in the punditry and media world just sort of throw all the criticisms against her in a box and label it "CRAZY SCANDALS" and never mention it again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Being poor is bad for everyone. A white person who can't afford heating oil can't warm themselves with white privilege. A white person who can't find a job can't buy food with the fact that they are statistically less likely to be in that situation than a black person. "Poor white people have it bad too," adds nothing to a discussion on how it's almost exclusively a white privilege to hold onto political ideological purity because PoC have to live with the fallout of the nation's worst decisions. It is in fact an implicit attempt at diminishing the poo poo PoC, especially poor PoC, face. All that's accomplished by injecting the plight of poor whites is an attempt to shift the topic exclusively back to white people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Stacks is an idiot and I'm voting for her, but this thread, and a large swath of the Internet, does have a tendency to go completely ballistic when you suggest Hillary is an imperfect candidate. It happens less now that the Orange Ball of Hate is dominating the news cycle but there was a time in primary season where various people would speak both about how Hillary was the only candidate moderate enough to beat trump and simultaneously more progressive than Sanders. What you've seen is a halting of the internet hate train against Clinton by millennial and Sanders supporters who felt aggrieved since Super Tuesday and a redirection of that anger toward Trump. The issue as I see it is for a long time and even today some posters cannot accept a conversation where people discuss Hillary in a positive way, not "conversations where there is no discussion of her negative aspects and policies." In most corners of the internet you're perceived as a liar to some degree if you begin by saying you're voting for Clinton instead of "against Trump" or "for the Democratic team."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I get the feeling that you're not too familiar with the concept of intersectionality... Acknowledging that poor people have it really bad is fine, and that include poor whites. The exact context though was a white person discussing how they had personal experience with the "greatest failings of our nation," specifically to justify their decision to vote third party. I think we can both agree that a minority in abject poverty is objectively worse off than a white person in abject poverty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
lozzle posted:Acknowledging that poor people have it really bad is fine, and that include poor whites. The exact context though was a white person discussing how they had personal experience with the "greatest failings of our nation." I think we can both agree that a minority in abject poverty is objectively worse off than a white person in abject poverty. I specifically said I hadn't experienced all of the 'greatest failings of our nation', only some of them. It's a bad road to go down so I'll take my lumps on that, but I was specifically trying not to equivocate my own experience with someone who grows up poor and with the disadvantage of systemic racism blocking their path out of poverty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:
How brave of you 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Stacks is an idiot and I'm voting for her, but this thread, and a large swath of the Internet, does have a tendency to go completely ballistic when you suggest Hillary is an imperfect candidate. It happens less now that the Orange Ball of Hate is dominating the news cycle but there was a time in primary season where various people would speak both about how Hillary was the only candidate moderate enough to beat trump and simultaneously more progressive than Sanders. Can you quote someone in the thread doing this? I don't often read the USPOL thread because it moves so quickly, but I haven't actually seen someone go ballistic over legit Clinton criticism. Like if someone says they want minimum wage to be higher than Clinton's proposal, is there a freakout?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:It's a byproduct of being on the political periphery. No one sane is going to be your candidate because if they're sane they can just roll with the D"s or R's so you get weirdos at the best and really objectively awful people at the worst. This is one of the reasons I was really shocked to see Bernie do as well as he did, and I think he did a great service to political discourse and representation in America. That's what I'm hoping for here in California. I've said it before but after I move (I'm currently stuck on a farm in the middle of nowhere, not much I can do here politically except mail in my ballot, because the precinct I'm in is so small you can't not vote-by-mail) I want to get at least somewhat involved in the local politics and try to move things leftward. Seeing a genuine, at least semi-successful progressive movement in this country today was pretty dang inspiring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Is it wrong that I read this and go "meh?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
I mean, don't get me wrong, SurgicalOntologist, I understand the appeal of finding a leftist candidate to reiterate a dislike for the more centrist, pro-business, Republican-compromised policies Hillary will undoubtedly enact, and I considered voting PSL/P&F myself. I am just compelled to specifically denounce La Riva once I learned about her support for Maduro the same way other goons are compelled to reiterate how completely god-awful Jill Stein is based on her mealy-mouthed words on vaccines. It's one of my few "single-issue voter" issues for largely sentimental reasons. Fighting for socialism at home is more important than falling over yourself to position yourself as the anti-imperialist by defending crony dictatorships that drape themselves in pseudo-socialist rhetoric elsewhere.  EDIT: P.S. If you are in California, you may want to consider one of the two eligible write-in candidates here: Egg McMuffin (haha nope party) and Rocky De La Fuente (Reform Party). ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Stacks is an idiot and I'm voting for her, but this thread, and a large swath of the Internet, does have a tendency to go completely ballistic when you suggest Hillary is an imperfect candidate. It happens less now that the Orange Ball of Hate is dominating the news cycle but there was a time in primary season where various people would speak both about how Hillary was the only candidate moderate enough to beat trump and simultaneously more progressive than Sanders. Pretty sure this thread was mostly pro-sanders, at least the normal liberal posters. But it was pretty obvious Sanders was gonna lose in like April. Hillary has plenty of problems as a candidate. People don't go ballistic because you are criticizing Hillary for being a imperfect canidate. People go ballistic when people come in her and act like they are so pure ideologically that they can't possibly vote for what is easily the furthest left presidential candidate on a major ticket probably ever. Like sure she has mistakes, and if you are a single issue voter then great. Vote your single issue. But don't act holier than thou about it. Like if you want to talk about a real Clinton problem then bring it up and we can discuss it. But actually go into policy and her actions and not just vague assertions that don't actually cause a real discussion. Penisaurus Sex posted:It's a really interesting phenomena. I wasn't as politically active back in 2004 so I don't know how people handled the Kerry critics, but I really distinctly remember the Obama critics being taken much more seriously than people going against Hillary. Then bring up criticisms. We can discuss them on a one by one basis and refute or at least give you the reasons she did what she did and then you can decide whether that's acceptable to you or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:It's a really interesting phenomena. I wasn't as politically active back in 2004 so I don't know how people handled the Kerry critics, but I really distinctly remember the Obama critics being taken much more seriously than people going against Hillary. Obama critics on the left were taken way less seriously than Clinton critics today. Obama was mostly a cipher in 2008, so there wasn't a lot of substantive things to actually criticize him on, and the biggest crowd was the proto birther PUMA movement. It was easy to make them a joke. The difference is that the amplification of poo poo via Twitter means we're in even more of a 24 hour news cycle than we were, and mainstream news orgs are getting a better handle on how Twitter is used. Twitter didn't really have a culture in 2008, not in the way it does today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Could this mean that there's going to be a glut of Brexit style "Take that, powers that be" protest ..... I guess you'd call them non-votes, wherein people show up to vote against Trump but don't bother with anything below the Presidential row on the ballot? Turnout is probably going to be very low rather unlike Brexit. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-clinton-is-surging-but-down-ballot-democrats-are-losing-ground/ 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:It's a really interesting phenomena. I wasn't as politically active back in 2004 so I don't know how people handled the Kerry critics, but I really distinctly remember the Obama critics being taken much more seriously than people going against Hillary. dean supporters fell in behind kerry halfheartedly as an "anybody but bush" candidate. there was a lot more talk about both parties being the same. as far as criticism from the right, a super pac called "swift boat veterans for truth" straight up lied about Kerry's service record in Vietnam. But Kerry's campaign thought the attack was so dumb and not worth bothering with that they ignored it, leading to people saying "why hasn't John Kerry responded, he must have something to hide." Which really hurt his campaign, and coined the term swiftboating/shitboating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Covok posted:Is it wrong that I read this and go "meh?" Yes, that's wrong. Pretty much everything Donald Trump says or does should be met with revulsion. With the notable exception of what he did to the other Republican candidates. Publicly humiliating Jeb Bush, calling Rand Paul ugly, mocking Rubio for being an annoying pipsqueak, telling Ted Cruz that no one likes him. All good stuff 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Voting 3rd Party is based off the calculus that you can afford to cast a protest vote so that you can tell your friends, family and coworkers about it for the next month as though it was a virtuous act and not you edging the Democratic system. You're basically counting on the people who can't afford to be as loving smug and entitled as you--the women, minorities, and marginalized, who Trump represents a threat to the continued existence of--to do the heavy lifting of democracy so that you can Facebook thinly veiled messages about your unique ideas about how the system is broken and we need real leftist government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Can you quote someone in the thread doing this? I don't often read the USPOL thread because it moves so quickly, but I haven't actually seen someone go ballistic over legit Clinton criticism. Ask me on Sunday and I'll go hunting. I'm on the tail end of a double right now and have another tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Voting 3rd Party is based off the calculus that you can afford to cast a protest vote so that you can tell your friends, family and coworkers about it for the next month as though it was a virtuous act and not you edging the Democratic system. Holy poo poo I want this in the OP
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Voting 3rd Party is based off the calculus that you can afford to cast a protest vote so that you can tell your friends, family and coworkers about it for the next month as though it was a virtuous act and not you edging the Democratic system. This is perfectly put.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Voting 3rd Party is based off the calculus that you can afford to cast a protest vote so that you can tell your friends, family and coworkers about it for the next month as though it was a virtuous act and not you edging the Democratic system. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Voting 3rd Party is based off the calculus that you can afford to cast a protest vote so that you can tell your friends, family and coworkers about it for the next month as though it was a virtuous act and not you edging the Democratic system. Quoting again because. Yes. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Pretty sure this thread was mostly pro-sanders, at least the normal liberal posters. But it was pretty obvious Sanders was gonna lose in like April. Eh there is a tendency to kind of white wash her and people are starting to treat her like they did Obama in 08. Though at least that made some sense as Obama wanted to look that way but Hilary really doesn't and she still gets held up as the six dimensional chess master bringing leftism back one piece at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
undertool posted:I'm already done voting, I love mail in ballots. Even though I'm in California there is no way am I voting third party. Not in this election. We need to run up the score. You already know who you're going to support, what are you waiting for? Voting early means you won't contribute to what are most assuredly going to be long lines at polling places, and assuming you live in a Democratic stronghold/big city those polling places will likely be understaffed and have fewer machines than richer whiter places. Also if you've already voted you're free on Election Day to drive people to the polls, be a poll worker (to ensure there's not a shortage) or just plain have the peace of mind that your vote is counted no matter what goes down. VOTE EARLY, VOLUNTEER OFTEN.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Do you want Hillary the candidate, or Hillary the platform? As a candidate: It seems to me that she specifically approached situations that were, in absolute terms, political nothings to avoid even the appearance of impropriety (Emails, Speech transcripts). They were dumb scandals in any light, but by trying to skirt them and not approach them head on she hurt her credibility more in the long term. I'm not an idiot, I know that politicians lie and don't tell their constituents what they actually think in private and there are a million reasons to do that. in this case, though, I think it was a bad decision any way you slice it. She also approached her plan of attack for Donald poorly, and it took her a while to actually dial it in (the DNC leadership at the time may hold some blame for this one). She's not a very adaptable campaigner, and it shows when she's forced out of her element and put off her game. Luckily for her she's up against a man who cannot go a day without a campaign-ending level mistake, so she gets the W and gets the experience of what to do different in the future. Platform wise, my biggest gripe with her is her foreign policy. Not in specific terms, like her specific approach to Syria: I'm not a Middle Eastern political expert and I can't suss out if her plans for Syria are good or bad or somewhere in between, and it's bad to represent myself as such. In broad terms, my problem with her foreign policy is that she associates herself, on a personal and departmental level, with countries that have objectively awful governments. I'd feel much better about throwing support behind her if she would denounce the KSA in Yemen, for example. As far as domestic policy goes, my biggest problem is that she seemed to have started at the point she actually wanted to finish at negotiations-wise. If she's fully committed to a $12/hr min. wage, then it's bad practice to start your negotiations at $12/hr. And if you think that Republicans won't realistically compromise at all on it, why not start at $15 and get the free boost to your favorables? It seems like a weird call to me is all. Iraq is the major one for me because, in my opinion, it demonstrates a failure on a different level than just making a bad mistake. She took information that anyone with a computer and an interest connection could tell was fabricated at face value, and made her decision on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Hey guys! First off I just want to say, believe it or not, I really enjoy following this thread on my 3rd shift breaks, so thank you all for the easy to understand discourse. That being said, I've been seeing a ridiculous number of 'Hillary wins = war with Russia" posts on my Facebook lately and... that's loving ridiculous right? I mean I know it's ridiculous on its face but can anyone explain to me why? I haven't had much luck articulating it and it's driving me nuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Michigan has pretty restrictive early voting, sadly, so I'll just have to be up early to vote and then go handle driving people to the polls all day. At least my polling place is like, 2 blocks from my apartment and I'll be free that day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Colonel Corazon posted:One more time for the night! Is there a link that works happier on FB? I get no happy flashy graphics when I post the link. Tried to link the FB page too, just gave me the link on posting. I'm an old tired about to die white guy with little to no time to loose, so I can understand if I scrwd up, but any help would be most fine, cause I'd like to promote. Also, and even more importantly: tweet, trumperfucker, tweet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Voting early also helps in that it should remove you from the call rolls that determine who gets called or block walked, so you save campaign resources and people stop borhering you in the middle of your whatever the gently caress you do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:dean supporters fell in behind kerry halfheartedly as an "anybody but bush" candidate. there was a lot more talk about both parties being the same. The campaign that W. ran against Kerry was the most despicable thing I've seen on the national level. The older I get and the more I look back into stuff I just straight up missed growing up, I go from having a somewhat mediocre opinion of W. with most of my hate put in Cheney to thinking that W. was probably way more culpable than anyone thought at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
NiceGuy posted:Hey guys! First off I just want to say, believe it or not, I really enjoy following this thread on my 3rd shift breaks, so thank you all for the easy to understand discourse. That being said, I've been seeing a ridiculous number of 'Hillary wins = war with Russia" posts on my Facebook lately and... that's loving ridiculous right? I mean I know it's ridiculous on its face but can anyone explain to me why? I haven't had much luck articulating it and it's driving me nuts. No-one is going to declare war on Russia unless Russia declares war on us, which would require Putin to be genuinely, world-endingly stupid and crazy. MAD is still a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Oracle posted:And this is where I encourage everyone to VOTE EARLY (that is in a state that allows such). My polling place is literally next door to my apartment complex and never has a line. Well, maybe it does during a presidential year. Can't say anything about that yet. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
I've been leaning towards voting Mimi Soltysik of Socialist Party USA like I voted for Stewart Alexander in 2012 (I've kind of regretted that since he got pretty pro-Russia after Euromaidan, but you can't really base your vote on something that hadn't happened yet), since I live in a super safe blue state where even the Republicans have been anti-Trump and they seem to be the most pragmatic socialist party out there without being small enough to be basically non-existent. But honestly, I'm probably going to end up voting Hillary because gently caress Trump, fascists need to be crushed and crushed hard. Sometimes voting your conscience means voting for someone or something you're not personally a big fan of because it winning will stop something worse from happening. If your conscience only stops at what the outcomes are for you personally, then you need to take a long hard look at your morals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
NiceGuy posted:Hey guys! First off I just want to say, believe it or not, I really enjoy following this thread on my 3rd shift breaks, so thank you all for the easy to understand discourse. That being said, I've been seeing a ridiculous number of 'Hillary wins = war with Russia" posts on my Facebook lately and... that's loving ridiculous right? I mean I know it's ridiculous on its face but can anyone explain to me why? I haven't had much luck articulating it and it's driving me nuts. The argument seems to be that if we don't elect a leader who does whatever the Kremlin wants, Putin will immediately leap to nuclear war, with no inbetween. Much of what the Russians are doing now is deliberate psy-op attempts to destabilize western democracy, including our own, and it should be seen and treated as such. That said, realistically, Trump is far more likely to start a nuclear war because he is a clinical narcissist and not sane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
NiceGuy posted:Hey guys! First off I just want to say, believe it or not, I really enjoy following this thread on my 3rd shift breaks, so thank you all for the easy to understand discourse. That being said, I've been seeing a ridiculous number of 'Hillary wins = war with Russia" posts on my Facebook lately and... that's loving ridiculous right? I mean I know it's ridiculous on its face but can anyone explain to me why? I haven't had much luck articulating it and it's driving me nuts. Donald Trump wants to lay down and die for Russia while Hillary won't take any of their poo poo. This is interpreted by deplorables and the far left as Cold War 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:03
|
|