Who are you voting for?

[JoleneBrody]

The thought of voting for trump not in support but as a tactical weapon is an interesting one I've thought about a lot lately.
I've been pondering how his crazy has actually created unity between the dems and the repubs like we've not seen in a very long time if ever... with many prominent pubbies joining forces with the demmies this year to work together against him.
I've been thinking about how the Republican party has let the extremists and religious right take over to the degree in the last decade or so that paved the way for someone like Trump to march into a nomination with this shit that spews from his taco bowl hole... and how possibly the only thing to get the pubbie party back on track could be the utter and complete destruction that trump could "possibly" bring to the party.

Could Trump actually be the wildfire that destroys an entire town but creates something better in the after math of likely crippling destruction?

 

[HanlonShaves]

Could Trump actually be the wildfire that destroys an entire town but creates something better in the after math of likely crippling destruction?

Are you sure we aren't talking about Sweet Meteor of Death?

Jokes aside, it's hard to say. I'd love to see a little sanity in the wake of all this, and we might for a while, but I'm inclined to think the moderate voices will end up being drowned out again. It's death by a thousand cuts - a few bad opinions and shitty policies stack up, and it'll end up devolving into the same mess we're in now.

Then again, I have no faith when it comes to politics or politicians. I mean hell, congress has an 11% approval rating. They can't even be bothered to reconvene to pass funding for battling zika.

(Deep breaths. Think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts.)

 

[Behemoth]

Robert Byrd completely apologized for his earlier association with the KKK. People are allowed to atone for their mistakes. David Duke, on the other hand is still an antisemitic, racist piece of human vomit.

The problem is, you have to map when she, and by and large the entire Democrat party, was embracing the Byrd and the KKK long before any apology, then ask yourself if an apology late in life represents a legitimate shift in view, or a political maneuver. Given the revelations found in the leaked e-mails, I'd argue that there are deep seated racist sentiments in the Democratic party that basically treat various groups as voting machines for them, to be manipulated and used.

I also ask you, how often are such apologies accepted for any other political figure?

Again, this is not a defense of Trump or Republicans, but rather me pointing out that the Democrats seem to be dangerous in a unique way, in that they have managed to really hide the fact of how viciously racist they can be, and in many ways still are. The party of Jim Crow and the KKK has managed to effectively suppress that image, but they can't change the facts.

The basic issue is this: can you legitimately tell me there is no double standard when Trump is being roasted for not disavowing someone who he can at least reasonably claim to not remember. As much as folks want to insist they'd totally remember, or that he totally should, no benefit of the doubt seems to be given. For something 16 years ago. 16. 16. Yet for Hillary, a long time relationship with someone who, late in life when it became politically necessary, apologized, but also can be taken in with her 'super predator' comments, and emails about the 'Taco Bowl demographic' and the deeper racist history of the Democratic party.

Like, in short, I just think that while folks will go after Trump for things both legitimate and illegitimate, they'll barely touch Hillary for being, frankly, objectively worse. I'm flat out going to just say that, there is no metric that makes Trump worse than Hillary. If I bought into lesser of two evils, Trump would be the lesser evil. I still don't vote for all the reasons listed, but Hillary has a lifetime of murder, covering up for rapists, massive fraud and theft, and so on behind her. She got rich of charity fraud, for fuck sakes. Trump is bad, and I don't support him any more than any other candidate, but he's thousands upon thousands of bodies behind Hillary when we're talking about the rankings of evil, and corruption, and general vileness.

Edit: You know I hate that I'm constantly being driven to defend Trump. :/

 

[JoleneBrody]

I'm really confused by how so many people are missing the taco bowl demographic joke. It's a jab at trump and his #ilovehispanics taco bowl tweet.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Again, this is not a defense of Trump or Republicans,
.....
Edit: You know I hate that I'm constantly being driven to defend Trump. :/

Lol. So, you don't want to defend Trump, you just want to say Hillary is worse. You just summed up American politics, demonize the other side. A shame you are too pious to get involved; you would be perfect at it.

shhhhh....just turn on some Stefan Molyneux....it'll be ok....

 

[Behemoth]

Lol. So, you don't want to defend Trump, you just want to say Hillary is worse. You just summed up American politics, demonize the other side. A shame you are too pious to get involved; you would be perfect at it.

shhhhh....just turn on some Stefan Molyneux....it'll be ok....

Your lack of a substantive point aside from personal attacks is once again notable. Like, seriously, your entire style is just personal attacks, posturing, and false superiority. Your not even worth getting mad over, because it's frankly just... rote and sad.

The thing is, I don't have to demonize Trump, everyone else does a well enough job of that on their own. The simple truth is, Hillary is worse than Trump. That doesn't make a Trump a good option, because the entire system is busted in the first place and Trump, on his own, isn't either. The only issue comes when you engage in the 'if the other side is worse, I win' mindset. That's your problem, not mine.

Your posts are great for fishing for various emotes and likes, but short on substance.

I'm really confused by how so many people are missing the taco bowl demographic joke. It's a jab at trump and his #ilovehispanics taco bowl tweet.

So a racist joke, is ok, as long as it's in reference to something else racist?

Does that not speak to broader issues at play in the Democratic party and how they view minorities and racism?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The thing is, I don't have to demonize Trump, everyone else does a well enough job of that on their own. The simple truth is, Hillary is worse than Trump.

Interesting. You don't have to demonize Trump, others take care of that; but you feel the need to point out Hillary is worse.

Is it possible you are frightened of Hillary on some level?

 

[JoleneBrody]

Your lack of a substantive point aside from personal attacks is once again notable. Like, seriously, your entire style is just personal attacks, posturing, and false superiority. Your not even worth getting mad over, because it's frankly just... rote and sad.

The thing is, I don't have to demonize Trump, everyone else does a well enough job of that on their own. The simple truth is, Hillary is worse than Trump. That doesn't make a Trump a good option, because the entire system is busted in the first place and Trump, on his own, isn't either. The only issue comes when you engage in the 'if the other side is worse, I win' mindset. That's your problem, not mine.

Your posts are great for fishing for various emotes and likes, but short on substance.


So a racist joke, is ok, as long as it's in reference to something else racist?

Does that not speak to broader issues at play in the Democratic party and how they view minorities and racism?

It didn't read as a racist joke to me in the slightest. Just a joke about trump and his bizarre attempts at targeting the Hispanic demographic while discussing the Hispanic demographic at the same time.

Racial demographics are not a secret.

 

[Behemoth]

Interesting. You don't have to demonize Trump, others take care of that; but you feel the need to point out Hillary is worse.

Is it possible you are frightened of Hillary on some level?

...yes? Like, how is this a question? Of course I am, hence why I'm speaking about how bad she is. That doesn't mean Trump will be good, or that you should support him, but like, you present this as some sort of gotcha.

Like, yes, I'm terrified of Hillary, merely scared of Trump. What of it?

It didn't read as a racist joke to me in the slightest. Just a joke about trump and his bizarre attempts at targeting the Hispanic demographic while discissing the Hispanic demographic at the same time.

Racial demographics are not a secret.

Alright, then. Sure thing.

 

[SexySteph]

So a racist joke, is ok, as long as it's in reference to something else racist?

Does that not speak to broader issues at play in the Democratic party and how they view minorities and racism?

How was that a racist joke at all? As a hispanic, even, I'm not seeing it. It's not like Trump is a Mexican and she called his mouth a taco hole. Or an Asian and she called his mouth a rice hole. She was making a joking reference to his whole "I love mexicans! We have the greatest Mexican food at Trump Towers! *eats nonauthentic taco bowl*" thing on Cindo De Mayo.

 

[Behemoth]

TIL referring to an ethnic group by a stereotypical food name is not racist.

 

[SexySteph]

TIL referring to an ethnic group by a stereotypical food name is not racist.

She... wasn't referring to an ethnic group by a strereotypical food name. Calling Trump (a white guy)'s mouth a taco bowl hole isn't calling Mexican's tacos. Unless Trump is well known for eating Mexican's, in which case, then it'd be racist. But I'd be more worried about the cannibalism.

 

[LuckySmiles]

It didn't read as a racist joke to me in the slightest. Just a joke about trump and his bizarre attempts at targeting the Hispanic demographic while discussing the Hispanic demographic at the same time.

Racial demographics are not a secret.

I didn't totally get it because the DNC wikileaks showed the media response in their emails among the democratic party was being referred to as to "mop up the taco bowl engagement"

so the taco bowl reference is actually multifaceted/bipartisan at this stage. For joke purposes.

 

[JoleneBrody]

I didn't totally get it because the DNC wikileaks showed the media response in their emails among the democratic party was being referred to as to "mop up the taco bowl engagement"

so the taco bowl reference is actually multifaceted/bipartisan at this stage. For joke purposes.

There was a lot of concerning shit in those emails, but a joke about racial demographics and trumps stupid cinco de mayo tweet are getting enough attention to distract from the bigger, actual really concerning problems.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Is it bad that Mike Tyson's argument for Trump is among the best I've heard >.< He makes a lot of sense to me here.



This one's just more radio banter on Hot97 defending his stance. It's amusing. First one's better.

 

[SexySteph]

Of course a convicted rapist would endorse Trump. Especially after Trump publicly defended him.

 

[Behemoth]

She... wasn't referring to an ethnic group by a strereotypical food name. Calling Trump (a white guy)'s mouth a taco bowl hole isn't calling Mexican's tacos. Unless Trump is well known for eating Mexican's, in which case, then it'd be racist. But I'd be more worried about the cannibalism.

...I don't even understand how you'd get that interpretation from what the Dem emails said, but carry on.

There was a lot of concerning shit in those emails, but a joke about racial demographics and trumps stupid cinco de mayo tweet are getting enough attention to distract from the bigger, actual really concerning problems.

I mean, this is true, but I don't think it makes it any less of a racist comment.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Of course a convicted rapist would endorse Trump. Especially after Trump publicly defended him.

I'm completely aware of this. His argument still makes a lot of sense. That's why I worded that way. It's sad that he makes more sense then most people I've heard about it.

 

[SexySteph]

...I don't even understand how you'd get that interpretation from what the Dem emails said, but carry on.

I mistakenly thought you were referring to this:

paved the way for someone like Trump to march into a nomination with this shit that spews from his taco bowl hole

 

[Behemoth]

I mistakenly thought you were referring to this:

Ah, well more understandable then. No, not that.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Like, yes, I'm terrified of Hillary, merely scared of Trump. What of it?

Well, forgetting the tally of evil (which we really can't know for sure), there may be one thing that might make Hillary a little easier to choke down. Stability.

 

[Behemoth]

Well, forgetting the tally of evil (which we really can't know for sure), there may be one thing that might make Hillary a little easier to choke down. Stability.

One, yes we absolutely can know for sure, and at no point is 'forgetting the tally of evil' ever acceptable.

Two, no, Hillary will not be 'stable,' in as much as the only constant she and those like her have brought is instability. Stability like she brought to Libya, for example? Hillary won't bring stability and I'm honestly disappointed in folks who think she will.

 

[JoleneBrody]

...I don't even understand how you'd get that interpretation from what the Dem emails said, but carry on.



I mean, this is true, but I don't think it makes it any less of a racist comment.

I MUST be missing some context by not reading the full emails, and only seeing the one main quote being used by everyone.

 

[Behemoth]

I MUST be missing some context by not reading the full emails, and only seeing the one main quote being used by everyone.

They referred to targeting the latino vote as 'mopping up Taco Bowl engagement.'

 

[Osmia]

....Then again, I have no faith when it comes to politics or politicians. I mean hell, congress has an 11% approval rating. They can't even be bothered to reconvene to pass funding for battling zika.

(Deep breaths. Think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts.)

"I mean hell, the Republican congress has an 11% approval rating. The Republican congress can't even be bothered to reconvene to pass funding for battling zika."

FTFY

The Republicans completely control both houses. They could reconvene if they wanted to. They could do something useful instead of voting to repeal Obamacare for the umpteenth time, if they wanted to. Their actions (or lack thereof) tell you where their priorities lie.

Otherwise, I liked your post.

 

[Mila_]

It wasn't just the "Taco Bowl" comment, there was so much racially charged shit in her emails... this sums it up nicely:



And yeah, when someone pretends to be outraged at Trump not immediately and on the spot disavowing David Duke (but doing it 2 days later) and yet doesn't get outraged by Hillary's own troubling connection to a KKK figure (and by the way explain to me how it is okay to "apologize" for having been a member of KKK and all is forgiven? Can a rapist apologize for raping another person and be forgiven? How does that work?)

When they pretend to be outraged at some of Trump's bombastic comments because they see "racism" in them, and then defends Hillary for her far worse comments... I can't take the claim that they care about racist comments seriously anymore. Because if the issue was racism, they would at least condemn both.

The rabbit hole is way deeper with the Clinton Foundation there are so many nasty things in there it is certainly much more troubling than anything Trump has ever said or done. People not seeing it are either uninformed or crazy.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

One, yes we absolutely can know for sure, and at no point is 'forgetting the tally of evil' ever acceptable.

Two, no, Hillary will not be 'stable,' in as much as the only constant she and those like her have brought is instability. Stability like she brought to Libya, for example? Hillary won't bring stability and I'm honestly disappointed in folks who think she will.

One, no we can't know for sure, because we don't have a complete picture, and what does filter down to us is usually skewed to some degree. If you are omniscient, the tally of evil makes sense. But you aren't.

Two, as a figurehead of our government, she definitely appears to be far more stable than Trump. I did not mean stability in Libya. To reduce that down to a finger pointed at HRC is a grotesque oversimplification. To be fair though, I should have been clearer; when I said stability, I did not mean she would bring stability in general, but merely more stability to the Oval Office than Trump.

 

[Nordling]

Edit: You know I hate that I'm constantly being driven to defend Trump. :/

Then don't defend him.

...and the party of Lincoln is no longer the party of Lincoln. Parties evolve, like anything else. (it's "Democratic" party btw) The two parties have virtually swapped places. The southern democrats of the bad old days are now Republicans. You can thank Nixon and his buddies for this..."The Southern Strategy."

In any event, you cannot ascribe characteristics to individuals just because of the party they belong to. Parties are financial blocs...and their platforms are based on a loose set of ideals at best..and are usually generic enough to not scare everyone away.

As far as Robert Byrd, I have no reason to not believe his apology. Duke hasn't done anything similar and in fact is still spewing hate all over the world. And looking on the other side of the aisle, I also believe Lee Atwood's apology...even though it was on his deathbed. And he was about as nasty a humanoid as one can get.

 

[Behemoth]

One, no we can't know for sure, because we don't have a complete picture, and what does filter down to us is usually skewed to some degree. If you are omniscient, the tally of evil makes sense. But you aren't.

This argument only works if you posit that unless we know absolutely 100% of every detail, it's not necessary to keep the tally. But we can know for certain things have happened even if we don't know the full details. We DO know, for certain, the tally, even if we don't know the 100% of every individual detail. We can know for sure what she's done, even if we don't know for sure EVERYTHING she's done, or the full details of everything she has.

Two, as a figurehead of our government, she definitely appears to be far more stable than Trump. I did not mean stability in Libya. To reduce that down to a finger pointed at HRC is a grotesque oversimplification. To be fair though, I should have been clearer; when I said stability, I did not mean she would bring stability in general, but merely more stability to the Oval Office than Trump.

Appearances do not match reality. She's no more stable, and will not bring stability any more than we've had stability for the last 8 years, and she certainly won't bring it to a global stage either. I didn't reduce it to just pointed at her, I specifically, in the area you quoted, refereed to 'those like her,' but to pretend also that she did not have a major hand in destabilizing the region is far more grotesque to me. This seems to be you wanting to use words without actually thinking about their actual meaning or implications again.

Hillary will not bring stability.

Then don't defend him.

I'll stop defending when folks stop being dishonest and making me.

...and the party of Lincoln is no longer the party of Lincoln. Parties evolve, like anything else. (it's "Democratic" party btw) The two parties have virtually swapped places. The southern democrats of the bad old days are now Republicans. You can thank Nixon and his buddies for this..."The Southern Strategy."

No, they haven't. This myth of the swap is just that, a myth. Even if we want to say the 'party of Lincoln is no longer,' this eternal lie pushed that the Democrats somehow 'swapped' is simply not true. The supposed 'southern Democrats became Republican' doesn't square with reality. It just never happened. It's a convenient myth to hide the racist actions of the Democrats then and now.

In any event, you cannot ascribe characteristics to individuals just because of the party they belong to. Parties are financial blocs...and their platforms are based on a loose set of ideals at best..and are usually generic enough to not scare everyone away.

I mean, yes I can. People choose to belong to parties and thus choose to accept association with characteristics of those parties. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you argue about how the Republicans change, but also we can't ascribe stuff based on parties... I don't see how this squares.

 

[Mila_]

As far as Robert Byrd, I have no reason to not believe his apology. I also believe Lee Atwood's apology...even though it was on his deathbed. And he was about as nasty a humanoid as one can get.

Please explain to me how this apology magic works. You get to be the worst person and then apologize on your death bed and get a clean slate? Is a well timed apology a free pass to do anything you want? Or does it only work with the KKK?