|
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 November 05 2016 03:37 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again.
We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here.
Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins?
Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed.
A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Well he actually visited the american rust belt. No one has ever done that in the history of do- errr politics. Clearly only Trump cares about the once employed factory workers.
Holding a rally is more important then actual policy.
Good to know.
|
On November 05 2016 03:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality. Hillary has taken a very active role in her position as First Lady and I do not think that anyone would be wrong to say that she took a role that some would say is akin to that of a politician. Whether or not that is a good thing is up to interpretation (all else held equal, it's a good thing, but I don't think she did a good job). But it's perfectly valid to consider her as a political agent in the Clinton administration. That's an incredible stretch. First ladies have a few pet issues they push, doesn't make them politicians. Are we calling Nancy Reagan the first female president since she ran things during Ronald's second term? Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality. Because she was arguably the most politically active First Lady that we've ever had. Compare Hillary to Laura Bush. The contrast is striking. If you actually believe this then you need to brush up on history. There have been multiple first ladies that essentially ran the country when their husbands were in failing health.
If we went by that logic you'd have to go back to Eleanor Roosevelt for first lady president.
|
On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2016 23:25 Uldridge wrote:
Will this have been the most drama filled election in US history?
It's just astounding howmuch shit keeps hitting the fan every moment.. Truly incredible I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you being purposefully dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back.
Hmm... Lets backtrack for moment since I did not mention Hillary in the section you quoted me in.
Bill Clinton: Biggest economic gains in American History.
George Bush: Trillion Dollar surplus spent on war right before a recession.
Barack Obama: Community Organizer spends 8 years shrinking our debts and cutting down on number of troops endangered without cutting back on American influence abroad.
So somewhere between high economic growth and community organizer turned president the american people got upset about elites running things? (This is quarter of a century of recent american history FYI)
What elites? What progressive establishment? Are you talking about the Democratic party who has been the minority for the past 12 years with less people in both the house and senate? Are you talking about Obama, community organizer raised by a single mother or your talking about Hillary, small town lawyer from the midwest who clawed her way into power?
What establishment is being talked about? What elites are being talked about?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 05 2016 03:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality. Hillary has taken a very active role in her position as First Lady and I do not think that anyone would be wrong to say that she took a role that some would say is akin to that of a politician. Whether or not that is a good thing is up to interpretation (all else held equal, it's a good thing, but I don't think she did a good job). But it's perfectly valid to consider her as a political agent in the Clinton administration. That's an incredible stretch. First ladies have a few pet issues they push, doesn't make them politicians. Are we calling Nancy Reagan the first female president since she ran things during Ronald's second term? Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality. Because she was arguably the most politically active First Lady that we've ever had. Compare Hillary to Laura Bush. The contrast is striking. If you actually believe this then you need to brush up on history. There have been multiple first ladies that essentially ran the country when their husbands were in failing health.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Role_as_first_lady
Read that and say she isn't a politician. Select quotes:
She was part of the innermost circle vetting appointments to the new administration and her choices filled at least eleven top-level positions and dozens more lower-level ones.[142] After Eleanor Roosevelt, Clinton was regarded as the most openly empowered presidential wife in American history.
Some critics called it inappropriate for the first lady to play a central role in matters of public policy. Supporters pointed out that Clinton's role in policy was no different from that of other White House advisors and that voters had been well aware that she would play an active role in her husband's presidency.[145] Bill Clinton's campaign promise of "two for the price of one" led opponents to refer derisively to the Clintons as "co-presidents" or sometimes use the Arkansas label "Billary".
In January 1993, President Clinton named Hillary to chair a Task Force on National Health Care Reform, hoping to replicate the success she had in leading the effort for Arkansas education reform.[155] Unconvinced regarding the merits of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), she privately urged that passage of health care reform be given higher priority.
Not a politician my ass.
|
On November 05 2016 03:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality. Hillary has taken a very active role in her position as First Lady and I do not think that anyone would be wrong to say that she took a role that some would say is akin to that of a politician. Whether or not that is a good thing is up to interpretation (all else held equal, it's a good thing, but I don't think she did a good job). But it's perfectly valid to consider her as a political agent in the Clinton administration. That's an incredible stretch. First ladies have a few pet issues they push, doesn't make them politicians. Are we calling Nancy Reagan the first female president since she ran things during Ronald's second term? On November 05 2016 03:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality. Because she was arguably the most politically active First Lady that we've ever had. Compare Hillary to Laura Bush. The contrast is striking. If you actually believe this then you need to brush up on history. There have been multiple first ladies that essentially ran the country when their husbands were in failing health. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Role_as_first_ladyRead that and say she isn't a politician. Select quotes: Show nested quote +She was part of the innermost circle vetting appointments to the new administration and her choices filled at least eleven top-level positions and dozens more lower-level ones.[142] After Eleanor Roosevelt, Clinton was regarded as the most openly empowered presidential wife in American history. Show nested quote +Some critics called it inappropriate for the first lady to play a central role in matters of public policy. Supporters pointed out that Clinton's role in policy was no different from that of other White House advisors and that voters had been well aware that she would play an active role in her husband's presidency.[145] Bill Clinton's campaign promise of "two for the price of one" led opponents to refer derisively to the Clintons as "co-presidents" or sometimes use the Arkansas label "Billary". Show nested quote +In January 1993, President Clinton named Hillary to chair a Task Force on National Health Care Reform, hoping to replicate the success she had in leading the effort for Arkansas education reform.[155] Unconvinced regarding the merits of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), she privately urged that passage of health care reform be given higher priority. Not a politician my ass.
Exactly. Even questioning whether Hillary was a politician during the 90s is fucking absurd.
|
On November 05 2016 03:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality. Hillary has taken a very active role in her position as First Lady and I do not think that anyone would be wrong to say that she took a role that some would say is akin to that of a politician. Whether or not that is a good thing is up to interpretation (all else held equal, it's a good thing, but I don't think she did a good job). But it's perfectly valid to consider her as a political agent in the Clinton administration. That's an incredible stretch. First ladies have a few pet issues they push, doesn't make them politicians. Are we calling Nancy Reagan the first female president since she ran things during Ronald's second term? On November 05 2016 03:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality. Because she was arguably the most politically active First Lady that we've ever had. Compare Hillary to Laura Bush. The contrast is striking. If you actually believe this then you need to brush up on history. There have been multiple first ladies that essentially ran the country when their husbands were in failing health. If we went by that logic you'd have to go back to Eleanor Roosevelt for first lady president.
That isn’t really that long ago. Clinton’s accomplishment as first lady was that she was openly advocating for her political views and advocacy. I think we have moved beyond the era were we expect every first lady to put her career and opinions on hold during her husband’s term.
|
On November 05 2016 03:37 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again.
We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here.
Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins?
Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed.
A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Well he actually visited the american rust belt. No one has ever done that in the history of do- errr politics. Clearly only Trump cares about the once employed factory workers.
idk what you're even talking about: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-rust-belt-bus-tour/
|
On November 05 2016 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:37 ZeaL. wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:
[quote]
Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Well he actually visited the american rust belt. No one has ever done that in the history of do- errr politics. Clearly only Trump cares about the once employed factory workers. idk what you're even talking about: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-rust-belt-bus-tour/
Zeal was being sarcastic.
I imagine the lack of Tobi reference for non-DotA fans could be easily missed, though.
|
On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker.
Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time.
He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard.
|
On November 05 2016 03:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you being purposefully dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. Hmm... Lets backtrack for moment since I did not mention Hillary in the section you quoted me in. Bill Clinton: Biggest economic gains in American History. George Bush: Trillion Dollar surplus spent on war right before a recession. Barack Obama: Community Organizer spends 8 years shrinking our debts and cutting down on number of troops endangered without cutting back on American influence abroad. So somewhere between high economic growth and community organizer turned president the american people got upset about elites running things? (This is quarter of a century of recent american history FYI) What elites? What progressive establishment? Are you talking about the Democratic party who has been the minority for the past 12 years with less people in both the house and senate? Are you talking about Obama, community organizer raised by a single mother or your talking about Hillary, small town lawyer from the midwest who clawed her way into power? What establishment is being talked about? What elites are being talked about?
Obama added a ton to the national debt Idk how you say that he shrinked our debt. Also the democrats had a supermajority a little more then six years ago and had Obama with the public's nearly full support after the bush years. Idk how you say that they've been the minority for 12 years.
How the elites running thing has been for only a century of recent american history when the nation was birthed with only the land holding elite having the vote until andrew jackson came around.
It would help your arguments if half of them weren't nonsense.
|
On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again.
We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here.
Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins?
Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed.
A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard.
So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions.
|
On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again.
We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here.
Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins?
Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed.
A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard.
yeah that 900m loss was a standard practical business move.
|
I'd classify Hillary as a politician for a long time, probably throughout Bill's Arkansas governorship and since then.
Just tossing in 2c
|
Politicians run on the facts of their private lives all the time, I dunno what Madkipz is talking about. Most state and local elections literally involve nothing more than assessing the candidates' prior actions as private citizens.
|
On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:
[quote]
Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions.
Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton.
|
On November 05 2016 03:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 03:37 ZeaL. wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided?
And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Well he actually visited the american rust belt. No one has ever done that in the history of do- errr politics. Clearly only Trump cares about the once employed factory workers. idk what you're even talking about: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-rust-belt-bus-tour/ Zeal was being sarcastic. I imagine the lack of Tobi reference for non-DotA fans could be easily missed, though.
Even without watching dota ... this election and all of the crazies have broken so many peoples' sarcasm detectors.
|
Having been first lady, now that I think about it, is a pretty strong qualification. Hard to get any closer to the job she now wants. Compare that to Trump, who knows so little and policy and the world, but wants to be handed the reigns to it.
|
On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided?
And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton.
Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite.
|
On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!"
Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history.
There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite.
I posted this yesterday, but YOLO. Check this out, Trump, big man of the people, going to drain the swamp, is set to appoint a GOLDMAN alumnus as Treasury secretary.
Donald Trump is signaling that he wants to appoint his campaign finance chairman, Steven Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, according to a person close to the campaign.
Trump's preference for the Goldman Sachs alumnus is the latest evidence that the GOP presidential nominee would be inclined to hire officials with experience in the business world should he win next week's election, despite the anti-establishment tone that has dominated the campaign.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/steven-mnuchin-treasury-donald-trump-230716
|
On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!"
Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history.
There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite.
Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
