US Presidential Race

CBarca wrote:I mean, that's exactly why I want Bernie out of the race and have done for months.

That being said, from Bernie's POV I doubt he sees Hillary as that much better than Trump. Same thing with the Democratic party. With both, he's not really too far off. I disagree with him and I will vote for Hillary but I see what he's doing and why he's doing it.

He's been using the Democratic party this whole time anyway, when has he ever associated himself as a Democrat?

He probably doesnt see Hillary as much better. Sanders is such a narcissist that he has clearly made it known everybody not him, and his select circle of buddies, are all corrupt politicians bought by big corporation. He wants it all to burn.

Looking at him continue to attack the democratic party I bet he isn't even bothered by Trump winning either. It doesnt matter he will have his comfy government paycheck and pension, and his wife will have her hundreds of thousands from bankrupting burlington college so it doesnt matter.


Look at him smile. Yeah...Bernie is happy.

CBarca wrote:
As for you , Fennec, for someone who wants to talk about using your brain and conservatives being afraid to face things, you have such a blatantly one sided view of politics and very passionately so. This is fine, but I find it a bit hypocritical because I feel in the face of any real conservative viewpoint you would close your eyes and shut it down immediately without another thought

You talk of hoping that during the war and sepi open their mind , yet, you are just as close minded--only on the opposite side. Religion just s fairy in the sky? GTFO, you have no right to tell someone anything about their religion. Unless you yourself are god, you can't possibly know. This is coming from someone who is not religious.

Quite frankly your post is filled with so many generalizations  about conservatives and conservatism it makes you sound like a tea partier pre judging blacks.

Disgusting how polarized this country is on both sides.

What a 1Upper . Playing this "holier then thou" card even though you believe in largely the same things as me. Like there is absolutely no point in that post. But hey, you wanted to start something for no reason, I'll continue it. Just like you wanted to gain fat because you were skinny or whatever (lol), I'll rip you apart here.

CBarca wrote:As for you , Fennec, for someone who wants to talk about using your brain and conservatives being afraid to face things, you have such a blatantly one sided view of politics and very passionately so. This is fine, but I find it a bit hypocritical because I feel in the face of any real conservative viewpoint you would close your eyes and shut it down immediately without another thought.

Name me these "real" conservative view points. I'm waiting.



This is what gets me. Being liberal by definition is NOT being close minded. The whole point of conservatism is to be close minded and not accept change. Try again.

Yeah actually, religion is a fairy in the sky or some idiot who wrote a book. No, I don't have to respect religion. Religion has to earn my respect. If you believed that for example (just an example), Messi was a god, I would ridicule you and ask for proof. I don't care if you're not religious. Actually, it just shows that you're trying to play some kind of sad attempt at devils advocate. but sorry, you failed.

Yes, I can know. It's called science. Something conservatives like to think doesn't exist.

A generalization is not a generalization if its a fact. Conservatives in America have supported increased war mongering, fact. They have supported trickle down, which does not work, fact. They base their "morals" and values on religion, fact. I can go on and on.

Polarized on both sides? Yeah, let's compare the weed smoking hippy to the bible thumping idiot who supports assholes like trump. Really terrible libtards, I know.

Honestly what was the point of this       Looks like finals were getting to your head



Bernie wants it all to burn right. You do realize he has been shitting on trump in every other interview he's had. Also, in 08' she pushed Obama to the death, let's not act like this is something evil from Bernie. He shouldn't be doing it, but you push an incredible amount of bias towards Hillary.

It is true that definitionally liberalism is synonomous with open mindedness. (And believe it or not there is quite a lot of diversity of thought and schisms within conservatism)

But self-described liberals with liberally prescribed opinions are less capable of articulating what conservatives think than conservatives are at articulating what liberals think.

https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/

It obviously contradicts, and I would go so far as to say invalidate, liberalism as a genuine movement that's true to its principles, when close minded conservatives display more ideological exploration.

I mean if a person thinks conservatism is full of shit and stupid, and evil, and they didn't understand it what would that say about them? If they did understand it maybe they would be able to prevent getting taken for a ride by orange coloured billionaire nationalists who operate on the outer fringes of conservatism. And if they don't understand it, shouldn't they as liberals aim to become more understanding and considerate, considering those principles are supposed to form the core of their existence, I.e. resolving conflict through understanding and shit. Believe it or not there are numerous conservative authors, philosophers, who if nothing else can at least describe to you what you hate actually means without getting too obscure or demanding, such as Roger Scruton, Getrude Himmelfarb, Russell kirk etc.

Footyfan where you at bruh?

Spoiler:

Congratulations to Hillary, she's made history.

Now many people will vote for her despite her...she better win against Trump.

What a terrible election

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23GirlIGuessImWithHer



America needs to abandon this 2 party bullshit. In a better world Trump would have 15% of the vote with his own right win populist party, Libertarians with 5%, Traditional Republicans would have 30%, Dems with 35% and Sanders Socialists with the remaining 15%. Then people would actually feel represented by the legislature and have options. It seems crazy to me that in a country so obsessed with having options everywhere from healthcare to TV screens America settles for 2. I think it's because they've never known any better.

I could fix America in 3 easy steps:

-Abandon electoral college, a vote should be the same everywhere, the Senate already ensures that smaller states get their voice heard.

-Put in place a preferential voting system like the one used in Australia and (soon) in Canada. Implement it for legislature, local, & presidential. This ensures that people are not trapped into picking a 2nd best option to keep someone else from winning.

-Campaign finance reform & ensure that small parties get appropriate funding and must be present at early stage debates

Ta da. America is now fixed. Pipe dream, I know.

Campaign finance reform will never happen, I've pretty much given up on it.

Without it nothing else can move forward in this country, the government will constantly be held at least partially (if not much more than that) in control by the corporate elite. At least we'll have Hillary to fix i---oh...

As for a proportional representation system, it's really interesting. I'm kind of curious as to whether gridlock would be even worse with it or not. One of the big positives of a two party system is its efficiency in passing through legislation. Even if you don't own congress and the white house, you should be able to get through with putting forth legislation, compromising to a more moderate legislation and getting it through. Obviously, the increasing polarization of the country has lead to this not actually happening.

So digusted by this country right now tbh, it really bothers me quite a bit, daily even.

"Polarization" like democrats and republicans should have equal blame. Yeah, I disagree. The GOP takes a huge chunk of the blame and a part of why Obama couldn't do more is down to them filibusting everything he tried or just rejecting it.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:https://twitter.com/search?q=%23GirlIGuessImWithHer



America needs to abandon this 2 party bullshit. In a better world Trump would have 15% of the vote with his own right win populist party, Libertarians with 5%, Traditional Republicans would have 30%, Dems with 35% and Sanders Socialists with the remaining 15%. Then people would actually feel represented by the legislature and have options. It seems crazy to me that in a country so obsessed with having options everywhere from healthcare to TV screens America settles for 2. I think it's because they've never known any better.

I could fix America in 3 easy steps:

-Abandon electoral college, a vote should be the same everywhere, the Senate already ensures that smaller states get their voice heard.

-Put in place a preferential voting system like the one used in Australia and (soon) in Canada. Implement it for legislature, local, & presidential. This ensures that people are not trapped into picking a 2nd best option to keep someone else from winning.

-Campaign finance reform & ensure that small parties get appropriate funding and must be present at early stage debates

Ta da. America is now fixed. Pipe dream, I know.

Thats a terrible idea TBH. Giving these people their own party leads to their views being legitimized, which they shouldn't be.

The two parties are there to protect us from extremist elements. A thing has to be normalized before it is accepted, and it is vetted as such. Trump's brand of populism, which is really only a new form of the tea party, will die as soon as Hillary crushes him the same way the tea party candidates were voted out en masse when their brand of populism died. Sanders brand of populism will die as soon as he falls in line within the next few days. The country will continue to move left with demographic changes.

Its not perfect, but it is a pretty effective way to handle things.

And who are you to decide what views are legitimate and not?

With the system I'm proposing Bush younger would have never been president btw.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims Google is involved in Hillary Clinton campaign.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/google-works-closely-with-hillary-clinton-to-promote-presidential-campaign-julian-assange-34780998.html

And here i thought House of Cards wasn't real.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:And who are you to decide what views are legitimate and not?

With the system I'm proposing Bush younger would have never been president btw.

The views are not legitimate when they are not based in the real world, and against principals this country is supposed to represent.

Anybody who votes for a guy who thinks, even in passing, that a person can't be n impartial judge just because they are of a certain heritage does not have a legitimate vote. They are bigots with a say in our process only due to the electoral college. Putting that person on the same foot as the rest of society lowers us to their level.

Funny enough, trump supporters will always find ways to defend him. "He's being taken out of context" "he's just honest"

Is it me or most of hilary's campaign seems to base on "I am a woman, vote for me"?

RealGunner wrote:Is it me or most of hilary's campaign seems to base on "I am a woman, vote for me"?

Thats part of how she's selling herself to younger voters. For the rest of us its more of a "If you like Obama, I will keep the same going".

Doubt she will. Doesn't have the balls

Betty La Fea wrote:The views are not legitimate when they are not based in the real world, and against principals this country is supposed to represent.

Anybody who votes for a guy who thinks, even in passing, that a person can't be n impartial judge just because they are of a certain heritage does not have a legitimate vote. They are bigots with a say in our process only due to the electoral college. Putting that person on the same foot as the rest of society lowers us to their level.

That's your own personal opinion though, the way a democracy works is that the people vote for whoever best represents them. If America votes for a bigot as their president, then that just means America has a ton of bigots.

RealGunner wrote:Is it me or most of hilary's campaign seems to base on "I am a woman, vote for me"?

Hillary has basically 3 arguments going for her:

I am a woman
I am not Donald Trump
I have experience

Only one of which she earned. Terrible candidate. (Would still vote for her tbh, even preferable to Bernie in most issues).

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:The views are not legitimate when they are not based in the real world, and against principals this country is supposed to represent.

Anybody who votes for a guy who thinks, even in passing, that a person can't be n impartial judge just because they are of a certain heritage does not have a legitimate vote. They are bigots with a say in our process only due to the electoral college. Putting that person on the same foot as the rest of society lowers us to their level.

That's your own personal opinion though, the way a democracy works is that the people vote for whoever best represents them. If America votes for a bigot as their president, then that just means America has a ton of bigots.

We are a republic, not a democracy though.

Our founding fathers were smart enough to create a system in which we are, in theory, smart enough to be protected from the tyranny of a majority. You let the average person vote directly for things and the default is less rights for the vulnerable of society.

Dis gon b gud

Hillary won the last primary in DC.

Apparently, Russian hackers hacked the DNC's database and stole their opposition research on Donald Trump. They leaked it online too.

Putin wants Trump to be president, doesn't he? He'd love for the US to have an utter moron in office, wouldn't he?

A Clinton presidency would be pretty bad for Russia tbh, can understand why they would prefer Trump to her.

Trump's "politics" is just a rehashing of nativism that appears in the US every once in a while. These ideas burn brightly but have little substance behind them and therefore die out very quickly, history has shown and repeated this.

"It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.

If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703724104575379200412040286

There it is folks, the secret (or at least one of them)of Trump's success. He's capitalised on resentment among republicans fermented by attacks on white Americans by a disgustingly unprincipled socially-leftist political-media class, originally to get their boy BHO into office, but which has now metastasised into widespread antagonism directed at white America.

Border control? Racist! Voter id? Racist! Welfare cuts? Racist! Tough on crime? Racist! Nuclear family? Racist! (And sexist! and homphobic!!) Islamic extremism? Racist! Shakespeare? Old dead racist! Founding fathers? Old dead racists! Etc...

Trump isn't doing himself any favors of that account by claiming that Muslim and Mexican judges can't do their job when it comes to him and refusing to disavow the KKK leader...