US Election 2016, part II

[Guard Dog]

Although do you think the Republicans will relent on Garland in a few months if the polls look bad?

I would if I were them

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Clinton has been heavily involved in the government for decades, she is pretty easy to predict.  What, exactly, do you feel she is going to do to lead us into destruction?

TPP and interventionism.

 

Why do you trust Trump to be any different?

 

I honestly don't. But if he either lives up to his rhetoric or not, I would rather have him as a figure head then Clinton in case of an economic downturn because if it happens with Hillary all the inroads Bernie has made will likely go up in a puff of smoke.

[Rostere]

She wants to continue our interventionist policies abroad. We can no longer afford them, and we are not prepared for the consequences of such policies. We have to stop and stop now. This can't go on.

 

Trump is different in that he's basically a moderate interventionist while Hillary is a straight war hawk with no regard for the well-being of the US.

 

8 years under Obama has given us a different perspective on the Democratic Party. We begin to take some things for granted.

 

Hillary is equal to **** Cheney on foreign policy, her record and her reputation as Secretary of State prove that. This alone should disqualify her from the presidency for everyone but GWB-era neocons (sadly, the Democratic race did not have many contenders which would have made this more obvious). Incidentally, several of the currently active GWB-era warmongers jumped ship from the Republican party when Trump took the lead. You make of that what you will.

 

Hillary's reputation as an Obama successor is incredibly misleading in the foreign policy area. I've a sinking feeling Democrats will only realize too late they've made **** Cheney president.

[Leferd]

You do realize that as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton does not set foreign policy. She advises, but ultimately takes orders from the President.

[Zoraptor]

Hackers invade Dems’ servers, steal entire Trump opposition file.

 

Somebody claiming to be a (non Russian) hacker of their server has stuck some files on wordpress. The pictured docs at least seem plausible so if faked it's a pretty decent effort, though there's nothing in the known universe that would get me to click unsolicited links to doc files from a self confessed hacker to check those.

 

He says he's forwarded the haul to Wikileaks too.

[ktchong]

Look at it this way:  Hillary is really Obama's third term.  I have no problem with having a third term of Obama.  We have had eight years of steady recovery since the Bush disaster.  I wish Obama has been more progressive, but he has turned out to be a moderate on most domestic issues.   Actually, after Obama became the President in 2008, he has become more like Hillary.   So there you go.

Edited June 16, 2016 by ktchong

[Longknife]

I don't quite get the Obama-Hillary comparison. Obama honestly seems like an alright enough guy, his problem being he suffers from this almost chronically, meaning even if he tackles an issue with the best intent and a great idea, by God he better listen to dumbass #47 and before you know it dumbass has just as much say in the wording of the new law as everyone else. Overall Obama is by no means the best president history has ever seen, but he's not exactly the worst, and his issues (in my opinion) can be aptly summed up as this is a guy who caves in on his stances far too easily, as though he harbors a belief that the middle ground compromise is always for the best.

Hillary? She's got a long history of fishy business. While I could believe Obama if he claimed good intentions, I do not and cannot believe Hillary has the best interests of the American people in mind. She's a walking shill, and I easily see her endorsing whichever stances and policies offer the most profit rather than whatever seems best for the American people. Sadly, based on US history, the most "profitable" industry (aka plenty of lobbyists for it) is the war industry, and while there are pros and cons to TPP, it is absolutely something that offers pros and cons to the average citizen and small businesses, but nothing but pros for big business.

 

With Obama I more or less expect status quo and a constant compromise between opposing sides, ultimately resulting in a rather disappointing (albeit far from terrible) presidency where no one is overwhelmingly satisfied with the results. With Hillary...? You and whatever issues you care about are one giant suitcase full of money away from being thrown under the bus at any given moment.

[Meshugger]

- Obama treats the US like a Baseball-arena, but he foolishly expects everyone to come to together and like baseball on their own accord. Nobody is really happy, not even the baseball fans, but nobody is really furious either. Nothing is really solved but at least the game is alright.

 

- Hillary treats the US like a game of Civilization and she wants to score the highest score. She has read all the strategy guides and played it several times, but this time she's determined to win. Democracy and the electorate is just a stepping stone for her victory conditions. She is not interested in the Cultural or Science victory, as she hasn't understood them fully, and Domination appeared to be detriment to the current strategy of governance (possible rebellion = minus points). She is placing her bets on the United Nations victory instead. The only ones cheering are the cheerleaders to whom she gave the illusion of having political power or influence over her. Which is nonsense of course, she has a game to win and a high score to beat after all.

 

- Trump treats the US as his garden. He wants it to flourish and he understands that in order to do so, it has to be carefully tendered. There's a lot of weeds that need to be taken out and other flowers that are in dire need to be cultivated once again. A new hedge is needed and he wants it to grow thicker and be better kept than before. There are of procedures expected from him to do so, but they were done by the previous gardeners who were bozos who caused the garden to in the very shape it is now, so why should he even listen to them when he can do it his way? As for financing, he will have a high entrance fee for those who wish to visit it. His taste is a bit tacky though, so expect some cheesy or weird monuments here and there in the new garden.

 

- Bernie treats the US as his classroom and he is the teacher. He wants all the students to succeed and wants to throw the troublemakers out if needed, but at the same time have tries to accomodate students from troubled backgrounds. He is well intended, has some flimsy ideas on how the finances should be kept and resources should be distributed among the students, but all in all, he wants them all to do well one way or the other. His methods aren't liked by the school board and he is in a constant fight with them, but hopes to win them over with his rationale alone. He blames the city council for mismanagement of the schools resources and wants them all thrown out.

 

Since the schoolteacher was replaced i have to concede to the gardener, if i was to decide.

[Guard Dog]

Nice analogy. I wouldn't want any of them. I want a President that was more like a park ranger and the US is a huge wonderful national park. The ranger gives you a short list of the things you can't do and a long list of the opportunities available and tells everyone to go and enjoy themselves. The ranger and park staff makes sure the roads are clear, the borders of the park are secure, the bathrooms are working, and the trash gets picked and just leaves everyone alone.

 

That would be ideal.

[Guard Dog]

I don't quite get the Obama-Hillary comparison. Obama honestly seems like an alright enough guy, his problem being he suffers from this almost chronically, meaning even if he tackles an issue with the best intent and a great idea, by God he better listen to dumbass #47 and before you know it dumbass has just as much say in the wording of the new law as everyone else. Overall Obama is by no means the best president history has ever seen, but he's not exactly the worst, and his issues (in my opinion) can be aptly summed up as this is a guy who caves in on his stances far too easily, as though he harbors a belief that the middle ground compromise is always for the best.

 

Hillary? She's got a long history of fishy business. While I could believe Obama if he claimed good intentions, I do not and cannot believe Hillary has the best interests of the American people in mind. She's a walking shill, and I easily see her endorsing whichever stances and policies offer the most profit rather than whatever seems best for the American people. Sadly, based on US history, the most "profitable" industry (aka plenty of lobbyists for it) is the war industry, and while there are pros and cons to TPP, it is absolutely something that offers pros and cons to the average citizen and small businesses, but nothing but pros for big business.

 

With Obama I more or less expect status quo and a constant compromise between opposing sides, ultimately resulting in a rather disappointing (albeit far from terrible) presidency where no one is overwhelmingly satisfied with the results. With Hillary...? You and whatever issues you care about are one giant suitcase full of money away from being thrown under the bus at any given moment.

I think Obama is basically a good guy at heart. He loves his family, is nice to his dog, probably treats his friends well and is at least respectful of people he doesn't like. That makes him a decent person, it does not make him a good President. He believes the government should be the driving force in the country, and play a key role in the lives of it's citizens. He does not believe in individual liberty or autonomy, or freedom to make choices he disapproves of. He envisions a world where the citizens exist to serve the state rather then a state that serves it's citizens. Oh he expects that state to be benevolent make no mistake but he also insists that it have absolute power. That is why he has been more contemptuous and critical of the US Constitution than any President since Woodrow Wilson.

 

I think Daniel Webster said it best: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that our Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There have been men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to BE masters."

 

 

I agree with the Hillary analysis 100%

Edited June 16, 2016 by Guard Dog

[IndiraLightfoot]

A brief northern European impression of Obama:

Since the 60s, as far as I can look back, he's the president who compares the best to what in countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, even Germany, would be, a liberal, but still right-wing politician. So, in many ways, plenty of peeps here understand him better than any other US president before him (one exception: Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal). Obama was also almost absurdly liked over here in the north. He got the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing, hehe. That's just one indication. He has nearly succeeded in doing something unique over here: Making an EU-US free trade agreement that holds water and lives up to its name. However, when that NSA global surveillance scandal blew up, the image of him changed, and he's now regarded as more of a weak, but benign president. Bernie Sanders would be even more familiar in this neck of the woods, with his social-democratic vision of government and policies. 

 

And then Trump:

Trump, however, is often portrayed more or less like the leader of North Korea, like a nutcase, which doesn't bode well for any transatlantic bilateral relations or EU-relations, for that matter. The things he's saying are compared to demagogues or media mogul leaders, like Berlusconi. At best, he's compared to Putin.

 

Finally, Hillary:

She fares surprisingly well in the serious press in most of those countries I mentioned above. I'd say, lots of commentators expect her to be a stronger president than Obama, although slightly more to the right of him, in relative European terms.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Obola hates America, because we have racism in our DNA. By which of course he means whites.

[Leferd]

Obama is half white and was raised by a white mother and white grandparents.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Obama is half white and was raised by a white mother and white grandparents.

So he's half racist and the other half has internalized white supremacy.

[Leferd]

Then again, Obama also grew up with an Indonesian stepfather and a half Indonesian sister who married into a Korean-American family.

[Longknife]

I found this interesting.

 

I would believe Assange on both accounts, AKA I'm absolutely willing to believe we're gonna see some disgusting stuff leaked, but Assange is also in a position (presumably) where he'd have good input as to whether or not the FBI will actually indict her. I'm curious as to why they won't, in his opinion.

[Meshugger]

I found this interesting.

 

I would believe Assange on both accounts, AKA I'm absolutely willing to believe we're gonna see some disgusting stuff leaked, but Assange is also in a position (presumably) where he'd have good input as to whether or not the FBI will actually indict her. I'm curious as to why they won't, in his opinion.

 

Maybe for the same reasons that the Russians still haven't released the rest of the deleted emails that they stole: bargaining power.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Then again, Obama also grew up with an Indonesian stepfather and a half Indonesian sister who married into a Korean-American family.

So he's a practitioner of cultural imperialism as well? What a white male.

[Longknife]

 

I found this interesting.

 

I would believe Assange on both accounts, AKA I'm absolutely willing to believe we're gonna see some disgusting stuff leaked, but Assange is also in a position (presumably) where he'd have good input as to whether or not the FBI will actually indict her. I'm curious as to why they won't, in his opinion.

 

Maybe for the same reasons that the Russians still haven't released the rest of the deleted emails that they stole: bargaining power.

 

 

 

Hmm? Assange says they're just getting the stuff processed and it will be released. He's not bargaining with it. Or are you saying the FBI would desire to bargain with Clinton for some reason?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Obama is half white and was raised by a white mother and white grandparents.

He said his grandmother was racist. How come he's not called the first half-white president of the United States? Edited June 16, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[ShadySands]

People like easier labels?

[Meshugger]

 

 

I found this interesting.

 

I would believe Assange on both accounts, AKA I'm absolutely willing to believe we're gonna see some disgusting stuff leaked, but Assange is also in a position (presumably) where he'd have good input as to whether or not the FBI will actually indict her. I'm curious as to why they won't, in his opinion.

 

Maybe for the same reasons that the Russians still haven't released the rest of the deleted emails that they stole: bargaining power.

 

 

 

Hmm? Assange says they're just getting the stuff processed and it will be released. He's not bargaining with it. Or are you saying the FBI would desire to bargain with Clinton for some reason?

 

 

I meant the FBI, yes. But i still think it's quite unlikely, but not entirely unprobable.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I found this interesting.

 

I would believe Assange on both accounts, AKA I'm absolutely willing to believe we're gonna see some disgusting stuff leaked, but Assange is also in a position (presumably) where he'd have good input as to whether or not the FBI will actually indict her. I'm curious as to why they won't, in his opinion.

 

Maybe for the same reasons that the Russians still haven't released the rest of the deleted emails that they stole: bargaining power.

 

Is wikileaks a front for Russian intelligence? https://20committee.com/2015/08/31/wikileaks-is-a-front-for-russian-intelligence/

[Guard Dog]

Johnson & Weld are getting a shot at primetime in CNN Townhall next week. I'll be watching: http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/15/johnson-weld-to-get-cnn-town-hall-treatm

[Zoraptor]

 

 

I meant the FBI, yes. But i still think it's quite unlikely, but not entirely unprobable.

 

 

I presume he means that any indictment would be politically blocked. Get the federal prosecutor to decline to prosecute? Say that the emails are inadmissable since they were obtained illegally? Claim any incriminating emails were planted by hackers? I'm sure they could come up with something. You'd kind of hope that even a recommendation to indict would kill off a presidential candidates chances, so maybe something prior to recommending an indictment... There are certainly plenty of people who'd happily spike the investigation for political reasons.

 

In any case, not like Wikileaks has actually released anything yet. Except chemtrails, I hear reliably they're up to their necks in that little attempt to mass medicate the world clandestinely. Why else would Assange spend all his time inside, hmm? Unless he was trying to avoid the chemtrails! Quod erat demonstrandum.