US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

[Jace, Extat]

59 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I don't know. The guy has gotten some really bad press surrounding his personal and professional life life over the years.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/mr-family-values-bill-oreilly-loses-custody-of-kids-after-allegedly-beating-their-mother/214394/

http://www.alternet.org/media/snowballing-oreilly-scandal-more-reporters-and-witnesses-call-him-out-lying-about-his-pas

http://www.newsweek.com/oreilly-fracture-228136

 

Lest I be confused for an O'Reilly lover let me be clear. Tywin mentioned that a number of the Fox news personas are fabrications. I parroted that I've read good things about even O'Reilly. I detest the man and am aware of how disgusting he is. It was a poor example perhaps.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 hours ago, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

also, hasnt trump (or someone else maybe) already gotten shit for unauthorized use of "We Are The Champions"?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/19/queen-melania-donald-trump-we-are-the-champions/87284780/

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Lest I be confused for an O'Reilly lover let me be clear. Tywin mentioned that a number of the Fox news personas are fabrications. I parroted that I've read good things about even O'Reilly. I detest the man and am aware of how disgusting he is. It was a poor example perhaps.

I thought the sarcasm was rather clear, Jace. 

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Wethers said:

I do think that the point about the hypothetical Hugo Chavez-style leftist is off the mark though* - because in my opinion, a candidate like that would never win the Democratic candidacy in the primaries in the first place.  Hell Sanders couldn't even win or really come very close against, gasp, a woman.

I agree, that this hypothetical person couldn't win either. But if one did, in say a very divided Democratic field the way the Republican field was this year, Democrats would still line up behind them in the general election.

Likewise, if a quite moderate Republican somehow won the nomination, the kind that get regularly insulted by their party base and there's barely any left of, if one of them somehow won in 2020; Republicans would forget all about what they've been saying this cycle and would completely embrace the new platform. Because you gotta support the nominee.

[maarsen]

Just heard of a Norovirus outbreak at the RNC. Things are really going to go downhill fast. I have seen what this can do in a hospital, even with young healthy people. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Once again I have to wonder if Trump is leading up to giving the RNC the middle finger.  

I'd say at this point it's more likely to be Cruz who does that. Nobody knows what he's going to say during his convention speech, and I personally think it's every bit as likely that he denounces Trump as it is that he endorses him.

[SkynJay]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You do realize that one of the dirty little secrets at Fox is that Kelly isn't a Republican, and may actually be a Democrat? Some anchors are true believers, but most of them are just glorified actors. 

That's cool.  But if her role as an actress was to be one of the least extreme hosts it is working; her more moderate tone has her as one of the station's top two talants.  I think the station could survive a change.

[Wethers]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I agree, that this hypothetical person couldn't win either. But if one did, in say a very divided Democratic field the way the Republican field was this year, Democrats would still line up behind them in the general election.

Likewise, if a quite moderate Republican somehow won the nomination, the kind that get regularly insulted by their party base and there's barely any left of, if one of them somehow won in 2020; Republicans would forget all about what they've been saying this cycle and would completely embrace the new platform. Because you gotta support the nominee.

Agreed on all points.

I think we're just focusing on different things, both relevant.  You are focusing on the prevalence of team spirit on both sides in the general election.  I am focusing the usual crap-mire of politics starting, in the US and perhaps elsewhere, to acquire some new characteristics over the last 10 years or so with shades of 30s Germany and populist fascism.

A Chavez-style candidate is not and (perhaps?) has never been possible on the Democratic side, whereas a Trump-style candidate is clearly possible, and may not be an out-lier going forward.  Trump has done a great job finding his target market and is feeding their "ideas" back at them.  And I don't think that's going away quietly, even if Trump loses, because there is a groundswell of strongly-felt support for those ideas.  A groundswell that I don't think existed, say, 25 years ago.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

54 minutes ago, Wethers said:

Agreed on all points.

I think we're just focusing on different things, both relevant.  You are focusing on the prevalence of team spirit on both sides in the general election.  I am focusing the usual crap-mire of politics starting, in the US and perhaps elsewhere, to acquire some new characteristics over the last 10 years or so with shades of 30s Germany and populist fascism.

A Chavez-style candidate is not and (perhaps?) has never been possible on the Democratic side, whereas a Trump-style candidate is clearly possible, and may not be an out-lier going forward.  Trump has done a great job finding his target market and is feeding their "ideas" back at them.  And I don't think that's going away quietly, even if Trump loses, because there is a groundswell of strongly-felt support for those ideas.  A groundswell that I don't think existed, say, 25 years ago.

Bernie got pretty damn close for a 70 year old nobody had heard of before the election running against a candidate who had consolidated establishment endorsements and major donors years before the race had even begun. I could easily imagine an anti-establishment demagogue with similar views to Bernie, but an even more flamboyant personality and possibly a household name suck media attention away from a divided Democratic 'Establishment' field and eventually winning against an establishment that couldn't decide on a single candidate to back.

TLDR, don't discount Yeezus 2020 just yet.

[Jaxom 1974]

Paul Ryan really is nothing more than an oily used car salesman at heart, isn't he?  Listening to the man, he comes across as not having a single sincere bone in his body.  I say that having watched him in person and having an opportunity to shake his hand (I really dislike the guy, but he's still the Speaker of the House and when you get a chance to shake the hand of the Speaker of the House, whether you like him or not, you don't pass up the chance).

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Paul Ryan really is nothing more than an oily used car salesman at heart, isn't he?  Listening to the man, he comes across as not having a single sincere bone in his body.  I say that having watched him in person and having an opportunity to shake his hand (I really dislike the guy, but he's still the Speaker of the House and when you get a chance to shake the hand of the Speaker of the House, whether you like him or not, you don't pass up the chance).

I have nothing but contempt in my heart for that man. Those of you who are more familiar with me are used to my penchant for finding the good and never speaking ill of another, I'm sure, but I spit on Paul Ryan. Only in the revolting quagmire that is the Republican party could such a creature be named speaker of the house, after failing to deliver his own home state in the general no less! 

That said I've never understood why some people disparage those who talk about having met a prominent politician. Like, you met the Speaker of the House. That's pretty cool. Could have been a more respectable speaker, sure. But still cool.

[Rory Snow]

3 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Paul Ryan really is nothing more than an oily used car salesman at heart, isn't he?  Listening to the man, he comes across as not having a single sincere bone in his body.

This to me is the biggest difference between the two less than inspiring Presidential candidates.

Love him or hate him, I believe Trump believes what he says. Regardless of whether I agree with certain policies, and despite the fact that he's clearly an A-hole, I truly believe that he believes, that what he wants to do is absolutely in the best interest of the country. There's a certain level of ethics and sincerity in that.

With Hillary, I don't believe anything she says. Nothing. I don't think even she knows what she stands for. She can't even decide who she is, when she addresses NYC she sounds like a New York Jew, if she's in Georgia she drawls like a southern belle. Pandering is par for the course for all politicians but she raises it to an art form. I guess I believe her when she tells me she's a woman, but with her, the truth stops there.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

22 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

Love him or hate him, I believe Trump believes what he says. Regardless of whether I agree with certain policies, and despite the fact that he's clearly an A-hole, I truly believe that he believes, that what he wants to do is absolutely in the best interest of the country. There's a certain level of ethics and sincerity in that.

 Doesn't that just make him delusional?

[Boris the Blade]

44 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

This to me is the biggest difference between the two less than inspiring Presidential candidates.

Love him or hate him, I believe Trump believes what he says. Regardless of whether I agree with certain policies, and despite the fact that he's clearly an A-hole, I truly believe that he believes, that what he wants to do is absolutely in the best interest of the country. There's a certain level of ethics and sincerity in that.

With Hillary, I don't believe anything she says. Nothing. I don't think even she knows what she stands for. She can't even decide who she is, when she addresses NYC she sounds like a New York Jew, if she's in Georgia she drawls like a southern belle. Pandering is par for the course for all politicians but she raises it to an art form. I guess I believe her when she tells me she's a woman, but with her, the truth stops there.

She is much more truthful than Trump is. If you don't think that,  then idk what to tell you. Trump is scum, idc if he believes what he says or just says it to pander, fuck him either way. 

[Rory Snow]

33 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

She is much more truthful than Trump is. If you don't think that,  then idk what to tell you.

Dear Lord, you can't be serious.

This is precisely the trouble with the Hillary drones. The Trump supporters I know generally feel he's an ass, they see him for what he is but feel he's the better of two bad options. The Hillary supporters I know can't see her for what she is at all and seem to think she's actually a good option. Talk about delusional.

[Red Hermit]

1 hour ago, Rory Snow said:

This to me is the biggest difference between the two less than inspiring Presidential candidates.

Love him or hate him, I believe Trump believes what he says. Regardless of whether I agree with certain policies, and despite the fact that he's clearly an A-hole, I truly believe that he believes, that what he wants to do is absolutely in the best interest of the country. There's a certain level of ethics and sincerity in that.

With Hillary, I don't believe anything she says. Nothing. I don't think even she knows what she stands for. She can't even decide who she is, when she addresses NYC she sounds like a New York Jew, if she's in Georgia she drawls like a southern belle. Pandering is par for the course for all politicians but she raises it to an art form. I guess I believe her when she tells me she's a woman, but with her, the truth stops there.

Sorry but I'll take the actual coherent policies of Clinton over the impossible promises of Trump.  Trump has shifted around on policies so much to try to please everyone this election season I can't say for sure what he would do, but I do know from the things he has said that he is far too irresponsible to be elected President.

[Red Hermit]

I see Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means, than in another instance other supporters will defend the crazy shit he says by saying he doesn't really mean it.  Advocating torture as punishment and war crimes is not just "being an ass".  I don't feel that Trump will make America safer because he treats climate change like a joke, stirred up white supremacists and hypernationalists into a frenzy, has talked about clamping down on internet freedoms, and enjoys violence against protesters.  In regards to the Russian invasion of Ukraine he attacks Obama but not Putin.  Instead he defends Putin's murders of political opponents and journalists.

If he means what he says than he has no respect for human rights and individual freedom.  If he doesn't it means he is opportunistic and irresponsible.  I think Clinton shifts with the political winds but I'll gladly take that over someone who enables authoritarianism and anti-intellectualism.

[Crazydog7]

The thing that makes me the most most nuts about Trump other then the usual is that he is an utter misogynist pig and yet 10s of the millions of women are going to vote for him.  American politics never makes any sense but that one takes the cake for me. 

[mormont]

[mod] Let's keep it civil, please. [/mod]

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Crazydog7 said:

The thing that makes me the most most nuts about Trump other then the usual is that he is an utter misogynist pig and yet 10s of the millions of women are going to vote for him.  American politics never makes any sense but that one takes the cake for me. 

I suspect that for lots of women who support him, either A. They've convinced themselves that he's not actually misogynist for some inexplicable reason (perhaps tribalistic justification to stick with the GOP ticket?), B.  They personally subscribe to a sexist worldview despite being women (surprisingly common) or  C. They feel like they're taking a stance that differentiates themselves from the more "excitable" and "weak" women/ feminists who need to be coddled with PC behavior-- it establishes them as "winners" of a fashion or something like that.