Where Do You Stand? (2016 Election)

Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
And I'm not sure I would even call him viable. To be honest with myself I actually think Clinton will make a fine president. She has a wealth of experience and has a relatively moderate stance on a lot of issues. She also has some serious skeletons, but they aren't in the closet they are sitting on her couch having a skeleton tea party. This makes her look pretty bad, but you have to really consider it in context. She's been in the limelight for far longer than any other candidate, and there has been more time to out every little thing about her than anyone else. For the moment she is wearing all her blunders on her sleeve while everyone else is squirming in their seats hoping theirs don't get discovered.

The only thing protecting the republicans from their own scandals is the complete apathy of the republican electorate to common decency in their candidates. Their two front runners Trump and Carson have generated more gaffs in the last few months few months than anyone I've ever seen. In previous elections most of what they have said would have been flat out campaign killers. Given actual authority why would anyone expect these guys to start being more careful? If you want to see some serious scandals, things that will make Clinton look boring, give these guys a position of authority dealing at the international level.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
There IS nobody else! No viable third party. No viable republican candidate. Hell, other than Bernie, no viable democratic candidate, either.
Click to expand...
There's more than 2 parties. As for "viability, well, the only reason that they are the only two parties that ever get elected is because we each as individuals decided to agree that they're the only two who can get elected. Until we're over this whole fear of "throwing our vote away" nonsense, there's no real motivation for politicians to take the people into consideration.[DOUBLEPOST=1448400568,1448400431][/DOUBLEPOST]
Necronic said:
The only thing protecting the republicans from their own scandals is the complete apathy of the republican electorate to common decency in their candidates. Their two front runners Trump and Carson have generated more gaffs in the last few months few months than anyone I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
The democrats are the same way about their candidates, especially Hillary. Hell, Benghazi alone should have ended her political career. The foreign money in the Clinton foundation should have done the same, possibly even brought criminal charges. But it all flows off like water off a duck's back, because Clinton is de facto American Aristocracy.
 
Tress

Tress

I would rather leave part of the ballot blank than vote for someone I don't actually believe in. Even I f there are truly no candidates I like, then I still will not go the "lesser of two evils" route.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
I have no fear of voting for a third party because it would throw my vote away. I don't vote for third parties because most of their platforms are disastrously myopic.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Part of the issue with two parties is that the design of our election system encourages it be like this... third parties aren't viable because it's less effective to form your own political party than to work with one of big ones unless you have the means to match or beat their funding... and unless a billionaire is willing to risky their entire livelyhood fighting the system, it won't happen. Money is defacto political power and the common man does not have the means to outspend a billionaire, even thousands of common men. Thus what we need is an eccentric billionaire to risk it all.

Also, the phrase "an eccentric billionaire willing to risk it all" sounds like an Ironman movie.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
AshburnerX said:
Part of the issue with two parties is that the design of our election system encourages it be like this... third parties aren't viable because it's less effective to form your own political party than to work with one of big ones unless you have the means to match or beat their funding... and unless a billionaire is willing to risky their entire livelyhood fighting the system, it won't happen. Money is defacto political power and the common man does not have the means to outspend a billionaire, even thousands of common men. Thus what we need is an eccentric billionaire to risk it all.

Also, the phrase "an eccentric billionaire willing to risk it all" sounds like an Ironman movie.
Click to expand...
Or, you know, how Perot handed Clinton the 92 election.

Aaaand this is all looping back around to the need for instant runoff voting again.

AND I'm NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING POLITICS
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

For @stienman, The Planned Parenthood gunman was quoted as saying, "no more baby parts." Of all the crop of candidates, Fiorina was predominant in flogging the infamous video that started the whole Planned Parenthood controversy earlier this year. Even after the creator admitted it was made up, she kept on about it and on about it, even going so far as claiming another as yet unseen video existed. So for her part in pushing the rhetoric and inspiring Robert Dear, I hold her responsible for those deaths in Colorado.
 
strawman

strawman

Ah, no wonder I missed the connection. It's tenuous at best.

Sadly Colorado is essentially a non-capital-punishment state, so the gunman won't get even a fraction of what he deserves.
 
Terrik

Terrik

stienman said:
Ah, no wonder I missed the connection. It's tenuous at best.

Sadly Colorado is essentially a non-capital-punishment state, so the gunman won't get even a fraction of what he deserves.
Click to expand...
Of course it's tenuous at best, but that won't stop anybody from using it. I suppose next time a cop gets shot, I'll blame #allblacklivesmatter because some of their rhetoric called for the death of police officers.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

stienman said:
Ah, no wonder I missed the connection. It's tenuous at best.

Sadly Colorado is essentially a non-capital-punishment state, so the gunman won't get even a fraction of what he deserves.
Click to expand...
Really depends on what you think he deserves: a (mostly) painless lethal injection or to live out the rest of his days in a cell in isolation, knowing that the cause he claims to do this for will demonize him and disavow him in the name of not losing what remains of their credibility in the face of a public that is so very, VERY tired of this shit. At least until he invariable hangs himself or an "accident" happens.

I don't know what would be worse for him at this point: to be put to death or to live to see that his actions have done nothing to advance his cause.
 
Null

Null

Terrik said:
Of course it's tenuous at best, but that won't stop anybody from using it. I suppose next time a cop gets shot, I'll blame #allblacklivesmatter because some of their rhetoric called for the death of police officers.
Click to expand...
Speaking of, this white domestic terrorist kills 3 people, including a police officer, wounds several other people, and he gets taken without a scratch. But a black guy can be killed by police for, well, anything, because they "were in fear for their life." That's the whole point of #blacklivesmatter. The point of #AllLivesMatter is to silence #blacklivesmatter.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Null said:
Speaking of, this white domestic terrorist kills 3 people, including a police officer, wounds several other people, and he gets taken without a scratch. But a black guy can be killed by police for, well, anything, because they "were in fear for their life." That's the whole point of #blacklivesmatter. The point of #AllLivesMatter is to silence #blacklivesmatter.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with all of your post, except for the last sentence. It's not because some MRAs are idiots that all movement for men's rights are automatically to silence feminism; it's not because some people may want to silence blacklivesmatter that a movement like alllivesmatter isn't worthwhile because it's still true, and so forth. As in everything, there are loud-mouthed idiots on both sides of the aisle and claiming something "only" exists to harm another good cause is denying their point has validity.
 
strawman

strawman

Null said:
Speaking of, this white domestic terrorist kills 3 people, including a police officer, wounds several other people, and he gets taken without a scratch. But a black guy can be killed by police for, well, anything, because they "were in fear for their life." That's the whole point of #blacklivesmatter. The point of #AllLivesMatter is to silence #blacklivesmatter.
Click to expand...
Cool story, bro. Glad you got a chance to use a tragic situation to beat on your drum about something wholly unrelated. Stand proudly on top of the victims and wave your banner!
 
Null

Null

stienman said:
Cool story, bro. Glad you got a chance to use a tragic situation to beat on your drum about something wholly unrelated. Stand proudly on top of the victims and wave your banner!
Click to expand...
I don't think it's unrelated when we've got a Chicago cop going on trial a year after shooting sixteen times an unarmed african american on video who wasn't doing anything aggressive, and yet a white domestic terrorist commits an act of unspeakable violence and he's handled with kid gloves. I think that's a perfect illustration of how fucked up the disparity in treatment is.

And for Bubble and Terrik:
http://aattp.org/next-time-some-idiot-says-all-lives-matter-show-them-this-cartoon/
 
Last edited:
blotsfan

blotsfan

stienman said:
Cool story, bro. Glad you got a chance to use a tragic situation to beat on your drum about something wholly unrelated. Stand proudly on top of the victims and wave your banner!
Click to expand...
It isn't unrelated. The general narrative is that black people are only being treated badly by the cops because they are breaking the law, and there is no disparity between white criminals and black criminals. How can you prove that wrong if its not ok to point to an example of a white person being treated differently?
 
Krisken

Krisken

blotsfan said:
It isn't unrelated. The general narrative is that black people are only being treated badly by the cops because they are breaking the law, and there is no disparity between white criminals and black criminals. How can you prove that wrong if its not ok to point to an example of a white person being treated differently?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
The Planned Parenthood shooter killed a cop. I find it hard to believe that the other cops weren't waiting for the slightest excuse to gun him down. Apparently that opportunity just never presented itself. But anybody who asserts what stopped it was his being white needs some intracranial recalibration.
 
Null

Null

GasBandit said:
The Planned Parenthood shooter killed a cop. I find it hard to believe that the other cops weren't waiting for the slightest excuse to gun him down. Apparently that opportunity just never presented itself. But anybody who asserts what stopped it was his being white needs some intracranial recalibration.
Click to expand...
Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Eric Harris, Walter Scott, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray, Samuel DuBose, and Laquan McDonald would probably disagree. Well, if he's in custody he still could be Sandra Bland'd.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

The only logical reason they could have to take him alive would be to grill him over other domestic terrorist connections (which is important) but even if that is the case, it still LOOKS really bad when a white terrorist gets better treatment from the police than innocent black men.
 
strawman

strawman

blotsfan said:
It isn't unrelated. The general narrative is that black people are only being treated badly by the cops because they are breaking the law, and there is no disparity between white criminals and black criminals. How can you prove that wrong if its not ok to point to an example of a white person being treated differently?
Click to expand...
It's perfectly valid to point to the many, many examples of this disparity, and I'm not arguing against the disparity.

I'm arguing that doing so while the bodies of the victims are still in the morgue is exceptionally poor taste, particularly when there are many, many other good examples where the deceased have been laid to rest and people have paid their final respects. I'm further arguing that this incident isn't about racism, and while you might consider it a good example of what the police should do in all such situations, bringing your pet project to the table is selfish. I might as well start a discussion about abortion, misogyny, etc and start irrelevant arguments about things I'm passionate about. Wouldn't it be fun if I turned every discussion of a tragic event into a discussion about abortion? And yet this is what you're trying to do here, but with your own personal pet project.

Don't feel bad, you few are in good company - Obama pounded his gun control drum while the bodies were still warm.

If your soap box is so important, I don't blame you for bringing it up every single opportunity you can regardless of relevancy but you've got to understand that doing so only waters down your message and numbs the ears of those whose hearts and minds you may be trying to change.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

While I understand where you're coming from stienman, you're telling people to respect the dead when what they're angry about are the other dead that haven't been respected. Folks might not have been so quick to jump to this topic in the wake of the PP shootings normally, but the case of Laquan McDonald is literally back in the spotlight at the exact same time, so it's natural that people would make comparisons.

When we're practically learning about a new black teenager or adult in America being killed by police every day for looking at them funny, telling people to respectfully wait before saying anything about a white cop-killer not getting shot just isn't going to be a convincing argument.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

I'm going to point out that if you disagree with the point, you could argue in good faith.

We all know one another well enough at this point IMHO (in the context of this forum anyway) that I doubt anyone would hold it against you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top