One year since Trump's election

[HiGirlsRHot]

That's like someone supporting the rise of Hitler saying "Oh, I didn't really care about his stance on the Jews. I just cared about his policies on economics." You can't have one without the other. It's total bullshit. Don't even fucking go there.

This hurts my brain trying to figure out your twisted logic, so I am giving up.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Pointing out how crappy the other side is in order to defend our own disgusting candidate is not what politics is meant to be.

This also applies to candidates when running. Stand on your own merit, not slam/shame someone for something they did. I have no issues making reference to something of another candidate. But, it must be quick and to the point for comparison only. For example, "While my candidate stands for XYZ, my stance is for WXYZ. Here's why..."

I think both Clinton and Trump are corrupt and neither should be in office. In my posts, I have attempted to point out that both sides are just as guilty of the same thing. Some of the topic might be more right leaning references, only to be as a counterpoint to a left bias. I do try to stay as centric as possible though, as I see both good and bad in/from both parties equally.

Like, how are we not all on the same page that the stink of sexual assault on someone should make them disqualified?

If he's convicted and guilty, I agree. Should be disqualification. But, if under investigation, I'm torn on it. I can see the concern. But, what if the accusations turn out to be false? Not saying they are. But, on the offchance they are for this or other candidates.

There are still enough good people in this country to not let rapists and child molesters run things.

Sadly, I think the days of honest and good people running are long over.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

For those of you who've cited Hillary's negatives in this thread as a positive for Trump, does that make you feel any better about his presidency for real? I mean, couldn't we just find decent humans to take part in government? The she did this so he's fine argument doesn't even work when you're a kid. Why are we accepting that for highly paid government workers? Pointing out how crappy the other side is in order to defend our own disgusting candidate is not what politics is meant to be.

I've been clicking around seeing folks defend Roy Moore by pointing out the ills of a few Dems, and it's bizarre. Like, how are we not all on the same page that the stink of sexual assault on someone should make them disqualified? Let's get those Dems out of office not use them as an excuse to put a new sleazebag in. And, while we're at it, let's put an asterisk next to every President with a pussy grabbing past and start expecting people who want to be in politics to at least meet the criteria for not being a complete trash human. There are still enough good people in this country to not let rapists and child molesters run things. Not to derail. I think it's worth discussion since Trump and Clinton would both be presidents with an asterisk.

The Hillary Trump election was by far the worse of my life, it is especially depressing because as recently 2008 we actually had two very good candidates in McCain and Obama. I'm optimistic that 2020 will be much better. I do think that we've turned a corner and men who've used their power to abuse woman aren't going to get a pass anymore. Other than Trump by his hardcore supporters.
But because political tribalism is so strong in this country it will sadly take a few election cycles to purge the country of incumbent sexual predators.

 

[Val Vega]

This hurts my brain trying to figure out your twisted logic, so I am giving up.

Because you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

You have made your stances clear. You think racial minorities and the LGBT defending themselves against the KKK/Nazi are just as bad as them. That's your stance.

I have no issues for groups/individuals standing up for themselves. What I have issues with is when they stoop to the same level of and do the exact same thing that they accuse others of doing. It is hypocritical at best, and hard to take them seriously when done.

It doesn't mean that I'm for, or in defense of, groups such as you seem to be accusing me of. Nor am I against groups or individuals which you seem to want to accuse me of being.

 

[heybarkeep]

Now you're trying to frame what real oppression is to me? A transgender sex working atheist from the South. You don't think I can recognize what is and isn't a symbol of oppression?

Pretty clear that you struggle greatly with recognition when you make such ignorant comparisons. Since I don't agree with you on everything I'm sure I'm scum and a Nazi in your eyes now. Sorry about that.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

The Hillary Trump election was by far the worse of my life, it is especially depressing because as recently 2008 we actually had two very good candidates in McCain and Obama. I'm optimistic that 2020 will be much better. I do think that we've turned a corner and men who've used their power to abuse woman aren't going to get a pass anymore. Other than Trump by his hardcore supporters.
But because political tribalism is so strong in this country it will sadly take a few election cycles to purge the country of incumbent sexual predators.

I'm really hoping that 2020 will be better. I mean, it has to doesit? 20/20? Bad joke, I know...

Anyway, I think one of the greatest faults of our lawmakers is not self-imposing term limits on themselves. The top elected position in the country has term limits. Therefore, every position under it including appointed seats, should have the same limits set upon it. Therefore, we won't have to wait for these long-term policticians to die before giving up their seats.

 

[JickyJuly]

If he's convicted and guilty, I agree. Should be disqualification. But, if under investigation, I'm torn on it. I can see the concern. But, what if the accusations turn out to be false? Not saying they are. But, on the offchance they are for this or other candidates.

I get the worry here, but even if he is just accused, I think that should be enough. Someone with political aspirations should be responsible enough not to put himself or herself in the position to be accused. Sexual crimes are hard to prosecute. Accused? Sorry, bye. Multiple accusers? Not sorry, bye. Your political party and constituents shouldn't be dragged down. People are considered unqualified for less. Let's try to run a camgirl for President and see what happens. As far as Moore goes, his own words that he thought defended his actions are pretty damning. He was banned from a shopping mall for stalking out teenyboppers. The fact that he even made it far enough for the rest of us to have to see all of his dirty laundry this high up shows that our system is not going smoothly.

I think both Clinton and Trump are corrupt and neither should be in office. In my posts, I have attempted to point out that both sides are just as guilty of the same thing.

If your both sides are Trump and Clinton, I think that just as guilty of the same things is a hard sell. I think it's totally possible that Trump and Clinton are equally bad people, but if we compare just their platforms and not their personas, they're not equally harmful. Trump's platform purposely soaked up the folks who are bigoted. He told the coal miners he could save their jobs and relied on their desperation and lack of education to carry them through for him. The worst thing he did, in my book, is run openly stating that he would call for less funding to public schools. Out of everything, it kills me that people willingly voted to give public school children and teaches less. Nothing he does is going to hurt people more than that in the long run and that one is barely getting talked about.

If you mean the RNC and DNC, agreed. They're equally trash. The RNC backed the candidate their voters asked for at least.

If you mean Dem voters and Rep voters, that's a hard one figure out. I know lots of Republicans who didn't go out and vote for Trump. The few who did, did so hoping that whomever Trump nominated to the supreme court would be "pro-life". What a shit show. I also know a handful of lifelong Dems who switched sides to vote for Trump strictly because he gave them a boner with his hate for brown people, women and gays. Without the bigots, he couldn't have gotten in. Bigots (at least the older ones) came out from both sides for him.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I get the worry here, but even if he is just accused, I think that should be enough. Someone with political aspirations should be responsible enough not to put himself or herself in the position to be accused. Sexual crimes are hard to prosecute. Accused? Sorry, bye. Multiple accusers? Not sorry, bye. Your political party and constituents shouldn't be dragged down. People are considered unqualified for less. Let's try to run a camgirl for President and see what happens. As far as Moore goes, his own words that he thought defended his actions are pretty damning. He was banned from a shopping mall for stalking out teenyboppers. The fact that he even made it far enough for the rest of us to have to see all of his dirty laundry this high up shows that our system is not going smoothly.

If there's hard evidence that someone committed a sex crime. Then, even if accused I would lean towards a "no". But, what I was referring to is false accusations to get someone out of a race, or similar. We need to have something in place where if false allegations occur, said candidate isn't ruined by them.

He told the coal miners he could save their jobs and relied on their desperation and lack of education to carry them through for him.

Is this any different than politicians using inner city population, or senior citizens, and putting fear in them that they're going to lose benefits? To me, it's the same. Buying a vote per se.

The worst thing he did, in my book, is run openly stating that he would call for less funding to public schools. Out of everything, it kills me that people willingly voted to give public school children and teaches less. Nothing he does is going to hurt people more than that in the long run and that one is barely getting talked about.

I vaguely remember this. While I don't agree with cutting funding for public schools, I do think there needs to be some changes made to budgets and funding of them. IMO, we are paying a hell of a lot more money into schools. But, the grades generally don't show. Poor ROI.

If you mean Dem voters and Rep voters, that's a hard one figure out. I know lots of Republicans who didn't go out and vote for Trump. The few who did, did so hoping that whomever Trump nominated to the supreme court would be "pro-life". What a shit show. I also know a handful of lifelong Dems who switched sides to vote for Trump strictly because he gave them a boner with his hate for brown people, women and gays. Without the bigots, he couldn't have gotten in. Bigots (at least the older ones) came out from both sides for him.

What I was referring to is more of the negative accusations, etc that each sides makes towards the other and being guilty of it all. "Two sides of the same coin" statement.

While I think many voters did vote for him that normally wouldn't. I can't say that it's solely on those whom you say are bigots or racists for his getting in. There were a lot of people who shied away from Clinton due to actions the DNC took to put her over sanders. There's also a lot of military (active and vets), who hold Clinton responsible for the Benghazi deaths.

Too many things contributed to the outcome we have today. Hopefully, something changes for a better outcome in the next election cycle. I for one am tired of all the extremism.

 

[dilligaf0]

If he's convicted and guilty, I agree. Should be disqualification. But, if under investigation, I'm torn on it. I can see the concern. But, what if the accusations turn out to be false? Not saying they are. But, on the offchance they are for this or other candidates.

Look at the consequences that Cosby, Spacey and Weinstein have had since they were accused (not yet convicted). And they don't even pass laws that rule the country.
Moore should not be allowed to run because of the accusations. The political parties SHOULD vet their candidates much better before they are backed by a party.
That could give us better candidates.

 

[dilligaf0]

One of the things I thought of was to have ballots and voting booths setup for states/jurisdictions, or swap out whenever for groups of voters from similar regions of the US. It would be difficult to do the first couple of times. But, I think it would allow them to vote at that time, instead of beforehand.

Even then, they can't just stop fighting an enemy attack and walk away to go vote. (and you know the enemy would start battles at the scheduled times of voting, just like there were more battles in wars just before the Christmas cease fires to try to grab as much territory as possible before it went into effect.)

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Look at the consequences that Cosby, Spacey and Weinstein have had since they were accused (not yet convicted). And they don't even pass laws that rule the country.
Moore should not be allowed to run because of the accusations. The political parties SHOULD vet their candidates much better before they are backed by a party.
That could give us better candidates.

Better candidates, possibly. Or, better ways for them to hide things. Again, I'm thinking of how we can protect those whom would be falsely accoused due to political or financial gain from their oppositions.

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that all candidates should be much better vetted.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Trump speaking now...

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Even then, they can't just stop fighting an enemy attack and walk away to go vote. (and you know the enemy would start battles at the scheduled times of voting, just like there were more battles in wars just before the Christmas cease fires to try to grab as much territory as possible before it went into effect.)

Do you have any military experience, or close personal friends/relatives who are currenlty serving? If so, you would most likely know that most staff on bases overseas have a lot of down time. They aren't all fighting the front lines, or on patrols. Many are on base, working normal shifts. Therefore, it wouldn't be much different for them than it is for us where it is about a 12-hour window they could vote.

Yes, there are those who are out on patrols, forward deploy, etc that may not be able to vote during that 12-hour window. But, they are the exception, not the rule. As I said, I don't have a good answer for those in the field and unable to vote because of it. But, the vast majority on a base would have an opportunity to vote much like we do stateside.

 

[dilligaf0]

Do you have any military experience, or close personal friends/relatives who are currenlty serving? If so, you would most likely know that most staff on bases overseas have a lot of down time. They aren't all fighting the front lines, or on patrols. Many are on base, working normal shifts. Therefore, it wouldn't be much different for them than it is for us where it is about a 12-hour window they could vote

Not now, but in the past.
You honestly don't believe ISIS (or some other enemy) wouldn't think "They're going to be preoccupied on this date at this time, so let's attack to inflict as much harm as possible."?
Or even "There will be a gathering of troops at such-and-such location so let's roll in a truck bomb or two."

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Not now, but in the past.
You honestly don't believe ISIS (or some other enemy) wouldn't think "They're going to be preoccupied on this date at this time, so let's attack to inflict as much harm as possible."?
Or even "There will be a gathering of troops at such-and-such location so let's roll in a truck bomb or two."

It is always a risk. But, no different than a holiday party, birthday celebration of one of the branches, etc. Just another day in the military. I'm also not talking about moving the elections off base. There is no reason why the elections can't be held on base, and results transmitted to US election officials.

 

[dilligaf0]

It is always a risk. But, no different than a holiday party, birthday celebration of one of the branches, etc. Just another day in the military. I'm also not talking about moving the elections off base. There is no reason why the elections can't be held on base, and results transmitted to US election officials.

You are also overlooking the point that the elections are not Federally run, they are run by the individual states. That's why ballots are mailed to individual citizens of those states. The states have their special rules and regulations (voter I.D., etc.) and state Attorneys General don't like to give that up to the Federal government.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

You are also overlooking the point that the elections are not Federally run, they are run by the individual states. That's why ballots are mailed to individual citizens of those states. The states have their special rules and regulations (voter I.D., etc.) and state Attorneys General don't like to give that up to the Federal government.

Not overlooking that at all, as I know each state and jurisdiciton have elections separate from the Fed as well as specific state laws This isn't an overly complex scenario. But, it also isn't a very simple one to fix either.

 

[Hoang Nguyen]

I strongly disagree with Jezebel both in her call for limits on hate speech

Isn't JizzyJezebel a man?

 

[JickyJuly]

Isn't JizzyJezebel a man?

You should probably fuck off right quick. Maybe everyone in this thread can agree on one thing here...you being a total trash goober.

 

[dilligaf0]

Not overlooking that at all, as I know each state and jurisdiciton have elections separate from the Fed as well as specific state laws This isn't an overly complex scenario. But, it also isn't a very simple one to fix either.

One last point, not trying to be difficult because I agree we need changes to secure to votes and voting process, anytime you have politicians involved it complicates everything.....especially those things that should not be complicated.

 

[ExcellaExe]

Isn't JizzyJezebel a man?

Fuck right off.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

One last point, not trying to be difficult because I agree we need changes to secure to votes and voting process, anytime you have politicians involved it complicates everything.....especially those things that should not be complicated.

Agreed, another point of thought and how to work as we've all seen how well politicians like to make things better for themselves, and rarely for their constituents.

 

[Honey Moon]

I don't believe she is much more honest (if at all).

I disagree with this, unless you aren't counting things that are actually fact-checked and whatnot.. (e.g. Trump vs Hillary)

 

[dilligaf0]

When dealing with politicians, 'honest" is a subjective term anyway.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I disagree with this, unless you aren't counting things that are actually fact-checked and whatnot.. (e.g. Trump vs Hillary)

That carried weight with me during the election; in fact, I think I posted something similar last year. Would not count for much at all now imo.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We may never get it (and to be honest, it may be too much to handle sometimes). There are little lies, and there are great big lies.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/liberal-msms-about-face-bill-clinton-is-a-rapist/

It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

I remember this chaos from when it happened. Bill Clinton was an ally. That is all that mattered to many.

Relevant today? Idk. One of the interviews I watched recently, Hillary was asked about this and she truthfully responded that it had already been litigated (which is factual). She is a master of politically correct speech.

Is she more honest than Trump? You are not going to get the answer to that on Politifact.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I won't lie or pretend that Trump being President has had much effect on my life. With the exception of liberal friends ramping up the nauseating hyperbole while becoming increasingly insane and unbearable, not much has changed. If Trump wasn't so awful, I'd give the left no chance in the next election. Zero effort being put forth to change the perception of the party.

The rapid rise of white nationalists across Europe has been much more historic and educational to follow. The young seem to be moving away from liberal beliefs in droves. What were once insignificant groups relegated to the deep web are now thriving communities that proudly march the streets with daunting numbers. A very cool looking but also maybe ominous photo from yesterday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hy-i-wrote-fake-news-for-the-washington-post/

Well, well, well...

 

[justjoinedtopost]

More on the 'Nazis', for anyone who has the time and the inclination. He has been to some of the protests that have been going on for the last couple of years.

There is an extreme demand in the mainstream media for white supremacy and Nazis because it is what they use to counter Donald Trump. It is how they tried to smear Donald Trump...

Listen to her speak, and keep in mind it is looking more and more possible she herself is guilty of the very things she pointing at. Reptilian?

 

[Just_A_Guy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/...html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/europe

 

[Honey Moon]

That carried weight with me during the election; in fact, I think I posted something similar last year. Would not count for much at all now imo.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We may never get it (and to be honest, it may be too much to handle sometimes). There are little lies, and there are great big lies.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/liberal-msms-about-face-bill-clinton-is-a-rapist/

I remember this chaos from when it happened. Bill Clinton was an ally. That is all that mattered to many.

Relevant today? Idk. One of the interviews I watched recently, Hillary was asked about this and she truthfully responded that it had already been litigated (which is factual). She is a master of politically correct speech.

Is she more honest than Trump? You are not going to get the answer to that on Politifact.

I simply used Politifact as an example. I research candidates through multiple, checked sources (I hate strongly biased sites/sites ran by randoms favoring opinions.) I believe honesty includes statements made to further an agenda, and how candidates/officials use them to steer their followers. Before the election, I hardly knew both Trump and Clinton and probably even felt they were the same as I tunnel-visioned too hard into Bernie (my first election and I liked him a lot and didn't like that Hilary was fucking it up for him in many ways), but based on what I've seen and read, I personally think Hillary is better than Trump.