Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2016 Presidential Election Thread Archive


Recommended Posts

Since the Democratic and Republican parties are like chimeras of 3 to 4 loosely aligned political ideologies, it leaves no space for a true 3rd party. Not to mention FPTP voting discourages 3rd parties.

This why the LP has Gary Johnson and Jill Stein is going to jail.

I think the LP has Johnson because he's the most reputable guy they could scrounge up. That whole party is full of weirdos, and Johnson's the least weird of them that could get nominated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jeb Bush  

So DNC, sure was a good idea to back Clinton over Sanders, eh? Clinton is just so much more electable.

[get prepped for some ramblings]    I get more depressed than scared.    Her voting record as a senator isn't good at all(in my opinion) with votes for the Iraq War(and not apologizing for it till

I think the LP has Johnson because he's the most reputable guy they could scrounge up. That whole party is full of weirdos, and Johnson's the least weird of them that could get nominated.

 

And it's notable that when Gary Johnson had to select a running mate, he picked a guy who was not part of the party and joined a week before (or some ridiculous short time like that).

 

But don't get me wrong. I'm digging the LP. They've gone full SJW and are carving away votes from Clinton by gulling disaffected Bernie Sanders voters into supporting him.

 

But yeah, if one has ever been around a herd of actual Libertarians - not that they congregate around humans as a rule - but half are nucking futz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is Aleppo?

 

OMG...

 

I'm willing to give candidates a pass on the campaign trail because they are asked a bajilllion questions (unless you're Hillary) and are running on a lack of sleep. But Holy Hell, man, there was a Commander-in-Chief forum on NBC with Hillary/Trump talking foreign policy issues. Drop the doobie and get with the program!

 

They'd do it to anyone really. One of the biggest out of many, many reasons that nobody points out to dumbass baby boomers why Trump's wall is a stupid idea is that we already built a border fence during the Bush administration. Despite it not working like at all, the ding-dongs who supported it didn't realize we had to build it on American soil, so anyone who didn't sell land to have it built got eminent domained. 

 

Being opposed to eminent domain is one of those weird outliers that I don't understand in the Conservative movement. It's in the Constitution guys as well as every State constitution. Yeah, ED has been abused in certain cases but building a wall, if a wall must be built, is a pretty cut-and-dry Constitutionally speaking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What some people who see the third parties as alternatives need to understand is that American third parties are complete shit shows. They are a joke, they are amateur hour, and they only seem harmless because they have no power whatsoever.

Gary Johnson is not an exception to this.

 

I've been taking a break from the usual Hillary/Trump stuff and have instead been enjoying the near daily mishaps from them.

 

Guac the vote.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-business-group-starts-guac-vote-effort-n643551

 

 

I welcome our new Taco truck overlords with a healthy appetite.

 

If this happened a few months sooner, maybe Jeb would have had a chance.

 

dz9GAKD.jpg?1

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I don't fucking get it. So the Trump news today is all about the fact that Donald Trump has been saying "nice things" about Vlad Putin. OK. Wasn't the argument that Donald Trump is unfit for office because he'll say any old thing, insulting other nations to the point that it will piss someone off and get us into a war? Now he's wrong because he isn't openly insulting someone and is saying we should work together with one of the world's other super powers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the things to attack Trump with, the media really wants to push a fringe theory about Trump and Putin which most Americans don't give a shit about. I don't get it either.

It is interesting to look at the 2012's race and see the Romney campaign be very anti-Russia/Putin and having the Dems counter by saying "it's not the Cold War anymore!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I don't fucking get it. So the Trump news today is all about the fact that Donald Trump has been saying "nice things" about Vlad Putin. OK. Wasn't the argument that Donald Trump is unfit for office because he'll say any old thing, insulting other nations to the point that it will piss someone off and get us into a war? Now he's wrong because he isn't openly insulting someone and is saying we should work together with one of the world's other super powers?

 

If you ever wonder why politicians tend to give milquetoast non-answers on things like this, building and re-building foreign and domestic policy is an almighty fucker of a task. It's very underappreciated, but international politics is one of the most difficult functions of the government. You need the right military, the right military moves, you need to bolster one ally while not pissing off anyone around them. You need to find the best and brightest human beings alive with almost supernatural diplomatic and political skills, with knowledge of every inch of the land they're involved in, and what it means to the rest of the world. You need the full cooperation of military and political infrastructure working like a ballet to get little jobs here and there done of the course of decades. If I could put it in better terms, imagine if we had Patton and Monty running SHAEF instead of Eisenhower and Tedder, and you'll understand why people who actually have a chance of being president are usually more tight-lipped on this sort of thing.

 

On topic, it is openly insulting to Poland, Romania, Estonia, Finland, and other Central and Eastern European allies who've been diligently building up to join NATO and depending on not having a few tens of thousands of "AWOL volunteers" or whatever flooding through their eastern borders. Yeah, he made this country look awful with his talking points meant to flame up the far right, but he is now actively undermining international politics by acting as a self-declared diplomat, which is potentially illegal. Congress gets in trouble with this every so often, but no charges are ever filed, since it's serious stuff that could result in heavy punishments. Since it's mostly for political points from politicians ignorant of the law, offenders usually kind of disappear off the spectrum or are relegated to being party votes until their career is over. It's sort of why Hillary refused the Meixco invitation that Trump accepted, Congress will usually only go on low-key official visits, and why Presidents don't do international tours until after their election. My guess is these trips are going to become rarer as stern men in black suits start showing up at his headquarters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ever wonder why politicians tend to give milquetoast non-answers on things like this, building and re-building foreign and domestic policy is an almighty fucker of a task. It's very underappreciated, but international politics is one of the most difficult functions of the government. You need the right military, the right military moves, you need to bolster one ally while not pissing off anyone around them. You need to find the best and brightest human beings alive with almost supernatural diplomatic and political skills, with knowledge of every inch of the land they're involved in, and what it means to the rest of the world. You need the full cooperation of military and political infrastructure working like a ballet to get little jobs here and there done of the course of decades. If I could put it in better terms, imagine if we had Patton and Monty running SHAEF instead of Eisenhower and Tedder, and you'll understand why people who actually have a chance of being president are usually more tight-lipped on this sort of thing.

 

On topic, it is openly insulting to Poland, Romania, Estonia, Finland, and other Central and Eastern European allies who've been diligently building up to join NATO and depending on not having a few tens of thousands of "AWOL volunteers" or whatever flooding through their eastern borders. Yeah, he made this country look awful with his talking points meant to flame up the far right, but he is now actively undermining international politics by acting as a self-declared diplomat, which is potentially illegal. Congress gets in trouble with this every so often, but no charges are ever filed, since it's serious stuff that could result in heavy punishments. Since it's mostly for political points from politicians ignorant of the law, offenders usually kind of disappear off the spectrum or are relegated to being party votes until their career is over. It's sort of why Hillary refused the Meixco invitation that Trump accepted, Congress will usually only go on low-key official visits, and why Presidents don't do international tours until after their election. My guess is these trips are going to become rarer as stern men in black suits start showing up at his headquarters. 

 

And I don't really see how Trump's generic comments about Putin - and they've been very generic - or his remarks about NATO allies needing to pay their own fair share affect any of that. What'd happen if Trump went on TV tomorrow and called Putin a Son of a Whore? Would that placate his critics? 

 

As for stern men in black suits starting to show up at his headquarters, are you kidding? Did you see the FBI's tepid response to the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? The FBI isn't going to do jack about any major party candidate at this stage of the election.

 

As for the Mexican visit, that has been a resounding success for Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't really see how Trump's generic comments about Putin - and they've been very generic - or his remarks about NATO allies needing to pay their own fair share affect any of that. What'd happen if Trump went on TV tomorrow and called Putin a Son of a Whore? Would that placate his critics? 

 

As for stern men in black suits starting to show up at his headquarters, are you kidding? Did you see the FBI's tepid response to the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? The FBI isn't going to do jack about any major party candidate at this stage of the election.

 

As for the Mexican visit, that has been a resounding success for Trump.

 

1) Because you and I have no stake in it, if at least relatively. A comment about him admiring Putin, touting Putin's 80% approval rating, or seen schmoozing with the man has little bearing on us, but it will get a lot more attention in places where it matters (either in country or in political systems), for whatever it's worth. Kind of like how nobody in the West really cared about Bush's "crusade" remark, but it was supposedly frequently featured in Al Qaeda recruiting outlets.

 

2) I didn't mean to sound like he'd be put up for charges, but his staff would most likely see visits and inquiries from related parties and get a "seriously, don't do that another time."

 

3) I won't get into the case if it's positive for him or not, but it doesn't change the fact that it is potentially a serious issue. See the Azerbaijan oil visit scandal, and the Iranian deal memo controversy as recent examples. Interference with foreign policy is a serious issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Because you and I have no stake in it, if at least relatively. A comment about him admiring Putin, touting Putin's 80% approval rating, or seen schmoozing with the man has little bearing on us, but it will get a lot more attention in places where it matters (either in country or in political systems), for whatever it's worth. Kind of like how nobody in the West really cared about Bush's "crusade" remark, but it was supposedly frequently featured in Al Qaeda recruiting outlets.

 

2) I didn't mean to sound like he'd be put up for charges, but his staff would most likely see visits and inquiries from related parties and get a "seriously, don't do that another time."

 

3) I won't get into the case if it's positive for him or not, but it doesn't change the fact that it is potentially a serious issue. See the Azerbaijan oil visit scandal, and the Iranian deal memo controversy as recent examples. Interference with foreign policy is a serious issue.

 

1) Fair 'Nuff

 

2) Fair 'Nuff. Although I'll add this might be the first US election in history where the losers get prosecuted.

 

3) I'd agree except this isn't 1954. And we had a US Congressman in Seattle (Bagdad Jim McDermott) who did this very thing and suffered no serious repercussions. Or Jimmy Carter in Cuba and North Korea. Or Ted Kennedy palling around with the Soviets in during the Reagan Administration. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I mean it's such an unknown capacity. No side would be dumb enough to pursue the other on it, because it's not like there's not serious dirt on either of the parties. The only serious inquiries I've seen have been over things like the Azerbaijan deal, which didn't affect too many well-known individuals. IF if if anything were to be made of it and I 99% doubt it ever would, it'd at most be political maneuvering to bog down his campaign, and I don't think there'd be any opposition by the Republicans at this point. Any real effect it would have would be him making a lot of enemies, and while casual observers might say "Good, he'll shake things up" or something folksy, you'd be surprised at how easily someone can be stymied when they push away as far as he is (I've heard rumors that this is what happened to Carter and several prominent Congressmen over the years, but nothing to back it up).

 

Again, I love me some Gay Black Hitler over this kind of stuff, so take it more as me musing to ifs and maybes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on subject.

 

 

Although I kept trying to figure in how a Libertarian philosophy would work in a Star Trek universe. And that's when I realized there isn't a standard, coherent Libertarian philosophy. 

 

Also, the infighting in the YouTube comments section.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ever wonder why politicians tend to give milquetoast non-answers on things like this, building and re-building foreign and domestic policy is an almighty fucker of a task. It's very underappreciated, but international politics is one of the most difficult functions of the government. You need the right military, the right military moves, you need to bolster one ally while not pissing off anyone around them. You need to find the best and brightest human beings alive with almost supernatural diplomatic and political skills, with knowledge of every inch of the land they're involved in, and what it means to the rest of the world. You need the full cooperation of military and political infrastructure working like a ballet to get little jobs here and there done of the course of decades. If I could put it in better terms, imagine if we had Patton and Monty running SHAEF instead of Eisenhower and Tedder, and you'll understand why people who actually have a chance of being president are usually more tight-lipped on this sort of thing.

On topic, it is openly insulting to Poland, Romania, Estonia, Finland, and other Central and Eastern European allies who've been diligently building up to join NATO and depending on not having a few tens of thousands of "AWOL volunteers" or whatever flooding through their eastern borders. Yeah, he made this country look awful with his talking points meant to flame up the far right, but he is now actively undermining international politics by acting as a self-declared diplomat, which is potentially illegal. Congress gets in trouble with this every so often, but no charges are ever filed, since it's serious stuff that could result in heavy punishments. Since it's mostly for political points from politicians ignorant of the law, offenders usually kind of disappear off the spectrum or are relegated to being party votes until their career is over. It's sort of why Hillary refused the Meixco invitation that Trump accepted, Congress will usually only go on low-key official visits, and why Presidents don't do international tours until after their election. My guess is these trips are going to become rarer as stern men in black suits start showing up at his headquarters.

I think its interesting that foreign diplomacy, like the tax system, tends to be an area which even the most dysfunctional government carefully keeps running.

That said, I think that the US has been remarkably bad at this game for a while now (sole superpowers can afford to be) and the issue of NATO advancing into Russia's near abroad is just one symptom of this.

Frankly, Russia is not a match for US power (regional or international) any level except nuclear warfare. And so the constant prodding of the bear is both pointless and one of the few things that could actively jeopardise the US's ultimate interest (ie: survival).

US politicians and diplomats have been playing an unusually stakes-free game since 1990 or so, and it's made them into the worst kind of gamblers. Trump using the campaign trail to call them on this is just an example of how out of the mainstream common sense in foreign policy has become.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on subject.

Although I kept trying to figure in how a Libertarian philosophy would work in a Star Trek universe. And that's when I realized there isn't a standard, coherent Libertarian philosophy.

Also, the infighting in the YouTube comments section.

I thought the standard Libertarian philosophy was smug? Also male and between the ages of 14 and 40.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...