American Politics

[SharkBait]

Stuff like this makes it hard to even want to vote for her.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I could be wrong, but I don't recall Hillary wanting to take away your guns. More NRA Propaganda it seems...

 

[kkck]

Well, the democrat party generally is in favor of more control. And the NRA naturally takes that to it's absolute extreme and presents is as hillary wanting to take away literally everyone's guns. Not that I would be against that but it's a simple fact that hillary is not doing it.

 

[xi0]

But the collateral damage done by the U.S. enabled the rise of ISIL tho. It's definitely not the cause, but the war has definitely benefited them (many of their recruiters happened to be former Sadam Hussein's soldiers). It's not the matter that the U.S. allowed ISIL to form nor is it that we've allowed Wahabbism to be born, because that's not true (ISIL only broke apart from Al-Qaeda).
Truth to be told, I'm unsure why they haven't done so. It could've happened years ago, but I guess it might also have something to do with their social environment (lack of technology, ect...).

It was obviously an unintended circumstance, but my point was it wasn't as simple as blaming our involvement as the only cause. This ideology existed long before 9/11 (well, obviously...). In effect, the roots of ISIL actually existed prior to the Iraq insurgency and the inception AQI. Their targets were what they referred to as "rejectionists", aka Shiite muslims and "crusaders", aka western occupiers. The power vacuum and the ineptitude of the forces we left behind are what led to the mess today, but of course we share blame in it.

But what would really achieve by suing Saudi Arabia? It sure as hell will not achieve "justice", so the only benefit I see through this is money (which I see this as insulting to the victims of 9/11; how could people use their dead family member or friend for finance advantage?).
I don't know. I just see this bill as dangerous that enables foreigners to sue the U.S.; if they happened to be the victors, then they'll get paid through the Tax Revenues (it only makes sense, unless the government is doing some fishy business).

Justice is relative of course, but the point of civil lawsuits isn't justice as much as it is proving liability - it's righting the wrong that caused a victim personal loss or harm. If this can't or won't be done in a criminal sense, the only other option is a civil one.

A lot of our discussion here is based on conjecture (especially on my end tbh), however I don't think the essence of the argument being made by the families of 9/11 is wrong or incorrect. If someone within the government of a foreign country is liable for the damages incurred by 9/11 and recompense can't be sought through other means, then civil suits are an option. A lot of the argument being made by them is that it should be left up to the justice system to decide whether there is liability or not, diplomacy shouldn't supersede that. But like I said, I understand why the president would want to veto it. And of course, it only adds fuel to the fire for conspiracy theorists and their ilk.

I haven't seen enough of the details of the bill itself honestly. And I'm sort of ignorant when it comes to international law and the application of such a thing. I think it's easy to say that victims seeking money only as an insult, but if any part of the power structure of Saudi Arabia is directly to blame for supporting the 9/11 attacks, I don't see why someone would be against it, on principle. I think this would be a more desired result than us going to war with them as well (but I guess that might depend on your perspective).

As i see it, clinton's approval ratings go down when it is election time in important elections. Because that is the time everyone sets out to throw shit at her. When she is just left alone to work, people like what she does.

I mean, numbers don't lie. People win elections by having high approval ratings. If her ratings go down so much during an election that she can't win, what does it matter what the people who like her by default think about her?

What's also sad is that Gary Johnson isn't going to be on the Debate because he didn't achieved a specific amount of percent. Would've been an interesting turn of event if he actually joined the debate, and maybe he will grab the attention of the American people.

Who benefits from these media networks agreeing with the 15% consensus poll rule? It's the GOP and Democrats who push for such a rule. I say that if any media outlet was serious about having an actual open debate, an arbitrary threshold wouldn't exist. The establishment likes it this way because they only have to worry about contrasting themselves against a single opponent. It's house rules bent against the "little guy". That's why this system needs reform, the two parties practically control most of the media outlets.

Stuff like this makes it hard to even want to vote for her.

The second amendment isn't going to be repealed any time soon. I don't see how anyone with even a modicum of common sense taking the NRA or this ad seriously. The most common push for gun reform has been in regard to assault weapons. Now, the discussion of whether that'd actually prevent more crime or not is one based on different studies and a debate on ideological terms. However, there is no argument being made over whether Clinton wants to take your guns away. This is self-serving propaganda. What does the supreme court even have to do with it? Is there an important case involving gun rights on the docket?

 

[shionoro]

I mean, numbers don't lie. People win elections by having high approval ratings. If her ratings go down so much during an election that she can't win, what does it matter what the people who like her by default think about her?

Well she is winning. My point is that this whole 'oh my god we can only choose between unlikeable people' is not really accurate.
Clinton is disliked exactly when people throw shit at her. Simply because she is the longest standing high profile politician and a woman, thus you can just fire away. Even if you find nothing, you can just go for hear voice or make up stories about that she is a homophobe or warmongerer.
After all, most americans go by do believe such claims when they are uttered. We simply didnt have that propaganda machinery against kerry and gore. At least not to the extent we have it now. No other republican nominee ever gave mock nicknames like lying ted or crooked hillary and was so proud of it that he made all his followers repeat them
The first one to be a target of the lying machine was obama. But Obama was young and fresh enough to warrant a big pro movement. People were excited about him, which was a very special thing. Noone was excited about bush, or even bill clinton. Because...well politics usually is not exciting.

What hillary is basically blamed for is that she is not as exciting as the obama hype. Clinton would not even be seen as a very undesirable choice in an election with a normal republican candidate like Bush. If it was Jeb Bush against Clinton, noone would make an issue out of it.

Clinton's approval ratings will go higher the second she is elected as president. Sure, the first time will be rough because trump fans will make a fuss out of it and possibly even have violent protests, but give her 2 months and it will be fine.

People just feel a bit betrayed because they wanted to replicate a part of the obama hype with sanders, which did not work out.

 

[kkck]

Well she is winning. My point is that this whole 'oh my god we can only choose between unlikeable people' is not really accurate.
Clinton is disliked exactly when people throw shit at her. Simply because she is the longest standing high profile politician and a woman, thus you can just fire away. Even if you find nothing, you can just go for hear voice or make up stories about that she is a homophobe or warmongerer.
After all, most americans go by do believe such claims when they are uttered. We simply didnt have that propaganda machinery against kerry and gore. At least not to the extent we have it now. No other republican nominee ever gave mock nicknames like lying ted or crooked hillary and was so proud of it that he made all his followers repeat them
The first one to be a target of the lying machine was obama. But Obama was young and fresh enough to warrant a big pro movement. People were excited about him, which was a very special thing. Noone was excited about bush, or even bill clinton. Because...well politics usually is not exciting.

What hillary is basically blamed for is that she is not as exciting as the obama hype. Clinton would not even be seen as a very undesirable choice in an election with a normal republican candidate like Bush. If it was Jeb Bush against Clinton, noone would make an issue out of it.

Clinton's approval ratings will go higher the second she is elected as president. Sure, the first time will be rough because trump fans will make a fuss out of it and possibly even have violent protests, but give her 2 months and it will be fine.

People just feel a bit betrayed because they wanted to replicate a part of the obama hype with sanders, which did not work out.

To be honest I still can't be as confident as you are. Looking at the polls, it makes no sense that hillary's advantage is merely what it is. It's true trump's party thinks he is a moron and he can't get minority votes that he would ordinarily need. And he also polls remarkably poorly with women. Those are are large rather large obstacles to overcome. But hillary clearly has problems capitalizing on that. Hillary should have the minority vote in the bag. However even if they would vote for her, they are simply not excited about her. So they are at least, not going to have the impact they had in the last election. Millennials are a group that simply will not back trump up. But that does not mean they will show up to vote hillary. As far as I can tell the people who like hillary at this point are only the ones that have supported her from the start... Which is not that big a group anyways.

And now the scary part. Trump has the white male vote in the bag. Trump has consistently polled high in that demographic. And not only that but they are excited to vote for him.... Which means they are going to show up. So the situation we have is that trump generates a pretty big deal of excitement in a huge demographic while clinton has support from a number of key demographics (women and minorities) but generates no support at all. And millenials hate her even if they would begrudgingly vote for her if they showed up (probably).

As far as the lying machine goes, I would argue the main difference between obama and hillary is that hillary is simply not good enough of a politician to actually fend it off. She might be a vicious workaholic that would get policy passed congress at any cost (and I did point out earlier that cruz and stein were against her because of how competent hillary is) but she simply can't deal with attacks against this appropriately. I mean, she is being attacked by the email thing and bhengazzi.... The email thing is effectively over and the explanation given by comey makes perfect sense. People are pretending comey's "extremely carelessness" comment means clinton committed "gross negligence" even though comey specifically used "extreme carelessness" because it's completely different from gross negligence. The bhengazzi thing is even worst. She has been investigated 9 times by highly partisan republican commissions that make it very hard to argue weren't there solely to reduce her chances at the presidency. In context, she has been exonerated 9 times. From something which reasonably shouldn't have had more than 2 investigations and even that second one should have been seen as outrageous, because, what the actual fuck. With that in mind, thinking there is some wrongdoing on her part regarding the bhengazi thing should be something that belongs at the depths of 4chan forums. It should be evidence of a extreme form of idiocy. However hillary cannot fend this off. Basically, the things that weight her down the most are not real things....

 

[shionoro]

I am really excited for the debate. I got gin and a lot of packed indian food, so i can eat and drink myself silly while watching it. Yeah!

@kkck

If I am honest....The maindifference between Obama and CLinton in that regard is that she is a woman. If Clinton would use defenses like Obama did, then she would get hate for being snappy or arrogant. And she knows that, it was like that throughout her career.
She has to keep a balance between being resolute and still grounded.

But as i said: I see no chance of clinton losing if she does not faint right in the debate tonight. Her advantage is pretty good in polls. It is comparable to what obama had over romney and mccain (7% 2008 and 4% 2012 against clinton's 3% lead right now in polls (which usually hover more on the 5% mark).

Metapolls do take into account who stays at home and who is likely to vote, so those numbers are usually not imaginary.
People thought similar things about sanders vs clinton supporters (that the former group was mor elikely to show up) but that didnt happen.

If clinton holds her own in the debate tonight, and i don't think trump can beat someone in a serious debate, then she will take this home.

This is not one of those fightclub debates in the primaries where you can get away with things like telling people your dick is huge or that 'you have a plan'.

Lots of americans actually waited for the debate to inform themselves about the candidates. And i have no doubt that a lot of them will be digusted.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 26, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 26, 2016 ---

This is a nice one

 

[kkck]

@kkck

If I am honest....The maindifference between Obama and CLinton in that regard is that she is a woman. If Clinton would use defenses like Obama did, then she would get hate for being snappy or arrogant. And she knows that, it was like that throughout her career.
She has to keep a balance between being resolute and still grounded.

But as i said: I see no chance of clinton losing if she does not faint right in the debate tonight. Her advantage is pretty good in polls. It is comparable to what obama had over romney and mccain (7% 2008 and 4% 2012 against clinton's 3% lead right now in polls (which usually hover more on the 5% mark).

Metapolls do take into account who stays at home and who is likely to vote, so those numbers are usually not imaginary.
People thought similar things about sanders vs clinton supporters (that the former group was mor elikely to show up) but that didnt happen.

If clinton holds her own in the debate tonight, and i don't think trump can beat someone in a serious debate, then she will take this home.

This is not one of those fightclub debates in the primaries where you can get away with things like telling people your dick is huge or that 'you have a plan'.

Lots of americans actually waited for the debate to inform themselves about the candidates. And i have no doubt that a lot of them will be digusted.

Well, that she is a woman definitely has a part to play in how she defends herself. It's the reason why an ignorant clown like trump can parade around basically saying "I am the god damn trump" in spite of there being nothing to make that assertion mean anything at all while Hillary can't promote herself in the same manner even though she does have a decades long career to justify it. However the fact that she can't defend from the emails or bhengazi is still a reflection on her not being a good politician. Her responses in regards to at least the emails are generally at least cringeworthy and at worst unconvincing. A double standard in how clinton and trump are judged is without a shred of a doubt real but her inability to shake this stuff, which is among the stupidest things of all the things that make her a weak candidate, shows that she is not particularly effective as a politician.

You are right, in real debate trump would probably loose a kindergarten kid. Trump would call the kid lying billy but would be left speechless when the kid counters with "cootiehead" and the proceeds to sue the kid for 5 bagillion dollars unless he can prove trump has cooties. But this is not a debate in any way that matters. This is a debate in the same way the republican debates were debates. And we saw how trump walked out of those. I have pointed out ted cruz' resume when it comes to debate. The guy was a top student who represented harvard in its debate team. That's not a small thing, I doubt harvard would have had the guy if he was inept. This is not a debate, this is a battle of one liners and "u mad broh". And trump has shown he is at least competent at either.

 

[shionoro]

You are right, in real debate trump would probably loose a kindergarten kid. Trump would call the kid lying billy but would be left speechless when the kid counters with "cootiehead" and the proceeds to sue the kid for 5 bagillion dollars unless he can prove trump has cooties. But this is not a debate in any way that matters. This is a debate in the same way the republican debates were debates. And we saw how trump walked out of those. I have pointed out ted cruz' resume when it comes to debate. The guy was a top student who represented harvard in its debate team. That's not a small thing, I doubt harvard would have had the guy if he was inept. This is not a debate, this is a battle of one liners and "u mad broh". And trump has shown he is at least competent at either.

Now, trumo would not have beaten ted cruz in a debate in harvard.
It depends on the audience, less on the speakers.

If the smart girl argues with the classbully in 7th grade, then he will call her an ugly bitch and win the debate.
But if those two discuss in front of a mixed audience of people, it seems clear that he won't.
Trump wins in front of an audience that is used to casting shows and such and gives the win to the loudest and funniest.
Fortunately, most of the US is not like that.
We will know in 24 hours how the debate turned out, but i am really confident here.

I would be more scared if a guy like ted cruz came along, or if trump did what many people suspected: Tone it down after the primary.
But he didn't and possibly can't.
What will happen is that a normal to competent politician (and say about clinton what you will: She will not go uninformed into that debate) will discuss actual political questions with a hatemongerer who is not going to give any answer of substance to anything.

And tbh, if the american people can not see that in their majority, then a trump presidency would be brought to them by themselves.
But i do doubt that. Every time trump will attack clinton with things like 'you are crooked' or stuff like that, he will worsen his position.

 

[kkck]

Now, trumo would not have beaten ted cruz in a debate in harvard.
It depends on the audience, less on the speakers.

If the smart girl argues with the classbully in 7th grade, then he will call her an ugly bitch and win the debate.
But if those two discuss in front of a mixed audience of people, it seems clear that he won't.
Trump wins in front of an audience that is used to casting shows and such and gives the win to the loudest and funniest.
Fortunately, most of the US is not like that.
We will know in 24 hours how the debate turned out, but i am really confident here.

I would be more scared if a guy like ted cruz came along, or if trump did what many people suspected: Tone it down after the primary.
But he didn't and possibly can't.
What will happen is that a normal to competent politician (and say about clinton what you will: She will not go uninformed into that debate) will discuss actual political questions with a hatemongerer who is not going to give any answer of substance to anything.

And tbh, if the american people can not see that in their majority, then a trump presidency would be brought to them by themselves.
But i do doubt that. Every time trump will attack clinton with things like 'you are crooked' or stuff like that, he will worsen his position.

I didn't say trump would win a normal debate. I agree with you, trump would NEVER win a real debate at all. In my post I specifically said the guy wouldn't win a debate against a child. And the child does not even have to be that smart....

Well, it is true that his audience now will be significantly more diverce than his republican audience. That alone could make a huge difference. But still, this isn't a real debate. And even with a bigger audience it comes down to who throws the best one liners....

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 26, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 26, 2016 ---

On another note, this is excellent.

 

[GrySun]

Looking forward to the debate!...which is what I'd like to say, but when it starts it'll be 3am in Europe. Doubt I'll sacrifice my sleep for that.

Expecting a great ez Trump win.

 

[shionoro]

Gonna watch it, i am night active.
Anyone got a good livestream?

 

[kkck]

Gonna watch it, i am night active.
Anyone got a good livestream?

Supposedly it's gonna be streamed life on facebook and youtube. TV is probably your best bet though.

 

[GrySun]

Gonna watch it, i am night active.
Anyone got a good livestream?

Youtube streams are probably your best choice. Something like the one here:

http://www.uspresidentialelectionne...st-clinton-trump-presidential-debate-tonight/

Though I'm sure many people will stream this debate in both youtube or other sites, but I don't think you can go wrong too much with your stream choice.

 

[shionoro]

The fun in this thing is partially a bout how big of a fuss americans make out of these debates.

I mean, there is a 'Tv duel' in germany too, but there are two rather boring people calmly answering to questions about the rent system or minimum wage and the ratings are not even comparable.
Comparing that to even one of the republican debates i watched, with the US anthem being sung and people cheering and booing, that is really something else.

Leave alone the analysis which will follow the debate about body language and all that shit.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 27, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 27, 2016 ---

I mean even now, there is political commentary on since hours in the livestream and a big countdown.
That's just good entertainment.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 27, 2016 ---

Alright guys, the gin is open, the chai masala is hot, let's do this!

 

[kkck]

The fun in this thing is partially a bout how big of a fuss americans make out of these debates.

I mean, there is a 'Tv duel' in germany too, but there are two rather boring people calmly answering to questions about the rent system or minimum wage and the ratings are not even comparable.
Comparing that to even one of the republican debates i watched, with the US anthem being sung and people cheering and booing, that is really something else.

Leave alone the analysis which will follow the debate about body language and all that shit.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 27, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 27, 2016 ---

I mean even now, there is political commentary on since hours in the livestream and a big countdown.
That's just good entertainment.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 27, 2016 ---

Alright guys, the gin is open, the chai masala is hot, let's do this!

The most incredible part about this entire shenanigan is that by now there is statistical evidence that the debates usually do not even have an effect on presidential elections. The only reason this one specifically has so much hype is trump being in it and his wacky comments.... Trump actually did manage to turn this into reality tv...

 

[shionoro]

Aaand it starts XD

Trump is angry now. I think he feels like he is losing. The factchecker might have been a smart idea by clinton.

 

[kkck]

Aaand it starts XD

Trump is angry now. I think he feels like he is losing. The factchecker might have been a smart idea by clinton.

The way I see it is that factwise trump started wrong. He started with the whole thing about jobs leaving to china even though in fact that stopped being true years ago.

What a ridiculous clown, the guy went ahead with the audit thing.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

It all started well at first, then they both interrupted each other.

I have to disagree about Trump regarding his "economic plan". Correlating Tax Breaks to Job creation is below 101 Economics thinking. You don't create jobs with Supply; only Demand can.
What he also fails to know is that deregulation is one of the causes of the 2008 Financial Crisis and Recession.

 

[kkck]

Well, it seems like hillary is doing a good job so far, she is not letting trump get to him. Trump is such as astounding moron, I can't believe anyone at all takes him seriously....