USA Politics

If I lived in the USA I'd consider voting Green or Libertarian for the president, for sure. I think Hillary will be an OK president but I would put money on her being a one term president. I just can't see her getting through four years without doing something like the email server on a bigger scale, and ending up having to drop off the ticket in 2020.
 
I think there are important personality differences between Hillary and Donald - Hillary, for example, has control over her temper, where as Donald loses his shit regularly and thoroughly. Hillary wants power, Donald wants money. They're similar, but there's a difference.

Policy-wise, of course, one of them has insane unworkable policies, and the other one has relatively sane if unexciting policies.
 
LooseCannon said:
If I lived in the USA I'd consider voting Green or Libertarian for the president, for sure. I think Hillary will be an OK president but I would put money on her being a one term president. I just can't see her getting through four years without doing something like the email server on a bigger scale, and ending up having to drop off the ticket in 2020.
Click to expand...


I have decided to Libertarian this year and be happy about it. I have voted for them in the past as more of a protest vote and knowing that living in Texas it, the GOPer would win anyway .. or before in California when it was a Republican state.

This year they have actually fielded a good ticket (2 former governors) and are going full in with a fiscally conservative and socially liberal platform .. which I think and hope will be a message that carries ... I know it will not win this election, but going forward under one of the 2 major parties
 
bearfan said:
I am pretty sure Hillary wants money as well, they have made a nice comeback from being dead broke.
Click to expand...
They were never as broke as they wanted to pretend they were, mind you. But yes, Bill and Hillary have done very well on the speaker's circuit.

bearfan said:
I have decided to Libertarian this year and be happy about it. I have voted for them in the past as more of a protest vote and knowing that living in Texas it, the GOPer would win anyway .. or before in California when it was a Republican state.
Click to expand...
I quite like Gary Johnson, he seems sane and smart. And his fiscal conservatism isn't a complete deregulation mess.
 
LooseCannon said:
I think there are important personality differences between Hillary and Donald - Hillary, for example, has control over her temper, where as Donald loses his shit regularly and thoroughly. Hillary wants power, Donald wants money. They're similar, but there's a difference.

Policy-wise, of course, one of them has insane unworkable policies, and the other one has relatively sane if unexciting policies.
Click to expand...
One is also actually qualified to hold public office.

The major thing that bothers me about the email fiasco is that it shows just how clueless many factions of the government are when it comes to current technology and the internet, which means no progress on net neutrality for at least another 4 years if Hillary becomes president.

However, it is important to remember that there are potentially 3 supreme court seats up for grabs during the next term. Whoever becomes president is going to shape the court for another generation at least. Do you really want that to be Donald Trump? I am going to vote for Hillary for that reason alone.* I think she would make a mostly harmless president, it'd be a vote for continuing the status quo. Then maybe in 4 years we can primary her. Donald Trump would be a vote for bigotry, stupidity, and whatever nutjob he appoints to the supreme court (his picks were made public recently BTW).

*Colorado is an important swing state, but if I get to the polls and Hillary has a comfortable lead here I will be voting for Johnson instead.
 
Mosh said:
One is also actually qualified to hold public office.
Click to expand...
Well, there is that.

Mosh said:
The major thing that bothers me about the email fiasco is that it shows just how clueless many factions of the government are when it comes to current technology and the internet, which means no progress on net neutrality for at least another 4 years if Hillary becomes president.
Click to expand...
Net neutrality is the status quo right now, thankfully, and as important to net neutrality will be appointments to the FCC board, which again, Hillary is more likely to support neutrality than Trump. But that being said, she is not as likely to support it as Obama...but what the fuck can you do, Jill Stein isn't going to win.

Another great WaPo article on Hillary, this time on how the House GOP makes the Clintons into victims with their overaggressive stances:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...icans-overplay-their-hand-on-hillary-clinton/
 
Actually Hillary is being funded from the Silicon Valley lobby, and Trump from the media lobby. These are two opposing sides of net neutrality.
 
And now people are shooting cops. Part of me is shocked it took this long - calls for nonviolent resistance will always be scoffed at by a few violent folks. The other part of me is worried this is the forebear of a "new Black Panthers" movement, which will be used as an excuse by cops and their supporters to continue murdering black people who have done nothing wrong (or, at least, nothing wrong worth shooting a man).
 
I think beyond an killing/general fucking with people on people on purpose .. which I think is a very very small minority, it certainly will make cops more nervous at rallies like this .. which is not a good thing.

As far as BLM morphing into a new Black Panther Party, that started some time ago I am afraid.
 
You have freedom to carry guns and you have officers that get panic attack as soon as they figure somebody is carrying.
Handling any kind of situation with weapons requires military discipline. American cops usually don't even compare well with general populace when it comes to this, let alone military. But they are equipped as one.

In my country, cop can kill only if somebody's life is in danger. They cannot kill for non-compliance, they cannot even shoot if they are pushed or kicked or anything not serious enough.

"He was reaching for his pocket" ?

U.S. is a paranoid society.
 
bearfan said:
As far as BLM morphing into a new Black Panther Party, that started some time ago I am afraid.
Click to expand...
That's an oversimplification of events. BLM is a movement, but they have not shown themselves capable of the style of anti-police violence that marked the Black Panthers. Since we don't know if BLM sanctioned the attack last night - it seems doubtful considering the recent reveal of the perpetrator's identity as a recluse - it seems more likely that a lone shooter chose to use the rally as a convenient way to attack police officers, since that's a good place to get them all together.

But overall BLM is not a violent organization (if you can call it an organization). What I am worried about is that a group of people prone to violence will network using BLM and spin off into a violent organization.
 
So people on another forum think I'm a racist because I said BLM is a racist organisation.
 
I wouldn't call you that but why do you think it is a racist organisation?

They stand up against racist violence.
 
It's a long topic, but it's basically an example of a movement that has been hijacked by the regressive left in order to promote white guilt and black supremacy.
 
LooseCannon said:
That's an oversimplification of events. BLM is a movement, but they have not shown themselves capable of the style of anti-police violence that marked the Black Panthers. Since we don't know if BLM sanctioned the attack last night - it seems doubtful considering the recent reveal of the perpetrator's identity as a recluse - it seems more likely that a lone shooter chose to use the rally as a convenient way to attack police officers, since that's a good place to get them all together.

But overall BLM is not a violent organization (if you can call it an organization). What I am worried about is that a group of people prone to violence will network using BLM and spin off into a violent organization.
Click to expand...

I am sure most BLM people (and it is probably best described as a loose confederation with some small portions being actually organized) believe in some common things and group based on that. But there are certainly some militant elements of it that are flat out racist and are using these issues (some of which I have sympathy for) as a cover for violence and personal gain(see looting) and blaming that on "frustration"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top