Print

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

[Madman198237]

I think that to sum up this election, one only has to say "It's a terrible day when reasonable peoples' votes go to the candidate who will suck the least."

[RedKing]

I think that to sum up this election, one only has to say "It's a terrible day when reasonable peoples' votes go to the candidate who will suck the least."

Vermin Supreme didn't win. 

[wierd]

No, the statement makes perfect sense.

"It is a terrible day when"  EG-- This is a bad thing
"Reasonable people's votes"  EG-- people who have some inkling about being a responsible voter casting their ballot
"go to the candidate that will suck the least" EG-- Of Trump and Clinton, Both suck, but Clinton sucked the least.


So, basically, "It is a bad thing that people who knew what they were doing had to cast a vote for a known bad candidate, just because she was the least bad."

That Vermin Supreme got the office just means that irresponsible voters outnumber responsible ones (in important areas.)



As for my take on Clinton vs Sanders:

Clinton's rhetoric and political history sums her up as a formula.  EG:

"I am totally for [currently popular thing] and totally against [currently unpopular thing]!"
(where those things can even switch places as favor and disfavor happen. EG, no real message other than "I want to be elected, elect me, and I will just do the popular thing.")

Sanders was more straight to the point, specifically cited what he disliked (and his congressional track record supported those statements), specifically cited what he supported (and his congressional track record supported those statements), and did not wishywash about it.

I dont feel like voting for a soulless robot working on an election formula. I would rather have a candidate who's platform I agree with, and who has the balls to stick to that platform.

That is why I wanted Sanders, and not Clinton.  I REALLY REALLY wanted Sanders.

[sluissa]

For those of you scared of Trump (or alternately, are convinced that George Bush Junior was worse), let me offer something that really should trouble you: putting Trump on the timeline of the Bush presidency, we are not yet at 9/11. Trump has a lot of time left...

That's like convincing your roommate to clean the dishes by cutting the gaslines inside the house.

That sounds almost like something my mother would do. In fact she has done stuff like that, but with electricity instead of gas. If I haven't mentioned, I have a wonderful family.

We're kind of like the Clinton campaign in that regard. The more nuanced parts of her messaging -- not that her wonkish distaste for committing to policy allowed her many -- were entirely drowned out in critical segments of the population by a constant vitriolic refrain of "only a bigot wouldn't give her the Presidency to which she is clearly entitled".

You heard that? 'Cause I didn't. Maybe it's like like those mysterious radfems that only exist on tumblr, college campuses, and the fever dreams of culture warriors...

My sense was that actually no one ever said this, but a lot of people seemed to think it was being implied. Same, I think, with how a lot of those same people describe the media as condescending and elitist. whether there is any truth in that is, well, a debate in itself.

Personally, I think that in practice electing a man with an extremely sketchy relationship to women and a history of using his power and influence to grope people is already pretty suspect by itself. I mean forget about Hillary Clinton here, we elected the equivalent of a pervert boss who gropes his secretaries. Trump probably doesn't do that anymore (I mean he is seventy years old), but he sure was doing that pretty damn recently. The charitable answer (which I'm sure is true for some people) is that they thought his moral faults were worth his legislative, executive, or deal-making abilities (in which case damn, this has been a very disappointing year for you, hasn't it?). The less charitable answer is it simply didn't matter to them or was a positive.

Trump on Irma: "It looks like it could be something that will be not good, believe me, not good."  http://snpy.tv/2wGBiMT
 

FEMA's got its work cut out for it, really.

The answer to all of this is give us a better god damned option than Clinton or Trump. Trump won because he was fighting a field of losers. Excepting Rubio who got stuck on repeat, and Jeb who just got stuck with bad sound bytes and the shadow of his brother. There were literally no good choices in that Republican field and most of them were losers in the past running for their umpteenth time.

Compare that to the Democrats which ran Hillary... that's it. They ran a token guy up against her, and then Sanders crashed the party. But the plan the entire time from the dems was for Hillary to win it and nobody had any say otherwise. The parties are both deaf to the masses and insistent on pushing up their friends because hey, if they wait patiently in line and vote right, it'll be them next time.

[Lord Shonus]

It is not entirely fair to blame the two parties for a lack of candidate variety. Both parties have hit a tremendous low spot in terms of finding presentable candidates of a proper age who don't have a lot of shit splashed on them. Note that both Sanders (who was a true independent who had to backpedal on several parts of his past voting record to embrace the Democratic party line) and Trump (a businessman and celebrity who's never shown consistent political views of any sort) came from outside the party structure.

Even now, I've yet to see a truly viable candidate arising from the Democrats, although there are several Republicans that have genuinely impressed me during the Trump administration - two of which (Senator Portman and Governor Kasich (who used veto power to block crippling Medicare cuts)) I outright hated before.

[smjjames]

It appears that the gov funding and debt ceiling deadline has been punted to mid-December, and Trump has agreed to it. It hasn't gotten to Trump's desk yet however.

Somewhat more information from The Hill.

They punted it to December to allow disaster funding for Harvey (and potential ones for Irma) to be made and to give more time to negotiate on various things. The politico article says that two debt limit votes in such a short time is painful to the Republicans, but it's really going to be painful for everybody.

It is not entirely fair to blame the two parties for a lack of candidate variety. Both parties have hit a tremendous low spot in terms of finding presentable candidates of a proper age who don't have a lot of shit splashed on them. Note that both Sanders (who was a true independent who had to backpedal on several parts of his past voting record to embrace the Democratic party line) and Trump (a businessman and celebrity who's never shown consistent political views of any sort) came from outside the party structure.

Even now, I've yet to see a truly viable candidate arising from the Democrats, although there are several Republicans that have genuinely impressed me during the Trump administration - two of which (Senator Portman and Governor Kasich (who used veto power to block crippling Medicare cuts)) I outright hated before.

The Democrats have a severe bench problem, true, and they might not have it fully solved by 2020 since it takes a good deal of time to build up that bench. I still contend that Clinton scared off most challengers because they didn't want to get crushed under the percieved juggernaut and risk their political careers at the same time.

[EnigmaticHat]

Clinton's entitlement wasn't in the form of "give it to me because I'm a woman", it was "I don't have to work for the Presidency because I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton do you know who you're talking to here". She earned her underperformance with women, minorities, blue collars, and leftists. Nobody gets to put that on the public, it was her responsibility to run an inclusive campaign and she totally fucked it. Frankly, she's just not good at politics. She's a god at schmoozing and networking, and passable at office holding, but campaigning?

No, Trump was better than her at campaigning by a mile.

That she's trying to stick her shit performance in what should have been a gimme election on Bernie only further proves this sense of entitlement to victory. What's the matter? Killer Hill Dawg can't adapt to an open field? Tough. It's an election, you adapt or you fail, same as with the Presidency. Trump is finding that out for himself, now that he's out of his element.

Its always funny to me that I end up defending Hillary in this thread, because I agree with everything in this post (except the complimenting of Trump's campaigning, but then you know what I think of Trump's skills).  The democratic primary left me with a sour taste in my mouth, as it did many other dems.  Superdelegates are bullshit.  Its vaguely suspect that the party of all races just happens to have a system so its mostly-white elites can guide the presidential bid.  Plus I still remember the "one guy lifting up a chair" riots of 2016.  I only defend Hillary on this thread because I think people hate her too much and for the wrong reasons.  Hate her for coming into the presidential election thinking she had already earned it, hate her because the DNC tried to fuck over Sanders on her behalf, hate her for, I don't know, her role in the war on drugs.  From my perspective most of the other shit about her being wildly corrupt or treasonous, or not liberal or incompetent, that's all smoke and mirrors.

I will say everything about the general election reeked of sexism.  Hillary's whole thing was trying to appear like a model presidential candidate.  She was much like Obama in that respect.  You can't be a woman, or a black dude, and run as anything other than the image of legitimacy.  Trump's whole thing was and always has been "I don't want to be good, I just want to be a badass."  Trump defined that in terms of making money and saying shit rather than physical strength.  Doesn't change the fact its classic toxic masculinity.  That's why Trump didn't immediately start bullshitting when confronted with the "grab her by the pussy" comment, and why his best defense was "I did say that but I was just talking myself up."  What does being a rich asshole mean?  It means you get to grab the pussy.  To most people, getting caught saying something like that would be a huge embarrassment.  But for Trump, those comments matched his narrative about himself that he's been playing up ever since The Apprentice.  That's why if you notice, what really hits Trump's approval with the base isn't doing bad things.  Its looking weak.  That's why his approval really started to tank at the end of his 100 days, because his base perceived him as not having gotten anything done.  In fact if you notice, the thing Trump has done that Americans most unanimously agree is amoral, the "many sides" comment, that didn't hit his approval at all.  But I guarantee you when the news runs stories that its too late to fund the wall this year, Trump's approval will fucking tank.  Because that hits him right where it hurts, his image as a fast talking dealmaker.

So its like, we ran a typical candidate but female, versus a 70 year old sex offender with delusions of being Don Draper.  And like, you can talk about how Hillary was poisoned by the primary and how she didn't have an answer to Trump's style of personal insults and how she seemed stiff and all that.  And those are fine explanations.  But none of them justify how much of an incredibly fucked up choice that is on behalf of the American public.  And like they had the info.  You don't want to tell me small town America didn't have at least one bar with a TV running CNN all day.  Trump had so many scandals during the general election, there can't be an American that didn't notice at least one.

[Trekkin]

You don't want to tell me small town America didn't have at least one bar with a TV running CNN all day.  Trump had so many scandals during the general election, there can't be an American that didn't notice at least one.

While I generally agree with you here, many small towns didn't have a TV running CNN, and that's important; the degree to which people have been picking their own facts and their own fake news contributed to a lot of the apparent insanity.

[RedKing]

In case anybody thought Congress might actually go along with this idea of enshrining something like DACA into law, here's a reminder of what they're up against.

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, an immigration hardliner, said Wednesday that Congress does not have to do anything to protect young immigrants who came to the country illegally as children. Instead, King said they can "live in the shadows."

"They continue to live the objective that they sought to achieve when they illegally entered America," King told reporters. "Live in the shadows."

(For reference: Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is a sentient pile of dogshit granted a Congressional seat by some cornfed motherfuckers afraid of anybody who isn't white and driving a tractor. He's also representing the portion of Iowa where I was born.) 

[smjjames]

As children, they didn't exactly have a choice not to enter illegally. Seems like a common sense thing, heck, it's a thing in law, but to the kind of people like Rep Steve King, apparently not.

Trump has also said that if Congress doesn't act on it at the end of the next six months, he'll revisit it. Implying that he'll do something with an executive order, which is exactly the thing that Republicans were complaining about when Obama went and did it. He's since said that there are no mixed signals at all, so, once more, he's being obsfuscative (or is that obtuse?) on it.

[ChairmanPoo]

WHY OH WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP THINKING FEMA DOES ANYTHING BUT FUCK UP EMERGENCY SITUATIONS!?!?!
 

Oh, you think you can do better? Very well

 Your appointment with FEMA should be finalized within the week. I've already spoken with the senator.

[TheDarkStar]

...I've never figured out why people are so unhappy with illegal immigrants in the US. Aside from some paperwork, what's the difference between, say illegal immigrants and people here with visas? Or naturalized citizens? They're not significantly different from the people around them and generally come here because they want to participate in the economy. Sure, they take jobs, but they create more jobs by being here. Economically, there doesn't seem to be a difference between "a bunch of illegal immigrants moving in and working" and "a bunch of Californians moving in and working". AFAIK there aren't even major culture differences like you see with refugees in Europe. If they're undocumented, they don't even impose as much of a cost in welfare/other government spending. The recent DACA stuff seems especially misguided because it specifically targets those immigrants who are guaranteed to be well-adjusted to living here.

[Zangi]

Cause they are clearly different in some way.

[Harry Baldman]

Your appointment with FEMA should be finalized within the week. I've already spoken with the senator.

I take it he was agreeable?

When you made a Deus Ex joke I was so willing it was almost pathetic.

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean the truth is we do not HAVE to do anything about it.

It's a question of whether we should, and yeah, absolutely we should take care of them. They're children. Unless we are talking about people who have since grown up and are self-sufficient adults? That's not as bad but they've still lived their whole lives here, uprooting people who could be otherwise productive is still silly to me.