|
Post by Spike-X on Oct 30, 2016 23:41:04 GMT -5
Hillary is the 'lesser of two evils' the same way that being married to somebody who steps on your toe occasionally while dancing is not quite as bad as being married to somebody who gets drunk and beats the hell out of you every night.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 20:39:37 GMT -5
Hillary is the 'lesser of two evils' the same way that being married to somebody who steps on your toe occasionally while dancing is not quite as bad as being married to somebody who gets drunk and beats the hell out of you every night. From a Trump supporter's pov, Hillary is cancer. Trump is chemotherapy. Both make you vomit and get sick. But one kills cancer and allows you to repair the wounds. In spite of the 99.5% anti-Trump atmosphere in this thread...he's gained serious ground and the race is very tight.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 31, 2016 21:36:48 GMT -5
That said, I'm probably going to vote for Gary Johnson. He might be an idiot, but he's harmless, Bill Weld would make a great president, and I REALLY REALLY want some kind of 3rd party to get some traction in this country. With that in mind, I hope you will at least watch this video before you head to the polls. I think the sad part of that clip is Joe Exotic really isn't any less qualified for president than Donald Trump. I might actually hold my nose and vote for Hillary if I lived in a different state, but I live in Massachusetts, so I'm completely irrelevant, thus I can vote for a crazy dude that has no chance to win in the hopes that 3rd parties might be better in the future .
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 31, 2016 21:42:04 GMT -5
Hillary is the 'lesser of two evils' the same way that being married to somebody who steps on your toe occasionally while dancing is not quite as bad as being married to somebody who gets drunk and beats the hell out of you every night. From a Trump supporter's pov, Hillary is cancer. Trump is chemotherapy. Both make you vomit and get sick. But one kills cancer and allows you to repair the wounds. In spite of the 99.5% anti-Trump atmosphere in this thread...he's gained serious ground and the race is very tight. What wounds can Trump repair? Foreign policy? So far he wants to stop people coming in from doing any harm they're not doing anyway, and piss off a whole religion. Oh, but he likes the scariest world leader out there. Business? The only thing he's good at is gaming the system, which you can't do if you ARE the system. Jobs? Trickle down doesn't really work.. it's been proven. It SEEMS good, but unfortunately rich people are far more likely to stash their money overseas and/or buy weird exotic overpriced stuff than create jobs. Hillary is cancer, but Trump isn't chemotherapy, he's Euthansia.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 22:30:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 1, 2016 5:38:31 GMT -5
The same "staunch supporter" who works for Fox news and said that her becoming the democratic nominee was a long shot?
I think she'll live. On the other hand, the man does have a point. Her presidency just may be an unending battle against trivial partisan accusations, rendering her unable to do her job properly. When even the director of the FBI is ready to break the law to bring down a candidate, we know that it's not politics as usual.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 1, 2016 8:20:50 GMT -5
Hillary is the 'lesser of two evils' the same way that being married to somebody who steps on your toe occasionally while dancing is not quite as bad as being married to somebody who gets drunk and beats the hell out of you every night. From a Trump supporter's pov, Hillary is cancer. Trump is chemotherapy. Both make you vomit and get sick. But one kills cancer and allows you to repair the wounds. In spite of the 99.5% anti-Trump atmosphere in this thread...he's gained serious ground and the race is very tight. Trump as national healer? There's a new one. As for the polls you're seeing, check the Electoral College map before you order the champagne.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 1, 2016 9:38:28 GMT -5
I have to say that the vast, vast majority of people over here in the UK -- along with both the left-leaning and right-leaning media -- are utterly dumbfounded that someone as ignorant, xenophobic, inarticulate, sexist and down right racist as Trump could have ever gotten this close to the White House. It's hard to believe that this is the same country that only 4 years ago re-elected Barack Obama, who, regardless of what you think of his homeland policies, has been a superb ambassador for the U.S. overseas -- something that the U.S. badly needed, might I add. It seems like such a head scratcher to many of us over here. I mean, sure, we do have our own outspokenly ignorant, xenophobic, sexist politicians, but they're mostly confined to the right-wing, populist party UKIP. That party have garnered a fair bit of public support in recent years (so, we as a nation, do understand the appeal of populist politics), but, while a lot of what UKIP spouts is unrealistic, isolationist drivel, actually, having UKIP representatives in the House of Commons and the House of Lords works quite well to flavour the overall soup of British democracy. But someone like UKIP's Nigel Farage would never come close to becoming the Prime Minister, in the way that Trump has come so close to being President. Now, I realise that Clinton is hardly whiter than white (and plenty of folks I've spoken to feel truly sorry for the Americans, having to essentially pick the least offensive turd out of the toilet bowl), but come on...Trump as president would be an utter disaster, both in terms of America at home and foreign policy abroad. He's an empty vessel making the most noise -- big on rhetoric and sloganeering, but mighty short on how he's going to actually deliver any of the things he promises. He is a dangerous, dangerous man and the feeling "on the street" over here (if I may be permitted to speak on behalf of the nation) is that if he becomes president, World War III won't be far behind. Personally speaking, if Trump does win the election, it will be a real "stop the world, I wanna get off" moment for me.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 1, 2016 10:50:18 GMT -5
He is a dangerous, dangerous man and the feeling "on the street" over here (if I may be permitted to speak on behalf of the nation) is that if he becomes president, World War III won't be far behind. Personally speaking, if Trump does win the election, it will be a real "stop the world, I wanna get off" moment for me. I agree with the general feeling, because when the US sneezes the world catches a cold. I do not actually believe Trump could be responsible for WWIII, however, because even if the buck stops at the president there are plenty of people who will tell him that a military escalation against China or Russia (the only possible opponents in a world war) would be a very bad idea indeed. Crazy plans about waging war against Iran are simply not going to fly in Russia and China (nor France and probably not England for that matter). However, that's where the good news end. Trump's disconnection from the real world would probably translate into disastrous policies, from lower taxes to the rich to the establishment of a police state, with many international treaties being flushed down the drain. That would have consequences for the US economy, doubtless, but that's something that can be reversed in time. What would be irrevocably damaged is the US's standing in the world. That took a severe beating with George W. Bush, and even Obama's intelligence and diplomatic acumen wasn't enough to recover the lost ground. If America is capable of putting someone like Trump in charge, many countries might think, shouldn't it be time to let someone else dictate the way the world runs? China is definitely willing to take the job, and Russia would love to resume its superpower status. Many other countries might consider forming a new alliance, one that would not include the US. If such countries could do that, one might ask, why aren't they doing it now? Fair question, and simple answer : practicality. The United States have proven to be a pretty reliable advocate of rules-based negotiations between countries and has backed numerous important treaties that benefit the whole planet. Even if from time to time the US uses such rules and treaties to its advantage (which is often, and understandably so), the entire system is a better one than anarchy or than subjection to patron states. However, if the US decides that treaties can be torn up whenever it suits a populist president, it will prove that it's pointless signing a treaty with the country and that it might be more beneficial to sign up with someone else. It would be a real shame to see the United States, arguably the leader of the western world since WWII, be demoted to the rank of cranky and senile uncle better left ignored. (When I think of the golden age of the late '90s, I feel extremely sad. The future seemed so bright back then).
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 1, 2016 11:01:19 GMT -5
I have to say that the vast, vast majority of people over here in the UK -- along with both the left-leaning and right-leaning media -- are utterly dumbfounded that someone as ignorant, xenophobic, inarticulate, sexist and down right racist as Trump could have ever gotten this close to the White House. It's hard to believe that this is the same country that only 4 years ago re-elected Barack Obama, who, regardless of what you think of his homeland policies, has been a superb ambassador for the U.S. overseas -- something that the U.S. badly needed, might I add. It seems like such a head scratcher to many of us over here. I mean, sure, we do have our own outspokenly ignorant, xenophobic, sexist politicians, but they're mostly confined to the right-wing, populist party UKIP. That party have garnered a fair bit of public support in recent years (so, we as a nation, do understand the appeal of populist politics), but, while a lot of what UKIP spouts is unrealistic, isolationist drivel, actually, having UKIP representatives in the House of Commons and the House of Lords works quite well to flavour the overall soup of British democracy. But someone like UKIP's Nigel Farage would never come close to becoming the Prime Minister, in the way that Trump has come so close to being President. Now, I realise that Clinton is hardly whiter than white (and plenty of folks I've spoken to feel truly sorry for the Americans, having to essentially pick the least offensive turd out of the toilet bowl), but come on...Trump as president would be an utter disaster, both in terms of America at home and foreign policy abroad. He's an empty vessel making the most noise -- big on rhetoric and sloganeering, but mighty short on how he's going to actually deliver any of the things he promises. He is a dangerous, dangerous man and the feeling "on the street" over here (if I may be permitted to speak on behalf of the nation) is that if he becomes president, World War III won't be far behind. Personally speaking, if Trump does win the election, it will be a real "stop the world, I wanna get off" moment for me. Well said, Confessor. I would quibble only with that "lesser of two evils" notion that helps to create a false equivalency between HRC and Trump. For me, and my knowledgeable appreciation and/or participation in our presidential campaigns goes back to Nixon-Humphrey in '68, this election is even more frightening in its import than any other. I imagine that its near-equivalent in rancor, animosity and the potential for long-lasting damage might be the 1860 election... and we know what that precipitated. Im not suggesting that open rebellion and military action will ensue if Trump loses or wins. Times have changed and the battlefield has as well; the war for America's future will begin in the courts and on the Internet. What you have spoken to here, Confessor, is that almost innocent motion that America and its people will in the end, do the right thing by themselves and the world. What we are seeing, though, is the culmination of entitlement, a sense of exceptionalism and overall "me-firstism" that has seeped into every aspect of our culture. Trump, supposedly a mere caricature of the worst traits of America, has proved to be their avatar. All the analogies and analyses apply in one way or another: the monster broken free of the basement lab; the know-nothing adored by the ignorant and selfish; the narcissist feeding on the idol-worship of the masses; the Anti-Christ, et al. I hope there are enough pragmatists, idealists, rationalists and yes, decent human beings who recognize that what is at stake in every presidential election is the future, and not just the next four years -- that's a drop in the bucket -- but the distant future. That future that will be shaped in large part by Supreme Court decisions and policies and programs carefully shaped as first steps toward eventual success. The Trump followers want what they want now without a care to what effects their impulses will have later on. They long ago abandoned the notion of a commonwealth and have eagerly forsaken curiosity and ceded their consciences to their Leader, who will fix it all without telling them how. We are seeing the poisonous fruit of so many seeds of evil sown throughout the last thirty-plus years. I think he will lose the election, but I also think that is simply a skirmish, perhaps simply a feint, in a much larger war.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 1, 2016 12:18:06 GMT -5
Intermission"Sent to me from heaven / Sally cinnamon you're my world"{Spoiler: Click to show} Such a choon!! Love me some Stone Roses. "Stop the world, I'm gettin' off" indeed.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 1, 2016 12:51:58 GMT -5
He is a dangerous, dangerous man and the feeling "on the street" over here (if I may be permitted to speak on behalf of the nation) is that if he becomes president, World War III won't be far behind. Personally speaking, if Trump does win the election, it will be a real "stop the world, I wanna get off" moment for me. I agree with the general feeling, because when the US sneezes the world catches a cold. I do not actually believe Trump could be responsible for WWIII, however, because even if the buck stops at the president there are plenty of people who will tell him that a military escalation against China or Russia (the only possible opponents in a world war) would be a very bad idea indeed. I certainly hope that you're right. Trump's admiration of and apparent friendliness towards Vladimir Putin would make you think that a U.S./Russia conflict would be less likely, but they both share a frighteningly similar worldview. Not that they necessarily want the same things, just that they both have very similar views on foreign policy, broadly speaking, and offensives in the Middle East specifically. That could definitely lead to trouble between the two at some point down the line. Also, the tricky situation with North Korea's nuclear ambitions looks a whole lot more frightening with Trump at the helm of America's forces. Incidentally, regarding your "when the US sneezes the world catches a cold" statement, I used to be friends with a woman who had a Masters Degree in politics and she always reckoned that, really, the whole world should be allowed to vote in the U.S. elections because the outcome effects the whole planet. That's totally unworkable, of course, and quite possibly undemocratic or unethical depending on your point of view, but it's certainly a thought provoking concept. For me, and my knowledgeable appreciation and/or participation in our presidential campaigns goes back to Nixon-Humphrey in '68, this election is even more frightening in its import than any other. I imagine that its near-equivalent in rancor, animosity and the potential for long-lasting damage might be the 1860 election... and we know what that precipitated. Im not suggesting that open rebellion and military action will ensue if Trump loses or wins. Times have changed and the battlefield has as well; the war for America's future will begin in the courts and on the Internet. Sad thing is, likening the outcome of this election to the aftermath of the 1860 one isn't all that far fetched. And that definitely goes both ways because, as Roquefort Raider said earlier, there's enough doubt over Hillary's conduct and competence that we could see her being the target of ongoing accusations (baseless and otherwise). Just today I noticed that The Telegraph newspaper over here was asking if Hillary Clinton would end up being tried over her e-mails once she wins the presidency. Maybe that's far fetched, but the fact that the question is already being asked by foreign media -- let alone domestic American media -- doesn't bode well. Besides, Donald Trump's already been whinging about the media being biased and the polls having been rigged. Presumably a fair amount of his supporters agree with him on that. I could definitely see the outcome being massively contested by the American public and the media. What you have spoken to here, Confessor, is that almost innocent motion that America and its people will in the end, do the right thing by themselves and the world. What we are seeing, though, is the culmination of entitlement, a sense of exceptionalism and overall "me-firstism" that has seeped into every aspect of our culture. Trump, supposedly a mere caricature of the worst traits of America, has proved to be their avatar. All the analogies and analyses apply in one way or another: the monster broken free of the basement lab; the know-nothing adored by the ignorant and selfish; the narcissist feeding on the idol-worship of the masses; the Anti-Christ, et al. I hope there are enough pragmatists, idealists, rationalists and yes, decent human beings who recognize that what is at stake in every presidential election is the future, and not just the next four years -- that's a drop in the bucket -- but the distant future. That future that will be shaped in large part by Supreme Court decisions and policies and programs carefully shaped as first steps toward eventual success. The Trump followers want what they want now without a care to what effects their impulses will have later on. They long ago abandoned the notion of a commonwealth and have eagerly forsaken curiosity and ceded their consciences to their Leader, who will fix it all without telling them how. Like you, I hope that America will do the best thing for itself and the world (read: vote Hillary Clinton into power). America is a great, great country and populated by some of the friendliest and most generous people on Earth. I try to remain optimistic that those people will do the right thing when the time comes. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 1, 2016 12:54:03 GMT -5
He is a dangerous, dangerous man and the feeling "on the street" over here (if I may be permitted to speak on behalf of the nation) is that if he becomes president, World War III won't be far behind. Personally speaking, if Trump does win the election, it will be a real "stop the world, I wanna get off" moment for me. I agree with the general feeling, because when the US sneezes the world catches a cold. I do not actually believe Trump could be responsible for WWIII, however, because even if the buck stops at the president there are plenty of people who will tell him that a military escalation against China or Russia (the only possible opponents in a world war) would be a very bad idea indeed. Crazy plans about waging war against Iran are simply not going to fly in Russia and China (nor France and probably not England for that matter). However, that's where the good news end. Trump's disconnection from the real world would probably translate into disastrous policies, from lower taxes to the rich to the establishment of a police state, with many international treaties being flushed down the drain. That would have consequences for the US economy, doubtless, but that's something that can be reversed in time. What would be irrevocably damaged is the US's standing in the world. That took a severe beating with George W. Bush, and even Obama's intelligence and diplomatic acumen wasn't enough to recover the lost ground. If America is capable of putting someone like Trump in charge, many countries might think, shouldn't it be time to let someone else dictate the way the world runs? China is definitely willing to take the job, and Russia would love to resume its superpower status. Many other countries might consider forming a new alliance, one that would not include the US. If such countries could do that, one might ask, why aren't they doing it now? Fair question, and simple answer : practicality. The United States have proven to be a pretty reliable advocate of rules-based negotiations between countries and has backed numerous important treaties that benefit the whole planet. Even if from time to time the US uses such rules and treaties to its advantage (which is often, and understandably so), the entire system is a better one than anarchy or than subjection to patron states. However, if the US decides that treaties can be torn up whenever it suits a populist president, it will prove that it's pointless signing a treaty with the country and that it might be more beneficial to sign up with someone else. It would be a real shame to see the United States, arguably the leader of the western world since WWII, be demoted to the rank of cranky and senile uncle better left ignored. "Arguably" is putting it mildly. No offence, but the rest of us are perfectly capable of leading ourselves, thanks. The fact that America thinks it leads the world, and frequently says so, does not help it to win any friends.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 1, 2016 13:12:36 GMT -5
I agree with the general feeling, because when the US sneezes the world catches a cold. I do not actually believe Trump could be responsible for WWIII, however, because even if the buck stops at the president there are plenty of people who will tell him that a military escalation against China or Russia (the only possible opponents in a world war) would be a very bad idea indeed. Crazy plans about waging war against Iran are simply not going to fly in Russia and China (nor France and probably not England for that matter). However, that's where the good news end. Trump's disconnection from the real world would probably translate into disastrous policies, from lower taxes to the rich to the establishment of a police state, with many international treaties being flushed down the drain. That would have consequences for the US economy, doubtless, but that's something that can be reversed in time. What would be irrevocably damaged is the US's standing in the world. That took a severe beating with George W. Bush, and even Obama's intelligence and diplomatic acumen wasn't enough to recover the lost ground. If America is capable of putting someone like Trump in charge, many countries might think, shouldn't it be time to let someone else dictate the way the world runs? China is definitely willing to take the job, and Russia would love to resume its superpower status. Many other countries might consider forming a new alliance, one that would not include the US. If such countries could do that, one might ask, why aren't they doing it now? Fair question, and simple answer : practicality. The United States have proven to be a pretty reliable advocate of rules-based negotiations between countries and has backed numerous important treaties that benefit the whole planet. Even if from time to time the US uses such rules and treaties to its advantage (which is often, and understandably so), the entire system is a better one than anarchy or than subjection to patron states. However, if the US decides that treaties can be torn up whenever it suits a populist president, it will prove that it's pointless signing a treaty with the country and that it might be more beneficial to sign up with someone else. It would be a real shame to see the United States, arguably the leader of the western world since WWII, be demoted to the rank of cranky and senile uncle better left ignored. "Arguably" is putting it mildly. No offence, but the rest of us are perfectly capable of leading ourselves, thanks. The fact that America thinks it leads the world, and frequently says so, does not help it to win any friends. While I agree that America's tendency to think it leads the world does it absolutely no favours abroad, I simultaneously think that you have to accept that the influence of the United States, socially, politically and culturally, on the world over the last 70 years has been massive. I mean, just look at the Americanisation of Britain over that time? I really do think that it's difficult to overestimate the influence of the world's only remaining Superpower in our home country, ting. Even in my own relatively short lifetime, I've seen England become much more Americanised than it was in the '80s -- especially socially and culturally. Don't get me wrong though, I'm as much of a fully paid-up member of The Kinks' "Village Green Preservation Society" as any sensible Englishman, but the fact remains, America has been a dominant influence and powerful agent of change (not necessarily progress) for the UK in recent decades. I'm not saying that's necessarily right, but I am saying that it's an unassailable fact.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 1, 2016 14:27:33 GMT -5
"Arguably" is putting it mildly. No offence, but the rest of us are perfectly capable of leading ourselves, thanks. The fact that America thinks it leads the world, and frequently says so, does not help it to win any friends. While I agree that America's tendency to think it leads the world does it absolutely no favours abroad, I simultaneously think that you have to accept that the influence of the United States, socially, politically and culturally, on the world over the last 70 years has been massive. I mean, just look at the Americanisation of Britain over that time? I really do think that it's difficult to overestimate the influence of the world's only remaining Superpower in our home country, ting. Even in my own relatively short lifetime, I've seen England become much more Americanised than it was in the '80s -- especially socially and culturally. Don't get me wrong though, I'm as much of a fully paid-up member of The Kinks' "Village Green Preservation Society" as any sensible Englishman, but the fact remains, America has been a dominant influence and powerful agent of change (not necessarily progress) for the UK in recent decades. I'm not saying that's necessarily right, but I am saying that it's an unassailable fact. Oh, I agree that's it's a fact that American culture has had a big impact on British society in the last twenty or thirty years: it's just a fact that I really don't like. Again, no offence intended to anyone, but I happen to believe our own unique culture and traditions are worth holding on to, and that the more homogenized the world becomes, the more all it's individual nations and cultures lose. It's the same reason I have always been opposed to the idea of a European superstate (or one of the reasons, anyway).
|
|