Who are you voting for?

[justjoinedtopost]

The cult of personality? Absolutely. And I gave a pretty reasoned explanation to the statement if you cared to read it you would understand what the comparison is about and realize I am not trolling.

Yeah. Re-read to see edits.

Sharing a pizza with interns != whipping the worst of America up into a bigoted frenzy.
And this business of Michelles carpool thing, or an 18 year old girl dancing, having anything to do with it?
Clearly you have access to better weed than I do.

 

[Mila_]

Yeah. Re-read to see edits.

Sharing a pizza with interns != whipping the worst of America up into a bigoted frenzy.
And this business of Michelles carpool thing, or an 18 year old girl dancing, having anything to do with it?
Clearly you have access to better weed than I do.

The comparison is about a publicity strategy they both use to earn votes:



They are both guilty of using media to make their personalities the focus of their campaigns. Obama did it. Trump does it. They are both guilty of abusing this strategy. Obama's hero archetype was "the humble man of the people" and Trump is "the strong leader of men".

I criticize it because it has nothing to do with the actual act of governing a nation, or what they think about the issues, it is 100% reality TV. But it works. And it works because people are uninformed and jump to conclusions like you just did with my post.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The comparison is about a publicity strategy they both use to earn votes:

View attachment 64752

They are both guilty of using media to make their personalities the focus of their campaigns. Obama did it. Trump does it. They are both guilty of abusing this strategy. Obama's hero archetype was "the humble man of the people" and Trump is "the strong leader of men".

I criticize it because it has nothing to do with the actual act of governing a nation, or what they think about the issues, it is 100% reality TV. But it works. And it works because people are uninformed and jump to conclusions like you just did with my post.

Yeah. Sorry. Don't see it.

I do agree this is just part of politics. Take Paul Ryan and his little dishwashing episode. Or any number of other things by politicians on both sides. Stuff I have been watching since the early '80s.

But this...

"To be fair the personality shtick was first used by Obama who literally ran on it his entire campaign. Trump has added a bit of drama flair, which I guess he learned from his experience with The Apprentice, but in essence the shtick is the same."

1. Obama did it first
2. Trump added some drama, but it's the same

...borders on delusional.

 

[Nordling]

So...unless a politician puts forth a zombie-like image, he/she's guilty of fostering "idol worship" and "propaganda."

I get it. I'm writing in my kitchen faucet.

 

[LuckySmiles]

I completely agree with the Trump/Obama parallels. That's a big part of the reason he worries me.

Everyone was fed up with Bush and was like yayyy hope and change this guy has GOT to be better... and yet here we are.

So now Trump comes along and people are just like yayyy someone totally different this guy has GOT-- oh damn.... oh damn....i'm scared. haha. Because it's the same thing!

BUT When I take the the tests on policies and do the things... (I end up with high 80s% Trump... I have since January.. I hid from that thread on purpose!)

Also Obama singed in quite a few controversial executive orders, that the next President will have the power to dissolve. Clinton won't do that she'll uphold em and double down on them. The overreaching executive order thing started with George Dubya. And the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama crew is all very similar politically.

Irregardless of Trump's personality I have more faith in him surrounding himself with a balanced staff. He's also not a hardcore Republican. And I don't have any faith in Clinton. If I vote I'll have to vote for Trump... and that's why I've said I won't bother from the start.. but idk.

 

[Behemoth]

I am praying, probably in vain, folks will realize that the reason it never changes is because the system itself is broken and no amount of repainting the color will change the direction the bus is heading, nor save all the people getting thrown under it.

 

[SexySteph]

LOL
and....if u r right...
...when do we find out the Truth finally ?

Now some predicted that T says he will run for P as publicity stunt and that he will never run.

When he did finally run these ppl changed it to he will withdraw any moment.

Now that he is a republican nomenee - it all change to means is a publicity stand and...he is actually strangely "doin all" to not win.

So... Does it also mean that as president when he also doin the presidency is all publicity stunt? Am just curious where it all goes and we shall expect him to quit any moment then and leave WH? I was just wondering how it plays out with the logistics

Well... at one point he asked Kasich to be his VP and told him he'd be the "most powerful VP ever" and put him in charge of domestic and foreign policy. And when asked what Trump would do the answer was "Make America great again" so like... nothing? I think he very much just wants the publicity and accolades that would come with being president but has no idea what being president would really mean.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-camp-offered-to-make-kasich-most-powerful-vp

 

[Nordling]

Happy Birthday Steph!

 

[Osmia]

Just saw this:
Obama will bypass Congress, seek U.N. resolution on nuclear testing

Excerpt below. The gist of it is that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (prohibiting testing of nuclear weapons) has been awaiting ratification in the Senate since 1999. Since it's obvious that the current Republican controlled Senate won't act on it, Obama is seeking to pursue the goal with the UN as an executive action, instead of as a treaty, which would require Senate consent.

I'm sure the right wing will strenuously object (putting it politely) as another example of Obama's executive overreach. I'm somewhat sympathetic to their position; the trend toward bypassing congress isn't ideal. However, the situation has been brought about by the Republicans in Congress, who have essentially abdicated their role/responsibility in governing. This will probably end up in court.

President Obama has decided to seek a new United Nations Security Council resolution that would call for an end to nuclear testing, a move that leading lawmakers are calling an end run around Congress.

Top administration officials, including Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, briefed lawmakers and congressional staffers this week about President Obama’s decision to push for the U.N. action this September, to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was adopted in September 1996 but was never ratified by the Senate.

National Security Council spokesperson Ned Price told me that the administration still would like to see the Senate ratify the test ban treaty but is “looking at possible action in the UN Security Council that would call on states not to test and support the CTBT’s objectives. We will continue to explore ways to achieve this goal, being careful to protect the Senate’s constitutional role.”

The administration did not consult Congress before making the decision, and leading Republicans, including those who opposed Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, are irate that the White House plans another major national security move without their advice or consent.

 

[Mila_]

Just saw this:
Obama will bypass Congress, seek U.N. resolution on nuclear testing

Excerpt below. The gist of it is that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (prohibiting testing of nuclear weapons) has been awaiting ratification in the Senate since 1999. Since it's obvious that the current Republican controlled Senate won't act on it, Obama is seeking to pursue the goal with the UN as an executive action, instead of as a treaty, which would require Senate consent.

I'm sure the right wing will strenuously object (putting it politely) as another example of Obama's executive overreach. I'm somewhat sympathetic to their position; the trend toward bypassing congress isn't ideal. However, the situation has been brought about by the Republicans in Congress, who have essentially abdicated their role/responsibility in governing. This will probably end up in court.

This is even more problematic because not only does he want to bypass congress, he wants to get foreign intervention to do it. Involving the UN like this in US affairs does not bode well.

 

[Nordling]

Yeah, right. Kind of like getting Breitbart involved in US affairs. lol Check these two photos...the first from Breitbart. lol lol lol

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Is it just me or does this election remind anyone else of the Simpson quote "don't blame me, I voted for kodos!"?
When they find out that their choice is between two evil aliens and are forced to vote, resulting in them being enslaved.

I would personally be in the "anyone but trump" category if I were to vote. I know he appeals to a lot of people but in my opinion that man is seriously dangerous and terrifying. I'm not American but I think he's the sort of person that could cause problems globally so I am worried.
Hillary is interesting as I've seen a lot of political reports over the years in her favour, yet everyone hates and distrusts her, but I've never actually seen why.

I think women get a much harder time. We've had it in the UK, women get judged ten times worse than the men. People literally celebrated the death of our first female prime minister even though during her time our economy rose and though it was a really hard time she really wasn't bad at her job. No one liked the guy afterwards who basically completely fucked up our economy but he never got as much stick as she did. Granted she was a hardball, but people still hold onto things she did and use her to blame even though we feel far more negative effects from other members of parliament.
Our new prime minister has already had lots of sexist comments and negative comparisons.

Personally I'd prefer to get a female in parliament simply to break the ice. How are women supposed to expect equality in a country governed by men where women don't have any power or real place in the running of things?
But then again, I can't see much worse than having a guy like trump in power so I feel with no decent candidates you might as well get on board with having a woman. It's so hard to rise in politics as a woman anyone you get at that level is going to be a hardass.

I'm not someone who massively follows American politics though. I only really took interest in trump because he terrifies basically everyone I know, including myself. I'm not too keen on the vote we just had, but I don't envy my friends over the pond on this one....

 

[Behemoth]

Hillary is interesting as I've seen a lot of political reports over the years in her favour, yet everyone hates and distrusts her, but I've never actually seen why.

Mostly because she's a proven liar whose actions have lead to deaths all over the world and who has no principles, flipping between whatever is politicially expedient, with massive amounts of corruption. She's also married to a serial rapist. And thats just scratching the surface.

 

[pg240]

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. I've voted Libertarian in the last four presidential elections. Folks tell me it's a wasted vote, but it's my vote and I'm satisfied with the way I use it. I'll support Clinton when she's in office, and I suspect she'll do a decent job. I just can't vote for her, although it's way past time for a woman to be in the oval office. I suspect that behind closed doors she's a really nasty human being, and she lies way too easily. Perhaps that's way she's such a good politician. Not a good campaigner, though. But certainly a good politician.

 

[jemi]

Hillary is interesting as I've seen a lot of political reports over the years in her favour, yet everyone hates and distrusts her, but I've never actually seen why.

For me it's because she's not as far to the left as I'd like democrats to be. She voted in favor of the Iraq war and she opposes single payer healthcare. She's a bit of a war hawk and likes meddling in the middle east which I'm not a fan of.

(And yet I'm still voting for her because I think Trump would be a nightmare for human rights both domestically and overseas)

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Folks tell me it's a wasted vote, but it's my vote and I'm satisfied with the way I use it.

I have had it with that "it's a wasted vote" line. I'm not buying into it any more.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Mostly because she's a proven liar whose actions have lead to deaths all over the world and who has no principles, flipping between whatever is politicially expedient, with massive amounts of corruption. She's also married to a serial rapist. And thats just scratching the surface.

Ahh so you're basically fucked then I would say come over to England and we can have a party but, well, looks like we're fucked too!

Is it just me or has politics got a lot more scary lately? It seems like politicians and campaigners literally keep repeating things politicians said before the holocaust. I know that seems so far fetched, but it did happen not even 80 years ago, and Hitler played on the same values as certain politicians are currently playing on.
Usually the British are kinda quiet about their racism by this recent referendum brought it all out into the open.

It seems pretty sad that someone might win an election because they haven't got strong enough opposition.
But hey, I guess if you don't like your government you have your guns.
Just out of curiosity, if in America you did get say a fascist government that tried to dictate/take over, would you be legally allowed to use all that weaponry and take them down? I'm not that knowledgeable in US law but I'm curious about how the law would work if people did want to take arms against the government.

 

[deblackivory]

I was going to vote for Sanders but now I'm voting for Jill.

AND DON'T TRY TO GUILT ME! I'd feel shitty if I knew I voted for Trump or Hilary. This is the election that I have been keeping a close eyes to because it's terrifying about how Trump is even still in the race. At first it was funny but shit just got real.

 

[EspiKvlt]

The Green Party platform is anti-sex work. That's why I'm against voting for Jill.

 

[Nordling]

Jill is also an anti-vax nut.

 

[Guy]

The Green Party platform is anti-sex work. That's why I'm against voting for Jill.

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[SoTxBob]

I'm not anti vax per se, but I have read lots on the correlations of the after effects lately. IMHO, i feel its like some are saying now, that its the sheer volume of poisons they give at one time to such a young child that causes the problems. Given in single disease doses, spaced apart to give the body time to heal and fix itself is am much safer way than piling on these huge piggyback doses that can overwhelm the immune system. I am concerned tho about the trace mercury amounts in some of them - but its not anything i need to worry about.

 

[Nordling]

I'm not anti vax per se, but I have read lots on the correlations of the after effects lately. IMHO, i feel its like some are saying now, that its the sheer volume of poisons they give at one time to such a young child that causes the problems. Given in single disease doses, spaced apart to give the body time to heal and fix itself is am much safer way than piling on these huge piggyback doses that can overwhelm the immune system. I am concerned tho about the trace mercury amounts in some of them - but its not anything i need to worry about.

Yeah, I agree about giving so many inoculations in one shot, especially to children, and the mercury problem seems to no longer be an issue, but the anti vax nuts go beyond normal concern and make claims that are not backed up by science.

 

[Guy]

Yeah, I agree about giving so many inoculations in one shot, especially to children, and the mercury problem seems to no longer be an issue, but the anti vax nuts go beyond normal concern and make claims that are not backed up by science.

Like the false claim that vaccines cause Autism.

 

[Osmia]

Ahh so you're basically fucked then I would say come over to England and we can have a party but, well, looks like we're fucked too!

Is it just me or has politics got a lot more scary lately? It seems like politicians and campaigners literally keep repeating things politicians said before the holocaust.

It has gotten more scary, especially in the last year or so, with Trump violating norms of behavior and political speech just about every day. Once a nation starts following an authoritarian figure like Trump and puts him in power, it becomes very difficult to get back to democracy. Authoritarian regimes typically don't tolerate dissent, especially armed dissent.

Even if Trump doesn't win, he has "broken the mold" of precedent that governs how candidates for president behave and speak. He's made it easier for the next authoritarian figure that comes along.

But hey, I guess if you don't like your government you have your guns.
Just out of curiosity, if in America you did get say a fascist government that tried to dictate/take over, would you be legally allowed to use all that weaponry and take them down? I'm not that knowledgeable in US law but I'm curious about how the law would work if people did want to take arms against the government.

Taking up arms against the government is illegal, period. In the U.S., the so-called Whiskey Rebellion occurred and was put down relatively peacefully in 1794, just 7 years after adoption of the US Constitution. The American Civil War was started in 1861 by rebellious Southerners who forcibly occupied a federal military facility in South Carolina. On the other hand, the U.S. was of course itself formed as the result of an armed rebellion against Britain. This was regarded as an act of throwing off oppression, justified by natural law in which human rights take precedence over the state. So, if people seek to throw off an oppressive government, they may have justification in natural law philosophy. If they take that route, for their sake, they'd better win.

 

[Nordling]

It has gotten more scary, especially in the last year or so, with Trump violating norms of behavior and political speech just about every day. Once a nation starts following an authoritarian figure like Trump and puts him in power, it becomes very difficult to get back to democracy. Authoritarian regimes typically don't tolerate dissent, especially armed dissent.

Even if Trump doesn't win, he has "broken the mold" of precedent that governs how candidates for president behave and speak. He's made it easier for the next authoritarian figure that comes along.



Taking up arms against the government is illegal, period. In the U.S., the so-called Whiskey Rebellion occurred and was put down relatively peacefully in 1794, just 7 years after adoption of the US Constitution. The American Civil War was started in 1861 by rebellious Southerners who forcibly occupied a federal military facility in South Carolina. On the other hand, the U.S. was of course itself formed as the result of an armed rebellion against Britain. This was regarded as an act of throwing off oppression, justified by natural law in which human rights take precedence over the state. So, if people seek to throw off an oppressive government, they may have justification in natural law philosophy. If they take that route, for their sake, they'd better win.

Yes, we can see what would happen by viewing current-day Turkey. Historically, since the end of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey's military has periodically stepped in to reinstate a secular state, but this year it failed and we are likely to see massive oppression.

 

[Ms_Diane]

I am really tiring of the narrative around Trump and his mental instability or personality disorder or psychological state.

Saying that he is mentally unfit is such a load of b.s.! It doesn't hold him accountable for his hateful, misogynistic comments or political views and it further stigmatizes mental health issues.

I heard today that a Congresswoman has called for him to get a mental health assessment and has started a petition for this! GRRRRR! This is so effed up.

Hold this guy responsible for the dumb shit he does and says! Don't blame it on his mental health. Many of us actually have mental health problems and we don't want to be associated with misogyny and racism.

 

[SexySteph]

I am really tiring of the narrative around Trump and his mental instability or personality disorder or psychological state.

Saying that he is mentally unfit is such a load of b.s.! It doesn't hold him accountable for his hateful, misogynistic comments or political views and it further stigmatizes mental health issues.

I heard today that a Congresswoman has called for him to get a mental health assessment and has started a petition for this! GRRRRR! This is so effed up.

Hold this guy responsible for the dumb shit he does and says! Don't blame it on his mental health. Many of us actually have mental health problems and we don't want to be associated with misogyny and racism.

To be fair, his behavior does mirror some of the behaviors that would cause a doctor to consider a diagnosis of dementia. I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable, but it should be at least considered, especially since the behaviors are getting worse and worse and more extreme. They're not saying "oh, he might be bipolar" they're saying "his brain might be falling apart" and I don't think that lumps him in with those of us struggling with mental health issues; dementia/alzheimer's is a whole different ball field than depression/schizophrenia/ADHD/etc and I don't think anyone will think the same of people struggling with those problems if it does come out that he's suffering from deteriorating mental faculties.

 

[Osmia]

I am really tiring of the narrative around Trump and his mental instability or personality disorder or psychological state.

Saying that he is mentally unfit is such a load of b.s.! It doesn't hold him accountable for his hateful, misogynistic comments or political views and it further stigmatizes mental health issues.

I heard today that a Congresswoman has called for him to get a mental health assessment and has started a petition for this! GRRRRR! This is so effed up.

Hold this guy responsible for the dumb shit he does and says! Don't blame it on his mental health. Many of us actually have mental health problems and we don't want to be associated with misogyny and racism.

No one knows whether Trump has a true clinical mental disorder (except his psychiatrist, if he sees one). There's been a lot of armchair psychologizing by people who, I suppose, are just trying to explain or understand his behavior. Normal people don't behave as he's been behaving (or put another way, his behavior seems to fall well outside the boundaries that most people regard as normal, so therefore he must be mentally ill). I read an opinion piece today in the Washington Post suggesting that he is manic (as in bipolar). The most common one I hear mentioned is narcissistic personality disorder. Who knows.

I know what you're saying though. I've had bipolar II all my adult life, and I cringe every time I read about a mass shooting in which the shooter had mental problems, usually depression. This may be the 21st century, but there's still a stigma attached to mental illness.

In any case, I think everyone understands that someone in Trump's position and level of achievement (prominent businessman and public figure) must possess a pretty good awareness of what he's doing, and should therefore be held fully accountable for his actions. His actions are not excused away by supposed mental illness.

 

[Behemoth]

Just out of curiosity, if in America you did get say a fascist government that tried to dictate/take over, would you be legally allowed to use all that weaponry and take them down? I'm not that knowledgeable in US law but I'm curious about how the law would work if people did want to take arms against the government.

I mean, an insurrection is never 'legal' but that doesn't make it morally wrong.

It has gotten more scary, especially in the last year or so, with Trump violating norms of behavior and political speech just about every day. Once a nation starts following an authoritarian figure like Trump and puts him in power, it becomes very difficult to get back to democracy. Authoritarian regimes typically don't tolerate dissent, especially armed dissent.

I'm sort of tired of this. Like, I don't like Trump, but pretending he's something either new or uniquely authoritarian seems utterly misguided.

Seriously, he is literally no worse than Hillary.