I may not have been through many of them but I despise an election system where I keep having to pick between the lesser of two evils and get told that it's the way it is.
Also I'm in California so my vote means bupkis on who's President.
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited April 2016
Is political gravedancing an ok thing? This post caught my eye and and it pretty much sums my my schadenfreude.
One of the most loathsome people to ever fucking live on this planet, Ted Cruz, backstabbed and fucked over every person he came in contact with for the past four years, forced his party into a bunch of no-win scenarios that made them look stupid and clueless, and generally called out everyone in his entire party as a bunch of commiesymp Islamolibs who want to dress up as a gay-married woman and fuck a child in a public bathroom. He did all of these things knowingly, burning every bridge he's ever crossed, mauling every hand that's ever fed him, all in service of one dream: He would become the Republican nominee in 2016 and win the Presidency and then the trail of blood and nightmares he left behind wouldn't matter because fuck you I'm POTUS that's why.
He sacrificed everything to this goal, and he's going to lose by a small number of delegates to the political equivalent of the Fukushima meltdown. His strategy would (probably) have worked! It's pretty clear that the JEB! never stood a chance regardless of how much money he raised because he's a fucking walking Ambien who conservatives thoroughly despise, Scott Walker couldn't even figure out how to hire someone who understood things like "a budget," Ben Carson looks like an attractive candidate up until he has to speak in anything other than meaningless fortune-cookie platitudes, etc. All that work, all that planning, all that treachery, all that time.
ALL FOR FUCKING NOTHING AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
He's been reaching for this brass ring his entire life, leaning farther and farther out from his carousel horse. What would he lose first, his balance, or his nerve? But he never flinched, leaning out further and further with each turn of the carousel, and then just before, just before his fingertip brushed it an orange hand came out of nowhere and took that bitch right away from him, right in front of him, and there was never anything he could do to stop it. Now all that's left is the fall.
There aren't words in any language to describe the joy it brings me to see such a heinous, hateful motherfucker destroyed in such a gut-wrenching, miserable way. Tonight was the beginning of Ted Cruz's descent to a talk radio host saying things like, "Well, when *I* was in the United States Senate, let me tell you..."
I may not have been through many of them but I despise an election system where I keep having to pick between the lesser of two evils and get told that it's the way it is.
Also I'm in California so my vote means bupkis on who's President.
Even if you lived to be 1000 you would likely never get a candidate that you agree with 100%. If you wanted you could pretty easily cast any election as the lesser of the evils.
Cruz is still going to wealthy, beloved and probably an active member of a highly exclusive republican paedophile ring for the rest of his life. If the best we can throw at him is "you don't get the absolute favourite thing you wanted, just every single other thing" it's still kind of depressing.
+26
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
Okay, well this is where everyone gets to dogpile on me, I guess.
I'm probably not voting for Hillary in the general. It's not a hate thing; let me be clear on that front. I just don't like her politics. I don't like how she's taken advantage of the free bribery Citizen's United has spawned. I don't like her tossing over a million dollars to have paid shills troll popular social media sites. On her record, I feel like a lot of it is sketchy.
At the end of the day, she doesn't belong on the Left in my opinion. In a just universe she would be the paragon of a sane Right where the Southern Strategy never happened and the only Tea Party people would talk about would be the one that took place in the 1700's. And that's not a bad thing, on balance. I think everyone would be better off if that party existed.
But I still wouldn't vote for it. At the end of the day, this nation has a lot of problems, and politics as usual is doing a damn fine job of addressing exactly none of them. Now, I have the luxury of not living in a swing state, so I don't have to sweat a protest vote. I'm highly skeptical of Clinton, but she could still get my vote. If she "swings to the center" for the general then there's basically no chance of that. But I'll do my civic duty and watch the debates and make a decision when the time comes.
The end result is that just because I voted in a primary doesn't mean my vote in the general is already cast, and shouldn't be taken for granted. I hate the idea of hostage voting, where one party is awful so the other can be just a little bit better (but still awful) and you have to choose the lesser evil or the bunny gets it. Fuck that. I'm not about it. And I know, I probably pissed a lot of you fine people off for admitting it, but there it is.
I read somewhere today that Hillary and Sanders voted together 93% of the time. Their record isn't that different.
You can say it's "voting for the lesser evil" but when it comes down to it it's not. She's not "evil". She's not even that far off Bernie when it comes to her platform. She's "Good". Maybe not "Perfect", but neither is Bernie. I mean, people act like Hillary VS Trump would be like Grown Ups VS Grown Ups 2, when we're talking about Grown Ups VS Ghostbusters 2.
That line about 93% of the time is pretty misleading when you're talking about campaign finance reform and the undue influence of money in politics making up a lot of the remaining 7%. Say what you will about her talking points when she's a candidate her record of voting for the bankruptcy bill after taking large legalized bribes from the banking industry alone is enough to give me pause. Lobbying for opening up trade agreements with Panama on the false pretense of "creating jobs" allowing for the massive tax dodging is something I would expect out of an CNBC Republican, not the Democratic nominee. Her flipping on single payer health insurance after giving paid speeches to health and pharmaceutical companies is another thing that makes me doubt she's really going to turn on those who have given and continue to give hundreds of millions of dollars to her and her family.
So, no, it's not Grown Ups VS Grown Ups 2...but it is a money funneling scam just like Sandler's movies.
I'm not sure what the last time a company did an inversion in Panama was. I thought that usually it was Ireland. I could be wrong. CNBC Republicans wouldn't care about that type of thing. You must be thinking of MSNBC Republicans. I'd need to see what impact that actually had on tax dodging and on what types of individuals to make a decision about it. I do know that for the most part everyone actually just uses Delaware for that.
Joking aside, money buys a lot of things, but one of the funny things about this election cycle: we found out it doesn't actually buy votes in an election. Ask the Koch brothers where the money they spent this year went to. This doesn't answer the question of whether or not money affected her vote on the bankruptcy bill, but we'll get there later.
That brings us to single payer. Hillary Clinton has been on the national stage since 1992, during the infamous days of the ill fated "Hillarycare." Of course her policy position might change between 1992 and 2016. Why precisely should she try to double down on something that went no where? Why would she try to scrap the health care reform that her predecessor somehow miracle'd into existence and take up an inverted phantom liberal form of repeal and replace?
The bankruptcy bill itself looks pretty eh but ultimately I actually think she was awesome. She voted for it when it wouldn't pass and then would have voted against it when it would in 2005 when she had a bit of a better warchest; although she was absent in 2005 because her presence wasn't going to affect it.
This was the perfect crime. She didn't take money from the banking industry. She robbed it and they paid her for the privilege of being robbed.
The Koch Brothers have chosen to hold their money until the general election and focus more on local elections. Which funny enough, when it comes to making reference to 2010s comedies, is the plot of the 2012 movie The Campaign.
That said money DOES buy elections. I said it's 90% of elections. The remaining 10% is made up of elections that see heavy media coverage like, say, Presidential primaries and cases where one or more of the politicians involved is caught putting their genitals somewhere interesting like a glory hole or a rent boy's mouth or snapchat. So no, this election cycle like every modern Presidential election cycle is not a good example of whether or not the candidate with the most money wins. Look downticket for that. I guarantee you'll be disappointed.
Now, you can argue that it's too hard to push for single payer when congress is so obstructive and it's not worth trying but to say that expanding healthcare to every citizen as every other advanced first world country does is the equivalent of repeal and replace is just totally wrong.
Also, I think your framing of the bankruptcy bill is generous to say the least.
Forgive me for not being sufficiently cynical about Hillary I guess? Is it especially wrong to be generous? What is it about her actions that directly caused that bankruptcy reform?
It's not the equivalent of repeal and replace as argued by Republicans; It is, as I said, the inverted phantom liberal form of repeal and replace. Because someone would want to repeal it and then replace it with a single payer system, you see.
The effect of money on smaller elections is wildly debatable. I think there's strong evidence that donors attempt to influence the person who is ultimately going to be the winner, but let me articulate a counter argument to the idea that they always intend to change the outcome of a specific election.
For the most part, districts in any non-senatorial election are already heavily gerry mandered. Senatorial contests often end up with the sort of heavy media coverage that comes with being say a first lady or living in a state populous enough that 5 o'clock news is kind of a big deal, so I'll exclude them for now.
I wouldn't make the argument that gerrymandering is the all powerful force and that money is also the all powerful force, one of those two things probably has a greater impact than the other. Would you spend your money trying to flip a district that's heavily democrat or republican, or would you rather just give that money to the person who is likely to win given any sort of resources?
If we step back and just look at donations and who wins elections it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that wow, money changes everything, but you need to go deeper than that. Candidates always have the problem of proving to donors that they can win, even if those donors feel they could trust the person asking the would be congressman or state senator to be a reliable proxy or whatever it is they're supposed to be.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
I dunno, the way his father raised him, he's basically a dominionist with a massive messiah complex. He's basically thrown away years of his life and his future political career and then found out that god's decided to betray him for an airhorn with a toupee.
I may not have been through many of them but I despise an election system where I keep having to pick between the lesser of two evils and get told that it's the way it is.
Also I'm in California so my vote means bupkis on who's President.
Even if you lived to be 1000 you would likely never get a candidate that you agree with 100%. If you wanted you could pretty easily cast any election as the lesser of the evils.
I never said I wanted a candidate I agree with 100%. I can't think of a single human being in general who I agree with 100% on all things.
I'm not sure what to say if you think it's the electorate's fault and not monied interests making sure to prop up candidates sympathetic to them.
You are placing a lot of responsibility on people just trying to keep their heads above water. People with individually very little power, and it can be very hard to see collective power from the perspective of a single person.
Ah, there it is. The fiendish serpent head of selfishness, revealed.
I may not have been through many of them but I despise an election system where I keep having to pick between the lesser of two evils and get told that it's the way it is.
Also I'm in California so my vote means bupkis on who's President.
Even if you lived to be 1000 you would likely never get a candidate that you agree with 100%. If you wanted you could pretty easily cast any election as the lesser of the evils.
I never said I wanted a candidate I agree with 100%. I can't think of a single human being in general who I agree with 100% on all things.
Ok, but you characterized the elections you have been part of as being a choice between the "lesser of two evils". What could have happened to make this one different?
Trump is an incompetent person who probably wouldn't know how to get what he wanted.
His winning the election would be embarrassing but almost completely pointless. He can't do almost anything he says he wants to.
Clinton is besties with a genocidal war criminal and seems perfectly aok with helping Israel commit genocide. Her tenure will probably be, 'how to kill people, the interventionists diary.' and that power is completely in her hands as long as she sticks to small strike forces or changes targets every 90 days to make some farcical motion of not being at 'war'.
I mean pretending Congress wouldn't just rubber stamp killing more brown people anyway.
Because every vote she's been for murdering others. Every time she's off her handlers she makes some aggressive pro war posturing.
In the lesser of two evils camp all Trump costs is pride.
Trump is an incompetent person who probably wouldn't know how to get what he wanted.
His winning the election would be embarrassing but almost completely pointless. He can't do almost anything he says he wants to.
Clinton is besties with a genocidal war criminal and seems perfectly aok with helping Israel commit genocide. Her tenure will probably be, 'how to kill people, the interventionists diary.' and that power is completely in her hands as long as she sticks to small strike forces or changes targets every 90 days to make some farcical motion of not being at 'war'.
I mean pretending Congress wouldn't just rubber stamp killing more brown people anyway.
Because every vote she's been for murdering others. Every time she's off her handlers she makes some aggressive pro war posturing.
In the lesser of two evils camp all Trump costs is pride.
If you seriously think Trump would be less damaging to the country than Clinton I don't think you've been paying attention to who hold congress and what they've been attempting to pass for the last 8 years.
Trump would leave this country in ruins.
The last time we had someone who seem too stupid to get anything they wanted we had W.
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
+30
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
Remember the last time a candidate a lot of people were comfortable dismissing as an incompetent fuckup was elected?
Both sides are not the same. Both sides are not evil.
One side has a front running candidate that wants to drop out of NATO, ban entry to any muslims (including actual US citizens out of the country), advocates violence against protesters, wants to jail reporters who say negative things about him, and is willing to utterly destroy LGBT rights.
If you think either candidate on the other side is anywhere close to that, then you live in such a white washed land of privilege that I'm amazed you can make out the text on the forums amidst the glare from your surroundings.
Oh if I were really a part of any underprivileged minority, this would be even less of a choice than it already is
But the fact that it isn't a choice, and that Hillary can count on my vote regardless of almost anything she says or does, sucks
The bar has been set so low all she has to do is appear further to the left than Donald Trump
You can't tell me that doesn't bother you
How would it have been any different with Bernie? Because yes, Trump sucks. What does that have to do with Clinton.
Nothing at all, really. But at least Bernie talked a big game, in that Obama sort of way. Even if, yeah, he would have been obstructed at every turn
Someone said earlier, this election isn't about moving forward, it's about not sliding backward
It bothers me when that's the best I get
With Bernie I'd have to slide backward on Gun Control, I guess. I also don't like how he says that he would force other countries to raise their minimum wage, because that smells like a Nafta. I don't really agree with him on some more contentious foreign policy stuff either but I'm not willing to argue about that even a little bit until there's an active event in that place on the earth with it's very own thread.
But actually that just means I have more in common with Hillary on those issues! It doesn't mean I'm trying to avoid sliding backward on trade, gun control, or anything else. In the last two cycles people a little further to the left got what they wanted with Obama. This year moderates have a better chance with hillary and people who... let's say the upper right wing on the east side of town in a deluxe apartment in the sky have more of a say.
Next cycle, if Hillary wins, you'll probably see her up against a more moderate GOP nominee. If Trump wins, against a more liberal democratic nominee. Things are reactionary like that.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I'm 100% comfortable in saying anyone who is convinced that they have a choice between the lesser of two evils doesn't exactly get it.
Elections have consequences. Your choice is between someone who will do things you don't like while also protecting things you do, and someone who will light your house on fire and eat your damned children. Choose.
No I don't.
+5
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
It's talk like that that ensures I vote for Hillary in the general
Too many people convinced that there's no way the system could let Trump do whatever he could strong arm his way into
I may be frustrated by always voting against the Other Guy, but of all the Other Guys I've voted against, Trump is the worst
I'm 100% comfortable in saying anyone who is convinced that they have a choice between the lesser of two evils doesn't exactly get it.
Elections have consequences. Your choice is between someone who will do things you don't like while also protecting things you do, and someone who will light your house on fire and eat your damned children. Choose.
You're not really arguing with logic in most cases. You're arguing with personal branding.
I'm 100% comfortable in saying anyone who is convinced that they have a choice between the lesser of two evils doesn't exactly get it.
Elections have consequences. Your choice is between someone who will do things you don't like while also protecting things you do, and someone who will light your house on fire and eat your damned children. Choose.
And this kind of fucking rhetoric is why I stay the hell out of D&D for the most part and political talk in general. Cut the hyperbole.
That whole "I live in a safe state, so it doesn't matter if I vote/who I vote for" thing also doesn't make sense. It's only a safe state if people vote for that candidate/party. If you're doing a thing where, if everyone else also acted the way you are you would hate the outcome, maybe you shouldn't be doing that thing.
In this shitty first past the post system we have you get an option between two parties in the general election. If you don't vote for one of those parties your vote doesn't matter. You either vote for the person who most closely matches your preferences, vote for the person who least closely matches your preferences, or don't vote (which is essentially half a vote for the person who least closely matches your preferences).
I guess if your preference is burning it all down that's fine, but I don't understand that and think it's kind of an awful perspective.
Are there actual charges of ted cruz kiddie rape somewhere, or is this the next thing after the zodiac killer joke?
I assumed "a highly exclusive republican paedophile ring" was referring to the catholic church.
0
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
In other news my avatar is super due for a change. I was thinking of going with John C. Calhoun
but I don't think his wildly fabulous old man hair makes up for the fact that he was a virulent racist who spent most of his life trying to figure out a way to prevent slavery from becoming economically unviable.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I'm 100% comfortable in saying anyone who is convinced that they have a choice between the lesser of two evils doesn't exactly get it.
Elections have consequences. Your choice is ca someone who will do things you don't like while also protecting things you do, and someone who will light your house on fire and eat your damned children. Choose.
You're not really arguing with logic in most cases. You're arguing with personal branding.
Ok, I'll tone it down. I'm not meaning to do it, but that doesn't mean I'm not. Sorry everyone.
I'm a bit anxious about the whole thing and get carried away. I'll try to think before posting in here again.
I'm 100% comfortable in saying anyone who is convinced that they have a choice between the lesser of two evils doesn't exactly get it.
Elections have consequences. Your choice is between someone who will do things you don't like while also protecting things you do, and someone who will light your house on fire and eat your damned children. Choose.
And this kind of fucking rhetoric is why I stay the hell out of D&D for the most part and political talk in general. Cut the hyperbole.
Lesser of 2 evils is also hyperbole, because there's only 1 really evil person on that ballot.
+3
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
I'm 100% comfortable in saying anyone who is convinced that they have a choice between the lesser of two evils doesn't exactly get it.
Elections have consequences. Your choice is between someone who will do things you don't like while also protecting things you do, and someone who will light your house on fire and eat your damned children. Choose.
And this kind of fucking rhetoric is why I stay the hell out of D&D for the most part and political talk in general. Cut the hyperbole.
Remember the last time a candidate a lot of people were comfortable dismissing as an incompetent fuckup was elected?
The GOP selected a nominee that a lot of people wrote off as stupid who ended up being a really great choice over John McCain, the guy who joked casually about bombing the shit out of countries such as Iran and ended up in later life wanting to go to war with... well a lot of countries.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
+1
Options
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
I think McCain changed to some extent after that 2000 election broke him, and swung further right to preserve his seat as the party shifted to the lunacy of today.
If I recall his policies in the 2000 election (pre 9/11 I know) were less extreme than Bush's. And Bush was just as eager to finish what his father started in Iraq as McCain was to bomb Iran in 08.
You know, I don't know anything specific about the religious tendencies of Tedward Cruz, but I'd be pretty fuckin surprised to learn the man is a Catholic
I'm 100% comfortable in saying anyone who is convinced that they have a choice between the lesser of two evils doesn't exactly get it.
Elections have consequences. Your choice is ca someone who will do things you don't like while also protecting things you do, and someone who will light your house on fire and eat your damned children. Choose.
You're not really arguing with logic in most cases. You're arguing with personal branding.
Ok, I'll tone it down. I'm not meaning to do it, but that doesn't mean I'm not. Sorry everyone.
I'm a bit anxious about the whole thing and get carried away. I'll try to think before posting in here again.
Sorry, I didn't mean that you, the death of rats, are arguing with personal branding as your weapon. I meant that's what you're confronting.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You know, I don't know anything specific about the religious tendencies of Tedward Cruz, but I'd be pretty fuckin surprised to learn the man is a Catholic
Oh no, he's a shitload crazier than Catholic
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
You know, I don't know anything specific about the religious tendencies of Tedward Cruz, but I'd be pretty fuckin surprised to learn the man is a Catholic
Was born catholic, but converted to southern baptist pretty young, IIRC?
I think McCain changed to some extent after that 2000 election broke him, and swung further right to preserve his seat as the party shifted to the lunacy of today.
If I recall his policies in the 2000 election (pre 9/11 I know) were less extreme than Bush's. And Bush was just as eager to finish what his father started in Iraq as McCain was to bomb Iran in 08.
With regard to foreign policy, not really. Bush had the famous quote about looking into Putin's eyes and seeing good, meanwhile McCain had already written him off as whatever he meant by neo-KGB. Bush was really not looking to do any sort of military interventionalism prior to 9/11, and that was in fact one thing that B. Clinton had taken a lot of guff over regarding Somalia and Serbia, so there wasn't a huge appetite for it until then.
I think Bush was clearly a calmer, if not better, person to have access to instant retaliation on an international level than John McCain for the period from 2001 to 2009.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Really knowing I was part of the front lines and one of the first people in the warzone after Sept 11 2001 I am kind of scared to know it could have been a lot scarier with a different person.
Posts
Also I'm in California so my vote means bupkis on who's President.
Even if you lived to be 1000 you would likely never get a candidate that you agree with 100%. If you wanted you could pretty easily cast any election as the lesser of the evils.
Forgive me for not being sufficiently cynical about Hillary I guess? Is it especially wrong to be generous? What is it about her actions that directly caused that bankruptcy reform?
It's not the equivalent of repeal and replace as argued by Republicans; It is, as I said, the inverted phantom liberal form of repeal and replace. Because someone would want to repeal it and then replace it with a single payer system, you see.
The effect of money on smaller elections is wildly debatable. I think there's strong evidence that donors attempt to influence the person who is ultimately going to be the winner, but let me articulate a counter argument to the idea that they always intend to change the outcome of a specific election.
For the most part, districts in any non-senatorial election are already heavily gerry mandered. Senatorial contests often end up with the sort of heavy media coverage that comes with being say a first lady or living in a state populous enough that 5 o'clock news is kind of a big deal, so I'll exclude them for now.
I wouldn't make the argument that gerrymandering is the all powerful force and that money is also the all powerful force, one of those two things probably has a greater impact than the other. Would you spend your money trying to flip a district that's heavily democrat or republican, or would you rather just give that money to the person who is likely to win given any sort of resources?
If we step back and just look at donations and who wins elections it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that wow, money changes everything, but you need to go deeper than that. Candidates always have the problem of proving to donors that they can win, even if those donors feel they could trust the person asking the would be congressman or state senator to be a reliable proxy or whatever it is they're supposed to be.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I never said I wanted a candidate I agree with 100%. I can't think of a single human being in general who I agree with 100% on all things.
Whoah say what?
Ah, there it is. The fiendish serpent head of selfishness, revealed.
Ok, but you characterized the elections you have been part of as being a choice between the "lesser of two evils". What could have happened to make this one different?
His winning the election would be embarrassing but almost completely pointless. He can't do almost anything he says he wants to.
Clinton is besties with a genocidal war criminal and seems perfectly aok with helping Israel commit genocide. Her tenure will probably be, 'how to kill people, the interventionists diary.' and that power is completely in her hands as long as she sticks to small strike forces or changes targets every 90 days to make some farcical motion of not being at 'war'.
I mean pretending Congress wouldn't just rubber stamp killing more brown people anyway.
Because every vote she's been for murdering others. Every time she's off her handlers she makes some aggressive pro war posturing.
In the lesser of two evils camp all Trump costs is pride.
I'm just calling it early
Yeah I mean
I wouldn't take that bet
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
If you seriously think Trump would be less damaging to the country than Clinton I don't think you've been paying attention to who hold congress and what they've been attempting to pass for the last 8 years.
Trump would leave this country in ruins.
The last time we had someone who seem too stupid to get anything they wanted we had W.
With Bernie I'd have to slide backward on Gun Control, I guess. I also don't like how he says that he would force other countries to raise their minimum wage, because that smells like a Nafta. I don't really agree with him on some more contentious foreign policy stuff either but I'm not willing to argue about that even a little bit until there's an active event in that place on the earth with it's very own thread.
But actually that just means I have more in common with Hillary on those issues! It doesn't mean I'm trying to avoid sliding backward on trade, gun control, or anything else. In the last two cycles people a little further to the left got what they wanted with Obama. This year moderates have a better chance with hillary and people who... let's say the upper right wing on the east side of town in a deluxe apartment in the sky have more of a say.
Next cycle, if Hillary wins, you'll probably see her up against a more moderate GOP nominee. If Trump wins, against a more liberal democratic nominee. Things are reactionary like that.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Elections have consequences. Your choice is between someone who will do things you don't like while also protecting things you do, and someone who will light your house on fire and eat your damned children. Choose.
Too many people convinced that there's no way the system could let Trump do whatever he could strong arm his way into
I may be frustrated by always voting against the Other Guy, but of all the Other Guys I've voted against, Trump is the worst
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
You're not really arguing with logic in most cases. You're arguing with personal branding.
And this kind of fucking rhetoric is why I stay the hell out of D&D for the most part and political talk in general. Cut the hyperbole.
In this shitty first past the post system we have you get an option between two parties in the general election. If you don't vote for one of those parties your vote doesn't matter. You either vote for the person who most closely matches your preferences, vote for the person who least closely matches your preferences, or don't vote (which is essentially half a vote for the person who least closely matches your preferences).
I guess if your preference is burning it all down that's fine, but I don't understand that and think it's kind of an awful perspective.
I assumed "a highly exclusive republican paedophile ring" was referring to the catholic church.
but I don't think his wildly fabulous old man hair makes up for the fact that he was a virulent racist who spent most of his life trying to figure out a way to prevent slavery from becoming economically unviable.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I'm a bit anxious about the whole thing and get carried away. I'll try to think before posting in here again.
He is horrible, no question, but this is fucked up. Isn't htere enough to accuse him of that he actually is guilty of?
Lesser of 2 evils is also hyperbole, because there's only 1 really evil person on that ballot.
ouch. do we have to play this card every thread?
stop
what is this even wtf.
1. No. 2. Catholics are more democrat.
The GOP selected a nominee that a lot of people wrote off as stupid who ended up being a really great choice over John McCain, the guy who joked casually about bombing the shit out of countries such as Iran and ended up in later life wanting to go to war with... well a lot of countries.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Yeah, I got to "beloved" and had the exact same reaction.
If I recall his policies in the 2000 election (pre 9/11 I know) were less extreme than Bush's. And Bush was just as eager to finish what his father started in Iraq as McCain was to bomb Iran in 08.
Hey now, hey now.
The Catholic Church is not exclusive.
Sorry, I didn't mean that you, the death of rats, are arguing with personal branding as your weapon. I meant that's what you're confronting.
Oh no, he's a shitload crazier than Catholic
Was born catholic, but converted to southern baptist pretty young, IIRC?
With regard to foreign policy, not really. Bush had the famous quote about looking into Putin's eyes and seeing good, meanwhile McCain had already written him off as whatever he meant by neo-KGB. Bush was really not looking to do any sort of military interventionalism prior to 9/11, and that was in fact one thing that B. Clinton had taken a lot of guff over regarding Somalia and Serbia, so there wasn't a huge appetite for it until then.
I think Bush was clearly a calmer, if not better, person to have access to instant retaliation on an international level than John McCain for the period from 2001 to 2009.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.