US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7706

On June 01 2017 20:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ruse and shine America!

On June 01 2017 19:48 Slydie wrote:


He was critizising the system, and yes, the dems and all their candidates, are part of that system just as much as GOP. In terms of changing the system, no, Hilary would not be the candidate to do so, as she has lived and worked that system for a long time, but she would have been a much better president!

Trump wants to change things, but it should be obvious that he ultimately wants to change things so they benefit himself and his family.

On June 01 2017 22:37 Simberto wrote:


Indeed. I have held this opinion for a while, and have not kept it a secret either. Some other people, who are not me, might have argued that there is no problem with the excessive campaign donation in cases of politicians they are in favor of. I am not them.

However, i also do not think that you actually had a choice on the ballot that would have allowed you to change this. In the end, you had a choice between Hillary and Trump. Of these two, Trump was the worse choice, as he keeps on showing every day. None of them would have tackled the systemic problems you have that i mentioned in the previous post, and honestly, i don't really see a good way of solving these. I especially don't think that a presidential election will suddenly solve them. What you need is a broad public consensus that these practices need to be fought. You do not have that at the moment, you mostly have people who want to fight them when the other guy uses them, but are fine with their people using them. You especially do not have large enough amounts of people who make systemic reforms their primary goal to fix anything, most are fine as long as their side wins or think that these problems are completely unavoidable (Despite the fact that they are very uniquely american).

Thus, if you really care about solving the corruption problem that you have, you need to convince people that that is the main problem. Once enough people are convinced, you make it possible for people to get through the corrupt system to change it based on the peoples support. You can not expect people from the top of the corrupt system to get rid of the corruption that has benefit them so greatly, and allowed them to rise to the top.

On June 01 2017 23:50 Mohdoo wrote:


"TrueFactsStated" doesn't give me a ton of faith in the legitimacy of this. Is this someone I should know is legitimate?

On June 01 2017 22:37 Simberto wrote:


Indeed. I have held this opinion for a while, and have not kept it a secret either. Some other people, who are not me, might have argued that there is no problem with the excessive campaign donation in cases of politicians they are in favor of. I am not them.

However, i also do not think that you actually had a choice on the ballot that would have allowed you to change this. In the end, you had a choice between Hillary and Trump. Of these two, Trump was the worse choice, as he keeps on showing every day. None of them would have tackled the systemic problems you have that i mentioned in the previous post, and honestly, i don't really see a good way of solving these. I especially don't think that a presidential election will suddenly solve them. What you need is a broad public consensus that these practices need to be fought. You do not have that at the moment, you mostly have people who want to fight them when the other guy uses them, but are fine with their people using them. You especially do not have large enough amounts of people who make systemic reforms their primary goal to fix anything, most are fine as long as their side wins or think that these problems are completely unavoidable (Despite the fact that they are very uniquely american).

Thus, if you really care about solving the corruption problem that you have, you need to convince people that that is the main problem. Once enough people are convinced, you make it possible for people to get through the corrupt system to change it based on the peoples support. You can not expect people from the top of the corrupt system to get rid of the corruption that has benefit them so greatly, and allowed them to rise to the top.

On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us.

On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us.

On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:


Tell me about it...

You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger.

On June 02 2017 00:00 a_flayer wrote:

I see people in this thread basically displaying anger towards GH for taking the position he does, or telling him that it's foolish to act as he does. That's why I feel the need to speak out. He is not foolish or naive for taking that position.

On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:

I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern.

On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:


You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic?

On June 02 2017 00:11 Gorsameth wrote:

Money wins elections. Saying you should stop campaign finance abuse means your saying you should stop winning elections.

It shouldn't be that way but reality is often not what it should be.

On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:


You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic?

On June 02 2017 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:


You've made this argument before. We've all already done this dance. You know why people would support someone who is utilizing campaign finance practices we all want to change. You are feigning ignorance here. You've asked this same question to P6 and many others here. You've already gotten answers.

On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:


You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic?

On June 02 2017 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yes, the argument "money wins elections" is wrong, not only for the point already made, that she spent far more, and still lost.

Let's not pretend President was the only position she wanted to hold, she was also the leader of the Democratic party that had no intention of acting any differently than their leader, who again was one of the worst abusers of campaign finance ever.

A lot of reasons one could support Hillary, but campaign finance reform or avoiding war were not legitimate reasons to vote for Hillary. If one supported her (particularly in the primary) they were declaring that those two issues were something they were willing to sacrifice to beat Bernie.