Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by civman110, Nov 10, 2016.
You realize Clinton is Hitler in this, right?
When did Clinton blame minorities for the nation's problems?
I can't seem to remember.
Well since this lady didnt like Hitlery getting money from Saudis who are the top world sponsors of terrorism and most radical Islam I guess things are O.K.
How about in the 90's when as First Lady she called Black teenagers as "super predators," or much more recently in leaked Democratic Party memos where she and her lackeys referred to Bernie Sanders as "the Jew" and "that Jew?" Or when she called an entire generation of people "losers who live in their parents' basements?" When she and the Democratic Party called Latino and Hispanic voters "Taco Bowl voters?" The numerous times she gloated about helping her husband get out of sexual assault allegations? Or when she called the victim of his assault slutty - I mean, "promiscuous?" And when ...
This is the typical conservative totalitarian impulse. The same people who spent years delegitimatizing the presidency of Barack Obama are now outraged that liberals dare to express their views in public. The conservative instinct is that any political activism that isn't their own, is inherently illegitimate and must be actively suppressed (rather than just competed with). This is why they have stopped Barack Obama from exercising his traditional and rightful prerogative to appoint a supreme court justice. This is why they engage in extensive gerrymandering and voter suppression which means that they have a guaranteed majority in the House even when they fail to attain a majority of the votes.
The conservatives lack any sense of non-zero-sum political interaction. For them its either you're in power and you get everything; or you're out of power and you lose everything. Except, of course, when they're in the opposition: then even the most mild mannered and cautious democratic policy is pure tyranny. This lack of non-zero-sum politics is why they're aiming to destroy everything that Barack Obama has managed to put in place even though they obviously lack any reasonable mandate to do something like that.
Thankfully, it's also why they tend to overreach. I have no doubt that they will try to destroy Obamacare as well as medicare. They will actually try to get rid of the EPA and reverse every CO2 mitigation effort. They'll push creationism, etc.
The public didn't give them such a mandate and I think they will pay for their presumption. I hope. unless the GOP manages to further sabotage the democratic process through greater gerrymandering and voter suppression.
The GOP has been consistently getting ~60m votes the last 3 elections, Romney actually got more than Trump. But Hillary couldn't match Obama's totals, the Dems lost because of an enthusiasm gap
And thats partly the reason for the enthusiasm gap - Hillary spent a couple decades promoting mass incarceration. She's a prohibitionist and the drug war is the new Jim Crow.
Context here is important.
The 90s were still an era of incredibly high crime. Many criminologists assumed that the current generation of youth would be even more violent than the last, and that so-called superpredators would be normal by now. Clinton was worried for a good reason; expert opinion told her to be worried.
So in a sense, the superpredator comment shows how competent and capable she would have been as president. She listens to expert opinion, even when it's disturbing. I mean, she is a democrat, and has no incentive to cast aspersions on her constituency. Yet she listened to experts that were convinced that the inner-cities would soon suffer from a plight of these "superpredators".
Thankfully, the expert opinion turned out to be wrong. Against all predictions, crime utterly collapsed as the new generation reached their 20s. In the age when they should have entered a life of crime in disproportionate numbers, they actually became a far less violent and criminal than the previous generation.
Compare Hillary, who appreciates expert opinion and surrounds herself with talent, to Trump, who surrounds himself with discredited cranks, far-right ideologues, sycophants and toxic lobbyists.
There are alot of well-meaning liberals. I look at it like this. Sometimes there's indisputably a time for war, and in that period you want a warrior general who is going to win that war and save your life. I really don't like big wars and I wish such generals didn't have to exist, but they must for my sake. In the extreme example, that is precisely the most fit person to lead.
These pendulums swing mightily. Maybe there would need to be no definition of feminism or lgbt if these people weren't victimized by someone in the first place. No one should be victimized. So the pendulum swings with artificial force as the voice of those who band together, having truly been victimized, but it's an over-reaction. Sadly, people victimize others for whatever reason, not necessarily the reason given that the person is female or gay, and sometimes the victimizers are female or gay. But still the pendulum swings.
This is what we get. It's probably all sordidly necessary as growing pains for a better society, but whew lad, when that pendulum comes swinging back, it sure is a slap in the face to alot of people, people who have grown accustomed to a status quo, and when that presumed liberty is suddenly questioned, instead of being stoic, people lose their minds.
It's going to get worse before it gets better in the near term. We need good mediators, working the aisles. Doing stupid things like burning cars over elections is becoming somehow, while not acceptable, tolerated, and there's a bad escalation happening from what poor behavior is slipping through cracks.
Trump ain't no general. He's not with great humility and courage leading people through tough choices for the sake of the greater good. He's an instigator who uses inflammatory remarks to label those who we should call friends as enemies. He is quick to demonize and slow to understand. He doesn't speak Truth or value Truth, it's all salesman spin.
That is the opinion I've come to. Maybe I didn't watch enough The Apprentice to appreciate him. Maybe I'm wrong. I sure hope I am. But when I hear him appoint Steve Bannon to a senior advisory role that doesn't help his case.
Expert opinion. Context. Yeah, okay. You've constructed a narrative where Hillary Clinton can say basically whatever she wants, and refer to her constituents however she likes because after all, "she is a Democrat," which I guess is meant to somehow make her incapable of racist or classist prejudice, and she "has no incentive to cast aspersions on her constituency." What this leaves unsaid is that we are in a position where someone like Hillary Clinton can call Black people "super predators" based on some study, somewhere, sometime, because "her constituency" has no choice. The "doctrine of lesser evilism" as it's being called most recently dictates that as "she is a Democrat," she is the person that Black people and communities - "her constituency" - can do business with. This is the kind of stuff that lets reactionaries think they can cast themselves as a "new deal for Black people," when Democratic Party personalities are so blatantly apathetic towards the real human problems, and basic humanity, of people of color.
Even more importantly, what you yourself have set up is a framework where Hillary Clinton is very obviously a tool of capital, and beholden to make decisions based on "studies" and "expert opinion" rather than having any kind of honest dialogue or relationship with "her constituency" who should be grateful her acid tongue has only briefly singed them because after all, "she is a Democrat" and we all have to work with the many-headed hydra that is the Democratic Party.
This is not a track record of good faith. Tellingly you left the rest of those incidents untouched because, come on, we all know now (and have known for a while, really) that Hillary Clinton is a mercenary, psychopathic personality with very biting things to say about the people who have been chained to her political career and used like so much cannon fodder to build her financial empire. In comparison to Hillary, who gleefully follows the marching orders of predatory capitalist thinktanks, conspires to manufacture consent through manipulation of information and the media and surrounds herself with equally sketchy and untrustworthy cronies, Trump's preference for working with other out-and-out fascists seems like just being honest.
As if the Democrats aren't going to go immediately into obstructionist mode come January.
The republicans will doubtless take away the filibuster.
There's a funny think with "experts" guiding political decisions: how often they turn out to be wrong.
Even though they will do it for the wrong reasons, that would still be the right thing to do. Anything that helps weaken the current trend of obstructionist politics can only be a good thing for our government.
You know who else took away the filibuster? Hitler. We can't take away the filibuster or it'll be like the Enabling Act. Pretty soon all the Hispanics will be "deported south" and American Muslims will end up in FEMA camps, never to be seen or heard from again.
I mean, I would like to have the filibuster still exist for the next four years so that the Republicans can't do stupid things that I don't want them to do. But removing it would certainly be the right thing to do on a macro level. I don't think they can remove it except for judicial appointees though. IIRC, Senate rules changes such as removing the filibuster require a 2/3 majority to break cloture, so it's even worse than the regular 3/5. Then again, perhaps there's some loophole that the Dems could have exploited back in 2009-10 instead of whining about how the Reps had 41 seats and they couldn't get anything through but the ACA and Dodd-Frank, and even then only barely. If so, the Reps will use it now and we'll find out just how spineless the Democrats in the early Obama era really were.
No doubt they will want to, since they have demonstrated that it is subject to overuse/abuse and won't want that shoe on the other foot...however they can't. It takes sixty senators to end a filibuster, and the rule change process that could make that easier is subject to filibuster itself. They're stuck.
We'll that wont be a problem anymore for Trump
You have been missing out:
.@realDonaldTrump You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America.Withdraw from the U.S presidential race as you will never win,” Prince Alwaleed tweeted.
Trump hit back in a tweet late Friday, calling the prince "dopey." "@Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected," he tweeted.
Trump loves Mu$lim$
Separate names with a comma.