|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 12:20:40 GMT -5
I see several have bought into the 30 year + Smear Campaign against Hillary by the Republicans (started when she dared to overstep the boundaries (as they saw them) for the 1st Lady). a true shame that you choose to see what the haters WANT you to see, and not her (very real) accomplishments, in doing better for Americans. does she have some (very real) issues? yep. is anyone going to be the perfect candidate? nope. if you throw away your vote on anyone other than Hillary, are you forfeiting your vote and giving Trump one less against vote, and potentially causing real world issues, hardship, and pain to minorities, immigrants, LGBT, Women when Trump wins the election? you betcha. So I'm evil if I don't vote for Hillary? Okay then... so you took a thought out, valid point that I made . . . and boiled it down to "I think you're evil" ? Okay then. . .
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Jul 31, 2016 12:53:36 GMT -5
So I'm evil if I don't vote for Hillary? Okay then... so you took a thought out, valid point that I made . . . and boiled it down to "I think you're evil" ? Okay then. . . Yeah, that's kinda what you're implying. Having a hard time seeing how Hillary is so much better of a candidate than Trump is.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 31, 2016 13:18:07 GMT -5
so you took a thought out, valid point that I made . . . and boiled it down to "I think you're evil" ? Okay then. . . Yeah, that's kinda what you're implying. Having a hard time seeing how Hillary is so much better of a candidate than Trump is. Ball's in your court. How is he better than Hillary?
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 31, 2016 13:47:06 GMT -5
so you took a thought out, valid point that I made . . . and boiled it down to "I think you're evil" ? Okay then. . . Yeah, that's kinda what you're implying. Having a hard time seeing how Hillary is so much better of a candidate than Trump is. That is a fair question, deserving a proper answer. The two conventions gave us a good idea what to expect of the two potential presidencies. From the democrats, I heard an optimistic and patriotic message; I was exposed to a vision of an America where people work together to build an even better society. I was reminded of the facts: that during the past eight years, the country escaped the Great Recession, that joblessness is at an eight years low, that the economy is growing, that the armed forces are the best in the world, and that US troops were pulled out of the quagmires that are Iraq and Afghanistan. From the Republicans, I heard slogans and lies. Yes, lies. I'm not talking about differing views or different interpretation of events; I'm talking about a flagrant misrepresentation of reality. Trump wants Americans to believe that crime is on the rise and that he'll restore order. He's lying. Even considering revent tragic events, crime is down in the US, a trend that's been going on for a decade. We're told that immigration is letting tens of thousands of criminals roam free in the US. That is a lie. Immigrants are not more criminally prone that homegrown citizens. Trump would have us believe that Moslems constitute a fifth column in the US, working for ISIS. That is also a lie. While there are killers out there who murder in the name of Islam, there are also killers who target abortion clinics in the name of Christianity. To fight insanity and fanaticism cannot be reduced to a simple equation like islam=terrorism. It isn't only wrong and counterproductive; it betrays a one-dimensional analysis that should definitely not be an attribute of the next commander in chief. Trump promises to make America great again, which suggests that it is not already great. That's dumb. America is one of the greatest nations on Earth; it is a leader in the fields of science, military capacity, human rights and economy. And it's in a much better state now than it was eight years ago. Trump claims that being a businessman, he can make America prosper, in part by negating several accords signed by the country over the years. All economists agree that this is crazy (and there is a great article about it in the latest Foreign Affairs). What is currently hurting part of the American workforce is that the US moved away from a primary economy a long time ago; this is no longer a country where someone with a limited formation can hope to get a job at a factory and eventually join the middle class. That's not the fault of the Chinese or the Mexicans; that's because robots under the supervision of one guy are now doing the work that required ten workers in the 1960s. What is Trump going to do, use an executive order to make US enterprises less efficient? We don't know; he just doesn't give details regarding his plans. He just spouts nonsense straight out of motivational posters. I don't think he even has a plan beyond getting elected. He will just sit in the oval office, scream "you're fired" at a few people and just like that, skittles will start falling from the sky. He's a fraud, a demagogue in all its ugliness. As for Clinton, she has a proven record of being able to work in the major leagues. There are many things that she did wrong over the years: personally, I can't forgive her endorsement of the insanely stupid decision to invade Iraq. But that's neither here nor there: she has also done a lot of good things, and we know she can get the job done. Is she ambitious? Well of course; nobody gets there without ambition. Is she Wall Street's choice? Again of course, because with her Wall Street knows the economy will not collapse due to irrational decisions concerning trade agreements (agreements that the US insisted on, from both sides of the aisle). I'll take a seasoned politician, albeit an ambitious and greedy one, over a posturing and incompetent clown any day. And finally, Clinton did not just grossly insult the parents of a dead US soldier like Trump did. He is a very, very despicable individual. Just for that, any alternative that means he won't be in office is a better choice. The Republican party should turn its back on that travesty of a candidate and work on reworking its agenda. It used to be the party of Lincoln, with a message of equality and freedom for all; it used to be the party lauding the promise of the American spirit, proudly waving a flag that meant liberty and justice for all. Now, it has become the party of ignorance, stupidity and fear. No wonder many conservatives turn their back on it, not accepting what it has become. They don't share the liberal viewpoint commonly associated with the democratic party, but they don't see conservative views as being irreconciliable with wisdom, intelligence and respect. They don't want "conservative values" to mean "caricatural redneck hillbilly values". They want to see the country go forward, not go back to the dark ages. I love how a Reagan speechwriter said that Obama's speech, minus a few paragraphs, would have made a great Reagan speech. The same Ronald Reagan who was seen by many Republicans as the epitome of the great president.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jul 31, 2016 13:59:20 GMT -5
Eloquent as always, RR. I'll agree that Hillary is the "lesser of two evils", but I still couldn't bring myself to vote for her come November. Perhaps Johnson wouldn't win the election, but voting for what I think would actually lead to change rather than political stagnation and federal gridlock under another Clinton administration still seems like the better option. In no way do I think that my choice would equate to a vote for Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 14:06:48 GMT -5
yes, very well said.
it won't change his mind (he took my post and all he heard was that I think he's "evil". . . something never even implied. . . what was implied was that I thought 3rd party supporters of the "never Hillary" ilk are lacking some empathy. and I will stand by THAT, but that's a far cry from "evil").
but yeah. . won't change his mind if all he heard from my post is "evil"
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jul 31, 2016 15:49:45 GMT -5
Never in a million years would I vote for Trump. But given a choice between two distasteful candidates, I refuse to support the least distasteful one. Neither gets my vote and I'll feel better for myself after Hillary wins (I presume) and the shenanigans begin
And bert, give me a little credit for making up my own mind after experiencing her entire tenure in the public eye starting in the 1990s when I was already an adult. You'are quick to brand those opposite your view as a "hater" or a believer of "hater rhetoric" but it comes off as a simple way to shut down dissent by putting the opposite view on the defensive. I've seen many comments about Trump on this thread that feels like "hater" too but of course you was silent about it since you agreed. Enough about the higher moral ground posturing.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 31, 2016 16:17:03 GMT -5
Never in a million years would I vote for Trump. But given a choice between two distasteful candidates, I refuse to support the least distasteful one. Neither gets my vote and I'll feel better for myself after Hillary wins (I presume) and the shenanigans begin And bert, give me a little credit for making up my own mind after experiencing her entire tenure in the public eye starting in the 1990s when I was already an adult. You'are quick to brand those opposite your view as a "hater" or a believer of "hater rhetoric" but it comes off as a simple way to shut down dissent by putting the opposite view on the defensive. I've seen many comments about Trump on this thread that feels like "hater" too but of course you was silent about it since you agreed. Enough about the higher moral ground posturing. Yeah, prior to Trump being taken seriously my stance was pretty much, "anyone but Hilary" and that's not due to Republican propaganda but rather from observing her career, so its difficult for me to vote her. And I second the notion that labeling people "haters" and saying that they have no empathy for others simply because they do not espouse the same views as you do is a poor way to hold a fair and respectful dialogue with others so I'd suggest that people find other ways to voice their disagreement with the views of others without sinking to personal remarks.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 31, 2016 16:21:26 GMT -5
Yeah, that's kinda what you're implying. Having a hard time seeing how Hillary is so much better of a candidate than Trump is. That is a fair question, deserving a proper answer. And you gave an excellent one, RR. Vive le Roquefort! Your interest in and knowledge of American politics and traditions put many of ours to shame. You've captured so much of what is at stake here. Listen, America's surviving a Trump presidency is possible, of course, for lots of reasons, but the risk is not worth taking. What has and will continue to be most risky about Trump is the cover he provides for so mnay people to give in to the basest of their instincts. He has low expectations of himself and his country; turmoil, violence, and regression have followed in his wake, and they show no sign of letting up. Forget the better angels of our nature, evoking them requires a person of conscience or at least a political pragmatist. Trump has no interest beyond himself. Even fame makes no difference to him; for Trump, fame and notoriety are one and the same. He is an agent of chaos who thrives only when there is disorder. His ego requires turmoil and disunity, can't survive without them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 16:23:21 GMT -5
Never in a million years would I vote for Trump. But given a choice between two distasteful candidates, I refuse to support the least distasteful one. Neither gets my vote and I'll feel better for myself after Hillary wins (I presume) and the shenanigans begin And bert, give me a little credit for making up my own mind after experiencing her entire tenure in the public eye starting in the 1990s when I was already an adult. You'are quick to brand those opposite your view as a "hater" or a believer of "hater rhetoric" but it comes off as a simple way to shut down dissent by putting the opposite view on the defensive. I've seen many comments about Trump on this thread that feels like "hater" too but of course you was silent about it since you agreed. Enough about the higher moral ground posturing. between Trump and Hillary? there ABSOLUTELY is a higher moral ground. (hint: it isn't Trump: Xenophobic, Homophobic, Racist, Misogynistic = all *proven* by his own words. You show me how Hillary is not morally superior to that and I'll shut up). if it's a fact about Trump? yeah, i don't feel any need to defend the man -- tho if you go back thru the thread, I'm certain you will find instances where I have stated "to be fair" and then supplied opposing info.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 16:29:56 GMT -5
And I second the notion that labeling people "haters" and saying that they have no empathy for others simply because they do not espouse the same views as you do is a poor way to hold a fair and respectful dialogue with others so I'd suggest that people find other ways to voice their disagreement with the views of others without sinking to personal remarks. I have been very careful in speaking in generalities. . I have not focused on any personal remarks. " it won't change his mind (he took my post and all he heard was that I think he's "evil". . . something never even implied. . . what was implied was that I thought 3rd party supporters of the "never Hillary" ilk are lacking some empathy. and I will stand by THAT, but that's a far cry from "evil"). I have no idea who is a hardline "3rd party supporter of the never Hillary ilk" on here and who isn't. hell, last I recall, Hondobrode was Bernie or Bust, but he's recently been saying he'll vote Hillary over Trump. think of that as being as disingenuous if you like, but it's the truth. I wasn't singling anyone out (other than responding to Warmonger personally in correctly stating that he thinks I called him "evil" which I did not), and if someone felt like I was singling them out with a "personal attack". . .that isn't what I typed, and that's not what I intended. . but I can't control how someone reads the words.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jul 31, 2016 16:41:58 GMT -5
Never in a million years would I vote for Trump. But given a choice between two distasteful candidates, I refuse to support the least distasteful one. Neither gets my vote and I'll feel better for myself after Hillary wins (I presume) and the shenanigans begin And bert, give me a little credit for making up my own mind after experiencing her entire tenure in the public eye starting in the 1990s when I was already an adult. You'are quick to brand those opposite your view as a "hater" or a believer of "hater rhetoric" but it comes off as a simple way to shut down dissent by putting the opposite view on the defensive. I've seen many comments about Trump on this thread that feels like "hater" too but of course you was silent about it since you agreed. Enough about the higher moral ground posturing. between Trump and Hillary? there ABSOLUTELY is a higher moral ground. (hint: it isn't Trump: Xenophobic, Homophobic, Racist, Misogynistic = all *proven* by his own words. You show me how Hillary is not morally superior to that and I'll shut up). if it's a fact about Trump? yeah, i don't feel any need to defend the man -- tho if you go back thru the thread, I'm certain you will find instances where I have stated "to be fair" and then supplied opposing info. I was speaking about branding those who do not support Hillary as haters or brain-washed by haters.. that was your posture. That is not a higher moral position, that is merely shutting down debate You don't have to sell me on Trump's negatives. I've lived in NYC my whole life, I've been exposed to his blustering for decades. Me and you agree on many positions. But there's nothing that will get me to vote for Hillary. I'd write in Howard The Duck first
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 16:43:10 GMT -5
You don't have to sell me on Trump's negatives. I've lived in NYC my whole life, I've been exposed to his blustering for decades. on this we absolutely can agree. Kumbaya
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 31, 2016 16:43:13 GMT -5
I thank our members for their ability to remain civil even in a heated political argument.
Well done, people. I wish all our politicians could do the same.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jul 31, 2016 19:40:20 GMT -5
I'm voting third-party for two main reasons.
1. I refuse to vote for Clinton and allow the Democrats to count my vote as part of any "mandate" they want to claim for her when she wins. I would not be voting for her but rather against Trump, but the Democrats would consider my vote as approval for their policies and positions, some of which I do support but many of which I do not.
2. Voting third-party sends the message that I want a choice other than what the two main parties are offering. Neither party speaks for me at this point, as I suspect is the case for many others, so making it known that there is support for a third-party candidate is potentially important for future elections.
There's no way I want a Trump presidency, but I'm not thrilled by the prospect of a Hilary presidency either. If she winds up in the White House, it's better for the country as a whole, but I sure don't want to help put her there.
|
|