(July 21, 2016 at 12:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Eisenhower warned us and we did not listen.

Yes, I know. America had some working minds in power at some point. Even on the right.

(July 21, 2016 at 12:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Besides, as I've said before, is that really the President we want? One who puts forward a manifesto based on the likelihood of stuff getting passed, rather than on what the American people actually deserve?

Not aimed at me, but I can't help but answer.  Yes!  I'm going to strike the bit about what we deserve from consideration because, frankly, depending on who you ask we might deserve a whole hell of alot of shit that no one in their right mind would want.  It's just too vague to be of use to me, in answering the question.

Speaking strictly of the things I -do- want,  stronger...smarter environmental protections, for example.  It's easy to say.  It's easy to make the case for why we need them.  A significant number of people want that....but unless we can find a way to make it profitable..obscenely profitable, it won't pass in our current climate.  It's not just a partisan issue, even. Profitability is a crucial aspect of sustainability.  Nothing that is unprofitable is sustainable.  This immediately invites questions along the lines of asking the fox to guard the hens...but that doesn't make it any less true.

So yes, I want someone to put forward a manifesto that has at least a snowballs chance in hell of passing (in addition to a great many other qualifications).  Because if it doesn't..they may as well save the ink and the paper.  We don't -live- in the same world that our ideologies dream up, and those two worlds aren't going to become the same world unless we stair step our way there. We're so in love with the idea of a grand slam we've forgotten that it's unrealistic...and that we're not electing the President of Dreamland, but of the USA (you could see that in Sanders -and- Trumps campaigns, btw).

If somebody can do that, propose the things I want -and- a realistic manner in which they could be achieved...I might just vote for that person. So long as outr political establishment feels that they can prop up a salesman without an actual product...I don't vote at all. I can go down to a used appliance store if a need my shyster fix...and even there, at least I'll walk away with a dryer that works half the time.

(July 21, 2016 at 1:12 pm)abaris Wrote:

(July 21, 2016 at 12:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Eisenhower warned us and we did not listen.

Yes, I know. America had some working minds in power at some point. Even on the right.

Eisenhower pretty much flipped a coin as to which party to run for.

So not an unequivocal +1 for the pubs there, LOL !

It wouldn't surprise me if this election comes down to, "Will the Libertarians hurt The Donald more than the Green Party hurts Clinton? It may also be that the only person on the whole Planet who could possibly lose an election to Trump turns out to be Clinton. She is not, so far as I have seen, doing a single thing to help herself. With Sanders and Warren out of the picture and the primary over, she is already tacking back to the right deliberately working, so it seems, to be the the candidate of the ruling class. That is a clear path to putting Trump in the White House, but she seems oblivious.

Trump in the White House would be a disaster, no argument. But thinking that Clinton in the White House will be much less of a disaster? I don't see any reason for optimism. She is pro-war and pro-Wall Street; any other policy she claims to hold will be subservient to those two dictating forces. Pro-environmental? How? Pro-union? Not likely. Subdue special interests and stop the influence of big money? Really? Is there anything in her past that suggests any such leanings?

I guess one could look at it another way around. The only possible person who would be a worse President than another Clinton would be Trump. But that doesn't suggest that anyone should vote for her, only that this particular experiment in self-rule and democracy has already failed. Vote however you think "right". It will make, at most, a few months or years difference in the time it takes for America to join every other empire in history's dust bin.

Because dems aren't going to vote for the dumpster fire.  This is known.  She's looking to poach some repubs and repub leaning independants.

Hillary is pro-Hillary more than she is pro anything else. As long as the nations interests coincide with hers, she'll be fine.

But it wouldn't take much of another self inflicted unforced error, timed poorly, to eff her chance of victory. As noted above, the only candidate Trump has a whisper of a chance of beating is about to be nominated by the dems. And that candidate seems curiously and uniquely self-oblivious as to the peril she has put her candidacy in by her curious and unique self-obliviousness.

Hillary's trade and foreign policy reminds me of George W. Bush.

Corporate shill who loves bombing brown people.

The email is a godsend for Hillary. If people are talking about emails, then they aren't talking about Libya/Syria/Isis/Nigeria/Iraq/Etc... And they aren't talking about Nafta/TPP/Wallstreet.

In the (unfortunate) event of a Trump victory, no matter how long he's in, and no matter how much he fucks up or how often he fucks up or how bad he fucks up,


I'm blaming Hillary for every fucking goddam atomic particle speck of it.

(July 22, 2016 at 9:56 am)wallym Wrote: Hillary's trade and foreign policy reminds me of George W. Bush.

Corporate shill who loves bombing brown people.

The email is a godsend for Hillary. If people are talking about emails, then they aren't talking about Libya/Syria/Isis/Nigeria/Iraq/Etc... And they aren't talking about Nafta/TPP/Wallstreet.

Hilary is, amazingly, actually to the right of even George W. Bush on Israel. Secular Talk did a video on this. Is that amazing? I just get labelled a Fascist for pointing out how shitty Hilary is, but the actual Fascist/imperialist seems to be Hilary herself (along with Donald obviously):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FwndwGMz1NU

One major difference between the two is on gay rights issues. Having a lesbian daughter who is married, and who has adopted children (which is finally legal in all 50 states, I might add)) this is a big issue for me. Trump picked Pence, which just goes to show where he stands on gay rights. So Donald Drumpf can go fuck himself with a rusty razor blade. I'll pick the candidate that won't try to rip my daughters family apart over the candidate that will every day of the week.