Necronic
Staff member
The semi-confederate flag in the background and a guy in a Tommy Bahama shirt just says so much.
Where Do You Stand? (2016 Election)
- Thread starter AshburnerX
- Start date
They're both heavily anti-establishment, anti-career-politician, anti-bribe, anti-lobby groups. Possibly lying in Trump's case, but still.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's the real shortcoming of the quiz, it assumes that every candidate is telling the truth about their positions and will follow through on them.
Other than personal family/provincial history with the Federal Liberal Party in Canada (Trudeau, BOO HISS!!!), my opinion of that party was pretty well cemented in the 1990s through 2006 when they were in power: they will say absolutely anything during an election, and their behavior when in power has little to no resemblance to it. Combine it with rampant cronyism (Jean should be in jail over the Golf Course thing) and I wouldn't trust anybody who's willing to even associate themselves with that brand. It's that tainted IMO. They are basically completely controlled by their elites and will say anything and break ANY promise.
It sucks because I don't like ANY of the federal parties and/or their leaders for various reasons, and while the Liberal Party may have the closest to "seems OK" platform, my trust for them is like -1000%. I trust the NDP to do what they say, though I think it'll fuck up the country horrifically. And I think the current government has 1000% the wrong direction on digital privacy/freedom with the TPP agreement, along with a few other things. Greens are just a bunch of loonies.
So I feel for any who just straight out don't believe politicians. I feel exactly the same way, and have to vote on it on October 19th. Two weeks to determine if I'm going to hold my nose and vote for somebody, or officially decline my ballot.
The website knows you just want to stand by Trump so you can check out his daughter's ass.
Necronic
Staff member
I don't think I've ever voted based on a political promise. It's such a ridiculous notion to me that anyone could promise anyone...anything like that. The reality of governance and legislating is such that promised actions, like the closing of GTMO, usually have a massive string of consequences that weren't understood at the time of the promise that now make the option nearly impossible. They can promise to maintain a set of principles, but even then that doesn't mean too much when faced with a real emergency. I don't think TARP relief was something that aligned with Bush's principles, but he did what he had to do.
Go a step further. Think about your personal life. How often to people make explicit promises to you? Its not that often. In a way a promise almost implies that the person is untrustworthy to begin with, like a child being made to promise he'll brush his teeth.
Go a step further. Think about your personal life. How often to people make explicit promises to you? Its not that often. In a way a promise almost implies that the person is untrustworthy to begin with, like a child being made to promise he'll brush his teeth.
Damn you for making me post a Cracked article.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20134_8-election-myths-you-probably-believe.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_20134_8-election-myths-you-probably-believe.html
New York Magazine posits that Ben Carson isn't actually running for President at all.
95% Sanders
93% Clinton
79% O'Malley (Who?)
53% Jim Webb
then next are Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and Ben Carson - who it says I match with on science. Yikes!
For party I'm just listing them in order from highest to lowest:
Democrat
Green
Socialist
Libertarian
Republican
Kind of surprised about Green. I thought Socialist would be second.
93% Clinton
79% O'Malley (Who?)
53% Jim Webb
then next are Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and Ben Carson - who it says I match with on science. Yikes!
For party I'm just listing them in order from highest to lowest:
Democrat
Green
Socialist
Libertarian
Republican
Kind of surprised about Green. I thought Socialist would be second.
He certainly wouldn't be the first person to claim presidential candidate status in order to gain more recognition and brand awareness - be it to run for another office later, or to go big in business. We'll see.
GasBandit
Staff member
"But now Carson actually is running for president. Or is he? It is hard to tell. Conservative politics are so closely intermingled with a lucrative entertainment complex that it is frequently impossible to distinguish between a political project (that is, something designed to result in policy change) and a money-making venture. "
Ha! HA HA HA! Ha ha ha ha ha! Ohhh now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle hollywood/network television.
Ha! HA HA HA! Ha ha ha ha ha! Ohhh now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle hollywood/network television.
He's probably looking for a wife.
That is the best response I have seen in a long time. Bravo!
He throws out raw meat for the Fox Noise crowd, and then admits he made up the West Point acceptance story. He's just full of shit, no matter which way you spin it.
Now it's the Wall Street Journal calling Carson out on his lies. And of course, he blames the media. 
GasBandit
Staff member
Remember 8 years ago though, where questioning any of the inconsistencies in Barack Obama's stories got you branded the most vile of racists? Good thing Carson is a republican, so we're allowed to scrutinize, criticize, and disagree with him.[DOUBLEPOST=1446915951,1446915862][/DOUBLEPOST]
DA, you have a subscription to the WSJ? I'm genuinely astonished!
No, but not for any ideological reasons. This item showed up on my radar, and I was surprised he was being called out by the right for the holes in his story.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ah. I can't read the article because I don't have a subscription.
Hm. Try going to it via Google news. I searched "WSJ Carson Yale".
The gist of the article was his tale of winning an award for honesty at Yale may be a complete fabrication.
Does Obama believe the Egyptian pyramids were built to be grain silos? Carson apparently does.
Although, admittedly Obama grew up around there so he'd have hung out at the pyramids some of those days he was skipping class to go rafting with Tom, Huck and their pal Steve Kuntz.
GasBandit
Staff member
Obama claimed his parents met at the civil rights demonstrations in Selma. Problem is, Obama was born 4 years BEFORE that event took place. Apparently he believes his parents are time travelers.
Hmm...I see where he claims they met in 1960 a Russian language class in college, a claim he's been making since at least his book "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance", published back in 1995.
Found the Selma thing on Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp
Not that they met at Selma, but that they were encouraged by the march to get married as a mixed-race, which, naturally can't be true. He could have been mis-remembering the date, or have heard it as a family legend and never really looked it up, or simply been political pandering, since it was said in a speech at Selma. (shrug)
I don't really see it as some concerted effort to hide the circumstances of his birth, which he's been pretty straightforward about.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not to hide the circumstances of his birth, but to claim a link to the civil rights struggle to gain political capital.
Yeah, I mean, what kind of politician DOES that?
Based on the Ben Carson comments, the worst kind.
If you are saying this is the same because they have the same skin color, I'd call that a false equivalency. Especially since we haven't seen racist pictures being forwarded around by staffers showing Carson in a stereotype tribal get-up or the many other disgusting images/comments.
So, just maybe it's not racist now because people aren't being racist and are criticizing him for being a loon. Not much different than the entire Republican field if you ask me.
Even they might not like him enough to stick up for him, even that little.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Perfectly non-racist criticisms of Obama were (and still are) labeled racism just as an automatic easy way of silencing any dissent.
So? People also tried justifying the Bush torture regime. It doesn't make it right, but doesn't discount the VERY REAL racism which cropped up.
If the criticism is good, then go with it. Don't play the "Well, if they did it, we can do it" crap. You're smarter than that and it's very lazy arguing.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's not the argument I made. I lamented the difference (and the hypocrisy), is all.
The fact of the matter is, a black person is only a protected minority until he or she strays off the Democrat reservation. See: Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, etc etc.
No redneck hates any black person as much as a democrat hates a black republican.
No, you imagined a hypocrisy. Show me evidence there was racism. And I'll tell you there are plenty of those on the left which are criticized. You are displaying your confirmation bias here.