American Politics

[kkck]

I am not so sure that a military person can be a police officer. The training is completely different. And if anything the US already has issues with it's police being too militarized. A military person could be a police officer only if that person is completely retrained. In other words, it's the same as literally anyone else.

And we did see that stuff happening with Bush. We can't pretend that all the bullshit that happened in Iraq did not happen...... If anything it was worst.

 

[shionoro]

Huff Post is liberally biased, can't really use that as a source.

If i look through their methodics and see they are taking all polls into consideration and simply measure the average of the popular vote, then i can use it as a source.

 

[M3J]

Sure, but conservatives won't accept that as a source at all because Huff Post is biased. They'll fight back with their own biased poppycocks.

 

[shionoro]

Sure, but conservatives won't accept that as a source at all because Huff Post is biased. They'll fight back with their own biased poppycocks.

But you are not conservative

 

[M3J]

I am not, but if you want to use that argument against other conservatives, you need a better source. Anything liberally biased, no matter how true it is, will be denounced if conservatives don't agree with it. In any case, I'm kinda confused because many sources say Trump is winning or is gaining points, while many others say otherwise.

 

[shionoro]

I am not, but if you want to use that argument against other conservatives, you need a better source. Anything liberally biased, no matter how true it is, will be denounced if conservatives don't agree with it. In any case, I'm kinda confused because many sources say Trump is winning or is gaining points, while many others say otherwise.

I don't want to use it against conservatives. In my book, i don't really need to convince them that clinton is winning. They will see it soon enough.
And I will enjoy that sweet, short time of being proven right.

 

[Spirit]

To be honest, while i consider myself pretty cynical, even I don't bother much with looking closely into the US Elections. I know that whoever is going to get the top spot is going to be someone I strongly disagree with anyway

 

[M3J]

I don't want to use it against conservatives. In my book, i don't really need to convince them that clinton is winning. They will see it soon enough.
And I will enjoy that sweet, short time of being proven right.

what makes you think they'll see it soon enough? They, as in the same group of people who still think Obama wasn't born in America.....

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I am not so sure that a military person can be a police officer. The training is completely different. And if anything the US already has issues with it's police being too militarized. A military person could be a police officer only if that person is completely retrained. In other words, it's the same as literally anyone else.

And we did see that stuff happening with Bush. We can't pretend that all the bullshit that happened in Iraq did not happen...... If anything it was worst.

I could be wrong, but I think people in the Military are taught to never use their weapons unless they were given an order to do so (or a clearance that they are allowed to use them). I mean, you can get in trouble for firing a weapon without given permission (which, in a way, makes sense given a certain setting is applied).
But what I'm saying is that with the excessive training they've received from Military can apply to Police Training. All they just need to do is learn the Police basics (i.e. laws, what to do and what not to do...), and they are ready to become a police officer.

As I said, I could be wrong, and I could definitely be missing a lot of points.

 

[xi0]

I think cutting it can help alleviate problems. What do we have to show for the billions that we pump? What kind of technologies have been created that help us fight wars and protect people? I mean, if you kept spending tons of money on security and it didn't do much in protecting, would you continue to waste money on that?

Cutting it can also create problems. It's hard to quantify what is actually gained, since as a superpower, it's as much about a display a power as it is actually having it. That's why you get disasters like the F-35 program, but many more successes, given our standing in the world.

And I'm not really sure what you mean in regards to "it didn't do much in protecting". I think if you assert that we do a shitty job of protecting our citizens, you'd be severely lacking in perspective.

There are tons of things out there for the military defense to spend on beyond building weapons, scientific studies leading to vaccines against potential new bioweapons and other diseases in places where our troops are stationed can be beneficial to not only the community of soldiers but even people in those areas as well, further spending on better enhanced computer networks aids not only military but even the security of all records for all Americans. Enhanced aviation studies can enhance the entire american aviation industry one of the largest fleets in the world.The defense budget goes towards many scientific pursuits that dont just aid the military but even the nation as a whole, energy, health, etc. Decreasing spending is just completely silly considering how much goes into our indirect and direct benefits to all citizens.

I wasn't advocating cutting it drastically, or even cutting it at all. But it doesn't need to maintain the same growth rate that you insist it does. For what it's worth, nearly everything you're saying here can also be attributed to NASA, but it's funding was considered expendable by our government. The difference is, one of these agencies results in private industry directly profiting over war and conflict, the other doesn't. It's up to you whether you see something morally objectionable with this premise or not, but I guess you don't.

 

[M3J]

Cutting it can also create problems. It's hard to quantify what is actually gained, since as a superpower, it's as much about a display a power as it is actually having it. That's why you get disasters like the F-35 program, but many more successes, given our standing in the world.

And I'm not really sure what you mean in regards to "it didn't do much in protecting". I think if you assert that we do a shitty job of protecting our citizens, you'd be severely lacking in perspective.

WHat kind of problems? If we get the amount that we spend for, then awesome. Otherwise, I see it more as a lot of money going to contractors and all that shit, making them wealthy.

I hear we still get attacked overseas, and there's still violence. Though our officers have prevented terrorist attacks, how many of them were because of the defense industry? I know in few cases, people saw something suspicious, reported it, the cops came, and they were able to prevent anything bad happening, like that SUV in Times Square years ago.

 

[shionoro]

aaand we hit the 80's baby.

 

[xi0]

WHat kind of problems? If we get the amount that we spend for, then awesome. Otherwise, I see it more as a lot of money going to contractors and all that shit, making them wealthy.

I mean, I sort of object to this discussion because you insist on boiling issue down to such a degree. I have a problem with war profiteers, just like you. But slashing the DoD budget just isn't the solution to our problems IMO. Our foreign policy needs to be better and more people held accountable.

I hear we still get attacked overseas, and there's still violence. Though our officers have prevented terrorist attacks, how many of them were because of the defense industry? I know in few cases, people saw something suspicious, reported it, the cops came, and they were able to prevent anything bad happening, like that SUV in Times Square years ago.

You "hear"? I mean...okay. If you have assets overseas they might be compromised eventually. The only way to prevent that chance is to have no bases anywhere.

Officers? Police? Police has nothing to do with the federal defense budgeting for the most part. And depending on who you talk to, they don't even think they should be funded or exist anymore lol

 

[Franckie]

Wow, you can basically watch trumps chances melt down by the hour when you look at the polls.
I had guessed that the vice president debate would at least stop his freefall, but it does not look like it (the first positive effects of the first debate started to be visible in the timeframe we are in now. While it might still give him a small bump (i admit it is early after all), the general trend speaks a very clear language.

Maybe iwas wrong about who won the debate. I mean, if you lost trust in donald trump in the first debate, then seeing a likeable guy like tim kaine losing against someone who you believe lies nonstop might give you more of a reason to vote for clintonkaine than you had before.

What amazes me about the polls is how much support Trump has garnered without having to do any heavylifting. His campaign is a mess, donors want nothing to do with him, etc. yet this outlier of a presidential candidate will still garner ~45% of the vote come election day.

In the grand scheme of things though it doesn't matter. Trump's campaign has now pushed the Republican Party further to the right to the point they have dropped the dog whistles and now opt for foghorns to bluntly display their racial authoritarianism. Eventually Republicans will win control of the presidency, and once they control both chambers of Congress, there's no telling what poisons they'll stuff down the country's throat. At the bare minimum, they'll expand welfare for the wealthy, cripple Obamacare wherever they can, and explode federal deficits so they can do away with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What never ceases to amaze me is the party's hostility to social programs and their zeal to make them unworkable.

I am not so sure that a military person can be a police officer. The training is completely different. And if anything the US already has issues with it's police being too militarized. A military person could be a police officer only if that person is completely retrained. In other words, it's the same as literally anyone else.

And we did see that stuff happening with Bush. We can't pretend that all the bullshit that happened in Iraq did not happen...... If anything it was worst.

I can understand why Republicans want to militarize the police. There's $$$ for the donor base and they get the chance to use military equipment to further harass minorities, but what has left me baffled for the past 8 years is why in God's name do Democrats support it. A good chunk of militarization has occurred under both the Clinton and Obama Administrations too.

 

[kkck]

I can understand why Republicans want to militarize the police. There's $$$ for the donor base and they get the chance to use military equipment to further harass minorities, but what has left me baffled for the past 8 years is why in God's name do Democrats support it. A good chunk of militarization has occurred under both the Clinton and Obama Administrations too.

Well, if you say "they get the chance to use military equipment to further harass minorities" it sounds like straight up villainy lol. And in general the issue here is not straight up villainy but rather ignorance and half assing. I would say the issue here is that in principle the militarization of the police might have sounded like a good idea. As in, "hey, the streets are getting dangerous so it's a good idea to give the police better equipment. And on top of that our donors are happy. Everyone is happy and we make a quick buck". Problem with that? First the police are not trained to handle military equipment, second, US crime rates have continued their decade long trend downwards under obama, third, the ones getting on the wrong end of that military equipment will be already abused minorities.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Unless people are already aware of this a long time ago, a Tape has been leaked that's about how Trump (and Billy Bush; the cousin of George Bush) brags about groping women. Billy is already under fire, and I wonder how this would affect Trump's voters (especially the Women and religious people).

 

[shionoro]

@Franckie I don#t see it that way.
If anything, republicans noticed now that they won't ever win a presidency again with far right wing conspiracy nutjobs.
They know full well that their chances with people like jeb bush, Pence or even Cruz or Rubio would have been much higher.
Those guys are far right wing, too, but they are at least seemingly sane people.
And even those have a problem. Clinton had a likeability problem initially which she could get hold off in her debate.
What will the reps do in an ever growing hispanic population against actually welliked candidates like sanders or a second obama?
They have no answer for that if they don't take a left turn.

 

[kkck]

Honestly, I don't think trump supporters will care about the new video with trump being overly gropey. Why would they? They already knew trump treated women like accessories to screw. And it's not even the worst he has done. By far. Will it hurt him with his party? Yeah. But he had already alienated them anyways.

 

[shionoro]

So, honestly, with the first debate and the sex comments trump mate, i think the case is closed.

Clinton would have to be revealed to be an ISIS spy at this point.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 8, 2016 ---

Conspiracy time:

Is it possible for trump to withdraw and still let pence run?
That could be an insanely smart move for the reps if Trump agrees to it (WAS IT THEIR PLAN ALL ALONG???).

Because actually, all the people are so apalled by trump and were pleased with pence (due to the contrast alone) that pence would have a real shot at winning that.
And since turmp does not actually want to be president anyway (at least i think that), they might be able to bribe him into stepping down.

The clinton campain was so largely focussed on trump that they wouldn't see it coming, and the actual ratio between dems and reps is much closer to 50/50 than the ratio of people wanting clinton to people wanting trump.

And honestly: Trump cannot win this anymore. But Pence could.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 8, 2016 ---

This is further fueled by the sextalk leak allegedly being an inside job.

 

[kkck]

So, honestly, with the first debate and the sex comments trump mate, i think the case is closed.

Clinton would have to be revealed to be an ISIS spy at this point.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 8, 2016 ---

Conspiracy time:

Is it possible for trump to withdraw and still let pence run?
That could be an insanely smart move for the reps if Trump agrees to it (WAS IT THEIR PLAN ALL ALONG???).

Because actually, all the people are so apalled by trump and were pleased with pence (due to the contrast alone) that pence would have a real shot at winning that.
And since turmp does not actually want to be president anyway (at least i think that), they might be able to bribe him into stepping down.

The clinton campain was so largely focussed on trump that they wouldn't see it coming, and the actual ratio between dems and reps is much closer to 50/50 than the ratio of people wanting clinton to people wanting trump.

And honestly: Trump cannot win this anymore. But Pence could.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 8, 2016 ---

This is further fueled by the sextalk leak allegedly being an inside job.

I see a number of issues with this idea. The first is that trump is actually dumb. He made it this far basically winging it and putting a reality tv style show. The guy does not plan or anything of the sort. Just look at his entire campaign. It has been a mess from day one. The guy did not even have the foresight to prepare for the debate and after the debate he kept saying that he actually won based on online polls. The guy is simply too stupid to plan anything at all.

The second issue here is that there is no rational reason for pence to be the nominee if trump leaves. Just because trump leaves does not mean he gets to pick his replacement. The party should have to appoint someone in which case they can do better than the guy who says cigarettes don't cause cancer.

I don't see trump quitting the election.... Though it is likely that he will loose more support from republicans.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 8, 2016 ---

On another note, here is the simultaneously saddest and funniest thing you will see today:

Look at this son of a bitch campaigning for donald trump. After donald trump called his father a murderer and ridiculed his wife. The worst part is that he can't even stop his endorsement of trump at this point. Because it's unlikely to be worst than the stuff trump already did.