Jump to content
Rassah

Hillary Clinton is your new president, so you can stop arguing now.

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Strongbob said:

e; with all of her mysterious 'scandals' she either A.) Didn't do them, didn't intend to do them, and is actually a decent person or B.) Did do them and is smart enough to leave no evidence and get away with it, which is actually a pretty good quality for a President. 

Hahaha

are you serious

18 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

 

He doesn't need to know much. All he needs to do is read whatever is put in front of him and make the occasional racist remark ^^

Like that black children are superpredators? That's one of my faves by my gurl Hillz

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gamedog said:

 

21 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

 

He doesn't need to know much. All he needs to do is read whatever is put in front of him and make the occasional racist remark ^^

Like that black children are superpredators? That's one of my faves by my gurl Hillz

 

The only superpredators I know are these

b7ece2ebcfea206ec2f3718ede944a92.jpg

 

EDIT: Seems that the two candidates are even more similar than originally expected.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently the vote of no confidence in either candidate is a thing. Is that legit? If enough people wrote in and said fuck the both of them would the whole process have to start over with new candidates? And has this ever actually happened before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

So apparently the vote of no confidence in either candidate is a thing. Is that legit? If enough people wrote in and said fuck the both of them would the whole process have to start over with new candidates? And has this ever actually happened before?

Nope, votes of no confidence are a feature more common to parliamentary systems, and such an action is a decision of the legislature rather than the general voters. The U.S. has only ever used such an action symbolically, with this only having occurred rarely.

A president can certainly be impeached and afterwards removed, but they are already in office at that point. The only way we could get out of these two this late in the election would be if they voluntarily dropped out or were deemed no longer fit to run (which is very unlikely to happen).

So, basically, we're doomed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2016 at 10:17 AM, Strongbob said:

I'm not a big Hillary fan, but there is something important to accept here; with all of her mysterious 'scandals' she either A.) Didn't do them, didn't intend to do them, and is actually a decent person or B.) Did do them and is smart enough to leave no evidence and get away with it, which is actually a pretty good quality for a President.

Another option I saw suggested is that her scandals involved Obama as well (specifically the emails), and since we don't want to implicate the president in the investigations (well, he didn't want to be implicated), they didn't bother with her too.

 

But, someone who is ruling over us, doing something criminal and getting away with it is good? How is that possible? She could murder a town to help some corporate crony, or bomb some innocent people to help a foreign dictator buddy, and get away with it. That would be terrible. Don't we want an honest person who doesn't do bad things, or at least a government that keeps those who rule us accountable?

23 hours ago, Victor-933 said:

Bitch can call herself whatever she wants but she'll never be my president.

Mine neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Another option I saw suggested is that her scandals involved Obama as well (specifically the emails), and since we don't want to implicate the president in the investigations (well, he didn't want to be implicated), they didn't bother with her too.

 

But, someone who is ruling over us, doing something criminal and getting away with it is good? How is that possible? She could murder a town to help some corporate crony, or bomb some innocent people to help a foreign dictator buddy, and get away with it. That would be terrible. Don't we want an honest person who doesn't do bad things, or at least a government that keeps those who rule us accountable?

Mine neither.

If you expect that to be Trump then I'm afraid you're all out of luck.

Also, I guess that as an Anglo-Fag I can legitimately claim that Hilary will never be my President. ;3

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Saxon said:

If you expect that to be Trump then I'm afraid you're all out of luck.

Also, I guess that as an Anglo-Fag I can legitimately claim that Hilary will never be my President. ;3

No, I expect that to be any politician. I don't want any rulers who can do terrible things and get away with them. Why did you think I expected Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rassah said:

No, I expect that to be any politician. I don't want any rulers who can do terrible things and get away with them. Why did you think I expected Trump?

Because your country has a two party system, so you're presented with a pretty unfair 'either or' scenario. 

I wouldn't have been able to guess if it were an English or Dutch election for example, because there are usually more than 2 candidates who have a realistic chance of winning in those.

I agree that all politicians should be expected to uphold a righteous standard of practice, but power corrupts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We actually have four candidates, and the choice to not vote for any of them. You know me, I don't want or support any politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rassah said:

We actually have four candidates, and the choice to not vote for any of them. You know me, I don't want or support any politician.

Third party candidates don't have a realistic chance of winning in the American system, so you could have 15 candidates and still really only be offering a choice of 2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rassah said:

But, someone who is ruling over us, doing something criminal and getting away with it is good? How is that possible? She could murder a town to help some corporate crony, or bomb some innocent people to help a foreign dictator buddy, and get away with it. That would be terrible. Don't we want an honest person who doesn't do bad things, or at least a government that keeps those who rule us accountable?

While it is a nice narrative to believe that our government should be 100% accountable and transparent, I truly believe this is impossible.  I work for organizations and municipalities enough to know that government in general is messy and honestly it barely functions.  There are so many problems and that have no clear solution and so many grey areas in regulations and different interest groups to deal with that it is very hard to do the 'right thing' all the time.  Sometimes you are not allowed to tell people everything you know and sometimes are are pressured to do things for reasons that you will never be told.  Government is not easy and when you start considering all of interactions a president has to have between foreign governments and interest groups all around the World you realize that 100% accountability and transparency is just not possible.  I think this is why Obama was ultimately so ineffective, because he had the desire to run a moral and accountable presidency but when he got into it he found out that accomplishing change within the system is impossible unless you are willing to play the game.  I know this sounds terrible and I wish it wasn't true, but unfortunately this is politics, and politics is ugly.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Rassah said:

We actually have four candidates, and the choice to not vote for any of them. You know me, I don't want or support any politician.

There's a lot more than four. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Strongbob said:

While it is a nice narrative to believe that our government should be 100% accountable and transparent, I truly believe this is impossible.  I work for organizations and municipalities enough to know that government in general is messy and honestly it barely functions.  There are so many problems and that have no clear solution and so many grey areas in regulations and different interest groups to deal with that it is very hard to do the 'right thing' all the time.  Sometimes you are not allowed to tell people everything you know and sometimes are are pressured to do things for reasons that you will never be told.  Government is not easy and when you start considering all of interactions a president has to have between foreign governments and interest groups all around the World you realize that 100% accountability and transparency is just not possible.  I think this is why Obama was ultimately so ineffective, because he had the desire to run a moral and accountable presidency but when he got into it he found out that accomplishing change within the system is impossible unless you are willing to play the game.  I know this sounds terrible and I wish it wasn't true, but unfortunately this is politics, and politics is ugly.  

 

 

It's good to see some people with experience chip in. I disagree with the assessment on Obama though, given the stuff he's authorized (eg drone strikes on questionable targets, supporting Libyan warlords/"rebels").

He is merely projecting the image of working for "hope and change" because that is what voters responded to.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...because if a president isn't the Second Coming of Christ, they're a filthy, corrupt liar and establishment tool.

Hell, Obamacare just by itself was a major undertaking.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-top-10-accomplishments-according-to-obama/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/obama-biggest-achievements-213487

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saxon said:

Third party candidates don't have a realistic chance of winning in the American system, so you could have 15 candidates and still really only be offering a choice of 2.

Only because everyone thinks they have no chance of winning. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

1 hour ago, Butters said:

There's a lot more than four. 

 

Four actually on the ballot. I'm all for Vermin Supreme. Honestly he's the most qualified clown for that circus

There is ONE benefit if Trump wins (which he won't): liberals will be anti war again. Maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's comical that Trump is such a cry-baby, that's he's gone so far as to say he may not 'accept' the election results.

Who gives a rat's ass if he does or doesn't? What's he gonna, crash the White House gates in his Limo? He can fume all he wants, he just looks more and more petty. And there's always somebody else to blame for all his failures: there's always some conspiracy, something is 'not right', something 'is up'. It's never him, though. It's hard to believe the Republicans were this dumb, to nominate such a narcissistic, bullying, vulgar, talking yam. 

More than anyone I've ever seen, he validated the New Seal of The Republican Party:

s-l300.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fossa-Boy said:

I think it's comical that Trump is such a cry-baby, that's he's gone so far as to say he may not 'accept' the election results.

Who gives a rat's ass if he does or doesn't? What's he gonna, crash the White House gates in his Limo? He can fume all he wants, he just looks more and more petty. And there's always somebody else to blame for all his failures: there's always some conspiracy, something is 'not right', something 'is up'. It's never him, though. It's hard to believe the Republicans were this dumb, to nominate such a narcissistic, bullying, vulgar, talking yam. 

More than anyone I've ever seen, he validated the New Seal of The Republican Party:

s-l300.jpg

 

Trump has officially said he will accept the results 'if he wins'.

What a man child.

I especially liked how Trump's plan for ISIS was going back in time and stopping it from ever happening.

 

 

....

I just gotta call your bluff on that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Saxon said:

Trump has officially said he will accept the results 'if he wins'.

What a man child.

Give him a few hours, or a night to go about Tweeting that he's changed his mind, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I just gotta call your bluff on that one.

Maybe was hallucinating when he said that? Because I definitely remember it very clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cannakitty said:

Maybe was hallucinating when he said that? Because I definitely remember it very clearly.

I remember him saying he would destroy ISIS 'within 30 days', which is obvious bullshit.

...but I don't think he promised to pursue the plot of Terminator.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I remember him saying he would destroy ISIS 'within 30 days', which is obvious bullshit.

...but I don't think he promised to pursue the plot of Terminator.

Well I guess it was more of a passing remark about how certain he was that Islam is directly at fault for ISIS and how it should have "never happened." Like the idea is that we have to condemn Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cannakitty said:

Well I guess it was more of a passing remark about how certain he was that Islam is directly at fault for ISIS and how it should have "never happened." Like the idea is that we have to condemn Islam.

I would condemn Islam to be honest. I would condemn all religion, but Islam has some especially nasty doctrines and practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I would condemn Islam to be honest. I would condemn all religion, but Islam has some especially nasty doctrines and practices.

I wouldn't, but I'm intelligent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cannakitty said:

I wouldn't, but I'm intelligent.

1476569872961.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cannakitty said:

I wouldn't, but I'm intelligent.

23 Muslim countries execute people who stop believing in Islam and almost all criminalise homosexuality and have extremely conservative attitudes to women.

It's clearly not a very nice belief system. :\

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cannakitty said:

No seriously. I'm doing mental cartwheels.

cfe1e187cd5703d9d1513ae24937b4839e3a7f1c97972667f576b79a1b2874a6.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saxon said:

23 Muslim countries execute people who stop believing in Islam and almost all criminalise homosexuality and have extremely conservative attitudes to women.

It's clearly not a very nice belief system. :\

I see that as being the fault of the people and not the religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cannakitty said:

I see that as being the fault of the people and not the religion.

Actually I think the reverse is true; broadly the people are better than the religion.
Many Muslims living in the west or more moderate nations don't participate in many of the unsavoury instructions their book includes.
The Qur'an was written in the middle ages, so the moral teachings it espouses are pretty crude.

It's just like the Bible contains passages that demand punitive amputation, the stoning of gays or adulterers, the sacrifice of animals, the conquest of foreign lands, the death of apostates and so on.

Just...imagine if there were countries on Earth where people didn't just dismiss those passages, but enforced them through law, and there you go, you have Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Fossa-Boy said:

Who gives a rat's ass if he does or doesn't?

Historically, disputed elections have not been a good thing for the U.S. or any country. Mass violence and threats of revolution have went along with disputed elections at the local, state, and federal levels, and people being unhappy with even an undisputed election resulted in war. I don't think it is safe to ignore a candidate refusing to accept election results, especially when that candidate encourages their supporters to do the same.

The 2000 election was an exception to all of this, but I do hope it becomes exemplary of a new rule.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When candidates refuse to accept the results of an election or political process, things can become very bloody and dangerous in very short order.

Hell, Trump already said that the "2nd amendment people" could take care of Hillary.

If people are worried about Hillary being a warmonger, they should definitely be worried about Trump meaningfully winking to his supporters in the event the election doesn't go his way.

I don't want us to turn into Serbia, Egypt, Thailand, or the like.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fossa-Boy said:

I think it's comical that Trump is such a cry-baby, that's he's gone so far as to say he may not 'accept' the election results.

Who gives a rat's ass if he does or doesn't? What's he gonna, crash the White House gates in his Limo? He can fume all he wants, he just looks more and more petty. And there's always somebody else to blame for all his failures: there's always some conspiracy, something is 'not right', something 'is up'. It's never him, though. It's hard to believe the Republicans were this dumb, to nominate such a narcissistic, bullying, vulgar, talking yam. 

More than anyone I've ever seen, he validated the New Seal of The Republican Party:

s-l300.jpg

 

Replace "Trump" with "Al Gore," and you'd be saying same things republicans said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troj said:

When candidates refuse to accept the results of an election or political process, things can become very bloody and dangerous in very short order.

Hell, Trump already said that the "2nd amendment people" could take care of Hillary.

If people are worried about Hillary being a warmonger, they should definitely be worried about Trump meaningfully winking to his supporters in the event the election doesn't go his way.

I don't want us to turn into Serbia, Egypt, Thailand, or the like

One event of history that is brought to mind is the American Civil War; the final cause of Southern succession was their unwillingness to accept the results of a fair and free presidential election that their candidate (Jefferson Davis) lost, much as Trump is encouraging his supporters to reject the results of the current election if he is to lose.

However, today the U.S. military and the military-industrial complex are too powerful for such militia groups and "2nd amendment people" that would support Trump to have any chance of staging a successful rebellion, it would be swiftly crushed. Despite this, they would still pose a significant threat if Trump continues to encourage them, with it certainly possible that they could stage acts of domestic terrorism as well as attempted assassinations of Hillary Clinton and other governmental figures in the likely event of a Trump loss.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Osrik said:

One event of history that is brought to mind is the American Civil War; the final cause of Southern succession was their unwillingness to accept the results of a fair and free presidential election that their candidate (Jefferson Davis) lost, much as Trump is encouraging his supporters to reject the results of the current election if he is to lose.

However, today the U.S. military and the military-industrial complex are too powerful for such militia groups and "2nd amendment people" that would support Trump to have any chance of staging a successful rebellion, it would be swiftly crushed. Despite this, they would still pose a significant threat if Trump continues to encourage them, with it certainly possible that they could stage acts of domestic terrorism as well as attempted assassinations of Hillary Clinton and other governmental figures in the likely event of a Trump loss.

Oh yeah, I'm generally confident that a revolution would be crushed rather swiftly--not certain, but confident.

But, in the meantime, the insurrectionists could do some serious and tragic damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT: people who have no fucking idea how asymmetric warfare works.

 

Yeah, America's got the most powerful military in the world. That's why we didn't spend fifteen years getting jerked around by a bunch of sandal-wearing sheepfuckers with sixty year old equipment... ...oh wait.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, the last decent president America had was JFK anyway. It's been all downhill from there...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

ITT: people who have no fucking idea how asymmetric warfare works.

 

Yeah, America's got the most powerful military in the world. That's why we didn't spend fifteen years getting jerked around by a bunch of sandal-wearing sheepfuckers with sixty year old equipment... ...oh wait.

It would seem that you have missed a number of fundamental differences between the conduct of anti-insurgency warfare in foreign countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and that against possible domestic insurgents in America itself.

The three most important differences would be the existence of stable and extensive domestic police and military forces who are almost certain to remain loyal to the country, the lack of a very wide support base for the insurgents/ likely inability of insurgents to inspire enough fear to force others to support them, and, most importantly, the domestic nature of the insurgency denying them a "home field advantage". Not only would they be facing both military and law enforcement forces wherever they choose to operate, but likely a government and people united in the face of their threat, and little support for their cause. Most importantly, they would lack any form of "home field advantage" that is essential for any insurgency; as the government forces will know just as much or more about the terrain and people than they do.

I would encourage you to research the Internal conflict in Peru of the 1980s which involved The Shining Path insurgents; while not a perfect contrast, it still provides a case study of the defeat of a domestic insurgent force (who possessed more of a home field advantage than the American insurgents would) that lacked support among the populace (who, notably, hated the government but preferred it to the Shining Path), which would be a decent comparison to the American militia forces, only there would be the addition of effective police and military forces wherever they operated.

Simply put, any attempt of insurgency would be suicidal; which is why I suggest they would have to rely on domestic terrorism and assassinations to accomplish anything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Osrik said:

One event of history that is brought to mind is the American Civil War; the final cause of Southern succession was their unwillingness to accept the results of a fair and free presidential election that their candidate (Jefferson Davis) lost, much as Trump is encouraging his supporters to reject the results of the current election if he is to lose.

However, today the U.S. military and the military-industrial complex are too powerful for such militia groups and "2nd amendment people" that would support Trump to have any chance of staging a successful rebellion, it would be swiftly crushed. Despite this, they would still pose a significant threat if Trump continues to encourage them, with it certainly possible that they could stage acts of domestic terrorism as well as attempted assassinations of Hillary Clinton and other governmental figures in the likely event of a Trump loss.

At the same time, liberals and Democrats keep saying "Secede already! We don't want you anyway!" every time a state threatens to, so... Maybe they'll actually let them go this time?

 

And @Osrik, the police will most certainly be loyal to the state that wants to secede, not the Federal government, and the home field advantage actually means that military would have to shoot at their own Americans, which they may not be so willing to do. Heck, even the military may get divided, with the secession side quitting and going to fight to defend their state. Then it's even more complicated, cause it's fighting against someone in your own unit, and "blood is thicker than water" (saying as originally intended). But you're right, it'll mostly be domestic terrorism (hopefully against political/government targets only) and assassinations, among, uh, other things. In some way, with those other things I'm involved in, the revolution/civil war has started already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Osrik said:

-snip-

Your mistake is assuming that the military would in fact remain unified. Close to half (44%!) of enlisted personnel come from southern states and hold decidedly conservative values.

Furthermore there is the issue of the Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrection Act that hamstring military efficacy on the home front in the interests of spurring local governments towards dealing with rebellions.

Even if the federal government deigned to sidestep these two pieces of legislation there are other issues that may arise from conducting military operations on US soil. Go ahead, start droning weddings. We've all seen how people react to police shootings, imagine what'll happen when Lieutenant Chucklenuts in his sparkly new F-35 deletes a school full of inner city children because FACs misidentified the target as an insurgent camp.

 

This is a country of 330 million people, with gun ownership hovering around 112 guns for every 100 citizens. As an example for comparison, the US Army in its entirety, both active and reserve personnel, numbers less than one million (~990,000) and even then only a small fraction of those are actual combat arms personnel. An army marches on its stomach, and it can't march very far or fight very hard if you kill the people who fill those stomachs.

On top of all this is our laughably deprecated infrastructure that presents a massive Achilles heel for this country. A hunting rifle is all it took to completely disable a major SoCal substation a few years ago -- imagine what would happen if electrical infrastructure started going dark in coordinated attacks nationwide. Panic, rioting, looting, mass hysteria -- more shit for the government to deal with in addition to the ongoing rebellion.

 

A popular uprising would be nowhere near as neat and concise as people keep insisting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

A hunting rifle is all it took to completely disable a major SoCal substation a few years ago -- imagine what would happen if electrical infrastructure started going dark in coordinated attacks nationwide. Panic, rioting, looting, mass hysteria...

My bitcoin becoming impossible to use :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rassah said:

My bitcoin becoming impossible to use :(

SAVE THE BITCOIN! I HAVE $5 USD WORTH OF THOSE.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Revates said:

SAVE THE BITCOIN! I HAVE $5 USD WORTH OF THOSE.

Flush it down the toilet and see which way they water spins.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem with both of your arguments is that you assume these will be entire states succeeding, when it would more likely be a limited number of right wing militia groups. This would be a limited insurgency, not a civil war.

Trump's strongest support lies with the far right, whereas the majority of Republican voters only support him in opposition to Hillary, while many other's won't even support him to that extent. If an insurgency to put him in power was to start, only the most extreme would actively support it, while many others would be more likely to support the government against an uprising of the far right.

It would thus be unlikely that such a movement of the far right would attract the support of large sections of the military or more than a few police forces, while also being unlikely to hold large areas of territory against the government, with most people in any areas they control likely opposing them rather than supporting them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...