US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5053

On September 20 2016 13:13 Doodsmack wrote:


At some point you gotta accept that it's a choice between Trump or Hillary. Donald Trump that is, candidate for US president.

+ Show Spoiler +

On September 20 2016 13:14 GreenHorizons wrote:


I fully hope they both lose, but I am still tethered to reality, so I recognize that's not happening (bar some catastrophe like they are both indicted before the election).

But I'll be damned if I vote for either of those lying dirt bags just because one is less of a lying dirt bag than the other. That's just stupid and a sure fire way to make sure we never have anyone worth voting for.




At some point people have to realize thinking like that is what makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On September 20 2016 13:14 RealityIsKing wrote:


At least Trump projects strength for the country.

On September 20 2016 13:19 Doodsmack wrote:


But...270.

On September 20 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:


Picking between Trump and Clinton is a lose lose proposition. I won't do it. People can get mad at the millions of people who don't even participate if they want to deflect responsibility off of themselves and their candidate.

On September 20 2016 13:28 Doodsmack wrote:


Donald Trump, candidate for US president, gladly accepts your gift.

+ Show Spoiler +

On September 20 2016 13:29 LegalLord wrote:

In some sense I agree with you - you can't just encourage the party to keep selecting increasingly shitty candidate. If your opponent is consistently offering 20% of what you want, but the "lesser of two evils" is offering 40%, next time you get 21% and expect you to vote for them anyways. In that sense if might make perfect sense to vote for the "greater evil" on principle.

However, both parties are fucked right now. Either choice is a bad one, and all the "third option" choices are a throwaway vote. No third party has a chance to win because FPTP. Not voting is unproductive, because as P6 put it, not voting is not a protest but a vote for apathy. It's unfortunate that there is no means by which you can effect positive change this election by voting for president, but ultimately I think you have to cast a vote and one not cast for a main party is wasted. You had a good point when you said that democracy led to 2 candidates that no one likes being chosen. What an unfortunate event.

My hope is that Hillary wins, the Republican Party pulls its head out of its ass, and provides a much more moderate platform with an electable candidate who will easily steamroll Hillary in 2020.

On September 20 2016 13:29 LegalLord wrote:

In some sense I agree with you - you can't just encourage the party to keep selecting increasingly shitty candidate. If your opponent is consistently offering 20% of what you want, but the "lesser of two evils" is offering 40%, next time you get 21% and expect you to vote for them anyways. In that sense if might make perfect sense to vote for the "greater evil" on principle.

However, both parties are fucked right now. Either choice is a bad one, and all the "third option" choices are a throwaway vote. No third party has a chance to win because FPTP. Not voting is unproductive, because as P6 put it, not voting is not a protest but a vote for apathy. It's unfortunate that there is no means by which you can effect positive change this election by voting for president, but ultimately I think you have to cast a vote and one not cast for a main party is wasted. You had a good point when you said that democracy led to 2 candidates that no one likes being chosen. What an unfortunate event.

My hope is that Hillary wins, the Republican Party pulls its head out of its ass, and provides a much more moderate platform with an electable candidate who will easily steamroll Hillary in 2020.

On September 20 2016 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


That is such a tired and silly argument, voting for not Trump is not a vote for Trump no matter how hard Hillary supporters try to spin it into one.

My hope is that Hillary wins, the Republican Party pulls its head out of its ass, and provides a much more moderate platform with an electable candidate who will easily steamroll Hillary in 2020

On September 20 2016 13:37 Doodsmack wrote:


It's not a vote for him but it is a gift to him given that you're in the Democrat voter headcount. Unless you're in a solid red or blue state, then I don't care.

On September 20 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:


Picking between Trump and Clinton is a lose lose proposition. I won't do it. People can get mad at the millions of people who don't even participate if they want to deflect responsibility off of themselves and their candidate.

On September 20 2016 13:44 GreenHorizons wrote:


Democrats thinking they had my vote because they've got it before is the type of stupidity that would make someone like Trump consider me not voting for him a gift to him.

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey was informed in real time about the plot to wreak revenge on a small-town mayor who refused to back him for re-election by creating traffic chaos over the George Washington bridge, federal prosecutors said on Monday.

The stunning claim was made during opening remarks by the prosecution at the trial of two of Christie’s once close associates in Newark. Bridget Kelly, the governor’s then deputy chief of staff, and Bill Baroni, former deputy head of the Port Authority which controlled the bridge, are charged with instigating lane closures in September 2013 as an act of political spite against Mark Sokolich, the mayor of Fort Lee that sits in the shadow of the GWB.

Though Christie himself has not been charged, how much he knew about any nefarious intent behind the gridlock is the elephant in the courtroom. Delivering his opening statement, assistant US attorney Vikas Khanna referred to a 9/11 memorial ceremony held on the third day of the traffic crisis that was attended by Christie and several of his inner team.

There has long been speculation about what was said at that event after photos of Christie emerged in the company of Baroni and Kelly. Also present at the ceremony was David Wildstein, another top Port Authority executive who has already pleaded guilty to conspiracy and is now the star witness for the prosecution.

Khanna told the jury they would hear testimony from Wildstein in which he would describe the brief conversation that took place there. “During those precious few minutes, they bragged about the fact that there were traffic problems in Fort Lee and that Mayor Sokolich was not getting his calls returned.”

Christie has consistently denied he knew at the time that his associates had colluded in creating traffic hell for Fort Lee. But the suggestion that he was in the loop has followed him around like a bad smell for the past three years, helping to destroy his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, which collapsed in February.

Since flaming out of the race for the White House, Christie has put his eggs into the Donald Trump basket. The claims emanating from the so-called Bridgegate trial are awkwardly timed given that Christie is acting as Trump’s surrogate on law and order.

Both Kelly, 44, and Baroni, also 44, have pleaded not guilty to all charges. Their own defense could also prove uncomfortable for Christie as they have indicated they will call on witnesses who are well versed in the inner workings of the governor’s administration.

On September 20 2016 13:33 Slaughter wrote:


I wouldn't mind that scenario.

On September 20 2016 13:50 Doodsmack wrote:



Democrats can think whatever they want but someone still needs 270. And it might be Donald Trump.

+ Show Spoiler +