Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Pariah]

Well, since I didn't vote for Obama either time, I've become immune to vote shaming. Amazing how many letters to the editor in 2008 and 2012 implied non-Obama voters as racist.

And now we have the first major-party female candidate.

 

I wonder how that's gonna work out....

[Pattern Ghost]

I think her camp started beating that drum a long time ago, during primaries.

[Lawnmower Boy]

And now we have the first major-party female candidate.

 

I wonder how that's gonna work out....

 

Let me explain: "America" is the most awesomest scripted drama television show ever created for the Canadian market. (The producers also export it to Europe, Africa and Asia, where it does amazingly well, considering the language barriers.)

 

To support this show, entrepeneurs have built "Americaland" theme parks with duty free shopping at all major Canadian border crossings,further monetising this entertainment experience, which soon spread to newspapers, magazines, comic books, and even the mass book market. 

 

However, the initial "slice of life" broadcasting, such as Leave it to Beaver, The Nightly News, televised high school football (What? I mean, seriously?) and Cal Worthington used car commercials began to pall in, I want to say, the 1960s, and the producers moved on to an "event" format, with "Presidential elections" the fall after the Olympics --I think? Every four years, anyway. 

 

"Presidential elections" featured life-and-death struggles between larger-than-life characters running for "President of the United States," or, possibly, "King of the World." (The writers often blurred the distinction.) As with the Olympics, their popularity soon overwhelmed the original, occasional-event format, and events were spread into the previous year. An alternative, rival concept, the "Off year election," was also successful, because while the stakes were smaller, the personalities were even more outrageous. For example, the comic geniusses who invented "Tip O'Neill" and "Newt Gingrich" got the Nobel Prize for Literature, for example. I think? I don't pay much attention to that stuff. Anyway, they should have. 

 

Eventually, however, the producers got greedy, and began to try the madcap, cast-of-thousands format of "Off year elections" with the high stakes and larger-than-life personalities of "Presidential elections." The critics are, understandably, divided about this. Some see it as the culmination of two generations of first-class entertainment, and look forward to a sequel, perhaps a remake of The Day AFter, or Terminator. Others think that increasing inputs will just lead to declining returns, and that America will soon be cancelled. 

 

We'll see! One thing is for sure, and that is that it'll make for some fun television. (Of course, for the poor, delusional crackpots who think that it is real, it's a world-historical tragedy unfolding in real time, but that's why they should be taking their meds!)

[Badger]

So, in another a reality show for Canadians!

 

Edit: Just mentioned all this to my mother before she went to bed, replied with (eye-rolling) and  "Sadly this more true than I wont to admit"

[megaplayboy]

My only request for people contemplating a 3rd party vote is that they don't downplay or pooh pooh the consequences of a Trump presidency. Please look at the situation in a non partisan (not anti partisan) way and consider this very, very carefully. This is not an ordinary election. I say that in all sincerity and without an iota of hyperbole.

[薔薇語]

Really, though? I get that you are sincere in your heavy dislike of Trump. I get your fears for what such a presidency would mean. But is it really that different? Not just the people running but in the rhetoric surrounding them and the people pushing for votes.

 

To me this seems all too familiar with 4, 8, and 12 years ago. Each of the two main sides have taken to demonizing each other; exclaiming how the US would be set off to a terrible place if the other one won. If Gov. Romney won, Obamacare would be finished and countless millions would die. If President Obama won again, it would spell the end to the second amendment and a possible heralding of invasive government control (actually that last part isn't that far off given our intel agencies). Senator Obama was a radical leftist that would nationalize the banks and destroy free enterprise. Senator McCain would leave millions on the cold streets and bring us to the brink of WWIII; a fate we somehow just barely avoided despite re-electing President Bush. Every cycle brings out new versions of the same dire rhetoric.

 

Ultimately the two main sides need to earn our votes. Their inability to do so is not the fault of third parties. Gov. Johnson nor Dr. Stein get a say in the leadership or marketing of the Dems nor Repubs. When one's supermarket fails blaming the market down the street for being too competitive isn't a solution - it's part of the problem.

 

Soar.

[Simon]

You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to endorse him?  You remember a candidate making racist, bigoted, and mysogynist comments and statements multiple times and doubling down on them when challenged?  

 

What I remember is growing up in a Jewish household and learning about the Holocaust...and repeating each time "never again."  That didn't mean or insinuate that we should look for Hitler himself to arise again and oppose him -- it meant that we should learn from the past and recognize the signs of a demagogue and a tyrant.  The signs of fascism, bigotry and hatred.  And oppose them. 

[aylwin13]

...  the two main sides...

 

And therein lies the problem. Once the politicians realize that the "us vs. them" needs to stop - that they need to be more concerned with the problems of our country and the people they are supposed to be representing, than their corporate cronies and their political careers - then maybe they will start to actually accomplish something positive.

[薔薇語]

Ultimately calling Trump our Hitler is like calling Senator Obama our Stalin or Mao. I get the feelings but think they are exaggerations.

 

Trump is not a nice man and his values are at odds with a lot of other republicans. That does not mean he will start up modern interment camps. Such conclusions require an extreme distrust of the system that that I would think only lay in the fervent Trump, Sen. Bernie, and third party base.

 

Soar.

[Pariah]

This was an interesting perspective, I thought:

 

[Simon]

Ultimately calling Trump our Hitler is like calling Senator Obama our Stalin or Mao. I get the feelings but think they are exaggerations.

 

Trump is not a nice man and his values are at odds with a lot of other republicans. That does not mean he will start up modern interment camps. Such conclusions require an extreme distrust of the system that that I would think only lay in the fervent Trump, Sen. Bernie, and third party base.

 

Soar.

Really?  Let's review since you apparently haven't been paying attention.

 

1. He has repeatedly stated that he wants to ban Muslims from immigrating.  Including refugees...especially refugees.  He has painted an entire religion as evil and a problem.

 

2. He has stated that Muslim communities in the US should be faced with increased policing. 

 

3. He has stated (through Christie) that one of his first actions in office will be to root out government employees and posts that were appointed by Obama and replace them with those friendly to him.

 

4. He has based his entire campaign on an appeal to anger, hatred, and bigotry.

 

5. He has stated his approval of the Japanese internment camps in WWII.

 

...the list goes on.

 

The parallels with Hitler's rise have been remarked on by VASTLY more intelligent and knowledgeable folks than myself.  Do a little research.

 

Relying on government opposition to prevent the formation of internment camps or other atrocities is a blindness to any form of moral obligation that I can't even fathom.

[megaplayboy]

Ultimately calling Trump our Hitler is like calling Senator Obama our Stalin or Mao. I get the feelings but think they are exaggerations.

Trump is not a nice man and his values are at odds with a lot of other republicans. That does not mean he will start up modern interment camps. Such conclusions require an extreme distrust of the system that that I would think only lay in the fervent Trump, Sen. Bernie, and third party base.

Soar.

Have you done your due diligence on all candidates running? Trump has talked about bringing back torture, banning Muslims, being blase about Russian aggression, deporting 11 million people in less than 2 years, changing libel laws to make it easier to sue the media, and many many other "out there" policy proposals. That's not hyperbole. Those are his stated positions.

There's ample evidence that he's a malignant narcissist, on top of all that. Several historians have described him as the least qualified major party candidate for president in the history of the country. But, ho hum, a pox on both their houses, not a dimes worth of difference, etc.

To quote Thomas A Beckett, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, consider the possibility that you are mistaken."

[aylwin13]

This was an interesting perspective, I thought:

 

 

I agree with this, but they failed to mention one important fact: THEY (the elected officials) are put into office to represent US (the people). To make decisions and changes to improve, protect, etc. their constituents and the country.

 

THEY seem to have forgotten that somewhere along the way.

[薔薇語]

Really?  Let's review since you apparently haven't been paying attention.

You know, Simon, we can disagree without essentially calling each other stupid.

 

Soar.

[Simon]

You know, Simon, we can disagree without essentially calling each other stupid.

 

Soar.

Not on this

[薔薇語]

1. He has repeatedly stated that he wants to ban Muslims from immigrating.  Including refugees...especially refugees.  He has painted an entire religion as evil and a problem.

Yes, yes he has. He has also walked back from those statements and then run back to them and so on and so forth. The man is about as reliable on those points as a teenage girl is on decided what outfit to wear.

 

Ultimately he has limited authority to make changes here. The Congress ultimately sets most of our immigration policies. Strict bans would also likely not survive Supreme Court muster. Next, it is a ban without teeth since there is essentially no way to create a viable litmus test.

 

2. He has stated that Muslim communities in the US should be faced with increased policing.

Oh, so you mean like how they were for the last 15 years under President Bush and president Obama? We are not doing a particularly good job at not engaging in some shady (read: racist) surveillance practices. But that is a far cry from Hitler. And partisan hyperbole aside, neither President Bush nor President Obama were our new Hitler.

 

3. He has stated (through Christie) that one of his first actions in office will be to root out government employees and posts that were appointed by Obama and replace them with those friendly to him.

Here is a quote I haven't heard before (I don't listen much to Gov. Christie). But how is this different than the routine rotation of folks between presidencies? It was actually quite unusual that President Obama kept so many of President Bush's appointments in place. Every time we talk about how partisan civil departments become post election. Republicans complain how the current justice department wouldn't dare go after Democratic officers. And vice versa under President Bush.

 

Civil Servants and Judges also have protections in place against rampant abuse (judges only get kicked out if Congress says so and civil servants can sue).

 

4. He has based his entire campaign on an appeal to anger, hatred, and bigotry.

 

Yeah, he has had quite a bit of hatred spew from his mouth. We can agree quite a bit on this one point, Simon. Perhaps this is a good reason for you and I to absolutely never vote for such a hate-filled man. But that doesn't mean I am going to vote for Sec. Clinton.

 

5. He has stated his approval of the Japanese internment camps in WWII.

No, he hasn't. He walks a fine line on such things but he has actually stated "rule it out...".

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/trump-rules-out-us-muslim-internment-camps.html

 

The parallels with Hitler's rise have been remarked on by VASTLY more intelligent and knowledgeable folks than myself.  Do a little research.

 

Relying on government opposition to prevent the formation of internment camps or other atrocities is a blindness to any form of moral obligation that I can't even fathom.

You know what I would like to do more than rely on "opposition" to prevent him from doing such things? Just have a system in place that reigns in Presidential powers. That is obviously not going to happen under either Sec. Clinton or Trump.

 

Soar.

[薔薇語]

Not on this

"3. Attacking of other forum members is subject to immediate banning."

 

Soar.

[Lawnmower Boy]

"It's okay to elect Trump 'cuz he probably won't get away with half the stuff he'd like to do."

[Simon]

"3. Attacking of other forum members is subject to immediate banning."

 

Soar.

Easy way to handle this one.  Welcome to moderation.  Will be followed by banning if you continue down this route.

[megaplayboy]

Trump has now been denounced by Gold Star families and the VFW for his comments on the Khans. I have a good imagination but I strain to envision the Donald apologizing for anything, ever.

[Old Man]

I see I got to the office too late to plead for cooler heads in this thread, but perhaps late will be better than never.  I do value having conservative posters in this thread (even if they are hopelessly misguided   ) so hopefully we can all pretend to be polite to each other for the next four months.

[Pariah]

I'm not thrilled with the direction things have taken over the past few posts, so I'm out.

[Old Man]

Intermission:

 

[Nolgroth]

I see I got to the office too late to plead for cooler heads in this thread, but perhaps late will be better than never.  I do value having conservative posters in this thread (even if they are hopelessly misguided   ) so hopefully we can all pretend to be polite to each other for the next four months.

 

The thing is, Trump is not Conservative. He's the founder of the Reformed Nutjob Party.

 

There was a Republican from California (Doug Elmets) that spoke on behalf of Clinton during the DNC. He feels that the party should have repudiated Trump and had nothing to do with him. He was interviewed this morning on the local news radio station. His overall view is better the enemy you know (Clinton) that the whack job you don't (Trump). That is my interpretation of his statements, for the record. He did mention that the Republican party should have just cut their losses, let Trump split the vote, and went with a real candidate. 

 

I agree that Trump is dangerous but I also have no love, whatsoever, for the Clintons. I've also looked at the 3rd party candidates and am not impressed there either. Looks like I'll be sitting out the Presidential vote this year. Should be plenty of local issues and positions to keep me busy.

[wcw43921]

Don't think this has been posted yet--apologies if it has.

 

The Puzzling Vilification Of Hillary