The 2016 US Election (Part III)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Locked
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

While delivering a commencement speech at Stanford University, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns delivered a scathing attack on the man child running as the Republican nominee, and more generally, a spectacular take-down of Right-wing, bigoted, anti-government extremism.

Some of his parallels between now and the Civil War era may be (and hopefully are) alarmist, but its still worth listening to.

I'm posting it here because it pertains to the election, and because honestly its a better speech, at least in terms of its quality as a speech, than anything I can recall hearing from any of the candidates, or anything I can recall reading in the commentary in this thread or any similar online discussion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ken-burns-d ... nt-speech/
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Filmmaker Ken Burns offered a scathing critique of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump in a commencement address Sunday at Stanford University.

"For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and character of candidates who were clearly qualified," Burns said about halfway through his speech. "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 Tourette's 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.'"

Stanford published a copy of Burns' prepared remarks on its website and posted video of the ceremony on YouTube.


Burns also addressed the controversy over a six-month jail sentence given to former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner, convicted of sexually assaulted an unconscious woman.

Protesters demonstrated during commencement, carrying signs that read "Stanford protects rapists." The San Jose Mercury News reported a plane circled the stadium with the banner "Protect Survivors, Not Rapists -- Persky Must Go," referring to Judge Aaron Persky, who has been condemned by critics for Turner's sentence.

One sign sent a message to the woman who was assaulted, whose powerful victim impact statement has gained international attention, telling her, "You are a warrior."

"If someone tells you they have been sexually assaulted, take it effing seriously and listen to them," Burns, who is the father of four girls, told the crowd. "Maybe someday we'll make the survivor's eloquent statement as important as Dr. (Martin Luther) King's letter from the Birmingham jail."
Burns' speech starts at about 1 hour, 11 minutes in to the video.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Simon_Jester »

Rhadamantus wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to see her adopt the following, for a start:

15 an hour minimum wage. She's already gone most of the way to Sanders' position on this (12 an hour and claiming she supports 15 in theory), so it would be a small concession, but one that would benefit a lot of people...
15 a hour is way too high in some places. Honestly, it should be calibrated to living costs.
Agreed.

There are places in the country where a $15/hr minimum wage would badly dislocate the local economy. Not so much the large cities and suburbs where there are high concentrations of rich professionals. But in large areas of the country, $30000 a year (full time at $15/hr) is enough to support a fairly credible middle-class lifestyle. Suddenly doubling the minimum wage in such an area is going to cause a lot of disruption.

So yes, there needs to be some sensitivity to local conditions.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Would you agree, however, that 15 is a better baseline/starting point (from which you can adjust up or down) than 12?
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

The Romulan Republic wrote:Would you agree, however, that 15 is a better baseline/starting point (from which you can adjust up or down) than 12?
Actually 12 is probably the better start position. Arizona is bog average in terms of cost of living, and ~24k per year does pretty well for maintaining a basic but comfortable existence.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Starglider »

I can't imagine a UK university using a graduation ceremony to make a partisan political speech; regardless of the rhetoric, the guy was simply shilling for his preferred party and candidate.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Simon_Jester »

I honestly think that in this case, the speaker was shilling against, not for, anything in particular...
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3904
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Dominus Atheos »

Starglider wrote:I can't imagine a UK university using a graduation ceremony to make a partisan political speech; regardless of the rhetoric, the guy was simply shilling for his preferred party and candidate.
I think it's a joke tradition, to invite celebrities to give crazy commencement speeches to US universities. Or at least it happens often enough that I sure hope that everyone is in on the joke.

Here's the first result for "celebrity commencement speeches":

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_10_ ... s_of_2015/
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Starglider wrote:I can't imagine a UK university using a graduation ceremony to make a partisan political speech; regardless of the rhetoric, the guy was simply shilling for his preferred party and candidate.
In the US, commencement speeches are all about giving advice to young adults who are about to go out into The World. They dont normally get explicitly political, but Ken Burns is one of the most respected documentarians and de facto historians in the country. If anyone is in a position to give a commencement speech who knows just how dangerous Trump is, it is him.

And just because he is shilling against Trump, does not mean he is being untruthful. It is critically important that we avoid Trump.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Patroklos »

The Romulan Republic wrote:While delivering a commencement speech at Stanford University, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns delivered a scathing attack on the man child running as the Republican nominee, and more generally, a spectacular take-down of Right-wing, bigoted, anti-government extremism.

Some of his parallels between now and the Civil War era may be (and hopefully are) alarmist, but its still worth listening to.

I'm posting it here because it pertains to the election, and because honestly its a better speech, at least in terms of its quality as a speech, than anything I can recall hearing from any of the candidates, or anything I can recall reading in the commentary in this thread or any similar online discussion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ken-burns-d ... nt-speech/
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Filmmaker Ken Burns offered a scathing critique of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump in a commencement address Sunday at Stanford University.

"For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and character of candidates who were clearly qualified," Burns said about halfway through his speech. "That is not the case this year. One is glaringly not qualified."
STOP.

I couldn't even get through the first damn line of the speech before encountering such a self serving and blatant lie that it sets my teeth on edge. The fact that you encounter such items and are not appalled by them, but attracted to them, shows just how extremist you have become.

Isn't it supposed to be conservatives that irrationally fetishize the past in your internal political mythology? I am tired of idiots harkening back to some bygone day of no partisainship, happy congenial campaigns, and Gods Amongst Men running for President. The simple fact is our political discourse today is only unique because it is happening in our age with our peculiar culture and technology not because people are any more or less married to political passions. The US has had a string of characters and baffoons run for (and some would say win) the Presidency and every other office in the land.

Assholes similar to you try and pretend you are living on the cusp of the end of days EVERY ELECTION. You ain't that important, Trump ain't that important, and you undermine your advocates and criticisms with all this hysteria. You and Ken Burns who I have no idea why I should give a shit about.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Patroklos wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:While delivering a commencement speech at Stanford University, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns delivered a scathing attack on the man child running as the Republican nominee, and more generally, a spectacular take-down of Right-wing, bigoted, anti-government extremism.

Some of his parallels between now and the Civil War era may be (and hopefully are) alarmist, but its still worth listening to.

I'm posting it here because it pertains to the election, and because honestly its a better speech, at least in terms of its quality as a speech, than anything I can recall hearing from any of the candidates, or anything I can recall reading in the commentary in this thread or any similar online discussion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ken-burns-d ... nt-speech/
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Filmmaker Ken Burns offered a scathing critique of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump in a commencement address Sunday at Stanford University.

"For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and character of candidates who were clearly qualified," Burns said about halfway through his speech. "That is not the case this year. One is glaringly not qualified."
STOP.

I couldn't even get through the first damn line of the speech before encountering such a self serving and blatant lie that it sets my teeth on edge. The fact that you encounter such items and are not appalled by them, but attracted to them, shows just how extremist you have become.
You want an extremist, look to Dickless Donald and his supporters.

Hell, rhetorical style aside, if you look at most of my actual positions on policies, and my political loyalties, I'm pretty damn moderate.

But then, the Right has long since pretty much defined anyone Left of Ayn Rand as a Left wing extremist in America, so...

I mean, they compare Obama to Hitler and Stalin, for fuck's sake.
Isn't it supposed to be conservatives that irrationally fetishize the past in your internal political mythology? I am tired of idiots harkening back to some bygone day of no partisainship, happy congenial campaigns, and Gods Amongst Men running for President.
I don't believe Ken Burns, of all people, is saying the past was some perfect place of no partisanship and great statesmen. I mean, he spends much of the speech talking about the catastrophic division that was the Civil War, and references various dark aspects of America's history which Trump resembles.

What he said, in the segment you quoted, is essentially that the past candidates were qualified. That's not the same as saying no one was ever an asshole, and by and large I think its true.
The simple fact is our political discourse today is only unique because it is happening in our age with our peculiar culture and technology not because people are any more or less married to political passions. The US has had a string of characters and baffoons run for (and some would say win) the Presidency and every other office in the land.
Can you name someone else so lacking in both tact and intelligence, and political experience who took the nomination of a major party?

Certainly I cannot recall one in recent American history.
Assholes similar to you try and pretend you are living on the cusp of the end of days EVERY ELECTION. You ain't that important, Trump ain't that important, and you undermine your advocates and criticisms with all this hysteria. You and Ken Burns who I have no idea why I should give a shit about.
Ken Burns is, as Alyrium Denryle said, one of the foremost documentary filmmakers on the subject of American history. But thank you for parading your own ignorance.

As to Trump, I'm not saying he's going to destroy the world (unless he blunders us into a nuclear war through shear narcissism and stupidity), but he will make the world a much more unpleasant place if given the chance.

And that's the point- Trump isn't business as usual. He's not just another candidate, and people need to understand that. Bush Jr. wasn't an existential threat. John McCain wasn't either (except in the sense that he might have died in office and left Palin to take over, perhaps). Mitt Romney wasn't.

Trump arguably is. Because he's not a normal candidate.

That's the fucking point, and it sailed right over your outraged head.

Edit: Since you don't know who Ken Burns is, or why he would be qualified to be taken seriously on the subject of American history, here's his main IMDB page: www.imdb.com/name/nm0122741/

And here's the page listing the award wins and nominations he's received, including two Oscar nominations, numerous nominations and awards from the Emmys, and nominations awards from various prestigious film festivals and organizations: www.imd.com/name/nm0122741/awards

None of that obligates you to agree with him, of course. But this is a man who is taken seriously and respected in his field, and his field is basically making documentaries about American history.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:Would you agree, however, that 15 is a better baseline/starting point (from which you can adjust up or down) than 12?
Actually 12 is probably the better start position. Arizona is bog average in terms of cost of living, and ~24k per year does pretty well for maintaining a basic but comfortable existence.
Well, two points in response to that.

First, by the time a minimum wage increase could have actually been passed and implemented, prices/cost of living will likely have gone up from where they are now.

Secondly, passing legislation tends to entail compromise, which means if you want twelve, it might be best to start out asking for more than 12.

In other words, Bernie might ask for 15 and get 12. Clinton, on the other hand, might ask for 12 and get 10.
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Patroklos »

The Romulan Republic wrote: You want an extremist, look to Dickless Donald and his supporters.
I don't see much difference between you two actually. The specifics are different, but you both advocate for your seemingly random positions with equal parts exaggeration, scare mongering, and willful denial (see your many pages of Bernie ridiculousness).
Hell, rhetorical style aside, if you look at most of my actual positions on policies, and my political loyalties, I'm pretty damn moderate.p
Which may be true, but as I said your advocacies and criticisms are lost in this never ending morass of exaggerated BS.
But then, the Right has long since pretty much defined anyone Left of Ayn Rand as a Left wing extremist in America, so...

I mean, they compare Obama to Hitler and Stalin, for fuck's sake.
Which is ECXACTLY what you are doing with Trump now. Fascist that, totalitarian this, brown shirts here (supremely ironic given the side of the aisle the most direct (still FAR off) analog comes from...).

All of this, of course, is equally as ridiculous applied to Trump as it was to Obama. Protip: No US polititian is in any meaningful fashion comparable to Hitler/Stalin/Fascists/Mao, and anyone who makes such analogies are suspect.
I don't believe Ken Burns, of all people, is saying the past was some perfect place of no partisanship and great statesmen. I mean, he spends much of the speech talking about the catastrophic division that was the Civil War, and references various dark aspects of America's history which Trump resembles.
Which, again is all bullshit exaggeration. In the Civil War the debate centered around whether people should be chattel and whether the country itself would disintegrate. There is no analogy to that in modern US politics, insinuating it is just more exaggeration BS.
What he said, in the segment you quoted, is essentially that the past candidates were qualified. That's not the same as saying no one was ever an asshole, and by and large I think its true.
What does qualified mean TRR? Seriously, that very question is BS. Its very easy to be qualified to be president as per our Constitution.
Can you name someone else so lacking in both tact and intelligence, and political experience who took the nomination of a major party?
Hillary Clinton. You understand that both of those metrics as we can quantify them, are subjective, right?

Also, when did "political experiance" become a qualification? Many people feel the opposite, and in Hillary's case quite a bit of it is turning out to be a liability. A practical benefit, maybe depending on what exactly it was. But a qualification? That's really worrying to me that you think that is a qualification.
Certainly I cannot recall one in recent American history.
Why recent times when the speech stipulates 216 years? I don't know what you or Ken Burns thinks qualifies someone via your irrelevant and legally nonbinding definition, but Ross Perot is basically an analog candidate as far as background goes. Zachory Taylor was in the Army, that's about it. His Vice and then President Filmore was unremarkable in every way. There are LOTs of examples like that.

What was the great qualification for Abraham Lincoln? Some random years in a state legislature, before serving in Congress for two years most of which he spent campaigning?

Tell us TRR, what are these pivtol milestones all acceptable candidates must have hit before qualifications that EVERY president and presidential candidate in 216 years has met? That's right EVERY single one.
Ken Burns is, as Alyrium Denryle said, one of the foremost documentary filmmakers on the subject of American history. But thank you for parading your own ignorance.
I know exactly who Ken Burns is, and I yawn at his "qualifications" especially given the example speech you provided. He made some movies, who gives a shit? Michael Moore mad movies too. I similarly yawn and your childish authority seeking.
As to Trump, I'm not saying he's going to destroy the world (unless he blunders us into a nuclear war through shear narcissism and stupidity), but he will make the world a much more unpleasant place if given the chance.
Gee, that sounds familiar. I believe every partisan from every campaign for every office for our entire history has said the exact same thing about the other side.
And that's the point- Trump isn't business as usual. He's not just another candidate, and people need to understand that. Bush Jr. wasn't an existential threat. John McCain wasn't either (except in the sense that he might have died in office and left Palin to take over, perhaps). Mitt Romney wasn't.
How is he not business as usual? So far we have because you say he isn't. PLENTY of people said Bush Jr was an existential threat. Maybe you were too young to remember, but they were literally guillotining effigies of him outside the Democratic Convention.
Trump arguably is. Because he's not a normal candidate.
Wait, Trump is an existential threat? As in, the US will cease to exist if he wins? That seems at odds with:

"As to Trump, I'm not saying he's going to destroy the world (unless he blunders us into a nuclear war through shear narcissism and stupidity), but he will make the world a much more unpleasant place if given the chance." -TRR

Tell me again why Trump isn't a "normal" candidate, whatever the fuck that means?
That's the fucking point, and it sailed right over your outraged head.
You have an opinion, not a point. A very childish, nonsourced and uncorroborated opinion at that. You can think Trump is a nasty dude. You can think he stands for horrible things. You can think he isn't the white bread political thoroughbred you are obviously comfortable with. I would agree with all three of those things. None of that is backing up your weird outlandish claims.
Channel72
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2010-02-03 05:28pm
Location: New York

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Channel72 »

Patroklos wrote: What does qualified mean TRR? Seriously, that very question is BS. Its very easy to be qualified to be president as per our Constitution.
Official qualifications aside, I think Trump is one of the few candidates (possibly the only, too lazy to verify) who never held an elected office before becoming nominated as a Presidential Candidate.

Whether that really means anything is of course debatable - but the fact itself is at least noteworthy.
Patroklos wrote:
Can you name someone else so lacking in both tact and intelligence, and political experience who took the nomination of a major party?
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton obviously has tons of political experience.
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Patroklos »

Channel72 wrote:
Patroklos wrote: What does qualified mean TRR? Seriously, that very question is BS. Its very easy to be qualified to be president as per our Constitution.
Official qualifications aside, I think Trump is one of the few candidates (possibly the only, too lazy to verify) who never held an elected office before becoming nominated as a Presidential Candidate.

Whether that really means anything is of course debatable - but the fact itself is at least noteworthy.
I assumed that was one of TRRs unfortunate qualification and two of the examples I gave for candidates/Presidents did not, Ross Perot and Zachary Taylor.
Patroklos wrote:
Can you name someone else so lacking in both tact and intelligence, and political experience who took the nomination of a major party?
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton obviously has tons of political experience.
Granted, I was referring to the second two. The second even her supporters will grudgingly admit she lacks given her robot routine.
Channel72
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2010-02-03 05:28pm
Location: New York

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Channel72 »

Patroklos wrote:I assumed that was one of TRRs unfortunate qualification and two of the examples I gave for candidates/Presidents did not, Ross Perot and Zachary Taylor.
Trump is still pretty unique... Perot was a third party candidate (granted, a very popular one). And I guess high military rank could be substituted for elected office, as in the case of Eisenhower, in terms of "generally acceptable" qualifications.

Granted, whether these kinds of qualifications really should mean anything is debatable, but the point is most Republican/Democrat Presidential Candidates are former Senators/Governors, or less commonly, high-ranking military officers. So, as a real-estate magnate/reality television star, Trump is at least pretty unique in this regard.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Patroklos wrote:I don't see much difference between you two actually. The specifics are different, but you both advocate for your seemingly random positions with equal parts exaggeration, scare mongering, and willful denial (see your many pages of Bernie ridiculousness).
Okay, and this right here is where I cease feeling any desire to even attempt to show you a modicum of respect or civility.

You want to compare me to Dickless Donald? Okay, show where I have condoned violence against my opponents. Show where I have engaged in blatant bigotry and xenophobia.

These distinctions matter. You can't say "you're just like Trump, except for all these things that make Trump an utterly loathsome person".

As to your accusations, I'm not even going to bother to address them, because I'd rather discuss the topic than your attempt to derail it into yet another debate on my personal intelligence and character.
Which may be true, but as I said your advocacies and criticisms are lost in this never ending morass of exaggerated BS.
Or maybe you have shit reading comprehension.

Besides, I feel no particular obligation to be civil to those who are insulting or dishonest towards me.
Which is ECXACTLY what you are doing with Trump now. Fascist that, totalitarian this, brown shirts here (supremely ironic given the side of the aisle the most direct (still FAR off) analog comes from...).
Their are numerous documented cases of violence by Trump supporters, some of it at least with open sympathy from the candidate himself. A number of them, I believe, are posted in the election threads here.

And I am far from the only person to call Trump a fascist, or make that comparison. In doing so, I'm doing nothing different than what, for example, Martin O'Malley (Presidential candidate and former governor of Maryland) did. I don't think most people would consider O'Malley an extremist, or equivalent to Trump.
All of this, of course, is equally as ridiculous applied to Trump as it was to Obama. Protip: No US polititian is in any meaningful fashion comparable to Hitler/Stalin/Fascists/Mao, and anyone who makes such analogies are suspect.
That is a false equivalency.

And because the charge was false once does not make it false every time. Look at each case on its merits.

This is a man who references Mussolini and allegedly keeps a collection of Hitler speeches by his bedside. I'm not joking, though I dearly wish I was.

In any case, Trump may not be a fascist, depending somewhat on the definition you use, but his rampant bigotry, authoritarianism, condoning violence from his supporters, and demagoguery is close enough to concern many.

And I think that their is also a valid concern that if he's this bad now... how bad will he be if he actually takes power and has the powers of a President to wield and a mandate from the voters to feed his endless ego?
Which, again is all bullshit exaggeration. In the Civil War the debate centered around whether people should be chattel and whether the country itself would disintegrate. There is no analogy to that in modern US politics, insinuating it is just more exaggeration BS.
The issues are different, yes, and as Burns noted, we are not yet fighting an armed revolt. But all collapses and catastrophes have a starting point. Trump is already talking about barring people from the country based on religion, further restricting the press, and mass deportation of millions, among other things.
What does qualified mean TRR? Seriously, that very question is BS. Its very easy to be qualified to be president as per our Constitution.
Having succeed at something in life other than being a reality star, maybe? Just for a start?

Or for a more detailed answer: Having skills and experience that would prepare him for the job of President, particularly having held prior government office.
Hillary Clinton. You understand that both of those metrics as we can quantify them, are subjective, right?
Hillary Clinton... lacks political experience.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's ridiculous, and something that could only come from a partisan idiot. And this is coming from a Bernie supporter who has no love for Clinton.

Hell, I'll even credit her with tact and intelligence, of a kind. I think she's a slime bag, but I don't truly doubt that she is competent to be President.
Also, when did "political experiance" become a qualification? Many people feel the opposite, and in Hillary's case quite a bit of it is turning out to be a liability. A practical benefit, maybe depending on what exactly it was. But a qualification? That's really worrying to me that you think that is a qualification.
I'd rather have someone who has some idea what they're getting into.

But thanks for illustrating that you're just another knee-jerk anti-establishment/anti-government person who thinks that anyone who has actual experience is bad.
Why recent times when the speech stipulates 216 years? I don't know what you or Ken Burns thinks qualifies someone via your irrelevant and legally nonbinding definition,
This is supposed to be a rebuttal?

Yeah, no shit Trump is legally qualified. No one here is saying otherwise.

But that does not mean that critiques of his ability and suitability to be President are invalid.
but Ross Perot is basically an analog candidate as far as background goes.
Maybe. I don't know Perot that well.

But I will note that he ran independent, not as a nominee for a major party.
Zachory Taylor was in the Army, that's about it. His Vice and then President Filmore was unremarkable in every way. There are LOTs of examples like that.

What was the great qualification for Abraham Lincoln? Some random years in a state legislature, before serving in Congress for two years most of which he spent campaigning?
At least Lincoln a) had held prior office, and b) wasn't a complete tactless imbecile.
Tell us TRR, what are these pivtol milestones all acceptable candidates must have hit before qualifications that EVERY president and presidential candidate in 216 years has met? That's right EVERY single one.
There is no single path you have to take, so drop the straw man.

Their are many legitimate paths one could follow, although as a rule I would prefer someone who had held some prior government office at the national level, at least.

Or, you know, just someone with a shred of tact and decorum.
I know exactly who Ken Burns is, and I yawn at his "qualifications" especially given the example speech you provided. He made some movies, who gives a shit? Michael Moore mad movies too. I similarly yawn and your childish authority seeking.
You sure made it sound like you didn't know who he was, and the fact is that despite your derision and attempt to downplay his career, he can, in a sense, be considered an authority on this subject.

But evidently you feel qualifications are a negative. American conservatism- Glorifying the ignorant and stupid.

You probably think the highest qualification for President is "someone I could have a beer with" too. :roll:
Gee, that sounds familiar. I believe every partisan from every campaign for every office for our entire history has said the exact same thing about the other side.
More or less, but its a question of degree.

And again, just because a charge was false or exaggerated in some cases does not mean you can dismiss it out of hand in all cases.
How is he not business as usual? So far we have because you say he isn't. PLENTY of people said Bush Jr was an existential threat. Maybe you were too young to remember, but they were literally guillotining effigies of him outside the Democratic Convention.
Yeah, and those people were wrong.

As to Trump...

Okay. Is it business as usual when a Presidential candidate advocates barring people from the country based on religion? Is it business as usual when said candidate has zero political experience? Is it business as usual when he says a judge presiding over his case has a conflict of interest because they are Mexican? Is it business as usual when a protester is assaulted at one of his events and he says that maybe they deserved to be roughed up?

All of this shit is well-documented. You can play ignorant all you like, but the record speaks for itself.
Wait, Trump is an existential threat? As in, the US will cease to exist if he wins? That seems at odds with:

"As to Trump, I'm not saying he's going to destroy the world (unless he blunders us into a nuclear war through shear narcissism and stupidity), but he will make the world a much more unpleasant place if given the chance." -TRR

Tell me again why Trump isn't a "normal" candidate, whatever the fuck that means?
See above.

As to existential threat...

Existential threat to American Democracy, to be more precise.
You have an opinion, not a point. A very childish, nonsourced and uncorroborated opinion at that. You can think Trump is a nasty dude. You can think he stands for horrible things. You can think he isn't the white bread political thoroughbred you are obviously comfortable with. I would agree with all three of those things. None of that is backing up your weird outlandish claims.
Unsourced?

I and others have posted numerous articles on Trump's various insanities throughout the election threads. Is it really necessary for me to go dig them all up and repost them here, just to get you to shut up?
User avatar
maraxus2
Padawan Learner
Posts: 340
Joined: 2016-04-11 02:14am
Location: Yay Area

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by maraxus2 »

Patroklos wrote:Hillary Clinton. You understand that both of those metrics as we can quantify them, are subjective, right?

Also, when did "political experiance" become a qualification? Many people feel the opposite, and in Hillary's case quite a bit of it is turning out to be a liability. A practical benefit, maybe depending on what exactly it was. But a qualification? That's really worrying to me that you think that is a qualification.
Yes, why on earth would anyone want a politician to have political experience? It baffles the mind!
Why recent times when the speech stipulates 216 years? I don't know what you or Ken Burns thinks qualifies someone via your irrelevant and legally nonbinding definition, but Ross Perot is basically an analog candidate as far as background goes. Zachory Taylor was in the Army, that's about it. His Vice and then President Filmore was unremarkable in every way. There are LOTs of examples like that.

What was the great qualification for Abraham Lincoln? Some random years in a state legislature, before serving in Congress for two years most of which he spent campaigning?

Tell us TRR, what are these pivtol milestones all acceptable candidates must have hit before qualifications that EVERY president and presidential candidate in 216 years has met? That's right EVERY single one.
Lincoln's political astuteness was a qualification in-and-of itself. Much the same could be said about Obama; he had very limited experience at national government prior to winning the presidency, but his impressive campaign demonstrated that he had the qualities needed to be an effective executive.

There's nothing inherent about having long political experience that makes a given candidate better or worse than anyone else running. To completely dismiss governmental experience as a marker for qualifications, though, does not strike me as terribly wise.
How is he not business as usual? So far we have because you say he isn't. PLENTY of people said Bush Jr was an existential threat. Maybe you were too young to remember, but they were literally guillotining effigies of him outside the Democratic Convention.
For a lot of people, Dubya *was* an existential threat. Just ask all those folks that got stuffed into the Superdome during Katrina. Or all those people slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trump is not business as usual in that we've never had a candidate who was so utterly ignorant of the mechanics of government, politics, and policy. The man knows nothing, and is aggressive in his willful ignorance.

As for that last bit, [Citation needed]

Trump is dangerous because of his aggressive ignorance, but also because he has a really right-wing Congress behind him. If he were somehow to win the Presidency, and the GOP were able to keep control of Congress, we'd face a horrifying few years just off the back of Paul Ryan's policies. Saying nothing of Trump.

Paul Ryan wants to roll back, downsize, or eliminate policies that make it possible for literally millions of people to live, and he wants to do it in order to unleash Ayn Rand's philosphy writ-large on the United States. For a lot of people, that *IS* an existential threat.
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/j ... an-assange
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said his organisation is preparing to publish more emails Hillary Clinton sent and received while US secretary of state.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is under FBI investigation to determine whether she broke federal law by using her private email in sending classified information. A new WikiLeaks release of Clinton emails is likely to fan a controversy that has bedevilled her campaign and provide further ammunition for Donald Trump, her Republican presidential rival, who has used the issue to attack her.

Assange’s comments came in an interview on ITV’s Peston on Sunday. “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton … We have emails pending publication, that is correct,” Assange said.He did not specify when or how many emails would be published.

WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive in March of 30,322 emails and email attachments sent to and from Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents are from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014, and 7,570 of the documents were sent by Clinton, who served as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Assange, a trenchant Clinton critic, said she was receiving constant personal updates on his situation. The WikiLeaks founder has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London since July 2012, when he sought asylum to avoid extradition. Assange is wanted in Sweden over allegations of rape dating from 2010, which he denies, but he has not been charged.

A Stockholm district court upheld an arrest warrant against the Australian last month, saying there was still “probable cause for suspicion” against him.

Assange said it was highly unlikely that the US attorney general, Loretta Lynch, would indict Clinton. “She’s not going to indict Hillary Clinton, that’s not possible. It’s not going to happen. But the FBI can push for concessions from a Clinton government,” he said.


Play VideoPlay
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 0:30
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
FullscreenMute
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
March: Clinton brushes off possibility of indictment over emails
He has attacked Clinton as a “liberal war hawk”, claiming that WikiLeaks had published emails showing her to be the leading champion in office to push for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, despite Pentagon reluctance.

Advertisement

“They predicted that the postwar outcome would be something like it is … she has a long history of being a liberal war hawk,” he said.

He also accused Google last week of helping Clinton in her presidential campaign, lumping together two of his bugbears.

Google “is intensely aligned with US exceptionalism” and its employees will likely be rewarded if Clinton wins the presidential election come November, Assange told an international media forum in Moscow.

His attacks on Clinton may be dismissed as highly partial, but the email controversy continues to dog her. An internal report last month found she had broken several government rules by using a private server rather than more secure official communication systems.

The 78-page investigation by the inspector general of the state department singled out several previously unknown breaches while Clinton was secretary of state, including the use of mobile devices to conduct official business without checking whether they posed a security risk.
Wonder what he's got. I hope its nothing too bad, because at this point a major Clinton scandal would likely only benefit Trump.
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by FireNexus »

Assange said that Google is in the tank for Clinton. It's pretty clear that house arrest is driving him crazy at this point.
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Purple »

The Romulan Republic wrote:Wonder what he's got. I hope its nothing too bad, because at this point a major Clinton scandal would likely only benefit Trump.
But say it is bad. Like say it is really, really, really bad. How bad of a crime do you think it would have to be for you to lose the blind hate for Trump for long enough to pick him over her? Are we talking corruption? Treason? Child molestation?

I just want to know out of curiosity.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22459
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Mr Bean »

FireNexus wrote:Assange said that Google is in the tank for Clinton. It's pretty clear that house arrest is driving him crazy at this point.
Yes that must be it, not the fact you can see Google returning different results for Hillary Clinton than DuckDuckGo or Yahoo or god forbid Bing (Unless it's for Porn in which case Bing is great for Porn).

This was covered last week but there is editing in auto-complete is where Clinton results by Google get scewed. I hate to have to use Freebeacon because it's an obvious right wing website but it's examples can be verified by anyone with five minutes and a web browser.

*Edit
I'll note for the record I can't look at Freebeacon's website and not see Free Bacon and be vaguely disappointed every time they are brought up.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Purple wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:Wonder what he's got. I hope its nothing too bad, because at this point a major Clinton scandal would likely only benefit Trump.
But say it is bad. Like say it is really, really, really bad. How bad of a crime do you think it would have to be for you to lose the blind hate for Trump for long enough to pick him over her? Are we talking corruption? Treason? Child molestation?

I just want to know out of curiosity.
My feelings regarding Trump are not blind, but based on observing his words and actions, and considering how much worse he might become, especially when his bullying ego mania was backed up by the full power of the Presidency.

In any case, no power on Earth could make me vote for Dickless Donald.

If, however, hypothetically (because I obviously don't for a moment think something like this will happen), Clinton were convicted of murder, treason, rape, etc., that would be sufficient for me cast a third party or write-in vote, I think (presuming the Democrats were actually insane enough to keep her as the nominee then, which I don't think they would be).
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Purple »

The Romulan Republic wrote:My feelings regarding Trump are not blind, but based on observing his words and actions, and considering how much worse he might become, especially when his bullying ego mania was backed up by the full power of the Presidency.
Out of curiosity, do you follow the guys speeches and stuff? Because I am probably lacking one huge piece of the puzzle here because to me he sounds mostly sensible with the occasional bout of mania. Where as you describe him as being all insane all the time.

Like for example his speech yesterday on the whole shooting thing. I came into it expecting to hear him talk about death camps for all Muslims the way you guys online hype him out. Instead I found it to be perfectly sane, sensible and thought out. He raised a valid point, proposed reasonable action, performed a well executed political attack on his opposition and packaged it in a dose of charisma.

So what am I missing here?
In any case, no power on Earth could make me vote for Dickless Donald.

If, however, hypothetically (because I obviously don't for a moment think something like this will happen), Clinton were convicted of murder, treason, rape, etc., that would be sufficient for me cast a third party or write-in vote, I think (presuming the Democrats were actually insane enough to keep her as the nominee then, which I don't think they would be).
Correct me if I am wrong but is that in your political system not equivalent to not voting at all?
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Civil War Man »

Purple wrote:Like for example his speech yesterday on the whole shooting thing. I came into it expecting to hear him talk about death camps for all Muslims the way you guys online hype him out. Instead I found it to be perfectly sane, sensible and thought out. He raised a valid point, proposed reasonable action, performed a well executed political attack on his opposition and packaged it in a dose of charisma.

So what am I missing here?
His "argument" was that Muslims should be banned from entering the country, even though the Orlando shooter was born in New York. His parents are Afghani immigrants, but as far as I can tell they haven't shot anyone.
Correct me if I am wrong but is that in your political system not equivalent to not voting at all?
Unless you live in a small handful of states, any vote you cast is equivalent to not voting at all, because demographics and the electoral college makes the results in the state you live in a foregone conclusion.
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part III)

Post by Purple »

Civil War Man wrote:His "argument" was that Muslims should be banned from entering the country, even though the Orlando shooter was born in New York. His parents are Afghani immigrants, but as far as I can tell they haven't shot anyone.
Did you listen to the actual speech? As in actually listen to it as opposed to having someone tell you what he said?

His argument was that you should halt all people from terror prone regions entering until such a time when you can develop better ways of picking who gets in. That way you can concentrate on cooperating with your own Muslim communities to weed out local terrorists like this guy in peace. Something which frankly makes perfect sense.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Locked