Election Thread 2016

[Frogacuda]

He would get to nominate judges to SCOTUS, and he'd likely fuck up foreign relations to the point that the next two presidents would spend their terms repairing the damage. I'd rather not have him set us back a few decades. The problem is that Hillary is a hawk and not progressive at all, and I REALLY don't want to spend the next 4 years watching all her scandals unfold on TV.

People underestimate how long it can take to fix shit that someone fucked up.

Like, I was talking to my mother about how our ill-advised interference in Iraq has given way to ISIS, and she just wasn't grasping the fact that it will take generations to undo that. That we can't just go in there and "fix" ISIS and put the genie back it the bottle. Yeah, ISIS sucks and now we have to deal with that, but creating ongoing war in the region only strengthens anti-American sentiment there.

He plays within the flawed rules

But they're the only rules he knows. He doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of politics or economics. Just this barstool "You know what I would do..." shit that doesn't make any sense in real life.

[Yoshi]

If by "reparations" you mean cleaning up the worst financial disaster in decades and an illegal war, then yes, we'll still be dealing with that after January. The damage Bush and his war criminal cronies caused is going to take a lot longer than 8 years to fix. The problem is that Trump would be a step in the wrong direction. And if he treats The U.S. and Nato like he treated Trump University, Trump Airlines, or Trump Steaks (LOL), things aren't going to get any better.

Let me make sure I understand. You're using things Hillary supported as examples of what Trump might do?

[Frogacuda]

Let me make sure I understand. You're using things Hillary supported as examples of what Trump might do?

I mean, do you think he wouldn't?

[Yoshi]

I think "might" beats "already did" every day and twice on Sunday.

[Frogacuda]

Don't be so sure about that.

Yeah, I get it, Hillary is basically a Regan-era Republican. She's not what most progressives want. She's a warhawk. She still seems less dangerous than Trump in that regard.

I still don't get why people like yourself hate her so much. She's basically all you ever wanted out of a Democrat. i.e. a Republican with less bible banging.

[Yoshi]

Because only liberals who lack perspective think she's a Reagan-era Republican.

[Frogacuda]

Enlighten me. Scandal and conspiracy aside, politically how does she not fit that mold?

[Melf]

Let me make sure I understand. You're using things Hillary supported as examples of what Trump might do?

Things he (before he did one of his signature flip-flops) and Pence supported too. At least Hillary admits she fucked up about Iraq. Trump simply shrugged it off and said Pence was "allowed to make a mistake." Would that be an acceptable stance if he starts charging our Nato allies? Rushes into confrontation with Iran or another Middle Eastern country?

And since when does a candidate's official stance on policy and his party's platform become things not to be taken seriously? Since when has "he might do it" become acceptable? Do you think he won't do those things or at least try? What will you say if he does them? Oops?

[Fe 26]

She's pretty converative. She was against gay marriage. She thinks poor minority children are little thugs. She ' voted for the Patriot act. She's little better than Cheney with tits.

[Doc Holliday]

She talks a good game, doe?

http://www.city-journal.org/html/hil...ses-14624.html