Politics 2016

[Bartimaeus]

Volo, of course, is right.  I guess I should say "morally principaled compared to the rest of our politicians."  

So, just to be clear...everyone who voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, but who ended up voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election, is similarly morally lacking, yes? I just want to make sure that this is actually the implication here.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Hurlshort]

As morally lacking as the rest of the Clinton voters I suppose.

 

 

(Which is to say, you are probably reading too much into these rather glib comments.)

Edited December 16, 2016 by Hurlshot

[Drowsy Emperor]

Sanders turned out to be the worst overall because he did the greatest about-face of all the candidates in the election. He was playing at pseudo-European welfare politics only to prop up the paragon of corporate America. And when you manage to support the greatest shill of corporate America, that is more extreme and vicious than even the prototypical member of corporate America (trump), you've really done ****ed up.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

On a morally principaled scale of 1-10, Clinton voters are a 3 and Trump is a 2. Sanders supporters were a 5, but they dropped to a 4 if they switched to Clinton. This is math people.

[Bartimaeus]

As morally lacking as the rest of the Clinton voters I suppose.

If you're looking at it from a consequentialist perspective in this situation, there was no action that would have reasonably lead to a good outcome here, so it hardly seems fair to judge someone that way. I could just as easily say you were morally lacking for voting for a candidate that you knew had no realistic possibility of success, that you were throwing your vote away...but I don't, because I also place moral weight into intentions, and I also recognize that, again, there was no good AND realistic choice here. I am pretty sure Sanders, as a seemingly moderately intelligent man, saw it much the same way after he lost...regardless of cheating. Why blame him or anybody else who didn't want to be in this situation for the lack of better options when we actually tried?

Edited December 16, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I remeber getting yelled at by a hysterical liberal that the far-left ruined Hillary getting elected because they voted for Stein(or some minor candidate) or stayed home. Nowhere did it occur to them that Hillary lost because she was **** or that if Donald was bull****ting about MAGA and worker's party then he was full of **** about the **** that triggered them. It's also funny thay 4 years ago this person was laughing at Romney for saying Russia was the US's greatest geopolitical enemy and would now happily nuke Russia because he believes Putin ruined his queen's coronation.

 

Anyways this election was a farce and morals are a matter of perspective, voting for one shill over the other doesn't confer any moral euperiority.

[Drowsy Emperor]

On a morally principaled scale of 1-10, Clinton voters are a 3 and Trump is a 2. Sanders supporters were a 5, but they dropped to a 4 if they switched to Clinton. This is math people.

 

Are we talking about the candidates or supporters here

[Hurlshort]

 

 

On a morally principaled scale of 1-10, Clinton voters are a 3 and Trump is a 2. Sanders supporters were a 5, but they dropped to a 4 if they switched to Clinton. This is math people.

Are we talking about the candidates or supporters here

I don't know, I am lousy at math.

[ShadySands]

The word problems are tricky

 

 

PS I guess I don't really see Sanders as a sellout because he always said he would support the eventual nominee and he made his feelings about stopping Trump pretty clear.

 

And he's still a career politician

 

 

PPS In my experience I also find that most of the people hating on Bernie for supporting Clinton were also not feeling the Bern

Edited December 16, 2016 by ShadySands

[Wrath of Dagon]

Moral principles are overrated especially when they haven't actually been tested.

[Zoraptor]

Sanders turned out to be the worst overall because he did the greatest about-face of all the candidates in the election.

 

Nah, that would be Trump. Winners always end up doing the most about faces as they have the biggest potential by far to do so, and Trump isn't draining the swamp as he promised. Hillary would have flipped on stuff as well, of course, had she had the opportunity. All Bernie did was pick the least offensive corporate candidate over the more- and in the US system that's about all you realistically can do. Anything else is like, well, puling about winning the popular vote when everyone knows that it's not how you measure victory. In theory it's a valid complaint, in practice, that's just how things work.

 

On the supposed Russian hacking, I am somewhat amused that the reason given by Michael Hayden for why Putin would be involved was that when the US did it the President had to give approval. Not exactly a claim to moral superiority there, either.

[Bartimaeus]

PS I guess I don't really see Sanders as a sellout because he always said he would support the eventual nominee and he made his feelings about stopping Trump pretty clear.

 

And he's still a career politician

 

PPS In my experience I also find that most of the people hating on Bernie for supporting Clinton were also not feeling the Bern

 

When he lost, I had a pretty strong negative reaction towards him giving his support to Clinton. But...as you just mentioned, he always said he would support the eventual nominee, because it would be better (...probably) than Trump, and at that point, there would be no other realistic alternative left available to him. I don't like the reality of the situation he (...and I) was stuck with, but I can hardly blame him for swallowing his pride and doing what he felt had to be done. It's also silly to direct any hard feelings at one of the small minority of people who actually tried to make a bad situation better, especially after they simply no longer had any meaningful say about the situation.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Wrath of Dagon]

Americans living in Mexico afraid: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/16/expats-in-mexico-facing-anti-american-sentiment-weighing-their-options.html

 

Funny how Mexicans living in America aren't.

[Volourn]

Love how when it is whitey being racist it is because theya re evil but when not whitey is racist it is still whitey's fault. LMAO

 

Blaming Trump because Mexicans are committing hate crimes against Amerikans (not actually racism since Amerikan isn't a race) is like saying Amerikans have an excuse to target innocent Muslims because of AQ. Yet we know how SJW Nazis hate that logic yet here they accept that logic for when Mexicans attack or hate on Amerikans. HAHAH!

 

The sad thing is Trump hasn't killed anyone yet but we all know AQ (nad Isis) ACTUALLY HAS.

 

 

L0L SJW Nazis L0L

 

 

“Mexicans don’t tend to judge people based on their political beliefs like we do up north,” he said. “In the U.S. you’re either Democrat or Republican, but in Mexico that’s not so important.”

 

WH This is the very article that writes that they do exactly that. LMAO

Edited December 16, 2016 by Volourn

[Wrath of Dagon]

Actual evidence of illegal aliens taking jobs from blacks: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/lawsuit-alleges-discrimination-against-blacks-at-national-job-agency.html?_r=1#pq=aCbCgc

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Sanders turned out to be the worst overall because he did the greatest about-face of all the candidates in the election.

 

Nah, that would be Trump. Winners always end up doing the most about faces as they have the biggest potential by far to do so, and Trump isn't draining the swamp as he promised. Hillary would have flipped on stuff as well, of course, had she had the opportunity. All Bernie did was pick the least offensive corporate candidate over the more- and in the US system that's about all you realistically can do. Anything else is like, well, puling about winning the popular vote when everyone knows that it's not how you measure victory. In theory it's a valid complaint, in practice, that's just how things work.

 

On the supposed Russian hacking, I am somewhat amused that the reason given by Michael Hayden for why Putin would be involved was that when the US did it the President had to give approval. Not exactly a claim to moral superiority there, either.

 

I dunno. I felt that Sanders built up genuine hope in some circles from the start with the moral high ground he took. With Trump, you never expect him to stick to a word of what he's saying from the get-go. 

[licketysplit]

Obama's press conference was interesting. He was mostly reasonable, trying to stabilize a borderline hysterical political situation. Then he dropped a big ol' truth bomb about fake news that I don't think the lefty media liked. He also stated clearly that Russia did not hack the actual voting process, but simply hacked into the DNC. A distinction that had to be made. Once in a while the guy impresses me. 

[Malcador]

Americans living in Mexico afraid: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/16/expats-in-mexico-facing-anti-american-sentiment-weighing-their-options.html

 

Funny how Mexicans living in America aren't.

Was expecting something a lot worse than that. Seems like something you would ridicule people for feeling, to be honest.

[Meshugger]

What's going on? The left being angry that the president isn't being more like a warhawk? The media being dissapointed that he didn't blame Russia for everything? 

 

What a time to be alive, kudos to Obama for behaving like a normal human being.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The irony of the "progressive left" being more pro-war than the "reactionary right" never fails to amuse me

 

Re: Obama's pre-cardboard box conference - he told Putin to "cut it out, or there will be serious consequences"

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Volourn]

Watch him bomb Russia on last day so trump will have to try to clean it up.

[rjshae]

Now, what a white kids raised in such narrative will become, huh?

Left and SJW are literally brewing another Nazi nation.

 

Are you a patriotic nationalist? Are you pro-socialist? Then you're a Nazi.

[Zoraptor]

I dunno. I felt that Sanders built up genuine hope in some circles from the start with the moral high ground he took. With Trump, you never expect him to stick to a word of what he's saying from the get-go.

As per Barti, Sanders did say he'd support the eventual nominee, ie Hillary, when the time came and if he lost. He did that, and nobody has seriously complained about him doing so half heartedly. Had he decided to shank Hillary instead it would undoubtedly be him being blamed for her loss, and being accused of being disloyal or whatever. That would be the perfect excuse for a 'no change' policy from the Dem's establishment- which we've kind of got anyway, with Putin being blamed and Hillary winning the popular vote, but not to such an extent.

 

If he actually were a socialist firebrand then might have gone kamikaze on Hillary anyway but when it comes right down to it he was a fairly standard Euro style social democrat who would fit in fine with Labour here or in the UK, and he'd probably be a bit too right wing for the traditional French Socialists. He's only a radical socialist by comparison with mainstream US politics where things like Single Payer Health is just wacky, crazy talk rather than mainstream like most of the rest of the developed world.

[HoonDing]

Alaska in exchange for the presidency.

Trump made a great deal.

[Elerond]

http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/europe/15-12-2016/136425-russia_eu_trump-0/

 

Russia and EU to unite against Donald Trump?

 

"The head of EU diplomacy Federica Mogherini said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal said that the EU and Russia could find common grounds on a number of international issues to join forces to counter future policies of the Donald Trump administration.

Moghernini, speaking about the fate of the nuclear agreement with Iran under the new US president, noted that Washington's slightest derogation from those agreements would raise serious concerns in Moscow.

"In a transactional manner...case by case, you will find issues where I wouldn't be surprised to see the Europeans and the Russians on the same side - Iran deal, Middle East peace process, possibly the role of the UN," Mogherini told The Wall Street Journal."