Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

Having a baby murdered because it's an inconvenience someone doesn't want to deal with is fairly horrible.

Looks like the Trump campaign isn't paying their staff:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/donald-trump-policy-advisors-quit

Edit: looks like less "not getting paid" and more "work without contract".

 d-usa wrote:
It was that it can be viewed as being pro-something rather than simply being an "anti-women" position.

One can say it was so pro-life that it killed mothers (and their babies). These laws may not have been directly anti-women but they completely disregarded the lives of women and their children for the sake of political points and that idea that it theoretically saves lives. A dead pregnant woman is not really a good pro-life argument but it's really easy to argue something is pro-life if you completely disregard the consequences of your actions (not you but the lawmakers in these states). These pro-life arguments are on the same level as "CO2 is good for the enironment" arguments. In isolation somehow technically true but in context just wrong and dangerous.

Details behind the spoiler:

 skyth wrote:
Saying 'agenda' makes it sound sinister. Helping the underdogs and the trod upon is technically an agenda and 'pandering' to a demographic or agenda.

It's also having empathy and good morals.

Man, I agree with you on most policy issues, but you need to tone down the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously. "Agenda" has no sisnister undertones. How about you attack them on their latest phrase "peace through strength". You would have Orwell to back you up and can throw the whole political correct phrases idea back in their face. You have firm ground to stand on, just make sure of your footing.

Relapse wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

Having a baby murdered because it's an inconvenience someone doesn't want to deal with is fairly horrible.

And forcing them to carry it have a chance to die when giving birth and pay out the nose for it to be born isnt?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that unless your core issues are completely off the typical left-right spectrum, it's not really that hard to pick between the two.

Clinton will look to generally expand the role of government,

You act like Trump won't expand the role of the government. Both Republicans and Democrats do that, though on different issues. Democrats, though, are doing it to help people. Republicans, on the other hand, are doing it to hurt people. Please don't continue the 'Big Lie' of Republicans being small government...

skyth... that's a really outrageous statement.

I thought Trump planned to get the US government into the wall building business in a really yuuuge way, and make the best wall, 100%. Has he gone back on that plan?

Possibly??? But I don't give a gak as I'm convinced Hillary is going to win...

So I'm not sure what you are trying to do here...

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that unless your core issues are completely off the typical left-right spectrum, it's not really that hard to pick between the two.

Clinton will look to generally expand the role of government,

You act like Trump won't expand the role of the government. Both Republicans and Democrats do that, though on different issues. Democrats, though, are doing it to help people. Republicans, on the other hand, are doing it to hurt people. Please don't continue the 'Big Lie' of Republicans being small government...

skyth... that's a really outrageous statement.

I thought Trump planned to get the US government into the wall building business in a really yuuuge way, and make the best wall, 100%. Has he gone back on that plan?

Possibly??? But I don't give a gak as I'm convinced Hillary is going to win...

So I'm not sure what you are trying to do here...

I think the point was to change the subject off of the abortion tangent.

So, um, Pence released his tax returns.
There's going to be a ceasefire in Syria.
Trump said something.

Anything else we can move on to?

 skyth wrote:
Saying 'agenda' makes it sound sinister. Helping the underdogs and the trod upon is technically an agenda and 'pandering' to a demographic or agenda.

It's also having empathy and good morals.

It's not sinister it's just reality. Politicians take positions that are calculated to create political benefits for them. Politicians and political parties seek to gain power and consolidate and strengthen that power. When has either of the two main political parties or powerful politician deliberately done something politically harmful to them for altruistic purposes? Is it just coincidence that the people the Democrats have been claiming to help by expanding govt for the past several decades still need more govt and more help? Is it a coincidence that the interests served by the Republicans advocation for tax cuts and defense spending still need lower taxes and more defense spending year after year? They always want more power in the name of solving the same problems they've been promising to solve for decades and the end result is always rich and powerful politicians and political parties with the same unresolved problems being campaign issues every election cycle.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think the back and forth illustrates the more specific point, which is that liberal policies tend to disproportionately help lower status individuals, while conservative principles disproportionately help higher status ones.

That's an awfully wide brush Polonius... and I'm not going to get into the discussions over abortions since we'll know it'll derail this thread.

I stand by it. Can you think of any conservative positions that disproportionately help lower status people? I might be missing some, but I struggle to come up with any.

 Ustrello wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

Having a baby murdered because it's an inconvenience someone doesn't want to deal with is fairly horrible.

And forcing them to carry it have a chance to die when giving birth and pay out the nose for it to be born isnt?

That statement of yours didn't quite make sense. Are you saying forcing mothers to carry a baby that endangers their life is horrible? If so, I quite agree. Sometimes abortion is the only avenue if the mother would die.
What I talk of is a situation where someone just doesn't want to be bothered with a child and have it murdered in the womb. As stated earlier, an unwanted child may be given up for adoption.

Relapse wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

Having a baby murdered because it's an inconvenience someone doesn't want to deal with is fairly horrible.

And forcing them to carry it have a chance to die when giving birth and pay out the nose for it to be born isnt?

That statement of yours didn't quite make sense. Are you saying forcing mothers to carry a baby that endangers their life is horrible? If so, I quite agree. Sometimes abortion is the only avenue if the mother would die.
What I talk of is a situation where someone just doesn't want to be bothered with a child and have it murdered in the womb. As stated earlier, an unwanted child may be given up for adoption.

You can still die in childbirth if it is a normal child, and you never answered about forcing someone to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for a child they don't want

 Ustrello wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

Having a baby murdered because it's an inconvenience someone doesn't want to deal with is fairly horrible.

And forcing them to carry it have a chance to die when giving birth and pay out the nose for it to be born isnt?

That statement of yours didn't quite make sense. Are you saying forcing mothers to carry a baby that endangers their life is horrible? If so, I quite agree. Sometimes abortion is the only avenue if the mother would die.
What I talk of is a situation where someone just doesn't want to be bothered with a child and have it murdered in the womb. As stated earlier, an unwanted child may be given up for adoption.

You can still die in childbirth if it is a normal child, and you never answered about forcing someone to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for a child they don't want

Some might get pissy about what I'm about to post, but they can deal with it.


It's about personal responsibility (something that's dying out in Western society) and being an adult.


To put it simply: If you play, you pay. If you are not mature enough to take responsibility for the consequences of sexual activity, then you are not mature enough to be screwing around to begin with. Part of that maturity is understanding the consequences of your actions, and whether or not you can handle the responsibility that comes with it.

The problem with so-called "abortion on demand" (i.e. using abortion as a form of birth control) is that it's a "get out of jail free" card. An easy out from having to step up to the plate and deal with the responsibility. Too many people nowadays want their cake and eat it too.

I'm cool with abortion for medical reasons, and in the case of sexual assault/incest. But I find legal abortion on demand to be both disturbing and despicable for the reason of "I just don't want a child" or "I can't afford it". Joe Blow McWellhung and Mary Jane Rottencrotch should have thought about that before they did the horizontal mambo.

That's my view. Others will most definitely not agree.

Time to leave the abortion topic. I'm deleting any more posts about it past this point.

 Polonius wrote:
I think the back and forth illustrates the more specific point, which is that liberal policies tend to disproportionately help lower status individuals, while conservative principles disproportionately help higher status ones.

I think its important (maybe not so much on this physical website) that people remember where the Left / Right paradigm came from, with the King and where everybody sat and all that.

I get pretty myopic sometimes and posters like you help me realize that.

I mean that honestly.

You, sebster, Prestor Jon, and Ouze for levity makes this place miles above your average message board.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gary-johnson-asks-what-is-aleppo/ar-AAiE0Zg?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.

What exactly is the correct response to Aleppo? Everybody agrees that people there are suffering but it's not something that we can fix. Syria as a whole has been a humanitarian crisis since the fighting started and it's not going to end anytime soon and when it finally does the cessation of hostilities isn't going to suddenly fix all of the destroyed infrastructure, economic crisis, famine, etc that the war has wrought.

Should we send troops to deliver aid in some kind of doomed to fail Somalia redux? Should we start a war with Russia in order to depose Assad and bring about regime change?

Is Aleppo like the new Darfur? I'm ild enough to remember back when anyone who was anyone knew that Darfur was a humanitarian crisis and we just had to DO SOMETHING about it and the conflict in Sudan. It's been over a decade and Darfur and Sudan are still a hot mess of human suffering but you don't score any points for knowing about it because we've moved on to other distractions.

I'm sure Trump's solution to Aleppo is to spew out some inane word salad of jingoistic catch phrases and we all know that won't fix anything. Hillary can't fix it either but she's probably speak about the suffering with some knowledge and detail to get empathetic voters to ignore the fact that she can't offer any solution either but can do it in a more appealing manner. Unless you think that Hillary's foreign policy acumen that had her vote in favor of invading Afghanistan and Iraq while senator and then watch Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Ukraine fall apart while she was running the state department will somehow miraculously provide her with the solution to the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? I don't mean "you" to address BigWagghh solely but to everyone who's outraged over Johnson's lack of a ready reaponse to the "Aleppo?" question.

 whembly wrote:

Then I'm happy to inform you that your conclusion is incorrect.

I'm neither for Clinton nor for Trump.

To me, you're more like against Clinton first and maybe Trump second - but since "he's gonna lose anyway", you don't have to really try to fight him actively, right? It's also practical, since it means you don't really go against the Republican official candidate. And thus you stay true to your own party, the Republicans.

Trouble is, when you kept jumping at each lie told on Clinton by the Republican Electoral War Machine - the last one on her health, for example, you actually do support Trump's own job. Because that's what Trump wants to do; that people keep talking negatively on Clinton, so that they may believe they both are equally bad.

Why do you think people are actually betting on your final vote being for Trump? Because all you wrote until now was in favor of what Trump said about Clinton. But when Trump is saying something completely insane, you have less incentive to report it as "news".

To summarize it, everything Trump is doing is not worthy to be reported, 'cause in your mind "he's gonna lose anyway". But everything about Clinton, no matter what, is instantly of higher importance, and all people must be informed of that new treachery/evil plot/whatever you want to call it in a very negative way.

So, to me, it's quite clear you hate Clinton more than Trump. You keep saying that you don't want any of them, but your other posts, always in the same direction, are making me doubt it.

You still support what the Republicans are saying right now in the election. And by doing this, you're supporting their candidate; Trump. I can't believe you don't know that.

I'm perfectly willing to let Republican's electoral chances burn for allowing someone like Trump to take their nomination, EVEN if that helps Hillary Clinton or Democrats. (as if my piddly little vote would decide such a fate).

I would be willing to believe you if your former posts weren't saying something else. Also, it is a fact you tend to ignore the things that prove you wrong, and trying to change the subject when it becomes difficult to defend your position on something undefendable (but to be honest, you're not the only one doing that - still doesn't make it right, IMHO). That's why it's hard to believe you on that one. You have proved in the past to change your stance if it was favorable to your side, even if that was against the facts, even if it meant you have to go back on your previous words. Why wouldn't you do the same this time as well? That's where the bet is coming from.

We *do* have other parties here in the states.

It's a stance that I've taken quite a bit of flack for by other Republican voters (alt Right / Trumpian Cult / GOP fanatics) on other political forums that I participate on... but, nevertheless, I cannot in good conscious vote for either of them.

So, I'm going to say this with more feelings:
I will never vote for Clinton nor for Trump. Since I have this weird idea that in order for me to bitch about my elected officials, then I must participate in the election process... so, where does that leave me?

-Libertarian Party Gary Johnson
-Green Party Jill Stein
-Independent Conservative Evan McMullin

One of those three will be checked when I vote in November.

If you believe I'm throwing my vote away? Go for it.

But, you'll not shame me over my justifications in not voting for either Trump or Clinton.

Yes, I understand that. You choose your pride first. It's a perfectly understandable choice, and you are right to say it is yours to take.

But don't be surprised if it still doesn't make it right in the eyes of others. All choices have consequences, that is all I am saying here. Trying to ignore them will not make them disappear.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't mean "you" to address BigWagghh solely but to everyone who's outraged over Johnson's lack of a ready reaponse to the "Aleppo?" question.

The problem isn't so much that Johnson didn't have a magic solution to a problem that may or may not be solvable, it's that he walked into a scheduled interview, at a time when foreign policy was the subject of discussion about the mainstream candidates, without bothering to study the most important bits of news. Why wasn't he better prepared for that question? It's not like he was ambushed out of nowhere with it, legitimate candidates have a campaign staff whose job is to prepare for these things. So this failure just reinforces the idea that he's an irrelevant fringe candidate whose only contribution to the election is going to be as fodder for the comedians. A slip like this would be survivable if you're a credible mainstream candidate and can spin it as an isolated memory failure, it's a much bigger blow when the only thing anyone knows about you is that you're the guy who didn't know what Aleppo is.

edit: seems mod has put an end for this topic

I think if whembly lived somewhere other than MO, he would be more likely to vote for Trump. If his vote could actually impact the election and keep Hillary out of the office, he would hold his nose and fill in that circle (or however people vote in MO). But it's a pretty safe state for Trump, so voting for Johnson is pissing in the wind and won't affect the election at all.

If I thought it would make a lick of difference, I would vote for Hillary. I voted for Obama for two terms, even though I know I was just wasting ink by completing the arrow next to his name. Oklahoma is one of the reddest states, and it went for McCain, it went for Romney, and it will go for Trump. No democrat will carry this state for a long time. So I have the luxury of 'wasting' my vote on Johnson when I vote for every independent and third party candidate that I can.

Me and whembly will vote for Johnson for the same reason: because it doesn't matter who we vote for. The color of our states on the map on Election Day is already decided. If it was a close election in either state I would vote Hillary and he would vote Trump.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think the back and forth illustrates the more specific point, which is that liberal policies tend to disproportionately help lower status individuals, while conservative principles disproportionately help higher status ones.

That's an awfully wide brush Polonius... and I'm not going to get into the discussions over abortions since we'll know it'll derail this thread.

I stand by it. Can you think of any conservative positions that disproportionately help lower status people? I might be missing some, but I struggle to come up with any.

What do you mean by "lower status people"?

The poor?

 Sarouan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Then I'm happy to inform you that your conclusion is incorrect.

I'm neither for Clinton nor for Trump.

To me, you're more like against Clinton first and maybe Trump second - but since "he's gonna lose anyway", you don't have to really try to fight him actively, right? It's also practical, since it means you don't really go against the Republican official candidate. And thus you stay true to your own party, the Republicans.

Oh step off man.

Trump is such a horrible candidate... not to mention person as well, so it's easy to dogpile him.

Right now, I view myself without a favored party. The national Republican establishment created the environment that lead up to Trump's rise... and I despise them right now.

Trouble is, when you kept jumping at each lie told on Clinton by the Republican Electoral War Machine - the last one on her health, for example,

Dude... you do know that we Americans are "hard" on our Presidential candidates... right?

Every. fething. Word. OUT of HRC's mouth is most likely a lie or loaded condenscending bs. Throw ontop the shady quid pro quo activities facilitated by her foundation, then yes, I'll call them out.

you actually do support Trump's own job. Because that's what Trump wants to do; that people keep talking negatively on Clinton, so that they may believe they both are equally bad.

No. Me acknowledging that HRC is a horrible candidate isn't me "doing Trump's own job". That's me simply saying HRC is a horrible candidate.

This isn't mutual exclusive.

Furthermore, it's REALLY telling that HRC's campaign strategy is to make the election a Referendum on Trump.

She has worked in government in how many years??? Yet, ironically the strategy so far has been "yeah, but Trump!"... rather than "here's my records and belief".

Why do you think people are actually betting on your final vote being for Trump?

Sadly... they're mistaken and d-usa will have to donate the cost in my name to HRC's campaign.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Because all you wrote until now was in favor of what Trump said about Clinton. But when Trump is saying something completely insane, you have less incentive to report it as "news".

Huh? I brought up plenty of ridiculous Trumpisms.

To summarize it, everything Trump is doing is not worthy to be reported, 'cause in your mind "he's gonna lose anyway". But everything about Clinton, no matter what, is instantly of higher importance, and all people must be informed of that new treachery/evil plot/whatever you want to call it in a very negative way.

I despise both Trump and Clinton... for completely different reasons.

It's understood that Trump is bad... however, the amount of effort to White Knight Clinton is something else altogether.

So, to me, it's quite clear you hate Clinton more than Trump. You keep saying that you don't want any of them, but your other posts, always in the same direction, are making me doubt it.

Well... you keep on believing that boyo.

You still support what the Republicans are saying right now in the election. And by doing this, you're supporting their candidate; Trump. I can't believe you don't know that.

Huh? You're not making sense there.

I'm perfectly willing to let Republican's electoral chances burn for allowing someone like Trump to take their nomination, EVEN if that helps Hillary Clinton or Democrats. (as if my piddly little vote would decide such a fate).

I would be willing to believe you if your former posts weren't saying something else. Also, it is a fact you tend to ignore the things that prove you wrong, and trying to change the subject when it becomes difficult to defend your position on something undefendable (but to be honest, you're not the only one doing that - still doesn't make it right, IMHO). That's why it's hard to believe you on that one. You have proved in the past to change your stance if it was favorable to your side, even if that was against the facts, even if it meant you have to go back on your previous words. Why wouldn't you do the same this time as well? That's where the bet is coming from.

Believe what you will... obviously, I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

We *do* have other parties here in the states.

It's a stance that I've taken quite a bit of flack for by other Republican voters (alt Right / Trumpian Cult / GOP fanatics) on other political forums that I participate on... but, nevertheless, I cannot in good conscious vote for either of them.

So, I'm going to say this with more feelings:
I will never vote for Clinton nor for Trump. Since I have this weird idea that in order for me to bitch about my elected officials, then I must participate in the election process... so, where does that leave me?

-Libertarian Party Gary Johnson
-Green Party Jill Stein
-Independent Conservative Evan McMullin

One of those three will be checked when I vote in November.

If you believe I'm throwing my vote away? Go for it.

But, you'll not shame me over my justifications in not voting for either Trump or Clinton.

Yes, I understand that. You choose your pride first. It's a perfectly understandable choice, and you are right to say it is yours to take.

But don't be surprised if it still doesn't make it right in the eyes of others. All choices have consequences, that is all I am saying here. Trying to ignore them will not make them disappear.

"make it right in the eyes of others"?

There you go again...

 whembly wrote:
Yet, ironically the strategy so far has been "yeah, but Trump!"... rather than "here's my records and belief".

You know why? Because everyone except the conservatives (IOW, the people who will vote for her because of her records and beliefs) already knows what she's offering. It's not like she's going to break very far from the party platform, or that there's any alternative to vote for. If you're still saying "I need to see what your positions are" at this point in the election then you're either so horribly uninformed that you might as well flip a coin to choose your vote, or being dishonest about your motives for questioning her.

The "but Trump" strategy, on the other hand, actually reaches out to people who aren't already voting for her. She has the votes from anyone who would vote for her over policy issues, the only thing left is trying to convince people who disagree with her on policy issues that they're better off with a competent person from the opposing party than an incompetent raving lunatic from their own party.

It's understood that Trump is bad... however, the amount of effort to White Knight Clinton is something else altogether.

Please stop posting this straw man. Many people here will openly say that they support Clinton despite the fact that she's a flawed candidate and not our first pick. Pointing out the stupidity of the conservative attacks on her and the various "they're both just as bad" arguments is not "white knighting", nor is acknowledging that she is pretty indisputably the only reasonable candidate available.

Oh? Riddle me this Batman!



On a serious note: Hillary's problem is that she's expected to be that effective stateswoman because she has a massive political resume.

However, when she's on the campaign trail or in a forum where she has to think on her feet... she's simply horrible, which overshadows Trump's craptastic performance as well.

That's whats going on imo... that Hillary hasn't risen to her perceived stature.

 whembly wrote:

She has worked in government in how many years??? Yet, ironically the strategy so far has been "yeah, but Trump!"... rather than "here's my records and belief".

Her record and beliefs are well established, largely because she's been in politics for many years. Also, the "Yeah, but Trump!" meme has primarily been pushed by conservatives.

 whembly wrote:

It's understood that Trump is bad... however, the amount of effort to White Knight Clinton is something else altogether.

You're reducing yourself to 4chan and Reddit level arguments. Simply because a person disagrees with your position of "Hillary Clinton is horrible!" does not render them a "white knight".

Trump camp now says Larry King tricked them into appearing on Russian state own RT cable news network.

Uh huh.

of course.


The mental gymnastics required to stay in the GOP at the moment must be remarkable, possibly enough to drive us through to our next evolutionary advance.

I haven't seen a party so disorganised since ..since...... well... the Labour party in the UK currently actually


In entirely unrelated issues the Clinton Presidential lIbrary has released some photos from their back catalogue.

http://www.politico.com/gallery/2016/09/clinton-trump-pictures-002351?slide=5



they were probably already scheduled for release right ...?

Going back to a sad occasion

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/were-the-only-plane-in-the-sky-214230

is worth a read.

 reds8n wrote:


In entirely unrelated issues the Clinton Presidential lIbrary has released some photos from their back catalogue.

http://www.politico.com/gallery/2016/09/clinton-trump-pictures-002351?slide=7

Can some explain to me what is actually going on in this picture

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't mean "you" to address BigWagghh solely but to everyone who's outraged over Johnson's lack of a ready reaponse to the "Aleppo?" question.

The problem isn't so much that Johnson didn't have a magic solution to a problem that may or may not be solvable, it's that he walked into a scheduled interview, at a time when foreign policy was the subject of discussion about the mainstream candidates, without bothering to study the most important bits of news. Why wasn't he better prepared for that question? It's not like he was ambushed out of nowhere with it, legitimate candidates have a campaign staff whose job is to prepare for these things. So this failure just reinforces the idea that he's an irrelevant fringe candidate whose only contribution to the election is going to be as fodder for the comedians. A slip like this would be survivable if you're a credible mainstream candidate and can spin it as an isolated memory failure, it's a much bigger blow when the only thing anyone knows about you is that you're the guy who didn't know what Aleppo is.

He showed that he knew there was a conflict in Syria and that it is causing hardship and suffering for the Syrian people. By the end of the interview he gave the stock answer of "yes there is a humanitarian crisis in Aleppo and that is a terrible thing."

The interview wouldn't have raised concerns if reverse the order of Johnson's comments. He's not been great on camera, he doesn't show a command of a lot of diverse issues and he's often slow to provide an answer and stumbles over it along the way. As has been said already at least Johnson has honestly admitted when he doesn't know something and gives answers promising to research a question/issue more to formulate a response. He hasn't been active in politics since being the governor of New Mexico beyond being the token (toking?) candidate for the Libertarian Party and it shows. To me it can be refreshing to see somebody act like a normal person during the campaign process but Johnson isn't a strong candidate with wide appeal which is a shame because this should be a great year for third parties.

I would strongly encourage everyone to participate in the election, vote their conscience and let the chips fall where they may. I'm just glad that it's finally Peyton Manning commercial season again so there's plenty of safe topics to chat about at work besides which of the two main candidates leaves voters feeling the most apathetic about politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 reds8n wrote:


In entirely unrelated issues the Clinton Presidential lIbrary has released some photos from their back catalogue.

http://www.politico.com/gallery/2016/09/clinton-trump-pictures-002351?slide=7

Can some explain to me what is actually going on in this picture

You know that saying about greased palms? And how Trump brags about his hands? Well that's how he gets projects done in NY when Hillary is a senator there. Politics is a dirty dirty business.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 reds8n wrote:


In entirely unrelated issues the Clinton Presidential lIbrary has released some photos from their back catalogue.

http://www.politico.com/gallery/2016/09/clinton-trump-pictures-002351?slide=7

Can some explain to me what is actually going on in this picture

You know that saying about greased palms? And how Trump brags about his hands? Well that's how he gets projects done in NY when Hillary is a senator there. Politics is a dirty dirty business.

Maybe his hands just appear huge compared to what he's holding?

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think the back and forth illustrates the more specific point, which is that liberal policies tend to disproportionately help lower status individuals, while conservative principles disproportionately help higher status ones.

That's an awfully wide brush Polonius... and I'm not going to get into the discussions over abortions since we'll know it'll derail this thread.

I stand by it. Can you think of any conservative positions that disproportionately help lower status people? I might be missing some, but I struggle to come up with any.

What do you mean by "lower status people"?

The poor?

The poor is a very vague term, but it works. I'd encompass the destitute, the working poor, and the lower middle class. The upper middle class has been doing great (and has been growing), which is one of the reasons the middle middle class is disappearing. If you want a fact that doesn't fit any politicians talking points, it's that more of this country than ever has a high paying, professional job and lives in self segregated suburbs and neighborhoods. But I digress.

There are other ways a person is lower status, just look at the laundry list of protected classes. Blacks and latinos are lower status compared to white and arguably Asians. Christians (including catholics and Mormons) and Jew are higher status compared to other religions, although this is more of a fringe issue much of the time. Obviously straight people are higher status than queer people of nearly any persuasion. You do have the niche issue of able bodied compared to disabled (especially those mentally disabled) And finally men are higher in status than women.

I don't think that every policy hits all of these, or even any of them. But when you look at a platform and see policies that consistently benefit the well off, men, and white folk, I think you can draw a conclusion that the party is mostly interested in advancing the interests of those that already have status and power.

I'm not saying this is based on bigotry, it's simple tribalism. The arguments are made based on property rights, and individual decisions, etc, but they all serve a common purpose: to keep economic and political power in the hands of those that have it. That's what conservatism does, by maintaining a traditional social order.

If you want to know how Trump got the GOP nomination, look at the demographics of his polling numbers. He does better than HRC with Men, with Whites, with the better off, and interestingly, those without college educations. The center of that Venn diagram are members of every majority, having no advanced education, yet are better off than average.

 d-usa wrote:
I think if whembly lived somewhere other than MO, he would be more likely to vote for Trump. If his vote could actually impact the election and keep Hillary out of the office, he would hold his nose and fill in that circle (or however people vote in MO). But it's a pretty safe state for Trump, so voting for Johnson is pissing in the wind and won't affect the election at all.

If I thought it would make a lick of difference, I would vote for Hillary. I voted for Obama for two terms, even though I know I was just wasting ink by completing the arrow next to his name. Oklahoma is one of the reddest states, and it went for McCain, it went for Romney, and it will go for Trump. No democrat will carry this state for a long time. So I have the luxury of 'wasting' my vote on Johnson when I vote for every independent and third party candidate that I can.

Me and whembly will vote for Johnson for the same reason: because it doesn't matter who we vote for. The color of our states on the map on Election Day is already decided. If it was a close election in either state I would vote Hillary and he would vote Trump.

Oddly enough, because Texas is so red is exactly why I'll vote blue instead of...whatever colours the third parties are? Because the GOP here knows that any 3rd party vote isn't a blue vote, they won't care. At best, they might adopt or at least act sympathetic to the more red leaning ideals among the thirds to lure them in. But as long as I vote for the actual opposition, and if enough of us do the same, that can send a real message.