|
Moon Atari posted:I actually like Hillary now. It feels weird and 1984 ending-ish to arrive at this point. Maybe I've been swayed by propaganda, but pretty much all available information is somebody's propaganda. I've considered both the pro and anti hillary propaganda, from both right and left points of criticism, and decided I'm more down with the pro. With a few reservations and differences in policy preferences, but mostly positive. Woah, that's just crazy talk. I am definitely voting for her, but I still hope she dies during her first term so we can rally behind the next liberal firebrand in 2020.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 02:15 |
|
|
a bone to pick posted:When he started his campaign he mentioned many times that we need to pull out of the middle east, made many remarks about being anti-war, wanted to crack down on H1B visa abuse, was anti-establishment, completely crushed the testicles of the GOP, Hillary supporters are loving terrible people, and had a lot of his ideas that resounded with me. I never believed a wall would ever be built. Thanks for the post. I gotta ask a follow up questions. You already realised that his entire wall gimmick would never happen, why did you still think anything he said about being anti-war was even remotely honest? I mean, you already came to the conclusion that he lies to you and just says random things that come to his mind, without meaning them. Why did you think it was different with that single issue?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:the possibility of Trump actually winning is something to be prevented at all costs This seems to be the entirety of Hillary's platform lol Like her website last I checked was just PLEASE GOD DON'T LET TRUMP GET ELECTED
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
does anyone here actually think that hillary has any intention of delivering on any of her promises to anyone but special interest groups?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:does anyone here actually think that hillary has any intention of delivering on any of her promises to anyone but special interest groups? maybe? possibly? if it doesn't go against the interests of the people that hold her leash and if it doesn't cost her or her friends any money I guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:does anyone here actually think that hillary has any intention of delivering on any of her promises to anyone but special interest groups? See this is my thing too, she talks a good game but why on earth would I believe any of it? It isn't just her it's my general disillusion with politicians at this point I'm still pretty mad about UHC I'll admit
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
InterFaced posted:Instead of shaming america for being mean to women we should shame america for entertaining trump this long. I think you have it backwards. Trump is the one who has been entertaining us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Hillary will jail the few remaining black people that Bill didn't get to. That's her idea of equality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
I didn't watch the debate because I would rather smash my own penis with a hammer
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I didn't watch the debate because I would rather smash my own penis with a hammer Even if you couldn't reschedule hammer time you could always just watch a recording. The penis smashing lifestyle is busy but there are still many options that would allow you to do both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Prorat posted:Hillary will jail the few remaining black people that Bill didn't get to. That's her idea of equality. continuing to defend the crime bill in tyool 2016, lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FF3fFURSbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mu7J4gjtyY Code Jockey fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Thanks for the post. #1. I thought the most important part of his campaign was about his strengths as a business man, reshaping / fixing the economy through better trade deals and closing loopholes, and that he had absolutely no wish to be involved in the military. As he said before, "I'd leave that up to the generals" #2. I always felt half of his campaign was a spectacle to gain support from the ignorant masses. The wall, the public shaming of politicians, putting his beautiful wife and daughter in the spotlight, all tactics he learned from being a reality star to gain the approval of the millions of dumb-fucks (myself included) that we call "The general public". I see this as a new political tactic which is working about half as well as Obama's 'I promise you everything' tactic. Now obviously this was all under the pretense that Trump wasn't a loving retard and I thought he was playing some sort of, ahem, "8th dimensional chess" to gain massive support and it seemed to be working. However, if you're trying to make the point "Well if Trump lied about this why wouldn't he lie about that" you can apply that to any politician and especially Hillary Clinton so its not a very strong argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:does anyone here actually think that hillary has any intention of delivering on any of her promises to anyone but special interest groups? What kind of specific promise do you think she will break? I mean, it's not like she can pass or change laws as president, so she obviously talking very generally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Hates Hillary based on the belief that she has no intention of delivering on her promises and that everything she says is just an attempt to manipulate voters. Supports Trump based on the belief that he has no intention of delivering on his promises and that everything he says is just an attempt to manipulate voters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Well, as evidenced in this thread, the debate seems to have focused reality better for some voters. So good job, debate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:Hates Hillary based on the belief that she has no intention of delivering on her promises and that everything she says is just an attempt to manipulate voters. Supports Trump based on the belief that he has no intention of delivering on his promises and that everything he says is just an attempt to manipulate voters. Both are true but one owes Lockheed-Saud decades of support, while the other has only been getting their support since he became Republican nominee
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Ooooh I actually forgot the biggest reason I supported Trump at the beginning: not bought out by lobbyists and was completely self-funded. Funny how nobody ever mentions lobbyists in the news.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:#1. I thought the most important part of his campaign was about his strengths as a business man, reshaping / fixing the economy through better trade deals and closing loopholes, and that he had absolutely no wish to be involved in the military. As he said before, "I'd leave that up to the generals" OK, I think I understand now. You thought he was just gimmick posting, but he turned out to be genuinely retarded. This probably happened to all of us at least once in gbs, sometimes it's really hard to tell. quote:However, if you're trying to make the point "Well if Trump lied about this why wouldn't he lie about that" you can apply that to any politician and especially Hillary Clinton so its not a very strong argument. But they are not even remotely the same. One case is a politician stating the general direction, she wants to take the country in. These are mission statements, goals that she will try to reach with her administration. The other case is a man vomiting out completly nonsensical ideas that will never, ever happen for very specific reasons. Ideas that don't even make any sense when you start to think about hem for more than 10sec.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:What kind of specific promise do you think she will break? I mean, it's not like she can pass or change laws as president, so she obviously talking very generally. how about closing the carried interest tax loophole? honestly i can completely understand someone voting hillary because they'd rather have her than trump for president but you must realize you are just choosing the (maybe) lesser of two evils? they are both terrible people and terrible candidates
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:OK, I think I understand now. You thought he was just gimmick posting, but he turned out to be genuinely retarded. This probably happened to all of us at least once in gbs, sometimes it's really hard to tell. I'm just going to say this from now on when my friends ask me why I'm not pro-Trump anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:What kind of specific promise do you think she will break? I mean, it's not like she can pass or change laws as president, so she obviously talking very generally. It doesn't matter The problem with politics at every level and in every modern democracy is that, no matter what the alleged goal of a policy is, it is always made to benefit past and future financial sponsors first, and people 34749th. Trump won't dismantle the system or even deal a significant blow to it, but he will be a small speedbump to it, which is much more valuable than any bullshit "policy" or "position" you've been led to believe is important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
AugmentedVision posted:Both are true but one owes Lockheed-Saud decades of support, while the other has only been getting their support since he became Republican nominee https://twitter.com/Alwaleed_Talal/status/692790423010566144 Well, Trump was apparently at least 1.2bn in hock to a Saudi prince before he even flirted with running as the Reform Party candidate. I mean, there's a difference of degrees there obviously, but the guy is pretty famous for making bets with other people's money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:how about closing the carried interest tax loophole? Sorry, I'm not an American so I don't know that much about the matter. But I assume that this is an issue that needs to be fixed through the legislative? In that case all she could ever promise is to do her best to try to fix the issue, she can't promise to get it done. If the House or the Senate blocks it, there is nothing in the world she would be able to do about it, right? I just don't see this as lying. Especially if you compare it to what Trump promised, like banning Muslims, which is literally impossible to do, until we invent a device that can read minds. GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Most criticism of Hillary seems to be that she is a politician, operating within the political system such that it is, in an effort to achieve her goals. Accusing Hillary of being in debt to arms companies or compromised because lobbyists exist isn't actually a criticism if her so much as it is an expression of hopeless anti-goverment and anti-establishment sentiment. That may seem cool and anarchic, and there is plenty to criticise about the status quo, but it is ultimately an incredibly childish approach requiring a world that is full of competing stakeholders to become simple and morally absolute. It is the type of attitude that leads to people favouring an integrity and credibility devoid outsider, simply because he is an outsider. Trump is doing a good job of showing us how good a president who listens to no one but themselves, never compromises and always 'speaks their mind' would be. Actually getting poo poo done involves manipulating all the stakeholders until you can get somewhere in the direction you would like to go. Unfortunately, in a lovely world that requires one to be on negotiating terms with some lovely people. But I'll take that over naive dreams of burning down both Wall Street and Congress and rebuilding a utopia over the ashes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Sorry, I'm not an American so I don't know that much about the matter. But I assume that this is an issue that needs to be fixed through the legislative? In that case all she could ever promise is to do her best to try to fix the issue, she can't promise to get it done. If the House or the Senate blocks it, there is nothing in the world she would be able to do about it, right? she said if congress doesn't close the loophole on it's own she'd just direct the treasury department to use their regulatory authority to end the tax difference. i think the issue isn't that people have problems with what hillary says, it's that they are sort of used to the idea of the mainstream political candidates promising to make a difference and then doing everything in their power to further the interests of their corporate masters while making token gestures to their base in ways that won't really effect any real economic reform so they can say that they "made a difference" once they make it to office. corporate profits go up, meanwhile most americans are living paycheck to paycheck with no relief in sight. trump might be just another cog in the corporate oligarchy, but at least he isn't a familiar cog. and he's promising to change things and make a difference! i think it's literally a case of people being so fed up with the status quo that they are willing to chance it with the devil they don't know. it's the same reason bernie had a chance in hell of winning. it's the same reason obama won. maybe stupid or shortsighted, but it shows just how desperate the economic situation is for people
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
AugmentedVision posted:It doesn't matter See, I don't get how you are optimistic about this, he's been a massive fuckup with every structure he's ever been involved with and a gigantic evil ball of failure, how do you possibly think he won't do any damage if he's given all the keys and all the authority?  Pitdragon posted:trump might be just another cog in the corporate oligarchy, but at least he isn't a familiar cog. How is he not familiar, he's been a nonstop public clusterfuck since the 70s
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
People are super disillusioned and angry at the status quo and lack of tangible economic growth for them. It's meaningless to tell the average citizen that the markets are doing gangbusters if they haven't seen a substantial raise in a decade. That's definitely why Trump and Bernie did so well, and I'm still kind of amazed the Dems ran the status quo candidate anyway because the general sentiment/climate seemed to be fairly obviously against it. I don't think she'll lose, but if she does it'll be because the Dems ran the status quo candidate (or at least she is perceived that way) in a year when everyone did not want status quo. I'm sure they'll blame it on Bernie though, even though I'm pretty sure without the changes to the platform instigated by his support she'd absolutely lose.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:Most criticism of Hillary seems to be that she is a politician, operating within the political system such that it is, in an effort to achieve her goals. Yeah, this. I work with politicians, I happen not to mind politicians, so the fact that she is one of the most experienced politicians we've ever had running for president over the last 50 years or so is impressive to me. Her voting record was more liberal than Obama's, and compared to the rest of the senators during her tenure she was one of the more liberal ones, even when you narrow that search to only democratic senators. Saying "Well yeah but she was a senator of New York she would have to be liberal" is something I've heard before, and is basically just assuming for no real reason at all that she is secretly a right wing fascist. The difference between her and Obama is that she actually understands how to get her policies passed. I very much doubt that applies to Bernie Sanders. Pitdragon posted:maybe stupid or shortsighted, but it shows just how desperate the economic situation is for people White people, specifically. The economy is doing much better, by the numbers. Edit: And this is also why Bernie Sanders had much higher numbers among white Americans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:54
|
|
trapped mouse posted:White people, specifically. The economy is doing much better, by the numbers. See but actually it's still grinding poo poo for the majority of the population, white or not. This is exactly the attitude that makes people annoyed with the Dems. By the numbers the US housing market was unassailable in 2007 as well.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Code Jockey posted:This seems to be the entirety of Hillary's platform lol To be honest it's a compelling platform, it's sure as gently caress enough for me 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
CharlestonJew posted:maybe? possibly? if it doesn't go against the interests of the people that hold her leash and if it doesn't cost her or her friends any money I guess Maybe she is the one holding everyone's leash and was just never direct about what she wanted until now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
I hope trump is pissed off enough at the banks for never lending to him that he arrests their criminal asses.... should he win
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
"Economy" and "worker prosperity" are not the same thing at all. You can have a strong economy full of wretchedly exploited people. China had a strong rear end economy for like 30 years which culminated in having to erect safety nets to prevent factory worker suicides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
I've been around since both Trump and Hillary first hit the national stage. Trump spent 30+ years putting his name on everything in giant gold letters, going bust, somehow charging back into the public eye, going bust again, etc. over and over. During that time he gathered up a Kardashian-like cachet of being famous for being famous (by becoming the human avatar of "abrasive rich blowhard"), managed to find his groove during the great Golden Era of Reality TV, and catapulted himself sideways into politics from there. He says what he thinks and doesn't seem to have any sort of filter. He's also obviously not the deepest thinker on the block and I'd bet a reasonable sum of money that he gave at least one classmate a swirly in middle school. If you've ever dumped some nerd's books between classes, he's probably your guy. As for Hillary: Bill Clinton said on his first campaign that he thought Hillary was one of his greatest assets, and we were essentially getting two presidents for the price of one, Abigail Adams-style. She used her First Ladyship to bring a lot of important issues to the forefront and turned her notoriety into being elected to Congress and becoming Sec of State. A lot of the traits that people hate about her (her tenacity and ability to stare down fools, mostly) would be non-issues if she were a man and seem to me to be things you'd want a president to have. Some folks think she's bitchy and cold, but I don't see it; she definitely has a sense of humor and can weather all sorts of poo poo being shoveled on her without twitching. At the same time I wouldn't characterize her public persona as "sweet" or "inviting" either, so if the only older woman you know is your grandma, she's probably kinda scary in comparison. The debate pretty much showed all this, with an extra layer of "seasoned politician debating some guy who wandered in off the street." It was fun but sad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:People are super disillusioned and angry at the status quo and lack of tangible economic growth for them. It's meaningless to tell the average citizen that the markets are doing gangbusters if they haven't seen a substantial raise in a decade. I feel the same way about my personal wealth and lack of an increase in quality of life as it relates to how great the economy is doing. However I also like to think that as we move further away from a manufacturing economy we should be building in social safety nets that redistribute the "amazing gains" of the economy so that everyone shares in the increase. The republican solution from what I can see is to lower taxes, which would be great for me, but doesn't solve the problem of stagnating wages at all. Laborers will still be unemployed and "Wall Street" will still be taking in all the gains (at a new lower tax rate).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:White people, specifically. The economy is doing much better, by the numbers. Edit: And this is also why Bernie Sanders had much higher numbers among white Americans. The economy is a burning turd for everyone not in the top 10% professional class. It's not just white people. The racial income and wealth gap have increased sharply over the last 8 years, it takes going back into the segregation era to find anything comparable to current levels. Black Americans just find the feel of being hosed just because their poors a welcome novelty from being hosed because their poors and blacks. SickZip fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:Kinda run of the mill to be honest. Hillary's lines seemed a bit flat and ill timed but Trump definitely seemed to start talking for long stretches of time pretty much incoherently. I feel like the anchors and news people wanted it to be crazier than it was. Did anyone say when Trump answered it reminded them of the moderator from Billy Madison? If so I apologize. If not I still apologize.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Mirage posted:I've been around since both Trump and Hillary first hit the national stage. Trump spent 30+ years putting his name on everything in giant gold letters, going bust, somehow charging back into the public eye, going bust again, etc. over and over. During that time he gathered up a Kardashian-like cachet of being famous for being famous (by becoming the human avatar of "abrasive rich blowhard"), managed to find his groove during the great Golden Era of Reality TV, and catapulted himself sideways into politics from there. He says what he thinks and doesn't seem to have any sort of filter. He's also obviously not the deepest thinker on the block and I'd bet a reasonable sum of money that he gave at least one classmate a swirly in middle school. If you've ever dumped some nerd's books between classes, he's probably your guy. I pretty much agree with everything here but since I'm bitchin' about Clinton today the most aggravating thing for me is how she just revises her position based on how much it affects her polling. (Marriage Equality, TPP, Minimum wage.. basically adopting sanders' platform while she was opposing him.) I realize that as an elected representative seeing where the people are going and following along isn't something that should be necessarily bad but the shameless way she does it leads me to believe she has no real agenda other than gaining power. But yeah in a race against Donald loving Trump its a pretty easy decision. Edit: I guess we can agree to disagree about the bitchy and cold part too. I think she's bitchy and cold (Because she is a lizzard) old beast lunatic fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
InterFaced posted:I pretty much agree with everything here but since I'm bitchin' about Clinton today the most aggravating thing for me is how she just revises her position based on how much it affects her polling. (Marriage Equality, TPP, Minimum wage.. basically adopting sanders' platform while she was opposing him.) I realize that as an elected representative seeing where the people are going and following along isn't something that should be necessarily bad but the shameless way she does it leads me to believe she has no real agenda other than gaining power. What's the less shameless way of incorporating things that polling data tells you your constituents want? A fireside chat where you delve deeply into how you came to your decision? I mean I get the frustration over someone not having the ideal or policy in the first place, but at what point does it become unacceptable to change your view because voters are telling you it's what they demand? Isn't that a representative democracy? Aside from the fact that pre-election it may feel like something that can be more easily abandoned when the person takes office, vs a change while in office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 02:15 |
|
|
trump is a nutso idiot but the threat of his presidency is less "mexican wall" and more that he'll be a rubber stamp for 90 percent of the republican legislation the house passes, and also put someone horrible in the supreme court. shame clinton is so incredibly unlikable in every way
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:14
|
|
