Print

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

[sprinkled chariot]

Do/did ever results of debates directly influence american elections?( at least by 2-3 %)

[Neonivek]

Do/did ever results of debates directly influence american elections?( at least by 2-3 %)

Apperantly from a little research... It determined the outcome once.

Though I guess a president could always completely mess up during a debate and just flat out sabotage his/her campaign.

[Phmcw]

This "election" is so pathetic.

You've got the two nominee trying to rub irrelevant dirt on each other "you talked shit about some women" "your husband allegedly  harassed some women"... and they barely discuss any politics.

I don't see Clinton as an improvement on Trump honestly : she's doing a lot of pseudo-left lips service sure, but she is clearly a pure product of pure poll-driven communication. Her political agenda is 100% corporate, she just adapted and is using less pretend racism and more pretend social-justice. The way social-justice is used in America is hilarious by the way. I want to meet the guy who had the idea to remove the class element from Marxist rhetoric and replace it with an emphasis on LGTBQ issues. Both always had a place, but now they barely pays lips service to the working class.


From the point of view of the Establishment it's pure genius : It makes the whole thing unattractive to the American proletariat, and more relevant to middle class teens while giving them the illusion of having the moral high ground. It allow them to get the sympathy capital slowly gained by the left and sown a deep rift within its rank.


Only issue is : it makes a part of the left sympathise with a part of the right, namely the one who is actually disfranchised, and separate them completely from their usual ideologues. That's actually quite dangerous, and you can expect to see pretty wild ideas and movements emerge in America soon. If you thought the tea party was bad, hold on because you're in for a ride.

[Loud Whispers]

This "election" is so pathetic.

You've got the two nominee trying to rub irrelevant dirt on each other "you talked shit about some women" "your husband allegedly  harassed some women"... and they barely discuss any politics.

I don't see Clinton as an improvement on Trump honestly : she's doing a lot of pseudo-left lips service sure, but she is clearly a pure product of pure poll-driven communication. Her political agenda is 100% corporate, she just adapted and is using less pretend racism and more pretend social-justice. The way social-justice is used in America is hilarious by the way. I want to meet the guy who had the idea to remove the class element from Marxist rhetoric and replace it with an emphasis on LGTBQ issues. Both always had a place, but now they barely pays lips service to the working class.


From the point of view of the Establishment it's pure genius : It makes the whole thing unattractive to the American proletariat, and more relevant to middle class teens while giving them the illusion of having the moral high ground. It allow them to get the sympathy capital slowly gained by the left and sown a deep rift within its rank.


Only issue is : it makes a part of the left sympathise with a part of the right, namely the one who is actually disfranchised, and separate them completely from their usual ideologues. That's actually quite dangerous, and you can expect to see pretty wild ideas and movements emerge in America soon. If you thought the tea party was bad, hold on because you're in for a ride.

I am engraving these words in my brain because they resonate with my feefees and concur sensibly with my logic

One thing I will disagree on though, is that I don't think the wild ideas and movements will gain traction with any haste. America is a very large country, so changes are felt slower
The impacts of radical fringe groups abandoning distinction between left and right to form edgy party monsters will come in the future

[Frumple]

You've got the two nominee trying to rub irrelevant dirt on each other "you talked shit about some women" "your husband allegedly  harassed some women"... and they barely discuss any politics.

... mate, clinton has been talking politics constantly, particularly when not actually talking directly to the morass of human filth that is trump. Even then she's managed to interject policy discussion and whatnot to limited degrees. Trump, yeah, trump's basically just throwing out words and doesn't give two shits about politics or policy, but that behavior isn't coming from both candidates.

You also just made it kinda' painfully obvious you haven't been paying the least of attention to anything besides the latest batch of trump's crap. He's got a whole lot of other shit he's heaped on himself, and much of it is pretty damn relevant to the position he's campaigning for. Even this latest batch is, really, as has been explained repeatedly over the last few days in the very thread.

I don't see Clinton as an improvement on Trump honestly : she's doing a lot of pseudo-left lips service sure, but she is clearly a pure product of pure poll-driven communication.

Bull. Shit. What she's been doing can't be called lip-service unless you've been intentionally blinding yourself to what she's been doing for the last while, and doubly so if you've taken two goddamn seconds to actually look at what she's been proposing this campaign cycle. Clinton's does listen to the people but there's a hell of a lot more going on there.

Will say it outright. I'm not even fond of clinton, but this shit of trying to paint her as even remotely in the same ballpark as trump is in incredibly bad faith, as is trying to claim all the stuff she's done and is trying to do is just piss in the wind. That ain't what's going on, not by a damn long shot.

[mainiac]

Clinton released a major child poverty proposal yesterday.  How many people read about it?  How many people read about what racial slur Trump tweated at breakfast?

[Neonivek]

Clinton released a major child poverty proposal yesterday.  How many people read about it?  How many people read about what racial slur Trump tweated at breakfast?

I dunno... how many people actually read Trump's actual proposals?

One in particular should be one everyone looks at before people chose to vote for him

And no! It isn't foreign policy or defense! it is actually one of his economic policies. Lets just say... OWW!

[mainiac]

I have to admit I haven't read a lot of his policies but in my defense that's because I still think they will change twice before election day.

[Sheb]

Clinton released a major child poverty proposal yesterday.  How many people read about it?  How many people read about what racial slur Trump tweated at breakfast?

Is this proposal modest?

[Phmcw]

Clinton released a major child poverty proposal yesterday.  How many people read about it?  How many people read about what racial slur Trump tweated at breakfast?

That's... very little politics.
She's making an adjustment to an existing measure with very little justification and vision.
That's not major either, and I don't get why it's so dependant on the income.

[mainiac]

Clinton released a major child poverty proposal yesterday.  How many people read about it?  How many people read about what racial slur Trump tweated at breakfast?

Is this proposal modest?

You have swiftly incited me to anger, sir.

[Frumple]

Clinton released a major child poverty proposal yesterday.  How many people read about it?  How many people read about what racial slur Trump tweated at breakfast?

That's... very little politics.
She's making an adjustment to an existing measure with very little justification and vision.
That's not major either, and I don't get why it's so dependant on the income.

... it would bring millions out of poverty and reduce poverty for millions more, as well as benefit millions more during the period where kids are among their most needy. I'd call that pretty major, personally. Also politics that isn't little, a change with substantial vision, and damned good justification. The income dependency is because it's intended to especially help the kids (and their families) in the worst conditions, while still incentivizing work (i.e. you might actually get the republicans to let it through). The current credit is both smaller and doesn't kick in at all until a certain point.

[mainiac]

It's not his fault he learned about politics from the internet.

[Phmcw]

... it would bring millions out of poverty and reduce poverty for millions more, as well as benefit millions more during the period where kids are among their most needy. I'd call that pretty major, personally. Also politics that isn't little, a change with substantial vision, and damned good justification. The income dependency is because it's intended to especially help the kids (and their families) in the worst conditions, while still incentivizing work (i.e. you might actually get the republicans to let it through). The current credit is both smaller and doesn't kick in at all until a certain point.

In a complete vacuum it looks like a big deal. To me, who is used to a flat tax exemption on salary per child (increase with the number of child), plus an allocation per children, plus subsidized child care, plus cheap childbirth due to free healthcare, plus free quality education, it seems like a tiny handout. Let's not even talk about the help you can get when your children are disabled.


And yet for us the current situation isn't too good : children are still expensive, education is not what it could be, healthcare is getting more expensive,....


Her proposition probably don't even account for the inflation since this law passed. Trump proposition of restoring import tariffs sound better honestly.

[Sergarr]

Clinton regularly proposes some really major policies, like seriously, less than two weeks ago she proposed a system that could help millions of young people while avoiding the stigma of "welfare". You have to do more than just skim the currently trending news in order to see it (because the trending news are currently focused on Trump engaging in open civil war with the rest of GOP, and also on fake Clinton scandals, to avoid looking "partisan"), but it's there.