|
A Pale Horse posted:I think all freedom loving people regardless of which side of the fake political spectrum they're on would agree that people voting for an authoritarian retard deserve public shaming at the very least. Left/Right is a distraction, the only thing that matters is whether you want to live in a dystopian police state or not. Baby Orange Hitler will certainly try to get you there if that's your thing, but don't expect others to be happy about it or respect your decision. Hitler comparisons and even 'authoritarian retard' seem generous to Trump. He is more of a comically incompetent blowhard with no coherent position or motivation for wanting the presidency besides egotism. The thin authoritarian trappings are seemingly his one bit of insight into what the public, or certain sections of it, want. Genuine authoritarianism requires both greater insight into the public's darker impulses and greater discipline and planning than Trump is capable of. This isn't a compliment though. People think of the worst parts of the Bush era in terms of their deliberate malicious intentions, but their incompetence was often even more destructive.
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
How about voting Clinton because her stated policies are status quo with a few positive developments and little concrete evidence behind fears she will make things worse? How about observing Trump being terrible and assuming he is legitimately that unfit for presidency and that he does represent what the republican voting base has been reduced to, rather than posing an elaborate leftwing conspiracy wherein Trump has somehow been installed by liberals to manipulate leftwing fears?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Because the status quo is loving garbage, and if we keep carpet bombing the goddamn Middle East then we're going to have decades and decades of ISIS and ISIS-spawned shitheels shooting up perfectly nice cities and bombing public squares. We're on the verge of an all-out race war with riots exploding in the streets over basically any police shooting; now law enforcement is saddled with the blame for decades' worth of drug law policies that have filled our prisons to the point of overflowing. Guess which side of politics is currently combating the private prison industry with some success. Guess which side of politics has better considered policies on the middle east. Put some thought into who is more likely to ease racial tensions rather than try to forcefully maintain their cause. It's fine to dislike the status quo and want something more aggressively progressive, but unless you're aiming to accelerate the decline in the hopes something good will come of it than Clinton is the better choice. This isn't an endorsement of the status quo. Democracy doesn't consist entirely of a presidential vote. You vote the side most amenable to your position and maintain pressure to move things in the direction you want. If you genuinely care it requires constant effort for slow progress. Expecting anything else or requiring complete uncompromising ideological purity from a candidate is juvenile fancy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:the TV ratings will be in the pits because nobody watches TV anymore Lol, the democrats have an extremely successful social media team and are noted by political commentators of all political affiliations for having embraced and adapted to technology. Whereas the republicans have failed completely in this regard and seem increasingly embarrassing and hokey. This seems like something that can be agreed upon regardless of political ideology. It is no wonder that Trump wrecking balled his way through the gop. He at least has some sort of chintzy glamour, whereas the rest of the republican candidates had the appearance, mannerisms and charisma of Tim and Eric show extras.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
The economic situation has improved rather than degenerated, although it is somewhat stagnate, as can be expected of the neo-liberal economic policy both sides fancy, and which i don't support. As to middle eastern policy, it is far from ideal and full of extreme moral compromise, but is infinitely less counterproductive and outright destructive than Bush era policy and anything that the republican party champions. Failure to adequately clean up the mess of foreign policy is one of the biggest weaknesses of Obama's government, particularly in regards to torture, detainment and drone policy. But in general there isn't exactly a clear solution to US involvement in the middle east. Complete withdrawal will cause even greater humanitarian crisis, further ground force intervention is unlikely to be successful and will be deeply unpopular, and financing local forces is complicated by all parties being terrible. I would prefer far less military involvement and more humanitarian spending, but isis is a big obstacle to that at the moment. As to the police state, the democrats aren't very strongly opposed to it but liberals in general are far more involved in combating it than any political alternative. They are even partially or fully responsible for notable small victories at the state level. The movement against private prisons and police policy is finally heating up. Again, democrats are more amenable to it than republicans or any of the fringe right groups, who uniformly support more authoritarianism as long as it applies to minorities rather than them personally. To be honest i don't even live in the US, I just follow its politics. I live in a country where i can vote for a third party greens candidate and have my vote swept into the centre left party's tally should they fail to get adequate numbers. If i couldn't do this i would face a harder dilemma over whether or not i should vote for the compromised but less destructive and occasionally productive party, or vote for a third party candidate. However, even if i were voting third party it would certainly not be for a libertarian, who if miraculously elected would perform worse in all areas except maybe foreign policy (although even that is unlikely).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Anything that involves hillary actually talking is a mistake. its funnier when she tweets like a snarky millennial and people respond as if she actually wrote it herself.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Anorexic Robot posted:I guess its better than Elizabeth Warren having twitter tantrums and buzzfeed writing about "top 10 tweets of Warren OWNING Trump" Trump is also pretty embarrassing on twitter. In a week where there was all sorts of politically significant events he could have capitalised on he was having a tantrum and tweeting Frozen birthday cards. Whereas if all your knowledge of hillary came from her twitter you would think she is deeply invested in women's welfare and general humanitarian causes, when she isn't digging at trump with language so similar to weird twitter superstars that I could probably make a decent short-list of people they have probably hired.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:https://twitter.com/jimasher/status/776633213015982080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw It's already succeeded actually. Trump conceded Obama was born in America, which after years of arguing he wasn't in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary makes him look, once again, like an idiot who can't stop running his mouth only to have to backpedal soon after. At this point every second statement from trump is an apology or correction. Saying Trump started the birther movement is a bit of an exaggeration, but he was its highest profile member and was the main party behind the long form birth certificate argument after everyone else had given up (and of course years after Obama's long form birth certificate had first been put on public display). More importantly, Trump's birtherism is evidence of his extreme lack of credibility and conspiracy ideation to all but the alex jones fringe. Drawing attention to it is an obvious strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Ork of Fiction posted:The birther thing was about establishing cred in the conservative media. He voted for Obama. I've seen his records. Trump strategy all along seems to be to establish cred with the fringe right, simultaneously destroying all credibility with the majority, including mainstream republicans. I know people on both sides of politics want to believe that Trump is actually a master strategist playing the public like a fiddle, but its becoming very apparent he really is just an idiot. People kept saying that once he won the primary he would start appealing to the majority, instead he failed to even visit swing states, has fired multiple campaign managers, following a series of ludicrous blunders he is solely responsible for. Much like his business 'success' his political career is nothing but hot air. The real humour will come at the end. So far he has drawn enough attention to his finances to assume that his wealth is almost entirely an illusion made up of conning a small group of investors into massive debt through the power of his brand. His campaign will destroy that brand while simultaneously draining his finances severely, leaving him relegated to reality tv and conspiracy radio, still a millionaire but massively reduced such that people no longer confuse his self-importance with actual importance.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Hitler wrote a book, Trump didn't. His art of the deal ghostwriter doesn't have a very high opinion of him.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
I always read hillary clinton as hillary clit tonne. Maybe one day some political event or scandal will allow me to work this into an actual joke.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 09:33
|
|