I trust the mountain of current polls that indicate your assumptions are incorrect.
1 Like
Exactly my point; ‘historically’ there’s never been an election cycle this bad, with a candidate so grotesquely unfit for office.
I say again, the fear is real.
12 Likes
Heh-Heh I hate ratfuckery…karl rove is my poster child for a rat fucker.
2 Likes
Him and Lee Atwater, boy howdy.
I wonder about the Breitbart generation of Young Republicans. What have they been up to lately?
James O’Keefe?
1 Like
Good point on o’keefe…maybe in a ratfucker rehab program? I figured his ugly twisted little soul would have popped up by now. I hope never to see him again.
1 Like
To quote the opening sentences: “Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two most disliked presidential nominees in modern American history. That was true at the beginning of this campaign, and, as we sprint toward Election Day, it’s still true now.”
Trump is even less popular, but they both still have negative favourability numbers. Which, in a normal year, would indicate record low turnout.
But this isn’t a normal year. Nobody knows what will happen.
3 Likes
Current polls aren’t that compelling, she’s been averaging around 53% unfavorable with only a couple points of movement.
It’s possible to like Clinton, but it takes work, and most voters are lazy. I don’t like her, but also don’t loathe her, and I have a strong preference for the class of disappointments her regime’s likely to bring over the litany of horrors Trump’s would, which is good enough.
4 Likes
Apparently, still up to stupid stunts.
5 Likes
I would love that cake. I fussed at the normally reliable person who sent that link, and we talked about confirming stories before taking them seriously.
I think there are a lot of people who expect that sort of thing to happen frequently in the near future. I hope not. I did hear an interview with Assange where he addressed the issue of his releasing much more DMC leaks than RNC ones. His response was, to the best of my recollection “There will be no real election. There will be a consolidation of power”.
I find it incredibly depressing that either one of those people could become President of the US. I get that most here really support HRC, and think she will follow through on her promises about women’s and minority empowerment, and strict regulation and high taxes on the big banks and mega corporations. I hope you are right. But I doubt it.
2 Likes
This. An actual willingness to go to war has never been something that distinguished Democrats from Republicans, it is how, and under what provocation, we do it. Clinton has repeatedly proved herself to favor working with our allies on foreign affairs, which is far better than creating phony coalitions the way Bush did in the Iraq war or going it alone as Trump is advocating.
[quote=“aLynHall, post:160, topic:87929”]
Palestine rejected Clinton’s efforts.[/quote]
That happens. It doesn’t mean the US is imperialist for offering to broker negotiations between Israel and the PLO as they did then.
She’s awful in almost every area, and I won’t vote for an awful person just because they are running against someone debatably more awful.
Of course she’s not “awful in almost every area”, but if you really believe that then I think you are never going to find a viable candidate whom you will vote for. The fact is that she is to the left of most Americans, and while it can be frustrating always voting for candidates to your right, it is inevitable if you are on the fringes of the left. You can either simply disengage from the whole process (perhaps by voting 3rd party), or you can vote for someone who will probably move the country, however incrementally, to the left. I will do the latter enthusiastically.
Hey, we’ve also bombed Germany during a couple of wars. Shame on us!
11 Likes
I’d say most everyone here plans on voting for her but almost as many of those BBers supported Sanders. Having Clinton as president is a consolation prize. Many of us share your doubts that she’ll do much to push for change not just in policy but in the political process as well. (Though we’d love to be proven wrong about that.)
Not that anyone should expect that much from what is really simply the head of the federal executive branch (okay, and commander-in-chief). Again—and regulars here know that I’ve said this many times already—the greatest potential for change lies in the legislature. Not the executive branch. Not even necessarily the judiciary. True, the Supreme Court holds the pen on pivotal legal decisions, but those are literally on a case-by-case basis and without such cases, no such decisions will ever be made. The legislature is the only branch that holds the pen to rewrite the law every single day of session.
On a side note: I’m puzzled that Assange would say there will be a consolidation of power. That consolidation has already happened and the choices of this election reflect that.
18 Likes
This. An actual willingness to go to war has never been something that distinguished Democrats from Republicans, it is how, and under what provocation, we do it.
There is a massive proxy war underway in Vietn… cough…Syria because of the Obama administration’s Timber Sycamore operation, sending the CIA to train, fund, and arm rebels to unseat Assad. While the war there was already underway, and Assad is a horrible person, treating a nation and millions of citizens as if one is playing a game of Risk is not being “internationalist”, it’s monstrous.
At the direction of U.S. President Barack Obama, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was put in charge of the operations, worth about $1 billion annually, to arm anti-government forces in Syria, an operation which began in 2013, more than two years after the start of the civil war in 2011. Prior to 2013, the CIA only supplied the apparently moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army with non-lethal aid, but later began providing training, cash, and intelligence to selected rebel commanders.
American-led intervention in Syria
Of course, as in every turn-based game, Russia, Iran, and others have to escalate and support Assad to match our involvement, and now, well, I won’t post the image of the little boy in Allepo for you. You’ve seen it.
This behavior is not partisan. This is an attitude of elite megalomaniacs, Republican and Democrat and Whatever Else, all over the world. Some believe they are “ordained”, some believe they are racially superior, and others believe they are just plain better than the unwashed, and therefore justified to “make the hard decisions” about millions of lives, crafting human history to their own ends. Worse, they get fantastically wealthy in the process.
We have to stop being distracted by why they think they have the right to do these things, and simply demand they not do them. It makes me physically ill to hear people dismiss these things as “not Democrats” or unimportant to the election. There is a time when political pragmatism becomes Machiavellian complicity. I don’t believe people guilty of crimes against humanity should be rewarded with the Presidency, no matter who opposes them. I refuse to vote for the people who made these decisions. I’m done.
It’s been made clear to me that it is better not to discuss this until after the election, so I will bow to the mob and hush for the time being. I apologize for taking the bait this time, and for upsetting people as I did above by replying ad nauseam.
Now, back to the regularly scheduled fantasies of moral superiority.
2 Likes
As Trevor Noah (or was it John Oliver?) said, they are both incredibly lucky to be running against literally the only person they could ever possibly beat.
Trump is a loaded gun to our head and Clinton is the empty promise that we won’t get hurt if we just cooperate.
This isn’t an election, it’s a hostage situation.
9 Likes
Do you recognize that you’re not actually contradicting the thing you’re quoting, nor contradicting the tenor or sentiment of the thing you’re quoting? Hasn’t the general movement of the discussion been consistently agreeing and acknowledging that military conflicts exist and will continue to regardless of who’s elected?
I don’t believe a lot of things should be how they are, but in some parts of life we have to make grown-up decisions about lesser evils. In this case, neither’s been convicted of war crimes, and in America they’re both innocent until proven guilty. Worse, the one who couldn’t be guilty of crimes against humanity is actually likely to be worse and has been bragging about how he would commit crimes against humanity if elected as part of the platform. That is kind of a big deal.
The eletorate will be making a choice between two candidates. Thanks to our electoral system and Constitution there will only be two. There’s no “none of the above” that works. So the decision has to be made between those two while looking at both and considering likely outcomes by both. You’ve been confusingly one-sided in looking at likely outcomes which has probably led to some of the responses you’re seeing unless you sincerely believe in foreign policy Trump’s the better of the two, in which case it’d be interesting to see your reasoning. If you think they’re a wash, then we could just drop that as a criteria and look elsewhere.
Be cool, man. I don’t doubt you’re frustrated, but this kind of condescending harping isn’t going to make things less frustrating for anyone.
13 Likes
Identity voters proudly refrain from any pragmatic, grown-up decisions that would sully their perfect record of not voting for anyone electable who might tarnish their souls.
Only they are authorized to make sanctimonious comments, see…
5 Likes
I’d put most people here as left-leaning voters. On a Clinton-Sanders scale of 1 (Never Sanders) to 7 (Never Clinton), most are probably between a 3 and a 5. They have their preferences, but will ultimately vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is, for the sake of voting for the lesser of two evils. I’m about a 6, meaning I believe in voting for the lesser of two evils in cases where the race is close, but not where it will be a blowout.
Clinton won’t do anything to change the political process, and if she’s responsible for change in policy it will be on the part of donors and lobbyists, not really her constituency. I’m guessing the status quo will be preserved, with maybe a little nominal progress here or there, but there won’t be an erosion in civil rights. If I need to vote for Clinton to prevent wholesale destruction of our civil rights, I will, but it hasn’t come to that. Otherwise, my vote will mean that I am okay with the status quo.
All of this.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. I don’t know what I’m going to do this election, but I’m sure it won’t be pleasant, so I’m not going to smile and pretend everything’s okay.
4 Likes
Whichever one said it, I very much disagree. Clinton did extremely well in her Senate campaigns, and she has easily the most qualified resume of anyone who’s run for the Presidency in decades. Trump’s a national joke, but I think she’d have a strong showing against any of the clown-car drivers who vied for the nomination this year.
But when we have people on both sides openly calling her “evil”, it’s why she has a reputation as being unlikeable. She most certainly has none of Obama’s charisma.
5 Likes
There’s a lot of Clinton hate out there, regardless of what her background is. This hate comes from both sides, and is the reason the race was at a statistical dead heat prior to Pussyghazi.
I hope she wallops Trump, because he needs to lose big, and because I don’t want to be put in the position of being forced to vote for her.
3 Likes
I’m aware, and so much of it is unwarranted; I mean, sure, there’s policies that people disagree with, or they wish she was more progressive, etc. But tons of people hate her because she’s female, or because she “stood behind Bill”, or her pantsuits, or her voice, or her lack of humor. Or they just don’t think she’s very charming, and inherently dislike her for whatever reason. Those are all valid reasons for people not to want to go to dinner with someone, but I’m not voting for a hairstyle or a lunch date, I’m voting for an entire administration. It’s a whole lot bigger than one woman.
8 Likes
A lot of the Clinton hate is unwarranted, but not all of it. Her association with Bill Clinton, who is her husband and is not running for president, matter not at all to me, especially when compared with her associations with Henry Kissinger and John Negroponte.
I’ve also been hearing the same stuff from Trump voters that I’ve been hearing from Clinton voters. There are people voting Trump because they think the results will be cataclysmic if Clinton wins, and so far the only reasons I’ve heard to vote for Clinton is that we can never let Trump win. I don’t buy any of it. I’ve had reluctant Trump supporters tell me “what Trump says, Clinton does” and bring up Iraq and the housing crisis and many other serious points… and I agree with them up to the point of voting for Trump. Trump will do all those things too, and worse.
This is the first election as far as I can remember where the whole “lesser of two evils” trope has morphed into outright fear from all sides. Maybe Reagan in '80, but I don’t remember.[quote=“nungesser, post:301, topic:87929”]
I’m voting for an entire administration. It’s a whole lot bigger than one woman.
[/quote]
This is why the downticket races are so important.
4 Likes
