I am not a fan of these people turning protests into riots either, but it's a little silly to say "look at a few of these supporters who turn violent against people they don't like or agree with, I'm going to vote Trump" when his vocal supporters include the KKK and other white supremacist groups, anti-Semites, people who commit random hate crimes on people who look vaguely Muslim, kill trans people for being trans, and murder abortion doctors or bomb abortion clinics because they're pro-life.
I think that there are more people who've done things like this, along with the other groups you didn't include from that quote, than have gotten violent at an anti-Trump protest, which seems to be enough for some people to want to vote for him.
Mmm, that makes more sense than what I thought it was all about. I don't agree with it, obviously, but the hypocrisy was what was really blowing my mind.
Voter intimidation is as counter-productive as it gets. You're not there to scare or hurt someone when they're voting in that little booth, and they're going to remember your behaviour.
I think it's completely ludicrous that Trump is a party nominee. He's funny and a better speaker than some politicians who have been in the game for 20 years, but the guy has no qualifications whatsoever. That aside, there's a profound irony in people calling him Hitler and then instigating all this political violence at his rallies. I'm ten times more concerned about Trump accidentally fucking something up than I am about him putting Muslims in concentration camps or any of the other random shit people think he's going to do.
I'm blown away by the magical thinking going on as part of this election on both sides: 1. There are many who believe the blacks, browns and queers are going to be sent off to the showers or that a wall will actually be built if Trump is elected. 2. There are those that think that if Sanders is elected that USSR flag will fly from the White House or that he can get even 1/10 of his agenda passed. 3. There are those who believe that Hillary will champion the cause of the common people. Here's a news flash for you: Politicians lie, the media lies, the internet lies. I watched the video above of America's best and brightest meeting and discussing the merits of Trump's candidacy in California and it was a tragedy as expected. There were survivors.
So what great qualifications do the other candidates have? I won't argue that Trump has no political experience, but he's up against a congenital liar with no leadership experience (Mrs. Clinton) and a Senator who absolutely does not understand economics (Mr. Sanders). The choices are terrible, but Trump is no worse than the other two. Our current president, whether you agree with his politics or not, had very little political experience and no executive experience at all. The country did not get fucked up under him, and it won't get fucked up under Trump, Clinton, or Sanders. It's just not really possible for the president to do that on his own. He has to have help from congress. Neither Bush with a Republican congress nor Obama with a Democratic congress was able to really do much damage to the country. We pay too much attention to the president while we ignore the effect congress has on us. The entire political machine wants to keep it that way.
The whole Sanders doesn't understand economics with no explanation whatsoever thing is getting tiresome, but going with Trump: - He has virtually no platform to speak of. - His foreign policies are either completely vague (I'm going to negotiate tough) to bat shit insane like wanting to proliferate nuclear weapons and build a wall across the southern border. - He has no political experience to speak of. This doesn't compare to any of the other candidates you mentioned. I'm not convinced he even understands how the process works. - On the few issues he does take a stance he's so whimsical he's prone to changing it in less than 24 hours. - He's going to be an international embarrassment. I'm not nearly as touchy as some about his foot in mouth comments, but some of his ramblings like his one on the Mexican rapists that Mexico is 'sending' are downright cringe worthy. It's the most important job in the country. Your bent on this myth that the president is an irrelevant position. It's not. You think Bush didn't do much damage, but I'm going to really disagree. He was in large part responsible for the recession and started a war that cost several trillion dollars and killed upwards of 300,000 people. That's just a start. I dislike Clinton as much as Trump, but I don't get this idea that most powerful position in nation, possibly the world, doesn't necessitate any experience with legislation or diplomacy. Yeah, it's going to take someone really special to burn the whole thing to the ground, but a bad president is hardly harmless.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html No. Actually, there is plenty written about Bernie's policies and how they can't be afforded. His campaign website talks about new taxes and closing loopholes to afford his programs but I'm trying to think of how often Government/Politicians underestimate costs as opposed to overestimating costs for programs and then they are all shocked when costs are much higher initially and continue to escalate with time. I'm sure though that Bernie's campaign estimates were right on the money though, right? Nobody has ever told a lie during campaign season. Not to mention his basic misconception that $15/hr is going to solve anyone's problems. If he can't understand the basics of cost, value of goods, scarcity and price then I doubt he could pass ECON 101, which is apparently the case for the people crowing about $15/hr. We can go through several other of his campaign planks like "Free" college and point out the holes in it again, if necessary, but it has already been discussed at length that his plan and pure socialism in general fails often and it won't be different this time either.
That article is pretty stupid. There's been data posted ad nauseum in this thread proving that nations with public health care spend substantially less on health care than we do. Sometimes less than half the GDP per capita we do. The article is full of shit like this. This doesn't mean anything. It's at best a half stammered insult. Oh good, because they weren't backing that one up so well. Do I really need to point out again the amount of money we dump into the military relative to infrastructure? Where could it ever come from? The affordable care act is a fucking mess that despite Obama's promises caused a lot of people to lose their current insurance and has deductibles through the roof. The article didn't even try prove any of it's points. It just referenced people who don't agree with Sanders and made a lot of no way statements backed by a conservative risk averse philosophy to changing the status quo. I'm not going to address the second one because I'm not subscribed. I do agree that the free college idea is a bad one, and I don't agree with several of his policies as well. The real problem I would have with his presidency though, as others have mentioned several times, is that he would have a very hard time getting even a fraction of that shit passed. The high minimum wage isn't a good idea either. $15/hr might work in NYC. It doesn't make any sense in small town Minnesota. Still, $7.25/hr is way too low and the justifications that only teenagers are supposed to work for low wages and the blood sucking wal-marts of the world aren't abusing the welfare system are pretty terrible.
Please consider the sources. There are many outlets passing editorial as gospel. Fox, CNN, Breitbert spring to mind. I want to see a human centipede of Wolf Blitzer and Sean Hannity forever shitting into each others' mouths. Just because Bernie would have a hard time getting anything passed does not mean he is not a viable candidate. Let's be real, not one of the nominees would get anything passed of true substance. UNLESS it was a highly regressive policy. Even then you have to wonder how much of all this is just political theater. Remember the ACA is a republican originated idea re-written some 50 times to appease the GOP, then immediately decried as unconstitutional on passing. Now that is theater. Free community college doesn't bug me. But when you start getting into the university system, that doesn't seem right. There has to be an incentive, a need, competition, and a vetting system for students going into, say, STEM. The whole system needs to be regulated because in 10 years it became a fucking pyramid scheme. I'd rather see STEM pushed *hard* in highschool. Throw funding into that. What's the worst to happen? We make our students more math/science literate? What a tragedy. Same idea in clean energy, Whoops, we made the world cleaner. The minimum wage is a no-brainer ($10-12). Alternative energy funding is a no-brainer. Stricter EPA guidelines. Stream-lined education policies. These are all common sense initiatives that are now so highly politicized. That is criminally stupid to me. It will not change until people go fucking vote. A candidate is not supposed to be 100% effective, not 100% representing you and only you. There are 310 million Americans to represent.
Come on dude. I'm still trying to decide what I think about her character and all, but in what world does being Secretary of State, a senator, first lady, a chair/boardmember/official of various organizations, partner at a law firm, and founder of a nonprofit equal "no leadership experience."
Yeah, and I voted for him anyway. I'll take the guy who might get a little good done over some captain McClusterfuck like Ted Cruz who would probably get much more of his desired legislation enacted. That being said it probably would have helped his campaign if he had shown a willingness to bend and make concessions. Nobody gets everything they want in this country and however little you dislike the other side their opinions still matter. Considering the struggles Obama had where it was practically at the point if he said the sky was blue they'd say it was gray, a Sanders presidency would have been divisive to say the least.
Having a guiding hand in the Syrian and Libyan wars and fighting against the Iran deal do not qualify as leadership experience. Those are the 3 most obvious things, but the list against Hillary is very long.
Oh hey! California is trying to make Obamacare available for illegal aliens. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...ard-extending-obamacare-to-illegal-immigrants Trump will lose California in the general, but how many votes are they gaining for him everywhere else in the country?
I know this story is getting a little old, but since people are still talking about it - Should parents leash their toddlers? This journalist should win an award for stupidest article title ever. Granted, she's at least not advocating people treating their children like dogs, but it's amazing she approaches the subject seriously at all. The reason I'm drawing attention to the article though is it is very typical of the current narrative surrounding the story. Firstly, a stupid animal dying isn't a tragedy. Yes, I know gorillas are smart as far as animals go, but a lot of the critical thinking skills people apply to them is just glorified nonsense. Even for an endangered species, the loss of one isn't going to make or break the population. I don't care if what the kid did was stupid. He's 3 years old. What the fuck is wrong with people? What kind of psycho wants the zoo to dig around for a tranquilizer gun while that kid could have been killed at any second? Even if the tranquilizer gun is sitting right there, they have to use real bullets if they're just as readily available. Make sure that fucker goes down, as in immediately. Not in a few seconds as he starts to get woozy. And I don't know shit about tranquilizer guns, but don't those usually hold only one shot? Yeah, have him sit there and reload over and over while the gorilla makes the kid into mince meat pie. Real smart. Again, what the fuck is wrong with people? The mother just got the scare of her life, and I have never once met a family that didn't have a story about their toddler managing to slip off once or twice and do something stupid/dangerous. Just fucking sad. This actually passes for discourse these days. Strapping a kid in a stroller or car seat is one thing. Keeping them on a leash whenever you go out into public is child abuse. Yes, the zoo could make it safer because kids are really clueless. That's about the only thing that's been a reasonable argument in the many, many bad ideas people have discussed since this story broke. She has leadership experience. She's just proved herself to be a terrible leader. That's what boggles my mind about the whole look at how experienced she is argument. If I'm batting .025 in the MLB and I get cut, should another team pick me up because I'm experienced?
Hillary already made a pretty scathing speech against Trump last week. The thing of note, however, is exactly what I and a few other people spoke about over a month ago. When he starts getting attacks, he would dodge them like a child would. Which is exactly what he did. Hillary's criticisms were pretty much spot on, nothing new, nothing we haven't spoke about here. But Trump's reply was, no shit, "She doesn't sound presidential." Via Tweet. He completely dismissed everything with the political equivalent of "NUH UH, YOU." These debates are going to be painful. There is a segment of supporters and media who will not demand that a presidential nominee actually answer to criticisms. That is, if he even shows up to the debates. Oh, just for funsies, Texas Rep. Filemon Vela wrote a great "Fuck Trump" piece.