US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1653

On July 11 2019 05:21 Introvert wrote:
I haven't seen that anywhere (t_d, or however you abbreviate it, doesnt count), but the obvious problem is that we've already seen the Clinton defense force, in the 1990s. It was so strong that people on the left today still think he was impeached over sex. Clinton is currently disposable, even moreso than Franken whose stories dropped at the worst possible time (and was alway going to be replaced with another Democrat).

The two aren't even comparable, unless you are willing to say dems would have thrown him overboard during his presidency.

Snd I think both sides would, if there was tape of either and a 14 year old girl, to be clear. I think being a pedophile is a different animal.

On July 11 2019 05:30 NewSunshine wrote:

He holds almost no power anymore, but he and his wife are still the Republican boogieman. Wouldn't you say that in an age where Republicans still do everything they can to tie anything whatsoever to the Clintons, that it means something that Democrats would also say "yeah, fuck 'em"? As it is, you're not being consistent.

On July 11 2019 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:
It didn't stop the Republican party from supporting Roy Moore.
(Yes they initially dropped support after public outcries got to heavy but later renewed it when it became apparent they might lose the seat)

I have seen no evidence at all from Republicans that they would throw Trump overboard, no matter what shows up.

On July 11 2019 05:16 Danglars wrote:

Clinton holds almost no political power anymore, so Democrats don’t care if he goes. You’d see more of a reaction, akin to the morbid curiosity in the old Clinton war room around the time of bimbo eruptions, if he was close to his political apex.

On July 11 2019 05:46 NewSunshine wrote:

Though I think we're talking margins here, and though he's certainly not my candidate of choice, there's a difference between supporting Biden, and supporting Roy Moore. Republicans went to the hilt for a child molester, and only stopped supporting him after he had just lost his first election. They saw an opportunity to push for a win, and they didn't care who it was or what they did. Didn't even take a second to think "hmm, surely we've got a better candidate to run with..."

On July 11 2019 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:

If Beto, Biden, Bernie and Harris and buttiegig all are implicated, I will not defend them even slightly.

On July 11 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:


So if Biden's video of him inappropriately touching children (clearly making them uncomfortable) doesn't count, your arguing that if the videos were worse that Democrats would abandon their nominee more than Republicans did Trump?

On July 11 2019 05:51 NewSunshine wrote:

I'm not saying it doesn't count. But I would also point out that most people don't support Biden.

On July 11 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:


A plurality of Democrats do is my point and I see nothing indicating they would vote for Trump instead of swallowing their nominees faults and voting for them because they are "less bad than Trump". They are already giving him a pass for his inappropriate groping of children.

On July 11 2019 05:55 NewSunshine wrote:

Well, folks voting for Jill Stein is one of the many reasons we're stuck with Trump right now, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. That voting for someone who's better than Trump despite their failings is wrong?

On July 11 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:


So if Biden's video of him inappropriately touching children (clearly making them uncomfortable) doesn't count, you're arguing that if the videos were worse that Democrats would abandon their nominee more than Republicans did Trump?



So you're saying you'll vote for Trump if an implicated Democrat was the nominee?

On July 11 2019 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:


I will vote for whoever is even 0.00001% better than the other. If both candidates makes me sick, I will vote for the one that makes me less sick.

If it turns out Harris skinned 10 kids but Trump skinned 11, I'd vote for Harris.

On July 11 2019 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:


That Democrats will also vote for a child molester and explain it as just because the molester they support is "better than Trump".

On July 11 2019 06:06 NewSunshine wrote:

In a perfect world, I'd have them all tossed in jail. But there's only so much time you can allot to purity testing, and in the booth on election day sure as shit ain't the time. Yes, you vote for the better candidate. Or in this case, the "least worst". That is a major indictment of our two-party system, but that's where we're at. If I have to choose a child molester who would make things better versus a child molester who would make things worse, then I would choose the better one.

On July 11 2019 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone brings up "Bill Clinton might be screwed by this Epstein thing", democrats are like "if he is, I want him to rot". I am seeing people on the right significantly more resistant to say they'd toss away the key for Trump if the same is true.

We've been down this road before: Cultural axioms of conservatism make conservatives feel compelled to defend their leaders significantly more than democrats.

On July 11 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
A plurality of Democrats do is my point and I see nothing indicating they would vote for Trump instead of swallowing their nominees faults and voting for them because they are "less bad than Trump". They are already giving him a pass for his inappropriate groping of children.

On July 11 2019 06:06 NewSunshine wrote:
In a perfect world, I'd have them all tossed in jail. But there's only so much time you can allot to purity testing, and in the booth on election day sure as shit ain't the time. Yes, you vote for the better candidate. Or in this case, the "least worst". That is a major indictment of our two-party system, but that's where we're at. If I have to choose a child molester who would make things better versus a child molester who would make things worse, then I would choose the better one.

On July 11 2019 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:


Literally the same thing Republicans are doing. Voting for the molester they think is the better one for their interests. There's not moral high ground here for Democrats to claim.

On July 11 2019 06:09 CosmicSpiral wrote:


Misrepresentation of the issue. Not only is Bill Clinton largely irrelevant as a standard-bearer to the modern Democrat party, most of the policies he advocated are now seen as antiquated or too apologetic towards the Republicans of his era. Being a centrist back in the 90's and a white man, he is ripe for ejection as the ideological schism within the party itself begins to widen.



The accusations might've backfired among the plurality who are frankly tired of the oppressive atmosphere of distrust and suspicion permeating politics. The videos of him "groping children" are indistinguishable from a socially awkward old man; the accusations from women hold more gravitas but are equally bereft of proper evidence.

On July 11 2019 06:11 NewSunshine wrote:

We're talking in super vague hypotheticals, so sure, you "got us". But the fact is most people in this thread were taking a dump on Biden as a candidate, and for his performance in the debates, and most people I saw elsewhere were doing the same. People might support him versus Trump, but they support a lot of other candidates first from where I'm sitting. Given the choice, they would drop him like a hot potato.

On July 11 2019 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:

If Beto, Biden, Bernie and Harris and buttiegig all are implicated, I will not defend them even slightly.

Let me just ask directly: do you think conservatives have a different philosophy regarding leadership? Do you think Democrats are more willing to go after their leaders?

On July 11 2019 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:


That's my point, you'll both (parties) vote for absolutely monstrous people knowing full well they are monsters

On July 11 2019 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:


Have you forgotten that xDaunt, Danglars, and Intro were not Trump supporters until he was their nominee?

"dumping" on Biden doesn't mean squat if they rally behind him as the nominee like Republicans did and Democrats have.

On July 11 2019 06:17 Mohdoo wrote:



The way I see it, I am just another piece of trash who was born into a democracy without deserving any of the modern day luxuries. I respect that by trying to participate in political discourse, voting and other forms of engagement. I've decided it is my duty to cast my vote in a way that derives morality from consequentialism. I don't think consequentialism makes sense in a lot of other areas, but I think it makes sense when voting.

I donate money to people like Yang/Bernie and vote for them during primaries, but I will always cast a vote as a matter of consequence. So long as there are only 2 viable candidates (and I will always advocate for eliminating our current election system because 2 parties is trash), I will always choose to vote for whoever is even slightly better.