Essentially, the don't want any government they don't like. When you try to pin them down (just watch interviews with Gary Johnson) on what they would cut, they never seem to get specific. He talks about cutting the defense budget 20%. How? Not sure, other than we'll close all these bases in Nato countries. By the way, you know who were Libertarians? The Koch brothers. In fact, David was the VP candidate on their 1980 ticket, and funded the campaign. They decided in the 80's to aggressively fund Republicans because they weren't getting anywhere. They have some nice rhetoric, but when it comes to the nuts and bolts, they're the hipsters of the American political system. Think 'I'm not religious, I'm spiritual' and you pretty much have it.
This is the most depressing election cycle I've ever experienced. No matter who you choose we're fucked. It just depends on how much. I feel like Joshua at the end of Wargames: The only winning move is not to play.
Sad but true. Im glad I dont have cable tv any more. Im ready for the UFO's to land and say this was all just a Monsters are Due On Maple Street test.
It's not paid to her, just her foundation. Ok. It's not specific evidence. Except specific evidence she voted for a bill that violates the constitution. Ok. I can't even tell if this one is serious. I guess it's unproven that donations have shaped her policy too. I'm not a Republican either and this isn't about Trump. As for the bold part, did you think it was about that? From earlier in the thread: Yeah it's fine. Telling the media what to write to rig an election. Shaping policy around money from foreigners and banking institutions. Health care and bankruptcy laws shaped by campaign donations. Maybe I'm just a misogynist. No lack of integrity here. As I said, I get despising Trump so much you want to vote for Hillary out of spite. But believing what you just wrote is like being a big dumb dog, and I just can't do it. Your post is so typical of how she's responded to the criticism of her scandals. It's the misogyny. It's the dirty Republicans. Blah blah blah, what a load of bullshit. She's a liar, and in the cases I can't prove she's lying, the circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming you'd have to be insane to believe her. I didn't mention her e-mail scandal in the earlier post, but yeah she deleted the 30,000 e-mails to get rid of evidence that might incriminate her, not because they were 'private' as she claimed. That too, is painfully fucking obvious.
Again, you're not understanding the difference between proof and supposition. Does a lot of the things she's done look bad? Yes. Has anyone ever proven it? And again, my post was geared towards your contention that Hillary has violated the Constitution and didn't care about it. Is it true? I don't know. But you certainly haven't proved anything. Look at the statements you quoted: everything is 'so and so said' or 'it was believed that' or 'it was widely known that...' Whenever I hear phrases like that, it's a red flag. Trump is huge on doing this. And those types of statements are not proof for a reason. For instance, let me make my point this way: 'It is widely known by the board that Kampf beats puppies.' "It is believed that Kampf pushes points of view because he is paid to do so.' "It is known that Kampf has undergone gender reassignment surgery.' So under your argument, now it's incumbent upon you to disprove these allegations that 'are widely known.' This is not how proof works. The fact that you can't connect the dots (and this isn't a slam on you personally) on a public figure that has been investigated up the wazoo is a pretty good indication that there isn't any. We would have seen it. Do I think Hillary is a political operator? Sure, just like McConnell and Ryan and many, many others. But until I see some actual proof, I'm not going to let statements like 'Hillary hates the Constitution' pass with no comment. If Americans want a better political system and better operators, then we need to stop accepting sound bites as fact and get to the actual factual basis of how our system operates. Our system is very corrupt, all around. So if you're going to damn Hillary, then be consistent and damn everyone else right along with her. Republican and Democrat. Our inability to sift fact from fiction is a big part of the problem, and why I'd like to see a decent media outlet and good reporting.
I agree with you in principle. There's dozens upon dozens of trumped up accusations, and pointless investigative reporting that amounts to nothing. And yes, almost every politician has done what Hillary has, she's just done it a lot more, and has been front and center enough over the last 16 years that's it's become flagrant and obvious. As far as not proving, (and regarding donations to the Clinton foundation, the 4th amendment, the e-mail deletion and a few other things I would count as proof) to me it would be like saying Jeff Skilling wasn't proven to be involved in the Enron scandal if there wasn't clearly documented evidence. You're talking as if it's just people speculating, but it goes well beyond that. At the least, it's well beyond trust. And yes, for the most part I hate the entire establishment. Hillary is just the biggest pinata.
I don't honestly think the US is comfortable with the idea of jumping from one minority to another in terms of leadership. I just don't think the country is progressive enough. Old White Man President is comfortable. Black Man President put a bunch of people on edge and White Woman President is causing a bunch of "oh helllll no" reactions. I realize there are other reasons people have for not voting for her, but in my heart of hearts, I think the majority of the backlash stems from the fact that she's female.
What makes you think that? 8 years ago we werent progressive enough to elect a black man. 4 years ago we werent progressive enough to reelect him. Now were not progressive enough to elect a woman, apparently? There's isnt a basis for that other than a sense elitism that Canadians like to assume as if they were pantomiming Europe.
You may be right, but I think that backlash group is pretty small. The ones who are assumed to be so narrow-minded that they can't accept a female president, are the same group that got excited after McCain added Sarah Palin to his ticket. It's fascinating. Not in a good way. Both the major choices are terrible. But, I am curious if that will actually make more people stay home (not to play, as you say), or make more people vote - to make sure the other idiot doesn't win.
Don't get your knickers in a twist. Look, Canada's only female prime minister was in power for half the length of a standard pregnancy. Before her? White dudes. Since her? White dudes. Perhaps I misspoke - I don't think it's a uniquely American discomfort with the idea of a female president. I've just heard a fair share of "Never Hillary" chatter which has a decidedly "Not A Her" tone to it. I can't put my finger on it specifically. It's the emphasis put on "She" or "Her" when people talk about Clinton. "I'd never vote Trump" vs "I'd never vote for HER".
Look, I hear you Kampf. There has always been this cloud surrounding Hillary. And let me make it clear: I'm not a fan (based on her policies). But I am adamant that we will never get people of quality to run for political office as long as we keep pounding people that run. There's a reason we always have shitty choices, and it comes down to this: We expect moral perfection from our leaders. Instead of teaching civics, so people could understand how our government works, we report on it like it's a horse race. Anyone that has any ability, but perhaps has a skeleton in their closet (re: everyone) doesn't run because who needs that shit? When people talk about the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves, I politely remind them of how flawed as human beings many of them were. No doubt they were men of vision, but often with that vision comes flaws. Until we grow up as an electorate, we will continue to get the bland any way the wind blows candidates. We don't get the President we need, but we certainly get the one we deserve.
Not to be pedantic, but this is a point that drives me crazy. "Canada has had a female PM!" Technically, yes. We had a female Prime Minister because Mulroney's government toppled after too many years of being in power, and between the time he resigned and the time that an election was called and the party booted, she was the deputy who inherited the seat. So we had a female Prime Minister from June to November of 1993. Almost five whole months. Personally, I could care less. The people posting tweets and articles claiming they had tears in their eyes that a female candidate had been named for a major party are, in my eyes, nuts. Or they care way too much about gender. Put the best person forward - regardless or race, religion or gender - and let them run it. Sadly, the best candidate was not put forward by EITHER party and the US is stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils.
I Is that any different than "I'm with HER."? You act like there's a segment of the population that isn't voting for her simply because she's a woman.
Agreed. I really wish we embraced actual diversity. To me, race, gender, orientation differences aren't really diversity. For the lawyers on the board, remember when Renquist, Scalia and Thomas all voted the same way all the time? On the surface, they were 'diverse,' but where it matters, i.e. viewpoint, they were identical. This is another area that America needs to grow up in. We need to get the best people in positions of power. I don't care if it's all black, asian, gay, straight, female, whatever. Show me someone, anyone, with some vision and ability and I'm on board.
Fair point. Maybe that's what bothers me. It's almost like the gender thing is her novelty factor. I guess it happened in 2008 and 2012 too, but it didn't strike as much of a chord with me because I wasn't part of that novelty group.
Thats how I feel about it as well. Anyone that votes for her because shes a woman is just as much an idiot as someone who doesnt. The Obama thing was a little different. I dont agree with voting for the guy just because hes black, but I get the symbolism behind doing so. And they could have picked a way worse representative to carry that torch, like Jesse Jackson in 1984. But the whole "woman vote" thing is silly. 51% of the US population is women, thats the definition of a majority. So to treat them like some homogeneous voting minority group doesnt make sense.
That reminds me of an interview I saw with a voter during the 2008 Dem primaries. She was a black woman and when asked who she's going to vote for responded..."I'm torn. As a woman, I feel I should vote for Hillary, but as an African American I feel I should vote for Obama." That's how some people make their choice for the highest office in the world, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were in the majority.
In a purely symbolic sense that is being pushed takes real cues from history. Woman have been traditionally been left out of the political system as well as positions of power culturally. Same as African Americans were, not seeing a huge difference? Still don't think anyone should vote for her without taking into account the content of her character.
This is definitely what needs to happen, but it won't ever happen. The reason why is that the job doesn't pay enough. The smartest people in the room who have the vision you seek are currently running businesses/non-profits/etc. They make far more money, and I would argue have just as much power or the ability to direct policy as the president or any politician. If I'm a CEO why would I take a huge pay cut, get constantly shredded by the media, and not accomplish much because the house is dead set against anything I propose. When instead I could stay out of the limelight, direct my money and influence through donations and other means to get the policies I want passed. Instead you end up with the left over rabble, who are basically deplorable human beings who just line up at the trough for feeding time. I'm a firm believer that if you want to attract the top talent you need to pay top dollar for it. Just being able to have your finger on the "Nuke Everything" button isn't enough anymore.
Unrelated to previous discussions: with all the hoopla surrounding Rio, the Olympics and the Zika virus I have a technical question. Infection during pregnancy can cause serious birth defects to the baby, including the small skulls that the media loves to show pictures of. The CDC is saying that once you are infected, you are immune to further infections. Does this mean that birth defects only occur if the virus is actively making you sick, or are infected women always going to risk birth defects in their future babies? Anyone know?