|
Post by SteveT on Oct 7, 2016 20:39:30 GMT
New Contro has been quiet and empty for too long. We need something to discuss.
~ahem~
Donald Trump is running for president and he's the Republican nominee. This is a real thing that's happening in our reality.
|
|
Selena
Admin
Odinsdottir
Posts: 318
Original Join Date: February 13, 2003
|
Post by Selena on Oct 7, 2016 23:42:30 GMT
Truth be told, I'm anxious about the election results. I'm less worried about the candidates and more worried about their supporters -- namely, what the supporters of the losing candidate will do in the immediate aftermath.
Trump's hardcore supporters are already balls to the wall crazy and full of anger. I keep a few on my facebook list just so I can try to analyze their thoughts. So many people are itching for any excuse to fight, and a Clinton victory would be the perfect match to light a pile of dry racist hay covered in gasoline. A rational expectation would be that some armed Bundy-style knobheads will start occupying federal buildings in protest of "Hitlery," resulting in a standoff with police that will trigger a bigger uprising.
Support for Clinton is lukewarm at best on the liberal side, but anti-Trump passions are also running high. Anti-Trump sentiment is the only thing holding the left together at this point.
Upset liberals are less likely to pull out the guns for obvious reasons, but large scale protests can easily lead to violent altercations with either the police or with counter-protesting Trump people. Major clashes with either group will stoke the flames -- you can already see how pissed off people get with BLM protesters (even if the protests are peaceful). Giant protests will cause the Trump people to get infuriated with those "entitled, pansy-ass libtard socialists," and it'll be a matter of time before someone snaps if it goes on long enough.
Things can get out of control quick once a downward spiral starts (Ukraine), so.... yeah.
Trump is a narcissistic buffoon, but he's only one person. His diehard supporters? We're stuck with those guys.
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Oct 8, 2016 11:44:05 GMT
Facebook is not a reliable source of information. Numerous tech companies--even Alphabet, Google's owner-- have vocally and fiscally supported Hillary and Facebook and Twitter have been shadowbanning opinions they don't like politically. Manipulating the share rate to make Trump supporters to selectively share crazy posts? It's not something they're known to do, but it's also well within their means and goals. Just saying you should probably take what you see on Facebook with a grain of salt. Heck, even that Times article I linked comes to some very wrong conclusions in it's bottom line. I'm still of the persuasion this election cycle we've been given a false choice. Hillary was not healthy enough literally or figuratively to win a race against a real competitor, so she arranged Trump. There have been a few indicators that this isn't the case, or perhaps that Trump is contemplating stabbing her in the back and making a genuine attempt to beat her. Good luck with that; if you try and fail you'll probably wind up suspiciously dead once the limelight's off and the race is over. The bottom line, however, is they're both snakes and one will be the next president. I don't think Trump's incendiary rhetoric is genuine--some of it's way too ridiculous for me to take remotely seriously, like making Mexico pay for a wall. But fact is, he arranged his bankruptcy with Citibank back in 1990 so that if they fully foreclosed on him, they'd go bankrupt as well. He's smart, but he's a snake. Then there's Hillary. I don't think it's worth discussing Hillary at length, in part because everyone knows her faults or has buried their heads in the sand...but if she's elected, she won't survive in the Presidency that long. Her health is in serious question from just campaigning; what will the actual office of Presidency do to her? No, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Tim Kaine....who appears to have never run for reelection in any office. Red flag! Very ambitious VP candidate going to become His Accidency just like President Tyler was!
|
|
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 8, 2016 14:12:24 GMT
I just can't believe that Trump is a plant. With all the things he's said and the things that have been dug up on him, you'd also have to believe:
1. He has spent decades positioning himself to be the ultimate stooge for Hillary 2. This man who has presented himself as a raging narcissist is in fact the most humble man of all time, willing to sacrifice his ego, reputation, and brand all to help someone else become president.
He's either the bro-est wingman in political history or he really is a narcissistic millionaire who thinks it would be fun to be president.
|
|
Selena
Admin
Odinsdottir
Posts: 318
Original Join Date: February 13, 2003
|
Post by Selena on Oct 8, 2016 15:05:24 GMT
Well.... yeah. Of course Facebook itself is not a reliable source of actual information.
I didn't say I was pulling my opinions from random posts sorted by Facebook's absurd news/highlight filters. I said I'm deliberately staying friends with people -- who I actually know in person -- to see what goes through their minds. I look at their unfiltered posts on their actual pages. I know their opinions and posts are accurate because I know them. And their thought processes are.... alarmingly ignorant. And because I know them in person, I also know that they weren't exactly on the honor roll in school and their knowledge of history extends about 20 years back at best.
Although for a website that theoretically censors anti-Clinton folk, the Trump people sure make up for it by being extra loud because I still see it plenty.
About Trump being a plant:
I'm still doubting this. You can say his recent gaffes are because he is trying to discretely throw in the towel, but nothing he's done is actually out-of-character. None of his behavior comes off as acting. He's been a legitimate narcissist since he was a child and has freely admitted -- throughout his whole life -- that he likes the "hunt" for more influence.
The extreme right wing had been urging him in 2012 because of his "Birther Crusade," and that, coupled with his distaste for Obama and his insatiable craving for attention, is probably all the incentive he needed. Especially looking at the Republican field this year. Cruz? Christie? Yet another Bush, this time from the C-string of the family? Part of the reason Trump gained momentum is because Jeb was a wet rag and nobody likes any of the others. Trump knows how to play up the "tough guy" persona that most rural white dudes love.
Trump has actually tapped into the thing that Clinton still hasn't learned -- that being president is mostly being a showman. You're pretty much supposed to be America's biggest hype man and keep everyone feeling good about themselves. Keep up morale. Keep everyone united. Most of the "most beloved" presidents in polls weren't too special when it came to policy, but all were really good orators and crowd-workers.
You can be the smartest person in the United States, but you still won't be a good president, at least in the public eye, unless you know how to really work a crowd. That's why Bernie and Trump both gained such big crowds in the primary.
Still, all the political machinations will be for nothing if widespread dissent occurs in the aftermath -- which is definitely my primary concern before Clinton's health or Trump's shenanigans or bad policy all around. The party leaders have been out of touch for so long that now things are going to spiral out of their control if the public is given even more incentives.
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Oct 8, 2016 23:14:41 GMT
I just can't believe that Trump is a plant. With all the things he's said and the things that have been dug up on him, you'd also have to believe: 1. He has spent decades positioning himself to be the ultimate stooge for Hillary 2. This man who has presented himself as a raging narcissist is in fact the most humble man of all time, willing to sacrifice his ego, reputation, and brand all to help someone else become president. He's either the bro-est wingman in political history or he really is a narcissistic millionaire who thinks it would be fun to be president. I don't see why it has to go back that far. We know that about a month before Trump decided to run for President Bill Clinton called him because numerous Trump staffers remembered the call. There's no need for him to be a mole before that. Bill could have (and probably would have) phrased taking a dive as being part of a con or a heist, because Trump didn't care for politics before and likely doesn't now, either. The major hole in the plan is not him being a decade-long wingman, but rather what favor would the Clinton Foundation offer in exchange for running only to take a knee. I don't know, but as this is a favor from the would-be President to an influential businessman...I wager they could work something out. The real reason I think Trump is a plant, however, is on the Republican side; #NeverTrump is a bizarrely strong thing this late in the political season, even swaying major local talkshow hosts in my area, like Eric Erickson. I don't like Trump, either, but his opponent may as well be named Cersei Lannister. In all election seasons in memory this is when Republicans have more or less solidified, even if it's a reluctant sort. And it's been a reluctant solidarity for years. I can see Never Trump being a thing if his opponent were Obama, Kerry, or some other Democrat the Republicans aren't (yet) set to fully despise, and I could really see it for a moderate Democrat. But Hillary? No, something is very wrong. Well, wrong unless someone is going around to select Republicans saying "I'll give your fund money if you become a NeverTrumper this year." But then NeverTrump is a force amplifier not an actual vote mover. It needs to look like it was a thing all along to sway voters at the last second, but they're only going to be looking if something genuinely catastrophic happens to Trump. Basically, the orchestrators footing the bills would have to know ahead of time that something would happen to Trump, and the only way they would know that is if Trump was already arranged to take a dive. That's why I think Trump was put in the race as a plant, anyway...but that's only half the tale. Remember Assange saying he had something major "that was going to take Hillary out of the race?" What on earth could he have? No, seriously; the FBI knew Hillary had broken the law with her email and opted to not prosecute because it wasn't malicious. Right. You know if I had done the exact same thing how long ago I would've been in jail? At this point I don't think that conclusive proof Hillary Clinton committed genocide could remove her from the race, and it probably wouldn't stop most of her supporters from voting for her, either. What could Assange possibly have? The answer is quite literally nothing. Not just that nothing could ever remove her from the race, but that bluffing could make Trump contemplate stabbing her in the back and making a legit attempt at the White House. This is where I think Trump is at the moment; he wants the White House, but he's not a fool. He will probably play until the last possible second before making a move. EDIT: This is true, and is likely to happen, either way. In an ideal universe the parties would realize that the way they've set things up are as antiproductive for them as they are for the rest of us do something productive--between Occupy and the Tea Party there have been a lot of things driving at schisms, enough that someone will want to do something. But what will happen is impossible to predict. It depends on too many things.
|
|
JRPomazon
Member
Posts: 162
Original Join Date: 14 Jul 2003
|
Post by JRPomazon on Oct 10, 2016 7:39:09 GMT
After watching tonight's debate, nothing was quite as chilling to me as Hillary laughing as Trump accused her of a number of things. Not that I found much of what Trump said to be enlightening, it was just a very odd moment in time. Honestly, I'm sure this has been said before but there really is no winning with these two. It's not whichever of them is the lesser of two evils but which of them possesses the evils we as a country can afford to tolerate for 4-8 years.
|
|
tydaze
Member
Posts: 72
Original Join Date: 2004
|
Post by tydaze on Oct 10, 2016 9:58:41 GMT
She was laughing because the things he was saying weren't true and he was making a fool of himself throwing things at her that she knew won't bring her down.
Egann... do you have evidence to support your theories about Trump being a plant and Clinton being close to death?
|
|
Masamune
Member
Posts: 113
Original Join Date: January, 2002
|
Post by Masamune on Oct 10, 2016 13:04:12 GMT
After watching tonight's debate, nothing was quite as chilling to me as Hillary laughing as Trump accused her of a number of things. Not that I found much of what Trump said to be enlightening, it was just a very odd moment in time. Honestly, I'm sure this has been said before but there really is no winning with these two. It's not whichever of them is the lesser of two evils but which of them possesses the evils we as a country can afford to tolerate for 4-8 years. It's not even close. I won't disagree that it's choosing between the lesser of two evils, but the comparison between the two is staggering. Hillary is guilty of being everything that is wrong with our current political system, but Trump is a xenophobic, racist, misogynistic fascist. He outright declared his intention to jail his political opponent if he wins, as is typical in overthrown governments around the world. Nevermind the countless incredible things he plans to do like targeting terrorist families, bring back waterboarding, make compulsory stop and frisk policies, and fire on foreign ships if they happen to be making fun of us. It's like being confronted with a ferret and a tiger and having to take one home to live with you and declaring that they're both just as bad so it doesn't really matter which one you take home with you. While yes they'll both be absolutely bad, the ferret is at worth going to chew up you shoes and shit on everything you love, but at least it's not going to actually eat you.
|
|
Jinn
Member
Posts: 73
Original Join Date: April 4th, 1984
|
Post by Jinn on Oct 10, 2016 15:33:15 GMT
Outsider's perspective of the upcoming USA presidential elections here.
I don't see much discussion from the voting demographic on the manifestos presented by either campaign.
Its usually very emotional sentiment being expressed, shamelessly passing itself off as logic.
People seem more content arguing "OMgz Trump is a sexist and racist mofo, we hate him so much grrr vote Hillary" ...."OHnoez Hillary is a Israel-defending reptilian war monger, make Murrica great again"..."some animals are more equal than others"...etc etc
There's a lot more observable rhetoric from the 'average Joe/Jane' demographic of other countries; comparing taxation regimes (from a business, SME, entrepreneur pov), proposed revisions trade regulations/embargoes, ramifications of foreign policy etc.
The rest of the world is watching to see how such an 'influential' country will affect global affairs during its next presidential term.
|
|
Jinn
Member
Posts: 73
Original Join Date: April 4th, 1984
|
Post by Jinn on Oct 10, 2016 15:37:06 GMT
The preceding is a general observation and not directed at you guys obviously.
Just breaking my usual dissent from this subforum to vent a little and share different viewpoint.
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Oct 10, 2016 16:22:52 GMT
She was laughing because the things he was saying weren't true and he was making a fool of himself throwing things at her that she knew won't bring her down. Egann... do you have evidence to support your theories about Trump being a plant and Clinton being close to death? I'm not exactly arguing Trump is a plant because I think it's literally true. I don't. I'm arguing it because everyone's taking the facts of the election at face value when there are clearly things going on behind the scenes. Talking crazy conspiracy theories is great at getting people to think in terms of hidden information and agendas and general critical thinking skills. Clinton's health is, however, going to be an issue. The "coughing fit" and the overenthusiastic nod aren't meaningful issues, despite what anyone else might tell you. Her collapse at the 9/11 ceremony is pretty revealing. The video shows her being propped up, then dragged into a car, losing a shoe in the process. Her campaign says it was pneumonia or heat...which doesn't ring true to me. For all intents and purposes she was unconscious when Secret Service put her in the van. It takes extreme heat exhaustion or pneumonia to cause unconsciousness, and Sept 11, 2016 in NYC was 80 F at it's hottest and dry. This could add up to a potentially unpleasant day, but none of this adds up to unconsciousness. There is one little detail bugging me, though; she didn't go to an ER. She went to Chelsea's apartment. Assuming you have more money than God--which the Clintons do--after passing out, would you go to the ER or to a family member's apartment? What bugs me is not that she passed out, but that she seemed to have planned for this. Now look and some before and after pictures of former presidents. Do I think she's dying? No. But I don't think she'll be in the White House for 8 years, either, and I suspect she knows that, too.
|
|
Selena
Admin
Odinsdottir
Posts: 318
Original Join Date: February 13, 2003
|
Post by Selena on Oct 10, 2016 16:56:57 GMT
This debate was somehow even worse than their first one. It was the least professional, sloppiest, shallowest, meaningless presidential debate I've ever had the displeasure of watching. I don't think they covered any new material that wasn't related to a trashy scandal. Maybe energy policy, I suppose, but they spent about two minutes on it.
Just have the final debate in the Thunderdome.
But, perhaps worse, these debates just reflect how the general American public also likes their politics -- a focus on snappy one-liners and vitriol while completely lacking in substance or historical context. Which is probably how we got into this damn situation in the first place.
These are the two most reviled candidates to ever be nominated for US president. Because they likely know this, their tactics all focus on making the other person look even worse. They could speak about policy and what they intend to do, but voters on the opposing side have already decided that anything that comes out of their mouths is a total lie. So there'd be no point in spending time on that when you could trash the other candidate for their many legitimate shortfalls.
Trump is awful in so many ways that I'd have to spend all day listing them out, but the fact that he's the Republican nominee is surreal and ridiculous. As a woman, his pacing around stage and constant hovering is something that generates a natural response -- guys who do this in real life are usually the guys who try to make inappropriate moves on you (or are otherwise abusive/controlling). He still hasn't presented any substance on his policies, and his military strategy is "I have a great plan but can't tell you because it would tip the enemy off."
He is somehow under the impression that Russia's military is more modernized than our own, which is fucking crazeballs. And that ours is horribly out of date. Are you for real? His focus on nuclear weapons is also something that raises red flags. He is a nationalist authoritarian jackass who represents everything you were raised not to be.
Every dictator of the past was shaped by the society they came from; Trump is capitalism's version of authoritarian dictatorship, only made more evident by the fact that he's a billionaire.
Clinton has some serious skeletons in her closet that have nothing to do with her emails or her husband. I understand why pundits aren't focusing negative attention on her right now given the election stakes, but she still has a multitude of shortcomings. People will need to pressure her the moment she gets in office to correct those shortcomings, so I hope pundits and others start hammering her once the threat of Trump is gone.
She removed some of the DNC safeguards that Obama put into place to reduce financial corruption. The DNC has been confirmed to influence and "approve" the stories that air on news media, resulting in biased reporting (RNC does it too). The pay-to-play scandal is another symptom of widespread Washington corruption, and it definitely doesn't sit well with voters. The DNC was actively biased when it came to Sanders. As a "good business" moderate, she is more interested in financial institutions than she is in the common person, even if she hopes to us those institutions to improve conditions. None of these things are surprising... but that's part of the problem, too.
Campaign trail talk ignored, she seems to have little legitimate interest in cleaning any of this up. This entire election cycle has had one overarching theme: Anti-establishment anger. People see how broken the political system is. They're tired of it. She has been almost completely tone-deaf about this throughout the entire campaign, and it is biting her in the ass. It didn't help that she picked another moderate as her VP choice. It's admittedly more of a symbolic gesture, but the symbolism involved meant that she has no interest in catering to the growing progressive wing.
Her talk about Russia and Syria lends itself to the growing political theory that she intends to further ramp up tension between the US and Russia; a route that will either lead us straight into another overt Cold War or something even worse. The US has bloodied hands when it comes to Syria, too, and ISIS is potentially benefiting from our involvement. "Arming [Group]" is also a terrible strategy because it backfires 9 times out of 10 because that group ends up using those weapons on us 10 years later.
She is, however, much better at debates than he is -- her tactic of letting him walk into his own traps is amusing, and her ability to stay calm is impressive. Though it wouldn't hurt her to make some harder bites every now and again.
It is a total and complete trainwreck. On all levels.
This is the first time I've felt like I really really really don't want to vote for anyone (even though I still will).
ALSO THE SNIFFING. STOP IT. WHY. DO YOU HAVE A COKE HABIT?
|
|
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 10, 2016 17:56:58 GMT
I left that debate feeling mostly grossed out. After spending the whole of the last debate letting Trump talk and dig his hole, Clinton couldn't stay out of the hole herself this time.
I won't call Hillary Clinton a good candidate, but Trump remains the worst I've seen by an order of magnitude. At least Hillary would be capable of being president. I hate that this election is about personality, but until Trump deigns to talk about policy beyond some high-level goals, he's running on personality. Normally, it's a choice of which douche has the policy you agree with most, and it's not a dick measuring contest. This time, Trump's whole platform is that he's got the biggest dick, and the Clinton is a bigger douche than the average candidate, but fortunately for her, Trump is going for the world record and trying to out-douche Andrew Jackson.
I'm not even entertained by this anymore.
As to health:
1. The average old lady has better longevity than an overweight old man. 2. I agree that the fainting thing doesn't entirely line up. 3. Hillary is probably a one term president, one way or another. Unless she does a stellar job, she'll get primaried. She might not to re-run if her health does start to decline or aging takes its toll. There's even a chance that Republicans will get their heads out of their asses and nominate someone capable of challenging her. 4. It's fun to joke about Trump's cocaine habit, but I am starting to suspect that he's just so averse to breathing through his mouth that he's taking these sharp sniffs to refill the old lungs when he's talking.
|
|
|
Post by SL the Pyro on Oct 14, 2016 2:18:55 GMT
I admittedly have little knowledge of the Trump vs. Clinton election, mostly due to living in Canada, but my friends who do live in the States have given me condensed summaries of the debates that I can sum up as not being so much an election as overlong sketch comedy.
From what I understand, election debates are supposed to be "State what I'll do for the country, how I'll do it, defend my decision from being slandered by the other guy." But from what I've seen of Trump and Clinton, they seem more interested in plainly tearing each other apart, and less interested in the more important things like defending their presidential goals - some of which have been called Very Bad Ideas by supporters on both sides. They're readily being called some of the worst presidential candidates we've ever seen, and both of them are almost certainly aware of it, possibly even solely relying on one appearing as a lesser evil than the other even though their campaigns both stink equally.
If I didn't know better that Trump and Clinton have been at this for a good while, I almost would've believed the debates were parodies, going as far as satires seen in The Simpsons and South Park. Which is exactly the problem: they don't even need to be parodied, they're bringing all this pain upon themselves at this point. If the real life elections resemble a parody as much as (or more than) the parodies themselves, then something has failed on a fundamental scale.
|
|