Heroic Shrimp
Active member
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBNBAgtjYV8[/youtube]
Idiocracy
- Thread starter Highlander
- Start date
Boston Leaf
New member
As an American I cannot believe we have to choose between Hillary and Trump.. I find them both repulsive.. Not a fan of either.. I cannot put a check mark next to either name. It will be interesting to see who the running mates are... I find Trump much scarier though.. He hasn't a clue about the issues for the most part and defects all questions on them..The whole thing is frustrating to me
bustaheims
Well-known member
Boston Leaf said:
While I agree that Hilary is not exactly a great candidate, I think this is one of those cases where a lot of people are going to have to hold their nose and vote for an unappealing candidate to prevent a potential disaster. One of the two is going to be president, so, every vote that Clinton doesn't get is one less Trump needs to win. Don't think of it as voting for Clinton. Think of it as voting against Trump.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
bustaheims said:
Tinfoil hat time...longtime Clinton "friend" Trump runs as an elaborate rouse to make that odious old shrew seem palatable?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
bustaheims
Well-known member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
I'm not sure he'd be comfortable nuking his reputation in the way he has to help a "friend."
Heroic Shrimp
Active member
Oh, does Ken Burns nail it:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F8zCQ4YnZ8[/youtube]
For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and character of candidates who were clearly qualified. That is not the case this year. One is glaringly not qualified. So before you do anything with your well-earned degree, you must do everything you can to defeat the retrograde forces that have invaded our democratic process, divided our house, to fight against, no matter your political persuasion, the dictatorial tendencies of the candidate with zero experience in the much maligned but subtle art of governance; who is against lots of things, but doesn?t seem to be for anything, offering only bombastic and contradictory promises, and terrifying Orwellian statements; a person who easily lies, creating an environment where the truth doesn?t seem to matter; who has never demonstrated any interest in anyone or anything but himself and his own enrichment; who insults veterans, threatens a free press, mocks the handicapped, denigrates women, immigrants and all Muslims; a man who took more than a day to remember to disavow a supporter who advocates white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan; an infantile, bullying man who, depending on his mood, is willing to discard old and established alliances, treaties and long-standing relationships. I feel genuine sorrow for the understandably scared and?they feel?powerless people who have flocked to his campaign in the mistaken belief that?as often happens on TV?a wand can be waved and every complicated problem can be solved with the simplest of solutions. They can?t. It is a political Ponzi scheme. And asking this man to assume the highest office in the land would be like asking a newly minted car driver to fly a 747.
As a student of history, I recognize this type. He emerges everywhere and in all eras. We see nurtured in his campaign an incipient Proto-fascism, a nativist anti-immigrant Know Nothing-ism, a disrespect for the judiciary, the prospect of women losing authority over their own bodies, African Americans again asked to go to the back of the line, voter suppression gleefully promoted, jingoistic saber rattling, a total lack of historical awareness, a political paranoia that, predictably, points fingers, always making the other wrong. These are all virulent strains that have at times infected us in the past. But they now loom in front of us again?all happening at once. We know from our history books that these are the diseases of ancient and now fallen empires. The sense of commonwealth, of shared sacrifice, of trust, so much a part of American life, is eroding fast, spurred along and amplified by an amoral Internet that permits a lie to circle the globe three times before the truth can get started.
We no longer have the luxury of neutrality or ?balance,? or even of bemused disdain. Many of our media institutions have largely failed to expose this charlatan, torn between a nagging responsibility to good journalism and the big ratings a media circus always delivers. In fact, they have given him the abundant airtime he so desperately craves, so much so that it has actually worn down our natural human revulsion to this kind of behavior. Hey, he?s rich; he must be doing something right. He is not. Edward R. Murrow would have exposed this naked emperor months ago. He is an insult to our history. Do not be deceived by his momentary ?good behavior.? It is only a spoiled, misbehaving child hoping somehow to still have dessert.
And do not think that the tragedy in Orlando underscores his points. It does not. We must ?disenthrall ourselves,? as Abraham Lincoln said, from the culture of violence and guns. And then ?we shall save our country.?
This is not a liberal or conservative issue, a red state, blue state divide. This is an American issue. Many honorable people, including the last two Republican presidents, members of the party of Abraham Lincoln, have declined to support him. And I implore those ?Vichy Republicans? who have endorsed him to please, please reconsider. We must remain committed to the kindness and community that are the hallmarks of civilization and reject the troubling, unfiltered Tourettes of his tribalism.
The next few months of your ?commencement,? that is to say, your future, will be critical to the survival of our Republic. ?The occasion is piled high with difficulty.? Let us pledge here today that we will not let this happen to the exquisite, yet deeply flawed, land we all love and cherish?and hope to leave intact to our posterity. Let us ?nobly save,? not ?meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F8zCQ4YnZ8[/youtube]
For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and character of candidates who were clearly qualified. That is not the case this year. One is glaringly not qualified. So before you do anything with your well-earned degree, you must do everything you can to defeat the retrograde forces that have invaded our democratic process, divided our house, to fight against, no matter your political persuasion, the dictatorial tendencies of the candidate with zero experience in the much maligned but subtle art of governance; who is against lots of things, but doesn?t seem to be for anything, offering only bombastic and contradictory promises, and terrifying Orwellian statements; a person who easily lies, creating an environment where the truth doesn?t seem to matter; who has never demonstrated any interest in anyone or anything but himself and his own enrichment; who insults veterans, threatens a free press, mocks the handicapped, denigrates women, immigrants and all Muslims; a man who took more than a day to remember to disavow a supporter who advocates white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan; an infantile, bullying man who, depending on his mood, is willing to discard old and established alliances, treaties and long-standing relationships. I feel genuine sorrow for the understandably scared and?they feel?powerless people who have flocked to his campaign in the mistaken belief that?as often happens on TV?a wand can be waved and every complicated problem can be solved with the simplest of solutions. They can?t. It is a political Ponzi scheme. And asking this man to assume the highest office in the land would be like asking a newly minted car driver to fly a 747.
As a student of history, I recognize this type. He emerges everywhere and in all eras. We see nurtured in his campaign an incipient Proto-fascism, a nativist anti-immigrant Know Nothing-ism, a disrespect for the judiciary, the prospect of women losing authority over their own bodies, African Americans again asked to go to the back of the line, voter suppression gleefully promoted, jingoistic saber rattling, a total lack of historical awareness, a political paranoia that, predictably, points fingers, always making the other wrong. These are all virulent strains that have at times infected us in the past. But they now loom in front of us again?all happening at once. We know from our history books that these are the diseases of ancient and now fallen empires. The sense of commonwealth, of shared sacrifice, of trust, so much a part of American life, is eroding fast, spurred along and amplified by an amoral Internet that permits a lie to circle the globe three times before the truth can get started.
We no longer have the luxury of neutrality or ?balance,? or even of bemused disdain. Many of our media institutions have largely failed to expose this charlatan, torn between a nagging responsibility to good journalism and the big ratings a media circus always delivers. In fact, they have given him the abundant airtime he so desperately craves, so much so that it has actually worn down our natural human revulsion to this kind of behavior. Hey, he?s rich; he must be doing something right. He is not. Edward R. Murrow would have exposed this naked emperor months ago. He is an insult to our history. Do not be deceived by his momentary ?good behavior.? It is only a spoiled, misbehaving child hoping somehow to still have dessert.
And do not think that the tragedy in Orlando underscores his points. It does not. We must ?disenthrall ourselves,? as Abraham Lincoln said, from the culture of violence and guns. And then ?we shall save our country.?
This is not a liberal or conservative issue, a red state, blue state divide. This is an American issue. Many honorable people, including the last two Republican presidents, members of the party of Abraham Lincoln, have declined to support him. And I implore those ?Vichy Republicans? who have endorsed him to please, please reconsider. We must remain committed to the kindness and community that are the hallmarks of civilization and reject the troubling, unfiltered Tourettes of his tribalism.
The next few months of your ?commencement,? that is to say, your future, will be critical to the survival of our Republic. ?The occasion is piled high with difficulty.? Let us pledge here today that we will not let this happen to the exquisite, yet deeply flawed, land we all love and cherish?and hope to leave intact to our posterity. Let us ?nobly save,? not ?meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.?
Heroic Shrimp
Active member
KGB said:
It's a pretty short list of both Republican and Democrat candidates I've seen in my lifetime that I wouldn't vote for over Hilary Clinton. And yet if, I had a vote, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for her over Trump, and it's not even close.
KGB
New member
Fortunately for those of us that would have to live with a Clinton administration, you don't have that option. I'm not a fan of Trump but he's made it possible to discuss issues that progressives have done their damndest to make off-limits. For that alone he edges past Clinton, who has not one redeeming characteristic.
Heroic Shrimp
Active member
KGB said:
And fortunately for me in Canada, I don't have to live (directly, anyway) the Trump administration that you would favour.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
KGB said:
Such as?
Also, living in the neighbouring country to the US means we are definitely affected by what goes on there.
bustaheims
Well-known member
Frank E said:
Immigration is a topic that comes up in every election. It's hardly off limits. The difference is candidates have generally taken measured positions on it, rather than spewing falsehoods and xenophobic rhetoric, as Trump has.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Frank E said:
Yeah he's sure opened up a great discourse there. How was that ever off-limits? If anything it's made discussing the issue far worse and much scarier/dangerous with the rhetoric.
Is him making racist comments making it possible to discuss race issues?
bustaheims
Well-known member
Honestly, there isn't a single issue Trump has raised that hasn't been brought up in previous elections. The difference is in the specific "policies" he's talked about enacting - most of which are poorly thought out, completely impractical, or downright racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc.
Frank E
Active member
bustaheims said:
Yeah, I don't agree at all. Trump has caused so much backlash with his "policies" and statements, and that backlash has really forced people to consider where they stand on subjects, like immigration, that no-one really discusses publicly.
I don't much care for most of what he says, but I do think that he's certainly made for a lot of conversation...those conversations I think are healthy.
Kin
Active member
Frank E said:
The idea that immigration wasn't publicly discussed in previous elections just isn't true. This is a transcript from a 2012 presidential debate:
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/obama-romney-immigration-presidential-debate/story?id=17495837
Likewise, his two other main points seem to be "jobs" and vague issues of national security, two issues that have been at the forefront of every election this century. Trump isn't introducing anything substantive on those issues but rather he's taking what are important issues like immigration reform, income inequality and National Security and reframing them into nonsensical platitudes with impractical ideas that immigration will be solved by building a big wall, the economy can be improved by "negotiation" and you can somehow test people for their religion before they enter a country.
Frank E
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
But I'm not really talking about politicians having a very careful talk about immigration. I'm talking about regular people and the press. He's forcing people to discuss what they don't like about what he says because of his exaggerated positions. I agree that he's wrong as F about most of what he says, but it still seems to get people talking. It's the getting people talking about stuff that I think is valuable, not his bananas positions on the subjects.
Kin
Active member
Frank E said:
But I don't want regular people talking about the merits of mass forced deportation as opposed to substantive debates about realistic policy. I don't want the press debating the merits of Mexico paying for a multi-billion dollar wall along their northern border when they could be doing real investigative journalism about things that are actually affecting the world.
Those are abdications of responsibilities, not fulfilling them.
Frank E said:
I don't think that's true at all. I think what he says is being constantly and casually dismissed as being bonkers crazy/racist/impractical and as a result people aren't talking about actual issues of import like political gridlock or effective policy solutions for pressing problems.
As a result of this even the Democratic party is almost certainly going to be less focused on the actual schism there that the Sanders campaign exposed and only talking about how you can't let a dangerously unqualified dope win the presidency.
Kin
Active member
In 2012 Romney won Utah by almost 50 points. In 2008, McCain won it by almost 30.
The latest Salt Lake Tribune poll has Trump and Hillary tied:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3993058-155/poll-trumps-unpopularity-could-swing-utahns
The latest Salt Lake Tribune poll has Trump and Hillary tied:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3993058-155/poll-trumps-unpopularity-could-swing-utahns