Jump to content

November 9 2016


FatMike

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply
56 minutes ago, Vaerick said:

Voting for the turd sandwich over the giant douche is what has gotten us to this point. That and electioneering. Can't agree with that at all.

It's the choice I'm stuck with making.  I live in a swing state.  Voting third party means my vote is borderline meaningless - on top of that, I'm not at all impressed by the third party candidates or their platforms.  If you've got a better option, I'm open to hearing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that to sound like at attack. I get it, and you're not the only one. And to be honest I don't much like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. I will probably vote Stein, simply to buck the two party system. What's funny is, I didn't think I was in a swing state, but apparently I am. Go figure- Texas going blue.

If enough people had bitten the bullet and risked the 3rd party vote anytime in the past, and gotten a president elected, it may not have come to the point we are in now.

I suppose I am just bitter about what happened in the primaries. It seems to me we had a unicorn- a politician not completely bogged down by scandal, who marched with Dr. King, who has been on the right side of history on pretty much every issue, and what happened? It was stolen. Someone who can't pack a small gym, compared to someone who rallied 35k people? And what's the worst that could be said? Big dreams/hopes? That was what got is to the moon. And what do we have now?  Two oligarchs fighting for their lives (Hillary quite literally) and Trump (reputation-wise)- and both the least liked, and trusted candidates in modern history.

Really this is a nightmare. I could go on for pages but it boils down to someone who will bring shame in epic proportions on the whole country and possible go full scale fascist and someone who won by cheating which should never be rewarded and will continue to raise the economic and political elite while linking more chains on the rest of us. Both of which are likely to cause either civil or nuclear war, or both.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me, I wanted Bernie too.  But at this point, the way I see things is that we can either vote for the competent yet corrupt or for the proudly ignorant deluded narcissist.  I'll take the competent yet corrupt.

 

EDIT: And honestly?  In this election, I am a single issue voter.  Climate change is something that simply will not wait for us to get our shit together.  Social or economic issues can go one way or the other and get rolled back as needed in the future - but we need real action on how we impact the climate NOW, and on this issue the choice could not be clearer: Clinton thinks we need to take action (not enough as far as I'm concerned, but...), Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's the thing really. There is a threshold where the corruption overcomes the ignorance. Both are pretty abominable qualities to have. I'm not sure if it's there yet, but it's certainly bad enough to question what the worst case is. As far as Trump goes, the good thing is everyone will be primed and ready the first moment he steps out of line, so I don't think he'd be able to get overly far with any diabolical plans. He would be an egregious mark on our country though, for such a monster to be elected would be the shame of our modern age. Clinton though, I just dunno. The only positive thing has been wikileaks and it showed that they are afraid of it. And that means it can't be past the point of no return yet. Unfortunately it also showed that the government owns the news media and flexes the muscles when it needs to. This election has set some very dangerous precedents already.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the ignorance - I think you are underestimating the narcissistic and delusional aspects of him, and how dangerous they can be.  Ignorance in the President can be dealt with via an informed Cabinet (honestly, this is what kept the W years from being worse than they were), but a President who is firmly convinced that his own opinions are always the correct ones, who seeks to be a part of the public sphere yet treats every attack upon him as something that needs to be responded to with all his power?  Particularly one who is happy to use racial/religious divisions to his advantage?  This is a terrifying prospect, far moreso than just about any level of corruption or corporate favoritism is.  Now, to be honest, I don't think Hillary is as corrupt as you seem to, but I think that even if I did, it would not change my position here an inch.  She's far more corrupt than I want, but corruption can still be effective.  Delusions never are.

 

The government does not own the news media.  Rather, the two have a fairly symbiotic relationship with each other - and this relationship is somewhat limited and far from perfect as far as either is concerned.  I'm not at all going to argue that the media does its job as well as it could, but it's also not just a spout of government propaganda either - polls fairly consistently show that most people who regularly watch the news for their information are in fact somewhat decently informed on most topics (in the sense that a 60ish% correct rate counts as decently informed - major room for improvement there, but even Fox viewers regularly score up in that range depending on what Fox programs they watch [Kelly, Wallace, and O'Reilly viewers do much better than Hannity's]).  My observation has been that a lot of people seem to think of the government like one giant mind with hands all over the place, but in reality it acts much more like one giant hand with a lot of minds fighting over control of it, often directing it in contradictory ways whenever one set manages to temporarily wrest control from the others.  Treating it as a unified entity is a serious mistake.

 

And again: single-issue voter in this election, and probably in the next few to come.  The climate will not wait for us to elect a good person - we have to be satisfied with electing a potentially effective bad person, or accept the election of a certainly ineffective bad person (and that's granting, which I don't, that the two are equally bad in other ways).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem was the Repubs had to many choices, there were like 15-17 in each of hte big televised debates and another 3-6(not real sure of numbers) in the debates that weren't televised. It watered everything down to much. I for one am glad to see someone who is not part of the Washington establishment running. Do I think he is the best choice, not really but he is a helluva lot better than the lieing, cheating, corrupt piece of garbage that is running for the Dems. Any possible good she could do for issues that people are concerned about is out-weighed by the BS that she has done over the past 30 years as a "politician" or part of the "political landscape". 

That being said, here it is 12 days before the election and I am still up in the air whether to go third party or Repub and I'm going to early vote on Saturday.....bleh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know for me it is a matter of competence and policy. 

 

Yes HRC has had her fair share of scandalous situations.  She has navigated a political system rife with corruption and favoritism.  In so many ways she is a product of the system and the pitfalls she has tripped over are very common across the political spectrum.  In the end though she has come out of it on top and as a productive leader.  Her tenure in congress though not stellar was productive and supported issues I felt to be very important.  As secretary of state the biggest flaw the GOP can find is Benghazi, which is a joke if you research the facts and not just swallow the rhetoric. Her proposed policies for taxes, the environment, foreign affairs, domestic issues like student loan debt, all are very progressive.  Her Tax plan will honestly improve the situation regarding pooling of wealth in our country significantly.  Over all she has solid plans oriented towards the common health of the country, and the proven means to execute it.

Trump, man...I tried to really look at him objectively.  But he refuses to let you.  Looking past personality issues galore, and total lack of any experience navigating Washington politics.  You are still stopped cold by his lack of comprehensive policy.  His tax plan is bullshit.  It basically pretends to close loopholes, but creates others that are more aggressive.  If you study it in-depth you realize very quickly that it really is a huge break to large corporations and the upper 1% while burdening middle class Americans more than ever.  Which we all know can only continue to pool wealth and erode our economy, while increasing the national debt.  Then you turn to his other policies.  His energy proposals would send us to the stone age, while killing us sooner than later because he would be the ONLY 1st world leader that doesn't believe in climate change.  On science he is completely lost.  He wants to dump more money into an already bloated military.  His immigration would destroy millions of lives.  He doesn't give a shit about education.  And would see students even further in debt.  In the end his presidency, based on his current proposals, would be a nightmare.  Then you just cant completely ignore his personality.  He cant even work with people while running, that isn't going to change once in office. 

The 3rd party folks are a joke.  Stein is amazingly naive.  And Johnson would really see us all in a privatized nightmare, not to mention he couldn't name ONE foreign leader.  They also just don't have enough support to be anything but detractors from the GOP and DEM candidates.  Its just reality.  A vote for them would be a vote for whomever is the less popular DEM or GOP candidate, which currently is Trump. 

So in the end Clinton becomes the best choice if you have any care for what happens to this country.  She is the only candidate with the experience.  Policies that really don't leave anyone behind.  She has the corporate ties to work with lobbyists, while at the same time a strong enough backbone to help the middle class.  She is as insider as insider gets in Washington, and that isn't a bad thing.  Yeah you can throw around rhetorically driven name calling.  Claim we wanted some mystical "better" candidate like Bernie.  But in the end she is the best option to continue repairing our economy, and bring attention to some of the more pressing issues dragging down our younger generations. 

To borrow an analogy I recently heard, its like a plumber (insider politician) to fix your toilet (tax code, environmental policy, student loan crisis).  You don't hire an electrician (the outsider) to fix it or you end up covered in shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton broke the law when she sent sensetive government documents through personal email on unapproved software. As a governement employee you sign a (ROB) Rules of Behavior once a year that states that you will not do exactly what she did.

I don't think she should be in jail for her neglagence but I do believe she should have been released from government duty. You or I would have been escorted off the premises. I've seen it happen.

That's my only rub with Clinton. Although lack of disciplinary action isnt her fault I suppose. Bear in mind, I won't be voting for Trump either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Zavero said:

Clinton broke the law when she sent sensetive government documents through personal email on unapproved software. As a governement employee you sign a (ROB) Rules of Behavior once a year that states that you will not do exactly what she did.

I don't think she should be in jail for her neglagence but I do believe she should have been released from government duty. You or I would have been escorted off the premises. I've seen it happen.

That's my only rub with Clinton. Although lack of disciplinary action isnt her fault I suppose. Bear in mind, I won't be voting for Trump either.

I don't think it would have been as simple as being escorted out, I've been in a position to work with classified material in my younger years on active duty and it was taken pretty seriously. I mean, we have a guy getting imprisoned for taking photos on a nuc sub for f*cks sake. I have one to, from when I was onboard the boat does that mean I need to go to the big house.

And there is clear evidence of the campaign colluding illegally with a Super-PAC, it's all jacked up and way to corrupt and if you think it stops once she's in office you're blind or you don't care. Any Bernie supporter that would jump ship to her after what they did to his campaign....ha, ridiculous.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean for this to devolve into an argument over who is the worse candidate I meant the meme as what is going to happen regardless of who wins because the whole damn mess needs cleaned out and a reset button pushed to get this country out of the deep end where it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you see.   According to the FBI, she did not.   

You can repeat the statement as many times as you want.  But that doesn't change the results of the investigation.  

No penalties were deemed necessary.  Was it optimal? No.  Was it a poor decision, yes.  She even admitted those two things.  

But saying she broke the law is wrong. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FatMike said:

I think we can all agree that what we have in the US is a hot mess and whoever gets elected won't screw it up any worse than it already is.

 

 https://goo.gl/images/a7ZsNl

No, No I Cant agree on that.  The US is in a better place now than it was 8 years go.  Crime is down.  GDP is up.  Dept is down.  Millions have insurance that didn't previously. 

We have some focused areas where there is significant problems.  Education, particularly student loans is a price gouging nightmare.  We are behind on renewable energy.  ACA needs some serious debugging to continue being relevant and succesful. 

I would say looking at the candidate platforms that it could get very bad if Trump becomes president.  But this concept that the country is in a shit-hole and we are all doomed is just bologna. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about the email and the "investigation" which is just a crock. You need to delve a little deeper into the underbelly of the DNC, her campain and the Super-Pacs that support them both.

More Americans are on welfare, more Americans are out of the work force, more Americans are paying more for their insurance than before the ACA was inacted. Less Americans are owning homes, we have double the national debt in 8 years as we had in 230 years before that. We've had less than 3% GDP growth/year in the last 8 years. In Chicago alone crime is out of control, with the toughest gun laws in the country.....I haven't researched other major metropolitan areas. You used to build cars in Flint Michigan and couldn't drink the water in Mexico, now we build cars in Mexico and can't drink the water in Flint. We are in deep, way down the rabbit hole,  but we can agree to disagree. That's what is nice about this country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cant call the investigation a "crock".  The only evidence of that is the court of GOP opinion.  

Sources please. 

First off here are actual facts about welfare. http://groundswell.org/7-lies-about-welfare-that-many-people-believe-are-fact/  and no, more people are not on it than are working.  Funny trump said this. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/28/terry-jeffrey/are-there-more-welfare-recipients-us-full-time-wor/.  

On debt, yes it has doubled, but no it hasnt.  Depending on if you look at the number as a $ number in a vacumn.  OR take into account variables.  Sadly too it is not a presidential issue which it is most often made.  This is our lovely congress at work.  http://crfb.org/blogs/has-president-obama-doubled-national-debt

GDP growth is consistent with the last 15 years.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/upshot/were-in-a-low-growth-world-how-did-we-get-here.html?_r=0.  Though is this a good thing no.  IS it the end of the world omg 'merica is so trashed. No.  It is a common issue now across ALL advanced nations.  A lot of economists point to the pooling of wealth in the upper 1%, with stagnating wages.  An economy is an engine.  The money has to move around.  But right now we have 1% hoarding everything, which is choking the economy.  

The car statement, heralded by Mr. Trump.  Is as usual with him absent any real substance.  In truth the decision by Ford to move small car manufacturing to Mexico is so they can build more higher value vehicles in their existing plants.  Swapping out a lower economic contributor for a higher one.  They are not taking anything away.  They are in fact improving on their US based facilities.  https://www.wired.com/2016/09/ignore-trump-fords-move-mexico-good-us-workers/

 

See, folks like Trump.  They want you to think the country is in a mess.  They want you to think its all horri-bad and their the only fix.  Lock your doors, stick your head int he dirt, their coming for your guns and children.  But its not true.  Inner cities are not burning.  We have a few that are in dire need, but most are quite nice.  Welfare queens aren't ruling the suberbs.  We are not lost in spiral of economic turmoil, only dealing with the same challenges as the rest of the 1st world.  

Life isn't really that bad.  The country could use some tweaking of course.  The ACA needs work, I know, I own a small business and insurance options suck atm.   Business' like mine could also use a tax break or two.  Things can still keep getting better.  They could also go to crap real quick if some jerk who knows nothing about politics and policy comes in and starts trying to pull the plug on everything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...