The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[The Romulan Republic]

Ooh, a contentless insulting post. Never seen that before. How very clever. I'm so impressed.

This isn't about being a "tough guy". Unlike Drumpf's entire campaign.

But perhaps it would have been better to just ignore you, since you evidently were just fishing for something you could pick a fight with me over.

Sorry, not going to oblige you further.

As for Clinton, I don't like her, but I wouldn't do the same with her because she's nowhere near in the same league as Drumpf.

[Gandalf]

So it's fine to make fun of someone's non-Anglicised name if you judge them to be somehow unworthy?

[Mr Bean]

Okay time to handle a few things.

1. Drumpf is a stupid fucking insult name. His name is already Trump. Why would you NOT use his own name to insult him? Why? It's dumber than the Jeb Bush campaign.

2. Bernie needs to stay in. Indictment or not (She will be charged the only question is WHEN) but the instant Bernie Sanders gets out Secretary Clinton will begin SPRINTING to the right thinking this will set her up for the general election. Never mind the mood this year of Trump and Sanders doing way better than they could have dreamed of four years ago. Every day Sanders stays in is another day closer to Hillary being forced to run as a... Democrat instead of her preferred method of running as all of the above.

3. The Republican establishment now has a choice between smarmy git Cruz or Donald Trump.. There only choice to maintain control is for Rubio and Kasich to preform a fusion and pledge delegates to Kasich
That makes it 650 vs 380 vs 340 instead of Vs 140. A floor fight is still possible but it will make 2016 look like Democratic 1968 if the Republican try and unseat Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

So it's fine to make fun of someone's non-Anglicised name if you judge them to be somehow unworthy?

If you are accusing me of racism, either have the guts to put your money where your mouth is and report me, and let the moderators sort it out, or shut the fuck up.

I will not respond to any further attempts to bait me into a fight you seem determined to pick on flimsy pretexts.

[Darth Yan]

Even if Hillary wins it's a hollow victory. That Bernie did as well as he did shows that his views are a lot more acceptable to the general public than they were just 8 years ago. People are starting to become sick of the establishment so if someone runs a Bernie style campaign 8 years or hell even 4 years they'll have a bigger chance of winning. People are getting sick of the establishment

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders' victory is more than some generic anti-establishment thing.

He has shown that democratic socialism is a viable mainstream position. He has shown that a non-Christian can win primaries. He has shown you can fund a campaign without a SuperPac. And he has massive support from the young. The people who will likely be running the Democratic Party in the fairly near future.

My biggest fear is that a lot of Sanders' supporters will give up and not vote for vote Drumpf or something like that out of spite and cynicism if he doesn't win the nomination, rather than recognizing that in the long run, they're poised to win.

[Mr Bean]

Stop saying fucking Drumpf it makes you look a child molester.

Did Dan Savage teach you nothing?

[Vendetta]

So it's fine to make fun of someone's non-Anglicised name if you judge them to be somehow unworthy?

People are doing it now because it sounds funny*.

The original point it was intended to make was that Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric should be contrasted against his immigrant family status, highlighting his hypocrisy.




* Unless you are English, wherein Trump is an inherently funny word due to being one of the many words used for flatulence, particularly among younger children. So please, America, elect President Fart.

[Thanas]

Well, it originated with John Oliver, who as I recall argued that a lot of Drumpf's appeal came from his brand name. Hence replacing Trump with his ancestral name, Drumpf.

Its petty, perhaps, but I have no desire to show the man any respect or give him any dignity.

You show 'em tough guy! Do you have a funny name for Clinton lined up?

Can TRR be any more racist against German immigrants if he tried? We will see.

Here is what TRR predictably will say next:

"Bluster, I am not racist, in fact you are the racist/sexist/unflattering character flaw for disagreeing with me. WAAAH".

Fucking hilarious. Quit shitting up the thread TRR.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have no problem with Germany immigrants, obviously.

I have explained the reasons for using the name, and it has nothing to do with race or nationality.

If it is the official stance of the mods/admins. that using it violates board rules, I will of course desist, as ridiculous as I may find that. If that is the case, please say so.

[Thanas]

No, my official stance as a mod is that you shall discontinue your usual practice of turning every argument into one about character and accusing every opponent of yours from having a character flaw. It is irritating, it adds nothing, it makes you look like a small child and it shits up thread.

[The Vortex Empire]

Welp, I hope Clinton voters are happy that they're putting the country at greater risk of President Trump, given that Sanders has been doing much better than her in head to head polls against Trump for the entire campaign, and if she gets indicted after winning the nomination Trump easily takes it.

[Xisiqomelir]

I had to look up this "Drumpf" thing because it is polluting my RSS feeds. I should have known it was John "King of Unfunny" Oliver.

[Lord MJ]

Welp, I hope Clinton voters are happy that they're putting the country at greater risk of President Trump, given that Sanders has been doing much better than her in head to head polls against Trump for the entire campaign, and if she gets indicted after winning the nomination Trump easily takes it.

They don't trust the polls, and they are not very supportive of a "fake Democrat"

[The Vortex Empire]

Welp, I hope Clinton voters are happy that they're putting the country at greater risk of President Trump, given that Sanders has been doing much better than her in head to head polls against Trump for the entire campaign, and if she gets indicted after winning the nomination Trump easily takes it.

They don't trust the polls, and they are not very supportive of a "fake Democrat"

The mindset where somebody's party registration even enters your mind when considering who to vote for instead of their ideas and voting record is utterly alien to me.

[Lord MJ]

There's a feeling that Sanders who was an independent his career suddenly jumping to Democrat to run for president is just opportunism. Furthermore there is a sense that him and his supporters are "The Democratic version of the tea party" - holding a centrist party hostage with a radical left agenda.

[The Vortex Empire]

It's hardly "radical left" when it's bog standard social democracy, radical left would be, you know, communism or anarchism. I think a lot of democrats are just in denial that they're, at best, center right and think they're on the left.

And that you have to join one of the two big parties to get any damn media coverage is a condemnation of the the system, not Sanders.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Welp, I hope Clinton voters are happy that they're putting the country at greater risk of President Trump, given that Sanders has been doing much better than her in head to head polls against Trump for the entire campaign, and if she gets indicted after winning the nomination Trump easily takes it.

As Bernie Sanders' performance (good and bad) has demonstrated, polls aren't always reliable. Especially ones taken seven months out. I consider polls showing Sanders out-performing Trump as unreliable, since real voting numbers demonstrate that Clinton is assembling a coalition almost as broad as Obama's; whereas Sanders is mainly a fancy of the youth, and he's been bedeviled by their political apathy at nearly every turn (they keep showing up at his rallies in huge numbers, but when it comes time to vote for him, they're nowhere to be found ... there are more than a few states where if he could've gotten them out in even fractionally greater numbers, the story of this race would be rather different.)

Also, the political realities (i.e. a DOJ run by her political allies) contra-indicate Clinton being indicted ... at least, as long as she wins the general election. What's far more likely to happen is that Hillary may well be the second President Clinton to be impeached. So, really, what Clinton voters should be happy about is that they are for at least four more years of nothing getting done in Washington; which, considering the alternative, is a good thing indeed (and what does that say about the state of American politics.)

[Civil War Man]

So, really, what Clinton voters should be happy about is that they are for at least four more years of nothing getting done in Washington; which, considering the alternative, is a good thing indeed (and what does that say about the state of American politics.)

This is sort of how I view the campaign this year. My impressions are that a President Sanders may or may not be able to get stuff done depending on whether Congress flips and, if it does, whether Congressional Democrats oppose him the way the Blue Dogs did with Obama, but even if he can't get stuff done he'll continue to fight for it. A President Clinton would be a continuation of Obama's policies, for better or worse. And President (insert Republican candidate here) would be active regression in varying ways depending on the specific candidate, unless Congress flips or Congressional Republicans rebel against him.

Basically comes down to what I view as the best and worst case scenarios for each candidate. For Sanders, best case is a slight chance of implementing progressive policies, while worst case (barring something catastrophic) is status quo. For Clinton, it's pretty much status quo either way. And for everyone else, best case is status quo while the worst case is the reversal of what progress we did make as a result of stuff like the New Deal and the various Civil Rights movements of recent decades.

[Knife]

They don't trust the polls, and they are not very supportive of a "fake Democrat"

The hilarity of that statement is that it can be applied to Clinton as well. A "truth in the eye of the beholder" I suppose.

[Gaidin]

Welp, I hope Clinton voters are happy that they're putting the country at greater risk of President Trump, given that Sanders has been doing much better than her in head to head polls against Trump for the entire campaign, and if she gets indicted after winning the nomination Trump easily takes it.

They don't trust the polls, and they are not very supportive of a "fake Democrat"

Polls are a snapshot. I'm personally utterly shocked they don't trust the polls for a situation that is still 8 months out for a set of candidates that hasn't been put through the grinder of a negative campaign from the other side. Maybe we can say Trump has. Though he was treated with kids gloves by the Republican party until all of a week and a half ago. But, Bernie has had a pretty light run so far. Personally I wonder what the Republicans would have in store for him if he made the nomination.

So, I've got a fairly mathematical reason not to trust the polls. Not sure about anybody else.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not sure Sanders has a lot of skeletons in the closet that Clinton hasn't tried to use.

Probably we'd get endless shrieking about socialism and communism (you know, what they've done to Obama for the eight years), and constant fear mongering about taxes going up.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So, really, what Clinton voters should be happy about is that they are for at least four more years of nothing getting done in Washington; which, considering the alternative, is a good thing indeed (and what does that say about the state of American politics.)

This is sort of how I view the campaign this year. My impressions are that a President Sanders may or may not be able to get stuff done depending on whether Congress flips and, if it does, whether Congressional Democrats oppose him the way the Blue Dogs did with Obama, but even if he can't get stuff done he'll continue to fight for it. A President Clinton would be a continuation of Obama's policies, for better or worse. And President (insert Republican candidate here) would be active regression in varying ways depending on the specific candidate, unless Congress flips or Congressional Republicans rebel against him.

The one advantage to a Sanders presidency is that it might be a modestly productive one from an American centrist standpoint. The Republicans don't have near the level of hatred invested in him that they do Clinton. On the flip-side he doesn't have the support and adoration of the Democratic party machine either ... so anything he wants to get done will have to be bi-partisan by definition. And, given his age, he'd almost certainly be a one-term President.

I agree that Clinton would be a continuation of Obama, but only insofar as the government will continue to plow ahead on the course set for it by Obama through sheer inertia. She's quite a bit more hawkish on foreign policy, so the streak of extrajudicial summary executions via drone will, at the very least, continue unabated under her. Certainly, her foreign policy towards the Middle East will satisfy conservatives more than it would isolationists or progressives. However, the Republicans have managed to hate her even more than they hate Obama; so one can expect them to work diligently to make her a one-term president. And that, effectively means, they won't really be working on doing anything else.

All of the Republicans would make for a nightmare. The House will remain safely in far-right wing hands. The Republicans may maintain a slight majority in the Senate (even if only because they have a vote in the Vice President.) Donald Trump may spout frothing-at-the-mouth lunacy (really, though, he's just revealed the true ugliness that resides in the heart of the GOP base,) but his supporters have all somehow failed to grasp that he's a card-carrying member of the socio-economic elite class that had been content to control the GOP from behind-the-scenes ... you know, the one they all hate. He would be a willing rubber-stamp for the GOP establishment, which would be catastrophic enough. John Kaisch would be just as catastrophic for the very same reason. If anything, it would almost be preferable to have Ted "doesn't know the meaning of compromise or moderation" Cruz as the president, because he's genuinely anti-establishment, would frequently be at complete odds with the Senate, would get the House and Senate into fights, and then egg them on ... rendering Washington absolutely dysfunctional.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't really see why people are objecting so much to the use of Drumpf as a sign of disrespect over Trump. How is this any different from people using Daesh to refer to ISIS as a sign of disrespect? Or calling George Bush "Shrub" or similar things? Or the use of "SJW" to denote disrespect for anyone who gets offended for any reason? I mean, I'm not going to call him Drumpf because I don't care enough to do so, but it seems to be a pretty widely accepted thing on this site in other contexts to intentionally use the incorrect name as a sign of your general disregard for someone, why is it that people are suddenly drawing the line here?

[Terralthra]

Because "ha ha, his family had a funny-sounding name" is exactly the sort of xenophobia he and his supporters demonstrate, basically.