The Clinton Victory Thread

[Teague]

Trump my barechest wrestle Putin though!!

Grrrrr!!! GRRRRR"!!!!!

[Mike_L]

Hate to say it, but...
Sanders' "revolution" is dead. It died the moment he endorsed Hillary. Sanders will not accomplish anything by playing second fiddle to Clinton.
It was for Sanders to send a message loud and clear... by withholding support for Hillary and the Washington establishment that she represents. He didn't. He caved.
In many respects, Scot Dutchy was right about Sanders all along.
It's time to vote for change. And that means voting for Trump.

Teague wrote:
Trump my barechest wrestle Putin though!!

Grrrrr!!! GRRRRR"!!!!!

Christ knows...
When one considers what Washington has accomplished in the past decade-and-a-half and what it still has lined up, Putin probably represents our last best hope for a sane world.

[Teague]

Trump can never be a good thing.

Trump's appeal is that he's not establishment which people are sick of. The issue I believe is that they're mistakenly hoping that if Trump wins, he'll be better than Clinton either by mistake or he isn't as corrupt as her or something along those lines. He could be much, much worse of course.

Better deal I think is to bring in CLinton, subject people to the same shit, expose the fuck out of her and keep adding to the revolution.

The new group thnk meme needs to be about getting rid of these old fossils and they're limited way of thinking about greed and grabbing everything for themselves and making it so there's more wealth spread around and more opportunity to venture out, more social things as we're a social species - that should be capitlaised on.

[Mike_L]

Better deal I think is to bring in CLinton, subject people to the same shit, expose the fuck out of her and keep adding to the revolution.

She has been exposed! There's been a superabundance of negative publicity focusing on her foreign policy record, the email scandal, Benghazi, etc, etc.
...and it has made not one jot of a difference.
There'll be no "revolution" with Clinton in office, no matter how much noise Sanders makes from within the system.
A vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the same.

[Teague]

Hate to say it, but...
Sanders' "revolution" is dead. It died the moment he endorsed Hillary. Sanders will not accomplish anything by playing second fiddle to Clinton.
It was for Sanders to send a message loud and clear... by withholding support for Hillary and the Washington establishment that she represents. He didn't. He caved.
In many respects, Scot Dutchy was right about Sanders all along.
It's time to vote for change. And that means voting for Trump.

Teague wrote:
Trump my barechest wrestle Putin though!!

Grrrrr!!! GRRRRR"!!!!!

Christ knows...
When one considers what Washington has accomplished in the past decade-and-a-half and what it still has lined up, Putin probably represents our last best hope for a sane world.

I'll counter your hate with love

It was never "Sander's revolution" he was just a figuredhead. He happened to be there at the right time. Anyone hating on him because he endorsed Clinton doesn't know politics - I just told you he got $15 an hour, free education and SS expanded on, 3 of his platform ideas.

Do you think they just gave that too him? LOL you are naive if you do.

[Teague]

Better deal I think is to bring in CLinton, subject people to the same shit, expose the fuck out of her and keep adding to the revolution.

She has been exposed! There's been a superabundance of negative publicity focusing on her foreign policy record, the email scandal, Benghazi, etc, etc.
...and it has made not one jot of a difference.
There'll be no "revolution" with Clinton in office, no matter how much noise Sanders makes from within the system.
A vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the same.

Yes and a vote for Trump is a vote for what? He's still establishment in that he's one of the rich - he still bribed everyone but beholden to know one as far as we know. If you think he's not going to cut deals you're mistaken. At least Clinton believes in climate change, so there's a reason right there for her being here over Trump. There isn't much time left to make the big changes we need in climate so we can't really afford Trump being in.

If you can't be arsed to support a revolution, STFU - you have NOTHING to say anymore. What credibility does a lazy ass have if he can't get off his ass and get invloved in something that is depserately needed over there

Oh ur in SA- pissed on my fireworks....

[Mike_L]

I cited this article in another thread, but did not quote what might be the most on-point passage (emphasis mine):

These same people, at the same time, said that George Bush was so manifestly obviously terrible that he would bring the revolution if he got himself elected somehow. They didn’t say this about Gore, he wouldn’t bring the revolution. They’re exactly the same, exactly as awful, but one would bring the revolution and one wouldn’t. Which means they weren't exactly the same and they weren't equally awful.

And we're hearing the same thing now about Hillary and Donald. That they’re both equally awful. They're both equally terrible, corrupt two party system, fuck it, fuck it, fuck it. Fuck them both, fuck both their houses! Vote for Jill Stein!

And if Donald should get elected, oh he’s so terrible, so much worse than the equally awful Hillary Clinton, that his election will bring the revolution.

It's bullshit.

The revolution did not come in 2000 when George W. Bush got close enough to winning to steal the White House. It will not come if Donald J. Trump gets his ass elected.

Disaster will come. And the people who’ll suffer are not going to be the pasty white Green Party supporters — pasty white Jill Stein and her pasty white supporters. The people who’ll suffer are going to be people of color. People of minority faiths. Queer people. Women.

That privilege thing can turn up in places you don't expect, can't it?

Dan Savage makes some very good points there.
But he's talking about a long-term overhaul of the existing system, starting with grassroots and working upwards,,,

And if you want to build a viable third party, more power to you. I could see myself voting for a Green Party candidate for president in 25 years, after I've seen Green Party candidates getting elected to state legislatures, getting elected to governorships, getting elected to Congress. Then you can run some legitimate motherfucker for president.

Fundamentally, he's right.
Problem is...
At the rate things are going, another quarter-century is too distant. Under the likes of Hillary, we'll reach crisis-point long before then.

[Mike_L]

At least Clinton believes in climate change...

Given her inclinations, she'll probably change it to a nuclear winter!

If you can't be arsed to support a revolution, STFU - you have NOTHING to say anymore. What credibility does a lazy ass have if he can't get off his ass and get invloved in something that is depserately needed over there

Oh ur in SA- pissed on my fireworks....

Trump is the revolution... or as close as the US will get to it, short of actual in-the-streets revolution (which, in the US, would last about as long as a day or two before a massive crackdown).

[Willie71]

At least Clinton believes in climate change...

Given her inclinations, she'll probably change it to a nuclear winter!

If you can't be arsed to support a revolution, STFU - you have NOTHING to say anymore. What credibility does a lazy ass have if he can't get off his ass and get invloved in something that is depserately needed over there

Oh ur in SA- pissed on my fireworks....

Trump is the revolution... or as close as the US will get to it, short of actual in-the-streets revolution (which, in the US, would last about as long as a day or two before a massive crackdown).

Clinton may believe climate change us real, but she is completely unprepared to crack down on the oil and military industries to make a meaningful difference. Insight without behaviour change is meaningless,

[Mike_L]

Indeed. She's (sometimes) good at making the right noises. But she's establishment through and through.

[Shrunk]

Dan Savage makes some very good points there.
But he's talking about a long-term overhaul of the existing system, starting with grassroots and working upwards,,,

And if you want to build a viable third party, more power to you. I could see myself voting for a Green Party candidate for president in 25 years, after I've seen Green Party candidates getting elected to state legislatures, getting elected to governorships, getting elected to Congress. Then you can run some legitimate motherfucker for president.

Fundamentally, he's right.
Problem is...
At the rate things are going, another quarter-century is too distant. Under the likes of Hillary, we'll reach crisis-point long before then.

Ah, yes. "So all you dark-skinned people, too bad, you're fucked for the next 4-8 years. But buck up! If everything lines up just right, a couple generations from now we just might end up with a viable progressive third party option. Wouldn't that have been worth it? So, please, make that sacrifice for us. We'll be very grateful."

That's what I mean by "privilege".

[quas]

This is bizarre. Third parties aren't viable, so the solution is not to vote, or to vote for the worst possible of the two main party candidates? Whatever happened to voting for the party you want to be viable?

It never worked.
So why keep insisting to repeatedly do something that has never worked before, and expecting different result this time?

Voting only serves to legitimize the scam known as election. This is a public scam that requires the participation of everyone (or most of everyone) to legitimize it. No different than religions organising to hold public gatherings so adults could pray together and pretend to each other that the naked emperor wears clothes or some other stupid shit. That is why even the crappiest most dictatorial regimes on earth like North Korea have elections. If I am not mistaken, not voting in North Korea could earn you the death sentence.

Think about it. Why the fuck does the most powerful dictator on earth -that is actually worshipped like a god- requires election? Logically, he could have just ruled on forever without having to bother with elections. And yet, he doesn't.

[Shrunk]

Think about it. Why the fuck does the most powerful dictator on earth -that is actually worshipped like a god- requires election? Logically, he could have just ruled on forever without having to bother with elections. And yet, he doesn't.

He doesn't need it. He wants it, and dictators tend to get what they want.

Personally, if I lived in North Korea and Kim Jong-un decided. for some reason, to hold an open and binding election, I'd take the opportunity to vote him out even if the alternative was someone as flawed as Hillary Clinton. You wouldn't?

[quas]

Hate to say it, but...
Sanders' "revolution" is dead. It died the moment he endorsed Hillary. Sanders will not accomplish anything by playing second fiddle to Clinton.
It was for Sanders to send a message loud and clear... by withholding support for Hillary and the Washington establishment that she represents. He didn't. He caved.
In many respects, Scot Dutchy was right about Sanders all along.
It's time to vote for change. And that means voting for Trump.

First things first, though, all the naysayers should be forced to kowtow before Scot and suck his cock or something. Seriously, there should be a penalty for ever being that deluded. After all, this is RationalSkepticism.

[quas]

Think about it. Why the fuck does the most powerful dictator on earth -that is actually worshipped like a god- requires election? Logically, he could have just ruled on forever without having to bother with elections. And yet, he doesn't.

He doesn't need it. He wants it, and dictators tend to get what they want.

Personally, if I lived in North Korea and Kim Jong-un decided. for some reason, to hold an open and binding election, I'd take the opportunity to vote him out even if the alternative was someone as flawed as Hillary Clinton. You wouldn't?

So what? It just means that North Korea turns into Russia's Putin, or Singapore, or Malaysia, or any other electoral authoritarian regimes where the same leader/political party somehow magically always win the election.

Your vote is futile, but at least you don't get shot. Congratulation for you.
And you also have legitimized the election, so even more congratulations are in order.

[Mike_L]

Dan Savage makes some very good points there.
But he's talking about a long-term overhaul of the existing system, starting with grassroots and working upwards,,,

And if you want to build a viable third party, more power to you. I could see myself voting for a Green Party candidate for president in 25 years, after I've seen Green Party candidates getting elected to state legislatures, getting elected to governorships, getting elected to Congress. Then you can run some legitimate motherfucker for president.

Fundamentally, he's right.
Problem is...
At the rate things are going, another quarter-century is too distant. Under the likes of Hillary, we'll reach crisis-point long before then.

Ah, yes. "So all you dark-skinned people, too bad, you're fucked for the next 4-8 years. But buck up! If everything lines up just right, a couple generations from now we just might end up with a viable progressive third party option. Wouldn't that have been worth it? So, please, make that sacrifice for us. We'll be very grateful."

That's what I mean by "privilege".

For all Trump's unsavory bluster, he's not likely to make things worse for "dark-skinned people" in the USA.
Were he to win office, the outrageous proclamations he has made in the course of his campaign would be tempered by existing realities. He's as good as admitted that himself...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/20/what-does-donald-trump-really-believe-about-immigration/

It's on the foreign policy front that Trump is likely to make a departure from the status quo. For the better.

As for dark-skinned people elsewhere in the world, e.g. the Middle East...

They've probably got a better chance with Trump in the White House.
Hillary is part of the "Assad Must Go" chorus and will push for regime change in Syria. Hillary supported the removal of tyrannical thugs in Iraq and Libya, leaving those countries worse-off than they were before. Now she wants to do the same thing in Syria.
Trump, on the other hand, correctly views ISIS -- not Assad -- as the enemy.

Trump wants reduced US meddling in the Middle East...
Donald Trump is much derided – but he is right about the Middle East.

He has also signaled that he wants better relations between the US and Russia... something that can only be good for people of all hues all over the world.

[ScholasticSpastic]

He has also signaled that he wants better relations between the US and Russia... something that can only be good for people of all hues all over the world.

Indeed. Our previous alliance with Russia during WWII isn't at all marred with the blood of millions and typically white-washed in our history classes because we can't admit that one of the "good guys" was killing people with the same enthusiasm Hitler showed- though admittedly without the careful record-keeping.

[Thommo]

Seems a bit weird that you think it OK to play down and dismiss the worst of Trump's statements (because he admitted it?) and yet play up the worst of Hillary's and even think she will go beyond them (despite her admitting otherwise), Mike.

You talk about ISIS as though Hillary hadn't talked about them being the enemy in clear terms on more occasions than we can count. Assad is a despot and a monster who very possibly gassed his own people, it's hardly surprising that people don't want to throw their support behind him, including Hillary.

[proudfootz]

Trump is a walking disaster for the world. If you cant see that well I am sorry.

Sadly, for a frighteningly large demographic among US voters, the rest of the world is like Yahoo, Myspace and Blackberry. Which is to say, they might as well not exist.

That is why I think those people who dismiss Trump and predict the end of the Republican Party are dangerously misguided.

[Mike_L]

He has also signaled that he wants better relations between the US and Russia... something that can only be good for people of all hues all over the world.

Indeed. Our previous alliance with Russia during WWII isn't at all marred with the blood of millions and typically white-washed in our history classes because we can't admit that one of the "good guys" was killing people with the same enthusiasm Hitler showed- though admittedly without the careful record-keeping.

Better relations with Russia are a matter of pragmatism, not an endorsement of what Stalin did many years before Vladimir Putin came to power.
The Russia of today is not a threat to the Western world. If anything, it's the other way around.

Seems a bit weird that you think it OK to play down and dismiss the worst of Trump's statements (because he admitted it?) and yet play up the worst of Hillary's and even think she will go beyond them (despite her admitting otherwise), Mike.

You talk about ISIS as though Hillary hadn't talked about them being the enemy in clear terms on more occasions than we can count. Assad is a despot and a monster who very possibly gassed his own people, it's hardly surprising that people don't want to throw their support behind him, including Hillary.

Yes, Assad is a despot and a monster. So was Saddam Hussein. So was Muammar Gaddafi.
But the so-called humanitarian interventions don't work, as those examples demonstrate.
Hillary is very much a proponent of such interventions... and it's time to recognise them for the wrong-headed and oft-times opportunistic pursuits that they are...
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/20/the-fallacy-of-humanitarian-war/