Print

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

[Wolfhunter107]

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.

I still really don't get this. I get that Clinton is a lot more hawkish than average, and has criticised Russia in the past, but I really don't see how that translates into declaring war on Russia.

[BFEL]

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?

Funny, she sure seems like at least as much an idiot as Trump is, what with the emails that she was negligent on and such. And there isn't necessarily motive, she's just REALLY good at making Russia not like us, blaming them for her emails getting out and whatnot.

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.

And you're NOT when you talk about Trump? He's a loudmouthed ass yeah, but he isn't literally Hitler. And even if he TRIED to be literally Hitler I seriously doubt he could push such policies through, with both the democrats AND the other republicans supporting amnesty and such.

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.)

Every decision made on the speck we call Earth is petty. We are all sacks of meat and chemicals, organic computers that depend wholly on our bodies to not only perceive the world, but to think and make decisions about it as well.
As far as I'm concerned, the interesting stories we can make are the only thing truly real in all existence. That serious enough for you?

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.

I consider as many factors as possible. Meatsack is only capable of considering so many factors unfortunately. Would love to literally consider every factor on the planet, throughout the billions upon billions of years that will succeed any decision I and everyone else make about those factors, but sadly lack the capacity for that.
So I mostly just go with my gut.

[Sergarr]

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.

I still really don't get this. I get that Clinton is a lot more hawkish than average, and has criticised Russia in the past, but I really don't see how that translates into declaring war on Russia.

She wanted to declare a no-fly zone over Syria at some point in the recent past, for one. The only way to enforce that is to shoot down Russian planes.

[wobbly]

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.

Like others have mentioned, she's not that damn stupid. The US-Russia situation survived more hawkish presidents without WW3 breaking out, neither side wants the war.
You also might want to consider if 4 years of Putin thinking he can get away with whatever he damn wants might do worse to ruin relations then a hawk as president.

[smirk]

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.

We'll probably be in for at least a few more Bill speeches in the coming years. Hillary isn't very charismatic at the podium, and her VP pick is apparently your white-bread suburban neighbor's dad. Charisma is a valuable resource; they aren't gonna waste it.

[mainiac]

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.

You know it just so happens that I came across an article that explains why this is:

Hillary Clinton once spoke about her personal life freely 17 years ago.  She was duly punished for this transgression by the "liberal media."

[Elephant Parade]

Funny, she sure seems like at least as much an idiot as Trump is, what with the emails that she was negligent on and such.

She made a security mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. One mistake doesn't make her an idiot.

And there isn't necessarily motive, she's just REALLY good at making Russia not like us, blaming them for her emails getting out and whatnot.

Russia won't start WW3 with a stronger country just because they don't like them.

And you're NOT when you talk about Trump? He's a loudmouthed ass yeah, but he isn't literally Hitler. And even if he TRIED to be literally Hitler I seriously doubt he could push such policies through, with both the democrats AND the other republicans supporting amnesty and such.

Okay, let's go over what I've said about Trump:

• He will be a bad president for LGBTQ people. The current Republican platform is very anti-LGBTQ, and Mike Pence is the guy that signed that disastrous Indiana "religious freedom" bill. This is not a stretch.
• He will be a bad president for people of colour. Trump has a long history of personal racism against African-Americans, and refuses to distance himself from groups like the KKK. I guess I can't prove that he'll be a bad president for people of colour, but it's hardly a stretch.
• He will be bad for immigrants. He constantly spouts absurd anti-immigration rhetoric.
• He will be bad for Muslims. He plans to ban Muslims from immigrating for who knows how long. Furthermore, he constantly uses Islam, Muslims, and Muslim terrorism as boogeymen, which will provoke violence and hatred towards Muslims, in addition to just making them feel generally unsafe.
• He has campaigned on bigotry. This is an actual fact. I could link to news articles and stuff, if you want, but I'm not sure how you could contest this one.

Did I miss anything?

Point two: Though he's not literally Hitler, he's far worse than a "loudmouthed ass". Also, even if his most extreme policies can't be passed—and I think you're underestimating party loyalty, there—he'll likely still be able to do some bad stuff, and a hardcore-Republican Supreme Court would do some bad stuff, too.

Every decision made on the speck we call Earth is petty. We are all sacks of meat and chemicals, organic computers that depend wholly on our bodies to not only perceive the world, but to think and make decisions about it as well.

As far as I'm concerned, the interesting stories we can make are the only thing truly real in all existence. That serious enough for you?

So you're going to use some vague philosophy as an excuse to vote for a president that will ruin a ton of lives?

Also, if we're going to talk about stories, you need to remember that your story is one of billions. The story of a guy who dies in a warzone because he didn't get to immigrate isn't very interesting!

I consider as many factors as possible. Meatsack is only capable of considering so many factors unfortunately. Would love to literally consider every factor on the planet, throughout the billions upon billions of years that will succeed any decision I and everyone else make about those factors, but sadly lack the capacity for that.

If this is true, you should be able to come up with a better tiebreaker than "whatever's more interesting".

edit: i must let the spirit of calm flow through me — fixed some excessively and pointlessly confrontational phrasing

[Baffler]

I repeat my "please avoid ruining my life just to take a stab at the system" request.

You immigrated from Canada, right, and are well along in the system? So even if he does do exactly as he's promised how would it affect your citizenship bid? As far as I know his stated goals regarding immigration are to stop illegal immigration across the southern border (I won't say Mexicans because as I recall people coming through there are just as often from places like Honduras and El Salvador) and prevent entry from countries with Islamist insurgencies.

[BFEL]

• He will be a bad president for people of colour. Trump has a long history of personal racism against African-Americans, and refuses to distance himself from groups like the KKK. I guess I can't prove that he'll be a bad president for people of colour, but it's hardly a stretch.

Examples? This seems to mostly be based on media lies and half truths. He certainly DID distance himself from the KKK. Vehemently even, as I recall.

[Elephant Parade]

• He will be a bad president for people of colour. Trump has a long history of personal racism against African-Americans, and refuses to distance himself from groups like the KKK. I guess I can't prove that he'll be a bad president for people of colour, but it's hardly a stretch.

Examples? This seems to mostly be based on media lies and half truths. He certainly DID distance himself from the KKK. Vehemently even, as I recall.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history — First google result. Haven't finished reading it yet, though I've heard about some of the things they mention.

Edit: Oh, okay, he did denounce the KKK guy, it looks like. Still, it took him a really long time to do it.

Okay, I can't exactly say that Trump's presidency will be a disaster for people of colour, though I'm sure it won't be good. Even so, it'll still be a disaster for LGBTQ people, Muslims, and immigrants.

[nenjin]

I repeat my "please avoid ruining my life just to take a stab at the system" request.

You immigrated from Canada, right, and are well along in the system? So even if he does do exactly as he's promised how would it affect your citizenship bid? As far as I know his stated goals regarding immigration are to stop illegal immigration across the southern border (I won't say Mexicans because as I recall people coming through there are just as often from places like Honduras and El Salvador) and prevent entry from countries with Islamist insurgencies.

So basically just South America, Greenland, Iceland, the Antarctic, the South Pole and maybe Australia and New Zealand?

[Rolan7]

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.

[Snip]

Well said.  The price of tearing things down and starting over is practically beyond comprehension.  It's a natural impulse, but it isn't applicable to the US government.  The consequences for innocent people would be disastrous.  Fortunately the system is being fixed from within, in measurable ways, year by year.

Though I do worry that we're acting too slow on climate change and renewable energy, but nobody cared about that in the debates.  I might be irrationally fatalistic about the issue now.

[mainiac]

He certainly DID distance himself from the KKK. Vehemently even, as I recall.

He only needed to distance himself because he was so reluctant to condemn them.  It was an "why the fuck do we even need to ask this question?" moment.

[smirk]

So basically just South America, Greenland, Iceland, the Antarctic, the South Pole and maybe Australia and New Zealand?

Continental drift has been speeding up lately, I guess 0_o


Re: immigration, even if there isn't a complete moratorium on new applications, trying to slap more restrictions onto an already incredibly stressed system is bound to have ripple effects that would be bad for Ispil. Reform of the immigration system is something that needs to happen, but it's gonna be a complicated undertaking that I seriously doubt TrumpCo would be at all interested in tackling. Not enough sound-bites.

[mainiac]

Though I do worry that we're acting too slow on climate change and renewable energy, but nobody cared about that in the debates.  I might be irrationally fatalistic about the issue now.

The democrats seem to have concluded that it's best just not to talk about that stuff and try to do it via regulatory fiat later.  For example the EPA powerplant rules.