|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 07 2016 10:36 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote:
@GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore. Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here. I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election. Take a 90 day ban bet on that?
You are my hero.
|
On July 07 2016 10:51 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2016 10:28 TMagpie wrote:
Legit question, what makes people think anyone would vote for Bernie in the general when they weren't voting for him in the primary? Insert Trump hysteria here. it seems you don't too much pay attention to him much out of your obsession with the hillary/bernie issue, but he is really quite frightening and a real possibility. i hope you do enough research to properly scare yourself closer to the GE.
He's either utterly incompetent or he'll be some menacing dictator it can't be both. I'm leaning toward incompetent, but like I said, I could be swayed.
I also don't buy into the idea that Trump losing automatically makes it better than if he wins, if he wins he proves it's not rigged (at least to his supporters) and they can be pacified with him fighting with Republicans and nothing getting done. If he loses who knows what Trump's most fervent/dangerous supporters end up doing, not to mention losing to Hillary would be far more inflaming than pretty much anyone else.
America has put itself in a really bad spot, I'm not sure there are any great outcomes for this cycle at this point.
|
He will get to appoint the next justice, which means reduced voting rights for minorities and god know what else. But whatever.
|
he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action
|
Would be fun if Bernie ran independent. Would be a 33/33/33 election result or somewhere close to that.
He has been in it for so long now,he might as well do it.
Its his best change to shake things up but I guess he will settle for a promise of free college for lower income americans, saw him mention something like that on cnn when Bernie was being intervieuwed.
|
On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote:
he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action
Is he more pro war than Clinton
|
On July 07 2016 09:46 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote:
@GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore. Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here. I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election. I'm saving this one for posterity. Either there will be posterity to laugh at it, or there will be very little to no posterity at all.
The American experiment, the first country explicitly founded on the Enlightenment, that's stood for over two centuries, through over 40 administrations, a civil and two world wars, isn't going to be suddenly undone by someone who is coincidentally the candidate you don't like in the current election.
|
On July 07 2016 11:18 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote:
he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action Is he more pro war than Clinton
His temperament of being unable to back, ever, would be terrible at keeping us out of conflicts. Let alone his control over the FBI and CIA.
On July 07 2016 11:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 09:46 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote:
@GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore. Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here. I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election. I'm saving this one for posterity. Either there will be posterity to laugh at it, or there will be very little to no posterity at all. The American experiment, the first country explicitly founded on the Enlightenment, that's stood for over two centuries, through over 40 administrations, a civil and two world wars, isn't going to be suddenly undone by someone who is coincidentally the candidate you don't like in the current election.
It only takes one. But this isn't an endorsement either. "Will not destroy the Union" is not a line on the president's resume.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 07 2016 11:18 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote:
he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action Is he more pro war than Clinton
He is rather anti war as far as presidential candidates go. Some people are scared that he would do something unpredictable and stupid though.
Clinton is really, really shitty for FP. She is a warhawk with a long history of poor FP judgment.
|
On July 07 2016 11:18 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote:
he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action Is he more pro war than Clinton
it's hard to tell
he certainly likes to talk about killing terrorists a lot more, to the point of saying one of saddam's good points was his ruthlessness in killing terrorists
at the same time he's hinted at being more isolationist at some points, and probably wouldn't intervene too much... except maybe a allout groundwar with the isis terrorists
hard to tell
really i guess its just being more okay with more of the same as opposed to wanting to find out whatever the hell trump actually believes/wants to do... whatever it is, i find it incredibly likely it'll be worse overall than clinton upholding the status quo for the most part for 4 years. so yea its still somewhat unsubstantiated fear... because it's hard to tell what trump wants to commit to in terms of substance except perhaps his wall and protectionist economic policies
he's going to make all the best deals
he's going to bring the jobs that the lowskilled factory workers used to have back (impossible)
idk im too tired to go on
i dont even care, seeing trump would definitely be amusing and i'd probably survive anyhow, even if it catalyzes a massive restructuring of the country, which might be a good thing, though im pessimistic
whatever, i take it all back. lill just sit back and watch #neverhillary vs #nevertrump
|
On July 07 2016 11:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 11:18 CorsairHero wrote:On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote:
he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action Is he more pro war than Clinton He is rather anti war as far as presidential candidates go. Some people are scared that he would do something unpredictable and stupid though. Clinton is really, really shitty for FP. She is a warhawk with a long history of poor FP judgment.
That is my understanding too which is why I asked tuna. Trump may flip flop but it's pretty certain that Clinton will involve American soldiers quite often.
|
There isn't much he can do wrong.
Like his foreign policy and actions will be based on the intel he gets from the cia and other advisors. And he cant really do anything without the military top supporting it.
And since he doesn't seem to know much about anything (at least that's what people seem to think) he will need a lot of advice on a lot of different isues.
Then tons of beaurocrats to write the laws and get them through congress.
I think the biggest danger from a trump presidency doesn't neccesarely come from trump himself,but from some of the more hawkish political advisors who could try to use him to advance their own agenda.
Am not saying it is easy,but the notion that the president runs everything just isn't right I think.
|
Yeah, being president is easy. W Bush did it and look at time. He totally made it through 8 years with a solid economy and didn't involve us in any unnecessary conflicts. Great on natural disasters too. This country practical runs itself.
|
the debates are going to be so one sided. trump has basically mt everest worth of ammo, and his personality is a giant shield to insults. After realizing that hrc has no effect via shit slinging she will resort to staying on policy which no one will listen to for two reasons: its all stuff the average american has heard before from obama, and second her message will be drowned out by trump's insults. The end result will be a weak, robotic and corrupt politician with no charisma vs a new, anti establishment candidate who dwarfs her non existent personality. The question is how much do the debates affect the GE
|
On July 07 2016 11:10 Plansix wrote:
He will get to appoint the next justice, which means reduced voting rights for minorities and god know what else. But whatever.
That sucks, but it's far from the scariest thing I could actually see Trump doing, and again, that's an American problem, not a Trump problem. The quarantining of it as "Trump" by looking in isolation at the supreme court is a huge part of the problem.
The problem isn't worrying about a supreme court siding with some backasswards state usually years after people are impacted (remember Hillary's Democratic NY is one of the worst offenders) it's that these states pass this crap, and citizens live under it in the first place. While Trump brings his own problems, this notion that we've already conceded everything prior to the supreme court is far more damaging than I think many people realize.
Tuna made the case for stagnation as the safest option, that's only true for those who find themselves safe at the moment. Those living in fear for their rights and often lives don't have the luxury of a calm, well timed, gradual, well prepared, gentle drift towards justice. They need action now, whether we're prepared for it or not.
If voting rights laws are getting to the supreme court, it's too late, we've already lost too much. If it's as important to those that use it as a stick to motivate folks to support Hillary, they should seriously consider how important Hillary is to them, because while I may have an affinity toward that line of reasoning, one leg of Hillary's campaign rested on the notion that I'm a rarity among Sanders supporters.
But being black in America isn't getting better under Clinton or Trump it's a decision between under which it would get worse, which is an unacceptable proposition to me.
|
On July 07 2016 11:18 pmh wrote:
Would be fun if Bernie ran independent. Would be a 33/33/33 election result or somewhere close to that.
He has been in it for so long now,he might as well do it.
Its his best change to shake things up but I guess he will settle for a promise of free college for lower income americans, saw him mention something like that on cnn when Bernie was being intervieuwed.
candidates require more than 50% of the vote in order to win.
On July 07 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 11:10 Plansix wrote:
He will get to appoint the next justice, which means reduced voting rights for minorities and god know what else. But whatever. That sucks, but it's far from the scariest thing I could actually see Trump doing, and again, that's an American problem, not a Trump problem. The quarantining of it as "Trump" by looking in isolation at the supreme court is a huge part of the problem. The problem isn't worrying about a supreme court siding with some backasswards state usually years after people are impacted (remember Hillary's Democratic NY is one of the worst offenders) it's that these states pass this crap, and citizens live under it in the first place. While Trump brings his own problems, this notion that we've already conceded everything prior to the supreme court is far more damaging than I think many people realize. Tuna made the case for stagnation as the safest option, that's only true for those who find themselves safe at the moment. Those living in fear for their rights and often lives don't have the luxury of a calm, well timed, gradual, well prepared, gentle drift towards justice. They need action now, whether we're prepared for it or not. If voting rights laws are getting to the supreme court, it's too late, we've already lost too much. If it's as important to those that use it as a stick to motivate folks to support Hillary, they should seriously consider how important Hillary is to them, because while I may have an affinity toward that line of reasoning, one leg of Hillary's campaign rested on the notion that I'm a rarity among Sanders supporters. But being black in America isn't getting better under Clinton or Trump it's a decision between under which it would get worse, which is an unacceptable proposition to me.
What do you think Clinton will do to make life for black people worse?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 07 2016 11:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 11:18 pmh wrote:
Would be fun if Bernie ran independent. Would be a 33/33/33 election result or somewhere close to that.
He has been in it for so long now,he might as well do it.
Its his best change to shake things up but I guess he will settle for a promise of free college for lower income americans, saw him mention something like that on cnn when Bernie was being intervieuwed. candidates require more than 50% of the vote in order to win.
50% of the electoral vote anyways, which is a whole different can of worms.
Usually more lopsided than popular vote, occasionally contradicts the popular vote.
|
On July 07 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 11:10 Plansix wrote:
He will get to appoint the next justice, which means reduced voting rights for minorities and god know what else. But whatever. That sucks, but it's far from the scariest thing I could actually see Trump doing, and again, that's an American problem, not a Trump problem. The quarantining of it as "Trump" by looking in isolation at the supreme court is a huge part of the problem. The problem isn't worrying about a supreme court siding with some backasswards state usually years after people are impacted (remember Hillary's Democratic NY is one of the worst offenders) it's that these states pass this crap, and citizens live under it in the first place. While Trump brings his own problems, this notion that we've already conceded everything prior to the supreme court is far more damaging than I think many people realize. Tuna made the case for stagnation as the safest option, that's only true for those who find themselves safe at the moment. Those living in fear for their rights and often lives don't have the luxury of a calm, well timed, gradual, well prepared, gentle drift towards justice. They need action now, whether we're prepared for it or not. If voting rights laws are getting to the supreme court, it's too late, we've already lost too much. If it's as important to those that use it as a stick to motivate folks to support Hillary, they should seriously consider how important Hillary is to them, because while I may have an affinity toward that line of reasoning, one leg of Hillary's campaign rested on the notion that I'm a rarity among Sanders supporters. But being black in America isn't getting better under Clinton or Trump it's a decision between under which it would get worse, which is an unacceptable proposition to me.
Yeah, straight up I think you are delusional. But we ahve had this discussion and you are entitled to think what you want.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 07 2016 11:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 11:18 CorsairHero wrote:On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote:
he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action Is he more pro war than Clinton His temperament of being unable to back, ever, would be terrible at keeping us out of conflicts. Let alone his control over the FBI and CIA. Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 11:20 oBlade wrote:On July 07 2016 09:46 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote:
@GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore. Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here. I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election. I'm saving this one for posterity. Either there will be posterity to laugh at it, or there will be very little to no posterity at all. The American experiment, the first country explicitly founded on the Enlightenment, that's stood for over two centuries, through over 40 administrations, a civil and two world wars, isn't going to be suddenly undone by someone who is coincidentally the candidate you don't like in the current election. It only takes one. But this isn't an endorsement either. "Will not destroy the Union" is not a line on the president's resume.
So do you think Hillary is strong on that front, or do you just think she is less bad?
Seems like a hard sell to promote Hillary as a not pro-war candidate.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 07 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 11:10 Plansix wrote:
He will get to appoint the next justice, which means reduced voting rights for minorities and god know what else. But whatever. That sucks, but it's far from the scariest thing I could actually see Trump doing, and again, that's an American problem, not a Trump problem. The quarantining of it as "Trump" by looking in isolation at the supreme court is a huge part of the problem. The problem isn't worrying about a supreme court siding with some backasswards state usually years after people are impacted (remember Hillary's Democratic NY is one of the worst offenders) it's that these states pass this crap, and citizens live under it in the first place. While Trump brings his own problems, this notion that we've already conceded everything prior to the supreme court is far more damaging than I think many people realize. Tuna made the case for stagnation as the safest option, that's only true for those who find themselves safe at the moment. Those living in fear for their rights and often lives don't have the luxury of a calm, well timed, gradual, well prepared, gentle drift towards justice. They need action now, whether we're prepared for it or not. If voting rights laws are getting to the supreme court, it's too late, we've already lost too much. If it's as important to those that use it as a stick to motivate folks to support Hillary, they should seriously consider how important Hillary is to them, because while I may have an affinity toward that line of reasoning, one leg of Hillary's campaign rested on the notion that I'm a rarity among Sanders supporters. But being black in America isn't getting better under Clinton or Trump it's a decision between under which it would get worse, which is an unacceptable proposition to me.
Well, tough shit. I don't like either candidate either and I think both will ultimately make things worse. And yet the difference between how they will do things does actually matters. Sometimes you don't get what you want and you have to find something that sucks less than the other choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
