The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I got some "Modern Warfare" right here...

how can you guys still be on about Hillary? it's crazy! xD

Not gonna lie, it sounds like a propaganda goldmine if it could be made to work. I'm just skeptical of their ability to do so given what I remember of forced meme attempts.

Creating memes deliberately is hard. Remember potatoes? We got lemons instead.

EDIT: Also skeptical of the legitimacy of the leak, but it's too fun to pass up.

Still see Bush insults as recently as two days ago. Nobody has agreed on either side, on a statue of limitations on how long one can insult someone's position. I'll continue to exploit it as long as the next guy, whether the next guy were liberal or conservative.

One of these people was an actual President that started actual wars that motives about said wars were lied about.

One of these people was not.

This is not to say Hillary is perfect (far from it) but man, there's very little equivalence here.

plus the bush hate this week was actually republican-based it's such an alien concept to dems and libs to hate on someone who poses no threat to them (anymore).

no we actually find him kinda cute and funny now. he always was to us. It's not a bad thing to be cute and funny only time it was alarming to us was when "cute and funny" was at the head of the most powerful nation in the world at a time of war/terror crisis and was obviously adding nothing to the task at hand with his faculties and as such was little more than a pawn.

kinda like right now...

x'D

Every. Single. Time. You claim no equivalence because it's your person. Seriously, she has a laundry list of wetwork associated to her too. Not to mention, full support for aforementioned war, and congress did back it up. There is total equivalence. If anything, Congress is MORE at fault, they have parliamentary power unlike a simple "administrator".

Stop saying it's fine when you do it because you reasons, but not fine for anyone else to even think of doing it because never equivalent to your own personal vendettas.

Calling Bush cute, is no different than laughing at Hillary for having started her "Day Without a Woman" strike 3 months in advance and sticking to it for 4 years. It's ******* hilarious, you meme Trump and Bush, I'll meme Hillary and De Leon. You think it's deplorable and uncalled for, because it's "not equivalent" to your hilarious comedy gold, then feel free to keep telling everyone, the more you speak out of place when it's obviously equivalent, the more every forum reader will recognize your nonsense as biased.

It's amazing that you get so riled up over Hillary, but can't let other people get riled up over Bush.

It doesn't matter if she supported the war; tons of politicians did, on both sides of the pond. They're complicit. But they're not the Commander in Chief of the armed forces responsible for going out and doing it.

Them's the facts, deal with them.

@thetrophysystem I thought you didn't like bush too wtf stop lashing out like that

That's making me lash out even more. I'm making fun of Hillary/DeLeon/Obama/Bush/Trump, in that order, and people who make fun of Bush/Trump, are fangurling Hillary and supporting her war stance because "she wasn't president". You WANTED her to be president, why the **** would you want somebody to be president, with agreements towards a former president you ******* hated? Why???

And that pretty much sums things up. You should be thanking America, for not electing Bush-Lite over Neo-Rockafella. The only Bush-Lite I'd accept, is misspelled because it should be spelled "Busch-Lite".

It's almost like you're debating with people that don't support her stance on "war"?

It's almost like there was a "better" candidate for the DNC to had nominated, or for people to have voted for.



You know what, I feel like I should re-establish something very rudimentary. I don't support everything of Trump's. For instance, I was disappointed to discover he wasn't going to scrap the wall idea, and I was even more disappointed that liberals were saying he was breaking campaign promises if he didn't do some of the more-stupid **** he promised. Takei, will never disappoint me, as first he must surprise me and I simply expect his low standards at this point.

Never said there wasn't. But again, false equivalence

It's not false equiv.... oh for ****'s sake, can I make a formal complaint to a Moderator at this point for "fake news"? This is ridiculous.

The point WAS, that there WAS, a better candidate to vote for. I voted for one. Trump was elected, because both parties had terrible candidates. "But Hillary wasn't that bad, I just disagree with most her policy but she should have won anyway". That's EXACTLY why it isn't false equivalence, it's almost like there was a BETTER CANDIDATE or something! That's MATHEMATICALLY SOUND equivalence. You practically said it yourself. Her policies were trash, the stuff she did "promise" was questionable just by association.

The difference between Trump and Hillary, is Trump would build a wall and contract the money back to himself and his inner circle, and Hillary would "expand ACA" and circle the money back into her circle. Same money spent (WASTED???), different source. Johnson, he'd liquidate some spending to be rerouted to NOBODY ELSE'S bank account. I like that. Bernie, he'd actually spend it on the program he says he's spending it on, 100% believable no question about it, it'd be a "citizen-entitled" benefit, no profit like ACA.

No, the false equivalence is the fallacy of inconsistency. The positioning of Sanders being a better candidate than Clinton (arguable, but I still supported him when he was running) as a somehow comparable argument to criticising Bush over Clinton because Bush did worse things by dint of his position as President.

You went "but what about Bernie" as a reaction to me pointing out that you made a mistake in assuming me (and other posters) support Clinton's position on foreign policy and active intervention.

That is the false equivalence.

And I'm not even touching the Johnson angle. That's misdirection for 500, Alex.

Oh, a Jeopardy reference, you must be so damn sophisticated.

I most certainly did not go "what about Bernie" as a reaction. If someone does something you don't like, as president, and you want to elect someone that supported that something which you didn't like... Do you follow what I'm saying? Because I don't follow what anyone was trying to accomplish with it.

You simply do not elect people, who do something you didn't like. There are 200,000,000 qualified citizens to become president, over 700 career politicians, high ranking military officials, and other people semi-involved with politics as Trump. There is no need to choose the worse possible one.

And yet, enough people chose Trump for him to be elected.

You do elect people you don't like, or find some aspects thereof questionable. Nobody is perfect. Nobody is going to pass a political purity test because everyone will have different criteria for said purity test.

By my personal standards, pretty much all politicians _ever_ do things I do not like, or agree with. And yet, I still vote because that's my choice to enact my representation in the political process we call democracy.

And, distractions aside, you literally said "It's almost like there was a "better" candidate for the DNC to had nominated, or for people to have voted for." to me pointing out your assumptions about my support of Clinton were incorrect. That is using Bernie as a false equivalence to the topic of criticising Bush over Clinton, and vice versa. Sanders was, and still is, completely irrelevant to that debate.

You chose to insert him for reasons that you haven't explained. That's on you.

I bet you're going to love to hear this, and probably "falsely equivocate" it to "being right", but enough people did relate to Trump's ideas, even if not all of his ideas. More of his ideas, than they related to Hillary on. That's pretty ridiculous, yet they fell for the two-party system. They had two options, they picked one they agreed more with.

Those people, supporting Hillary or Trump, are dumb as hell. I'm way more glad it's him than her, in the long run he'll just congest the government, but there were OBVIOUS better candidates. Why did SO MANY people vote for one of two awful people "because they were told it was one or the other"? I'd not vote for either if they WERE literally the only two options, I'd not show up at all (tempting) and then when they create laws I'd be asking who gave them permission to run my life and which of my bills do they pay?

I eagerly await the disestablishment of the current two parties. New blood would do politics better, than any candidate, policies, ideas, and results we're being given from the current two. "Sucking it up and voting blue no matter who just to make sure the minorities and poor are supported" (and then precisely that is left unaccomplished), is no way to "get change", progression, or improvement (or actual support for the minorities and poor). They'll do it for 900 years if you let them do it, the only way to be rid of it, is to get fed up with it, not vote for it, and then be rid of it.

Nah it's just a bad argument. You can't say people don't vote for people they disagree with and then say people voted for Trump because <reasons>. People voted for Trump for the following three broad generalisations:

a) they agreed with his party's proposed policies
b) they hated Clinton
c) as a "screw you" vote for Sanders not winning the nomination despite Sanders urging people to still vote Democrat

Or a combination of the above.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the two-party system America has, and I repeatedly express concerns that the UK is heading the same way. But I will always debate fallacies when people use them to prop up whatever stereotype is being used in a debate about Clinton, the Democrats, or whomever.

Because, honestly, if you supported Sanders (generic you, not "thetrophysystem" you) and you voted Trump because Sanders didn't win the nomination? That means you're not voting on ideology. You're not voting on policy. You're voting on pettiness, and people who do that infuriate me because they contribute to the way politics is going. It's shameful.