Print

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

[sluissa]

I still believe that the huge majority of "dumb quotes" from her are taken completely out of context and pushed by people scared of her eating into the Hillary vote.

The Clinton campaign doesn't control the green party website:
http://www.jill2016.com/stein_in_russia_calls_for_principled_collaboration

The woman is a textbook example of a useful idiot.

And wanting peace and a world of cooperation is bad, how? That's a perfectly reasonable article to me. Perhaps she inflated her importance in that meeting a little, but I agree with the ideas in it.

[Reelya]

I guess Obama is a useful idiot for trying diplomacy with Iran and Cuba then, Mainiac? If she was belligerent about Russia, you'd probably hate that, too. Let me guess, if someone is either slightly more friendly, or slightly less friendly to Russia than Hillary is, then they're automatically an idiot?

[RedKing]

Yeah, at least half of those things that have your panties in a bind are mine. Deal with it. I'm old enough that I don't waste time coddling people whose values and motives follow a recognizeable pattern, when those patterns are abhorrent to me.

Or in more blunt terms, if it looks like a douche and acts like a douche, it's probably a douche. And I have no time for douches.

Don't you have some immigrants to run out of Glorious Brittania or something rather than concern-trolling for the state of American political discourse?

Thank you for proving my point for me. Someone wonders why more Trump supporters don't post here. I posit that we (this thread) are not exactly respectful or welcoming to alternate viewpoints (I believe I said, why would I want to be insulted and called racist again for giving my opinion?), and I proceed to point out 3 separate messages in the last couple of days talking about doling out physical violence to those who disagree with us/the poster in question. You respond by... an ad hominem attack which implies I'm racist.

At this point I'm just surprised you didn't threaten to come round my house and thump me as well.

You're not worth the plane ticket.

And any digs I take with you aren't out of nowhere, they're based on your gushing pro-Brexit stance. (cue faux outrage "We're not racists! It's purely coincidence that racial violence had a huge uptick after we won! Why, I even have a non-Anglo friend!")

[mainiac]

Eh, if there's zero chance of either party preventing the other from getting things through you run into issues.

You do run into issues but it also solves some stuff.  If Nancy Pelosi is Speaker, a Democrat is Senate President and Clinton is President President then congress is going to be passing budgets no if and or buts.  If republicans try to filibuster all budgets then democrats are going to change Senate rules to curtail use of the filibuster.  That is just a bridge too far...

context versus content

I would vote for Alvin Greene.  I think that Alvin Greene type candidates would never win in a competitive election unless republicans put up someone like Trump.
If the republicans had ever run a good candidate against someone like Marion Barry or Rob Blagoyovoylitchavich, I would vote for said republican.  But said republican would need to represent a constituency to their left, which means accepting a candidate I doubt they would ever accept.  I think republicans could be competitive even in democratic lock places like DC if they weren't so rigid.

Basically if all else is equal, I would vote for the party label and nothing else.  I've done that many times with less noteworthy candidates (I live in a conservative district so I vote for a sacrificial democratic lamb every year).  But often the character of a person is deeply informative about why they would be terrible at the job (such as Marion Barry).

I guess Obama is a useful idiot for trying diplomacy with Iran and Cuba then, Mainiac? If she was belligerent about Russia, you'd probably hate that, too. Let me guess, if someone is either slightly more friendly, or slightly less friendly to Russia than Hillary is, then they're automatically an idiot?

There is a difference between diplomacy and a photo-op for dictators who want to prop you up so in order to peel off a few votes from the candidate they want to lose.

And yes, sometimes diplomacy does mean you give a photo-op to dictators.  Quid pro quo.  But Jill Stein isn't doing diplomacy here.  She is just posing with a man who is the opposite of everything she claims to stand for.

[Karnewarrior]

I actually talked a bit with Karne on steam about it, and lets be honest, just about everyone talks shit like that occasionally. I sure as hell say some crazy shit with my friends.

Woah woah woah

We talk shit about anime girls. I sure as shit don't talk about molesting the other airmen in my squadron, and I have yet to hear you talk about molesting people at your... house?

There's a difference between 2d and 3d that's very important for people like me in particular so I really don't like the implications here.

[mainiac]

#notallweaboos

[Frumple]

snip

... the former, really, providing the disconnect isn't too bad. I'd probably say I lean content more than context, but definitely have a point where the latter starts chipping away at that lean (see how I've been talking about sanders for a while now, though there's policy mismatch there, too). And it's possible for either to completely supersede other considerations if it reaches a sufficiently egregious point -- most of the republican candidates this round of things are examples of one or the other, though it helps that most of them are pretty shit on both.

But yeah, you need more than ideological purity or whatev' to be a decent leader/representative/politician/etc. It definitely helps if you have something approximating it, but it's neither sufficient nor necessary on its own.

[Rolan7]

You're not worth the plane ticket.

wow

And any digs I take with you aren't out of nowhere, they're based on your gushing pro-Brexit stance. (cue faux outrage "We're not racists! It's purely coincidence that racial violence had a huge uptick after we won! Why, I even have a non-Anglo friend!")

Yeah, okay, I regret saying that we're at all accepting.  My only defense is I had just woke up, and I really do learn a lot about politics by listening here.

I was already iffy about the Folly thing.  He wasn't "supporting rape", fuck!  Just defending some unfortunate statements as not so bad.  But nooo, suddenly "grope" is always rape (because the definition mentions it's often nonconsensual - so it ALWAYS is I guess).  And thus Folly supports rape, and is probably one of those terrible MRAs!  How lazy can you get?

I mostly ignored that whole discussion due to real life stuff, so maybe Folly eventually said something truly reprehensible, but it sure started shitty.

And now you bring up Brexit as justification to hate on Covenant?  Starting that whole "All Brexiters are racists" bullcrap?  Grow up.

[mainiac]

Nobody has said rape.

People have said sexual assault.  And sexual assault is a completely fair description of the comments Donald Trump made.

[BFEL]

I actually talked a bit with Karne on steam about it, and lets be honest, just about everyone talks shit like that occasionally. I sure as hell say some crazy shit with my friends.

Woah woah woah

We talk shit about anime girls. I sure as shit don't talk about molesting the other airmen in my squadron, and I have yet to hear you talk about molesting people at your... house?

There's a difference between 2d and 3d that's very important for people like me in particular so I really don't like the implications here.

I meant that we say sexual shit. Didn't mean to imply what I apparently implied.

[Karnewarrior]

I actually talked a bit with Karne on steam about it, and lets be honest, just about everyone talks shit like that occasionally. I sure as hell say some crazy shit with my friends.

Woah woah woah

We talk shit about anime girls. I sure as shit don't talk about molesting the other airmen in my squadron, and I have yet to hear you talk about molesting people at your... house?

There's a difference between 2d and 3d that's very important for people like me in particular so I really don't like the implications here.

I meant that we say sexual shit. Didn't mean to imply what I apparently implied.

You did that by linking it to Trump, who was explicitly talking about sexually assaulting real women.

I don't even mind the Trump comparison so much as the even slight implication that I'm not in control of my libido. This is big to me.

[Folly]

It's weird, you come out in favor of sexual assault, and stand to your guns when questioned, and people eventually start acting like there is something wrong with you.

I've never been in favor of sexual assault. I'm in favor of keeping things in context. Some empty words about questionable sexual practices have relatively little bearing on Trump's capacity to serve as president when weighed against the many other things he has said and done.
And your habit of twisting my words in this manner is only serving to make your side look as reprehensible as you accuse Trump of being.

By that logic, anyone who even came within 100 yards of someone in the Bush administration should be in prison, since they deleted about 1,000 times as many emails as Hillary. Not even counting all the other on-the-record crooked shit they pulled.

So one party's wrong makes another right?
You redirect as artfully as a Trump supporter.

[misko27]

So far on this topic (that is, the Trump Tapes) we've had 'handing out a good ass-whippin', 'remove said guys from the genepool', and now BFEL would apparently be 'picking your (his) teeth up off the floor'.

Someone brags about sexual assault to my face and I will hurt them. Absolutely. Don't imply I'm beating up the poor innocent Trump supporters. I said quite clearly "If someone said what Trump said, to me, in private, I will hurt them". Absolutely. I've seen my more then my fair share of abusive assholes in my life and I have no sympathy whatsoever. I'm not going to beat you up for defending Trump, or even for defending Trump's comments, but if someone says the same thing as Trump then they have a real problem with me. And that's the thing! No one admits to saying that. They weasel word it by saying "Guys say *that type of thing* all the time", but no one says "Hey, I talk about grabbing them by the Pussy all the time". And that pisses me off, but only because I believe that they *don't* say those sort of things, and they are trying to defend it by lending him a cover without agreeing with it.

 You are trying to turn a moral question about Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault into a broader political one about whether his supporters are a basket of deplorables, and I ask: Do *you* say the sort of things Donald said? Do all his supporters say that? I don't believe that. It's precisely because I don't believe that that I threaten anyone who says that sort of things because that's not political. Being conservative doesn't mean groping women without their consent. I question Trump supporters' judgements at times, but I don't believe they are sexually assaulting women. Some of them, however, are defending that, and that's not cool.

I'm absolutely glad you brought up Folly because Folly isn't even a Trump supporter. Folly absolutely does not support Trump, and has said it repeatedly! Hell literally the post before me has him denigrating them! So why the hell are you bringing him and the things we said about him up when you are claiming Trump supporters are being attacked? The comments about Folly are exclusively linked to Folly's defense of Donald Trump's comments. Nothing more. Supporting Trump is one thing, but defending his words about sexual assault by minimizing them or arguing they aren't so bad is quite another. I like BFEL. I know him from a community fort we both did. But he listened to the same tape I did, and he's arguing it's ok because he wasn't actually saying he was sexually assaulting women, and I say he was. But here is the thing Covenant, and it's why I have absolutely no tolerance for this nonsense: If the tape does show Donald Trump sexually assaults women (which many of the people here believe), then it's beyond the pale. It's not politics. I'd argue that claiming to be upset that people are angry at those defending it is pretty absurd. Wouldn't you be upset at someone defending sexual assault?

You are trying to claim that anyone outraged by Donald Trump admitting to committing sexual assault, and angry at people defending it by calling it locker room talk, are some sort of... partisan? I don't even know. Donald Trump sexually assaulting women has nothing to do with politics. Plenty of Republicans have denounced it and are still supporting him. It's the people defending the talk that I have a problem with, regardless of whether they support Trump, Clinton, Jesus, i don't give a shit. If you really want to make Donald Trump grabbing a woman by the pussy the hill you are going to die on, be my guest, but don't expect to be treated with kid gloves here.

[Dorsidwarf]

Get the brexit back to the containment thread if you want to talk about it, I don't come to the ameripol thread for sick bants and Farage funtimes.

[martinuzz]

Paul Ryan publicly declared he will no longer support Trump, in a conference call with Republican members of Congress.

While he did not take back his endorsement, he says he will no longer defend Trump, and not join him in his campaign.