Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

Dad_Scaper September 27th, 2016 02:48 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112360)
Policing is built on trust, and I would not blame the black community in many cities and towns for being fearful.

It is a terrible and dangerous mistake to have a dialogue of this type with any discussion of "blame" at the beginning. It is a disservice to all.

The only sensible way to begin is with a serious, calm, and patient desire and effort to understand. Neither BLM nor the calmer voices representing law enforcement are rash. Both, at their best, understand that the other has a serious cause that should be honored.

Please don't talk about blame. Not who deserves it, not who doesn't deserve it. On a related note, it's also wise to separate different actors and different actions from each other. What happened to Freddie Gray was completely different from what happened to Eric Garner, and if you cannot take the time to look at the details, then you are doing a disservice to your audience (hypothetical "you") when you draw misleading broad connections between them.

My 2 cents. This is probably off-topic.

Though I will say that I thought Clinton's handling of this question in the debate last night was surprisingly thoughtful and subtle. I don't think I've ever heard any politician (certainly not a white politician) address race relations in such an articulate, compassionate way. And given her shortcomings - essentially, an absence of charisma and maybe compassion - I am as surprised as anyone that I'm saying that about her today.

Rich10 September 27th, 2016 02:58 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112356)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112341)
The Republican presidential nominee has produced more falsehoods than the major fact-checking sites have identified from a major presidential candidate since they came into existence. The Democratic nominee hasn’t come anywhere close to that. But she’s not exactly dwelling in Honest Abe territory, either.

This is an excellent example of false equivalence. It is correct about Trump; he is a record-setting winner of the "pants on fire" sweepstakes. Having said that about Trump, though, the author is apparently overcome with a need to say something critical of Clinton on the point, and so the author does.

And yet, throughout the long political process, when you've looked at charts from Politico or whatever comparing *all* the candidates, sometimes also including non-candidate politicians as well, she has always been either the most truthful, or the second-most behind Barack Obama. Others have been close, including Bernie, but she's been consistently #1 or #2. So why the dig? It's unsupported, and unnecessary.

What makes it interesting to me, though, is that it's in the New York Times. So people can quick beating on the Times as a liberal standard-bearer. It's not. You don't have to like what you read in it, but I do not accept that it's a bastion of liberal advocates.

You might not think that the NYT has a liberal bias, but their public editor does.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/...s-liberal-bias

Saying that a newspaper has a bias isn't a condemnation of their writers or editors. So long as the bias is understood, it shouldn't be a problem. Let me demonstrate with a wager. I'll wager that the New York Times and Washington Post will endorse Clinton for president. I'll also wager that the New York Post will endorse Trump for president. None of these entities are flying under false flags; we know what the bias is. How about a side bet on who Fox would endorse?

What do you want to bet? ;)

Dad_Scaper September 27th, 2016 03:05 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
First of all, there is more to an endorsement than the name. Second of all, it is interesting that you ask that question during *this* election cycle, because this cycle is a fine demonstration that a newspaper need not endorse a party of the same candidate it did four years' previously. Across the nation, traditionally conservative papers are endorsing Clinton.

Why? Because sometimes it's just that the person is the better choice. I know I'm bumping up against your cynicism here, but it may be that the Times endorses Clinton this year, Obama before that, and Kerry and Gore before that, because in the genuine opinion of the editorial board, those are the better candidates.

Regardless, though, there is this third point: it is important to distinguish between the reporting in the reporting section and the positions of the editorial board. I happen to think that my local paper's editorial board is just silly on some things, and I bear significant grudges against it for how it's handled some things I hold dear. But some of the Baltimore Sun's *reporters* have done excellent jobs in tough circumstances. Its editorial board is decidedly liberal; I don't think of the rest of the paper as "liberal" at all.

wriggz September 27th, 2016 03:07 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112372)
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112360)
Policing is built on trust, and I would not blame the black community in many cities and towns for being fearful.

It is a terrible and dangerous mistake to have a dialogue of this type with any discussion of "blame" at the beginning. It is a disservice to all.

Though I will say that I thought Clinton's handling of this question in the debate last night was surprisingly thoughtful and subtle. I don't think I've ever heard any politician (certainly not a white politician) address race relations in such an articulate, compassionate way. And given her shortcomings - essentially, an absence of charisma and maybe compassion - I am as surprised as anyone that I'm saying that about her today.

I used the word blame as a turn of phrase. I would say I understand how they feel. That said your analysisof clinton response is concurred. Understand and civility is the path forward. UnderstandING that citizens may feel betrayed or fearful and moving ahead to build trust is the only way people can heal.

Those do not seem the sentiments of trump.

Rich10 September 27th, 2016 03:23 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112354)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112347)
  1. With respect to healthcare in Canada or education in Sweden, I'm just not qualified in either of these topics. I would like universal healthcare and education for all. It would be nice to have these things. I'm not sure how to pay for these and all of the other "nice things to have" without ending up with a Greece, Spain or Venezuela problem when things go bad.
  2. I agree that Capitalism is not concerned with human rights or the environment. Capitalism probably isn't a good choice to clear snow off the streets. Government has a role in our lives. But, as far as innovation is concerned, government sucks. The iPhone wasn't made by the government. Harvoni, a drug that cures hepatitis C, wasn't made by the government. Tesla wasn't a government program.
  3. I read the article. The loss of manufacturing jobs in the US was caused by globalization and mechanization. Hedge fund managers went to Greenwich because it was a town near New York City, with lower taxes. The hedge fund managers didn't cause the loss of manufacturing jobs. Speaking of taxes, the US has lost jobs and capital from our country to countries with tax havens and/or lower tax rates. This is very different from the Greece problem, in which they are spending too much money. http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...lems-socialism

1. You stop acting like the right to Health and Education are "Nice things to have". A healthy tax structure leads to a healthy Middle class, which in turn supports itself. Stagnant wages while corporations make record profits, pay out dividends at record levels and avoid their tax responsibility all leads to the acceptance that these things cost too much. America is the exception not the rule when it comes to Healthcare and Higher education among the wealthier countries.

2. Your right the Iphone is not a government invention. But the research that created the first computers, the touch screen was invented at CERN and the University of Illinois, Much of the research done on lithium batteries came from Universities including Pennsylvania, Texas and Oxford, the internet started at the Department of Defense and NSF, and we can thank the Military for GPS systems (not to mention NASA, ESA, and Russia for putting all the satellites into orbit). I will still grant you that Capitalism working with Socialism is awesome (otherwise we would never had TANG). I'm not sure how you count universities and hospitals, but their innovations are not profit driven (at least directly) and they make far more advances than companies. I don't think you want to run a comparison between NASA and Tesla for innovation.


3. I drew out the fact that less money is flowing back into the Economy through taxes and that investment in R&D, expansion and higher wages were abandoned for financial wizardry and multimillion dollar salary increases lead to erosion of the middle class. There is likely truth in both our logic, however unless you plan to close your boarders and bust up the robots, financial policy seems the only way to see things return to the prosperity the US had in the 60's.

  1. Like I said, I'm not an expert in health or education. Certainly, education through high school is paid for through taxes. State Universities (of which some are excellent) have tuitions which are very affordable. I'd like everyone to have free healthcare. I'd also like everyone to have a new Mercedes Benz. I just don't want to pay for it. Everyone loves taxes when someone else pays them and it doesn't hurt the economy. I'm not sure how to balance these things. Like I said, I'm not a healthcare spending expert.
  2. I'm a big fan of NASA. I assume that you realize that the government doesn't actually make things. NASA pays Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ... to make things. I have worked with state universities and I can tell you that they are very interested in profits from their inventions. Again, government has its place. But you can't compare innovation of NASA vs Tesla, you should perhaps look at Boeing vs Tesla (both capitalist companies).
  3. I'll reiterate my earlier point, the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US was caused by globalization and mechanization, not hedge fund managers. As for investment in R&D, in the US, it has increased from $333 million as of 2000 to $433 million as of 2013.https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domes...ing-on-r-d.htm Wages are determined by the market. Companies pay dividends if they don't have a better use for the money. What happens to the dividends, typically, it is reinvested.
It seems that you have a Socialist mindset while I have a Capitalist mindset. This is OK, we don't need to agree. But going back to one of your earlier posts, which countries have done better over time, Socialist or Capitalist countries? Why not follow what works best?

Rich10 September 27th, 2016 03:30 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112386)
First of all, there is more to an endorsement than the name. Second of all, it is interesting that you ask that question during *this* election cycle, because this cycle is a fine demonstration that a newspaper need not endorse a party of the same candidate it did four years' previously. Across the nation, traditionally conservative papers are endorsing Clinton.

Why? Because sometimes it's just that the person is the better choice. I know I'm bumping up against your cynicism here, but it may be that the Times endorses Clinton this year, Obama before that, and Kerry and Gore before that, because in the genuine opinion of the editorial board, those are the better candidates.

Regardless, though, there is this third point: it is important to distinguish between the reporting in the reporting section and the positions of the editorial board. I happen to think that my local paper's editorial board is just silly on some things, and I bear significant grudges against it for how it's handled some things I hold dear. But some of the Baltimore Sun's *reporters* have done excellent jobs in tough circumstances. Its editorial board is decidedly liberal; I don't think of the rest of the paper as "liberal" at all.

In the case of the New York Times, it isn't cynicism. It is what their public editor said.

I am not familiar with the Baltimore Sun, but I do know the New York Post. I'll wager that the New York Post will endorse Trump. Care to make a wager on who this (ahem) unbiased newspaper will endorse? You take the Clinton side.

Dad_Scaper September 27th, 2016 03:31 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112387)
UnderstandING that citizens may feel betrayed or fearful and moving ahead to build trust is the only way people can heal.

Yes, but also understanding that police have a job to do - a job that we want them to do - is equally a part of healing.

Consider that, when police encounter a group of suspected drug dealers on an inner city street corner, the popular sentiment appears to be that the police should not get involved until they see drugs changing hands. But also consider that, maybe a week later, there will be a hypothetical community meeting at which the good people who have to live in that down & out neighborhood may very well be begging the police to be more aggressive in getting the drug dealers off the corners. What's an officer to do? If you lived in that neighborhood, what would *you* want the officer to do?

The armchair experts on law enforcement are, IMHO, dangerous. I have no problem with informed & thoughtful protest. I do have a problem with people Monday Morning Quarterbacking police, like they would a football game, except it's not a game.

One of my favorite speakers on the topic is Dallas Police Chief David Brown. There's a guy who can explain things simply.

Spoiler Alert!


edit: I'm just musing in this post. As far as I know, I'm not disagreeing with anyone. :up:

wriggz September 27th, 2016 04:58 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112399)
Yes, but also understanding that police have a job to do - a job that we want them to do - is equally a part of healing.

edit: I'm just musing in this post. As far as I know, I'm not disagreeing with anyone. :up:


Agreed. Honestly this is not a us versus them argument. I'm just pointing out that the next president should have ideas on policy to unite communities and help build trust between the police and the people they are sworn to protect. This is a major issue, with no simple solutions.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112394)
It seems that you have a Socialist mindset while I have a Capitalist mindset. This is OK, we don't need to agree. But going back to one of your earlier posts, which countries have done better over time, Socialist or Capitalist countries? Why not follow what works best?


Also Agreed. Until I see something better than Democratic Capitalism I am still with you. However, Russia and other have tired a purely Socialist Government and unsurprisingly it failed. I think the Republican US is the only advanced country making progress towards a purely Capitalist Government (I could be wrong).

This is one experiment I would rather not see take place, when we see a blend of the best of the two is the more rational way to go. My argument is that clearly the way the US is headed is not the best for the majority of the population, so wouldn't it be better to copy some of the policies of others that are working in other Countries. For example Health Care is a Right in Canada as much as my right to free speech and equality. I don't consider it a "nicety" and it would political suicide to suggest cutting that right. As a group of citizens we are happy to pay the taxes we do to ensure that right is protected. On the other side I consider it a privilege to own a gun, if that privilege was limited it wouldn't bother most Canadians. It all comes down to where your values lie.

Ranior September 28th, 2016 10:14 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Going a few pages back when we were discussing traditionally republican leaning newspapers endorsing Clinton, thought this recent article was particularly showing of that point.

Quote:

Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.

This year is different.

The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.

That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.
The rest of the endorsement hits the key reasons I too cannot vote for Trump. It heavily highlights Trump's repeated pattern of statements and actions that are not befitting of a president. It highlights Clinton's history of a steady hand and supports her because she has experience and is truly qualified for the job. They clearly lay out why Trump is not.

dok September 28th, 2016 12:05 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112341)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2112231)
I, too, am unfamiliar with Jay Rosen and that website. I linked it not because I trust the source, but because I agreed with the content of the article I was linking. Did you read it?

I think that it is worth reading. It tends towards hyperbole with comments like, "Trump is trying to break" the press.

That's not hyperbole at all. Trump did break the press. He exploited their willingness to follow the salacious story and their tendency towards "he said, she said" reporting to unprecedented degrees. He also has openly mocked the media and run against the media in ways no other national candidate ever has. He even barred multiple major media outlets from his press pool. Again, no precedent in modern history for that.

The media has, at last, more or less adapted to covering him, but he definitely achieved significant success by violating established norms of how a candidate relates to the press.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112397)
I am not familiar with the Baltimore Sun, but I do know the New York Post. I'll wager that the New York Post will endorse Trump. Care to make a wager on who this (ahem) unbiased newspaper will endorse? You take the Clinton side.

I think you're probably right here, as the Post, as far as I can tell, takes a kind of perverse pride in its tabloid-style journalism. It's worth noting, though, that numerous papers that haven't endorsed a Democrat in decades, or ever (Dallas, Cincinnati, Arizona) have endorsed Clinton. So I don't consider it a sure thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2112349)
This past one was on the "scandals" of this election cycle and it's a fun 20 minute romp through them. I know he is a comedian, and many likely consider him biased, but I just would say it's the most fun way to sum up my thoughts on the matter as well.

To those who don't want to watch, the basic summary is that Clinton's scandals are annoying, but they are far from nefarious or criminal. Trump's scandals are numerous and pervasive, painting an image of a man who doesn't know or care about ethics.

I find it interesting that despite his broader point that Clinton's scandals are far, far less problematic than Trump's, he actually spends more time on Clinton's. He barely mentions the Pam Bondi bribery scandal, which seems so blatantly corrupt that it's a little hard to believe it hasn't become a big story.

Dysole September 28th, 2016 04:15 PM

My Guess
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2112538)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2112349)
This past one was on the "scandals" of this election cycle and it's a fun 20 minute romp through them. I know he is a comedian, and many likely consider him biased, but I just would say it's the most fun way to sum up my thoughts on the matter as well.

To those who don't want to watch, the basic summary is that Clinton's scandals are annoying, but they are far from nefarious or criminal. Trump's scandals are numerous and pervasive, painting an image of a man who doesn't know or care about ethics.

I find it interesting that despite his broader point that Clinton's scandals are far, far less problematic than Trump's, he actually spends more time on Clinton's. He barely mentions the Pam Bondi bribery scandal, which seems so blatantly corrupt that it's a little hard to believe it hasn't become a big story.

I presume it's because since Clinton's scandals have been so talked about with varying levels of understanding (and are also a bit more complicated), it's better for him to more fully explain the depth on those and then time constraints as to why he didn't go more in depth on Trump.

~Dysole, who thought it was one of Oliver's better videos

Dad_Scaper September 28th, 2016 07:32 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Just going to leave this here: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12220124?

It's an advocacy piece by a former "Bernie bro."

Nukatha September 30th, 2016 12:28 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
The Chicago Tribune, who endorsed Mr. Obama for the last two presidencies, just endorsed Mr. Johnson. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...930-story.html
Also, Detroit News, who usually endorses Republicans, endorsed Mr. Johnson.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opi...dent/91254412/

That's two pretty decent endorsements in my opinion.

Dad_Scaper September 30th, 2016 12:47 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
The Chicago Tribune is a serious paper. So kudos to him and he seems like a decent guy, personally, so that endorsement should wash off some of the humiliation of his second "Aleppo moment." His words, not mine, to describe his (literal) inability to name a single world leader outside the United States.

The Detroit News has endorsed Republicans for 140+ years consecutively. Its endorsement says more about Trump - and the paper itself - than it does about Johnson.

My thoughts on the endorsements you cite.

ollie September 30th, 2016 01:04 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112857)
His words, not mine, to describe his (literal) inability to name a single world leader outside the United States.

Stupid sensationalist media rant: this is being reported everywhere as you describe it and then the articles (or at least the vaguely responsible ones) go on to explain that he was asked to name a world leader that he admires. Very different question.

And when you're an isolationist and exceptionalist with some very strange views about international politics (I'm assuming here, because he's a libertarian) it's not actually very surprising at all that there's not a long list of candidates at his fingertips.

His rubbish policies (again, I'm assuming, because he's a libertarian) are a probably a good reason to mock him, but I don't think this is (or at least not in the way it is being done).

Dad_Scaper September 30th, 2016 01:10 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I saw the video, Ollie. If he had wanted to buy time by discussing leaders he *didn't* admire, he could easily and smoothly have done so. But he sits there looking completely blank.

You're a teacher. You know when you're looking at someone and the wheels are spinning but nothing is happening inside. Watch and decide for yourself.

At best, and this is genuinely the most generous thing you can say about how he handled that question, he had a principled reason for saying "no" and still fumbled and sounded foolish rather than deliver an articulate answer.

ollie September 30th, 2016 01:12 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Oh, agreed, it wasn't a good response by any stretch. I just don't think that saying he can't name a single world leader is a fair respresentation of it.

Ranior September 30th, 2016 01:22 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2112849)
The Chicago Tribune, who endorsed Mr. Obama for the last two presidencies, just endorsed Mr. Johnson. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...930-story.html
Also, Detroit News, who usually endorses Republicans, endorsed Mr. Johnson.

That's two pretty decent endorsements in my opinion.

I'd like to note that that Chicago Tribune endorsing Obama makes sense given his home state. Apart from those two endorsements, the Chicago Tribune has a long history of supporting Republicans. Actually here is an article from 2008 pointing out that was the first time the Tribune ever endorsed a Democrat. So once again, another endorsement that really just says more about Trump.

Also, from actually reading the Tribune article, I'll continue to ridicule their stance that voting third party is some sort of principled stand that someone can be proud of. As others have pointed out, the only way you can make a third party vote like that is if you personally feel you don't have something to lose no matter the outcome. Many of us do not feel that way. I personally admit I likely have very little to lose, and yet at the same time my rights as a gay man in Wisconsin are pretty well set now. Despite Walker's current governership, we still are a largely progressive state and have long had pretty good LGBT rights including protections in housing and the workplace. But I know much of the country still does not have those protections, and I don't trust Trump to actually care about or fight for those rights. It is a very small little issue in the big picture, and yet for some individuals I know it is a very big worry in their daily lives that they must worry about being fired from their place of employment if their sexual orientation was found out.

I for one care far too much to waste my vote on a third party candidate. I think it is irresponsible for editorial boards to be suggesting individuals can feel some sense of pride in taking a principled stand when they may as well not vote at all if they aren't voting for Trump or Clinton. Furthermore, I'll argue it's just irresponsible for people to vote for a third party when there are real effects of who wins the presidency for many people, even if you don't think or feel you personally have anything to lose either way.

Swamper September 30th, 2016 02:58 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Voting on principle isn't something to be ridiculed. I'm not going to choose to vote for two sucky candidates just because they're the main ones. Being the main candidates doesn't change the fact that they aren't a great choice.

If it makes y'all feel better, I'm in SC so my vote won't really change anything in the grand scheme. Trump'll win pretty handily unless the black vote really turns out.

dok September 30th, 2016 06:01 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ollie (Post 2112860)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112857)
His words, not mine, to describe his (literal) inability to name a single world leader outside the United States.

Stupid sensationalist media rant: this is being reported everywhere as you describe it and then the articles (or at least the vaguely responsible ones) go on to explain that he was asked to name a world leader that he admires. Very different question.

My read of the clip was that he very quickly settled on Vicente Fox but just couldn't remember his name.

Anyway, I find the Chicago and Detroit endorsements of Johnson to be kind of gutless. These are not deeply principled stands for libertarian ideals. They're basically saying, "eh, these guys are decent, and we hate Trump, so try these guys." But when you're a historically Republican paper that's not endorsing the Republican almost entirely because you recognize he shouldn't be president, then it stands to reason you should advocate a position that minimizes the chance he becomes president. When your stand is entirely pragmatic and in opposition to Trump, endorsing Johnson is a real cop-out.

The above is even more true for the kind of hilariously gutless USA Today Trump anti-endorsement, which basically says "eh, do something else, just don't vote for Trump." I guess they deserve some small credit for actually making some statement about the election from their editorial board for the first time ever.

Dad_Scaper September 30th, 2016 06:18 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
The USA Today endorsement also had kind words for Clinton. Unlike the Detroit and Chicago papers, it didn't have to do *anything*. I didn't think it was gutless.

TheTravelingScaper October 2nd, 2016 01:26 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Hilary has my vote... Trump is too tact and speaks his mind too often he wants to get things done like every prez but he won't too be honest has trump even had any government based experience? That's partially why i want Clinton. Sure Benghazi and her husband was in a scandal and her being president would make the white house be under an oligarchy but then again teddy and Franklin were related. every president is scandalous but i just think Hillary has more EXPERIENCE Trump legit on live television called Obama and the rest of the democrats the founders of isis.....They were trying to bring back our country from poverty and some rich guy with money coming out the wazoo makes up this stuff?? Unbelieveable.

Tornado October 2nd, 2016 09:56 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Anyone watch the recent Frontline on PBS about Clinton and Trump?

Really cool as it follows them through their lives and since they are close to the same age you get to see what they were doing at about the same time in different stages of their lives.

Hillary was involved in Watergate but my favorite part was when she rebutted a speaker at her college graduation.

Trump is just Trump. He apparently gets a lot of his demeanor from his lawyer who came off as pure evil. This lawyer started the whole deny guilt and declare victory even in defeat mantra Trump lives by.

The most enlightening was when they explained that banks could not foreclose on Trump properties. Reason being that once his name comes off the value plummets.
They were forced to make a deal or lose even more.
Build a brand.
Too big to fail.

Nukatha October 4th, 2016 10:08 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Anyone else watching the VP debate tonight? It looks like there will be much more sane than the last one.

Dad_Scaper October 4th, 2016 10:38 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I'm not watching it at the moment, and I might tune in, but it's going to be hard for anything to beat this as my favorite moment from it.

Nukatha October 4th, 2016 10:57 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
A couple things I think so far.
It is rather cringe-worthy to watch Pence attempt to defend Trump's comments.
Pence is being much more respectful of Kaine's time than vice-versa. That is, Kaine loves talking over Pence.

Dad_Scaper October 4th, 2016 11:34 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2113851)
A couple things I think so far.
It is rather cringe-worthy to watch Pence attempt to defend Trump's comments.
Pence is being much more respectful of Kaine's time than vice-versa. That is, Kaine loves talking over Pence.

I think Pence's politics are absolutely vile. He seems like a decent guy, though, otherwise. Unlike his running mate.

I'm glad to see Kaine a little feisty. I didn't know he had it in him. He's very graceful about steamrolling Pence, to his credit.

Ranior October 5th, 2016 11:52 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I plan to watch it on youtube if possible soon. That's how I take in most of the debates.

I'll echo DS yet again that I think at least Pence and Kaine are good people. I can't stand Pence's policies either though. Between cancelling needle exchange programs in his state and causing public health issues like increased spread of HIV to actually signing the stupid RFRA garbage, even if he later softened his stance on it....the man clearly pushes his morality onto others at the cost of public health or individual's rights. Not someone that I want in charge at all.

As a secularist also, I tend not to really like politicians who describe themselves as a Christian first as Pence is often quoted as stating. Almost always means they support laws that support "religious freedom" or "protect" Christians as if they are somehow under attack legally and losing rights. Given that this is clearly not the case, and instead most religious freedom laws really mean discrimination against LGBT individuals like myself, I tend to be wary of any politician who thinks his faith is the most important factor in his professional life, when in fact it shouldn't be a matter at all.

dok October 5th, 2016 03:27 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
As a matter of political discourse, last night was a disaster. It was considerably less coherent and harder to make sense of than the presidential debate. The moderator did a pretty poor job in my opinion by constantly jumping from topic to topic and not asking appropriate follow-ups. The two debaters themselves did her no favors by constantly exceeding time and talking over her and frequently ignoring the questions. With rare exception, what was stated was mostly a re-hash of known talking points.

As a matter of political theater, I thought Pence came off much better than Kaine. Pence's experience in live radio came through, as he appeared pretty unflappable while Kaine appeared kind of manic at times. I don't think this stuff matters much (at the end of the day, nobody cares about the personalities of the VPs) but it will lead to most pundits declaring Pence the winner.

As a matter of political impact, I think the Democrats did slightly better, only because Pence's main defense mechanism was to repeatedly deny that Trump had said things that he has definitely said. Fact checks on those denials might get a lot of air time on the news for the next few days.

Rich10 October 6th, 2016 03:59 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2113899)
I'll echo DS yet again that I think at least Pence and Kaine are good people.

So, I guess that you think that either Clinton or Trump are not "good people". I wrote this a while back, and I'll write it again, that we should try not to demonize people that we don't agree with or canonize people that we agree with. I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, so I'm not a big fan of Bernie Sanders (on the fiscal side of things). Still, I have no problem acknowledging that Bernie believes that a more socialist government would be a good thing. This means that we have a difference of opinion, not that one of us isn't a good person.

In this election, I'm not thrilled with either candidate, but I think that they both want what's best for the US. Perhaps that makes me naïve, but that's how I feel.
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2113935)
As a matter of political discourse, last night was a disaster. It was considerably less coherent and harder to make sense of than the presidential debate. The moderator did a pretty poor job in my opinion by constantly jumping from topic to topic and not asking appropriate follow-ups. The two debaters themselves did her no favors by constantly exceeding time and talking over her and frequently ignoring the questions. With rare exception, what was stated was mostly a re-hash of known talking points.

As a matter of political theater, I thought Pence came off much better than Kaine. Pence's experience in live radio came through, as he appeared pretty unflappable while Kaine appeared kind of manic at times. I don't think this stuff matters much (at the end of the day, nobody cares about the personalities of the VPs) but it will lead to most pundits declaring Pence the winner.

As a matter of political impact, I think the Democrats did slightly better, only because Pence's main defense mechanism was to repeatedly deny that Trump had said things that he has definitely said. Fact checks on those denials might get a lot of air time on the news for the next few days.

Kaine seemed a bit unhinged. I understand that Kaine is typically a very polite debater, so he may have been sent out to aggressively attack the other side (which is typically what a VP is asked to do). Pence came across as presidential. I think that he helped himself more for a possible run at the 2020 election than he did for Trump in the 2016 election. He couldn't defend what Trump said, and didn't even try. He looked great compared to Kaine. Having said that, no one pays attention to the VP debate.

Dad_Scaper October 6th, 2016 04:26 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I believe that Kaine did exactly what he was sent out to do, which was not (simply) to be aggressive, but to needle Pence into responding to things that Trump had said. That was a lose/lose proposition for Pence, and set up the Clinton campaign very nicely:
Spoiler Alert!


Kaine wasn't trying to attack just to be an attacker, nor was he trying to win by being calm and presidential. I believe his approach was to force Pence to say things in response to things Trump had said, because that was a lose/lose proposition for Pence and for the Trump campaign. To the extent that Kaine may have "lost" the debate, by some measures, with that behavior, I believe his goal was not to win the proverbial battle, but to win the proverbial war.

Ranior October 6th, 2016 04:34 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2114082)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2113899)
I'll echo DS yet again that I think at least Pence and Kaine are good people.

So, I guess that you think that either Clinton or Trump are not "good people". I wrote this a while back, and I'll write it again, that we should try not to demonize people that we don't agree with or canonize people that we agree with. I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, so I'm not a big fan of Bernie Sanders (on the fiscal side of things). Still, I have no problem acknowledging that Bernie believes that a more socialist government would be a good thing. This means that we have a difference of opinion, not that one of us isn't a good person.

In this election, I'm not thrilled with either candidate, but I think that they both want what's best for the US. Perhaps that makes me naïve, but that's how I feel.

I pretty much wholly agree with you. I specifically think that Trump is not a good person though. I will get to that in a bit.

In general, I think the vast majority of politicians truly are trying their best to do good for their country and uphold acceptable ethics under increasing demands from their party to fund-raise, fund raise, fund raise. I think there is a big problem in this country with both sides needlessly demonizing the other. We can work together, and most politicians are good people we can work with. Democrats and Republicans don't need to be at each others throats and act like the other are a bunch of degenerates that we can't work with. That's an awful line of thought and just adds to the hyper partisanship that is being witnessed. It is a real issue that needs to be overcome. I'm pretty young, and so only really have paid attention to election in 08 and 12, and in both of those I personally have respect for John MicCain (quite a lot actually) and Mitt Romney (moderately so). I think they are both nice guys who work very hard for their country. I think McCain does an excellent job overall to be honest and would not have been that sad to see him win. (Palin on the other hand....well yeah). Romney is a politician who I actually think was pretty good too but felt excessive need to bend to some of the tea party sentiment and took more hard line stances on many things than he truly would have while governing. Either way they both were fine candidates and good people. I disagree with many of Paul Ryan's policies, but I generally respect him and think he is fairly rationale and is trying to do a good job and is a good person. There's probably a bit of me that likes him a bit just because he's a fellow wisconsinite.

Donald Trump is different though. I've tried to make it clear from the above that I absolutely agree with you that we excessively demonize the other party and the political environment in American needs to shift. But sometimes the general rule doesn't apply to specific cases, and this is one of those. I do not think Donald Trump is a good person. I think he may well think he is doing what is best for the country, but that doesn't tell the whole story if someone is actually a good person. I think Trump has a documented history of narcissism, bigotry, and questionable ethics. I think it is quite telling that him and his family seem incapable of understanding that there is a significant issue with Trump's plan to just turn over his business holdings to his family members instead of a true nuetral party/board of directors/etc. The fact they do not seem to understand this, even when pressed gives me worry. The fact that Trump has many cases of questionable ethics between making donations to an Attorney General who was looking into prosecuting him, to using charitable foundation's money to purchase portraits of himself that he displays at his own properties, or that he uses those funds to pay lawsuits against his business shows a real lack of ethics. The man is not someone to be respected. I don't think he is ethical.

Perhaps you and I simply mean different things by good people though. If your sole definition is that the person does what they think is right, then I'd agree Trump does do what he thinks is right. My issue is that he really should know better, and has likely been advised plenty of that fact. The man has many flaws that he could work on fixing or at least admit he has flubbed or made mistakes, but he doesn't. When he throws out statements like Clinton/Obama founded ISIS and later claims he was kidding....please. The man spews vitriol and doesn't even apologize for it. He cannot admit to wrongdoing. He doesn't try to change or improve his behavior. He thinks he does no wrong. These are not the traits of someone who deserves respect or someone I would call a good person.

I hope that makes things clearer. In general, I absolutely agree with you. In the specific case of Trump at least, I will disagree. I don't think he is a good person and I think his character deserves the scrutiny for above anything else, I think it is his character and the way he comports himself that most disqualify him from being the next president.

Dad_Scaper October 6th, 2016 05:01 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Trump's behavior is very much like that of a couple of other managers I've encountered, in that it is consistent with clinical narcissism. In my experience, those people do not put the mission first. They feed the beast first, and the mission suffers and can ultimately be crippled.

I'm not trying to demonize him when I say that. Heaven knows there have been politicians in the past who I thought were dangerously wrong but would not describe in a similar tone. It's just my sense. I'm no professional and even if I were, it would be inappropriate for me to diagnose him from a distance. But I can say that his behavior is consistent with the behavior of people I've known a little better, who I believe are pathological narcissists. And the behavior is consistent. There's been some coverage of the issue. Here is an article that fleshes out the subject a bit.

I didn't support George W. Bush, but I am (and was) confident that he would be very capable of being a responsible manager of other people, in the right context. By all accounts he treats people well and I wish him the best. I am sure that he wanted, in his way, to be a good servant to the American people.

Trump, though? When he went after Rubio for talking about his hands, when he went after a gold star family because of a 10-minute speech at the Democratic convention, he's showing behavior consistent with (to my mind) pathological narcissism. And those guys are dangerous. I wouldn't want him managing my local bank branch; I wouldn't want him managing my local library; I wouldn't even want him mowing my lawn. I wouldn't want to meet him on a dark alley or on a sunny street corner.

It's not my area of expertise and I am not offering a diagnosis. I am, however, observing that he reminds me of a couple very unusual people I've encountered, in a way that I find deeply troubling.

dok October 6th, 2016 05:05 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Yeah, I think there's an abundance of evidence that Trump is a fundamentally selfish, narcissistic person who is more interested in feeding his own ego than anything else. I would agree with the premise @Rich10 puts forth with respect to every other major party candidate of my lifetime. Even the ones I disagreed with strongly seemed like they had a core of sincerely held political beliefs that they wanted to have become public policy over the views of their opponent.

I don't get that sense from Trump at all. I don't think he really had any issue with Clinton's policies per se before he contemplated a run, nor do I think he had or has much in the way of sincerely held core principles of his own. He's just a guy who wants to be president. Again, this is not something I would have said about any other major party candidate in my lifetime.

Remember this story? I always thought it was an absurd thing to suggest, but I kinda do feel that way this fall.

Xorlof October 6th, 2016 05:25 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Most of the time, I try to stay out of these things, but I have stronger negative feelings about Trump than I can recall having about any other candidate for US president in my life. It doesn't pay to rehash the negatives that have already been recounted, but I agree with another's assessment he's a malignantly selfish, ignorant, petty child in a man's body.

If in some alternate reality, I were tasked with appointing the president and I could choose between either Trump or selecting a random American for president than I would rather roll the dice and see what we get. The chances are decent that the selected person would be sufficiently in awe of the responsibility they suddenly find themselves with that they would listen to the advisors that tend to accompany such an office.

History will not judge us well if we elect Trump president.

I just had to get that off my chest.

~xorlof, back to lurking in this thread.

Rich10 October 6th, 2016 07:03 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2114095)
I don't get that sense from Trump at all. I don't think he really had any issue with Clinton's policies per se before he contemplated a run, nor do I think he had or has much in the way of sincerely held core principles of his own. He's just a guy who wants to be president. Again, this is not something I would have said about any other major party candidate in my lifetime.

Remember this story? I always thought it was an absurd thing to suggest, but I kinda do feel that way this fall.

Well, that got quite a response. Lets see if I can address my observations on Trump.

Do I believe that he's a narcissist? Yes, (and this is a huge deal) but I don't know how to determine if it is "clinical".

Trump has shown very questionable ethics (but I don't think he's alone in this election on this issue).

Is he a bigot? I don't know, but I have met an African-American woman who works for Trump and she says Trump treats all people equally (tough, fair, and politically incorrect). She is voting for Trump. I have never met Trump.

Is he a womanizer? Ahem, lets move on although many of our presidents would fail this.

I don't know if this was addressed, but I think that he's a compulsive liar.

To me, the tax issue is a non-issue. So long as he followed the tax rules, I don't really care how much tax he paid or didn't pay. I still think he should release his tax returns.

Instead of commenting on whether he's a good person, I meant to say that I believe that Trump feels that his policies would be best for this country. But which policies does he really care about? I think that he believes most fervently in the immigration issue and on renegotiating trade deals. If anyone is interested, his immigration position seems to come straight from Ann Coulter's book, "Adios America".

I'm not sure of any other position that he has that he has spoken with conviction on. Lower taxes is a Republican staple, and I agree with his proposal to lower corporate taxes (to prevent more US companies moving to tax havens). Unfortunately, he hasn't agreed to raise the personal rate as an offset.

He's taken a pro life stand, but this may be a Republican litmus test. He has expressed moderate views on transgender issues.

As I think about this, I'm not sure what many of Trump's positions are because they just don't matter. To me, he fails the most important test of whether I would be willing to make him the commander in chief of this country. But he does seem supremely convinced that his reign (not sure what else to call it) would make America great again largely on the basis of his personal brilliance.

Dok, to your last point, I'd take Obama or Bush over Clinton or Trump. Given the choices I have, I'll vote Clinton.

Nukatha October 8th, 2016 04:42 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
So... where was this Trump tape a year ago? He could have been stoppes by his back in the primary, but someone just let it happen. At any rate, I think we'll see Republicans jumping ship to Gary Johnson in the next week or so, and he'll be in the 3rd debate.

Dad_Scaper October 8th, 2016 06:36 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I think the chances of him being in the third debate are near zero. But, Nukatha, I'll say the same thing to you I've said to others who like their third parties: Don't just show up every four years and complain that your man (or woman) doesn't have a seat at the table. You get a seat at the table when you have a political machine at your back. "If you build it, they will come."

wriggz October 8th, 2016 11:28 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2114342)
I think the chances of him being in the third debate are near zero. But, Nukatha, I'll say the same thing to you I've said to others who like their third parties: Don't just show up every four years and complain that your man (or woman) doesn't have a seat at the table. You get a seat at the table when you have a political machine at your back. "If you build it, they will come."

This is an amazing point. Maintaining multiple parties is a huge undertaking. it takes election reform and healthy discourse. putting a candidate in each riding at state and national level is a huge undertaking. That said it is hugely worth iylt and leaDS to healthy democracis.

Dad_Scaper October 16th, 2016 12:32 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Update from the front:

Recently, the headlines involving Trump had to do with women he's known and his treatment of them. The *other* thing he's been up to this past week is dipping a ladle into the well of anti-Semitism. He said Clinton “doesn’t care for you unless you’re Wall Street or Hollywood,” and he combined that with this: “Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends, and her donors.” LINK

He's talking about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He's bringing with him onto the podium one of the building blocks of centuries of pogroms and other atrocities against the Jewish people. Suddenly it all makes sense: the fascination with Clinton making private speeches to financiers, as if Trump and countless other celebrities haven't done the same. It's important that it's *Clinton* because it connects her to the *Jews*, for all the people who can hear the frequency of that particular dog whistle.

I know the OP suggested we don't call names, but I'll say this: Donald Trump is the goddamned devil. He and Bannon and their other alt-right cronies.

Anyone still talking about Trump and Clinton as if they were similar is just not paying enough attention. He is a bad, bad man, surrounded with bad, bad men.

vegietarian18 October 16th, 2016 01:36 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Maybe I am naive but I don't really see the comparison. I guess if you start with anti-Semitic assumptions they could be interpreted that way. But the leaked emails have some pretty bad stuff about collaboration between the media and the Clinton campaign. I don't think writing off criticism of that as "anti-Semitic" is very positive, for those of us who want to stop Trump temporarily, but fix those issues in the future.

Dad_Scaper October 16th, 2016 02:17 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Vegie. . . These are code words. They don't come together lightly.

There are lots of things that should be fixed. But this component of his campaign is not a distraction. It is the real deal.

Though while we're on the subject of collaboration between one of the campaigns and the media, how about this. When you think corruption in the family foundation, you think Clinton. When you think corruption with the media, you think Clinton. When you think vulnerable to the influences of foreign powers, you think Clinton. And yet, time after time, scrape the goo off the surface of the half-remembered truth, and Trump has it bad. His foundation is corrupt; he is the one paying a guy who works at CNN and travels incognito on his plane; he is the one with shadowy ties to foreign powers.

Anyway. Don't tell me that references to secret international banks, in connection with "Hollywood," is not a reference to Jewish power, in the context of the worst kind of anti-Semitism. It's chum in the water. He already has a long history of recycling white supremacist nonsense, and his campaign manager is this guy.

He's always been the darling of the white supremacists in this campaign. We are well, well, well past the point where he would get the benefit of the doubt, and I would be troubled by this imagery from anybody. Anybody. But from him? He of all people, familiar with the tropes, knows what it means.

It shouldn't be a surprise, anyway. He's already said awful things about a bunch of other groups. Why shouldn't he go after the Jews, too?

vegietarian18 October 16th, 2016 02:28 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
If you read the leaked emails, you can see emails between Clinton staffers literally talking about political articles that will be posted on sites the next day. I'm sure Trump and the main Republicans do the same thing, with Breitbart and Fox and similar sites. The point is the forgiveness to that kind of behavior, trying to attach it to Trump's racist tendencies. I don't think that attachment is correct or necessary or positive.

Maybe his word choice is selected to cater to his racist supporters . Maybe the whole argument is. But bad people can make good points to do bad things. I don't think we should be forgiving of politicians seeking to control media stories, since it makes it harder for all of us to understand where the truth really is.

Dad_Scaper October 16th, 2016 02:37 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I am so done with Wikileaks. It is an anti-Clinton puppet of Russia, as far as I can tell. But if you want to point me to a couple of emails I'll look at them.

I've known when stories were going to be printed soon. Because reporters talked to me about them, as part of preparing the story, and told me what they were working on. If you want to show me something that's troubling you, though, I'll be glad to look at it.

There are bad people in the world, and there are knowable truths. Any day now, you can abandon your effort to cling to an unknowable center position, that every day goes further into unreasonableness and further into the ditch while the candidate goes further into unreasonableness and further into the ditch.

There is no reason to treat them as similar in any meaningful way. They aren't similar in any meaningful way. I mean, I *thought* when all those emails got out there, that somebody would find something that might resemble a bombshell. So far, it sounds to me like a whole lot of "well, that sounds like a reasonable way to run a campaign."

But like I said, if you found something you want me to look at, post a link.

edit: And yes, it is naive of you to refuse to see the anti-Semitism clearly present in that language, but you're young, and I suspect your education didn't cover the history of anti-Semitism from either side. Trump, of course, would have had the training from his dad the white supremacist, and from associating with others as an adult.

Edit 2: Media Matters addressing CNN's election coverage and the ridiculous way it's striving for "balance," instead of accuracy: https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/1...problem/213824

edit 3: More on the subject: https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/1...x-jones/213842

dok October 17th, 2016 12:13 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
References to Hollywood have become stock in trade as a slam on liberal elites. Now, you can absolutely trace it back to anti-semitism if you look back to how that became a standard line, but at this point it's used "innocently" by plenty on the right.

But "a global power structure" of secret international bankers? Come the %&*# on. This is just straight antisemitism, and if you don't know that, you either don't know the history of what antisemitism looks like or you are willfully blind to it when you encounter it. It's not a shock to me that this language comes out now, now that he's given his campaign's direction completely over to Steve Bannon. There's a 0% chance that any campaign professional (e.g. Kellyanne Conway) would have approved that speech.

srmalloy October 17th, 2016 03:58 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2114342)
I think the chances of him being in the third debate are near zero. But, Nukatha, I'll say the same thing to you I've said to others who like their third parties: Don't just show up every four years and complain that your man (or woman) doesn't have a seat at the table. You get a seat at the table when you have a political machine at your back. "If you build it, they will come."


The political landscape reminds me of the exchange from So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish:


Quote:

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”

Ever since the election of 1796, where the first American political parties coalesced -- the federalists and the anti-federalists -- the electoral system in the US has worked to force people into two parties.


In a proportional-representation system, where parties win seats in the legislature based on the percentage of the vote they receive, it encourages the development of multiple parties, because even a small share of the vote can allow a party to build a niche in the legislature and expand.


In contrast, the first-past-the-post -- aka 'winner take all' -- system that is almost exclusively used in the US (only Maine and Nebraska allot electors proportionally in Presidential elections), the majority vote-getter in any given race wins the seat (or all the electors). Because of this, weaker parties are pressured to form an alliance, banding together to become big enough to be able to win elections. Similarly, voters learn not to vote for candidates outside the two major parties (the "wasted vote" principle). These effects cause the vast majority of voters to gravitate to one of the two major parties, no matter how tenuous the alignment of that party's principles are to their own.


This also works to create conglomerate parties that are held together only by the knowledge that if they break apart from each other, they'll become 'minor parties' and get marginalized (note that Bernie Sanders decided to run as a Democrat despite being an independent in order to have a chance of winning, tying himself to a party whose goals he didn't really agree with to hook into its voting bloc). So we see groups like the Tea Party that have divided the Republican Party, holding significantly divergent positions while remaining part of the party as a whole. Like them, groups within the two major parties that hold divergent policy views will remain within their party as a faction that, depending on its size, needs to be catered to by the party organization in order to present a unified front against the other party.


Holding third parties to a standard of being able to compete on an equal footing with the major parties before they're accorded the same consideration as the major parties is inherently biased against them. How do you expect a third party to grow to be competitive with the major parties if they can't be competitive unless they're as big as the major parties?

Dad_Scaper October 17th, 2016 04:10 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I think of myself as a practical guy. We are where we are. Moaning about the absence of competitive third parties is uninteresting to me. You want to talk about how to get there from here? Fine, that's a conversation. But not one that helps where we are right now, and what we'll do between now and Nov. 8.

Regardless, we have a qualified candidate from one of the two major parties. She is not perfect, but she is leaps and bounds more qualified than anyone running against her, compared to Trump, Johnson, and Stein. The longer this campaign goes on and the more exhausting it gets, the more impressed I am with her grace under pressure.

I won't point at this election and say "this is why we need third parties." One of the two major parties produced a fine candidate.

I will, however, point at it and say this is why the Republican Party needs to examine itself, and why I think that its leadership is without moral authority. They must be held accountable for endorsing him, and for refusing to say that he would be terrible for the country, even when that is plainly true. That's a damn shame, and I wonder if they remember a time when they had integrity, and put their country before their party. If all of these conservative media outlets can say that Clinton is a better candidate, it is inexcusable to me that the conservative representatives of the same communities cannot be so honest with us.

Aldin October 17th, 2016 05:39 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Show of hands... who wants to see me say pro-Trump stuff here just so we can watch DS's head explode? :rofl:

~Aldin, registered voter


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2023 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.