Print

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

[UXLZ]

Some might call it "clear and untainted eyes" (actually every new generation does), others would call it naivete.

I know it's fun to be a young firebrand and think you're shaking shit up. I was all about some Ross Perot in 1992. But Trump is no Perot.
And frankly, things weren't even all that broken in 1992. If there was one good thing George W. Bush did, it was to make his father look a hell of a lot better in hindsight.

And as Cript says, clear and untainted eyes only work if you're actually using them. Your eyes are not located in your gut.

I don't think I'm shaking things up. I think it's probably too late for that.

My eyes tell me Clinton and Trump are awful. My intuition tells me Clinton is slightly more awful, but like the people who get worked up whenever you say that capitalism is bad and start screaming at you about how awful communism is, they are forgetting that one comparing two things, saying that one is awful does not mean that the other must be good.

Tell me, learned friend, all about how electing Hillary Clinton will bring about the end of the world.

I didn't say the world would end, but either one of those two options is certainly going to make things  worse. Well, Trump has a 0.0000000000000001% chance of not being utterly awful, but it's a wee one. Hillary's is 0% flat.

...not really answering the question. I could tell everyone what I think you think (World War III with Russia, is it? Or the US becomes a minority white country, perhaps?), but better from your own mouth.

Neither of those.

[Starver]

Yes, Trump really does need to release those. Of course, there's a very high chance he'll release them around the same time Clinton gets around to releasing her speech transcripts, so I doubt we'll ever see either of them.

You're mixing up your memes...

[UXLZ]

Alright, that's good to know, when you had said you were basing your opinion on gut feeling, I guess I had assumed you were basing your opinion on gut feeling. Sorry for the misunderstanding then.

I am also not being clear enough. I suppose I am tired.

I have looked and compared Trump and Clinton, and while what I have seen tells me they are both awful, what my intuition tells me is that they are both awful, but Clinton is worse.

It feels as though everyone thinks I'm calling Trump the messiah and second coming of Jesus.

[RedKing]

Putting your faith in your intuition is an acceptable thing to do for your personal decisions, but then when you turn that around and start proselytizing to other people about it with total absence of any facts you're going to be both ridiculed and unsuccessful with anyone who doesn't completely share your own intuition, which is a very personal thing.

I also didn't like Clinton when I watched her because of intuition. I still really don't. However, I've taken the time to examine what she's done and how she acts and what she says, and I compare this to what Trump has done, how he acts, and what he said, and I can't help but come to the conclusion that Trump is far far far worse, based on facts, and not feelings.

My proselytization isn't so much "vote Trump, he's good and Hillary is awful" as it appears to be being treated as, it's "both Hillary and Trump are incredibly awful, please for the love of god don't elect them, but it's already too late."

I have taken the time to examine what she's done, how she acts, and what she says. I have compared it to Trump, and I have come to the complete opposite conclusion, based on both. Trump is like fire, Clinton is like cancer.

You've examined Clinton, and compared her to a Trump which you apparently haven't examined, as indicated by the lack of knowledge around the Trump Foundation. Maybe you need to reserve judgement until you do a thorough examination of both sides.

Gods know, I'm no fan of Hillary. I will be watching her like a hawk and will be a most vociferous critic if she abandons all her supposed progressivism once in office. But the fact stands, she's infinitely more qualified, more capable, and more ethical than Trump or Stein. At while I think Johnson is ethical, he fails badly on the capability end. Maybe once he can host a meeting of world leaders in Aleppo.....

[UXLZ]

You've examined Clinton, and compared her to a Trump which you apparently haven't examined, as indicated by the lack of knowledge around the Trump Foundation. Maybe you need to reserve judgement until you do a thorough examination of both sides.

Gods know, I'm no fan of Hillary. I will be watching her like a hawk and will be a most vociferous critic if she abandons all her supposed progressivism once in office. But the fact stands, she's infinitely more qualified, more capable, and more ethical than Trump or Stein. At while I think Johnson is ethical, he fails badly on the capability end. Maybe once he can host a meeting of world leaders in Aleppo.....

When did the Trump Foundation information come to light? The last time I was involved with the United States political process was around the time Sanders was frauded out of the nomination process. Since then I haven't bothered, sincei t's as real as wrestling.

You mention qualifications, but where has Hillary been successful? Libya?

Hillary will be exactly as progressive as is necessary. No more, no less.

[smjjames]

Alright, that's good to know, when you had said you were basing your opinion on gut feeling, I guess I had assumed you were basing your opinion on gut feeling. Sorry for the misunderstanding then.

I am also not being clear enough. I suppose I am tired.

I have looked and compared Trump and Clinton, and while what I have seen tells me they are both awful, what my intuition tells me is that they are both awful, but Clinton is worse.

It feels as though everyone thinks I'm calling Trump the messiah and second coming of Jesus.

There may have been a few misunderstandings, but I get it at least.

Also, come on, Trump is worse, he's a fucking sexual predator.....

Though I do find your comparison somewhat apt, fire or cancer, or to use Lindsey Grahams words 'like being shot (sudden and catastrophic) or poisoned (slow. depending on the poison and amounts of it)'

[Criptfeind]

they are forgetting that one comparing two things, saying that one is awful does not mean that the other must be good.

No, but it does mean one must be better, and indeed, that one is even as bad as you say. People are quite heavily disagreeing with you when you say Trump is better and how bad Clinton is.

It feels as though everyone thinks I'm calling Trump the messiah and second coming of Jesus.

I understand this feeling, as it's sorta tough because it's basically one or the other at this point. The reality sorta is, if you don't support Clinton, you presumably support trump, and visa versa (there's third parties as well that you could stump for instead, but I'm sure there's plenty of people willing to argue with you against those as well). It doesn't help that you're not giving any (to them) good reasons for these feelings. Instead falling back on pretty old and tired things that don't really hold any weight (at least in this thread.) To them you're basically bringing very light and unimportant reasons for why Clinton is bad, and then saying Trump is better? Like Maniac said somewhat sarcastically before, from what actual facts you've brought up, it sounds like you fucking love Clinton, but think Trump is even better. Which is probably where this feelings (from both sides) stem from.

[UXLZ]

There may have been a few misunderstandings, but I get it at least.

Also, come on, Trump is worse, he's a fucking sexual predator.....

Though I do find your comparison somewhat apt, fire or cancer, or to use Lindsey Grahams words 'like being shot (sudden and catastrophic) or poisoned (slow. depending on the poison and amounts of it)'

The tangibility of the "Trump is a sexual predator" angle is roughly the same, or a bit less concrete, than the case on Bill, is it not? Perhaps there have been developments.

[RedKing]

Also, on Powell, I don't remember the UN powerpoint thing (or maybe I simply didn't see it), but I do remember all the accusations of Saddam having 'WMDs' and using that as a flimsy escuse to go to war. Though I learned more of that later, I was still somewhat politically naive during the first part of Bush 43's adminstration. Additionally, I voted bush in 2004 because I thought that since we were at war, it would be best to keep the same president.

Here ya go. Warning: It's like an hour long and then some.

The core of it was:
*We have a recording of a couple of guys who we're telling you are Iraqi military officials, talking about something vaguely incriminating.
* ALUMINUM TUBES ARE TOOLS OF THE DEVIL
*We think they may have a few chemical rounds left in their arsenal, which is obviously justification for a full-scale invasion and regime change.


Even Powell himself has called his presentation an epic intelligence failure and a "blot on his record".
I remember watching it live and thinking "Seriously? This is their 'slam dunk'?"

[smjjames]

You've examined Clinton, and compared her to a Trump which you apparently haven't examined, as indicated by the lack of knowledge around the Trump Foundation. Maybe you need to reserve judgement until you do a thorough examination of both sides.

Gods know, I'm no fan of Hillary. I will be watching her like a hawk and will be a most vociferous critic if she abandons all her supposed progressivism once in office. But the fact stands, she's infinitely more qualified, more capable, and more ethical than Trump or Stein. At while I think Johnson is ethical, he fails badly on the capability end. Maybe once he can host a meeting of world leaders in Aleppo.....

When did the Trump Foundation stuff come to light?

Most of it within the last two months or so, but that's just because Trump wasn't vetted very well during the primaries.

You mention qualifications, but where has Hillary been successful? Libya?

I'm not sure TBH, it's been mostly hobbled by the fact that Obama is really weak with foriegn stuff. If the person at the top is weak, there is only so much that the secertary of state can do, right? Plus there may not have been enough time for her real successes to become analyzed by historians.

Hillary will be exactly as progressive as is necessary. No more, no less.

Bernie Sanders all the way! Am I right?

[RedKing]

Though I do find your comparison somewhat apt, fire or cancer, or to use Lindsey Grahams words 'like being shot (sudden and catastrophic) or poisoned (slow. depending on the poison and amounts of it)'

It's okay, America has spent the last several electoral cycles building up an immunity to iocaine powder. 

[UXLZ]

Sanders... I really liked Sanders. I'd say I still do. I think the primary process was utterly stolen from him through fraudulent or ridiculously dirty tactics (at minimum), which is a large part of why I despise Clinton so much (which the Republicans among you may not understand.)

In the end, he went to Clinton's side, however, and that I cannot really forgive him for. Not yet. Given my judgment of Clinton's character I would not be surprised in the slightest if she was threatening his family or some other such thing, but that is obviously "unsupported."

[smjjames]

Also, on Powell, I don't remember the UN powerpoint thing (or maybe I simply didn't see it), but I do remember all the accusations of Saddam having 'WMDs' and using that as a flimsy escuse to go to war. Though I learned more of that later, I was still somewhat politically naive during the first part of Bush 43's adminstration. Additionally, I voted bush in 2004 because I thought that since we were at war, it would be best to keep the same president.

Here ya go. Warning: It's like an hour long and then some.

The core of it was:
*We have a recording of a couple of guys who we're telling you are Iraqi military officials, talking about something vaguely incriminating.
* ALUMINUM TUBES ARE TOOLS OF THE DEVIL
*We think they may have a few chemical rounds left in their arsenal, which is obviously justification for a full-scale invasion and regime change.


Even Powell himself has called his presentation an epic intelligence failure and a "blot on his record".
I remember watching it live and thinking "Seriously? This is their 'slam dunk'?"

I thought the justification was that they somehow thought Saddam had made and stashed nukes somewhere, which we never found actual evidence of. Nevermind the fact that their 'source' is one who was already known to be unreliable and the information had come from torture, like, actual 'mutilate until you give the answer I want' torture.

[Starver]

. ..not really answering the question. I could tell everyone what I think you think (World War III with Russia, is it? Or the US becomes a minority white country, perhaps?), but better from your own mouth.

Neither of those.

You must have reasons. I thought I'd help you with some vague ones if you hadn't. Inbetween that point in the thread and this all I've learnt is that you've swallowed Trump's bile (despite not liking him) and subscribed to (highly selective) tinpot tales told about the past rather than have any actual theories about what the future will be like.

And on this non-existent basis, that you're not even going to invent a bad pulp novel plot to extrapolate events with, you state that Hillary has 0% chance of not making the future bad?

0/10 for effort. What a pity that NaNoWriMo is next month, also, or you could perhaps get some practice.

[smjjames]

. ..not really answering the question. I could tell everyone what I think you think (World War III with Russia, is it? Or the US becomes a minority white country, perhaps?), but better from your own mouth.

Neither of those.

You must have reasons. I thought I'd help you with some vague ones if you hadn't. Inbetween that point in the thread and this all I've learnt is that you've swallowed Trump's bile (despite not liking him) and subscribed to (highly selective) tinpot tales told about the past rather than have any actual theories about what the future will be like.

And on this non-existent basis, that you're not even going to invent a bad pulp novel plot to extrapolate events with, you state that Hillary has 0% chance of not making the future bad?

Might have been referring to her warhawkness, which, while better than Obamas weaksauce 'multiple red line that are okay to cross' foriegn policy, is a bit of a concern.