The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

 

I love how Demos are all 'we must love, protect, and respect other countries and don't fearmonger against them'... unless that country is full of white people. Then they are evil incarnate. LMAO

Volo please can we not play the old " white people are victims of awful political persecution " ....this is not GG, lets not try to exaggerate the reality

Yeah, white people are only victims of persecution by the left, which is only about half the population. The right thinks white people are swell because they were responsible for the rights, culture, and technology that allows for the highest standard of living in the world.

 

Persecution might be a bit strong.

 

actual persecution, as in negative consequences, against whites exist in the west is on college campuses and far left hugboxes.

True, the only places where 

 

 

What is  a hugbox? Also  I'm not sure if you joking but when you say " as in negative consequences, against whites exist in the west is on college campuses "  how do colleges do this?

 

 

Any sort of position with "Diversity" in the name is meant to find ways to advantage non-whites. They often hold events that exclude white students, etc.

 

A hugbox is any sort of environment where opinions not shared by the group are kept as far away as possible, and any member is immediately attacked if they share an opinion contrary or any sort of sympathy for people who hold contrary opinions to the group.

 

Hollywood is a left-wing hugbox. Actors/directors/producers/etc. who are openly conservative often find it hard to get work, as the people in authority frown on those opinions.

[Raithe]

[Guard Dog]

[Guard Dog]

I know it's a week late but it's too funny not to share:

 

[Raithe]

[Namutree]

 

It doesn't really suit Trump.

 

"Fight for the rights of every man" <- That ain't Trump. Trump is too much of nationalist to give a crap about the rights of foreigners. It's that, "Let's fight for others!" mentality that drives neocon foreign policy to a certain extent. 

 

I thought the message of the video is fight for American rights since that's what he's been saying in person and the video shows American icons. I don't see other countries shown in the video.

 

From the song, "I am a real American. Fight for the rights of EVERY MAN." Every man is not just Americans. The idea that America needs to fight for the rights of others is a driving force behind the very kind of foreign policy Trump is trying to put an end to. It's shining beacon on a hill rhetoric, and that ain't Trump's style.

[Zoraptor]

Trump's music should clearly be 'Voodoo Child' instead of 'Real American' as a sign that when elected he'll institute a new World order.

 

The way things have gone with this campaign I was half expecting the joke suggestion of a Trump/ Bollea (Hogan) candidacy to actually happen. More insanity: we now have the once in a lifetime experience of George Soros and The Koch Brothers supporting the same candidate, who supposedly wants to get big money donations out of politics...

Edited July 31, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

Trump's music should clearly be 'Voodoo Child' instead of 'Real American' as a sign that when elected he'll institute a new World order.

 

The way things have gone with this campaign I was half expecting the joke suggestion of a Trump/ Bollea (Hogan) candidacy to actually happen. More insanity: we now have the once in a lifetime experience of George Soros and The Koch Brothers supporting the same candidate, who supposedly wants to get big money donations out of politics...

Makes sense actually, she's the one world, corporatist candidate. Republican voters for once told the Koch brothers to shove it.

[Hiro Protagonist]

From the song, "I am a real American. Fight for the rights of EVERY MAN." Every man is not just Americans. The idea that America needs to fight for the rights of others is a driving force behind the very kind of foreign policy Trump is trying to put an end to. It's shining beacon on a hill rhetoric, and that ain't Trump's style.

 

Seriously? Could you be more pedantic? It's clearly an American song about the current American Presidential election with American iconography in the video. And it's most likely aimed at an American audience. Trump has been saying all along about getting jobs back into America, manufacturing plants back in America and making America great again. it's probably why Trump resonates with a lot of blue collar workers.

 

If anything it's a joke video and nothing to get serious over. Someone like yourself getting serious over this video is quite amusing.

[Namutree]

 

From the song, "I am a real American. Fight for the rights of EVERY MAN." Every man is not just Americans. The idea that America needs to fight for the rights of others is a driving force behind the very kind of foreign policy Trump is trying to put an end to. It's shining beacon on a hill rhetoric, and that ain't Trump's style.

 

 

If anything it's a joke video and nothing to get serious over. Someone like yourself getting serious over this video is quite amusing.

 

Did you see me analyze some dumb statement by a stupid brony about applying objectivism to My Little Pony? Taking stupid crap way too seriously is something I like to do.

 

Also, how Hulk Hogan's song applies to Trump's anti-neocon foreign policy is serious business!

Edited August 1, 2016 by Namutree

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Patriotpony1986 is the voice of objectivism.

[Namutree]

 

Patriotpony1986 is the voice of objectivism.

Did he ever finish his e-book? I have to know what Obama and his cronies are doing to Equestria!!!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Patriotpony1986 is the voice of objectivism.

Did he ever finish his e-book? I have to know what Obama and his cronies are doing to Equestria!!!

 

I hope so, because HE IS THE MAN.

[Leferd]

The one thing that does strike me with the coming US election.. The potential first female President isn't going to elected for her merits as a President, for the belief that she's a good candidate, or really for the principles for which she stands. She's going to get elected because she's seen as a "lesser evil" and because of her opponent, not because of the things she stands for. That's not a great historical mark to have for breaking that "barrier".

 

Edit:

And I'm saying that because I know a whole bunch of people who have pretty much said "Hilary is corrupt, she's a lesser evil, and I couldn't vote in any other way that stopped Donald Trump having nuclear weapons... so I have to vote for Hilary."

 

This is false. That's narrative we're getting from the Trump campaign, which is disingenuous. Take the Democratic Primary. Clinton received 55% of the votes --with a 12% margin of victory over Sanders. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/

 

She won because a clear majority of Democrats clearly prefer her to Bernie Sanders --and not because she's the "lesser evil."

 

And of course, there's this:

 

 

The Pew survey indicates that 90% of Sanders voters will vote for Clinton and 88% of those who went back and forth on Sanders and Clinton will vote be voting for Clinton. It could be the case that many of these voters are doing it out of fear for Trump, but If voters are casting out of fear, we'd be seeing much lower percentages.

 

Let's assume that Democrats are going to vote Clinton and using data from the above chart--as of June 12, 75% of all democrats have a favorable view of Clinton.

 

 

When taken in the aggregate, a majority of all voters clearly have unfavorable views of Clinton...but among those that are going to be voting for Clinton anyway, a strong majority actually like Hillary Clinton.

 

She's not the demonic boogie monster that voters will only reluctantly vote for.

[Longknife]

 

Patriotpony1986 is the voice of objectivism.

 

 

That man is old enough to vote. No wonder we're ****ed.

[Leferd]

This is of course, the man running Trump's campaign...

 

 

 

This is after all, a man who was also behind despots in Africa and the Philippines.  

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Raithe]

 

 

 

This is false. That's narrative we're getting from the Trump campaign, which is disingenuous. Take the Democratic Primary. Clinton received 55% of the votes --with a 12% margin of victory over Sanders. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/

 

 

No, that's not false, I was being literal. I've got a bunch of American friends who in conversation with me over the last month have all said something along the lines of "I don't like Hilary, she's the lesser evil so I'll be voting for her because I don't want Trump as President.

It's not a false argument when that's their perception and reason why they happen to be voting the way they will.  The reason they think that is open to argument, but not that they said that to me.

[Longknife]

I would love to hear what redeemable qualities Hillary Clinton has. And no, "she's not as bad as the racist idiot" and "her hair isn't royally screwed up" aren't "redeemable qualities."

Edited August 1, 2016 by Longknife

[Elerond]

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

[teknoman2]

First I was (/ ' u ')/ but then I was (\ 0_0),

every voter of either side if that side wins

[Hiro Protagonist]

If you're into reptiles, then that might be a redeemable quality.

[Longknife]

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

 

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. I'd also like to hear what her track record is for "being able to drive through things her voters want," because while I wouldn't be too surprised if she can get results, I question if she truly cares about what her voters want until it proves beneficial, AKA if 90% of the voters were homosexual she'd be all for gay rights, and the moment the population is instead conservative Christians, she's against it. And not in the "I see myself as a representative of the people and thus will follow their demands even if they contradict my own" sort of way, but a "I'm dishonest and heartless as ****" sort of way.

 

My main issue with the rest of what you said is that if she keeps things "as they are now or mostly as they are now," this is the problem: the economy is in danger. Fact of the matter is that money does not trickle down, problems trickle up. The day the poor cannot afford a loaf of bread is the day that the dollar loses value completely, because it no longer holds any purpose or value for the vast majority of the people. The US has highly disproportionate wage increases relative to wage increases of the wealthy, and hell is not even fully proportionate to natural inflation. The US repeatedly legislates itself in a way that is inviting to big business, and I presume this is because the USA notices a net gain for the gross domestic product when they aid big business. The problem is that if that net gain for the GDP is now evenly distributed, it's more or less meaningless as it can and will collapse on itself with enough time. It feels like the current government shook hands with big business and agreed to a game of chicken where they push things to see just how long they can last before they need to start actually, yknow, addressing the economy.

 

And through all of this, Climate change. It's still an issue, and has been for over 10 years now. We keep putting it off. Why? Because oil and gas companies want us to. Europe actually did a fantastic job of reducing carbon emissions, but our net reduction is dwarfed by anything the USA does.

 

On both of the above issues, Hillary can be expected to keep the status quo or go where the money leads her. That's the problem: we keep getting status quo politicians, but the situation gets more and more dire with every new election. Obama was not the most memorable or spectacular president imo, and while he's not the worst, he's not the best either. 8 years ago yeah, I'll gladly take him over a president I disagree with on various matters, but today, simply hating the other guy isn't good enough. We need someone that actually does something, not someone that just does "status quo."

[Elerond]

 

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

 

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.

 

Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.

[Leferd]

 

This is false. That's narrative we're getting from the Trump campaign, which is disingenuous. Take the Democratic Primary. Clinton received 55% of the votes --with a 12% margin of victory over Sanders. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/

 

 

No, that's not false, I was being literal. I've got a bunch of American friends who in conversation with me over the last month have all said something along the lines of "I don't like Hilary, she's the lesser evil so I'll be voting for her because I don't want Trump as President.

It's not a false argument when that's their perception and reason why they happen to be voting the way they will.  The reason they think that is open to argument, but not that they said that to me.

Except that you made the argument that Clinton may win the election because she is seen as the lesser of two evils when the numbers indicate instead that a clear and very strong majority of those actually voting for her view her as being favorable. Your American friends voting for Clinton in November may have those feelings, but they are in the minority when it comes to the reasons for voting with her.

[Longknife]

 

 

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

 

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.

 

Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.

 

 

Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change.