NationStates

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
Please vote for literally anything but Trump. Write in Andrew Jackson's moldering corpse, but please not Trump.

Better than Hillary.

Listen. Under Trump, people are gonna die. Poor people. Disabled people. Gay people. Brown people. Most won't be here, in this country, but a lot will be: children who can't access proper healthcare, disabled people who continue to be forced to survive on the pitiful stipend we give them and nothing more, and Arabs -- and people who just look Arab -- who are gonna get fucking lynched because the sort of people who hate them just for existing are gonna feel validated, are gonna get bolder, aren't gonna be so afraid to act because, hey, enough people support them that Trump is in the White House. We're seeing the violent arm of the global right wing being increasingly emboldened by global politics. And once it becomes acceptable to do that again, well... "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Hillary? Yeah, some will still die, but they'll die at about the rate they currently do, and things might get marginally better, as opposed to Trump, whose policies will be actively detrimental to the lives of, if not millions, certainly tens of thousands. World events throughout this political season have left me more and more convinced that his dangerous brand of xenophobia and right-wing economics must be stopped here and now.

Clinton will probably kill people in some foreign country, but eh.

Also, the massive xenophobia that the Brexit passing has enabled made me even more fearful of what would happen under a Trump presidency. It's already getting worse, but if he wins? My god, it'll get ugly.

Saiwania wrote:

Geilinor wrote:You're a Dump Trump supporter now?

Yes, but only because there is every indication that Trump hasn't been doing what it takes to win. I'm in a dilemma where my favored candidate is setting himself up for defeat. I care more about the Republican party, so I'll switch if a convention coup happens.

Translation: "Whatever gives the most Pluses."

Corrian wrote:Clinton will probably kill people in some foreign country, but eh.

Also, the massive xenophobia that the Brexit passing has enabled made me even more fearful of what would happen under a Trump presidency. It's already getting worse, but if he wins? My god, it'll get ugly.

Yeah, but frankly, Trump is probably even more trigger happy. He can barely handle being called out on Twitter -- can you imagine if he was our Commander in Chief? As I said, people will die under Clinton, but more will die under Trump. A lot more.

Astrolinium wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Better than Hillary.

Listen. Under Trump, people are gonna die. Poor people. Disabled people. Gay people. Brown people. Most won't be here, in this country, but a lot will be: children who can't access proper healthcare, disabled people who continue to be forced to survive on the pitiful stipend we give them and nothing more, and Arabs -- and people who just look Arab -- who are gonna get fucking lynched because the sort of people who hate them just for existing are gonna feel validated, are gonna get bolder, aren't gonna be so afraid to act because, hey, enough people support them that Trump is in the White House. We're seeing the violent arm of the global right wing being increasingly emboldened by global politics. And once it becomes acceptable to do that again, well... "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Hillary? Yeah, some will still die, but they'll die at about the rate they currently do, and things might get marginally better, as opposed to Trump, whose policies will be actively detrimental to the lives of, if not millions, certainly tens of thousands. World events throughout this political season have left me more and more convinced that his dangerous brand of xenophobia and right-wing economics must be stopped here and now.

The scaremongering is nice and all but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary has said she wants to more or less put me out of a job and the fact she's opposed to pretty much everything I believe in.

I don't like Trump by any means, but if I have to choose between her or him it's going to be him even though I don't like either of them.

Astrolinium wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Better than Hillary.

Listen. Under Trump, people are gonna die. Poor people. Disabled people. Gay people. Brown people. Most won't be here, in this country, but a lot will be: children who can't access proper healthcare, disabled people who continue to be forced to survive on the pitiful stipend we give them and nothing more, and Arabs -- and people who just look Arab -- who are gonna get fucking lynched because the sort of people who hate them just for existing are gonna feel validated, are gonna get bolder, aren't gonna be so afraid to act because, hey, enough people support them that Trump is in the White House. We're seeing the violent arm of the global right wing being increasingly emboldened by global politics. And once it becomes acceptable to do that again, well... "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Hillary? Yeah, some will still die, but they'll die at about the rate they currently do, and things might get marginally better, as opposed to Trump, whose policies will be actively detrimental to the lives of, if not millions, certainly tens of thousands. World events throughout this political season have left me more and more convinced that his dangerous brand of xenophobia and right-wing economics must be stopped here and now.

Yes. I very much agree with you. This is getting dangerously close to a point of no return. Defeat Trump and hope the wiser heads of the GOP feverishly clean their house and do some soul searching.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
Listen. Under Trump, people are gonna die. Poor people. Disabled people. Gay people. Brown people. Most won't be here, in this country, but a lot will be: children who can't access proper healthcare, disabled people who continue to be forced to survive on the pitiful stipend we give them and nothing more, and Arabs -- and people who just look Arab -- who are gonna get fucking lynched because the sort of people who hate them just for existing are gonna feel validated, are gonna get bolder, aren't gonna be so afraid to act because, hey, enough people support them that Trump is in the White House. We're seeing the violent arm of the global right wing being increasingly emboldened by global politics. And once it becomes acceptable to do that again, well... "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Hillary? Yeah, some will still die, but they'll die at about the rate they currently do, and things might get marginally better, as opposed to Trump, whose policies will be actively detrimental to the lives of, if not millions, certainly tens of thousands. World events throughout this political season have left me more and more convinced that his dangerous brand of xenophobia and right-wing economics must be stopped here and now.

The scaremongering is nice and all but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary has said she wants to more or less put me out of a job and the fact she's opposed to pretty much everything I believe in.

I don't like Trump by any means, but if I have to choose between her or him it's going to be him even though I don't like either of them.

This is not "scaremongering". If you vote for Trump, you are saying you are okay with consigning an unknowable number of people to die horribly: Trump is not going to increase benefits to the poor, he is not going to help keep the unemployed on their feet until they can get jobs, he is not going to give the disabled the means to actually survive, he's not going to take the homeless off the streets or feed the hungry, he's not going to make minorities live safer lives, he's not going to help the sick afford healthcare, which should be a human right, and he's not going to do a thing about climate change and reducing emissions.

If you're willing to consign somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of people to death just because you, personally, think your job security is worth it, then you're the one who can get out of my fucking country, because you shame me and all other moral people, and there's nothing about that which makes America great again.

Astrolinium wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
The scaremongering is nice and all but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary has said she wants to more or less put me out of a job and the fact she's opposed to pretty much everything I believe in.

I don't like Trump by any means, but if I have to choose between her or him it's going to be him even though I don't like either of them.

This is not "scaremongering". If you vote for Trump, you are saying you are okay with consigning an unknowable number of people to die horribly: Trump is not going to increase benefits to the poor, he is not going to help keep the unemployed on their feet until they can get jobs, he is not going to give the disabled the means to actually survive, he's not going to take the homeless off the streets or feed the hungry, he's not going to make minorities live safer lives, he's not going to help the sick afford healthcare, which should be a human right, and he's not going to do a thing about climate change and reducing emissions.

If you're willing to consign somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of people to death just because you, personally, think your job security is worth it, then you're the one who can get out of my fucking country, because you shame me and all other moral people, and there's nothing about that which makes America great again.

Yeah, it is scaremongering. People say the same shit about every candidate that they oppose and it never happens, Obama was supposed to be the literal anti-Christ who would destroy this nation and guess what didn't happen. Sorry I'm not willing to throw away my career and beliefs for your candidate, welcome to the real world

Also, WRA voting for Trump in Washington state wouldn't likely be much of a game change, anyway

Corrian wrote:Also, WRA voting for Trump in Washington state wouldn't likely be much of a game change, anyway

Pretty much yeah, I hate not living in a swing state. It feels useless to vote anything other than Dem here.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
This is not "scaremongering". If you vote for Trump, you are saying you are okay with consigning an unknowable number of people to die horribly: Trump is not going to increase benefits to the poor, he is not going to help keep the unemployed on their feet until they can get jobs, he is not going to give the disabled the means to actually survive, he's not going to take the homeless off the streets or feed the hungry, he's not going to make minorities live safer lives, he's not going to help the sick afford healthcare, which should be a human right, and he's not going to do a thing about climate change and reducing emissions.

If you're willing to consign somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of people to death just because you, personally, think your job security is worth it, then you're the one who can get out of my fucking country, because you shame me and all other moral people, and there's nothing about that which makes America great again.

Yeah, it is scaremongering. People say the same shit about every candidate that they oppose and it never happens, Obama was supposed to be the literal anti-Christ who would destroy this nation and guess what didn't happen. Sorry I'm not willing to throw away my career and beliefs for your candidate, welcome to the real world

Because pointing out someone with lawsuits about stiffing and swindling people out of money swarming around him like flies on shit shouldn't be placed in charge of guiding the nation's economy is just scaremongering. *nod*

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
This is not "scaremongering". If you vote for Trump, you are saying you are okay with consigning an unknowable number of people to die horribly: Trump is not going to increase benefits to the poor, he is not going to help keep the unemployed on their feet until they can get jobs, he is not going to give the disabled the means to actually survive, he's not going to take the homeless off the streets or feed the hungry, he's not going to make minorities live safer lives, he's not going to help the sick afford healthcare, which should be a human right, and he's not going to do a thing about climate change and reducing emissions.

If you're willing to consign somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of people to death just because you, personally, think your job security is worth it, then you're the one who can get out of my fucking country, because you shame me and all other moral people, and there's nothing about that which makes America great again.

Yeah, it is scaremongering. People say the same shit about every candidate that they oppose and it never happens, Obama was supposed to be the literal anti-Christ who would destroy this nation and guess what didn't happen. Sorry I'm not willing to throw away my career and beliefs for your candidate, welcome to the real world

I mean, if you think condescending and being flippant about a real threat and being okay with supporting murder is okay just so you can feel weirdly superior, then I suppose that-

Well, I can't say the thing I want to say there, because that would probably be against several of this forum's rules, but I think that being uncritical about your perception of these events is monstrously shortsighted in the least and actively malicious at the most. I am not just saying things to slander someone because Trump is not just another candidate. He has, on several occasions, shown support for banning anyone who is Muslim, for deporting the country's undocumented population, for purely aggressive foreign wars, for actually threatening other countries with nuclear war, and a whole host of other things that should scare anyone in their right mind to the bone. I don't know if you've been paying attention to Britain right now, but people who support very similar things to Trump are gaining real ground over there, and people are dying.

Please pull your head out of the ground and pay attention, because Trump is on the wrong side of nearly every issue that will be important in the next century, and probably the biggest is climate change, which might end up killing every single one of us.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
Listen. Under Trump, people are gonna die. Poor people. Disabled people. Gay people. Brown people. Most won't be here, in this country, but a lot will be: children who can't access proper healthcare, disabled people who continue to be forced to survive on the pitiful stipend we give them and nothing more, and Arabs -- and people who just look Arab -- who are gonna get fucking lynched because the sort of people who hate them just for existing are gonna feel validated, are gonna get bolder, aren't gonna be so afraid to act because, hey, enough people support them that Trump is in the White House. We're seeing the violent arm of the global right wing being increasingly emboldened by global politics. And once it becomes acceptable to do that again, well... "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Hillary? Yeah, some will still die, but they'll die at about the rate they currently do, and things might get marginally better, as opposed to Trump, whose policies will be actively detrimental to the lives of, if not millions, certainly tens of thousands. World events throughout this political season have left me more and more convinced that his dangerous brand of xenophobia and right-wing economics must be stopped here and now.

The scaremongering is nice and all but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary has said she wants to more or less put me out of a job and the fact she's opposed to pretty much everything I believe in.

I don't like Trump by any means, but if I have to choose between her or him it's going to be him even though I don't like either of them.

Trump's going to put me out of a job too, seeing as thought economics will be irrelevant with the bellyfeel populism provides.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
Listen. Under Trump, people are gonna die. Poor people. Disabled people. Gay people. Brown people. Most won't be here, in this country, but a lot will be: children who can't access proper healthcare, disabled people who continue to be forced to survive on the pitiful stipend we give them and nothing more, and Arabs -- and people who just look Arab -- who are gonna get fucking lynched because the sort of people who hate them just for existing are gonna feel validated, are gonna get bolder, aren't gonna be so afraid to act because, hey, enough people support them that Trump is in the White House. We're seeing the violent arm of the global right wing being increasingly emboldened by global politics. And once it becomes acceptable to do that again, well... "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Hillary? Yeah, some will still die, but they'll die at about the rate they currently do, and things might get marginally better, as opposed to Trump, whose policies will be actively detrimental to the lives of, if not millions, certainly tens of thousands. World events throughout this political season have left me more and more convinced that his dangerous brand of xenophobia and right-wing economics must be stopped here and now.

The scaremongering is nice and all but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary has said she wants to more or less put me out of a job and the fact she's opposed to pretty much everything I believe in.

I don't like Trump by any means, but if I have to choose between her or him it's going to be him even though I don't like either of them.

I get that you care about that issue, but seriously. Her wanting to pass gun legislation compared to the harm a Trump presidency would cause for millions?

Geilinor wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
The scaremongering is nice and all but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary has said she wants to more or less put me out of a job and the fact she's opposed to pretty much everything I believe in.

I don't like Trump by any means, but if I have to choose between her or him it's going to be him even though I don't like either of them.

I get that you care about that issue, but seriously. Her wanting to pass gun legislation compared to the harm a Trump presidency would cause for millions?

I think the real flaw in this line of reasoning is that Trump is now for the very same legislation Hillary is supporting. He's a populist idiot who flipped as soon as he thought popular opinion shifted her way.

I get not supporting her for one's career, I've stated in this forum that I can't support Gary Johnson for the same reason. But Trump doesn't offer you anymore security on the subject than Hillary, so saying you'll support him over her is nonsensical. If you're a gun advocate, Johnson is the way to go, definitively.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:The fuck you smoking? Her lead shrank by two points when Johnson and Stein are included. I suspect Stein won't break 1% and Johnson won't break five anyway.

He's slightly less acerbic than usual, but he was like this back in March.

I don't smoke anything, it was never my thing tbh. I did forget it included Stein though.

If Johnson won't break five then I might as well just vote Trump.

I will be very disappointed if you vote for Trump. You don't want to disappoint an ironclad, do you?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Corrian wrote:Also, WRA voting for Trump in Washington state wouldn't likely be much of a game change, anyway

Pretty much yeah, I hate not living in a swing state. It feels useless to vote anything other than Dem here.

It's not useless if it helps the LP get to 5%.

USS Monitor wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I don't smoke anything, it was never my thing tbh. I did forget it included Stein though.

If Johnson won't break five then I might as well just vote Trump.

I will be very disappointed if you vote for Trump. You don't want to disappoint an ironclad, do you?

Well I may disappoint a fair number of people here so eh.

Corrian wrote:Clinton will probably kill people in some foreign country, but eh.

Also, the massive xenophobia that the Brexit passing has enabled made me even more fearful of what would happen under a Trump presidency. It's already getting worse, but if he wins? My god, it'll get ugly.

Make no mistake about what is driving Trump's campaign- desire for a bigoted, authoritarian strong man.

This election has in some part become a referendum on fascism for the American electorate. Their will be a steep price if we lose that referendum.

Astrolinium wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:
Considering the talk of Warren as VP, and the recent reports that she was on the short list of people being vetted, this is a pretty strong indication of Clinton's leanings, I think.

It may be a sort of "trial run" to see how she and Warren work together and how the public responds to them campaigning together. If its gone well, Warren will likely be VP.

I wonder if we'll maybe see some of the other short-listers being taken out on the town in a similar way, auditioning them all for the role.

Well, the other two front-runners, reportedly, are Tim Kaine (Senator from Virginia) and Julian Castro (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development).

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
I wonder if we'll maybe see some of the other short-listers being taken out on the town in a similar way, auditioning them all for the role.

Well, the other two front-runners, reportedly, are Tim Kaine (Senator from Virginia) and Julian Castro (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development).

I've a feeling that those reports aren't credible, but who knows. That's the issue with leaks - to know if they're credible, you have to be even closer to the source (or others who know) than the reporter.

It seems like this whole refugee crisis (In large part caused by America of course, though a lot to do with general hell in the middle east in general) has sparked a huge spike in nationalism and racism in general, and it's scary.

As my sister and I talked about before, it feels like we're stuck in this little weird area, worldwide, where we're stuck between making massive progress for the better in a large chunk of the world and stuck where a whole other group of people want to go the EXACT opposite and completely make us go further backwards. It just seems to be in a state of extreme one way, extreme the other way, and the middle ground is shrinking. Case in point the far right and far left being the two candidates in Austria recently. It's just a weird time.

Corrian wrote:Case in point the far right and far left being the two candidates in Austria recently. It's just a weird time.

I don't know if Van der Bellen is really 'far left'. In a continent where Marxist parties regularly break 10%, and social-democracy is the norm, a left-leaning liberal is nothing that will give anyone any pause.

The most recent article I could find suggests that Sen Brown is on the shortlist. It's actually a pretty good one.

So, Nevada the charlie foxtrot that created so much drama due to the tie-breakers and such. Bernie's state director advised her staffers to use two headed coins if it came to a coin toss. Apparently she was unaware that Nevada knows a thing or two about rigging games of chance and instead used decks of cards.

Khadgar wrote:So, Nevada the charlie foxtrot that created so much drama due to the tie-breakers and such. Bernie's state director advised her staffers to use two headed coins if it came to a coin toss. Apparently she was unaware that Nevada knows a thing or two about rigging games of chance and instead used decks of cards.

The article is obviously biased. Its title implies that this was directed by the national campaign without evidence, and the first line asserts that the Democratic Primary wasn't rigged (maybe not overall, at least in the sense of the results being fraudulent, but you can sure as hell point to a lot of sleazy shit in individual races and heavy establishment favouritism toward Clinton from the start), and then accuse the Sanders campaign of trying to rig it, and specifically accuse multiple staffers of being involved despite the article offering no evidence of that either and admitting they don't know weather any other staffers did this. While I have read all of the links, the only evidence quoted in the article itself is an "anecdote" from anonymous sources. Its hard for me to take their charges seriously when the article is an obvious Clintonite hit piece, designed to drag Sanders' name through the mud even though the campaign is effectively over.

And seriously, what is the point of this shit? You won. Why keep attacking the losing side with weak and disingenuous arguments? It only comes across as petty and spiteful and fuels internal divisions going into the general election. Winners who kick their opponent when he's down should not be looked on kindly.

It only makes sense as spite, wanting to punish Sanders for daring to challenge Clinton the way he did, or as fear, that what he represents will not end with his campaign.

As to the Nevada director- if it can be proved that she did this, then she's a sleazy piece of shit. This should not be held against Sanders' campaign as a whole unless this was condoned or ordered at high levels- and I see no evidence of that.

Or would you like me to lay every nasty thing a Clinton supporter ever did at Hillary's feet?