Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me start with the first thing that jumped out at me, the idea that we shouldn't say Trump's policies are bad without looking at the alternative. I agree. However I feel a slight error in your post is implying taht all the positions are equal to me (or to you for that matter), with the exception of the one area you gave Trump a +2 in, which seemed more like emphasis than the point I'm trying to make. If I could scale my priorities on this one it'd be:

+500 Clinton (Climate change)
idc - the rest.

idc is an exaggeration, but the extent to which I care on those issues is minimal compared to the amount I care on not having someone who is a proponent of anti-intellectualism. Rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus on matters like that is something that instantly disqualifies a candidate, by my view. Because not only is that an important issue, it speaks greatly to a character flaw that will probably exert itself in other situations as well, that being a refusal to listen and take the advice of experts in a given field.

I'm a globalist who generally would like, one day, for there to be no nations, just the human race. I've spoken out against patriotism on this forum in the past, and would gladly do so again if it came up. As such, my views align much more towards Clinton than Trump. That being said, I know I'm in a small minority of people on this issue, and that it is not a particularly popular one, especially when people are trending towards an anti-globalism viewpoint nowadays. My view comes down to this: What is the intrinsic value that my neighbour has that makes them a better person and more worth caring about than someone in Africa, or a refugee from Syria? And extending past just my neighbours, whom I get along with, what makes the people in London worth more to me than the people in Paris/Berlin? A chance of birth. Not a good reason to favour one group of people over another as far as history is concerned.

As for Syrian refugees (credit to you btw, you didn't make the same mistake Trump has by saying there are a significant number of ISIS supporters there with no factual basis) some of them are economic migrants looking to mooch. I feel that accepting those few is a worthy price to pay for alleviating the suffering of all the other thousands of people. I try to place myself in their position, fearing for my life and with a completely uncertain future as I flee the only place I have ever known as home because of bombings and civil war that is surrounding me against my wishes. Now is there a problem with the doctrine of islam? Yes, but it's one shared by almost all religions, and if you don't persecute those whom practice Christianity for the Bible's misogyny and horror (anyone with a daughter I can buy?) then the fuel behind the fire of doing it with islam is one that I question. There are legitimate reasons to be more wary of those claiming to be muslim, I dont know of any Jihadist Christians for example, but that does not mean we should ignore the hundreds of thousands of innocents suffering for something that has nothing to do with them.

As for the topic of defence: which could be worse, an idiot with no clue what he's doing, or someone smart who is mistaken about their beliefs, but knows the risks and will do their upmost to avoid them. Clinton has made mistakes, and admitted them, and while some of her topics I am unsure on (No Fly is highly dependant on negotiation and I'm not sure how effective that will be, nobody wants to start ww3 with the russians over that (to elaborate, no Clinton does not want to start ww3. Nobody wants to. And I dont think that she would either)), I trust her to not misuse the nuclear weapons America has. I cant say the same thing about Trump, the very thought of him being capable of unleashing the weapons that could doom the human race fills me with dread.

As for the other things, a few brief comments. Trade Deals: TPP was a bad final deal, yes, but NAFTA is a good deal that hasn't harmed the people. I dont generally take popular opinion as gospel on these sorts of issues because it's incredibly nuanced and generally not something that the public has a solid enough grasp on to trust general opinion. Looking at the opinion of experts and economists, NAFTA was good.

Regarding abortion, Trump has pledged to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who will work to overturn Roe v Wade. That doesn't seem like it's a matter of him leaving it be, he would enable states to discriminate at their leisure.

The other things I would say fall under the blanket of this statement: Clinton isn't perfect, however her path is a step in the right direction. Obamacare isn't perfect, and Clinton will take steps to improve it and set it on the right direction. If you're on the no fly list you wouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun under Clinton. That's a step in the right direction (as far as my position on guns is concerned, along with things like the Charleston loophole and background checks). And on a whole heap of other smaller issues, while Clinton is not the perfect answer to all of the problems, she is a step in the right direction as far as I am concerned.

Now as for the scandals, while Clintons are bad optics, the FBI chose not to pursue criminal charges. The claim she personally deleted the 33000 extra emails is a bit weird considering it was her staffers who did that, and while I am personally sceptical that Clinton had no knowledge/input on that decision, there is also a dearth of evidence and we do not convict people without evidence. And as for the DNC members supporting her over Bernie... duh? Was that not obvious? They support the 30+ year Democrat who is well known and well liked in the Democratic Party over an independent using the Democratic Party to run because he knows that Independent Parties cant get shit done. Much wow. And the DNC's job is not to allow everyone to run to potentially be chosen as president, it is to select the party that they feel has the highest chance of getting elected. Superdelegates are not democratic, but they serve the purpose of the DNC, and now the RNC are considering implementing them to prevent something akin to what has happened with Trump happening again. Bernie was not considered electable, and there is a significant amount of shit that can be thrown at him that Hillary didn't that republican TV ads would have done (All women want to be raped would trump Trump's grab them by the pussy if implemented correctly). And independent sites (like 538) were predicting the New York Primary to go heavily in Clinton's favour, for good reason considering her 8 years of service there, and if memory serves she was massively ahead in the delegate count already by that point.

So moving onto Trump and his scandels. First of all, lets start with women. 9 people claiming he acts the way he says he does, a serial adulterer, I'd date my daughter, my daughter is a fine piece of ass, miss piggy... These are all indicative of him not thinking that women are equal to men, and that would show in his policies and could potentially show in his choice as supreme court judge, along with him having a worse effect on the younger generation, who always consider the president to be someone worth emulating. Would you be fine with 12 year old boys going around grabbing their classmates by the pussy, because they heard the president say he does it? His comments paint a picture, his actions support it, and that picture is one I find grotesque when it comes to the treatment of women. And that's not going into the case of the claim he raped a 13 year old girl that is due in court this December.

Next, his comments about foreign people, or almost foreign people. Here I'm putting 3 people, the Mexican Judge and the Gold Star Family. His comments towards both of these groups suggest at either supreme Xenophobia or racism and the fact that he sees no need to apologise for either of these comments worries me more, because he might well simply think that the comments he made are just and are perfectly fine to be made in a civilised society. I could go on here, but frankly it'd be a waste of words, the last two sentences sum up this scandal perfectly, and that's without going into the "they're sending rapists" thing.

Next, Trump University and the Trump Foundation. Trump University was a sham, and existed only to fatten his pockets and exploit people trying to take steps towards improving the quality of their life. The Trump Foundation has bought a life-size portrait of Trump, and funds from the Trump Foundation were used to pay off his lawsuit. This suggests a complete lack of empathy for those who are struggling in the world, be it those who are trying to improve their life by going to university and getting qualifications, or those who are incapable of helping themselves and need the charity of others to prevent them from starving to death. Not a great quality in a leader.

TLDR: Trump refuses to take responsibility for his own actions, and his anti-intellectualism, lack of ability to take criticism or advice, dangerous rhetoric and general cluelessness make me think he is a candidate I could never vote for.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I'm a globalist who generally would like, one day, for there to be no nations, just the human race. I've spoken out against patriotism on this forum in the past, and would gladly do so again if it came up. As such, my views align much more towards Clinton than Trump. That being said, I know I'm in a small minority of people on this issue, and that it is not a particularly popular one, especially when people are trending towards an anti-globalism viewpoint nowadays. My view comes down to this: What is the intrinsic value that my neighbour has that makes them a better person and more worth caring about than someone in Africa, or a refugee from Syria? And extending past just my neighbours, whom I get along with, what makes the people in London worth more to me than the people in Paris/Berlin? A chance of birth. Not a good reason to favour one group of people over another as far as history is concerned.
I feel the same way. But I don't want jobs to be shipped over seas. Unless we can like commute over to that side of the world in like half an hour to an hour at the most for like pennies on the dollar, yah know?
One of the reasons that I like Star Trek is because all of the world's nations are united as one. There is no war.

If anyone is going to start WW-III over Syria, it is the Russian Oligarchy. Why the hell would Hillary launch nuclear weapons over that? Why would anyone?
 
i just watched the al smith dinner highlights and lmao hill's one joke made me laugh quite hard

"People look at the Statue of Liberty and they see a proud symbol of our history as a nation of immigrants, a beacon of hope for people around the world. Donald looks at the Statue of Liberty and sees a 4."
 

NixHex

Fear is the mind-killer
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
i just watched the al smith dinner highlights and lmao hill's one joke made me laugh quite hard

"People look at the Statue of Liberty and they see a proud symbol of our history as a nation of immigrants, a beacon of hope for people around the world. Donald looks at the Statue of Liberty and sees a 4."
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
Great video summing up how shitty Hillary's foreign policy is. She wants war with Russia.
EDIT: This one's pretty good too. The question is about open borders, she blames Russia...
 
In the first of those videos, he seems to blatantly ignore the part about how it would take negotiation with the Russians (not outright stated to be Russians but heavily implied) with the inferred response being that she would be getting Russia to agree to not fly over the zones at all, making the scenario mentioned one that wouldn't happen. I'm sceptical about her ability to do that, but her foreign policy is not "lets have a war with Russia". Nobody's foreign policy is "lets have a war with Russia" because nobody is completely stupid.

And the second one she answers the question that Wallace asked where her quote was taken out of context, before going on to say that the source of the question, wikileaks, is one that shouldn't be trusted, as well as pivoting the question to become an attack on Trump. Now the original quote is this:

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
While that's ambiguous enough that I can see why she chose that as her defence, the wording, phrasing and punctuation imply that the open trade and open boarders is separate from her desire for green and sustainable energy. While I dont see that as an issue, I know I'm in a minority on that, and I feel a better defence would have been something like this:

I did say that, and that is a personal opinion I have. I feel a strong connection to many people throughout the world who I have met in my years of service, and my ideal world would be one where there is no war, no famine and indeed, a completely open market with open boarders, with the whole of the human race prospering as we have mastered the Earth and move on to habit the galaxy around us. However, that is but a dream of mine, one that I know many people do not want, and it is not a policy of mine, nor will pursuing that fantasy be a drain on my time or energy or resources whilst I am serving as the President of the United States, because I know that it is both currently completely unattainable, and, more importantly, doing so would go against the wishes of the American People. I will not put my personal dreams and ambitions above the people whom I am elected to serve, and especially not while those dreams are in direct opposition to what the People want.
And then go on to the wikileaks/russia/trump stuff after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
did you watch these videos?
Great video summing up how shitty Hillary's foreign policy is. She wants war with Russia.
EDIT: This one's pretty good too. The question is about open borders, she blames Russia...
why would i believe that person in the videos? him saying hillary reignited cold war rhetoric does not in fact mean anything at all. she actually talks about negotiating with russia. negotiation is what you do to not have wars. the government of the us constantly negotiates stuff with russia.

the second video about open borders she is quoted out of context by the moderator (although yeah her energy policy in the speech she was paid to give is probably dumb). which the dude making the video goes on to do a bunch more.

are you dumb? or just so bad at listening to women speak that you need a white male talking head (that is also bad at listening) to tell you what it all means?


you can call me intellectually dishonest, but im just not 12, so sorry baby. it's not intellectually dishonest to refuse to engage with the paper you wrote the night before. intellectual dishonesty would be expecting to have a discussion about donald trump campaign without mentioning the pervasive racism, sexism, capitalism, and ablism that have given him a platform in this election.


you have demonstrated an inability to listen to what she says in your use of these youtube videos. Can you explain that without calling yourself sexist? I can't...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Meanwhile, the cold war was hallmarked by the US and Russia fighting proxy wars in places where Russia was being an aggressor either to our allies or to previously neutral countries.

So basically, exactly what Russia has started to do again. In recent years, they have invaded Georgia and Ukraine, and have supported a dictator who is slaughtering his own people (and have plans to build a permanent military base) in Syria.

Do you want a US president who just denies reality and happily allows Russia to just take whatever it wants? Don't be thick.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
did you watch these videos?


why would i believe that person in the videos? him saying hillary reignited cold war rhetoric does not in fact mean anything at all. she actually talks about negotiating with russia. negotiation is what you do to not have wars. the government of the us constantly negotiates stuff with russia.

the second video about open borders she is quoted out of context by the moderator (although yeah her energy policy in the speech she was paid to give is probably dumb). which the dude making the video goes on to do a bunch more.

are you dumb? or just so bad at listening to women speak that you need a white male talking head (that is also bad at listening) to tell you what it all means?


you can call me intellectually dishonest, but im just not 12, so sorry baby. it's not intellectually dishonest to refuse to engage with the paper you wrote the night before. intellectual dishonesty would be expecting to have a discussion about donald trump campaign without mentioning the pervasive racism, sexism, capitalism, and ablism that have given him a platform in this election.


you have demonstrated an inability to listen to what she says in your use of these youtube videos. Can you explain that without calling yourself sexist? I can't...
Literally nothing I said was sexist. I'm not responding to such obvious bullshit.

But she didn't say negotiations with Russia. She said in order to have something in the table in order to have negotiations with Russia, we need to implement a no fly zone. And the second one is even more blatant. "That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders." So In both, she refused to answer the question, and went ahead and blamed Russia.

And maybe Russia is doing bad things, but that's where, what's it called, sanctions come in, not implementing a no fly zone, shooting down a plane, and going to world war 3.

Edit: Myzozoa how dumb are you? Did you just list capitalism in the basket of isms? Capitalism is a good thing lol... But easier to call someone sexist than have an actual conversation...

Edit 2: Also this reminds me of when trump said never take nukes off the table, so you can't criticize him for that comment if you agree with hillary here
 
Last edited:
But she didn't say negotiations with Russia. She said in order to have something in the table in order to have negotiations with Russia, we need to implement a no fly zone.
That's not what she said.

I'm well aware of the really legitimate concerns you have expressed from both the president and the general. This would not be done just on the first day. This would take a lot of negotiation, and it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground. We've had millions of people leave Syria. And those millions of people inside Syria who have been dislocated. So I think we could strike a deal and make a it very clear to the Russians and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria. It would help was our fight against ISIS.
Notice the lack of anything along the lines of "To negotiate with Russia, we need to implement a no fly zone". It's far more "I want to implement a no fly zone by working with the Russians'.
 

hyw

Banned deucer.
lmao at myzozoa

u dont like hillary's foreign policy? cant have anything to do w how she wants wwiii, must be cuz ur a sexist bigot!!1!

but srsly come on guys, hillary cant be trusted w the nuclear codes... unlike Mr. Trump, girl dont got the temperament to be commander in chief.

check this out:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10...tted-no-fly-zone-would-kill-a-lot-of-syrians/

imo theres a much bigger picture here that everyones missing. why the f does hillary wanna get involved in syria, anyway? allegedly its for humanitarian causes butt thats hard to believe. if she were so benevolent why does hillary, instead of sanctioning, bolster terrorist states like israel, saudi arabia, turkey etc?

as the palestinians, yemeni, and kurds get slaughered, hillary continues to fan the flames of conflict. we live in a world where weve given the saudis $20 billion in weapons alone since 2015, and earlier this yr when obama gave israel $38 billion the republicans were actually dissatisfied w how paltry the donation was xD and yet weve still got lead in our childrens water supplies and veterans on our streets.

i mean its one thing to turn a blind eye but were actively aiding these savages lol

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-strikes-are-civilians-un-report-9606397.html
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10...u-s-bombs-at-site-of-yemen-funeral-masssacre/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...d-kurdish-fighters-syria-161022184745848.html

the funny thing, too, is that none of this stuff is ever reported by news organizations here in the us. its crazy how some ppl still dont think the mainstream media is wholesomely biased vs trump.

u think trump is violent cuz hes a bit feisty w the ladies? hillarys the puppet of wall st and her policies r gonna lead to another subprime mortgage crisis-esque crash in the near future if she gets elected (she doesnt even wanna reinstate glass steagall and supports dodd frank rofl) but whats even worse imo is that shes the puppet of the military industrial complex. even taking republicans into account, hillary's received more $$$$ from arms and military service companies than any other candidate during the 2016 election.

hillary reigniting cold war rhetoric has everything to do w all of this. this is hillary's campaign platform, its fear mongering 101, and an attempt to deflect and distract from the substance of her leaked emails.

the reason hillary wants to get involved in syria is bc of the geopolitical chessboard. doesnt matter that assad is fighting isis and that a regime change would result in iraq 2.0. obama won the nobel peace prize for his foreign policy lol but take a look at how he describes iraq. he describes it as a strategic and tactical miscalculaion as opposed to a moral or ethical mistake. imo its reminiscent of the nazis talking about how invading russia during the winter was a mistake, lol.

as long as russia and iran r backing the stability of the country, hillary wants a regime change so that the new leader of syria is a puppet of hers, too, regardless of the civilian casualties as a result of the process or the fact that we'd be further supporting isis and al-nusra (al-qaeda in syria). most of the conflict on the "rebel"'s side (most of them are gone at this pt) are mercenaries anyway who have no loyalty other than the side that pays them more.

forget how she paid ppl to go to trump's rallies and incite violence to smear trump's campaign, this is a girl who touted fucking henry kissinger as an inspiration for her foreign policy x x

honestly w the constant fighting and destabilization of the middle east being so profitable for the military industrial complex and oil companies and with them bonding so strong w hillary thru dirty and even bloody money, i question whether hillary even wants to defeat isis. getting rid of them + bringing peace to the region = no more revenue for the companies that she in turn receives money from...

on the other hand, trump says hes willing to work with the russians in defeating isis to ultimately bring peace and stability to the region o o

lets not even get started on both candidates' positions on trade deals, too, it couldnt be clearer how much better trump would be in regards to this than hillary. trumps been opposed to the tpp from the very beginning and has rightfully touted nafta as the worst deal ever whereas hillarys voted for nafta countless times as a senator then called the tpp the gold standard and only recently flip flopped when she realized she underestimated how stupid the american ppl are. its rly an insult to our intelligence. obviously, here, too, u can see how her corruption is at play: more free trade deals like nafta and tpp -> us companies can ship jobs overseas to the mexicans or the chinese etc -> higher profit margins thanks to lower wages at the cost of raw jobs for our people here at home -> hillary receives an incomprehensible amount from the very companies that abuse these predatory deals as a thanks for fucking over hard working americans. shes literally on the board of fucking walmart for crying out loud.

look at the colombia free trade deal too. at first she was against it but oops, took money from industries in colombia and what do u know, she flipped her position to support it. on the contrary, trump wants to tax companies who want to bring their products back from slave labor countries into the us to make them rethink producing products overseas at all.

hillary might be a woman but compared to trump, shes the one who wants to either bomb or exploit the labor of women and children :/

this all comes down to money. the us has so much power but were using it in all the wrong ways. we have enough power in money to leverage isarelis saudis and turks to quit their carnage and we have enough power in money to leverage our corporations from abusing labor outside our borders. trump would run the country like a smart businessman in these respects whereas hillary would continue the corrupt and failed policies of obama, and u guys still wonder why this dude's done so well in the primaries and now against hillary? everyone is so pc now and tbh literally everyone is brainwashed by propaganda LOL
 
Last edited:

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Live Chat Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
hillary might be a woman but compared to trump, shes the one who wants to either bomb or exploit the labor of women and children :/

"And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.

"It works," Trump said over and over again. "Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing. It works."

"The morning after the debate, ABC’s “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump whether he “would authorize torture.” Trump responded: “I would absolutely authorize something beyond waterboarding.”


Going to leave this here (Abu Ghraib, very NSFW)
 
Last edited:

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
The American empire is horrifically violent and Hillary wants to see that continue. Choose Trump, choose fascism! Fascists have a long and dedicated history of preventing wars and conflicts and do not wish violence upon any one. Fascists know war is not the answer!

Spoiler: both candidates can be bad at the same things.

IF you wanted to have the discussion Hillary would strive to maintain the status quo of the empire whereas Trump platform is to expand and show more force to subdue dissidents.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
^
fascists who ruled and rule nation-states, albeit evil, are examples of some of the most intelligent people in human history with the keen insight into power and an intimate understanding of the human condition, which they exploit to the fullest. Case in point: Putin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mussoulini, etc....

Trump on the other hand is a man-baby fucktard. Calling him a fascist is undeserved praise, because despite its negative connotation the term demands a minimum threshold of intelligence. Fascists are all too familiar with the dark reality of the humanity, unlike good ol' donald who's on some racist lala land.
His understanding of politics and social reality is on par with your hillybilly uncle who you see at BBQs once a year. That's no fascist.

To generally address 99.9% of the trump advocacy posts in this thread; the most remarkable fact that I have observed is that it has very little to do with Trump but mostly to do with how crap Hillary is.

Yep Hillary is shady, but I have absolute faith that at least she has a plan, even if it's problematic or evil. Trump on the other hand would probably fail some variants of the turing test after a few drinks. Want to oppose Hillary? Good. Trump however isn't your answer. Give me ONE *affirmative* argument, backed up with consistent evidence as to why someone should vote for Trump come November.


I'm just sad you guys gave up on a brilliant person like Bernie Sanders for this shitshow.
 
Last edited:
Hi Soul Fly.
The biggest thing Bernie had running against him was how he was a self-described socialist. While the merits of socialism can be argued, in the US it's seen as a negative connotation in a general electorate. This is a huge (and unfortunate) reason why Hillary earned more votes in the primaries: many Democratic voters (and quite a few I know) picked Hillary solely because they felt a socialist is unelectable.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
yes, I am aware. It was more of a tongue-in-cheek sentiment, given how the election has basically boiled down to a national personality test, bernie looks pretty fly compared to trump/hillary.

[also on a nuanced point, I would argue given the nincompoop trump is, if hillary can hold a 10 point lead against this guy despite the scandals, normative misogyny and whatnot, bernie could just as easily do that if not better, i would posit many people voted hillary because they expected to be going up against a more mainstream candidate like Cruz [funny referring to cruz as 'mainstream', ah 2016], but I might be wrong given that she did properly win California - a late stage primary]
 
NAFTA was not a bad fucking deal. Stop spouting lies hyw.

The unemployment rate between the time NAFTA was signed into law and the time of the Global Financial Crisis was decreasing every year bar the year 2002, the unemployment rate was far lower in 2007 than in 1993, and the median Real Household income increased significantly as well.

This is because Trade Deals are a good bit more complicated on their economic effects than you seem to acknowledge, and while it looks superficially like that deal would do nothing but shift jobs to Mexico and Canada for lower wages, that's not what happens in practice due to the higher skill of the US workforce, the increased profit that comes from selling in the US, the purchasing of higher quality materials from US factories and manufacturers, and the freedom of trading in prosperous places in Mexico and Canada for US based companies, the added cost of transport somewhat mitigating the extra profits from lower wages, ext.

You can be against NAFTA because of anti globalism sentiments, but dont paint it as something it's not.

Also, as for Bernie, everyone seems to assume he'd be the perfect candidate. But Hillary didn't go after him with nearly as much as she could have in the primaries (for good reason, it would have invited him to do the same and she was winning anyway) and the RNC and campaign advertisers would have exploited it for all that it was worth. (All lives matter started with him(I was wrong about this one, this was O'Malley), All women want to be raped (and it's variant, all women desire to be raped by 3 men at the same time), all men want to rape) ext that would have badly harmed his campaign and probably to the point where he couldn't win.
 
Last edited:
Also, as for Bernie, everyone seems to assume he'd be the perfect candidate. But Hillary didn't go after him with nearly as much as she could have in the primaries (for good reason, it would have invited him to do the same and she was winning anyway) and the RNC and campaign advertisers would have exploited it for all that it was worth. (All lives matter started with him, All women want to be raped (and it's variant, all women desire to be raped by 3 men at the same time), all men want to rape) ext that would have badly harmed his campaign and probably to the point where he couldn't win.
Bernie was barely associated with AllLivesMatter to my knowledge, and showed a remarkable flexability to try and increase his standing with the African American community. The black community was far from a strength for him but he did make a legitimate effort to try and evolve on that position. As far as the rape musings, from 1972 mind you, they pale in comparison to leaked emails or a billy bush hot mic from 05, or any of the number of other Clinton and Trump scandals. Additionally, Sanders has nowhere near the loathing from conservatives that Hillary does. The RNC could've have exploited Sanders for every one of his flaws constantly for months and he still wouldn't inspire the same kind of reaction that just the name "Hillary Clinton" inspires among conservatives. The GOP has spent 20 years trying to turn Hillary into the boogeyman. You can't possibly exploit Sanders' weaknesses more than that in such a short period of time. I mean Sanders wasn't a perfect candidate, but I don't think it's a stretch to say he was the most likeable candidate in the election. He also did very well among Independents, where Hillary relies heavily on establishment, life long Democrats, and the establishment Dems would circle back around to him quicker than the Independents will to Clinton. He would have taken Trump down in short order because a) he energizes the progressive base far more than Hillary, and b) centrist establishment Democrats hate Trump specifically to the point where they would've supported whoever the Dem nominee was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top