Tekomandor
Member
I guarantee that a similar leak from the Republican Party would be far, far worse.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DNC chair won't speak at Dem convention following Wikileaks fallout
- Thread starter Armadilo
- Start date
- Status
I guarantee that a similar leak from the Republican Party would be far, far worse.
Oh course but this email thing is a bullshit excuse to use to say you aren't sure who you are voting for. It's very clear where the two sides stand. These aren't two people who are alike. You either vote for the racist or the non racist. You either vote for the bigot or the non-bigot. You vote for the person that would destroy treaties and abandon our allies or the one that will not and will strength them. You vote for the one that will make decisions that benefit their own businesses or the one that won't do that. One knows how they're voting for. Don't be afraid to say it. There should be no deciding here.
The DNC? Which actually needs to work with Democrats and get down and dirty in the politics of running campaigns?
*LAUGH*
Uh... Yeah. I guess my joke was funny. Thanks for rudely explaining it? Chill out.
Im sorry, this election makes it hard to seperate the jokes from the people that seriously espouse those kind of ideas.
and there has been alot of it.
Imagine you work at a construction company of about 250 people. after 30 years, a vacancy in the ceo position opens up. Bob and Alice are the top two options to fill the vacancy. Bob has been a lower level manager and vice president for about 25 years of being employed with the company. Alice has been a manager at another construction firm for roughly the same amount of time - they're not really competitors, since the two firms typically colaborate on projects together and refer clients to each other. Alice joined your firm about a year ago after those 25-30 years with the other firm.
Don't you think most people in the company would probably lean towards Bob instead of Alice simply by virtue of being more closely associated with Bob over the last several decades? Some office gossip about whether Alice is really qualified compared to Bob might pop up?
Same principle.
Don't you think most people in the company would probably lean towards Bob instead of Alice simply by virtue of being more closely associated with Bob over the last several decades? Some office gossip about whether Alice is really qualified compared to Bob might pop up?
Same principle.
x10000000
That's the funniest thing about this is many repubs will make a huge deal about this knowing full well the shit that was slung about Trump
What ideas? I said he'll be "fun." Is that a reason to go on the attack? You don't know me.
In a first across the line primary, there are only two choices.
Good Job Bob
Member
Debbie gotta go.
Liberty4all
Banned
There are plenty of fence sitters and they do not consider themselves racist bigots. Painting the race as black and white (and then telling said fence sitter they are a racist)is a sure way to have them vote republican. Whether you believe the issues are black and white or not, I'm just saying it's starting to look like Undecideds may be pretty important this election so reaching out to them in a non confrontational way ... It's important.
I'm not American myself so I have no stake in the game, just offering advice.
Edit: actually I do have some stake, I'm pretty sure Trump would be bad for Canada/NAFTA/Canadian trade agreements with US
CertifiedFP
Member
Except this is a rare case where it is black and white. Did you not see the speech he made on Thursday? He scared the shit out of the Republican commentators, not just the Democratic ones. He's literally acting like a fascist dictator does before they take power.
It's true, and Republicans are careful to present themselves as victims of a race baiting media. Shit works. You can't scare people into supporting a Democrat. I dunno why but it just never works.
Aaronology
Member
"Look at how much I care about ethics in politics," cries poster who subsequently questions whether to oppose the most unethical ticket in modern history. I'm almost more annoyed by these type of posts than I am of people who outright state their support for Trump. Any person who can look at what that man represents and the singular threat he poses and then scratch their chin and go, "gosh, I just don't know what I am going to do on voting day" is not a person who ever truly cared in the first place.
Stop acting.
UnemployedVillain
Member
It says a lot that this is what does it for you. You don't seem to have really cared about the issues of platforms it seems...
AlfonzoPalutena
Member
Oh definitely. I think the signs that they were really trying for Cruz and Rubio are blatant.
That's why I hate the two party system. What if you're socially liberal but fiscally conservative? What if you're a socially conservative socialist? What if you support the LGBTQ community but have a strong opinion on illegal immigration? What if you support the TPP but not corporate lobbyists?
Few people agree 100% with either candidate, and both major parties are showing their true colors.
Liberty4all
Banned
Let's try this again.
What made you lose respect for the Democratic Party (anything specifically?). We need your vote. I get the feeling of wanting to vote third party but it looks like the race could end up razor thin whoever wins.
The internet =/= the entire voting populace.
AlfonzoPalutena
Member
I care about a variety of issues, and lean mostly Democratic, yet some of my views do land on the independent or even Republican side of things. Isn't this how most people are? I don't think I've met one person who agrees completely with Trump or Clinton on all of their policies. I refuse to believe everyone sees both parties as either 100% in their favor, or 100% out of it.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Please enlighten us how this news of the Democratic Party's "true colors" in any way affects their platform on those various positions.
I could understand being bothered by what the emails revealed, but ultimately you're voting for a candidate based on their platform, not based on extraneous stuff done by their party that has no bearing on their beliefs on issues
DragonSworne
Banned
I honestly doubt there are any real fence sitters this election. Most people who are outwardly presenting themselves as a fence sitter and undecided are probably do it because they are too cowardly to openly express their racist/bigoted views. These people will vote Trump. All the other fence sitters are the ones who are completely obliviously to what is going on in the world of politics.
If you are any of those other things you vote for people who represent those interests in smaller elections where your vote matters way way more and you change the shape of the party over time.
Presidential politics are not the place to reshape a party's goals or build a 3rd party. It's just math.
There are cities in this country where you and a group of friends could swing the entire local government and send a much more powerful message.
EDIT: I don't know why people are so horny to dogpile you for considering 3rd party candidates. I think it's arguable that any moral person would have problems with the Democratic Party. I just don't think Voting for Jill Stien or whoever and risking Trump is gonna address those issues. It didn't with Bush vs Gore.
I think you play the numbers game and pick Hillary. In the meantime, any good dissenter should be looking at their reps and senators and local level people and seeing who is what. That's how you create change.
I think you overestimate peoples' knowledge of the issues. And I mean that about the presenters as well.
EatinOlives
Member
Schultz was a liability at this point, removing her only helps Hillary's chances moving forward.
Unfortunately the GOP is filled to the brim with buffoons who, when faced with similar circumstances, repeatedly double down instead. People are mistaking that stubbornness for steadfastness so whenever the Democrats end up actually doing the prudent thing they try to view it through the clown-shoes Republican lens.
Unfortunately the GOP is filled to the brim with buffoons who, when faced with similar circumstances, repeatedly double down instead. People are mistaking that stubbornness for steadfastness so whenever the Democrats end up actually doing the prudent thing they try to view it through the clown-shoes Republican lens.
AlfonzoPalutena
Member
I really appreciate that you asked! A lot of people think that I'm either an idiot, a Republican, or a driveby shitposter, but seriously I'm none of those things.
I certainly don't want Trump, but before these emails came out I can't say I agreed with everything Hillary said eirher. I'm 100% for all of her social stuff. I think its absolutely idiotic in this day and age to be sexist and racist. The fact that Black Lives Matter actually has to fight for an end to police brutality is sad.
However, I disagree with some of her economic stuff, but although the Republican Platform aligns more closely with my opinions on that, its not a 100% match either, and Trump seems to have no idea about any of it.
Above all, I'm just tired of the corruption and the collusion. I think that the Democratic and Republican Parties should have remained impartial instead of trying to push their candidates (Hillary and Ted Cruz) into the nomination. Sure it didnt work for the Republicans, but their efforts weren't unnoticed.
I'm sick of the money too. Hillary has a paper trail behind her a mile long, and so does pretty much every other candidate. Trump might not, but he's a non starter anyway.
Most of all, I'm just confused. I didnt mean to get anyone angry.
This is a very dismissive argument. Yes Trump is clearly a fascist, and it is a fucking travesty that he even is standing on the White House steps just waiting to walk in, but accountability goes both ways. Yes they aren't equatable, and the common good will surely win the day, but silencing criticism from within just because you're scared shitless about empowering the other side....That doesn't sound like a very useful approach to fighting fascism.
DragonSworne
Banned
How so? Even someone who only has a cursory knowledge of the issues this election cycle should know that Donald Ttump wants to build a wall and ban Muslims in some fashion.
GiantEnemyGoomba
Member
Very few people probably agree with Clinton or Trump on everything, you're right. But the reality is that one of the two will win no matter how much people try to tell themselves there are other candidates. It makes absolutely no sense in a general election to not vote for one of the two unless you think both are the EXACT same, which is just objectively false considering we know they will appoint very different justices. If you someone is really that concerned about this being the truth, then they should get involved at the smaller levels of government.
All that said, it'd be really irresponsible to try and assert your ~political purity~ this year of all years considering the there's a very bad man on one side.
Liberty4all
Banned
im Canadian but yeah I can see how the perception of Hilary wouldn't help somebody not sure what do to since nobody seems to represent their views. Sometimes I wish the US had a reasonable third party but it is what it is you know?
Really it looks like this race will be very close and may fall by folks like you. I know how you feel but what can be done really.
To be clear, that's a byproduct of our constitution and the 12th amendment. It's not about moneyed interests or anyone keeping down other parties. It's simply the nature of the game, based on mathematical necessity. We would need a constitutional amendment to adjust our system of presidential elections to ever change this. In a first-past-the-post system, two parties are the natural result.
Voting for a third party does nothing to change the system we have. It's just burying your head in the sand and not participating in the actual decision at hand. Best case scenario, a third party finds some moderate success and you end up leaving the election up to the House of Representatives. That's certainly not going to help you.
What if you have nuanced political opinions? What if you don't agree with an entire party or candidate platform? You vote for the best option and use other tools to influence policy. You push nuance in smaller, easier downballot races that can influence later legislative battles. You educate and you argue your positions.
So what would "do it", exactly? Seems like people need permission to get fed up these days.
I mean, I don't see why you'd think the current Republican party has a grasp of economics. I mean, they were trying to push Ted "abolish the IRS and shut down the government" Cruz as a real candidate. Not to mention that Trump's tax plan would balloon the debt to a massive level and could even cause a recession.
Hillary at least has sensible plans and knows what the hell she's doing on the matter. Not my ideal candidate on the economy either, though, that being said we only get two choices in reality.
On the paper trail bit, if you actually want any progress on that front at all, Hillary's Supreme Court picks are an absolute must. For reference, Obama also benefited greatly from super packs and has nominated anti-cit united judges.
On the other hand, Donald Trump will pick solid conservative judges that would uphold corporate person-hood and cit united.
There are people who think saying "fuck it" right now and letting someone literally terrible get the nomination will actually give a candidate that exactly lines up with all their views a chance to take the presidency in the next election cycle.
Those same people also know we currently kill innocent civilians (sad but inevitable/understandable)and openly lie about their affiliations with terror organization (textbook racist) in order to save some face. It's the worst kept secret in global politics and we all know that so... we all know that right? And we vote based on that right?
C'mon guys. Trump is a vile shitlord, but being anti-democrat doesn't make you racist. Just misguided IMO. Unless "racist" no longer includes people in other countries.
Septimus Prime
Member
DWS, GTFO.
When you spout unproven stuff like this is what gets people to come at you. Clinging to right wing talking points is no bueno.
PdotMichael
Banned
What is a reliable democratic voter?
DragonSworne
Banned
Isn't being fiscally conservative and socially liberal an oxymoron?
The primary purpose of fiscal conservatism is to reduce social programs and perpetuate the dominance of the ruling class. It's really hard to have social equality when all the money is being held by one group of people.
The primary purpose of fiscal conservatism is to reduce social programs and perpetuate the dominance of the ruling class. It's really hard to have social equality when all the money is being held by one group of people.
Someone who smiles and nods.
lets try this again. what conservative economic policies are you in favor of
Already Torn
Banned
Because your vote will help Trump if you don't vote Democrat.
You Know Nothing
Member
Again, you're overestimating people.
Honestly though, the current brand of fiscal conservatism, if implemented fully at the federal level, would cause a wide-scale economic collapse that would be good for no one.
I was just about to post this. Republicans are only fiscally conservative when it comes to blocking social spending which advance socially liberal policies like taking care of the elderly or giving children access to education or paying for healthier school lunches. Most socially liberal views/ideals depend on government spending in some form to become reality, for example, funding to desegregate schools or funding to expand medicare. Fiscal conservatives oppose these very things. I can't imagine myself being both.
Someone that actually thinks about what the party is fighting for over getting emotional over Russian fed hacked/leaked emails.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked