***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Jon Oliver just destroyed Johnson and Stein.

 

[teamjordan79]

A REMINDER:

trump supports legal weed/state choice
hillary hasn't received her directive yet but it seems like she's status quo

 

[leavemeglazzies]

A REMINDER:

Drumpf has zero experience in politics and is a racist bigot with plenty of evidence to back this up.

 

[gry60]

So you want a spokesperson that is tell you want you want to hear?

Gimmie a break

Spokesperson =/= politician

Please inform what it is that politicians do that are running for office ? I think they make SPEECHES highlighting and discussing what separates them from their adversaries while detailing what they are going to do to make change and improve issues in whatever said town,city,district,country,etc. Your emotional and not making a whole lot of sense right now

The problem is that the entirety of this election has been dominated by a buffoon who can't let a day pass without saying something outrageous, and since our media is much more about ratings than facts, we have had nothing but him and his shenanigans on TV/radio/print. If you want to know about HRC stance on issues, you're gonna have to be active in looking for that info. It's not hidden (her website, speeches/speech excerpts on Youtube, interviews and articles with lesser traffic), but you won't get it by hoping that the MSM put it in front of you.

 

[teamjordan79]

zero experience in politics

in our pay-to-play political system, this is a plus

 

[Master Zik]

Both candidates are absolutely dreadful. Arguing who's better at this point is like choosing between cancer and aids. We're ****** regardless

Oh look.  This again.

Probably a Gary Johnson voter.  

we really ignoring da fact that Hillary is da 2ND unfavorable candidate ever behind Trump and da most Unfavorable Democratic Democratic candidate ever?

So if she totally dominates Donald Reagan style it'll be cool to do like you and say everybody loves her, everything she did was right, etc. right?

I don't know what reality you living in b. Are the Knicks 75 time NBA champions there?

This whole "were ******" either way mentality seems to be especially anti-reality/anti-facts.

Enlighten me why I'm wrong and should believe otherwise. I really would like to know.

Well I would have to know are you actually informed on all of the issues you are worried about? Are you informed on both candidates policies if elected and can explain how they're equally "absolutely dreadful" or how they're both equally a "serious disease"? Explain how we're ****** either way when dealing with the issues of today. Cuz I feel like I've entered the twilight zone when ppl say Donald as commander in chief is gonna have as ****** the same way Trillary as commander in chief.

How sway?

Like just cuz they haven't convinced you doesn't justify what you're saying unless you're admitting it's just hyperbole. Its one thing if you're not enthused for either but claiming they're both equally bad choices is bull **** and again is some non reality indulgence. Cuz for the sake of an exams in given the choice between being pissed on or force fed **** I know which one I'd choose and there's no way you could convince me they're equally dreadful.

Specifically though, I just don't see how Trillary is anywhere in the ballpark of horribleness as Donald Trump. Like she might be a lesser choice amongst legit presidential candidates to you but in comparison to Donald? I mean how did you feel about Gore vs. Bush then?

This country has so many issues and real things that need to be addressed/improved and neither candidates are presenting realistic solutions to those issues at hand.

Which issues are those?

At the end of the day Trump is who he is as a person (awful) and a total neophyte at being a politician. Hill has 30+ years in this field and STILL can't separate herself from Trump on a level where someone who has no dog in the fight can look at her as a viable option.

This reads like some bull ****. You're saying because you and ppl like you can't see the difference in electing Donald over Hillary isn't any different than the reverse is her fault?

There's a saying; you can't fix stupid. Its why I'm saying you must live in some other reality. Doesn't seem to me that you're Tami g this as seriously as you should.

But to that lastine, you really believe ppl who have no dog in this fight can't see that Trillary is the superior candidate? Who are these ppl?

She is literally one of the worst democratic elects in the history of this country.

While it's your opinion and there are the unfavorable polls it doesn't really matter.

Donald shouldn't even be in the same stratosphere as her

He isn't though.

If the Republican party had nominated a cat with AIDs as their presidential candidate. It's still have to campaign, and part take in debates. Wouldn't suddenly mean the cat with AIDs suddenly was on the same level as it's human opponent.

It would just mean many ppl were fooled and/or dumb enough and/or didn't give a **** anymore that they just went with w/e wasn't the usual expected candidate/liked the bull **** being sold by the non-politician.

Dudes like you gonna be realizing how wrong you are come election night with this in the same level, equally dreadful nonsense. None of that is rooted in reality or based in facts.

Talkin bout you haven't been convinced to giver her ya vote. Biggs you don't need to be convinced. Its Donald Trump that's running against her b. If she wasn't the Democratic candidate I'd vote for Bernie over Donald. If it wasn't Bernie I'd vote for Lincoln ******* Charge over Donald Trump.

**** is wrong with you? Good thing you in NYC though. Trillary won't need your vote but I hope you wise up to the other elections on a state and local level.

One of the problems associated with decades of conservative talk radio is what I call the "Cincinatus Complex." Republicans are always waiting for a hero who will come in and save everything.

America has many problems but it is not in need of a savior. Furthermore, our system of government is not based on lone individuals acting as saviors.

Democrats do not jump from the messianic to the apocalyptic. We understand that we are part of a broad coalition and we will solve our problems by consistently creating majorities for our coalition. Therefore, Hillary Clinton need not be a savior to earn the progressive vote. She is the the top line name that is part of massive electoral effort that is taking place at the Federal, State and local level.

So let the wikileaks keep on leaking. Progressive will vote for Clinton and the rest of the Democratic ticket and we will be able to proceed with the knowledge that we have to organize and pressure those Democrats.

For Progressives, we know that there is much work to be done after this election. It is not as exciting as making a businessman into a savior-Dictator but then again we live in the real world and not the simplistic world of conservative talk radio.

QFE QFT

 

[AZwildcats]

zero experience in politics

in our pay-to-play political system, this is a plus

Word? Putting a billionaire in a pay -to-play system is a plus? For who?

 

[Master Zik]

zero experience in politics

in our pay-to-play political system, this is a plus

If it's a pay to play political system and he has zero experience with that (which is a lie if we're specifically talking about pay to play) how is it a plus?

 

[leavemeglazzies]

in our pay-to-play political system, this is a plus

Nope, it's actually a huge minus to elect someone who is a corrupt scumbag to begin with, someone who doesn't even pay his taxes and runs "University" scam programs into a position/job that is known to produce the most corrupt people in the world, even out of people who were actually decent and honest people before they became politicians. Let alone elect him for the most powerful position of this kind that exists.

 

[teamjordan79]

zero experience in politics

in our pay-to-play political system, this is a plus

If it's a pay to play political system and he has zero experience with that (which is a lie if we're specifically talking about pay to play) how is it a plus?

Means he has less political 'commitments' / might actually rep public interests

 

[AZwildcats]

zero experience in politics

in our pay-to-play political system, this is a plus

If it's a pay to play political system and he has zero experience with that (which is a lie if we're specifically talking about pay to play) how is it a plus?

Means he has less political 'commitments' / might actually rep public interests

You really think Trump has less political commitments when he is being funded by Peter Thiel and Robert Mercer? Rep public interests

 

[cashbanks]

Means he has less political 'commitments' / might actually rep public interests

You mean rich white male interests?

 

[gry60]

zero experience in politics

in our pay-to-play political system, this is a plus

If it's a pay to play political system and he has zero experience with that (which is a lie if we're specifically talking about pay to play) how is it a plus?

Means he has less political 'commitments' / might actually rep public interests

The only interest Trump has in the public is when it's time to fleece it.

He may not have political experience, but there is abso-*******-lutely nothing that man has done without putting himself before anyone else.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/articl...money-to-and-what-it-says-about-his-candidacy

As recently as last year Donald Trump declared himself an "ardent philanthropist." When he announced his candidacy for president in June, he released a financial statement that noted he has given away more than $102 million worth of land over the past five years to organizations that promote public open space.

The lofty figure, however, comes with an important qualifier he didn't mention: Mr. Trump has given away properties only after his efforts to develop at least some of them failed.

The rest of the article shines some light on the possible motivation behind some of his policy proposals (namely, massive tax cuts for the 1%)

A similar thing happened closer to home last decade. Back in 2006, Mr. Trump donated to the state a plot of land about 50 miles north of Manhattan after he dropped efforts to build a golf course in the face of environmental restrictions and permitting requirements.

Altruism isn't what's on display up there. What he does is donate the land to reduce his tax obligations, and you bet he won't change just because he suddenly finds himself in the White House. He's not in it for the American people.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

For the life of me I can't figure why people think Trump is going to have altruistic intentions if he wins.

 

[rillo561]

For the life of me I can't figure why people think Trump is going to have altruistic intentions if he wins.

A friend a mine who is a Trump supporters says "he's already rich, he doesn't need to the money".

 

[teamjordan79]

For the life of me I can't figure why people think Trump is going to have altruistic intentions if he wins.

I want my hope and change already

 

[Belgium]

I want to hear my presidential elect sincerely speak about the social injustices of people in impoverished communities. I want to hear about what's gonna be done about corporations like ALEC and CCA. I want to hear about why minorities continue to struggle to make a dent in government and city jobs, our deplorable public school system, healthcare, realistic efforts to improve relations with law enforcement, stopping police brutality, etc. I want to hear this dialogue spoken about passionately and hear about how we can start the creation of systems to change these things. This is all I'm asking for

I think aside from Ninja that's what people here would like to hear as well but that's not how reality works.

The Trump and Hillary both being equally terrible analogy is a false equivalency.

Note that I personally don't like Hillary and wanted Bernie instead, but it is what it is.

Yes they both share the highest and second highest unfavorability ratings but that doesn't mean they're equal.

Hillary's policies are more reasonable and realistic. She has talked about the corrupt police system and systemic racism. Whether that's genuine or not is a different debate but at least the issue has been talked about. Can't say the same for Trump.

The most important thing that comes with a Hillary presidency is the supreme court. A liberal majority supreme court isn't gonna magically fix everything, but it sure has a much better chance of improving discriminatory practices than a Trump supreme court pick.

Trump's can't even coherently explain any of his policies. I don't think he even grasps half of the rambling that comes out of his mouth.

Many economists, even foreign government economists, have spoken out against his economic policy. I think it was a week or 2 ago that Germany's ministry of economics condemned his economic policies and stated it was a recipe for economic disaster. Several other European parliaments, Belgium included, have already extensively debated how to deal with the possibility of a Trump presidency and potential economic fallout.

Trump has stated he will enact the First Amendment Defense Act, a religious freedom law that would legalize business discrimination against the LGBT community under the guise of religious beliefs. He has surrounded himself with notorious anti-LGBT advisors such as Rick Santorum and Mike Pence. He has also stated his supreme court pick will be a strong conservative, much like Scalia. While you can't be sure Hillary's supreme court will fix all the issues you want, you can be 100% certain that Trump's supreme court will not.

A few months back, Trump claimed he'd "champion gay rights". Well here he is now pandering to the biblethumpers and vowing to pass a law that would lead to nationwide discrimination against the LGBT community. So that's at least one major community he will oppress as POTUS.

The GOP is also guilty of targeting black voters and disenfranchising them. Take a look at North Carolina's voter ID law. A top republican consultant/strategist even admitted that they specifically targeteted black people. Before enacting the law, NC's government collected data on African-American voting patterns in the state.

Trump has stated he is in favor of voter ID laws. The odds of a Trump supreme court doing something about this is just about 0%

Wisconsin is doing the same thing. Enacting a Voter ID law and then making it much harder to acquire a photo ID.

Guess who's the main victim of this voter disenfranchising? You guessed it, African-Americans.

A black voter registration office in Indiana has been raided by state police earlier this week, confiscating 58000 registration applications from African-Americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/

A vote for Trump is a vote for the GOP and this is what they do. Not once have they issued an apology for blatant voter disenfranchising. In fact, here's what a NC republican strategist had to say about NC's discriminatory voter ID law.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12774066/voter-id-laws-racist

 
Longtime Republican consultant Carter Wrenn, a fixture in North Carolina politics, said the GOP’s voter fraud argument is nothing more than an excuse.

“Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

“Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”

And here is da Donald advocating for voter ID laws at a rally in NC after their discriminatory voter ID law had been struck down by the courts.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-voter-id-law-fraud-226832

 
“Voter ID. What’s with that? What’s with voter ID? Why aren’t we having voter ID. In other words, ‘I want to vote, here’s my identification. I want to vote,’” Trump said. “As opposed to somebody coming up and voting 15 times for Hillary. And I will not tell you to vote 15 times. I will not tell you to do that. You won’t vote 15 times, but people will. They’ll vote many times, and how that could have happened is unbelievable.”

Trump said the removal of the voter ID law would lead to widespread voter fraud that will favor Democrat Hillary Clinton.

In regards to police brutality, Trump has said he will be president of "law and order"

He has stated he would opt for nationwide stop and frisk in black neighborhoods to combat violent crime. After instant outrage, he walked back his comments and said "only for Chicago", not knowing stop and frisk is already in place there.

He has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order Of Police.

He has been silent in these police brutality cases. In response to the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile and his VP Mike Pence have said "we need to stop talking about race in these situations"

I've watched many of his speeches, and he has barely uttered a word about police brutality and the lack of accountability. Instead, he opted for more police  in the neighborhoods.

"The problem is there is not enough police"

"Those peddling the narrative of cops as a racist force in our society, share directly in the responsibility of the unrest in Milwaukee and many other places within our country. They have fostered the dangerous anti-police atmosphere throughout America. Every time they rush to judgement with false facts, whether in Ferguson or Baltimore, they ferment more unrest"

You can look at his Law And Order speech and see for yourself how this man feels about police brutality.



Vote for whoever you want, or don't vote at all, but please take your time to compare the positives and negatives for each candidate before making the false equivalency that they are equally bad. Is Hillary ideal? No, far from it. But she sure is a whole lot better than Trump.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

For the life of me I can't figure why people think Trump is going to have altruistic intentions if he wins.

Blows my mind.

 

[whywesteppin]

One of the problems associated with decades of conservative talk radio is what I call the "Cincinatus Complex." Republicans are always waiting for a hero who will come in and save everything.

America has many problems but it is not in need of a savior. Furthermore, our system of government is not based on lone individuals acting as saviors.

Democrats do not jump from the messianic to the apocalyptic. We understand that we are part of a broad coalition and we will solve our problems by consistently creating majorities for our coalition. Therefore, Hillary Clinton need not be a savior to earn the progressive vote. She is the the top line name that is part of massive electoral effort that is taking place at the Federal, State and local level.

So let the wikileaks keep on leaking. Progressive will vote for Clinton and the rest of the Democratic ticket and we will be able to proceed with the knowledge that we have to organize and pressure those Democrats.

For Progressives, we know that there is much work to be done after this election. It is not as exciting as making a businessman into a savior-Dictator but then again we live in the real world and not the simplistic world of conservative talk radio.

quoting this in case anyone missed it.

i love the apocalypse-Messiah phrase.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

The "bigly" slide continues. Updated forecast apprs 35-40 mins ago.

Senate forecast.

Updated swing state forecast.

- North Carolina (15 electoral votes) - 71.2% Clinton.
- Nevada (6 electoral votes) - 75.6% Clinton.
- Florida (29 electoral votes) - 75.7% Clinton.
- Iowa (6 electoral votes) - 63.4% Clinton
- Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) - 89.4% Clinton.
- Ohio (18 electoral votes) - 66.2% Clinton.
- Colorado (9 electoral votes) - 87.7% Clinton.
- Wisconsin - (10 electoral votes) 89.9% Clinton
- Michigan (16 electoral votes) - 93.1% Clinton.
- New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) - 84.9% Clinton.
- Virginia (13 electoral votes) - 93.1% Clinton.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Screen shot of foxnews' forecast as of this morning for good measure...

 

[jordman23]

Can't wait for Wednesday's final debate.

November 8th can't come soon enough, so we don't have to hear from these Trump supporters anymore.

 

[teamjordan79]

One of the problems associated with decades of conservative talk radio is what I call the "Cincinatus Complex." Republicans are always waiting for a hero who will come in and save everything.

America has many problems but it is not in need of a savior. Furthermore, our system of government is not based on lone individuals acting as saviors.

Democrats do not jump from the messianic to the apocalyptic. We understand that we are part of a broad coalition and we will solve our problems by consistently creating majorities for our coalition. Therefore, Hillary Clinton need not be a savior to earn the progressive vote. She is the the top line name that is part of massive electoral effort that is taking place at the Federal, State and local level.

So let the wikileaks keep on leaking. Progressive will vote for Clinton and the rest of the Democratic ticket and we will be able to proceed with the knowledge that we have to organize and pressure those Democrats.

For Progressives, we know that there is much work to be done after this election. It is not as exciting as making a businessman into a savior-Dictator but then again we live in the real world and not the simplistic world of conservative talk radio.

quoting this in case anyone missed it.

i love the apocalypse-Messiah phrase.

Obama was a republican?

 

[dathbgboy]

I think the Dems are gon crush this election year on the national side. Might be a split at the state levels