Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....II

[Dr. Pyro]

Supreme Court appointments right there is the best reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton. And you really believe the tripe that Trump would "...reverse gains of women, minorities, lbgt persons..."? I'm no Trump supporter (I'm voting for Gary Johnson) but there isn't a shred of evidence to support that belief. He has even said as far as he's concerned, gays and transgenders can use any of his restrooms that they please. She certainly hasn't supported a position like that. She would be a disaster, period.

[ygmir]

13920210_10208769385046490_8158082982883717495_o.jpg

Berners for Hillary scare me, since it seems they have her attitude of "whatever it takes to be a winner" and not care about integrity.

From where I sit, this is a false equivalency. Trump is a nationalistic strongman with a glaring personality disorder. HRC is an experienced politician, not without fault, but who is fully capable of good governance and good Supreme Court appointments. If Trump were president, inevitably some leader in some country would personally insult him and he will consider a nuclear response. He will reverse gains of women, minorities, and lgbt persons (make this country great again). He wants to criminalize women and the doctors who support them for exercising control over their own bodies. Again it's a false equivalency because it is a national emergency to not elect Trump.

your partisan glasses are very tinted......nice try though.
I don't support Trump or Clinton. For different reasons, both may well begin, "the end".

False equivalence? where did I make a comparison?

[Ratty]

Wait a minute. In the presidential election they don't 'count' write-ins. He NEEDS to be on the ballot otherwise you aren't even voting.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[lucky420]

Party line?

Lol

Bernie isn't even an actual Democrat.

Panty line

[lucky420]

13920210_10208769385046490_8158082982883717495_o.jpg

Berners for Hillary scare me, since it seems they have her attitude of "whatever it takes to be a winner" and not care about integrity.

From where I sit, this is a false equivalency. Trump is a nationalistic strongman with a glaring personality disorder. HRC is an experienced politician, not without fault, but who is fully capable of good governance and good Supreme Court appointments. If Trump were president, inevitably some leader in some country would personally insult him and he will consider a nuclear response. He will reverse gains of women, minorities, and lgbt persons (make this country great again). He wants to criminalize women and the doctors who support them for exercising control over their own bodies. Again it's a false equivalency because it is a national emergency to not elect Trump.

Good words.

[ygmir]

Berners for Hillary scare me, since it seems they have her attitude of "whatever it takes to be a winner" and not care about integrity.

From where I sit, this is a false equivalency. Trump is a nationalistic strongman with a glaring personality disorder. HRC is an experienced politician, not without fault, but who is fully capable of good governance and good Supreme Court appointments. If Trump were president, inevitably some leader in some country would personally insult him and he will consider a nuclear response. He will reverse gains of women, minorities, and lgbt persons (make this country great again). He wants to criminalize women and the doctors who support them for exercising control over their own bodies. Again it's a false equivalency because it is a national emergency to not elect Trump.

Good words.

if "good words" are straw man, misdirection and hyperbole, yeah, it's a song.

[lucky420]

you wear your glasses, I'll wear mine

[ygmir]

you wear your glasses, I'll wear mine

[lucky420]

[Aurelia]

[Simon of the Playa]

image.jpeg

[Roundabout]

Supreme Court appointments right there is the best reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton. And you really believe the tripe that Trump would "...reverse gains of women, minorities, lbgt persons..."? I'm no Trump supporter (I'm voting for Gary Johnson) but there isn't a shred of evidence to support that belief. He has even said as far as he's concerned, gays and transgenders can use any of his restrooms that they please.

He would reverse the gains of women, minorities and lgbt persons because of the persons he has listed as his likely Supreme Court appointments. He has picked persons that appease the far right. He is not likely smart enough or trained enough to understand the unintended consequences. On the other hand, he has stated that women and/or their supporting doctors should be imprisioned for the exercise of the right to control one's own body, i.e., abortion, and that he will appoint the judges that will reverse Roe v Wade to make this possible. So this is an expressly intended consequence.

I don't support Trump or Clinton. For different reasons, both may well begin, "the end".

False equivalence? where did I make a comparison?

Not a comparison, but an equivalence. To you, both Clinton and Trump are equivalent - "both may well begin the end". Trump incites his crowds to violence. HRC, though not without fault, has the temperament and experience to actually govern. They are not the same.

[Simon of the Playa]

baiters gonna bait.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dem ... ory-in-us/

[ygmir]

13920210_10208769385046490_8158082982883717495_o.jpg

Berners for Hillary scare me, since it seems they have her attitude of "whatever it takes to be a winner" and not care about integrity.

From where I sit, this is a false equivalency. Trump is a nationalistic strongman with a glaring personality disorder. HRC is an experienced politician, not without fault, but who is fully capable of good governance and good Supreme Court appointments. If Trump were president, inevitably some leader in some country would personally insult him and he will consider a nuclear response. He will reverse gains of women, minorities, and lgbt persons (make this country great again). He wants to criminalize women and the doctors who support them for exercising control over their own bodies. Again it's a false equivalency because it is a national emergency to not elect Trump.

Not a comparison, but an equivalence. To you, both Clinton and Trump are equivalent - "both may well begin the end". Trump incites his crowds to violence. HRC, though not without fault, has the temperament and experience to actually govern. They are not the same.

I made no comparison, or equivalence, before you claimed I did, nor did I even mention Trump. To now bolster that claim with "after the fact" statements, shows me you use misdirection and strawpersons, for your argument.
unless your struggle is with reading comprehension. If that's something you can't help, then "ah well", but, if it's something you choose........

and yeah, in my feeling they may be "end game candidates", you could say I see them as equivalent. But, to use your logic, I could say they are also equivalent due to many cursory similarities.
Otherwise, though, I do see similarities, for example, both use half truths, lies, misdirection and hyperbole, to make their false campaign statements, attacks, and promises. Both use operatives, media and others, to paint opponents with disingenuous statements

[1durphul]

I came across this amazing scholarly work from the early 80s predicting what would happen as a result of the Equal Time rules being repealed by the FCC in 1983. The guy who wrote this really accurately predicted what the outcome would be.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vie ... cholarship

[Dr. Pyro]

[quote="Roundabout]

[Dr. Pyro]

[quote="Roundabout] he has stated that women and/or their supporting doctors should be imprisioned for the exercise of the right to control one's own body, /[quote]
No that is not what he said. He was asked, if abortion were illegal, should there be consequences (imprisonment) for those who perform them. And he answered yes, but in context, which the left is never able to see, only if it were already a crime. Otherwise he's fine with the law exactly the way it is. Your "facts" are simply wrong.

[lucky420]

He's a fucking douche bag

[Dr. Pyro]

They both are.

[Skuzzy61]

They both are.

Yep. Just have a different marketing wrapper around them.

[BBadger]

[1durphul]

So there is an interesting dilemma regarding Bill Clinton specifically if he were to become the first First Gentleman. Usually a former president retains the title President after his presidency. Which raises the question: in this case would he be be called by the new title of First Gentleman, or by the honorific of President? If I recall correctly, the british distinguish between a Princess and The Princess. I believe that the difference is that The Princess would eventually become The Queen.

In the event of a Hillary Clinton win will we be reading a lot about The President Clinton and her husband President Clinton? Hmmm that doesn't read right. The more I think about the more I think just using "former-President Clinton" sounds better.

Then what about after they leave office and they are both "former-President Clinton"?

Do the British monarchs get the numbers only when they take the throne? Like Queen Elizabeth II? I don't think she was Elizabeth II before taking the presidency was she?

[tatonka]

[WileE13]

Rather have a grand-standing blowhard than an evil lying traitor who's spent a lifetime in politics enriching themselves and their friends while being derelict in their duties, not to mention doing it all while married to a serial rapist who also spent a lifetime in politics enriching themselves and their friends. Oh, and let's not forget the dozens of bodies left in their wake.

Look up Bill's history of being accused of rape. Every college he went to. I don't know about you all, but I don't know anyone who has been accused of rape even once at even a single college, not to mention 3 times plus all the post-college allegations.

Also, look into the Clinton Foundation and how much tax payer money they've taken in and how much they ended up paying out for actually charitable contributions. It was something to the tune of about 7%, which is less than most of us pay in sales tax every time we make a purchase. The rest went towards politics and salaries.

Trump might be a loud mouthed ego-centric fool, but at least he hasn't spent his life taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the public to further his own personal agenda.

Anyone who thinks the Clinton's belong anywhere but in prison is in denial of reality, or lack any sort of moral compass of their own.

[Dr. Pyro]

I tend to agree. And on FB the only people who say, "Defriend me if you're voting for that (fill in the blank: racist, homophobic, egocentric asshole, cretin, etc. etc. etc.) Trump. We cannot be friends..." I have never seen a Trump supporter say the same thing about people voting for Clinton. Talk about intolerance. I'm no Trump guy but I can appreciate why a middle class person would find his message attractive and it has nothing to do with racism. Let's face it, until he got into Republican politics it never came up. It's the only practical way to get the parties, both Democratic and Republican, to address the issue that the vast silent majority is fed up with politics as usual. Only people supporting Clinton seem to desire the status quo. That, to me, seems very narrow minded indeed.

[lucky420]

Racism never came up in republican politics before orange turd ran?

Wtf?

[ygmir]

haha as an anarchist, I giggle at both sides....how, can anyone support either candidate? and how can one side point at the other and call them out on anything, without being hypocrites?
Sweet Jeebus! Really? vote for a criminal, because the other criminal would commit criminal acts?

I am not voting for either. I can vote congress and all the "down ticket" things, and just plain refuse to support either one. I dislike them both, for different reasons.
This election has shown me, much, about people I know, and some I like or admire. and most of it is not happy to see. I'll overlook it, because politics is not what I base my friendship on, but still, it's sad to see otherwise intelligent, clear minded people point at others and call names and make accusations, when the candidate they support is no better......

Not to mention how people attack, "ad hominem" for supporting the candidate they dislike. Really, again?

I've un-followed a ton of people on facecrack, not unfriended, but just don't want to see the monotonous drivel they spew, hypocritical and myopic.

[Aurelia]

Ygmir again you're completely right with what you're saying !
Please read the article in the New Yorker magazine this week about the first 25 things
That can be done right after the election
xoA.

[Simon of the Playa]

http://peekasso.tumblr.com/image/150669386163

[ygmir]

Riddle me this:

take the two major parties

for one, bring out 20 random people as candidates, some plausible.
The other, a few, but very polarizing.
Test the waters of public opinion via statements and ideas from all.
run all sorts of "trial balloons" during the primaries
to see how people react to certain memes.
whittle the large number down, and finally choose the least
plausible.
the other, promote your candidate, and have them push the
more popular one off the stage (figuratively), under
questionable circumstances, knowing they are deplorable, but
that the base will fall in line.
Now, offer two candidates, both repugnant, but one you
want to win, and create between them such hysteria and hyperbole
that people polarize, not for a candidate, but against the other.
Ramp up the rhetoric and "bombshell announcements" combining
the publics love of cognitive dissonance and false equivalence.
Do this,until both sides are so repulsed and disgusted with the election
that they just want it to "be over".

rejoice,when your hand picked candidate, wins, and no matter
the accusations or even proof that it's not a legitimate win,
and the fact that nothing will matter or change the outcome.

"who are we?"