Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

I know that it's the usual refrain of the third parties, but it'd be pretty nice if the mainstream media would notice their existence more frequently.

They dont have anything good to say though.  The green party for instance has a platform of print money to pay off college debt, go completely renewable in 14 years and pander to anti-science crackpots on things like medicine and agriculture.  I'm sympathetic towards someone who wants to see more renewable energy or is worried about regulatory oversight but why not do that without the crackpot stuff?  How about Martin O'Malley for instance who was a huge success as an governor and pushed environmentalism as a governor and candidate.  But Martin O'Malley didn't really go anywhere in the race because it wasn't an issue of environmentalists on the left not having a voice.

I could see a case for giving more attention to Gary Johnson because he has actual credentials and a coherent message.  But he is an exception in this regard.

Oh and Cherney.  The Media should give him a chance to fight back against Stein's corporate sellout message.

[Sergarr]

Okay I figured out what was bugging me about the DNC's speeches.

Lack of sincerity in speeches. It felt to me that the only times there was some of that was when Sanders and his supporters were speaking (EDIT: and Bookers, too). I have no concrete idea why I feel that way, but it doesn't bode well for Democrats.

[Strife26]

I know that it's the usual refrain of the third parties, but it'd be pretty nice if the mainstream media would notice their existence more frequently.

They dont have anything good to say though.  The green party for instance has a platform of print money to pay off college debt, go completely renewable in 14 years and pander to anti-science crackpots on things like medicine and agriculture.  I'm sympathetic towards someone who wants to see more renewable energy or is worried about regulatory oversight but why not do that without the crackpot stuff?  How about Martin O'Malley for instance who was a huge success as an governor and pushed environmentalism as a governor and candidate.  But Martin O'Malley didn't really go anywhere in the race because it wasn't an issue of environmentalists on the left not having a voice.

I could see a case for giving more attention to Gary Johnson because he has actual credentials and a coherent message.  But he is an exception in this regard.

Oh and Cherney.  The Media should give him a chance to fight back against Stein's corporate sellout message.

Okay, I was using third parties plural only to be politic. Libertarians are the ones who actually deserve press, because they should be strong enough to fracture and realign the Republicans.

[WealthyRadish]

Okay I figured out what was bugging me about the DNC's speeches.

Lack of sincerity in speeches. It felt to me that the only times there was some of that was when Sanders and his supporters were speaking (EDIT: and Bookers, too). I have no concrete idea why I feel that way, but it doesn't bode well for Democrats.

I was struck by this too. I think it's a common problem with the way politicians speak, particularly the establishment democrats and republicans. Voters have been conditioned by decades of commercial advertisements and other attempted manipulation (like political speeches) to tune out portions that use obvious or subtle phrasing and word choice to avoid controversy and act as unobjectionable filler. I know I sometimes write like that here, including in this post (because it's easier to talk like an uncommitted weasel than get in stupid semantic arguments). For me, hearing the words "families" and "small businesses" is an instant trigger that whatever the person is saying is probably meaningless bullshit, for example.

When everything sounds rehearsed (because it is) and engineered to have broad appeal (because it is), it makes it sound less trustworthy, even if the content is agreeable. I think that was a huge part of Sanders' success, since he almost always sounds genuinely passionate, whereas you only get a believable tone out of Hillary when she's making an off the cuff remark. Trump as well benefits from this, even though what he's saying is even more meaningless than the typical establishment political speak.

[BFEL]

I'm starting to wonder about you BFEL. You don't even engage conversation, you just post to divebomb angry commentary and fly off without engaging anyone about it. That's what facebook and Twitter is for, not forums. Forums are for discussion.

Well half the time I post and then fall asleep and by the time I get back discussion has already happened and moved on.

Plus tbh mainiac was kinda right like 10 pages back, I DO sometimes drink the Kool-Aid mom pours relentlessly in my ears, which I mostly repost here to get the other side of the story. So a lot of the time the arguments aren't my own to begin with and she forgets her sources by the time I'm ready to come on here about it so it goes nowhere.
Basically I have to come here to keep myself liberal what with the constant conservative reinforcement going on in the other room.

I DO support Trump, but not so much because I think he's good as that I feel he and Hillary are more or less equivalent in "ruin the country" potential and with that being equal, and not having psychic abilities I go with the option that at least punches the broken ass system in the face.

[Rolepgeek]

Well the thing is that if Hillary is going to ruin the country, it will be through rot.

If Trump ruins the country, it will be by fire.

You're less likely to die from a house that's got being eaten through by mildew than one that's on fire.

The system might be overwrought, malfunctioning, and faulty, but it's also the thing holding up the roof. Burning down those pillars, without having new ones up, just brings it down on your head.

Though I find it somewhat funny that I have almost the opposite thing you do. My mother's quite progressive (she says she's not liberal, Republicans have just gone so far right that she looks liberal...but she's liberal. Just not far-wing liberal), and I come here partially to get a look at the other side's views, because I think finding a balance is important. Also because I read a lot of stuff by Scott Alexander, and certain bay12 posters remind me that the right can, in fact, just be plain old racist(bad) or nationalist(questionable) sometimes.

That said, usually I'm still arguing for the left because on the whole I agree with most of the values there. Sometimes more than most people on the left, from what I've seen. At least in application.

[mainiac]

Okay I figured out what was bugging me about the DNC's speeches.

Lack of sincerity in speeches. It felt to me that the only times there was some of that was when Sanders and his supporters were speaking (EDIT: and Bookers, too). I have no concrete idea why I feel that way, but it doesn't bode well for Democrats.

Wut?  Did you not listen to the Obama speech?

Plus tbh mainiac was kinda right like 10 pages back,

I dont think that was me.

Okay, I was using third parties plural only to be politic. Libertarians are the ones who actually deserve press, because they should be strong enough to fracture and realign the Republicans.

FeelTheChern Punch the Green Party Establishment in the face.

[mainiac]

whoops, doublepost.

[Elephant Parade]

I DO support Trump, but not so much because I think he's good as that I feel he and Hillary are more or less equivalent in "ruin the country" potential and with that being equal, and not having psychic abilities I go with the option that at least punches the broken ass system in the face.

Is that really an adequate reason? Remember, a Trump/Pence presidency would likely be disastrous for the following groups:

• LGBTQ people
• People of colour
• Muslims
• Immigrants (Mexican immigrants especially)

Are you willing to make a decision that will harm all those groups, just to stick it to the system? If you really are, I guess that's your decision, but I'd like to bring up a few more points.

• The 2016 Republican platform is absolutely disgusting in a variety of areas.
• Whichever party wins will gain control of the supreme court. Consider the aforementioned disgusting platform — do you really want these people to have the chance to repeal Roe v. Wade, or the gay marriage decision, or literally anything else?
• Most of the stuff (like, actual, concrete stuff, not just "I will create jobs") Trump says he'll do is awful. If he does it, things will go poorly for America; if he doesn't, he's an idiot and/or a liar.
• If Trump gets in, the Republican Party will have successfully campaigned on bigotry and won.
  

[BFEL]

Well the thing is that if Hillary is going to ruin the country, it will be through rot.

If Trump ruins the country, it will be by fire.

See, that's debatable.
I'm not the only one here who feels that Hillary might just decide to burn anything resembling a bridge with Russia and start WW3, in fact someone posted something like this within the last few pages.

Trump meanwhile mostly has his ruining confined to immigration stuff and refugees, which while terrible, is somewhat better then the above alternative.
He DOES burn bridges with non Russia countries I understand, but most of them aren't led by Putin

But yeah, I don't see either way truly turning worst case scenario, either one would probably just putter around a bit getting stonewalled by the other party.
So since those are both unlikely I just go with the silly things like the "just punch the system" thing as tiebreaker.
Also I think I'd rather be in the alternate universe where interesting things happen, and Trump is more interesting no doubt there

I mean yeah, IDEALLY we would get some paragon of virtue that knows how to solve all the worlds problems, but Hillary and Trump are just extremely flawed mortals who happen to be the only choices that could reasonably happen.

[Elephant Parade]

I'm not the only one here who feels that Hillary might just decide to burn anything resembling a bridge with Russia and start WW3, in fact someone posted something like this within the last few pages.

Why would she do that? Hillary isn't an idiot, and WW3 would be a disaster. Where's the motive?

Trump meanwhile mostly has his ruining confined to immigration stuff and refugees, which while terrible, is somewhat better then the above alternative.

I think you're conflating actual planned policies with vague, absurd fears about what a candidate could theoretically do.

Also I think I'd rather be in the alternate universe where interesting things happen, and Trump is more interesting no doubt there

There's no nice way to put this, but... this is a really petty way to vote. Remember: Even if you aren't LGBT, a person of colour, or an immigrant, plenty of people are. Will you let them suffer, just so that you can see an "interesting" world?

(If this reason is wholly non-serious, I apologize for overreacting.)

So since those are both unlikely I just go with the silly things like the "just punch the system" thing as tiebreaker.

Alternatively, you could consider more than one factor on each side.

[Sergarr]

Okay I figured out what was bugging me about the DNC's speeches.

Lack of sincerity in speeches. It felt to me that the only times there was some of that was when Sanders and his supporters were speaking (EDIT: and Bookers, too). I have no concrete idea why I feel that way, but it doesn't bode well for Democrats.

Wut?  Did you not listen to the Obama speech?

Well, I did, but... I didn't really feel it, in political sense. He was sincere, but it was a "tired" kind of sincerity, of a person who was very much done with his job and wanted to retire. That's what his ad was about, after all.

That isn't the right kind of sincerity to charge people up to vote for Hillary.

[mainiac]

Are you willing to make a decision that will harm all those groups, just to stick it to the system?

I would go farther than this.  The "system" that people talk about IS these people.  People who look at everything thought "holy shit, some of these gay kids are getting bullied into suicide, some of these blacks and muslims are getting treated like animals by the police and some of these immigrants who mean us no harm are being chased out of a free country... we gotta do something about this"  The system that people are talking about is the efforts to try to do something to help these people.  Not to mention poor white people suffering from opiate addiction and lack of healthcare or people stuck in dead in jobs due to no educational opportunities, etc. etc.  But it's hard work to solve this stuff.  And then you have a "system" that is easy to hate.  But Trump isn't going to get rid of the "system" of helping the neediest.  He just wants to replace it with a system of helping... well tbh I'm not sure who he is even going to help.  It's easy to say white males but that's just a stereotype.  People he likes, whoever they are.

See, that's debatable.
I'm not the only one here who feels that Hillary might just decide to burn anything resembling a bridge with Russia and start WW3, in fact someone posted something like this within the last few pages.

People are being ridiculous then.

Hillary Clinton is viewed as a hawk because she pushed for operations without boots on the ground against horrible dictatorships that no one liked.  The controversy was that she thought we should intervene as opposed to those who thought intervention would make things worse.  But it was a very limited intervention with very strictly defined limits specifically because nobody wanted any risk of escalation.

Well, I did, but... I didn't really feel it, in political sense. He was sincere, but it was a "tired" kind of sincerity, of a person who was very much done with his job and wanted to retire. That's what his ad was about, after all.

That isn't the right kind of sincerity to charge people up to vote for Hillary.

I dont think you are talking about sincerity.

[Max™]

I think everybody has a gimme on mentally filtering out "Obama" from "the dems" when speeches are involved, he's just so goddamn likeable when he's grinning and booming out words, pausing, and so forth.

I don't think HIllary would be less capable politically, arguably she's probably got a better chance at scoring points in the "nope, not gonna do shit" game against the house and senate republicans because she's been dealing with them, been dealing with being hated, and has a different enough style that she can hopefully push in a more productive way than Obama did against them. Kaine, while boring as hell, is a great option for working across the aisle there too, as I said before, nobody hates him, even on the republican side.

Still, I do a great Obama impersonation, and really enjoyed listening to him talk, I'm gonna miss that. He was funny and charming, Bill was sleazy but charming, she's not very funny or charming, but neither is der Drumpf, and she is less sleazy than him by virtue of not having to wear prosthetic skin to hide the truth that he is a gigantic gila monster.

As for WW3, nuclear powers don't just "start shit" like that. We'd have to find a russian sub dropping off spetsnaz in lake michigan while tanks rolled in across canada to invade minnesota or something before we'd just say "hey Russia, fuck you, we're squabblin' now", and similarly we'd need to like, annex the Ukraine and start siezing oil fields in Siberia before they'd be willing to jump up to "we need to start talking about where we nuke first" levels, and that's not even guaranteed.

Especially a politician who was involved in working to make sure WW3 didn't happen, Hillary may be hawkish, but she's not the unpredictable nujob candidate running this year.

[Sergarr]

Well, I did, but... I didn't really feel it, in political sense. He was sincere, but it was a "tired" kind of sincerity, of a person who was very much done with his job and wanted to retire. That's what his ad was about, after all.

That isn't the right kind of sincerity to charge people up to vote for Hillary.

I dont think you are talking about sincerity.

Well, then I don't know a better word to explain it. "Canned rhetoric", maybe? It sure feels like most of the speakers have the same speechwriters, at least.