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)

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.