U.S. Election - Because we know better than you do

[aceluby]

4 minutes ago, Commodore said:

This is weapons-grade stupid.

Nuclear weapons are literally used every day to keep the peace. They are why we never have to fear invasion. 

 

Is this supposed to be irony?  Because the stupidity of this post is mind-boggling.

 

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Did Trump buy the domain or is this a hack?

Bought it as soon as it was available as Jeb! let it expire.

[Commodore]

Just now, aceluby said:

Is this supposed to be irony?  Because the stupidity of this post is mind-boggling.

 

really? a nuclear deterrent is stupid? 

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Did Trump buy the domain or is this a hack?

Not a hack.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Commodore said:

This is weapons-grade stupid.

Nuclear weapons are literally used every day to keep the peace. They are why we never have to fear invasion. 

 

What are you talking about?

We don't have to fear invasion because we have two oceans that act as natural barriers and share boarders with only two countries who are weaker than us and we have very good relations with them. There is no feasible scenario in which America would be susceptible to a ground invasion.

On the other hand, nukes are the only thing that could do us serious harm.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Bought. Jeb2016 or something like that is the official jeb page.

Ok, that was a lame joke, even for my low standards.

 

Anyway, what annoys me about Clinton trying to mount this feminist horse to ride on it to the white house, is not just the blatant self-promotion, but it taps into an idea, that a female President would mean the end of sexism. Or at the very least change perception of women in every day life. Like the election of Obama ended racism...

By the very same logic a President Bachman/Palin/Fiorina would achieve the same thing for feminist as a President Hillary Clinton. I might be unjust to HRC here, but my memory/feeling is, that Obama played the race card far less often and way more subtle in '08. And it's probably easier to insert a reference to or a quote from Martin Luther King, than it is with Simone de Beauvoir. 

Anyway, Obama did not win the nomination (and thus the presidency by default in the general election), because he was black. He won, because he was the stronger candidate, with the better campaign and far better outreach. He has a charm Hillary lacks. Or simpler put, people just don't seem to like her. She is a bit like a Democrat Romney. On paper a strong candidate, with a big campaign apparatus and and a lot of cash to burn.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

New batch of General Election polling, and it looks awful for Clinton. She is losing to everyone except Trump, and she's only up a point against him. Meanwhile, Sanders dominates all 5 Republicans (no polling for Carson, because who cares).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[TerraPrime]

20 minutes ago, Notone said:

By the very same logic a President Bachman/Palin/Fiorina would achieve the same thing for feminist as a President Hillary Clinton. I might be unjust to HRC here, but my memory/feeling is, that Obama played the race card far less often and way more subtle in '08. And it's probably easier to insert a reference to or a quote from Martin Luther King, than it is with Simone de Beauvoir.

 

This is where the critique falls apart - those who would favor Clinton on account that she's a woman are also likely to find Firorina, Palin, and Bachmann to be anathema to feminists representations.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

This is weapons-grade stupid.

Nuclear weapons are literally used every day to keep the peace. They are why we never have to fear invasion. 

 

This is what Sanders does, he makes me have to agree with Commodore.

The US doesn't need as many nuclear weapons as it has, but it absolutely needs to have a strong, modern nuclear deterrent. If Sanders thinks otherwise, that alone is enough for him to be disqualified in my eyes from being President. There are many incredibly important duties that a President has, but none are more important than ensuring the safety and territorial integrity of the country itself.

Which means if that's true and he's the nominee, my belief in always voting for the lesser of two evils means I'll have to fucking vote Republican for the first time in my life. So I really hope Bloomberg launches a legitimate 3rd party campaign if it looks in a month like Sanders is going to get the nomination.

[Kalbear]

New batch of General Election polling, and it looks awful for Clinton. She is losing to everyone except Trump, and she's only up a point against him. Meanwhile, Sanders dominates all 5 Republicans (no polling for Carson, because who cares).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Well, it's not a new batch. It's one poll, the Quinnipiac. It is pretty shocking though.

[Mexal]

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

This is what Sanders does, he makes me have to agree with Commodore.

The US doesn't need as many nuclear weapons as it has, but it absolutely needs to have a strong, modern nuclear deterrent. If Sanders thinks otherwise, that alone is enough for him to be disqualified in my eyes from being President. There are many incredibly important duties that a President has, but none are more important than ensuring the safety and territorial integrity of the country itself.

Which means if that's true and he's the nominee, my belief in always voting for the lesser of two evils means I'll have to fucking vote Republican for the first time in my life. So I really hope Bloomberg launches a legitimate 3rd party campaign if it looks in a month like Sanders is going to get the nomination.

Does the president have the authority to say "lets destroy thousands of nuclear weapons" and just do it? Or does he need Congressional support? I get his point even if I don't agree with it but I doubt, in today's world, he'd actually go ahead and destroy the entire US nuclear arsenal while there are countries with nukes out there.

[DanteGabriel]

23 minutes ago, Fez said:

This is what Sanders does, he makes me have to agree with Commodore.

The US doesn't need as many nuclear weapons as it has, but it absolutely needs to have a strong, modern nuclear deterrent. If Sanders thinks otherwise, that alone is enough for him to be disqualified in my eyes from being President. There are many incredibly important duties that a President has, but none are more important than ensuring the safety and territorial integrity of the country itself.

Which means if that's true and he's the nominee, my belief in always voting for the lesser of two evils means I'll have to fucking vote Republican for the first time in my life. So I really hope Bloomberg launches a legitimate 3rd party campaign if it looks in a month like Sanders is going to get the nomination.

I dunno, if Trump is the Republican nominee, I think the person I'd want in the Oval Office is probably the one who wants to do away with nuclear weapons but wouldn't realistically be allowed to, rather than the one who still has to delete awful Tweets five minutes after posting them.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

First off, I'm not defending any poster, largely because none have been attacked. I'm discussing an opinion.

Second, that post also said this:

And this:

In other words, the discussion is mainly about why someone in broad agreement with a candidate might consider race or gender (in a positive way) as a further reason to vote for them. Even the Jindal remark - not something the poster actually advocated, but something he raised as an interesting question - is in line with this. Nothing in that post, and nothing in the whole discussion, is justifying the characterisation of any of this as 'this anti-white, anti-male attitude'.

The blather above about A and not-A misses the point: it's possible to make the same choice for two different reasons, and it is the reason for the choice of A over not-A, not the choice in and of itself, that reflects an 'attitude'.

This is where you are wrong though. American progressives are not in "broad agreement" with Jindal. They are not even remotely in agreement in Jindal. In fact, it would be quite accurate to say that progressives and Jindal are almost as diametrically opposed on many issues as it is possible to get. 

Hence the argument rather becomes that one should, "maybe", consider voting for a candidate that is opposed to pretty much anything that one believes in just because that person isn't white. If you want to call that "anti-white" attitude is up to you, but it is definitely not the same thing as a democrat choosing Hillary over Sanders because he/she agrees with both of them on most issues, but the possibility of Hillary becoming the first female president pushes that person over the edge in supporting her.

Don't you see this huge distinction? 

27 minutes ago, Fez said:

This is what Sanders does, he makes me have to agree with Commodore.

The US doesn't need as many nuclear weapons as it has, but it absolutely needs to have a strong, modern nuclear deterrent. If Sanders thinks otherwise, that alone is enough for him to be disqualified in my eyes from being President. There are many incredibly important duties that a President has, but none are more important than ensuring the safety and territorial integrity of the country itself.

Which means if that's true and he's the nominee, my belief in always voting for the lesser of two evils means I'll have to fucking vote Republican for the first time in my life. So I really hope Bloomberg launches a legitimate 3rd party campaign if it looks in a month like Sanders is going to get the nomination.

It is an interesting scenario. Would many Democrats actually support such a thing even if it all but guarantees a Republican president? Or do they really believe that Bloomberg would have a little chance to take it all? It seems like a pretty strange idea to be honest. 

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Does the president have the authority to say "lets destroy thousands of nuclear weapons" and just do it? Or does he need Congressional support? I get his point even if I don't agree with it but I doubt, in today's world, he'd actually go ahead and destroy the entire US nuclear arsenal while there are countries with nukes out there.

He can't destroy them, but he can let them rot away. Obama recently launched a massive nuclear modernization initiative, a 30 year, $1 trillion plan. Obviously it hasn't been funded all the way through yet. It wouldn't be too hard for a future president to let that lie fallow; and the result would be continued reliance on weapons built in the '70s that its already questionable whether all of them still work.

 

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

I dunno, if Trump is the Republican nominee, I think the person I'd want in the Oval Office is probably the one who wants to do away with nuclear weapons but wouldn't realistically be allowed to, rather than the one who still has to delete awful Tweets five minutes after posting them.

Trump's a populist blowhard, but I don't think he's particularly dangerous, or even particularly conservative. If any Republican had to win, I think he'd do by far the least damage to the country.

[MerenthaClone]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

This is weapons-grade stupid.

Nuclear weapons are literally used every day to keep the peace. They are why we never have to fear invasion. 

 

Yeah, okay guy.  I thought that's why we paid for having 10 supercarriers to the rest of the world's grand total of 2 (the UK's, neither of which are seaworthy at the moment).  We also have two more under construction.  So, uh, who is doing the invading?  Because the design philosophy of "every single branch of the military should be individually capable of beating the rest of the world in a straight-up war while we keep another arsenal ready to blow up the world if it looks like we're going to lose" seems pretty fucking dumb to me.  

[Mexal]

Just now, Fez said:

Trump's a populist blowhard, but I don't think he's particularly dangerous, or even particularly conservative. If any Republican had to win, I think he'd do by far the least damage to the country.

Yes, but he's an egotist. If someone said no to him, he'd throw a temper tantrum, but with nuclear weapons and the biggest military in the world on his side. That makes him dangerous.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The nuclear deterrence argument is a joke. They're weapons so wildly destructive that they can't be used without triggering a global cataclysm- people who say we can't get rid of them are, farcically, fearful of a Doomsday Gap. No one is going to invade the United States any time soon and I'm certain we'll do just fine in such an event using conventional weapons.

[TerraPrime]

11 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

This is where you are wrong though. American progressives are not in "broad agreement" with Jindal. They are not even remotely in agreement in Jindal. In fact, it would be quite accurate to say that progressives and Jindal are almost as diametrically opposed on many issues as it is possible to get. 

The "this" in mormont's "in line with this" comment, to which you're responding, does not refer to his conviction that Jindal's value aligns with the majority of leftists and progressives. The "this" in the sentence is referring to the evaluation process that mormont outlined that progressives use to decide if someone should gain their support, or not. Please read for context.

[Mexal]

Pope Francis on Trump. Trump's response? Blame Mexico for feeding the Pope bad information. Can't be because it's actually true or the Pope was able to form his own opinions. This is why he's dangerous.

[Kelli Fury]

Let's not forget the fact that literally no other country would actually believe the United States did not have access to at least one nuclear weapon no matter what we said and what was made law. Never.

[TerraPrime]

As much as I detest Trump, I detest the Pope more. He should shut the fuck up about American politics.