The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I can understand Rom's worries, given what we, as a country, have been through over the last two decades(OKC, 9/11, etc.). However, if anything, Obama calling out the National Guard would be the just the match these kind of people need to touch off this particular powder keg.

The best that can be done for these people is to watch and wait. And keep our fingers crossed.

[Patroklos]

I particularly liked his recommendation to politically purge the officer corps. It was a nice touch.

[Grumman]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -indecline

An anarchist group put up a bunch of naked Trump statues to mock the Donald. Statue is titled "The Emperor Has No Balls".

Article NSFW due to photos.

Would you still be laughing if they did this to Clinton instead?

[Mr Bean]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -indecline

An anarchist group put up a bunch of naked Trump statues to mock the Donald. Statue is titled "The Emperor Has No Balls".

Article NSFW due to photos.

Would you still be laughing if they did this to Clinton instead?

Of course because it's perfectly acceptable to put naked women statues up everywhere and it would in no way be inappropriate.

Descend to his level embrace the filth and become like him.

[Flagg]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -indecline

An anarchist group put up a bunch of naked Trump statues to mock the Donald. Statue is titled "The Emperor Has No Balls".

Article NSFW due to photos.

Would you still be laughing if they did this to Clinton instead?

Probably, but they'd have to incorporate the old joke about Bill showing up to a costume party wearing nothing but a potato on his wang and when asked by his shocked party guests what was he thinking, says "I came (now eat sour cream on a baked potato) as a dick-'tater!" I can't remember the Hillary party of the punchline, but I'm sure it was equally if not more hilariously offensive since Republicans have always hated her more for some reason.

[Flagg]

I particularly liked his recommendation to politically purge the officer corps. It was a nice touch.

"If you are not guilty then why have you been accused, Comrade?"

[The Romulan Republic]

I particularly liked his recommendation to politically purge the officer corps. It was a nice touch.

"If you are not guilty then why have you been accused, Comrade?"

More just "keep an eye on who is in charge and what their sympathies are in high risk areas". I will also clarify that I was thinking of it in terms of "deal with possible secession sympathizers" not "purge anyone who doesn't vote Democrat" (though I have little doubt that the latter is how Patroklus will frame it as part of his ongoing campaign to depict me as a fascist).

But I will acknowledge that, under the current circumstances, that suggestion was a step too far.

However, I would also ask weather, in a hypothetical scenario where you felt their was a real risk of Civil War, the loyalty of military officers would be an inappropriate concern to address. I've read about what happened in the early stages of the Civil War, where many of the more honourable officers resigned their posts before going over to the Confederacy, while many less honourable secession sympathizers in government departments remained at their posts, hampering the government's response.

Its not an irrelevant issue in such a scenario.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -indecline

An anarchist group put up a bunch of naked Trump statues to mock the Donald. Statue is titled "The Emperor Has No Balls".

Article NSFW due to photos.

Would you still be laughing if they did this to Clinton instead?

No, probably not, but I'd certainly respect their right to do it as a form of political protest.

I don't think it would work the same way as a joke though, because Clinton's life does not resemble a monument to phallic compensation (or whatever the female equivalent is) the way that Trump's does.

[Flagg]

I particularly liked his recommendation to politically purge the officer corps. It was a nice touch.

"If you are not guilty then why have you been accused, Comrade?"

More just "keep an eye on who is in charge and what their sympathies are in high risk areas". I will also clarify that I was thinking of it in terms of "deal with possible secession sympathizers" not "purge anyone who doesn't vote Democrat" (though I have little doubt that the latter is how Patroklus will frame it as part of his ongoing campaign to depict me as a fascist).

But I will acknowledge that, under the current circumstances, that suggestion was a step too far.

However, I would also ask weather, in a hypothetical scenario where you felt their was a real risk of Civil War, the loyalty of military officers would be an inappropriate concern to address. I've read about what happened in the early stages of the Civil War, where many of the more honourable officers resigned their posts before going over to the Confederacy, while many less honourable secession sympathizers in government departments remained at their posts, hampering the government's response.

Its not an irrelevant issue in such a scenario.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -indecline

An anarchist group put up a bunch of naked Trump statues to mock the Donald. Statue is titled "The Emperor Has No Balls".

Article NSFW due to photos.

Would you still be laughing if they did this to Clinton instead?

No, probably not, but I'd certainly respect their right to do it as a form of political protest.

I don't think it would work the same way as a joke though, because Clinton's life does not resemble a monument to phallic compensation (or whatever the female equivalent is) the way that Trump's does.

Bill Clinton? Of course he has. But unlike Donnie Douchebag, he never had to pay (or trade in for a new wife quicker and more often than his car).

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, you might be right if its Bill instead of Hillary.

Though at least he didn't spend half his life building giant skyscrapers with his name on them and talking about how big everything he did is like he has something to prove.

I mean, its almost too cliche.

[Mr Bean]

Yeah, you might be right if its Bill instead of Hillary.

Though at least he didn't spend half his life building giant skyscrapers with his name on them and talking about how big everything he did is like he has something to prove.

I mean, its almost too cliche.

Yeah all Bill did was cheat on the one wife for two decades and several women have accused him of unwanted sexual advances and one has accused him of rape.


How quickly you forget how terrible both them are as human beings. Not to say Trump is a saint but you keep saying the equivalent of "Oh yeah? at least they didn't do X unlike Trump" forgetting aside from merchandising his name they are guilty of quite a few of the same sins. We do not have good people running this year and one is much worse than the other one as one has much better hair than the other.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, you might be right if its Bill instead of Hillary.

Though at least he didn't spend half his life building giant skyscrapers with his name on them and talking about how big everything he did is like he has something to prove.

I mean, its almost too cliche.

Yeah all Bill did was cheat on the one wife for two decades and several women have accused him of unwanted sexual advances and one has accused him of rape.


How quickly you forget how terrible both them are as human beings. Not to say Trump is a saint but you keep saying the equivalent of "Oh yeah? at least they didn't do X unlike Trump" forgetting aside from merchandising his name they are guilty of quite a few of the same sins. We do not have good people running this year and one is much worse than the other one as one has much better hair than the other.

Its amazing how a sufficiently motivated person can spin anything into an attack.

I am not fucking defending Bill Clinton. Nothing in my post could reasonably suggest that I am. For that matter, don't you remember all the nasty things I've said about Bill in the election threads? I'm fairly sure I recall referring to him as one of Hillary's biggest liabilities, or something to that effect, not long ago.

Although on the issue of rape, he and Trump are pretty much equals in terms of both having multiple accusers.

[Flagg]

I remembered the entire joke!

So Bill and Hillary Clinton are having a costume party and Bill walks out of the kitchen wearing nothing but a potato on his shlong. Shocked, one guest asks, "Mr President! What are you doing, that's not a costume!" And President Clinton says, "Sure it is! I'm a dick-tater!"

Then Hillary walked out of the kitchen with a lemon on her snatch. The same guest asked, "And what are you supposed to be!?" She said, "I'm a sour puss."

Ba-Dum-Dum!

[Flagg]

Yeah, you might be right if its Bill instead of Hillary.

Though at least he didn't spend half his life building giant skyscrapers with his name on them and talking about how big everything he did is like he has something to prove.

I mean, its almost too cliche.

Yeah all Bill did was cheat on the one wife for two decades and several women have accused him of unwanted sexual advances and one has accused him of rape.


How quickly you forget how terrible both them are as human beings. Not to say Trump is a saint but you keep saying the equivalent of "Oh yeah? at least they didn't do X unlike Trump" forgetting aside from merchandising his name they are guilty of quite a few of the same sins. We do not have good people running this year and one is much worse than the other one as one has much better hair than the other.

I'd say Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, while never excusing or mitigating his history of treating women as things to bone whether they want to or not, makes him a tad better than Donnie Douchebag who just does charity when it's a photo op. Then again maybe a bit more since the only people to ever pay to hear Donnie Douchebag speak got ripped off and are suing him.

[K. A. Pital]

Clinton is the Smiler, Trump is the Beast. For those that get the reference.

Seems like Clinton is way more dangerous. She is corrupt and she is a vessel for clandestine interests of the war oligarchy. Defense contractors gave Clinton more money than to any other candidate. And they clearly know where to put their money.

OT: I thought about this myself, but to my surprise found that the Guardian has someone thinking the very same thing.

[Simon_Jester]

It is quite possible that Clinton will take bribes to do something.

Trump is going to be nearly impossible to bribe, but will do anything, purely for the hell of it, because he's a complete psychopath.

[Borgholio]

It is quite possible that Clinton will take bribes to do something.

Trump is going to be nearly impossible to bribe, but will do anything, purely for the hell of it, because he's a complete psychopath.

I think in this case it really is a case of "The Devil You Know". Clinton is corrupt, we all know this. But she's predictably corrupt. We know how she acts and what she is likely to do in many cases. Trump is a wild card who has already demonstrated he can barely be controlled, and there really is no telling what he will do (or try to do) once he has Absolute Power™. He is an unpredictable asshole...and I think that's far more dangerous than a corrupt establishment politician.

[Flagg]

It is quite possible that Clinton will take bribes to do something.

Trump is going to be nearly impossible to bribe, but will do anything, purely for the hell of it, because he's a complete psychopath.

Donnie Douchebag isn't a psychopath. He's essentially just an incredibly erratic and particularly obnoxious "bomb thrower" (someone like, for instance Ann Cunter, who say the most offensive things they can think of to rile up both the fascists and the centrists) with hella Narcissistic personality disorder to cover up for his own (and Donnie Douchebag may not even consciously do this on all but the deepest level) massive failures and shortcomings.

But why wouldn't Donnie Douchebag take a bribe? He seems to have no real moral center and he's a fake millionaire who could probably use the cash.

[Simon_Jester]

I think in this case it really is a case of "The Devil You Know". Clinton is corrupt, we all know this. But she's predictably corrupt. We know how she acts and what she is likely to do in many cases. Trump is a wild card who has already demonstrated he can barely be controlled, and there really is no telling what he will do (or try to do) once he has Absolute Power™. He is an unpredictable asshole...and I think that's far more dangerous than a corrupt establishment politician.

Especially since the establishment politician in question can be trusted to adhere to the norms of "good-ish" establishment politicians. That is to say, she is unlikely to do anything massively destructive; her sins will be of omission rather than of commission.

And there is even a high likelihood that she will do some genuinely constructive things, because she has publicly staked out positions in favor of such things, and has nothing to lose by trying to actively accomplish them.

Donnie Douchebag isn't a psychopath. He's essentially just an incredibly erratic and particularly obnoxious "bomb thrower" (someone like, for instance Ann Cunter, who say the most offensive things they can think of to rile up both the fascists and the centrists) with hella Narcissistic personality disorder to cover up for his own (and Donnie Douchebag may not even consciously do this on all but the deepest level) massive failures and shortcomings.

That's a fair point; I may be failing to distinguish between a massively narcissistic lying jackass and a psychopath.

But why wouldn't Donnie Douchebag take a bribe? He seems to have no real moral center and he's a fake millionaire who could probably use the cash.

[/quote]You're right.

In mitigation... suffice to say that while I'm sure he can be bought, I'm sure he can't be bought cheap. He's a fraud on a huge scale, but his personal resources are such that it would take a very large check to actually motivate him to change direction.

[Elheru Aran]

But why wouldn't Donnie Douchebag take a bribe? He seems to have no real moral center and he's a fake millionaire who could probably use the cash.

You're right.

In mitigation... suffice to say that while I'm sure he can be bought, I'm sure he can't be bought cheap. He's a fraud on a huge scale, but his personal resources are such that it would take a very large check to actually motivate him to change direction.

Regrettably... I suspect there are any number of people out there that have the capability to write large enough checks. The Koch Brothers hate his guts apparently, but if he actually got elected, odds are they have the resources to turn his attention at the very least. Ditto companies like Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Saudi Arabian royals, Russian oligarchs (who may actually know him personally...) and so forth. He's wealthy-- very wealthy-- but he didn't get that way by not wanting money. Wave a large enough roll in his direction, he'll look at you.

[SpottedKitty]

In mitigation... suffice to say that while I'm sure he can be bought, I'm sure he can't be bought cheap.

Could he stay bought, though? I've been following some of the snippets of speech that come over this side of the Pond, and I don't really get the impression that he knows himself from one day to the next which policy positions he can be "persuaded" to look favourably on.

[Grumman]

Especially since the establishment politician in question can be trusted to adhere to the norms of "good-ish" establishment politicians. That is to say, she is unlikely to do anything massively destructive; her sins will be of omission rather than of commission.

Like enact massive, oppressive laws attacking people's constitutional rights? Like waging aggressive wars? Things which she has already done as a senator?

[Simon_Jester]

Clinton went along with someone else's aggressive war, like the vast majority of Congress at the time, at a time when this war was widely supported by much of the American population.

While that was wrong, it is grossly hypocritical of us today to behave as though Clinton having supported that war then means she would be so sanguine about drawing us into other wars now.

Similar arguments apply to, for instance, the Patriot Act.

Anyone with an ounce of political sense knows exactly why so many senators went along with the herd mentality of those days. It doesn't say good things about them, but it doesn't mean that if elected they somehow promise to be trouble of that kind on a regular basis.

[Mr Bean]

Simon what about her support of intervention every other aside from Iraq? Mother Jones covered this a few months ago but basically Secretary Clinton when she was Senator Clinton backed every escilation not just the initial Iraq vote but later votes and the Surge. In addition she pressed for interventions in Syria and Libya far above and beyond what President Obama ended up doing and there is over a decade of reporting on quotes from insiders about Secretary Clinton never meeting a conflict she did not want to intervene in.

We've had other conflicts other than Iraq and to my knowledge there is yet one purposed that Clinton has not supported except perhaps Iranian intervention.

[The Romulan Republic]

I must admit, while I don't think Clinton is suicidal or stupid enough to be likely to want a war with a major power, her support for a no-fly zone in Syria gives me some concern. Because that sounds like something that's going to be either unenforceable, or a path to a shooting war with Russia. More likely the former, but still...

But compared to Trump... yeah, I still trust her a hell of a lot more as Commander in Chief. At least she's politically experienced and seems more or less... um... sane.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Simon what about her support of intervention every other aside from Iraq? Mother Jones covered this a few months ago but basically Secretary Clinton when she was Senator Clinton backed every escilation not just the initial Iraq vote but later votes and the Surge. In addition she pressed for interventions in Syria and Libya far above and beyond what President Obama ended up doing and there is over a decade of reporting on quotes from insiders about Secretary Clinton never meeting a conflict she did not want to intervene in.

We've had other conflicts other than Iraq and to my knowledge there is yet one purposed that Clinton has not supported except perhaps Iranian intervention.

So? How is this any worse than what the Republican establishment has supported over the same time frame? All of the above applies equally to the Republicans, not to mention throwing another dozen or so horrible things on top (anti-gay bills, etc.). And who exactly do you think is going to be running the country if Trump gets elected?

I mean, yes, we are all aware of Hillary's shortcomings, but what bad thing has she done that cannot also be said of the Republicans?