Where are the election monitors?
... do the parties even have those for their primaries? Any of them, really, not just the big two. Certainly can't recall hearing of any for the last... well, as long as I've been alive and aware. Occasionally ones during actual votes or at particular polling areas or something, but not at conventions or whathaveyou. It'd be a bit weird, anyway... these things are an internal organizational issue, not some aspect of the actual government.
Am New York Election Worker, can confirm that election monitors show up every couple elections (this is distinguished from Department of Election monitors, who they send in secretly to test us all the time). We are given training that specifies exactly how to handle it too: Election monitors get to look at the vote totals of the scanners. And yes there are monitors for none-big elections, no I don't know who decides. Usually the campaigns for reasons I don't fully understand. Probably because they think it's close. Sometimes students or other organizations do it too.
I think you've been drinking too much of your mother's kool-aid. Mass murderer? She's not Kissinger, sheesh.
Eh, hyperbole perhaps, but she does so much sketchy shit that frankly the rumors about her having people assassinated and shit start sounding less and less insane.
You've brought out my inner mainiac with that comment. If I accuse you of enough sketchy shit, are you now a murderer? I mean come now. What kind of argument is that? Can you name the last US President who had people in this country assassinated, while I'm at it? Even Nixon didn't do this as far as I understand, and he went down in infamy as a paranoid wreck who would do anything to crush his opponents. Can you tell me, precisely, why Clinton is worse then Nixon? Why is she worse then "If the President does it, that means that it is not illegal?" I mean you are accusing someone of murder here, its not fair to say "well you know those rumours" and excuse yourself from defending that sort of nonsense. Who are these poor, assassinated Clinton victims? Or is the only thing you have is she "sounds like" a murderer, that she "could be" one. It's another wonderful example of "Just asking questions" conspiracism.
If nothing else she's at least a fucking thief:
Thieves != Murderers.
Also, the counter choice to to your mass murderer is a xenophobic, racist, megalomaniac, authoritarian, narcissisic, demagoguing, bigot.
Even *IF* he were all those things
The glorious *IF*. Tell me, Is Trump not those things? I mean, I think there is damn good evidence to support that he is all those things, and quite a lot more besides. First, I will not even attack the notion that Trump is not a raving Narcissist, since that should be hilariously obvious. Let me examine one policy, for example: Banning people from muslim countries and muslim overrun countries. That's obviously Authoritarian, racist, xenophobic, demagouging, and implies a fair bit of bigotry too. The Megalomania part is his insistence that he has the right to do this despite it being hilariously, brokenly unconstitutional. I dare you to show me that Trump is not, in fact, those things.
he's at least someone that the fucking Oligarchy running the country doesn't want.
The Oligarchy also doesn't want the country to get nuked by Russia, should we make that happen too to stick it to them?
My support of him is mainly that him being elected would in and of itself be enough of a punch in the face of the establishment to maybe get them to reform themselves a bit.
When I want people to reform, I too abuse them heavily. It's a lesson I learned from my father, who handled problems with his kids by attempting to break them as individuals. What about the 315 million Americans out there? Do they need to be punished on the off-chance that "to save America we must destroy it" *isn't* a great idea? Don't get so caught up with Washington DC that you forget about everyone else who has to live here. The guy already uses Super Pacs, already is getting his stuff together with Republicans donors. For all of his problems, he is going to play by the rules of DC when he gets there, and he'll only not do that when his selfishness tells him otherwise. He's not principled remember. He doesn't have a moral opposition to the establishment, just to people opposing him. If he wins, he will BE the establishment.
Besides, how often does "shock the establishment" work? Did it work in 2010? 2014? When Ted Cruz decided to hold the country hostage and send into a almost-default, did that fix anything at all? And the most absurd thing is you believe that Trump, despite all of this bluster, wouldn't just be a politician at the end of the day.
If he turns out to do some things helpful to the country in office? That's just gravy.
I don't understand why you think voting for someone whose sole guiding life philosophy is self-worship is a good idea. If you agreed with his policies, that would be one thing. But the sort of blind "Clinton is evil but Trump, somehow, of all people, is not" nonsense only makes sense for someone whose political philosophy is defined by blind, unthinking hatred for the establishment, as so many are.
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1385908 times)