General US Politics

[blah the Prussian]

i don't think this idea is supported by evidence. are you talking about the video that claims gaddafi was trying to switch to a gold standard or something? lol

assad is bad. gaddafi and mubarak were bad for the libyan and egyptian people. are you seriously trying to defend world "leaders" that have murdered their own people?

to be fair, it's generally understood that the middle east and north east africa are in general disarray. resources for news coverage are limited.

Hate to Godwin this, but Stalin was bad. Doesn't change the fact that Hitler was worse. Syria is a situation where we have to work with the bad guy who doesn't seek the complete destruction of western civilization against the worse guys who do.

[Phoenix Wright]

assad is bad, but the people who are fighting his forces are worse and when the US attacks these forces or arm the opposition, they are helping IS/islamic terrorist groups by doing so

which means it is moral confusion that the US engages in, as such: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/17/middleeast/syria-claims-coalition-airstrike-hit-regime-forces/

Hate to Godwin this, but Stalin was bad. Doesn't change the fact that Hitler was worse. Syria is a situation where we have to work with the bad guy who doesn't seek the complete destruction of western civilization against the worse guys who do.

i'm familiar with concept of choosing the less "evil" ally, i just misunderstood yojinbo. thanks though!

I don't know about any video that talks about gaddafi's attemps to bring back the gold standard. I'm talking about his opposition to the petrodollar.

Are you missing my point on purpose?

no i'm not. could you link some discussion pieces that go more in-depth?

Edited October 7, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

I'm reminded of what Henry Kissinger said, and I might be paraphrasing, but "They're all bad guys, but which are our bad guys?"

[UNLEASH IT]

assad is bad. gaddafi and mubarak were bad for the libyan and egyptian people. are you seriously trying to defend world "leaders" that have murdered their own people?

As bad as they are, Libya, Syria and Egypt were relatively (RELATIVELY) stable Islamic countries before all these uprisings occured. When I look at Libya and Egypt now, they seem a lot worse off than they were before. Hell, one could even argue that overthrowing Saddam did nothing to help Iraq. And Syria is well on course to end up like the aforementioned countries.

Edited October 8, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[CyborgZeta]

I would consider a third-party, if it came down to it. For this election, it's pretty much anybody but Hillary for me.

Hillary's foreign policy frightens me; especially since I have friends in the military who would be the ones fighting wherever she decides to intervene. The issue with the emails also angers me, since I have experience working for the government, in addition to the rest of my family. Anyone who did what she did would've been severely punished (especially if you're in the military, enjoy being tried under the UCMJ), their security clearance revoked, and would be unlikely to get a government job in the future. To me, that sets a dangerous precedence.

[Zerosabers]

Since I didn't see it posted yet,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKB92ohXn20

[Crysta]

This likely surprises absolutely no one who has been paying attention.

Men who emphasize a woman's weight so damn much are not primarily interested in their intellect.

[UNLEASH IT]

This likely surprises absolutely no one who has been paying attention.

Men who emphasize a woman's weight so damn much are not primarily interested in their intellect.

Oh shit I misread your post. Apologies

Edited October 8, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[-Cynthia-]

What's sad is that this is barely even news anymore. If Romney or Obama would have said something like this, they would have been raked over the coals but Trump gets a pass because he's already said so much dumb and offensive shit.

[Person123]

Wikileaks dump of Podesta (Clinton Campaign Chairman) emails today. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784498891936915456

This one relating to Clinton's paid speeches is particularly enlightening: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

You can either pay attention to things that matter, or you can keep pretending that Trump saying mean things is more important.

[XeKr]

Re: 3rd party
The last time a 3rd party got significant votes was Nader and we know how that turned out…

Still…

The standard reasoning: Vote for a main party candidate in a swing state. Do whatever elsewhere.

Tactical voting: Clinton in a swing state. Johnson elsewhere. If the main parties think Libertarians are a threat, they will (should) expand to include them. In theory this should make the Republicans more sane by diluting the current base. There's no indication that accelerationism works, more the opposite.

My opinion: Vote your conscience, whether knowingly just a protest or not. That is your fundamental right as a citizen. But don’t pretend this is the morally better choice. It just makes you personally feel good (perhaps at the expense of other marginalized groups).

Since I didn't see it posted yet,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKB92ohXn20

#bothsidesarethesame

Every Republican leader seems to be strongly condemning the comments, so there is some impact to this one. Trump might even give a real apology beyond sorry-not-sorry?

imo the most telling thing here is why this controversy is getting so much play since Trump has already said so many (many, many) abhorrent things.

It’s regarding a voting group the GOP actually needs a significant portion of, white women.

A hot mic recording is hard to deflect using the same-old false equivalence arguments (though they certainly are trying). “Grab them by the pussy” is a clear quote that indicates intent toward sexual assault. “I did try and fuck her. She was married.” is also pretty bad, though I thought his past adulteries were already well known (but no direct audio quotes from him?)

Everything about the situation, including those trying to downplay it, is literally the definition of rape culture.

Wikileaks dump of Podesta (Clinton Campaign Chairman) emails today. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784498891936915456

This one relating to Clinton's paid speeches is particularly enlightening: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

You can either pay attention to things that matter, or you can keep pretending that Trump saying mean things is more important.

Pretty standard nuanced policy discussion that potentially doesn’t play well in soundbites out of context. Sanders campaign would have dragged her but I still doubt it’s 4 million-ish primary votes. I'm not sure it even sounds that bad to a general electorate.

I find the most amusing part is supporting Canadian single-payer in private as (self-aware) potential oppo stuff (socialist scum and all). Btw if it isn’t apparent, the headlines are Clinton’s own team coming up with worst-case spin. The content itself reads as candid and reasonable (if moderate. Yet more idealistic than she typically, and publicly, presents herself).

edit: Also to add, it's very disturbing if you don't think Trump's comments revealed today matter. imo

Edited October 8, 2016 by XeKr

[Person123]

edit: Also to add, it's very disturbing if you don't think Trump's comments revealed today matter. imo

I don't see how his comments in the tape will effect actual policy decisions that impact people. You yourself pointed out that Trump has already said abhorrent things, so what's one more?

[Crysta]

> dismisses clearly misogynist mindset as "saying mean things"

> proceeds to point out mean/dumb things Clinton has said via e-mail

> implies said mindset isn't likely to "effect actual policy decisions that impact people"

> lol

Edited October 8, 2016 by Crysta

[Person123]

> dismisses clearly misogynist mindset as "saying mean things"

> proceeds to point out mean/dumb things Clinton has said via e-mail

> implies said mindset isn't likely to "effect actual policy decisions that impact people"

> lol

Except the things Clinton is saying in the emails directly effects her policy decisions. Nice strawman tho

[Crysta]

Except the things Clinton is saying in the emails directly effects her policy decisions. Nice strawman tho

And you don't think what Trump says will.

Got it.

[Person123]

And you don't think what Trump says will.

Got it.

Not from the tape, no.

[CyborgZeta]

It's too bad the media is not discussing the latest leaks, but at this point I'm not surprised.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/open-trade-and-open-borders-hacked-emails-contain-transcripts-of-clinton-paid-speeches/article/2603971

Sounds like Hillary basically wants the equivalent of the EU for the Americas.

[Res]

I'm not seeing anything particularly outrageous in any of those emails, though? Sounds like fairly standard politicking to me.

As for Trump, his latest words (which aren't just mean, he's describing sexual assault; not surprising given all the rape allegations) are just the tip on an iceberg of sexist and racist comments he's made, not surprising. At this point there's barely anyone left he hasn't insulted. Can you even imagine the shitstorm that would've ensued had Obama made such remarks?!

[Nobody]

oh no, clinton wants free trade -someone that is almost a consensus as something positive between economists- and even WORSE, she wants green, sustainable energy? What a monster! She even admits that, thanks to her wealth she does not have to suffer through economic crisis unlike most people. How can anyone like that become president??

But seriously, what the hell is meant to be bad there?

BTW, how credible is that source? I'm just asking because they can't even be bothered to google "banco itau", which is from brazil rather than italy. small detail but it's weird for them to get it wrong

Oh, and someone can be pro free trade and against TPP.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[-Cynthia-]

Clinton being pro trade and pro immigration isn't particularly newsworthy. We already know she's flip flopped on TPP. Is this the big WikiLeaks dump people were hyping up? Pretty underwhelming.

[Crysta]

Clinton being pro trade and pro immigration isn't particularly newsworthy. We already know she's flip flopped on TPP. Is this the big WikiLeaks dump people were hyping up? Pretty underwhelming.

They've pretty much been hyping this up as the thing that will finally put the stake in the Clinton campaign's black heart for awhile now and I suspect we'll get quite a few people complaining about it being ignored because of this latest Trump turd thrown into the news cycle. I'm fairly confident the most we'll get is re: look Clinton is a crooked politician part #6534 here's more evidence in case you didn't know that already!

But Alex Jones's meltdown was gloriously entertaining.

EDIT: also hype for the most awkward debate format ever

Edited October 8, 2016 by Crysta

[eclipse]

That "Don't pull this shit again" part is a bit harsh. I mainly wanted to see the discussion AND the poll. As far as I know, I can't make a poll in someone else this thread. I wasn't trying to "pull" something.

I'm not questioning your decision, I just think your wording is a bit rude.

You acknowledged in your opening post that you KNEW this topic existed, and yet you made your topic anyway. That's what prompted it. Having a poll attached to it doesn't excuse this at all. You could've sent a PM to the guy that made the topic and asked him if he could do it, since he's fairly active. Or, you could've sent a PM to a mod and asked before making the topic.

In other words, if you know the rules, don't break them (this goes for everyone). That's malice, and that will get me mad.

---

That being said, why aren't we holding Trump to the same political correctness standard as everyone else? The fact that he deserves some sort of special, lower tier tells me that he's not fit to lead anyone, since he's so very different from them.

[blah the Prussian]

oh no, clinton wants free trade -someone that is almost a consensus as something positive between economists- and even WORSE, she wants green, sustainable energy? What a monster! She even admits that, thanks to her wealth she does not have to suffer through economic crisis unlike most people. How can anyone like that become president??

But seriously, what the hell is meant to be bad there?

BTW, how credible is that source? I'm just asking because they can't even be bothered to google "banco itau", which is from brazil rather than italy. small detail but it's weird for them to get it wrong

Oh, and someone can be pro free trade and against TPP.

Eh, free trade isn't the problem, the problem is that countries like China, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. simply don't have sufficient regulations to actually protect their people from corporations. Free trade is fine, but the situation now gives corporations too much incentives to abandon the American worker. I'm all for free trade as long as it's equal trade; if these countries cared about their people enough to make foreign corporations treat their workers like humans, then I'd think you'd see a lot of the current problems with free trade go away.

[Yojinbo]

i'm familiar with concept of choosing the less "evil" ally, i just misunderstood yojinbo. thanks though!

no i'm not. could you link some discussion pieces that go more in-depth?

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/

Not directly related but some additional background info:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-russia-is-demonized-and-sanctioned-the-american-petrodollar/5402592?print=1

Clinton being pro trade and pro immigration isn't particularly newsworthy. We already know she's flip flopped on TPP. Is this the big WikiLeaks dump people were hyping up? Pretty underwhelming.

The "WikiLeaks dump" contains information that she knew about US Military Weapons being shipped to Jihadist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

[Balcerzak]

My opinion: Vote your conscience, whether knowingly just a protest or not. That is your fundamental right as a citizen. But dont pretend this is the morally better choice. It just makes you personally feel good (perhaps at the expense of other marginalized groups).

(emphasis added)

It's not pretend. It is the morally better choice. Voting your conscience is the only moral way to vote. Tying morality to consequences is fundamentally flawed. Virtue-based ethics are far superior.