NSFW THE TRUMPOCALYPSE

Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of posts seem to have been deleted - if there was any drama I missed it, I was sick for a few days and didn't get online because I knew it'd just stress me out. There was some stuff I didn't get to respond to that I wanted to, including the assumption that Spang was in a blue state - my bad. I assumed that him saying he wouldn't be able to change anything if he'd voted for Clinton 500,000 times was him saying that she'd win regardless of who he voted for when it was the opposite. The former is how it is here so I was thinking with my own worldview centered, which was foolish and shortsighted. Sorry for that.

Anyway...

Spang said:
No, I shouldn't.
Click to expand...

If you're able to acknowledge that Dump is worse, why can't you see where I'm coming from? One of two very unequally evil people was going to become President, and any action that stops the lesser evil from coming into power as opposed to the greater is the only worthwhile political action.

Yes, and it's important that we blame the people who voted for a gorilla, a dead Marxist, or a third-party candidate, and the people who didn't vote at all, not the flawed and unpopular candidate, nor the political party that did everything in its power to ensure that she be the nominee. Let's also take it easy on the corporate media that normalized and empowered her opponent.
Click to expand...

I blame the Democrats too, they really f**ked themselves over. But I think it's important to acknowledge that politics is a clusterf**k and there are a lot of reasons Clump got elected. Including the fact that many people who could've banded together and stopped him (not banded together and elected Clinton specifically, but in essence yes, because that was the only realistic course of action to stop him) put their ideology before the safety of others (and possibly the entire Earth).

Wolfie said:
He knows what taxes are. Theft. Taxation is theft. :D
Click to expand...

Eh. I mean, I'll meet you halfway here and say that yeah, the way we do taxes right now is pretty bizarre. Taxing the population and then using the funds to pay the IRS so they can continue to tax the population to pay the IRS is definitely stupid.

Maybe some people voted for him as a protest vote but definitely not all. Even if there was no libertarian on the ballot I would not have voted for Trump or Clinton. Most Johnson supporters I know would not have voted for either one either.
Click to expand...

And that's the issue, is what I'm saying. It's an ideological one. Johnson could never have won; either Clinton or Trump was going to get elected. Stopping Trump from taking office was, to me, a basic civic duty that we failed to perform.

Actually I think that's the crux of my argument through this entire thread right there. We, as sane decent human beings, had a duty to stop Trump, regardless of party lines, regardless of political affiliation and who we wanted to be President. We needed to do that through the most realistic and immediate means, which was to elect Hillary Clinton, a candidate who is, when critically examined, pretty terrible, but who would have been able to be lobbied and reasoned with like a human being. For our own plethora of reasons, we didn't do that.

If you disagree that it was a necessity to stop Trump at all costs, then there's no discussion I can have with you that will get you to see my side or me to see yours. That seems fundamental to me and it'd be impossible to change my mind on that. So I suppose that's the thesis statement of my involvement in this thread, and I'm going to try not to get too involved from here on out for my own peace of mind.

ledboots said:
An admission that churches can be helpful--on VV! Blasphemy, I say.
Click to expand...

I don't oppose or even dislike organized religion, not anymore anyway. Churches can be great.
 
Calliegirl said:
He said it perfectly...
Click to expand...
Because Democrats were so polite to George W when he was in office. Bush was portrayed as a monkey in numerous cartoons and skits, and even mainstream media laughed when a foreigner threw a shoe at his head. Obama was treated as perfection personified by the press in comparison.
 
ledboots said:
Because Democrats were so polite to George W when he was in office. Bush was portrayed as a monkey in numerous cartoons and skits, and even mainstream media laughed when a foreigner threw a shoe at his head. Obama was treated as perfection personified by the press in comparison.
Click to expand...
The more liberal media, sure, but overall I don't see that in any way true. It's mostly a matter of perspective. when it comes to policy and governing I feel Bush had far more respect. Obama was dismissed from the very start by so many in house and senate without chance
 
FortyTwo said:
If you're able to acknowledge that Dump is worse, why can't you see where I'm coming from? One of two very unequally evil people was going to become President, and any action that stops the lesser evil from coming into power as opposed to the greater is the only worthwhile political action.
Click to expand...

I don't live in a state where my vote matters. But if we're going to put this much stock into voting, and ignore all the other things a person could be doing in between election cycles to bring about real positive change, then I did my part during the primaries. I voted for Bernie Sanders, the candidate whose campaign rhetoric mirrored his record. The candidate who could have actually defeated the candidate with the Cheetos spray tan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots and Second Summer
Spang said:
I don't live in a state where my vote matters. But if we're going to put this much stock into voting, and ignore all the other things a person could be doing in between election cycles to bring about real positive change, then I did my part during the primaries. I voted for Bernie Sanders, the candidate whose campaign rhetoric mirrored his record. The candidate who could have actually defeated the candidate with the Cheetos spray tan.
Click to expand...

There's quite a lot of debate about that. Most people are certain that he would NOT have defeated Trump. The same forces that worked overtime to help Trump defeat Hillary would have done the same to defeat Bernie. They would simply have had different material to work with. For one thing, many of the older voters who voted for Trump have an immediate negative reaction to the words "socialist" and "socialism" because they remember their use during the Cold War, even though they never truly understand their meanings or what positive things socialism has done for them. The Trump campaign would have used that to their benefit, bigly. They would also have taken advantage of Bernie being Jewish, even though he's not outwardly religious and his wife isn't Jewish. The anti-Semitism displayed during the campaign would have been MUCH worse and even uglier than it was if Bernie was the Democratic nominee.
 
Last edited:
Spang said:
I don't live in a state where my vote matters. But if we're going to put this much stock into voting, and ignore all the other things a person could be doing in between election cycles to bring about real positive change, then I did my part during the primaries. I voted for Bernie Sanders, the candidate whose campaign rhetoric mirrored his record. The candidate who could have actually defeated the candidate with the Cheetos spray tan.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I'm not gonna disagree with you on anything except that last bit. I'm not sure even the best candidate the Democratic party put forward would have stumped the Bump, both due to the disorganization and infighting in the DNC and the wave of emerging bigotry that got him so much support.

ledboots said:
Because Democrats were so polite to George W when he was in office. Bush was portrayed as a monkey in numerous cartoons and skits, and even mainstream media laughed when a foreigner threw a shoe at his head. Obama was treated as perfection personified by the press in comparison.
Click to expand...

Obama was eviscerated by all but the most liberal news sources, and treated like absolute garbage by the right. Every President faces opposition, but the sheer hatred for Obama was overwhelming. Dubya wasn't well-loved, admittedly, but he did bring that on himself by being an awful President and having roadkill-tier intellect.

Also, the journalist who threw the shoe actually went to jail for a year for it. Kind of silly given the actual threat level, and the fact that getting shoes thrown at you sort of pales in comparison to starting an entire needless war. IMO the shoe throwing was hilarious and justified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Amy SF said:
There's quite a lot of debate about that. Most people are certain that he would NOT have defeated Trump. The same forces that worked overtime to help Trump defeat Hillary would have done the same to defeat Bernie. They would simply have had different material to work with. For one thing, many of the older voters who voted for Trump have an immediate negative reaction to the words "socialist" and "socialism" because they remember their use during the Cold War, even they never truly understand their meanings or what positive things socialism has done for them. The Trump campaign would have used that to their benefit, bigly. They would also have taken advantage of Bernie being Jewish, even though he's not outwardly religious and his wife isn't Jewish. The anti-Semitism displayed during the campaign would have been MUCH worse and even uglier than it was if Bernie was the Democratic nominee.
Click to expand...

Of course Bernie Sanders could have beaten Donald Trump

I agree the Republicans would have played up the whole Socialist thing, but I think the big difference between Clinton and Sanders supporters was enthusiasm. And I think it's the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton that cost her the election. In other words, most people who voted for her, did it because they felt they had to, whereas with Sanders, I believe people would have come to the poles, because they wanted to. Aside from her ill conceived focus on identity politics, it's quite possible that the enthusiasm gap could have made the difference.
 
beancounter said:
Of course Bernie Sanders could have beaten Donald Trump

I agree the Republicans would have played up the whole Socialist thing, but I think the big difference between Clinton and Sanders supporters was enthusiasm. And I think it's the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton that cost her the election. In other words, most people who voted for her, did it because they felt they had to, whereas with Sanders, I believe people would have come to the poles, because they wanted to. Aside from her ill conceived focus on identity politics, it's quite possible that the enthusiasm gap could have made the difference.
Click to expand...

Well, then, it's all Bernie's fault. He didn't win enough votes to win even the nomination.

See, that's where your line of thinking gets you.
 
ledboots said:
And if the shoes had been thrown at Obama or Hillary Clinton?
Click to expand...
It isn't the person but their actions that cause someone to feel whether or not it's deserved.
Bush had the backing of the house and senate for most of his terms. As far as the media is concerned, Fox was in bed with W while other sites investigated his decisions allowing the public to judge. Obama had both completely opposed to anything he wanted, regardless of public opinion. It's been nothing but a outright witchhunt against anything progressive
 
ledboots said:
And if the shoes had been thrown at Obama or Hillary Clinton?
Click to expand...

You're acting like this was just some isolated incident without context. "If it happened to a different person in a different situation, you'd TOTALLY think differently of it, huh??" Uh, yes?

In any case, if someone did this to Obama in a town where his administration had blasted innocents with drones, or if someone had done it to Clinton in Haiti, then it'd be a similar deal. People who are wronged getting back at those who seriously wronged them (not to mention, in an expressly nonviolent way where the worst danger the victim ever faced was maybe getting a bruise) is fine by me.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't automatically love every politician just because they're a Democrat or they said something progressive once. I've got some serious issues with both Obama and Clinton. I just believe in minimizing the damage our country does (to both its own citizens and those in other countries) as much as possible, within the realistic parameters.
 
Mischief said:
Well, then, it's all Bernie's fault. He didn't win enough votes to win even the nomination.

See, that's where your line of thinking gets you.
Click to expand...

She had more money, a larger organization, better name recognition, as well as undue influence in the DNC. Of course she was going to win the nomination. Nonetheless, she didn't inspire enough people in the right states during the general election.
She chose a strategy that didn't work. Instead of recognizing that it was a failed strategy, blaming everyone except her isn't going to help the Democrats in future elections.

Explaining the Enthusiasm Gap to a Sick Hillary Supporter
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296360-enthusiasm-gap-looms-for-clinton
The 2016 enthusiasm gap
 
  • Like
Reactions: Second Summer
beancounter said:
She had more money, a larger organization, better name recognition, as well as undue influence in the DNC. Of course she was going to win the nomination. Nonetheless, she didn't inspire enough people in the right states during the general election.
She chose a strategy that didn't work. Instead of recognizing that it was a failed strategy, blaming everyone except her isn't going to help the Democrats in future elections.
Click to expand...

You keep trying to have it both ways.

You repeatedly claimed that people were blind to Hillary's faults, and in the next breath, that people only supported her because they had no better option.

You come up with all kinds of excuses for why Bernie couldn't even win the nomination, but it's Hillary's "fault" that DT won.

It's impossible to take your "positions" seriously if they do a 180 based on your whims.
 
And again, I have to ask:

WHY ARE POSTS DELETED FROM THREADS FOR BEING "OFF TOPIC", BUT IT'S O.K. FOR MODERATORS TO CONTINUE TO BE OFF TOPIC IN THIS THREAD?

Yes, I know I'm yelling, but this is the third time that I've asked why this thread keeps being turned into a re-litigation of the election.
 
Mischief said:
You keep trying to have it both ways.

You repeatedly claimed that people were blind to Hillary's faults, and in the next breath, that people only supported her because they had no better option.
Click to expand...

The people who voted for her are not a homogeneous group. There is a certain group of blind faith supporters who refuse to believe she is at fault for losing the general election. And there are those who only voted for her because she was the least bad option.

Mischief said:
You come up with all kinds of excuses for why Bernie couldn't even win the nomination, but it's Hillary's "fault" that DT won.
Click to expand...

Sanders' loss to Hillary has no correlation to her loss to Trump. Since he wasn't in the general election, I am only speculating about how he would have fared against Trump. I believe the enthusiasm gap provides a reasonable basis to believe that Sanders would have performed better than she did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Second Summer
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom