U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

[Weeping Sore]

If only there was a way to make Trump supporters believe that he had won and they all had amazing job offers to go build the Wall. Then when they go and follow the instructions carefully they find that they've built the Wall in a huge circle around themselves. That's when you let them know Hillary actually won after all. Then they can spend the rest of their short lives being fiercely independent and grabbing each other by the pussy or whatever.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Trump has only led in ONE poll in Arizona since the first debate.

its also important for red state democrats to vote because it piles up evidence in all states that they are being denied representation by computer driven gerrymandering. If they don't vote we don't have much evidence to argue with.

It's also important to run up the score so Trump's claims of a rigged election look as absurd as they are. And it will also strengthen Clinton's mandate to govern. 

[Castel]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

It's also important to run up the score so Trump's claims of a rigged election look as absurd as they are. And it will also strengthen Clinton's mandate to govern. 

Mandates aren't a thing, downballot victories are though.

 

As for his media empire: won't he run into the problem that Beck did,i.e. advertisers hate him?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

@DP, couldnt a pacifist make a pretty sound argument that Clinton is worse than Stein?  I mean, whether you think her (Clinton's) support of military actions is justified or not, Stein certainly isn't advancing an antivaxx agenda.  So the body count is a lot higher on one side.

I can see some pandering, but it seems pretty benign compared to any pandering Clinton has been doing.  Your vitriol against Stein seems out of place, especially with comments about ignoring questions to 'piss people off'.  Argue in good faith or don't bother.

I say this as someone who is happily voting for Clinton despite some serious misgivings about her judgment and proclivity for violence as a solution.

I agree with this, let me just add-

FTR, though I'm exceedingly 'dovish' on foreign policy, I am not a pacifist and, while I strongly considered a protest vote for Stein in my safe blue state, I ultimately decided to vote for Clinton. 

Seeing Stein attacked as categorically imbecilic or "shit" just grates on me. If you're demanding, as many Clinton supporters are, that people set aside their grave disagreements (which I have) with Clinton in order to stop Trump, don't turn around and hurl invective at a minor party candidate over comments that are nowhere near as significant as the foreign policy stances of the probable next President of the United States. If I went after Clinton with similar language I would rightly be piled on very quickly. 

[MerenthaClone]

Stein saying that Trump's foreign policy is better than Clinton's because Trump doesn't want to go to war with Russia is pretty imbecilic, though.  

[DunderMifflin]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Using this logic, we should probably just destroy every industry then. I don't think burning everything to the ground is a sensible way to go. That Hillary doesn't think so, doesn't prove she is just as racist as Chump.

I didn't say anything about burning everything to the ground. You said that.

 

Its interesting that you consider wall street and banks as "everything" though. Like the universe will stop if these sacred institutions of racism don't continue business as usual. Looks as if there's some entitlement for them to remain in power being whipped up here. 

 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Castel said:

Mandates aren't a thing, downballot victories are though.

 

As for his media empire: won't he run into the problem that Beck did,i.e. advertisers hate him?

Having a mandate to govern is a real thing. It's policy mandates that are a myth. 

 

Probably, but Trump is a lot bigger than Beck ever was, and it's important to keep in mind that Ailes' settlement to leave Fox likely signed a non-compete clause. Who knows how it would actually work if he's really going to pursue it. 

[OldGimletEye]

49 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I didn't say anything about burning everything to the ground. You said that.

Its interesting that you consider wall street and banks as "everything" though. Like the universe will stop if these sacred institutions of racism don't continue business as usual. Looks as if there's some entitlement for them to remain in power being whipped up here. 

Nice strawman on your part. Because I don't want everything to be "business as usual" on Wall Street. It's the reason I think Dodd-Frank is an important piece of legislation. What Trump would do, evidently, is go back to the pre-2008 status quo, a situation, I think that is very bad.

I think it's interesting you've pinned your entire argument about Hillary being as racist as Trump because Hillary won't blow up Wall Street. That is of course ridiculous. If you blow up Wall Street, then you replace it with what exactly? Do you have any idea?  The current economic system that we have does need finance to work effectively.

It seems to me you have no clue about these matters. And accordingly, you think it's a great argument to say that Hillary is just as racist as Trump because she isn't going to nuke wall street. That is dumb. And it's evident you've made no attempt to wrestle with the complicated issues here, concerning financial regulation.

And, oh, once again, besides removing Dodd-Frank, Trump will give all these guys on Wall Street big old tax cuts.

[Jace, Extat]

Thank God, I was afraid I was gonna have to fight this one alone, just too much stupidity to wade through for one person. 

-She claims not to be anti vaxx while repeating the stupid phrases anti vaxx people use to endanger public health. So she claims to be against it just like Donald claims to be against racism, but helps feed the beast. I say that's endorsement through cowardly means, others say pandering. Call it a wash?

-Calls for actions to stop the terrible GMO crisis, a disproven bit of far left madness. She wants proof that the fictional harmful effects of GMOs aren't harmful and ignores said proof when offered.

-Wants to cut defense spending in half and close a shit load of bases. Admirable! I agree with that idea! She has as much concrete policy to describe how to accomplish that goal with no legislative support and an army inevitably hostile to the idea as I do!

-Forgiving student loans in the same way the government bailed out the banks. She's just gonna take away all the debt and apparently had no idea what the hell that means! Let's just start having the government buying personal debt of everyone!

-Not even to mention that she insists in her platform that she'll have the nation dependant 100 percent on green energy by 2030, which is some magic bean madness and such an unrealistic timeline is as dangerous as the current snails pace.

Don't even get me started on the homeopathic bullshit that was IN THE PARTY PLATFORM last election. The green party has turned to peddling dangerous bullshit to the delusional parts of the left the same way the Republicans gave a voice to the tea party. The difference is that most Democrats aren't going to open that box of insanity.

[OldGimletEye]

More on The Republican Party becoming an intellectual trash heap: Data Denial Edition

Quote

Almost half of Donald Trump supporters (48 percent) completely distrust the economic data reported by the federal government, compared to only 5 percent of Hillary Clinton supporters.

https://www.marketplace.org/2016/10/13/economy/americans-economic-anxiety-has-reached-new-high

[TheKitttenGuard]

An article I find that is quite relevant to the discussion:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/17/the-left-isolates-itself-by-disregarding-the-grave-dangers-of-trump-and-trumpism/

 

I am on mobile so apologize that I can not quote some relevant parts.

The summation is that overall Progressive causes do better under Democratic Presidents than Republican.  

The article is also a response to another author so you have to read carefully around it or read the article that is response to (which was a response to another article the author wrote).

[Kalbear]

Another thing I can't forgive Stein for is peddling that Nuclear energy is bad. It really bothers me how trendy green she is. 

I really like the bright green movement, but this version of the Green party caters to precisely the bad sort of leftish politics that are just as low information as those who believe that Obama is literally a demon. 

[lokisnow]

For all that steins student loan quantitative easing is silly, perhaps it can push open space for serious policy discussions of federal assumption of student loan debt, student loan debt jubilees, or a student loan interest tax deduction that isn't capped or phased out based on income.

id like a founders esque assumption of debt, because it would give the economy a boost rather than a sedative, a new line of credit, a financial diuretic, if you will.  But to do that we're going to have to elect millennial reps and senators. So a few elections out from plausible.

jubilee lotteries would also be nice. Make a hundred billion dollars of SL debt forgiveness available each year for seven years and dole out 90% as lottery to those with a history of repayment and 10% allocated to forgiving defaulted debt with a bias toward clearing the lowest balances.

[DunderMifflin]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

26 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Nice strawman on your part. Because I don't want everything to be "business as usual" on Wall Street. It's the reason I think Dodd-Frank is an important piece of legislation. What Trump would do, evidently, is go back to the pre-2008 status quo, a situation, I think is very bad.

I think it's interesting you've pinned your entire argument about Hillary being as racist as Trump because Hillary won't blow up Wall Street. That is of course ridiculous. If you blow up Wall Street, then you replace it with what exactly? Do you have any idea?  The current economic system that we have does need finance to work effectively.

It seems to me you have no clue about these matters. And accordingly, you think it's a great argument to say that Hillary is just as racist as Trump because she isn't going to nuke wall street. That is dumb. And it's evident you've made no attempt to wrestle with the complicated issues here, concerning financial regulation.

And, oh, once again, besides removing Dodd-Frank, Trump will give all these guys on Wall Street big old tax cuts.

 

never said anything about blowing anything up. Certainly never said anything about nuclear weapons.

So I don't know what you are talking about with that.

I know it's a lot more fun for people to call out other peoples racism than to deal with their own. I've done it for years. 

Since obviously you are some sort of Oracle on "these mattters" while I'm clueless. Please drop some knowledge on me wise one.

There's seems to be some racism scale that you are going by here. Since you are vehemently claiming that Hillary is not as racist as Trump.

Is it like a 1-10 scale? Say, like Hitler(Godwins law) would be a 10?

Trump is what? like an 8? What's Hillary like a 4 or 5?  

To me that's like debating levels of a rapist. Like "that guy over there he's only kind of sort of a rapist, he's fantastic! But this guy though, he's terrible he's like way more of a rapist"

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

The summation is that overall Progressive causes do better under Democratic Presidents than Republican.  

In other breaking news, the sky is blue, water is wet and Jace can really tote the rock. 

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

never said anything about blowing anything up. Certainly never said anything about nuclear weapons.

Then your point with respect to Hillary and Wall Street is what exactly?

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I know it's a lot more fun for people to call out other peoples racism than to deal with their own. I've done it for years. 

Your case here is what exactly again?

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Since obviously you are some sort of Oracle on "these mattters" while I'm clueless. Please drop some knowledge on me wise one.

Well, I did provide link here on this thread. With regard to financial regulation, I didn't know it was my job to do research for you.

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

There's seems to be some racism scale that you are going by here. Since you are vehemently claiming that Hillary is not as racist as Trump.

LOL. I think that is evidently clear. Your case notwithstanding.

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

 Say, like Hitler(Godwins law) would be a 10?

Trump is what? like an 8? What's Hillary like a 4 or 5?  

 

LOL, Okay. Keep believing they are the same.

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Then your point with respect to Hillary and Wall Street is what exactly?

Your case here is what exactly again?

Well, I did provide link here on this thread. With regard to financial regulation, I didn't no it was my job to do research for you.

LOL. I think that is evidently clear. Your case notwithstanding.

LOL, Okay. Keep believing they are the same.

I'll ask again.

Where on a scale of racism do you put Trump and Hilary.

I'm asking for some context here.

Hillary not as racist as Trump, got it. So where are these two people in the context of all racism.

Between the most racist people/person in the world and the least racist people/person. Where do Trump and Hillary sit? 

[Weeping Sore]

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Another thing I can't forgive Stein for is peddling that Nuclear energy is bad. It really bothers me how trendy green she is.  

No carbon emissions and plenty of reserves, the problem of spent fuel is really pretty miniscule. In perfect conditions, with no cut corners and appropriate safeguards, I love nuclear. Yet catastrophic events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima loom large in the public consciousness.  So is it worth making everyone relax and learn to love the split Uranium atom, or should we keep our eyes on the prize of 100% renewable? Why plan two transitions, or a "bridge" transition to nuclear that will require investments in facilities meant to be paid back by 50 years of continued use, when the switch to renewables is the only permanent solution?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Weeping Sore said:

No carbon emissions and plenty of reserves, the problem of spent fuel is really pretty miniscule. In perfect conditions, with no cut corners and appropriate safeguards, I love nuclear. Yet catastrophic events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima loom large in the public consciousness.  So is it worth making everyone relax and learn to love the split Uranium atom, or should we keep our eyes on the prize of 100% renewable? Why plan two transitions, or a "bridge" transition to nuclear that will require investments in facilities meant to be paid back by 50 years of continued use, when the switch to renewables is the only permanent solution?

Because getting to that permanent solution is unobtainable if we don't do nuclear, and the buildup of 50 years of carbon emissions that would require skipping nuclear for our power requirements would make the planet significantly worse off. 

Ultimately the infrastructure and cost requirements of going to wind/solar/other ONLY are not feasible, period, in  the time frame we need to do it - not without essentially destroying the modern world. So I guess those are your choices: add another 2 degrees of temp to the earth's climate in the next 50 years, obilterate modern society and make us go into a literal dark age, or use nuclear energy. Which do you want to do?

[Weeping Sore]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Ultimately the infrastructure and cost requirements of going to wind/solar/other ONLY are not feasible, period, in  the time frame we need to do it - not without essentially destroying the modern world.

I understand your position but I have read credible claims to the contrary- let me dig into it and I'll add a link to this post soon...