Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, Gustavos said:

McCain puts hand on stove. Finds it is indeed hot. Takes full credit for discovery

I honestly don't really care, he did the right thing and also showed why the GOP are mostly incompetent. I'm surprised he did so. Credit to Murkowski and Collins too, and perhaps more so considering they always have opposed it, including through Trump's vague threats against Murkowski's Alaska.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gustavos said:

McCain puts hand on stove. Finds it is indeed hot. Takes full credit for discovery

Well, when the rest of the GOP was busy getting caught on fire or burned, he surmised that just touching the hot stove would be sufficient to helping put out the fire. Now the only thing they can do now is let the house fall down. Who knows, maybe someone else will buy the property and fix the abandoned house before it collapses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I honestly don't really care, he did the right thing and also showed why the GOP are mostly incompetent. I'm surprised he did so. Credit to Murkowski and Collins too, and perhaps more so considering they always have opposed it, including through Trump's vague threats against Murkowski's Alaska.

Fucking crazy that we live in a time where the president lobs thinly veiled threats against an entire state because one person representing the state disagrees with him.

I know the media really talks about Trump too much, but there really needs to be more coverage over that.

Edited by Slumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Slumber said:

I know the media really talks about Trump too much, but there really needs to be more coverage over that.

Too much meaning what? He's the president and he's fucking up hard.

Also, Lindsay Graham talked shit about the skinny repeal but voted in favor of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Too much meaning what? He's the president and he's fucking up hard.

Also, Lindsay Graham talked shit about the skinny repeal but voted in favor of it.

By too much, I mean I don't need to hear about his 90th trip to Mar-a-Lago(He goes there basically every weekend. We know by now.), or 3 straight days of the media reporting on him hitting on the Emannuel Macron's.

These things are problematic, yes, and if this were any other president, I'd say "Yeah, you news guys keep talking about this.". But this is Trump. There are way bigger fish to fry than how often he plays golf or his pissing contest with France. There actually is a finite amount of time we have, and some things are more worthy of that time than other things.

Edited by Slumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media tried almost everything in an attempt to end the Trump candidacy. Almost every dirty trick in the book. Bitter over what they treat as an inexplicable loss, they keep trying anything they can against him. So I would take whatever the media reports on him with a grain of salt.

Of course, it greatly helps that Trump himself was elected on the merit of his talents as a celebrity rather than his political skills, as well as the overreaction against overdone social justice movements, but if there's anything inexplicable here, it's not Hillary's loss, it's the media not doing their job properly. There have been some voices in worldwide media exposing this behavior on the media's part, but they're few and far between, unfortunately. Which basically means I'm not pulling anything out of my a** here.

This is a pretty bad situation because if you run away from mass media you end up in the dumpster with the likes of Breitbart, so you literally can't trust any form of journalism whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skynstein said:

The media tried almost everything in an attempt to end the Trump candidacy. Almost every dirty trick in the book. Bitter over what they treat as an inexplicable loss, they keep trying anything they can against him. So I would take whatever the media reports on him with a grain of salt.

Of course, it greatly helps that Trump himself was elected on the merit of his talents as a celebrity rather than his political skills, as well as the overreaction against overdone social justice movements, but if there's anything inexplicable here, it's not Hillary's loss, it's the media not doing their job properly. There have been some voices in worldwide media exposing this behavior on the media's part, but they're few and far between, unfortunately. Which basically means I'm not pulling anything out of my a** here.

This is a pretty bad situation because if you run away from mass media you end up in the dumpster with the likes of Breitbart, so you literally can't trust any form of journalism whatsoever.

The media's job is to report malfeasance in government, and now-more-than-ever thank goodness they're doing their job. If there has never been a modern politician subject to more negative treatment by the American media, it is because there has never been a modern American politician more openly malfeasant in every aspect of his public life.

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skynstein said:

The media tried almost everything in an attempt to end the Trump candidacy. Almost every dirty trick in the book. Bitter over what they treat as an inexplicable loss, they keep trying anything they can against him. So I would take whatever the media reports on him with a grain of salt.

Are dirty tricks really what you'd call them? Because literally, they put in some clip of some sit he says that's even crazier in context. They made him look tamer than he is.

In fact, what dirty tricks did they use?

1 hour ago, Skynstein said:

Of course, it greatly helps that Trump himself was elected on the merit of his talents as a celebrity rather than his political skills, as well as the overreaction against overdone social justice movements, but if there's anything inexplicable here, it's not Hillary's loss, it's the media not doing their job properly. There have been some voices in worldwide media exposing this behavior on the media's part, but they're few and far between, unfortunately. Which basically means I'm not pulling anything out of my a** here.

The media was too nice to Trump in general.

You need a source for the overreaction to social justice movements being a factor in Trump's election, because if that were the case then way more then you wouldn't get stuff like Arizona being the closest it had been in any presidential election, Virginia/Nevada flipping, etc. The three states that flipped all have a lot in common, and none of them were their resistance towards Social Justice Movements.

1 hour ago, Skynstein said:

This is a pretty bad situation because if you run away from mass media you end up in the dumpster with the likes of Breitbart, so you literally can't trust any form of journalism whatsoever.

It's generally not the media's fault if someone isn't corroborating news with multiple sources. This election is a failure in civics.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing Trumps "win" was a reaction to was what a god-awful candidate Hillary was in the alternative, tbh. He said nothing that resonated with a majority of voters and was deemed morally repugnant for his antics (and the media had to cover them--they were news). But was merely deemed to be the lesser of two evils by those who found Hillary's track-record of pay-to-play and changing positions on a dime and assorted scandals even more disqualifying then Trump being Trump. All we really learned this past election is that an unelectable candidate wins by running against another unelectable candidate. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

The only thing Trumps "win" was a reaction to was what a god-awful candidate Hillary was in the alternative, tbh. He said nothing that resonated with a majority of voters and was deemed morally repugnant for his antics (and the media had to cover them--they were news). But was merely deemed to be the lesser of two evils by those who found Hillary's track-record of pay-to-play and changing positions on a dime and assorted scandals even more disqualifying then Trump being Trump. All we really learned this past election is that an unelectable candidate wins by running against another unelectable candidate. 

Well, maybe when you ignore the collusion of a hostile foreign nation that's the takeaway...

Spend your campaign calling your opponent a crook, then she has a massive leak of confidential information. It doesn't matter that there's nothing incriminating in those emails, it's that there's a leak - a "scandal" that somehow affirms this picture of her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gustavos said:

Well, maybe when you ignore the collusion of a hostile foreign nation that's the takeaway...

Spend your campaign calling your opponent a crook, then she has a massive leak of confidential information. It doesn't matter that there's nothing incriminating in those emails, it's that there's a leak - a "scandal" that somehow affirms this picture of her.

Hillary is a crook, and had a million skeletons in her closet before the email scandal. The email scandal was as damaging as it was because it didn't happen in a vacuum--it played into  ideas people already had about her lack of transparency and trustworthiness and inability to answer basic questions about her conduct in public office that had been swirling for over 20 years. Yes...the Russians interfered. But the Democrats have to come to terms with the fact that that's not the reason they lost. They lost because they put up a candidate so bad she couldn't even claim the moral high ground against a man as depraved and as blatantly unfit for office as Donald Trump; with or without Russian interference, any candidate with a good name to run on should have smoked him by double-digits. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

They lost because they put up a candidate so bad she couldn't even claim the moral high ground against a man as depraved and as blatantly unfit for office as Donald Trump; with or without Russian interference, any candidate with a good name to run on should have smoked him by double-digits. 

If you actually believe that I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

Look, I hate Trump as much as anyone in this thread, but do not kid yourself into thinking that just anyone should have beaten him easily. (For one thing, that way lies the path to losing to him again in 2020, should he still be in office then.) The working class white anger and feeling of being left behind he tapped into is very much real. It doesn't just go away just because you replace Clinton's name with Biden's on the ticket. Like maybe the e-mail thing is the difference and another Democrat might have eked out a win, but double-digits? Not a chance in hell.

10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Hillary is a crook, and had a million skeletons in her closet before the email scandal. The email scandal was as damaging as it was because it didn't happen in a vacuum--it played into  ideas people already had about her lack of transparency and trustworthiness and inability to answer basic questions about her conduct in public office that had been swirling for over 20 years.

*that Fox News and its ilk had been pushing so hard for over 20 years. A lie repeated often enough becomes truth and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

clinton ran her campaign horribly

you think we'd have president trump right now if she went to PA/Wisconsin/Michigan during the last week? Trump went there instead, right around the time of the Comey emails. it's not rocket science, and the polls didn't reflect the effect of those visits, thats why the polling was so off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

 another Democrat might have eked out a win, but double-digits? Not a chance in hell.

...White working class anger gets you to ~40%. Hillary blew an 11 point lead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have zero source for those numbers so I'm not sure how you even want me to respond.

If "generic Democrat" were so much stronger than Clinton, then the Dems would have taken the Senate and probably the House while losing the presidency. How'd that go? Similarly, if Trump were horrendously weak as some people seem to like to think he wouldn't have won the primary in the first place, let alone been the first Republican to win PA/MI/WI in the lifetimes of some people on this forum. Don't fool yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton is one of the worst politicians I've seen and ran a terrible campaign, but I'm not sure if generic other democrat would do well either. It seems as though people are somewhat rightly pissed at the majority of the Democrats. They are addicted to their money in politics just as much as the Republicans have been, unfortunately. That said, I do think someone like Biden would have won, and would have had a better time reaching out to the necessary votes.

Trump is about as smart enough to portray himself as a faux populist by people who were really looking for change in those states. I mean, it's obvious that he's a fucking liar and doesn't give a shit about the struggles of the poor and middle class, but these were necessary as a majority of Americans did want change - for example, at least 70% of voters on the exit poll for the election said they were unhappy at the way that government was currently working, 60% saying that they thought the country was on 'the wrong track', and Clinton preaching incrementalism and that America is already great is not going to go over well. In those situations, someone who is telling you that he wants to blow it all up is appealing, but there was strategies available to the Democrats to completely shut this down.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yes, these numbers are apparent.  I think its funny people who kept saying "Who cares about Hillary now" continue to back her up and think that she just ran a bad campaign, allthewhile praising their confidence in her to be POTUS.  She was a horrible politician and was consistently involved in corruption.

She was wife to one of the only presidents to get so close to full impeachment

Her actions with her private e-mail server were called negligent by the FBI

She was involved in Benghazi.  I don't think it's fair to say it was her fault, there are others significantly more responsible, but she was involved nonetheless.  Not to mention her department was under her charge so all their actions are her responsibility.  

There are countless ties between her husband (and thereby her) to a sex offender.  While I don't think either clintons are involved with the sex offender's hobbies, it was very stupid to place herself anywhere near him, or accept any campaign donations.  It shows a serious lack of judgement.

Her boss during Watergate called her unethical.  It takes something very serious for someone to call you unethical in your career.  

And as everyone is fine with saying, she ran a horrible campaign.

 

I can't help but think the people praising Clinton are democrat fanboys who can't accept the DNC made the worst possible choice.  Her and Nancy Pelosi are the epitome of the Democrat party's failure as of late.

Trump would not have won against a normal candidate, his approval rating is way to low. Him winning over Clinton and then immediately receiving an approval rating under 40% (despite near 50/50 popular vote) makes it quite clear that Clinton would have received a very similar approval rating.  People made a choice during the election but both candidates were awful.  Republican fanboys love Trump and democrat fanboys love Clinton while the rest of us are anxious for some serious change from both parties.

Can we just agree that both choices were terrible and move on?

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to say now that the only people who seem to complain the most about Clinton are millennials, namely of the young white variety.

Some of Lushen's arguments apply to Trump 100 times over. Furthermore, his sources are front page magazine -- a tabloid -- and snopes actually did an investigation and concluded the opposite of the thing that he said! In fact he just said a shitload of things that concluded what I'm about to say.

Clinton's support among the majority of minority groups is significantly higher than her support among white people. She's also not nearly as corrupt as people say, even though her foreign policy was awful (and it was awful as SoS too). Voter suppression in key states was very real, and could have been the difference as well as campaigning in those states instead of trying to flip Nevada.

I'm not saying that I liked Clinton too much either -- and frankly neither side was going to throw a candidate that I liked -- but it's kind of ironic seeing that the people who have the most to say about Clinton are old republicans, a lot of millennial white middle class guys, and some millennial minorities. Because only now they're seeing the issues this country had, and they didn't have to live through it and constantly settle for the lesser of two evils. Growing up in the working class, I would love to be in a position where I would be fine with the system breaking down, but incremental progress (which is why Clinton stood for in the end, as well as the Democrats in general) is all we can stand for and a sacrifice our parents understand. You don't move to the west to become rich; you move for long term opportunity.

FYI Bernie lost completely fairly and his support among minorities was putrid. Any Republican would've been able to win against the crap the Democrats put out, since they had 30 years of shitting on Clinton for exaggerated or false premises (and yes, her and her husband have closely entwined and codependent political careers). The above post proves exaggerated and false premises.

I am willing to bet Clinton's administration would be around 50-55% right now (35 disapproval). Simply because she won the popular vote, she would not do things that constantly turn people off, she wouldn't deflect to Trump and wouldn't have weekly scandals. Trump is something special, but Hillary Clinton was unelectable not because she was a poor candidate but 30 years in the public eye as a woman is going to place tons and tons of baggage on you.

But that's the thing, Clinton is still irrelevant unless we are talking about things the DNC can learn from the election. The DNC should not elect Martin O'Malley FYI because he caused the Democrats to lose a gubernatorial election in a solid blue state.

Also Trump's 40% wasn't immediate. It took about 2-3 months to go from 50 to his current 38.

I do apologize for this argument getting into anecdotal territory but the numbers are in favor of minorities loving the Clintons. Republicans in theory have been full of shitty candidates, but they have a consistent base that falls in line and the Democrats have a more fickle and variable base (look at this thread, for instance; we are still arguing about how good or bad Clinton was as a candidate). The American centrist and left doesn't have a Fox News they can watch, since MSNBC/CNN really blow and they rely on satire that also spent quite a bit of time railing on both candidates. And some people probably didn't even vote because they can either afford not to or some other really nihilistic reason.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Some of Lushen's arguments apply to Trump 100 times over.

I'd like to clarify my argument was against both candidates.  I'm not claiming that Trump was a perfect candidate, I didn't like either of them.  My argument was that both Trump and Clinon suck.

4 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

front page magazine -- a tabloid --

I really just find articles that state the facts I know.  I google what I know and use the articles to support them.  I do not know anything about the front page magazine, I've never heard of it.  It was just the first thing that came up.  Everything I posted though is indisputable facts, however.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

snopes actually did an investigation and concluded the opposite of the thing that he said! In fact he just said a shitload of things that concluded what I'm about to say.

Actually what I had stated was that she was called unethical.  The snopes article was talking about the claim that she was fired for being called unethical.  She was called unethical, she just wasn't fired for it as her boss had no authority to fire her in that circumstance.  The snopes article was backing what I claimed, just because it said "false" at the top didn't mean it was against my argument.  

 

@Lord Raven What do you think of Nancy Pelosi?  Just curious on your views, because I've seen a lot of democrats defending her and a lot of others claiming she is responsible for their misfortunes.  Personally, I always thought she was inadequate.

 

I thought Bernie would have been the worst candidate.  Hillary and Trump were both bad candidates for sure, but Bernie had no business even being considered for presidency. He was never a very successful man from an economic standpoint (not capable of managing US money if he can't manage his own) or a political standpoint (his policies were often considered a fantasy utopia).  He also demonstrates a serious lack of drive considering he didn't get a stable job until he was 40 years old.  Most of his supporters also knew very little about him, even the DNC thought he was a big joke.

I'd love to think next election we'll return to the norm, but I'm seriously concerned where we're headed.  I mean, the three major candidates that were being considered were quite possibly some of the worst candidates we could have had.  It's a shame with Trump, because I actually truly believe a businessmen could do some good as president, just not this businessmen.  Clinton was the queen of corruption, and Bernie was...some dude who lives in a fantasy world.  I'm very concerned on whether this will happen again during the next presidency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Actually what I had stated was that she was called unethical.  The snopes article was talking about the claim that she was fired for being called unethical.  She was called unethical, she just wasn't fired for it as her boss had no authority to fire her in that circumstance.  The snopes article was backing what I claimed, just because it said "false" at the top didn't mean it was against my argument.  

Quote

A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder

 Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary’s supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for “unethical, dishonest” conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn’t have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as “unethical” and “dishonest” is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the “facts” on which he based that characterization were ones that he contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.

Zeifman said he maintained a transcribed diary during the impeachment proceedings, which he drew up upon two decades later in authoring the 1998 book Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot. That book makes it clear that Zeifman did not like (personally and professionally) a good many of the people he worked with during the Watergate investigation; in particular, he continually butted heads over issues of procedures and legal approaches with his boss, Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, and Hillary’s supervisor, Impeachment Inquiry Special Counsel John Doar. Zeifman accused both Rodino and Doar (as well as Hillary Rodham and others), without evidence, of supposedly dragging their feet on recommending impeachment and “tanking” the investigation of President Nixon’s wrongdoings, for reasons ranging from bribes offered by the Nixon White House to help with re-election bids, to a desire to enhance the Democrats’ chances of winning the 1976 presidential election by keeping a discredited Nixon in office until the end of his term, to a plot to keep Richard Nixon from defending himself by bringing up past instances of presidential abuses of power (which would include dirt on the Kennedys).

Is what I read in the article. Basically, he called plenty of people corrupt and inethical for no particular reason.

12 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I thought Bernie would have been the worst candidate.  Hillary and Trump were both bad candidates for sure, but Bernie had no business even being considered for presidency. He was never a very successful man from an economic standpoint (not capable of managing US money if he can't manage his own) or a political standpoint (his policies were often considered a fantasy utopia).  He also demonstrates a serious lack of drive considering he didn't get a stable job until he was 40 years old.  Most of his supporters also knew very little about him, even the DNC thought he was a big joke.

Bernie was also going to get destroyed in the general election.

http://www.joemygod.com/2016/11/15/newsweek-posts-gop-oppo-research-on-bernie-sander/

His policies were not backed up by fact at all. It's really quite fascinating. I voted for him, but only because it would drag Clinton further left rather than thinking he would win, because I knew he wouldn't win; minorities take up too much of the Democratic vote, and he didn't resonate with them at all. You are correct here.

12 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I'd love to think next election we'll return to the norm, but I'm seriously concerned where we're headed.  I mean, the three major candidates that were being considered were quite possibly some of the worst candidates we could have had.  It's a shame with Trump, because I actually truly believe a businessmen could do some good as president, just not this businessmen.  Clinton was the queen of corruption, and Bernie was...some dude who lives in a fantasy world.  I'm very concerned on whether this will happen again during the next presidency. 

I would back Mark Cuban because he knows what's up.

I still maintain Clinton's "corruption" is just her being milquetoast about everything and shifting her policies with the polls. Her policy shifts over the years were a natural evolution with the whole democratic party, and she was still pro-universal healthcare which has been a very large issue for decades. All reports about Epstein declare his connection to Bill, and not Hillary, Clinton; at least, the ones I've read. The ones that drag Hillary Clinton into it are often fox news and tabloid types.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-unseals-more-details-in-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065

Politifact verifies this.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

I would back Mark Cuban because he knows what's up.

I still maintain Clinton's "corruption" is just her being milquetoast about everything and shifting her policies with the polls. Her policy shifts over the years were a natural evolution with the whole democratic party, and she was still pro-universal healthcare which has been a very large issue for decades. All reports about Epstein declare his connection to Bill, and not Hillary, Clinton; at least, the ones I've read. The ones that drag Hillary Clinton into it are often fox news and tabloid types.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-unseals-more-details-in-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065

Politifact verifies this.

True dat, there's even an SNL skit of her blatantly acknowledging she changed her opinion on gay rights (like the real Clinton).  I'm glad we can agree Bernie is a downright fool.  My favorite moment during the election was watching his supports stumble around trying to make sense of the things he says.  

Dunno about Mark Cuban.  The issue is the third party candidates don't stand a chance and we don't get much of a say in our primaries.  It's too early to look at candidates, because we don't know who our 'real' options are going to be.  In fact, Trump had received the highest number of GOP votes in history.  There were actually quite a few decent republican candidates that should have won, but we never got a chance to vote for them.  Not really.  I'm not saying any of them would have been rockstars, but I thought Ben Carson, Rubio, and Kasich would have been fairly routine.  Ben Carson would have been a bit of an oddball, but I think he could have done a decent job.  Just no Ted Cruz, man is a weasel.  Honestly I would have openly supported Hillary if he was the Republican nominee.  God damn I got so tired of listening to him talk.

Just concerned the next election will be 2016 all over again.  But we'll have to wait and see.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...