The News Thread

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I wasn't a Clinton supporter, but you're kidding yourself if you think she'd be having this sort of trainwreck start.

Don't act like the medias(lefts weapon of choice) number one goal right now isn't to assassinate the mans image any chance they get and give him the hardest possible time. Anyone that didnt expect that is pretty disconnected. And yes, there's no way she would have had a start like this, because the Republicans dont posses the same guns that the snakes on the left do. Everything would have been washed up under the liberal bridge. The only thing you'd be hearing would be from those "crazee cookoos on foxnews and breitbart". And who can possibly believe them, right?

I didn't want Trump to be the nominee, but he won and i voted for him(there was no choice imo). And you know what? So far so good.

 

[Dak]

Popcorn.gif

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I never said otherwise. She's a career politician that had her eye on the throne probably her whole life. I think some of the appeal of Trump was thinking that he wouldn't be a business as usual president.

I get that, but my point is those people were fucking idiots all along, and now that he's crashing into a wall at 100 MPH that plain for all to see. We have someone totally incompetent running our government. Granted, enough Americans were stupid enough to ask for this, so it's we deserve the instability and chaos that is looming. He's showing himself to be utterly incompetent and hanging by a thread to his cloak of deception. One can only imagine what will happen when the web of deceptions he's thinly hiding finally gets exposed.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Don't act like the medias(lefts weapon of choice) number one goal right now isn't to assassinate the mans image any chance they get and give him the hardest possible time. Anyone that didnt expect that is pretty disconnected. And yes, there's no way she would have had a start like this, because the Republicans dont posses the same guns that the snakes on the left do. Everything would have been washed up under the liberal bridge. The only thing you'd be hearing would be from those "crazee cookoos on foxnews and breitbart". And who can possibly believe them, right?

I didn't want Trump to be the nominee, but he won and i voted for him(there was no choice imo). And you know what? So far so good.

 

[CiG]

I get that, but my point is those people were fucking idiots all along, and now that he's crashing into a wall at 100 MPH that plain for all to see. We have someone totally incompetent running our government. Granted, enough Americans were stupid enough to ask for this, so it's we deserve the instability and chaos that is looming. He's showing himself to be utterly incompetent and hanging by a thread to his cloak of deception. One can only imagine what will happen when the web of deceptions he's thinly hiding finally gets exposed.

You don't need better politicians, you need a better electorate. Or you'll keep getting the politicians you deserve.

Apparently Hillary is planning to run again, nobody will learn anything. It'll either be another right-lash like Trump or you'll elect a corrupt dynastic elitist because Trump's presidency will be so bad.

I wonder when people will start to go third party?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

You don't need better politicians, you need a better electorate. Or you'll keep getting the politicians you deserve.

That's not likely to happen now that public education is likely to be defunded and things like evolution and creationism will be placed on an even playing field in large sectors of the nation.

Apparently Hillary is planning to run again, nobody will learn anything. It'll either be another right-lash like Trump or you'll elect a corrupt dynastic elitist because Trump's presidency will be so bad.

God forbid. The democratic elites would probably will her through just to watch the same trainwreck occur again.

I wonder when people will start to go third party?

I doubt it, and this is coming from someone who has voted 3rd party every presidential election of my life. There are two problems. One is fixable, one isn't. The fixable problem is that 3rd parties haven't built enough at the local and state levels. If Greens and Libritarians could start getting seats in state senates and congresses, or even just more on the city and county level of government, then they could start to build something legitimate. However, the top down method isn't gonna work.

The second problem is that most Americans have bought hook, line, and sinker into the two party system. I've talked to Californians who fully understand the electoral system who think I betrayed them by voting 3rd party, despite the fact that it goes against all reason. If people can't vote with their values in "safe states" then I have trouble seeing them change their minds and taking a risk on a 3rd party canidate.

 

[Dak]

We have a Jill Stein sucker?

 

[CiG]

That's not likely to happen now that public education is likely to be defunded and things like evolution and creationism will be placed on an even playing field in large sectors of the nation.

Probably a good thing, it's about time scientists stopped being autistic shut-ins and political puppets and started actually firing up and stepping into politics full force. This might be the kicking they need.

If Greens and Libritarians could start getting seats in state senates and congresses, or even just more on the city and county level of government, then they could start to build something legitimate.

It should also be pointed out that third parties should start taking themselves more seriously, or seriously at all. If you for example put people like Gary Johnson forward, you deserve to only get 4.5% and be left out of the presidential debates. What a fucking clown that guy was. Herpderp sorry I didn't study up on the topics of discussion, was too busy watching Cheech & Chong bro. Fuck that guy.

I've talked to Californians who fully understand the electoral system who think I betrayed them by voting 3rd party, despite the fact that it goes against all reason.

Sounds like a shit place, full of sheep. That would get very old very quickly. But I suppose that's exactly the point with which you and I agree, people treat those they vote for as somehow more than just political elites, but rather as their favourite athlete or celebrity and the party they belong to as their team, their family. It's cretinous. It's also one of the main reasons I fucking hate Trump supporters in general.

Milo tried to turn Trump support into a form of American monarchism and he should fuck himself for doing it.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

I doubt it, and this is coming from someone who has voted 3rd party every presidential election of my life. There are two problems. One is fixable, one isn't. The fixable problem is that 3rd parties haven't built enough at the local and state levels. If Greens and Libritarians could start getting seats in state senates and congresses, or even just more on the city and county level of government, then they could start to build something legitimate. However, the top down method isn't gonna work.

I often tell this to people who don't vote during local and state elections. If you want proper representation, you need to participate in every level of government because it ultimately has an effect on you. Whining about how the U.S. isn't REALLY democratic doesn't help when there wasn't any active participation to begin with. It isn't just a problem with the parties, it's a problem with much of the citizenry as well.

 

[rms]

Again, laughable. No Clinton fan at all, but her level of corruption and conflict of interest isn't even close to being on the same level as Trump's.

don't agree here. Clinton is just better at making it not appear this way.

They got played, plain and simple.

welcome to the America

 

[rms]

something I gotta read up on;

"There's a gap in the law," attorney Tahirah Amatul-Wadud told the Daily News on Monday evening. "Frankly, there is nothing on terrorism unless it's connected to a foreign element. You won't see the KKK charged with domestic terror even though that's what they do."

According to the Patriot Act from 2001, prosecutors can only charge a defendant with domestic terrorism if he or she had the intension to "intimidate" or "coerce" a civilian population, or influence the "policy of a government" to affect the conduct of government by "mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Probably a good thing, it's about time scientists stopped being autistic shut-ins and political puppets and started actually firing up and stepping into politics full force. This might be the kicking they need.



It should also be pointed out that third parties should start taking themselves more seriously, or seriously at all. If you for example put people like Gary Johnson forward, you deserve to only get 4.5% and be left out of the presidential debates. What a fucking clown that guy was. Herpderp sorry I didn't study up on the topics of discussion, was too busy watching Cheech & Chong bro. Fuck that guy.



Sounds like a shit place, full of sheep. That would get very old very quickly. But I suppose that's exactly the point with which you and I agree, people treat those they vote for as somehow more than just political elites, but rather as their favourite athlete or celebrity and the party they belong to as their team, their family. It's cretinous. It's also one of the main reasons I fucking hate Trump supporters in general.

I pretty much agree with you on all three points. The lack of political engagement in this country (beyond the presidency, and even there we barely break 50% most of the time) is really alarming.

I often tell this to people who don't vote during local and state elections. If you want proper representation, you need to participate in every level of government because it ultimately has an effect on you. Whining about how the U.S. isn't REALLY democratic doesn't help when there wasn't any active participation to begin with. It isn't just a problem with the parties, it's a problem with much of the citizenry as well.

Agreed 100%. Ironically, people are least engaged in the politics that is likely to impact them most directly.

don't agree here. Clinton is just better at making it not appear this way.

I'm gonna push back. Clinton has her conflicts of interest (i.e. Clinton Foundation) but at least she did have a real plan for how she was gonna handle it as president (and it wasn't just handing it over to Chelsea and "not talking about it.") She may have given kick backs to donors through positions, probably more along the lines of abassadorships and the like, but perhaps even a few cabinet positions to those who were actually qualified.

However, she would not have destabilized our government through allowing rampant corruption and disorder. Her issues are simply nowhere near the level of conflict of interest we've seen from Trump.

1) He's violating the emoluments clause of the constitution by having international political events at the Mar-a-Lago, in which foreign governments are paying for services owned by Trump

2) He has openly said that he is reversing Dodd Franc because it is hurting his business friends

3) He has business ties to a pipeline that he has passed executive orders to move forward

4) He is giving different treatment to countries he has business ties to (i.e. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia vs. the seven banned countries)

5. He and his staff are openly promoting his daughter's brand and attacking companies who make a business decision to not carry her product

6. After campaigning on "drain the swamp" he treated his cabinet like a free-for-all for Wall Street bankers, millionaires, and billionaires, often selecting people with blatent conflicts of interest

7. He hasn't divested from his businesses and is still having it run by his sons. There's no reason to think he isn't aware of what's happening in them and based on his entire life's work, there's no reason to think that he won't prioritize his business over what's good for the US people

8. Then there's whatever he's hiding with Russia. TBD.

To imply that Clinton had this level of conflict of interest, or even close to it, is simply wrong. Again, I'm not claiming she's a saint or is devoid of conflict of interest and corruption, but it's not even close to Trump.

 

[rms]

However, she would not have destabilized our government through allowing rampant corruption and disorder. Her issues are simply nowhere near the level of conflict of interest we've seen from Trump.

Well, I don't think Trump has done this either. This 'destabilization' isn't from corruption but from incompetence in nearly all executive actions.

He's violating the emoluments clause of the constitution by having international political events at the Mar-a-Lago, in which foreign governments are paying for services owned by Trump

Again, nothing destabilizing. This is a conflict of interest to which all politicians have and Trump is ineffective at hiding it or does not have an interest in hiding it

He has openly said that he is reversing Dodd Franc because it is hurting his business friends

This is not a Trump-esque problem, this defines most if not all of our 'representatives' -- Hillary is no different. To act like she is separate from her personal biases (whether that is business or the issues of those dearest to her) is ludicrous

To imply that Clinton had this level of conflict of interest, or even close to it, is simply wrong. Again, I'm not claiming she's a saint or is devoid of conflict of interest and corruption, but it's not even close to Trump.

You are conflating level of corruption and how visible said corruption is. If Trump was more tactful with the intelligence community and if basically all of (social)media wasn't left-leaning, a lot of this would never have been exposed. But when you anger nearly all ethnic/gender/racial groups in America, there will be backlash. And this backlash has economic incentives for all of these said media companies.

Hillary is smart/experienced enough to know how to not make a 'splash,' but acting like Trump conflict of interest is on a level much higher than Clinton or a common American politician is naive at best IMO

(p.s. I ignored the rest of the points because they are basically in the same vein as #1-2)

 

[Einherjar86]

Third-party voting is a false hope. Even managing to elect a third-party candidate into office won't achieve any significant difference. In a political system of competing factions, even an innumerable amount of them, you will inevitably find that all groups gravitate toward two opposition parties. This is because people want their party to win. When winning is the goal, it pays to make bedfellows with your more amenable opponents.

Third-party voting is nothing more than the perpetuation of the two-party system.

 

[arg]

I think instead of the Muslim ban, Trump should have massively defunded the refugee program and then stated very publicly that he's using those funds on poor Americans. It would achieve the same result, receive more support and lefties will look bad for fighting it. I have a feeling he will do that in the near future.

Other than that he's doing great

 

[CiG]

something I gotta read up on;

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

I'm wondering why Antifa aren't considered some form of terrorism, not even the Southern Poverty Law Center condemns them and they went so far as to condemn tiny Twitter movements like #Gamergate.

Third-party voting is a false hope. Even managing to elect a third-party candidate into office won't achieve any significant difference. In a political system of competing factions, even an innumerable amount of them, you will inevitably find that all groups gravitate toward two opposition parties. This is because people want their party to win. When winning is the goal, it pays to make bedfellows with your more amenable opponents.

Third-party voting is nothing more than the perpetuation of the two-party system.

To say there's no hope, which implies no chance of change, is rather ironic considering your country just elected a nationalist populist television celebrity to the highest office in the country.

Even this goes beyond my levels of cynicism.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Well, I don't think Trump has done this either. This 'destabilization' isn't from corruption but from incompetence in nearly all executive actions.

Disagree. Potential collusion with a foreign government is straight up corruption.

Again, nothing destabilizing. This is a conflict of interest to which all politicians have and Trump is ineffective at hiding it or does not have an interest in hiding it

That's not true at all. Stop with the naive equivocation.

In contrast, presidents in recent history have generally tried their best to adhere to the conflict of interest laws that govern their fellow executive branch colleagues, keeping plain vanilla portfolios during their time in office. “You do not want to hold financial interests that present a potential conflict of interest with your official duties,” says Kiernan.

For example, Bill Clinton used blind trusts while he was in office, as did George W. Bush. When Hillary Clinton launched her first presidential run in 2007, she went so far as to liquidating her blind trust to eliminate any investments that might create a problem down the road. Since then, she has kept the proceeds in bank accounts, treasury notes and mutual funds.

Outside of the blind trusts that held their investments, the Bushes and Clintons kept personal real estate, cash accounts, life insurance, bonds and mutual funds. The Obamas bucked the trend when they decided against using blind trusts, but their mix of bank accounts, treasury notes, index funds and college savings was unlikely to pose a direct conflict of interest.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennife...decessors-did-with-their-assets/#228d1b879156
Not to mention Jimmy Carter sold a fucking peanut farm to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.

This is not a Trump-esque problem, this defines most if not all of our 'representatives' -- Hillary is no different. To act like she is separate from her personal biases (whether that is business or the issues of those dearest to her) is ludicrous

Not denying it. However, Clinton would have pressure from her voters to veer to the left. No way she would have dared trying to dismantle Dodd Franc.

You are conflating level of corruption and how visible said corruption is. If Trump was more tactful with the intelligence community and if basically all of (social)media wasn't left-leaning, a lot of this would never have been exposed. But when you anger nearly all ethnic/gender/racial groups in America, there will be backlash. And this backlash has economic incentives for all of these said media companies.

Hillary is smart/experienced enough to know how to not make a 'splash,' but acting like Trump conflict of interest is on a level much higher than Clinton or a common American politician is naive at best IMO

Provide evidence showing that Clinton had anywhere near the level of conflict of interest as Trump.

 

[Einherjar86]

To say there's no hope, which implies no chance of change, is rather ironic considering your country just elected a nationalist populist television celebrity to the highest office in the country.

Even this goes beyond my levels of cynicism.

There's nothing new about America's fascination with media celebrity and desire for a heartland Eden.

Also, I didn't say there's no hope. I said that voting third-party is a false hope.

 

[Dak]

I'm wondering why Antifa aren't considered some form of terrorism, not even the Southern Poverty Law Center condemns them and they went so far as to condemn tiny Twitter movements like #Gamergate.

The SPLC exists to give a citation source to people who don't do much independent thinking. "The SPLC says....!!!"

 

[CiG]

There's nothing new about America's fascination with media celebrity and desire for a heartland Eden.

Also, I didn't say there's no hope. I said that voting third-party is a false hope.

Regardless I still disagree. It's very America-centric to think like you, funnily enough. All over the world we are seeing third party popularity increasing and it's not necessarily perpetuating the two party system. If people listen to you perhaps it will keep being that way, but thankfully I don't think the future leads that way.

Maybe it will never happen in America, but it's already happening elsewhere.