Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1542543545547548694

Comments

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Grond0 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    ilduderino wrote: »
    I’m pretty sure the truth isn’t in the middle and this isn’t about two extremes - that guy seems pretty partisan and that line is classic Trump, “everyone’s bad” or at least everyone has their own “truth”. When actually, no Don, it’s actually pretty much mainly you and your associates that are bad. How many of Hillary’s campaign team are in prison or convicted? Or from Obama’s? But apparently they are as or more crooked than the guy who seems to attract and raise up jailbirds. Brexiters love to play this card too, to throw in that little seed of doubt that black isn’t black or white isn’t white, to stop people listening to actual experts that are 100% correct and people who have their interests at heart. Or in this case to the hundreds of people on the ground seeing what’s happening

    Except in this case it is not at all clear that impeding the Postal Service helps Republicans at all and there is ample evidence that it might even hinder them due to their more rural base. This seems to me like Trump is just priming the conspiracy pump to see what happens. When you're behind, anything that causes chaos will be seen as beneficial...

    I'm not expressing an opinion on the changes at USPS. However, if Trump is actively trying to impede postal voting, I don't think that would be aimed at improving his share of the votes cast. Rather, it would be used to support an attempt to delay the vote or to cast doubt on the results of the election if he believes he's not going to win ...

    That's why stoking conspiracy theories on both sides helps Trump. I have an inkling that more people in the US distrust government in general than Trump in person. The more hysteria there is, the more emotion sets in. That's where Trump's strategy shines. There are more people affected by the Covid shutdowns than are affected by Covid. Sorry, but it's true.

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    Really, anything that makes the outcome of the election less certain is a factor that benefits Trump. Biden's advantage is unusually large, and Covid is not going away by election day. Introducing new variables is good for Trump.

    If this backfires, Trump is more likely to lose--but he was expected to lose anyway. If this works, Trump stands to win. Strategically, taking more risks makes sense when you're in a bad position because not taking risks already means a high chance of failure.

    But I don't think this is just a random thing that could go either way. The problem with the notion that this could hurt rural and therefore conservative voters is that this kind of sabotage can always be tweaked to political taste. It is very very easy to selectively pick which areas suffer slowdowns and which areas have trouble collecting ballots. It's not hard to get data on which counties are blue or red or purple.

    I don't think the damage will fall equally on everyone in America.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2020
    Aside from his attacks on mail-in voting, as I mentioned the other night, at basically the same time Biden was about to speak, Trump went on Hannity and said he was going to be sending law enforcement to polling places. Which puts in stark relief just how disingenuous the line about mail-in ballots is. There is absolutely zero reason to have a law enforcement presence at the polls, aside from only one, which is state intimidation. And it is just another piece of evidence in a case that is (in my mind) open and shut at this point. If we can't vote by mail, and if voting in person is conducted with the caveat of a goon squad questioning your god-given RIGHT to the franchise, then what other conclusions can we draw?? There is a not insignificant portion of the population of this country who flat-out doesn't believe liberals or Democrats should have the right to vote. There is NO such belief on the fringes of the other side. Not even a whisper of one.

    I am aware this is a "constitutional republic" and I'm not going to get into a ridiculous pedantic debate about the word "democracy". A constitutional republic is a TYPE of democracy, it is simply a matter of how it is organized. And the Republican Party has been telling us, out loud, over and over and over again for at least the last decade that they simply do not believe in democracy. They themselves believe their only path to power is to subvert it by any means necessary. Go ask them off the record. They'll tell you. Plenty of them have already done so, including the President every fucking day.

    We are STILL, very nearly in the month of September, seeing the the equivalent of two full 9/11s dying every single week. And miraculously, the guy in charge isn't losing by 20 points, but only about 7 to 8 currently. Because a portion of the country belongs to a fucking death cult. And the rest of us are trapped in the pavilion with them at Jonestown. This party, and the people who support them never deserve forgiveness for this. Ever. And assuming we still have a country on the back end of this, millions of us will never forget what they've done.

    Conservatives are not the only ones sick of being cooped up at home. I've done my part, and so have the majority of other people. But our efforts have been utterly wasted by a minority of the population, and the overriding reason for that is the obfuscation and bullshit Donald Trump has peddled about the virus since late February. Instead of a national effort like every other normal country on Earth, we are awash in conspiracy theories and denial, and I don't care what anyone says, I lay that cultural zeitgeist DIRECTLY at the feet of the President. He is almost wholly responsible for it existing. And everyone knows it. We didn't have to be here at this late date. We're here because of the failure of leadership from one man, who has no actual interest in running the country to which he was elected head of state, only furthering his own ego and power. If one can't see that by this point, they're WAY beyond being reached on ANY issue the Democrats could throw them a bone on.

    If we had simply listened to us "alarmists" said at the beginning, and shut everything down for 6 weeks, we would have been like everyone else who did it. In other words, generally fine considering the circumstances. But no, instead we had 50 separate game-plans almost solely because Donald Trump wanted to pit blue and red states against each other for perceived political benefit. Go read the piece about Kushner's task force. It's all laid out in plain language. As far as I'm concerned, this is barely discernible from a genocide at this point. 180,000 and counting. At a minimum, 100,000 of those people should still be alive.

    Let me tie this to something I have personally talked to elderly people about in both my personal and professional life, which is being taken in by a financial scammer. Elderly people are, to a person, not so much mad as DEEPLY ashamed that they have been taken in by a huckster, and the overriding concern is not even getting their money back. It's making sure no one knows what happened. That no one perceives them to be gullible enough to fall for it.

    Of course, there shouldn't be any shame in it. It's not the end of the world. But this is almost universally what I have seen. And I don't think many Trump voters are much different. They cannot be perceived to have been wrong. It's more terrifying than financial ruin or even death. So they double-down. Inside, I gather most of them know. The continued support is the only way they can cope with their own decision. Because excusing this disaster is not able to be explained rationally.
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,572
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...

    There is a simple thing you can do to effect this outcome.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...

    There is a simple thing you can do to effect this outcome.

    Are we sure about that?? Because I'm less and less convinced the actual "vote" will matter.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    edited August 2020
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...

    There is a simple thing you can do to effect this outcome.

    You're not helping your cause...
    Post edited by Balrog99 on
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...

    There is a simple thing you can do to effect this outcome.

    Are we sure about that?? Because I'm less and less convinced the actual "vote" will matter.

    Don't fall for Trump's bullshit. He's hoping people will feel this way and not vote.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    What a shock. UAE gets stealth fighters in exchange for 'peace' with Israel. What a great victory for US bribery, er... diplomacy.
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...

    There is a simple thing you can do to effect this outcome.

    You're not helping your cause by being a dick...

    I don't know, when people are openly supporting child concentration camps (No, I am NEVER lettinga single one of them forget this), protesting safety measures with wonderful sayings like "Sacrifice the weak", applauding police brutality (so long as its not against whites), not to mention the outright election tampering, I don't see any reason to try and be nice. Everyone who supported Trump is complicit, and everyone who continues to support Trump directly shares the blame.

    At this point, everyone who has supported Trump should deeply ashamed and pissed off at what they've been made complicit to.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    edited August 2020
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...

    There is a simple thing you can do to effect this outcome.

    You're not helping your cause by being a dick...

    I don't know, when people are openly supporting child concentration camps (No, I am NEVER lettinga single one of them forget this), protesting safety measures with wonderful sayings like "Sacrifice the weak", applauding police brutality (so long as its not against whites), not to mention the outright election tampering, I don't see any reason to try and be nice. Everyone who supported Trump is complicit, and everyone who continues to support Trump directly shares the blame.

    At this point, everyone who has supported Trump should deeply ashamed and pissed off at what they've been made complicit to.

    I didn't support 'Trump' the person. I supported conservatism the philosophy. If you can't see the difference that's on you. We only had two real choices and I can't stand Hillary Clinton so my hands were tied. Three years later I'll admit it was a bad call on my part, but at the time it seemed like the best of two piss-poor choices...
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2020
    Poll out today from CBS saying that 57% of Republicans think 176,000 deaths is "acceptable". To be fair, 10% of Democrats and 33% of Independents said the same thing. I am convinced this is the most selfish society in the history of mankind.

    Most telling was reading the reaction in the Twitter threads about this. Mostly conservatives complaining the question was "unfair", though what that is supposed to mean remains elusive to me. Everyone was asked the same ones, and no one FORCED anyone to participate in the poll. They just don't like hearing the result, because it makes the vast majority of the Republican Party look like a group of sociopaths.
  • ilduderinoilduderino Member Posts: 773
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    At this point, everyone who has supported Trump should deeply ashamed and pissed off at what they've been made complicit to.

    This is the probably the thing I get the least. If I’d voted the guy in I’d be very very unhappy and be trying to make amends - some people clearly fall into this category but far less than I’d expect. One of my friend’s parents voted for Brexit and immediately regretted it when he realised the reality and then changed his mind, which I respect as so many people seem unable to admit a mistake. Clinging onto the idea that you are still not wrong seems really weird.

  • ilduderinoilduderino Member Posts: 773
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Poll out today from CBS saying that 57% of Republicans think 176,000 deaths is "acceptable". To be fair, 10% of Democrats and 33% of Independents said the same thing. I am convinced this is the most selfish society in the history of mankind.

    Most telling was reading the reaction in the Twitter threads about this. Mostly conservatives complaining the question was "unfair", though what that is supposed to mean remains elusive to me. Everyone was asked the same ones, and no one FORCED anyone to participate in the poll. They just don't like hearing the result, because it makes the vast majority of the Republican Party look like a group of sociopaths.

    When you look at the countries whose death tolls are not even in the thousands and managed this with resources far less than the US, this view is very strange
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2020
    ilduderino wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Poll out today from CBS saying that 57% of Republicans think 176,000 deaths is "acceptable". To be fair, 10% of Democrats and 33% of Independents said the same thing. I am convinced this is the most selfish society in the history of mankind.

    Most telling was reading the reaction in the Twitter threads about this. Mostly conservatives complaining the question was "unfair", though what that is supposed to mean remains elusive to me. Everyone was asked the same ones, and no one FORCED anyone to participate in the poll. They just don't like hearing the result, because it makes the vast majority of the Republican Party look like a group of sociopaths.

    When you look at the countries whose death tolls are not even in the thousands and managed this with resources far less than the US, this view is very strange

    If the death toll was 10 million I don't think the numbers would move a single percentage point. This country is rotting from the inside.
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...

    There is a simple thing you can do to effect this outcome.

    You're not helping your cause by being a dick...

    I don't know, when people are openly supporting child concentration camps (No, I am NEVER lettinga single one of them forget this), protesting safety measures with wonderful sayings like "Sacrifice the weak", applauding police brutality (so long as its not against whites), not to mention the outright election tampering, I don't see any reason to try and be nice. Everyone who supported Trump is complicit, and everyone who continues to support Trump directly shares the blame.

    At this point, everyone who has supported Trump should deeply ashamed and pissed off at what they've been made complicit to.

    I didn't support 'Trump' the person. I supported conservatism the philosophy. If you can't see the difference that's on you. We only had two real choices and I can't stand Hillary Clinton so my hands were tied. Three years later I'll admit it was a bad call on my part, but at the time it seemed like the best of two piss-poor choices...

    Which makes no sense, because Trump never showed any support of traditional conservative values. Unless someone just didn't pay any attention to what he said (which is baffling if you're gonna vote for someone), this excuse really doesn't fly.

    I also "love" how Hilary is hated because...why? She knows how the country actually works, has never had a scandal pinned on her, had a concrete plan for dealing with a pandemic. Is it because she's a women? Liberal? You can't honestly look at TRUMP, someone who has BRAGGED about committing sexual assault, and tell me he is likeable at all. At what point does he, with zero knowledge and experience what he jov is supposed to be, remotely look like a better candidate than Hilary?
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2020
    deltago wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...

    There is a simple thing you can do to effect this outcome.

    You're not helping your cause by being a dick...

    I don't know, when people are openly supporting child concentration camps (No, I am NEVER lettinga single one of them forget this), protesting safety measures with wonderful sayings like "Sacrifice the weak", applauding police brutality (so long as its not against whites), not to mention the outright election tampering, I don't see any reason to try and be nice. Everyone who supported Trump is complicit, and everyone who continues to support Trump directly shares the blame.

    At this point, everyone who has supported Trump should deeply ashamed and pissed off at what they've been made complicit to.

    I didn't support 'Trump' the person. I supported conservatism the philosophy. If you can't see the difference that's on you. We only had two real choices and I can't stand Hillary Clinton so my hands were tied. Three years later I'll admit it was a bad call on my part, but at the time it seemed like the best of two piss-poor choices...

    Which makes no sense, because Trump never showed any support of traditional conservative values. Unless someone just didn't pay any attention to what he said (which is baffling if you're gonna vote for someone), this excuse really doesn't fly.

    I also "love" how Hilary is hated because...why? She knows how the country actually works, has never had a scandal pinned on her, had a concrete plan for dealing with a pandemic. Is it because she's a women? Liberal? You can't honestly look at TRUMP, someone who has BRAGGED about committing sexual assault, and tell me he is likeable at all. At what point does he, with zero knowledge and experience what he jov is supposed to be, remotely look like a better candidate than Hilary?

    I think Balrog has been clear in the past as to why he didn't vote for Clinton.

    1. He feels/felt the system was broken and having an outsider come in and change the status quo was an option he was willing to try.

    2. In the same lines, he 'felt' Clinton was just groomed to be the chosen one to keep the status quo as it is. I can relate to that sentiment because I felt Trudeau was 'groomed' by his handlers to help the Liberals win back parliament here. It was disgusting how people were voting for populism instead of actual issues and back in 2016 America just had two populist choices to choose from.

    He is allowed to correct me on either of these points if they are wrong, however, he really doesn't have to explain his actions to anyone but himself. Hindsight is very 20-20.

    As JJstraka has mentioned, Americans are a very selfish society and I personally don't think who was in the whitehouse would matter with the number of deaths. IMO, about this time in a Clinton presidency, we'd probably be having Supreme Court cases about the first amendment right to peacefully assemble and Fox news dictating to all of its viewers not to listen to the hysterical in chief's advice about anything related to this flu.

    I also doubt congress would have flipped to the democrats without Trump's blundering so she would have been a lame duck president these last 4 years. Who knows how she would have handled other situations like North Korea lobbing missiles over Japan and Russia moving in to back Syria.

    A person should be able to learn from their mistakes and move forward with them without others ridiculing them for those mistakes. The past doesn't matter as much as the future as it's the future we get to shape even though no one has any idea what's coming.

    Oh, they would have certainly done everything they could to make the pandemic worse if Hillary was in office. I would NEVER dispute that. There wouldn't have even been a first stimulus package if she was in charge, because, unlike Democrats, Republicans would have no problem letting 10s of millions go into financial ruin to prove a political point.

    But I am not gonna sit here and pretend that Hillary, who was criticized for being TOO prepared and smart the whole campaign by even mainstream outlets, wouldn't have been infinitely better than Mr. "it's 15 cases that will soon be zero". Arguing that Hillary would have been just as bad because of how Republicans would have treated her efforts is not the argument for the right people seem to think it is, unless we are all hostages to them, which, we basically are anyway.

    But let's focus on the guy who IS running. Here is Joe Biden in October:


    And here is Joe Biden again in January:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/27/coronavirus-donald-trump-made-us-less-prepared-joe-biden-column/4581710002/

    Both long, LONG before life changed forever. Lucky guess, or someone who saw what was coming because he knows intimately how government works and how it can be marshaled for public good?? The answer is, of course, the later. There is no comparison to be made here. Do I need to bring back my Trump quote list from January-March?? The one that would give any sane person whiplash of the mind??

    Reporting today suggests that Trump and his advisors now see announcement of a vaccine as his only hope. And they clearly plan on attempting to strong-arm the FDA into early approval. Which is not only stunningly dangerous (after all, a vaccine is injecting a portion of the virus into the body), but will make a country that is already about 20-30% anti-vaccine become about 50-60% anti-vaccine, only the new people will actually have a legitimate reason to be concerned. People thought him redrawing the path of a hurricane was a nice, funny joke didn't they?? Who is laughing now?? Everything he touches turns to shit. Now we've reached medicine and science. Lord help us. Qanon and your aunt's batshit crazy Facebook group is now running the country:


    If I was a medical researcher who had spent my entire life gaining expertise on a subject, and I was told to alter my findings to get on "Trump Time", I would tell that person to go fuck themselves and resign, as would anyone with a hint of integrity. This is the INEVITABLE result of another multi-decade conservative project, this one being anti-science and, more broadly and importantly, anti-intellectualism. Which basically boils down to nothing more than rubes being pissed because they know they aren't very smart, so no one else should be either.
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
  • MichelleMichelle Member Posts: 549
    edited August 2020
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Which makes no sense, because Trump never showed any support of traditional conservative values. Unless someone just didn't pay any attention to what he said (which is baffling if you're gonna vote for someone), this excuse really doesn't fly.

    I also "love" how Hilary is hated because...why? She knows how the country actually works, has never had a scandal pinned on her, had a concrete plan for dealing with a pandemic. Is it because she's a women? Liberal? You can't honestly look at TRUMP, someone who has BRAGGED about committing sexual assault, and tell me he is likeable at all. At what point does he, with zero knowledge and experience what he jov is supposed to be, remotely look like a better candidate than Hilary?

    Agree and disagree here. Oh dear lord, anyone who believed that Trump shared conservative values never really looked at him. Anyone who believed that he had any values whatsoever was deluding themselves. The man has always been an elitist criminal. Certainly no one someone who works for a living should believe would represent them or look out for their interest. There was no way I would have ever voted for him, was so outspoken against him that I have lost friends before and since he was elected.

    Hillary was not a good person to put up against him though. You say she knows how the country works, meh, she knows how the system works. Her primary detractor, in my opinion, was that she had so very much experience working the system. I have always had a hard time trusting her, unlike Sanders who has a passion, she has only ever seemed to have ambition.

    2016, yeah I knew she was the better of the two between her and Trump, easily the better of the two, she would never intentionally break the country. He quite literally has never cared about the country, never cared about anything beyond his own self interests. I didn’t vote. I’ll show them, this is the best they can offer and the only real choice is going to win anyway, so I will just express my displeasure by not voting. She didn’t win though and I have had to live with how stupid I was. I am a conservative but I have voted Democrat before, um once, it has happened though. I wish I would have in 2016. 2020 it is clearly the only way for a conscientious, thinking person to vote.

    I will pray that all of the Trump supporters, that refuse to see truth, will one day feel as stupid as flat earthers are. I hope they are ashamed to talk to the people who they so adamantly supported Trump against. We screwed up, but we could have stopped him. That was our sin as a nation, we should have stopped him.

    Anyway, I am weird but that is my two cents.

    Had to add something, my distrust of Hillary has not one thing to do with her being a woman, just her. The most competent, trustworthy, intelligent person I know is a woman. It is high time there is a woman president, please not Hillary though kay.
    Post edited by Michelle on
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,572
    edited August 2020
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...

    There is a simple thing you can do to effect this outcome.

    You're not helping your cause by being a dick...

    I thought Trump not getting re-elected was also your cause? That's what you've claimed, after all.

    FWIW, nothing I've said to you is as rude as your insult above.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    Bear in mind that directly criticizing other forumites is against the thread rules on page 1. The moderating team doesn't issue judgment publicly, but we can confirm that we're addressing the matter privately.
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    I also "love" how Hilary is hated because...why? She knows how the country actually works, has never had a scandal pinned on her, had a concrete plan for dealing with a pandemic. Is it because she's a women? Liberal?
    I happened to be thinking about this question mere seconds before I ran into this comment. Hillary Clinton was once the most respected woman in the country; that was a bipartisan thing. That changed when she became a serious contender for the presidency. She had to be made controversial by those who didn't want a Democrat in the Oval Office--GOP leaders and the right half of the media. Hence right-leaning news outlets' unnaturally high focus on a single Secretary of State and senator over the course of several years, and the multiple redundant congressional investigations to drum up interest.

    I can't think of a comparable amount of scrutiny given to any other politician who was not already the President.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    I'm not at all sure that Trump is going to lose this election and that scares me. Most people in this thread are pretty intelligent from what I can see. That's a compliment to y'all. However, I'm not at all sure that non-conservatives can see things from the perspective of their opponents at all. I'm not talking about rationality, I'm talking about gut feeling. The left stokes emotions also, but only really of minorities. Minorities don't win elections when the majority emotions are stoked against them. I hope I'm wrong. Truly. I'm really tired of the current state of politics in this country...

    There is a simple thing you can do to effect this outcome.

    You're not helping your cause by being a dick...

    FWIW, nothing I've said to you is as rude as your insult above.

    No, just condescending, which is just disguised rudeness...

    Regardless, I'm doing what I can with my conservative friends and family. I'm pretty much talking to myself though. You have no idea how entrenched these folks are.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    semiticgod wrote: »
    Bear in mind that directly criticizing other forumites is against the thread rules on page 1. The moderating team doesn't issue judgment publicly, but we can confirm that we're addressing the matter privately.
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    I also "love" how Hilary is hated because...why? She knows how the country actually works, has never had a scandal pinned on her, had a concrete plan for dealing with a pandemic. Is it because she's a women? Liberal?

    I can't think of a comparable amount of scrutiny given to any other politician who was not already the President.

    Obama was hammered pretty hard if you remember. It just didnt stick because he was something that Hillary isn't... likeable.
  • MichelleMichelle Member Posts: 549
    semiticgod wrote: »
    I happened to be thinking about this question mere seconds before I ran into this comment. Hillary Clinton was once the most respected woman in the country; that was a bipartisan thing. That changed when she became a serious contender for the presidency. She had to be made controversial by those who didn't want a Democrat in the Oval Office--GOP leaders and the right half of the media. Hence right-leaning news outlets' unnaturally high focus on a single Secretary of State and senator over the course of several years, and the multiple redundant congressional investigations to drum up interest.

    I can't think of a comparable amount of scrutiny given to any other politician who was not already the President.

    I should not say this as it only speaks of my personal idiocy. Not my problem with her though, I can see through the b.s. strewn about by both sides. Just have to look deeper, both sides are equally guilty of it.

    Know who I hate in all of folklore? Guinevere, I despise her. Like loathe with every part of me. Hillary is the anti Guinevere right? Wrong. She stayed, supported her philandering husband. Why? I supported her, accepted her even if I was not completely behind her husband, okay yeah, I did not like him to be honest. Her I did not mind so much. It ate at me why she didn't leave him, I watched and could not understand. I have seen it all, people RARELY change. She is smart enough to know that so why stay? Loyalty? Yeah I can get behind that but that is not why she stayed. Love? Possible though unlikely, she was a woman with a mission since college and hard when she needed to be. Kinda why I liked her in the first place, she could make the tough choices. She had plenty of examples that he would not change, she is tough and smart, she knew. After watching her for years after the only conclusion that makes sense is ambition. She has, or had, that in spades. My trust faded to where I distrusted her every motive. She is as culpable as Guinevere ever was. It's okay? Bullshit, you are strong, smart as anyone and sure as shit not a wife from the 1800s it was your responsibility to make at least a token stand. No, I do not like her.

    Probably because I am so weird.

    It is not however because of anything rightwing media ever said. Why can no one see the truth and not their agenda. Why can no one think for themselves. The GOP has gotten kinda messed up, sure yeah really messed up, but I can see that. The fact that no one from the other side can see that it is just as messed up, if not in the same way, concerns me. Do you honestly believe that the liberal side of the isle is perfect? Tribalism at it's finest. Think for yourself possibly but please never accuse me of not thinking for myself. Do what is right. If someone thinks that their side of the conflict is the only one who knows what is right then perhaps a good cult would be better suited to their disposition. Don't believe the democrats or republicans are always right and good, surest way to make sure you never are.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2020
    The "ambition" word is now back in the lexicon now that Kamala Harris is the VP selection. You have only heard this word applied to 3 individuals in Presidential politics the last 5 years: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris. Funny how that works, isn't it?? As if running for President doesn't mean you are insanely ambitious by default. Show me a time this adjective was applied as a pejorative in relation to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders. I'll just sit here for the next 100 years waiting for an example. It's honestly a straight toss-up as to whether misogyny or racism is our biggest sickness.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    The "ambition" word is now back in the lexicon now that Kamala Harris is the VP selection. You have only heard this word applied to 3 individuals in Presidential politics the last 5 years: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris. Funny how that works, isn't it?? As if running for President doesn't mean you are insanely ambitious by default. Show me a time this adjective was applied as a pejorative in relation to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders. I'll just sit here for the next 100 years waiting for an example.

    I heard that word in regards to Jeb Bush but not so much in the mainstream media. Personally, I thought Al Gore fell into that category as well, but again, it never made the media narrative. The US is still pretty patriarchal for a Western nation so that probably plays a major role in those perceptions.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    The "ambition" word is now back in the lexicon now that Kamala Harris is the VP selection. You have only heard this word applied to 3 individuals in Presidential politics the last 5 years: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris. Funny how that works, isn't it?? As if running for President doesn't mean you are insanely ambitious by default. Show me a time this adjective was applied as a pejorative in relation to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders. I'll just sit here for the next 100 years waiting for an example.

    I heard that word in regards to Jeb Bush but not so much in the mainstream media. Personally, I thought Al Gore fell into that category as well, but again, it never made the media narrative. The US is still pretty patriarchal for a Western nation so that probably plays a major role in those perceptions.

    Go ask you conservative family members about Kamala Harris. Guaran-damn-tee they will either say she a.) slept her way to the top or b.) isn't eligible to be President. We've all seen the "Joe and the Ho" signs. I mean, it's amazing how this keeps coming up with non-white candidates, isn't it?? It's almost as if the base of the Republican Party DOES, in fact, have a serious problem with women and minorities.
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    The "ambition" word is now back in the lexicon now that Kamala Harris is the VP selection. You have only heard this word applied to 3 individuals in Presidential politics the last 5 years: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris. Funny how that works, isn't it?? As if running for President doesn't mean you are insanely ambitious by default. Show me a time this adjective was applied as a pejorative in relation to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders. I'll just sit here for the next 100 years waiting for an example. It's honestly a straight toss-up as to whether misogyny or racism is our biggest sickness.

    All of this. There's a clear double standard applied by the US electorate on women, who are "nasty" when they arent civil (men are tough), and are "ambitious" when they seek higher office. Kamala Harris being tapped for VP immediately set that into motion. She was getting flack for it *before* she was VP even.

    FWIW - I dont think Trump voters (most of them) wanted 175000 dead Americans and a cratered economy from the most corrupt administration in history - but I dont buy this "My hands were tied" rhetoric. Everyone has a choice, and their choices have consequences. I dont think anyone should be blamed for what Trump is doing now based on their vote in 2016, but I also dont think those voters should abnegate their role in the election.

    In the most literal sense possible, you cannot vote for an ideology without also voting for a person. You can leave the presidential vote blank and vote Rs down ballot all you want, but when you step into the voting booth in 2020, you cant just vote against Trump... but must also vote *for* someone else.

    I'm not terribly motivated by Biden. He's pretty meh. I'd have rather had a lot of other candidates in his spot. I'm absolutely going to vote, and it's because I hate Trump - but I understand that I am voting *for* Biden at the same time, and that he's the only way to keep Trump out of the oval office.
  • MichelleMichelle Member Posts: 549
    edited August 2020
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    The "ambition" word is now back in the lexicon now that Kamala Harris is the VP selection. You have only heard this word applied to 3 individuals in Presidential politics the last 5 years: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris. Funny how that works, isn't it?? As if running for President doesn't mean you are insanely ambitious by default. Show me a time this adjective was applied as a pejorative in relation to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders. I'll just sit here for the next 100 years waiting for an example. It's honestly a straight toss-up as to whether misogyny or racism is our biggest sickness.

    No, no, you don't get to do that. Always on the attack, never accepting a point that doesn't agree with your political views, okay I can ignore people like that. Got a bit of experience ignoring people who don't agree with me and can't accept another point of view. You don't get to twist my words to make your point though.

    I liked her ambition, her strength was motivational and I am no where near a Democrat. I like Kamala Harris and think she was the perfect candidate because of her intelligence, tenacity and ambition. Hillary Clinton was in a position to make the Me Too movement happen 20 years before it did and she sacrificed it for ambition. Ambition was the word I thought then and still do. She could have made a difference then and didn't, because of ambition. That's why she was a bad candidate, she would do anything to get what she wanted. Lexicon? I got to experience the thoughts first hand and came up with the word all on my own at the time. Spare me the arrogance of your monocular viewpoint.

    When will I ever learn to keep my mouth shut? Think what you want, just don't use what you think I said to peddle your views.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2020
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    The "ambition" word is now back in the lexicon now that Kamala Harris is the VP selection. You have only heard this word applied to 3 individuals in Presidential politics the last 5 years: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris. Funny how that works, isn't it?? As if running for President doesn't mean you are insanely ambitious by default. Show me a time this adjective was applied as a pejorative in relation to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders. I'll just sit here for the next 100 years waiting for an example. It's honestly a straight toss-up as to whether misogyny or racism is our biggest sickness.

    No, no, you don't get to do that. Always on the attack, never accepting a point that doesn't agree with your political views, okay I can ignore people like that. Got a bit of experience ignoring people who don't agree with me and can't accept another point of view. You don't get to twist my words to make your point though.

    I liked her ambition, her strength was motivational and I am no where near a Democrat. I like Kamala Harris and think she was the perfect candidate because of her intelligence, tenacity and ambition. Hillary Clinton was in a position to make the Me Too movement happen 20 years before it did and she sacrificed it for ambition. Ambition was the word I thought then and still do. She could have made a difference then and didn't, because of ambition. That's why she was a bad candidate, she would do anything to get what she wanted. Lexicon? I got to experience the thoughts first hand and came up with the word all on my own at the time. Spare me the arrogance of your monocular viewpoint.

    When will I ever learn to keep my mouth shut? Think what you want, just don't use what you think I said to peddle your views.

    Well, I never said anything about you, or I would have tagged your comment in my response. There is a reason whether I do so or not. Once the word ambition was brought into the conversation, I was going to offer my views on it, because, as I mentioned, it is almost ALWAYS used in a negative connotation. And, to be fair, your own use of the word was at the tail end of paragraph in which you were comparing her to a figure you don't like, and seem to be suggesting that the only reason she stayed with her husband was her own ambition to obtain power. So you may have meant it as a compliment, I'm not going to call you liar when you just said you meant it that way. But I don't really see how I was supposed to take that from what you wrote. In fact, I've gone back and read it three times to see if I'm missing something, and I STILL don't understand how it was supposed to be a compliment. But you have told me otherwise, so I'll leave it at that.

    And my point is that men are NEVER called ambitious as a pejorative. Ever. Men seeking powerful positions are "taking the bull by the horns" or "grabbing the brass ring". Woman who do so are seen as conniving harpies. How do any of us know why she stayed with Bill?? First of all, they had a teenage daughter at the time, and perhaps she didn't want to make her life more difficult than it already was. Maybe she does, in fact, love her husband. I don't see how divorcing him would have had a NEGATIVE effect on her political career at all. Staying with him CLEARLY has had a negative effect. So if she was staying with him to fulfill her ambitions, that wasn't a correct calculus. But this seems to me to be nothing but a caricature of her. That she is some sort of soulless automaton who is programmed to seize power wherever she sees an opportunity. I mean, she has written quite candidly about why she stayed with him and addressed you exact concerns:

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/hillary-clinton-explains-why-she-stayed-with-bill-through-the-scandal-years-20170912-gyfie8.html
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,322
    edited August 2020
    I liked her ambition, her strength was motivational and I am no where near a Democrat. I like Kamala Harris and think she was the perfect candidate because of her intelligence, tenacity and ambition. Hillary Clinton was in a position to make the Me Too movement happen 20 years before it did and she sacrificed it for ambition. Ambition was the word I thought then and still do. She could have made a difference then and didn't, because of ambition. That's why she was a bad candidate, she would do anything to get what she wanted. Lexicon? I got to experience the thoughts first hand and came up with the word all on my own at the time.

    If you believe a system needs reforming, you can either try to work within the system to achieve that or attack it from the outside. You can justify either course, so I don't think someone should automatically be criticized for working within the system.

    When considering Hillary's choices, you could consider the case of Margaret Thatcher. She was the first British woman PM and, like Hillary, got to her position by competing with men on their own terms. One result of that is that she's had plenty of criticism for not having promoted women's rights when she got the chance, but her example means millions of British women have grown up with the knowledge that they have the opportunity to lead their country. It's possible Thatcher would have had the same impact if she had campaigned outside the system (perhaps like a feminist Mary Whitehouse), but I doubt it.
Sign In or Register to comment.