Support NeoGAF

[gogosox82]

Yes, and a fat lot of good that will do.

You either vote within the restriction of our two party system or you completely waste your vote.

That's just life. I know it's intoxicating to think your non-conforming vote breaks the system, but all it does is strengthen the side you most disagree with. Real life isn't the same as ideals.

That's a vote for Trump. Make no mistake, come to terms with it.

Depends on where you live and what the demo of your county and state are. Its way more important to vote in state and local elections anyway and you should always just hold your nose and vote dems in state and local elections because they probably will be better than what republicans want to do even if your not totally behind them. I'm willing to give leeway on the national elections depending on where you live.

 

[watershed]

This leads me to believe you must know nothing of her career. Several of these things she's proposing now she has actively opposed before, some of them breathtakingly recently.

She has undoubtedly changed her policies. In the 90s people weren't thinking about the costs of college education and the costs had yet to sky rocket. She started this campaign being for debt-free college and now has worked with Sanders to embrace a form of free college entirely for what would be the majority of students. The underlying value of making college affordable is the same.

Similarly she has always been in favor of universal healthcare though the exact mechanism has changed. Prior to Obamacare she was in favor of what Obamacare essentially became. A public option is the next natural policy to further cover more people and to lower the costs for many others who would qualify. Again the principle of expanding healthcare is the same.

I don't hate politicians for listening and evolving. She was very late in coming out in favor of gay marriage but I don't think she would do anything to undermine gay rights.

She's a politician but seems to get raked over the coals more than other politicians simply for being a politician.

Go ahead and suspect whatever you like. I was an adult when Bill Clinton was president. I've been following politics since I was a teenager.

I know what the Clintons represent. It's democrat light. Democrats for the Reagan voter. New democrats, not pesky liberals like the old kind.

Bottom line: I don't trust anythings she says. She will say anything to get elected. She will try to thread the needle between her commitments to voters and her commitments to donors and special interests when she's in office, but she'll put special interests first. Everything she says is lip service.

She might accomplish a few things in office, because the Clintons are good at playing hardball, but I don't want a democratic party that aims so low. I want an inspirational, New Deal, kind of democratic party. I want to raise taxes on the rich, drastically strengthen the saftey net. Massive infrastructure spending. That should be the aim. She is not going to rock the boat like that, and wouldn't even if she had the power to,

Infrastructure spending is always a democratic priority and Hillary Clinton has always supported that. Further infrastructure spending is going to happen in the next 4-8 years no matter what anyways because of the need to modernize public transportation and airports alone.

Democrats universally favor raising taxes in some form and most of Hillary's own proposals are dependent on raising taxes to fund them. She's not going to be for lowering or not raising taxes. That is not possible and not consistent with her record.

And she supports expanding the social safety net and preventive social spending like funding early education which helps to address problems before they develop in other areas like poor health, school drop out rates, teen crime, etc.

 

[atr0cious]

Thank God Obama speaks on Wednesday night to make everyone shut the fuck up

people need a reality check of what is at stake

Barack will slap some sense into you

They never cared. If they have a hard time deciding between emails and fascism, are they really gonna listen to Barry? There's gonna be more issues popping up as the race continues and her business gets re- aired,those same folks are gonna keep making excuses.

 

[disastermouse]

What possible benefit is there for her not following through on these promises? She would have to run for reelection and face the liberal base again.

She doesn't have to follow through, she has to semi-effectively appear to try to follow through.

 

[GillianSeed79]

I'm probably voting for Hillary but I'm not happy about it, especially after this. I'm not sure which is worse, the people who try to browbeat you into believing that Hillary is the greatest thing to ever happen to the democratic party and that you are traitor if you don't believe so or the people who are more upset about that fact that emails contained personal information rather than details that the DNC was actively trying to undermine one of its candidates and tried to push some angle that Sanders is not really a real real Jew, he's a secret atheist angle. Fuck that guy. Fuck him and the guy dropping expletives to a staffer about a fucking salad order. None of these people actually fucking care about people like me, but I guess they are better than Trump.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Depends on where you live and what the demo of your county and state are. Its way more important to vote in state and local elections anyway and you should always just hold your nose and vote dems in state and local elections because they probably will be better than what republicans want to do even if your not totally behind them. I'm willing to give leeway on the national elections depending on where you live.

Can you imagine how Trump will act if he loses a close race or loses in the electoral college only? The man needs to be beaten in such a way that his right wing brand is destroyed for good.

She doesn't have to follow through, she has to semi-effectively appear to try to follow through.

Sounds like more of a Congress problem, which would be solved if more people voted for something other than president. Yet another disappointing aspect of the left, not voting when it matters most.

 

[Kin5290]

Isn't she pretty horrible and on a right wing (not actual right wing in American terms) island of the dems all by herself? Even compared to other right wing of democratic party people?

I'm scottish so that's why I'm asking. I remember looking her up last year because of another thread here, but I'm not sure.

She is, by the standard objective measures of ideology, more liberal than Obama in every area but foreign policy.

Is she horrible? No, but she is an outspoken woman, and to certain people that's the same thing.

 

[Yoda]

Thank God Obama speaks on Wednesday night to make everyone shut the fuck up

people need a reality check of what is at stake

Barack will slap some sense into you

Pres. Obama speaking doesn't excuse blatant corruption in the DNC. "Look at how bad the Reps are!" is not an acceptable excuse.

 

[Krowley]

What possible benefit is there for her not following through on these promises? She would have to run for reelection and face the liberal base again.



That doesn't explain the healthcare fight of the 90s at all though. Why would they have done it and taken political damage for it?

You have to balance the healthcare fight against all the other stuff they did. Like welfare reform. Nafta. The crime bill. It's a mixed bag, of course. But that's the problem. The Clintons are definitely a mixed bag. You got to take the shitty part to get a few morsels of good stuff.

 

[disastermouse]

They never cared. If they have a hard time deciding between emails and fascism, are they really gonna listen to Barry? There's gonna be more issues popping up as the race continues and her business gets re- aired,those same folks are gonna keep making excuses.

Are you aware of the history of actual fascism when you accuse Trump of such? I'm not defending him. He's small-minded, narcissistic, overconfident, and woefully uninformed. However, he's not actually a fascist. He's a walking nightmare, but not of that kind, and when you use that term indiscriminately, you dilute the term and make it easier for actual fascists to rise to power. It's irresponsible.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

You have to balance the healthcare fight against all the other stuff they did. Like welfare reform. Nafta. The crime bill. It's a mixed bag, of course. But that's the problem. The Clintons are definitely a mixed bag. You got to take the shitty part to get a few morsels of good stuff.

People blame NAFTA for way more than it actually did. Globalization and technology were going to happen regardless of NAFTA.

Pres. Obama speaking doesn't excuse blatant corruption in the DNC. "Look at how bad the Reps are!" is not an acceptable excuse.

Can we at least dodge this massive bullet of an election and then purge the DNC? It's not as though Sanders supporters don't have a spot at the table and aren't getting concessions they're asking for.

 

[disastermouse]

She is, by the standard objective measures of ideology, more liberal than Obama in every area but foreign policy.

Is she horrible? No, but she is an outspoken woman, and to certain people that's the same thing.

Do not link all opposition to Hillary Clinton to mysogeny. No one deserves to die on that Hill.

 

[Steel]

You have to balance the healthcare fight against all the other stuff they did. Like welfare reform. Nafta. The crime bill. It's a mixed bag, of course. But that's the problem. The Clintons are definitely a mixed bag. You got to take the shitty part to get a few morsels of good stuff.

You seem to think the presidency is a dictatorial position and that the Republicans in Congress under Bill were sitting around with their thumbs up their ass letting the dems do whatever they wanted. The crime bill was bad, but it was also asked for by the African-American community at the time because crime was bad at the time, but hindsight is 20-20. Not to mention that Bernie actually voted for said crime bill.

And how, specifically, is NAFTA bad?

 

[Aaronology]

Evidently I'm in way too deep. I honestly didn't think my original comment would attract so many replies. I can't keep up. I'm a political idiot. Sorry for bothering you guys.

I think it's important to understand that minorities, the LGBTQ and Left itself are figuratively strapped to the tracks right now in one of the most important elections in decades. There are only two ways this ends on November 8th, and the railroad switch that will divert disaster is right fucking there. The choice should be easy as hell, but too many people are waffling over whether to lend their support in pulling that switch because it's a little grimy or it isn't painted just the right shade of politics they want. Meanwhile the Trump Train of Racism, Bigotry and Xenophobia is barreling closer and closer and threat it represents is clearer than ever.

As a minority, the level of frustration that I am experiencing right now observing this wishy-washy and occasionally self righteous attitude is almost at the point that I can't express publicly without risking a ban. I am watching people with the luxury or naivete of not feeling like their future is at stake grow indecisive over relative mundanity. We are shouting, "Please, pull the lever!", to which many of you are replying, "But... ugh... did you see that one email where that guy was rude to Bernie? I don't know how I feel about the DNC now..."

Really? Fucking really?

You're upset over emails enough to change their vote but remain unmoved enough by what Trump has done and said to even consider not doing everything in your power to thwart him? What the hell is wrong with all of you?

 

[Dan]

You haven't described reliable voters, you've described reliable dupes. In order to expect 'reliable Democrat voters' to reliably vote Democrat, the Democratic Party has to be itself be reliable. It has to show itself as something worthy of support.

You say dupes, I say voters who refuse to abdicate responsibility by actually participating in the meaningful choices on election day.

If a couple morons at the DNC sending offensive emails that were never acted on makes the party unreliable, I suspect you probably shouldn't be comfortable supporting any organization on Earth that includes more than a dozen members.

Go ahead and suspect whatever you like. I was an adult when Bill Clinton was president. I've been following politics since I was a teenager.

I know what the Clintons represent. It's democrat light. Democrats for the Reagan voter. New democrats, not pesky liberals like the old kind.

Bottom line: I don't trust anythings she says. She will say anything to get elected. She will try to thread the needle between her commitments to voters and her commitments to donors and special interests when she's in office, but she'll put special interests first. Everything she says is lip service.

She might accomplish a few things in office, because the Clintons are good at playing hardball, but I don't want a democratic party that aims so low. I want an inspirational, New Deal, kind of democratic party. I want to raise taxes on the rich, drastically strengthen the saftey net. Massive infrastructure spending. That should be the aim. She is not going to rock the boat like that, and wouldn't even if she had the power to,

Since the only alternative is Trump, are you one of those people who believes suffering through all the short and long term consequences of a Trump presidency will bring forth that utopian ideal of a Democratic candidate? And that the public at large will readily embrace it? That the country will even be in an economic position to do so? Because that is a) foolishly naive, and b) it will victimize millions in the meantime.

 

[atr0cious]

Are you aware of the history of actual fascism when you accuse Trump of such? I'm not defending him. He's small-minded, narcissistic, overconfident, and woefully uninformed. However, he's not actually a fascist. He's a walking nightmare, but not of that kind, and when you use that term indiscriminately, you dilute the term and make it easier for actual fascists to rise to power. It's irresponsible.

Cool, so when you start a sentence like this, you usually know what you're talking about. Google "trump fascism" and then restart this paragraph.

 

[disastermouse]

People blame NAFTA for way more than it actually did. Globalization and technology were going to happen regardless of NAFTA.

Yes, but they could have happened in a way much more responsible to the needs of the working class of America and they weren't. NAFTA is part of why they didn't.

Rampant inequality and decreasing standards of living for the working class are not natural outcomes of either of those processes. One does not follow the other in obedience to some sort of cosmic or scientific law.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I think it's important to understand that minorities, the LGBTQ and Left itself are figuratively strapped to the tracks right now in one of the most important elections in decades. There are only two ways this ends on November 8th, and the railroad switch that will divert disaster is right fucking there. The choice should be easy as hell, but too many people are waffling over whether to lend their support in pulling that switch because it's a little grimy or it isn't painted just the right shade of politics they want. Meanwhile the Trump Train of Racism, Bigotry and Xenophobia is barreling closer and closer and threat it represents is clearer than ever.

As a minority, the level of frustration that I am experiencing right now observing this wishy-washy and occasionally self righteous attitude is almost at the point that I can't express publicly without risking a ban. I am watching people with the luxury or naivete of not feeling like their future is at stake grow indecisive over relative mundanity. We are shouting, "Please, pull the lever!", to which many of you are replying, "But... ugh... did you see that one email where that guy was rude to Bernie? I don't know how I feel about the DNC now..."

Really? Fucking really?

You're upset over emails enough to change their vote but remain unmoved enough by what Trump has done and said to even consider not doing everything in their power to thwart him? What the hell is wrong with all of you?

I don't know what makes them think if they're white then they will be safe. If Trump is as unfit to lead as many suspect, we are all at risk.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

People blame NAFTA for way more than it actually did. Globalization and technology were going to happen regardless of NAFTA.

Bill Clinton pushed for China's entry into WTO.

 

[Steel]

Since the only alternative is Trump, are you one of those people who believes suffering through all the short and long term consequences of a Trump presidency will bring forth that utopian ideal of a Democratic candidate? And that the public at large will readily embrace it? That the country will even be in an economic position to do so? Because that is a) foolishly naive, and b) it will victimize millions in the meantime.

The poster you're responding to is in a non swing state and has stated that they'd vote for Hillary if it got down to the wire. While their reasoning for not voting Hillary is questionable given their positions, they're not a huge problem as they'd at least be voting downticket.

 

[Balphon]

I really can't wrap my head around the notion that some possible bias by DNC staffers that never seemed to calcify into anything tangible is a big deal when the alternative candidate devoted a good bit of his acceptance speech the other night to an attempt to convince the country that immigrants were flooding across the border and murdering people.

It feels like Clinton is stuck grappling fairly pedestrian election-year scandals while Trump has so effectively normalized his insane nonsense that people are equating the two.

 

[gogosox82]

Can you imagine how Trump will act if he loses a close race or loses in the electoral college only? The man needs to be beaten in such a way that his right wing brand is destroyed for good.

Meh. I believe he's mostly pulling this stuff out of his ass and doesn't know most of the stuff he talks about so he really doesn't have a right wing brand really. He just says crazy stuff and talks shit about people to get attention. He'll probably use this to write a new book or something but I'm really not that worried about his brand. Just as long as he doesn't get elected will be good enough for me.

 

[disastermouse]

Cool, so when you start a sentence like this, you usually know what you're talking about. Google "trump fascism" and then restart this paragraph.

As requested:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/is-donald-trump-an-actual-fascist

This weekend’s atrocity in Orlando—the murder of 49 clubgoers by a rifle-wielding ISIS supporter—has probably improved Donald Trump’s chances of winning the presidency, if only because bluntness at such times feels more in sync with prevailing sentiment than carefully chosen words. The notion of lowering immigration from majority-Muslim countries also gains more support from ordinary Americans than it does from those in positions of power. But terrorism is the sort of threat that can turn a restrained presidency into an unrestrained one, and nothing about a Trump presidency scares people more than the possibility of an untrammeled executive. This is a candidate, after all, who has called for a “hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

The horror at the Pulse nightclub underscores one of the central questions of this election, if not the central question: How dangerous is Trump? Is he really as menacing as Adolf Hitler, as Meg Whitman recently suggested? Does Trump have the makings of a true fascist?

If you define the term narrowly, the answer is obviously no. “As long as Trump does not advocate the abolition of America’s democratic institutions, and their replacement by some sort of post-liberal new order, he’s not technically a fascist,” historian of fascism Roger Griffin tells Vox’s Dylan Matthews. But definitional hairsplitting is of limited use. At the end of the day, fascism is just shorthand for right-wing tyranny, and that can come in many varieties. In the case of Trump, what people want to know is whether they’re electing a militarist who’s sympathetic to white nationalism, hostile to the First Amendment, and generally indifferent to the niceties of constitutional order. They worry about racial pogroms, extrajudicial violence, and new foreign conflicts. These things, all us can agree, would be bad.

Many scary presidents have turned out to be less harmful in practice than feared, while many non-scary presidents have turned out to be much worse than expected. Republicans in 1940 feared that a third term of Franklin D. Roosevelt would end American democracy—one columnist even said F.D.R. might be our “last president”—but F.D.R. left the country standing. Democrats in 1980 feared that Ronald Reagan would be a right-wing lunatic, but Reagan turned out to be less hard line than that. By contrast, Lyndon Johnson, who was supposed to keep the peace better than Barry Goldwater, increased the U.S. military presence in Vietnam to half a million troops and proved unable to prevent dozens of race riots across the country, even prior to the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. For all we know, Trump’s path could more closely resemble that of Reagan (milder than expected) than that of L.B.J. (rougher than expected).

Luckily, when it comes to true dictatorship, Trump lacks many of the most ominous traits.

For all of his incendiary rhetoric, there’s limited evidence of any belief in racial superiority or hatred of other races. Suggesting that Mexican immigrants and rape go hand in hand may be heinous, but it is not the same thing as white supremacy, and Trump is less right-leaning on many matters of race than some traditional Republicans. Regarding affirmative action, a policy that many conservatives are working to eliminate, Trump has said, “I’m fine with it,” merely laying out that one day “there will be a time when you don’t need it.” As careless as Trump has been about distinguishing the vast majority of peaceful illegal immigrants from the small minority who commit crimes, and as sinister as a “deportation force” sounds, the candidate has mostly confined his demonizations to the powerful: politicians, high-ranking officials, the media, foreign governments.

The worst tyrants of the past century or two also presided over a lot of soldiers or paramilitary forces before they came to power. Benito Mussolini had hundreds of thousands of Black Shirts, and Hitler had hundreds of thousands of Brown Shirts. Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and Robert Mugabe all headed large guerrilla forces. Many dictators came from the military, like Idi Amin, Muammar Qaddafi, and Juan Peron. Trump just went to military school.

Finally, and perhaps most important, Trump is entering politics too late to become a proper tyrant. The dictators of the past two centuries have had a commitment to political agitation from a young age: Saddam Hussein was a passionate Baathist in his 20s. Stalin was a revolutionary from the moment he was expelled from school. (Dictators who have come late to politics have cropped up in South America, with figures like Jorge Videla in Argentina and Augusto Pinochet in Chile, but they were senior military officials in countries with histories of military coups.) The quality that made these tyrants so brutal was not primarily thin-skinnedness or impulsivity but fanaticism. Trump is getting into politics late in life after a successful career doing other things. He’s volatile and impulsive, but he’s not fanatical.

This weekend’s atrocity in Orlando—the murder of 49 clubgoers by a rifle-wielding ISIS supporter—has probably improved Donald Trump’s chances of winning the presidency, if only because bluntness at such times feels more in sync with prevailing sentiment than carefully chosen words. The notion of lowering immigration from majority-Muslim countries also gains more support from ordinary Americans than it does from those in positions of power. But terrorism is the sort of threat that can turn a restrained presidency into an unrestrained one, and nothing about a Trump presidency scares people more than the possibility of an untrammeled executive. This is a candidate, after all, who has called for a “hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

The horror at the Pulse nightclub underscores one of the central questions of this election, if not the central question: How dangerous is Trump? Is he really as menacing as Adolf Hitler, as Meg Whitman recently suggested? Does Trump have the makings of a true fascist?

If you define the term narrowly, the answer is obviously no. “As long as Trump does not advocate the abolition of America’s democratic institutions, and their replacement by some sort of post-liberal new order, he’s not technically a fascist,” historian of fascism Roger Griffin tells Vox’s Dylan Matthews. But definitional hairsplitting is of limited use. At the end of the day, fascism is just shorthand for right-wing tyranny, and that can come in many varieties. In the case of Trump, what people want to know is whether they’re electing a militarist who’s sympathetic to white nationalism, hostile to the First Amendment, and generally indifferent to the niceties of constitutional order. They worry about racial pogroms, extrajudicial violence, and new foreign conflicts. These things, all us can agree, would be bad.

Many scary presidents have turned out to be less harmful in practice than feared, while many non-scary presidents have turned out to be much worse than expected. Republicans in 1940 feared that a third term of Franklin D. Roosevelt would end American democracy—one columnist even said F.D.R. might be our “last president”—but F.D.R. left the country standing. Democrats in 1980 feared that Ronald Reagan would be a right-wing lunatic, but Reagan turned out to be less hard line than that. By contrast, Lyndon Johnson, who was supposed to keep the peace better than Barry Goldwater, increased the U.S. military presence in Vietnam to half a million troops and proved unable to prevent dozens of race riots across the country, even prior to the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. For all we know, Trump’s path could more closely resemble that of Reagan (milder than expected) than that of L.B.J. (rougher than expected).



ADVERTISEMENT
Luckily, when it comes to true dictatorship, Trump lacks many of the most ominous traits.

For all of his incendiary rhetoric, there’s limited evidence of any belief in racial superiority or hatred of other races. Suggesting that Mexican immigrants and rape go hand in hand may be heinous, but it is not the same thing as white supremacy, and Trump is less right-leaning on many matters of race than some traditional Republicans. Regarding affirmative action, a policy that many conservatives are working to eliminate, Trump has said, “I’m fine with it,” merely laying out that one day “there will be a time when you don’t need it.” As careless as Trump has been about distinguishing the vast majority of peaceful illegal immigrants from the small minority who commit crimes, and as sinister as a “deportation force” sounds, the candidate has mostly confined his demonizations to the powerful: politicians, high-ranking officials, the media, foreign governments.

The worst tyrants of the past century or two also presided over a lot of soldiers or paramilitary forces before they came to power. Benito Mussolini had hundreds of thousands of Black Shirts, and Hitler had hundreds of thousands of Brown Shirts. Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and Robert Mugabe all headed large guerrilla forces. Many dictators came from the military, like Idi Amin, Muammar Qaddafi, and Juan Peron. Trump just went to military school.

Finally, and perhaps most important, Trump is entering politics too late to become a proper tyrant. The dictators of the past two centuries have had a commitment to political agitation from a young age: Saddam Hussein was a passionate Baathist in his 20s. Stalin was a revolutionary from the moment he was expelled from school. (Dictators who have come late to politics have cropped up in South America, with figures like Jorge Videla in Argentina and Augusto Pinochet in Chile, but they were senior military officials in countries with histories of military coups.) The quality that made these tyrants so brutal was not primarily thin-skinnedness or impulsivity but fanaticism. Trump is getting into politics late in life after a successful career doing other things. He’s volatile and impulsive, but he’s not fanatical.


ADVERTISEMENT
In a best-case scenario, Trump would be less dangerous to civil liberties and democratic norms than someone like Marco Rubio, because his own party is willing to break ranks with him. Partisanship has become so fierce in Washington that even serious abuses of power are given a pass when made by someone on the home team. Many Republicans hate Trump so much that they hate Democrats slightly less, however, and that offers more hope for checks on his power. Ironically, Trump’s very scariness could make him less dangerous.

But do not exhale too soon. None of this means that Trump couldn’t do exceptional damage to the Constitution or the rule of law. Sunday’s massacre was a reminder of how much attacks or upheavals can change the course of a presidency. When George W. Bush took office, The Guardian warned that the “interventionist approach of the Clinton years is likely to be the first victim.” Yeah, that was a good prediction. Just as important, major crises cause Congress to turn over the reins to the executive branch. An irresponsible executive can do a lot of harm very fast, giving us unwise wars and torture and indefinite detention. Good thing that has never happened.

Also, as surprising as presidents can be, character flaws can tell us a lot about what to expect. Detractors of Richard Nixon felt his personality would be dangerous in the Oval Office and felt vindicated, if unhappily so, by the malfeasance that followed. Bill Clinton’s supporters were much more shocked by his dalliance with a former intern than his enemies were. Lack of curiosity or knowledge are also a warning sign. I return, uncharitably, to George W. Bush, but being an empty vessel when it came to foreign policy made him vulnerable to seizing upon a pre-fab ideology in a time of crisis and swallowing it whole—hence, Iraq and the doctrine of spreading liberty everywhere.

So Trump is no fascist, and he’s not going to be a Constitution-shredding dictator. But that’s probably not going to comfort you all that much. Beyond that, the questions that I’d guess will best help predict his approach to a hypothetical presidency are these: Is terrorism against the United States likely to occur over the next four to eight years? What are some likely effects of Trump’s particular character flaws?

 

[Aaronology]

I really can't wrap my head around the notion that some possible bias by DNC staffers that never seemed to calcify into anything tangible is a big deal when the alternative candidate devoted a good bit of his acceptance speech the other night to an attempt to convince the country that immigrants were flooding across the border and murdering people.

It feels like Clinton is stuck grappling fairly pedestrian election-year scandals while Trump has so effectively normalized his insane nonsense that people are equating the two.

Exactly! It's like being upset that the DNC served a soup with a gnat in it and stomping across the street in protest to the RNC diner where roaches and rotting meat are items on the menu. It's completely nonsensical and irrational. Any one who is earnestly concerned about the political ethics of anything revealed in the DNC leak would be also be sufficiently incensed by Trump's campaign to not waver in seeing him defeated this November.

 

[Setsuna]

I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic Party. I don't know who I'm voting for come November


Why does everyone assume I'm voting for Trump? We have other candidates outside the two party system and I didnt explicitly rule anyone out.

Having more than 2 candidates is how trump clenched the Republican nominee in the first place

 

[disastermouse]

I don't know what makes them think if they're white then they will be safe. If Trump is as unfit to lead as many suspect, we are all at risk.

And if Hillary is as unfit to lead as many suspect, we are also all at risk.

Honestly, all of this hyperventilating about Trump reminds me of run-up to Ronald Reagan's election. "It is a disgrace that this B-actor movie fuck could actually become president."

 

[disastermouse]

Having more than 2 candidates is how trump clenched the Republican nominee in the first place

That speaks to the weakness of the first-past-the-pole voting and the two party political system, not the nature of third parties in principle. The natural solution is ranked voting, but no, let's just keep voting the lesser of two evils.

 

[Officerrob]

DWS sucks at her job, I don't think anybody has a problem with this

 

[disastermouse]

Exactly! It's like being upset that the DNC served a soup with a gnat in it and stomping across the street in protest to the RNC diner where roaches and rotting meat are items on the menu. It's completely nonsensical and irrational. Any one who is earnestly concerned about the political ethics of anything revealed in the DNC leak would be also be sufficiently incensed by Trump's campaign to not waver in seeing him defeated this November.

The DNC shit isn't just a 'gnat in the soup', it signifies the illegitimacy of the entire party. They are two different ways to make yourself sick.

Or you could build your own diner while the other two try to tear you down. It'll take time, but the sooner it starts, the sooner there's an alternative.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

And if Hillary is as unfit to lead as many suspect, we are also all at risk.

Honestly, all of this hyperventilating about Trump reminds me of run-up to Ronald Reagan's election. "It is a disgrace that this B-actor movie fuck could actually become president."

I'm gonna need you to expand this comparison quite a bit before it makes any sense.

 

[firehawk12]

"The DNC... at least we're not the RNC!"

 

[disastermouse]

I'm gonna need you to expand this comparison quite a bit before it makes any sense.

It either makes sense or it doesn't. Expanding the analogy won't help and I'm not convinced you're acting in good faith or sufficiently governed by logic. I can't take you anywhere that your entire identity requires you don't go.

I don't know how old you are or if you remember the 80s. I myself was a child for most of it, but holy fuck did people think Reagan was the devil, that his facile avoidance of facts and overconfidence would be the death of our great Republic.

 

[Aaronology]

The DNC shit isn't just a 'gnat in the soup', it signifies the illegitimacy of the entire party. They are two different ways to make yourself sick.

Or you could build your own diner while the other two try to tear you down. It'll take time, but the sooner it starts, the sooner there's an alternative.

Do you genuinely believe the DNC under Clinton/Kaine will harm this country (and minorities in particular) as much as a Trump Presidency backed by a GOP Congress and a conservative Supreme Court?

Please, clarify that post because it sounds pretty fucking insane from where I'm sitting.

 

[jerd]

And if Hillary is as unfit to lead as many suspect, we are also all at risk.

Honestly, all of this hyperventilating about Trump reminds me of run-up to Ronald Reagan's election. "It is a disgrace that this B-actor movie fuck could actually become president."

Honest to god I can't even form a response. There's no way you actually believe this right? Nobody is mad because he's a celebrity turned politician lol

 

[Fudgepuppy]

I read some articles about the leak, but couldn't come to anything conclusive about what's so juicy about it. Was it the way they handled the personal information of the donors?

 

[disastermouse]

Honest to god I can't even form a response. There's no way you actually believe this right? Nobody is mad because he's a celebrity turned politician lol

It wasn't his celebrity, it was his simple-mindedness, his collusion with the Christian Right, his baffling lack of foreign policy interest, and for me personally - his hair really freaked me out.

 

[atr0cious]

As requested:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/is-donald-trump-an-actual-fascist


Regarding affirmative action, a policy that many conservatives are working to eliminate, Donald "That baby was driving me crazy" Drumpf has said, “I’m fine with it,” merely laying out that one day “there will be a time when you don’t need it.”

What a factual solid statement and proof that trump isn't pushing fascism into US politics. I mean, your article posits there isnt much evidence to suggest that trump is racist, any OT poster on NeoGAF is more informed than that writer. Most of that is circumstantial stuff, and the part about trump not doing it all his life is irrelevant, when the entire point is he is hijacking the already built apparatus/tea party and their rhetoric to go full in. Do you not remember them beating people up at the sign of trouble(melanin) at early Trump rallies?

And it's even in your article:

At the end of the day, fascism is just shorthand for right-wing tyranny, and that can come in many varieties. In the case of Donald "My I.Q. is one of the highest" Drumpf, what people want to know is whether they’re electing a militarist who’s sympathetic to white nationalism, hostile to the First Amendment, and generally indifferent to the niceties of constitutional order. They worry about racial pogroms, extrajudicial violence, and new foreign conflicts. These things, all us can agree, would be bad.

If you don't think an unfettered republican congress with a white nationalist run presidency isn't pushing towards this definition of fascism then what is?
Here, first search result in google:

Donald "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese" Drumpf has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Donald "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese" Drumpf, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.

And I like how this all started because you couldn't even say you ever cared about the issues, but had to bring up some semantical point about the actual definition of fascism.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It either makes sense or it doesn't. Expanding the analogy won't help and I'm not convinced you're acting in good faith or sufficiently governed by logic. I can't take you anywhere that you're entire identity requires you don't go.

I don't know how old you are or if you remember the 80s. I myself was a child for most of it, but holy fuck did people think Reagan was the devil, that his facile avoidance of facts and overconfidence would be the death of our great Republic.

I don't even know why I bothered trying to discuss anything with you again. You're so wrapped up in your ideology that everyone outside of that incredibly narrow bubble is the enemy of progress. You'll never hear from me again.

 

[JustenP88]

You were not a reliable democratic voter anyway, and are just making excuses not vote for Hillary.

Ewwwww. That sentence made me nauseous.

DWS is definitely gonna be sacrificed for this.

 

[Melkezadek]

This ideological purity makes me sick. No one is naive enough to believe that everyone in the DNC are angels. But that fact is the Republican party are actively trying to harm minorities and strip away the rights of millions of Americans. A party that has becoming a beacon of hate and attract the very worst in the country.

Every day I'm reminded when I see morons with their confederate flags waving out of their pickup trucks. Or when they have "TRUMP" slapped on the back of their cars. Daily reminders that not only do people not give a fuck about us, but they don't even want us in the country that was built on the backs of my ancestors.

Now their savior Trump has come and about to validate all of that. But does any of that matter? Nope. "Someone suggested something less than admirable in a private email that never came into fruition. To hell with all of you."

This election has shown me that more people don't give a fuck about us than I realized. Depressing doesn't even begin to describe the feeling.

 

[Marvie_3]

Ewwwww. That sentence made me nauseous.

DWS is definitely gonna be sacrificed for this.

Im ok with this. Shes awful.

 

[Polari]

In the political climate of the US a vote for a third party is totally a wasted vote.

It's simple math that FPTP systems like ours inevitably lead to a two party system. It can't be prevented. You either vote for the candidate your view most aligns with or you waste your vote. It's that simple.

It's not a wasted vote. You're exercising your democratic right. By the same logic it's a wasted vote if your chosen candidate loses by more than a single vote.

 

[disastermouse]

Do you genuinely believe the DNC under Clinton/Kaine will harm this country (and minorities in particular) as much as a Trump Presidency backed by a GOP Congress and a conservative Supreme Court?

Please, clarify that post because it sounds pretty fucking insane from where I'm sitting.

Harm this country more? Yes, I believe Hillary is more dangerous. She's not fucking around - she'll be more effectively evil. For minorities in particular? Trump appears more blatantly bad for Muslims and Latinos. About the same for AAs, insignificant for the rest. HRC is more dangerous for the broader working class, though, which is more prominently composed of minorities.

 

[disastermouse]

I don't even know why I bothered trying to discuss anything with you again. You're so wrapped up in your ideology that everyone outside of that incredibly narrow bubble is the enemy of progress. You'll never hear from me again.

Dude, from my perspective you are also irredeemably wrapped up in your bias and ideology as evidenced by your trivialization of some very unflattering facts about your chosen tribe.

And yet I remain ready to engage in conversation about those differences because I've been wrong before and I know it.

Go back to the Hall of Echoes if you like, but you're always welcome to engage.

 

[Kin5290]

Harm this country more? Yes, I believe Hillary is more dangerous. She's not fucking around - she'll be more effectively evil. For minorities in particular? Trump appears more blatantly bad for Muslims and Latinos. About the same for AAs, insignificant for the rest. HRC is more dangerous for the broader working class, though, which is more prominently composed of minorities.

This is just comically wrong.

As for the "broader working class", even before Sanders managed to wrest the Dem platform further left, Clinton's policies could be characterized as "pretty much the same as Sanders, only less extreme". To call her evil or dangerous is just plain false. It is ascribing to Clinton an attitude that she does not have.

 

[jerd]

Dude, from my perspective you are also irredeemably wrapped up in your bias and ideology as evidenced by your trivialization of some very unflattering facts about your chosen tribe.

And yet I remain ready to engage in conversation about those differences because I've been wrong before and I know it.

Go back to the Hall of Echoes if you like, but you're always welcome to engage.

Maybe I missed something in there but we actually saw the Republican establishment working to prevent Trump from being the nominee. The whole "do you vow to support the Republican candidate", Fox News of all people actually pulling out facts during a debate and drilling him 24 hrs a day on the network, Trump repeatedly getting harder hitting questions (which ultimately didn't matter since he never had to answer any of them to make his supporters swoon). So yeah the DNC had some ugly stuff about Bernie but we know that the RNC had at least that same shit.

 

[atr0cious]

Dude, from my perspective you are also irredeemably wrapped up in your bias and ideology

"From my point of view the Jedi are evil." -Melania Trump

 

[Setsuna]

That speaks to the weakness of the first-past-the-pole voting and the two party political system, not the nature of third parties in principle. The natural solution is ranked voting, but no, let's just keep voting the lesser of two evils.

Ranked voting has its own issues and would just end up causing Republicans ot lose to Democrats or vice Versa

 

[old manatee]

Really inspiring stuff. I can't wait to vote in November!

 

[mjontrix]

This is just comically wrong.

As for the "broader working class", even before Sanders managed to wrest the Dem platform further left, Clinton's policies could be characterized as "pretty much the same as Sanders, only less extreme". To call her evil or dangerous is just plain false. It is ascribing to Clinton an attitude that she does not have.

If you support the TPP you're evil plain and simple. Kaine supports it and unless Hillary in her speech disavows and pledges to not sign and support the TPP under her administration then you can bet your last dollar that she'll support it as well.

So basically we'll wait and see what happens at the convention.