Politics The 2016 US Presidential Election

This is promising.

Dem Senate Takeover Probable, if Cruz or Trump Nominee

 

And it might be nice if the Democrats even wanted to win the senate. I'm not sure who they have working at the DNC, but it is pathetic how they run campaigns for non-Presidential races (and even the current Presidential primary is pretty bad). I think there are two people running in the Democratic primary for the senate seat in Ohio. One is the former governor, but I haven't seen any official TV ads, e-mails, debates, town halls, speeches, or anything. And the other guy just has one 30-second TV commercial. Nothing about what the current senator has voted on, what they stand on the issues, and what it means for getting bigger things accomplished, or how it would affect my life.

 

They have to start voting in general primary elections too.

But they don't have a plan and they don't put little things on the ballot to try and get them closer to their goals.

 

It certainly looks as though we're going to end up with Clinton & Trump. I've never campaigned for a candidate, but might change my mind and work for the Clinton campaign if Trump ends up as the Republican candidate. I'm not a Clinton fanboy, but I seriously don't want that idiot Trump as POTUS.

Trump has flip-flopped so often and said so many stupid things a negative campaign against him should be easy. The downside of a negative campaign is people might react to it......negatively.

 

Yeah. I still have hope for Bernie, but I am resolved to support Hillary if she becomes the nominee, despite my dislike of her. Whether the GOP runs Trump or runs Cruz, it's still a case of needing to vote for anyone even remotely sane in order to keep the demented sociopath out of power.

 

Clinton is a demented sociopath, the only difference between her and trump is she gets away with it because vagina. Between the two of them I'd rather have the demented corrupt sociopath that everyone is going to watch like a hawk than the demented corrupt sociopath that nobody can criticise without being accused of misogyny.

 

Substitute black skin for vagina and racism for misogyny and see if your arguments still stand up.

 

Obama wasn't standing side by side with whacko jacko during the First Videogame Panic of the 90s-early 2000s and didn't use the exact same "everyone not voting for me is a racist that hates black people" strategy two failed elections in a row (Obama Boys -> Bernie Bros).

 

I would think that Hillary, because she would be the first female POTUS, would be scrutinized, and criticized, as much as Toupee would be.

I'm not sure that Hillary is quite the "demented sociopath" that Toupee is. A career politician with a strong interest in developing her "legacy," yes.

 

If Pantsuit were a man like Youtube Comment she'd easily be seen as being just as corrupt, self-serving, and sociopathic as he is. She's shielded by the Women Are Wonderful effect and the fact that she's following the current femsploitation/brownsploitation zeitgeist instead of opposing it.

 

How many women have had positions of power? Your statements are hollow and at the same level as white privilege screaming about a black president. Hillary gets more scrutiny because everything is colored and judged by her being a woman. But you have this huge chip on your shoulder.

 

You're attacking my identity, I'm attacking her actions and track record. See the difference there? The idea that Hillary gets more scrutiny because she's a woman is as horseshit as the narrative that women are "oppressed" in higher education when they are in fact nearly 2/3rds of graduates. It's a Big Lie that's repeated endlessly to cover up the fact that she's getting away with more for being a woman because she can slap down any critics or opposition as misogynists. She tried it with the Obama Boys media narrative, she's trying it again with the Bernie Bros media narrative.

Spending several years being grilled for hours every single day for something, anything, that could be used to lock me up purely because I played videogames did indeed leave a pretty big chip on my shoulder just like getting called before the HUAC left a chip on a lot of people's shoulders against McCarthy.

 

You're funny. Calling hillary pantsuit is attacking her identity. Women now are earning more degrees, more liberal arts degrees. But not when hillary was going through school 45 years ago.
And I'm not buying unto your oppressed fantasy about being grilled for playing video games. I have been playing video games for a lot longer than you. But maybe you did something else than play video games. Your being grilled for hours a day for several years is definitely pure lala land. But based on many posts here you have a serious persecution complex.

 

That's not a leap, it's a trip to another planet.

Your issues with women are well documented in your posts here.

Edit--Plus one for the persecution complex.

 

First off "liberal arts" actually includes science and mathematics, which is doubly ironic since women are dominating or at minimum holding parity in ALL of higher education except the tiny 10% of conferred degrees in computer science. That tends to happen when you're nearly 2/3rds of college graduates.

Secondly: "Toupee". Take it up with Noyb.

Riiight, I suppose I was never sexually assaulted or beaten either. Guess my whole childhood was just a "persecution complex", you guys are really taking the whole "only women are allowed to suffer" thing to whole new levels.

Clinton was at the forefront of the videogame violence panic, she was screaming FUD from the rooftops with whacko jacko about how every gamer was a ticking time bomb, the next columbine shooter.

I love how you all have taken bait and switch to an art form. Somehow the feminists I criticise are simultaneously both an infinitesimally small non-representative minority that isn't even real (except when they are) AND every woman everywhere in the entire world. It's astounding how you can simultaneously hold the idea of these people being no one and yet them also being everyone in your head at the same time.

And have the balls for accusing me of a persecution complex while cheerleading a cult that thinks it's worth spending tens of thousands of dollars on how people sit in the subway and calls in enough bomb threats to force an evacuation whenever someone tries to criticise them.

All of which is not even getting into how somehow you've managed to twist criticising an ideology, a violent toxic cult that's devolved to the point that physical violence and forced evacuations are now routinely expected from them, into "issues with women". Which simply goes beyond intellectual cowardice and into flat out plain old lying and making shit up on the level of accusing me of being a witch or communist.

Then again that's basically feminism 101. First step to everything: Accuse someone of hating women and just let the angry mob that shows up do all your work for you.

 

I am in no way, shape, or form a fan of HRC. I think she is a corporate tool and the pawn of the plutocracy, interested in furthering her own interests and power and the expense of legitimate progressive political agenda items.

However, I think it is utterly meritless to suggest that she is anywhere akin to the level of crazy of either the guy who talks about banning all Muslims from entering the US, or building a wall on our border at Mexico's expense, or praises the leadership example of Vladimir Putin, or who refuses to reject support from the KKK (of which his father was apparently either a member or an associate) or from one of the most significant Neo-Nazi leaders in the US. I'm not even sure she rises to the level of crazy of the fundamentalist zealot guy who shut down the Federal government because he doesn't like the President, and who refuses to reject the support of an influential fanatical preacher who thinks Hitler was God's punishment to the Jews for not accepting Jesus.

If I end up having to vote for HRC, it will be crystal clear that I do so because she is the lesser of two evils. That doesn't make her not evil. Just makes her lesser. And her evil is not different in any regard from most of the evil of politicians in American government.

Trump is something else, beyond all pales of moral and ethical acceptability. Cruz isn't far behind.

They are not the same as the usual American politician evil.

It may occasionally be true that HRC is given slack because she's a woman. But I think the vast majority of the time, that is not the case. And in American political discourse right now, there is far too much baseless misogyny mixed into the legitimate and real criticisms of her history and policies. It's not merely that misogyny is ugly and wrong, no matter the character of the woman at which it is being directed; it's also that the misogyny is unnecessary: her policies and history are so full of material to criticize and hold objectionable, it is petty and unworthy to attack her merely as a woman.

 

I totally stand my comment: Your problems with women are well documented here.

As with most complicated issues, there are aspects of feminism I support, and there are times when I say "Quit making a mountain out of a molehill."

As others and myself have posted (I didn't write it as well Levite did), I'm not a Clinton fanboy. She gets my support as the lessor of the evils.

And Trump's toupee, perhaps bad hair implants, does look ridiculous.

 

I would consider voting for Trump in the primaries only because he polls the poorest against either Democrat. I would vote for either Sanders or Clinton in the general election because the majority of policies they currently hold are informed by objectively rational and empiricist judgment, while the majority of Trump's policies are irrational and anti-science. As recently as last night's CNN debate, Trump has continued to defend his commitment to murdering the families of terrorism suspects, a crime against humanity that he intends to commit after "expanding our laws" to allow it. Rubio and Cruz both had the sense to condemn this in response. In a debate back in September, Trump expressed support for the lie that vaccines cause autism, and he opposes mandatory vaccination, which Rubio and Cruz support. However, all three have been deceived by global warming denialism and do not support increased environmental regulation. Naturally, neither of Democratic candidates fall for any of this, though Sanders supports a few anti-science environmental policies, namely his opposition towards nuclear energy and his support for labeling GMO foods.