US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[Gauthier]

Oh, yes, the "ruination" of the nation from the Global Financial Crisis, caused by Wall Street and President Bush's asleep-at-the-help "regulators". Yeah, right. Methinks that CC is pulling his ideas from his backside - there is no metric, literally no measurable metric, on which America has done poorly over the past eight years. But evangelical right-wingers like CC prefer to claim that it's all going poorly, and that only their way will make things go right again. By which, of course, they mean the restoration of the white male as the natural and lawful head of the universe, The Way It Was Meant To Be.

Erm...I don't think it should be taken seriously. Look at CC's sig, and I think you'll come to the conclusion I did. Namely, it's a satirical poster.

You're just optimistic.

[Socialist Nordia]

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2016/08/04/ ... n-detroit/
Build a wall. This is great.

[Frank Zipper]

I have rapidly come to fucking hate "satirical posters".

[Lebanonne]

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2016/08/04/protesters-building-a-wall-to-stop-trump-from-speaking-in-detroit/
Build a wall. This is great.

Trump the Cockroach. Sounds like a brand new meme.

https://www.facebook.com/20336702268588 ... =1&theater

[Hurdergaryp]

Erm...I don't think it should be taken seriously. Look at CC's sig, and I think you'll come to the conclusion I did. Namely, it's a satirical poster.

You're just optimistic.

Many were the times that a newcomer was considered to be a satirical poster, only to find out after a while that the person was dead serious.

[Repercussions of the Florida Recount]

I have rapidly come to fucking hate "satirical posters".

Yeah.
Me too.

[The Archregimancy]

Look at CC's sig, and I think you'll come to the conclusion I did. Namely, it's a satirical poster.

On this point, just a quick note that we will likely take a dim view of people using puppets to post opinions that are directly opposed to their own this election season.

I've already deleted two accounts for trolling puppetwanking this election season; I'd prefer not to have to delete others.

The parties involved here know who they are; I hope they'll take note.

[Hurdergaryp]

Look at CC's sig, and I think you'll come to the conclusion I did. Namely, it's a satirical poster.

On this point, just a quick note that we will likely take a dim view of people using puppets to post opinions that are directly opposed to their own this election season.

I've already deleted two accounts for trolling puppetwanking this election season; I'd prefer not to have to delete others.

The parties involved here know who they are; I hope they'll take note.

They apparently did, for the thread suddenly ground to a halt.

[Trumpostan]

I don't think an armed revolt is in the cards, as inflammatory as this election may be.

It will be yuuuge! Malheur episode II: Bubba and his pals strike back

[USS Monitor]

It's probably better than the alternative: actually becoming a big enough movement to vote a libertarian president in the White House, only to discover that the whole ideology is woefully inadequate. After that realization a military coup is probably one of the better alternatives.

This isn't Turkey, we don't need a military coup to save our core ideals...come to think of it, no nation besides Turkey can really make that claim.

Anyway, even with a Libertarian President, there's still Congress to contend with, so they couldn't get that much done.

If they do a lot, they've missed the point of libertarianism.

[Llamalandia]

This isn't Turkey, we don't need a military coup to save our core ideals...come to think of it, no nation besides Turkey can really make that claim.

Anyway, even with a Libertarian President, there's still Congress to contend with, so they couldn't get that much done.

If they do a lot, they've missed the point of libertarianism.

How are you defining "doing things". I mean, eliminating large sections of the government is arguably a rather involved effort and also a libertarian goal. Plus its not like libertarians are against all government just most of it and want it to be kept small.

[Senkaku]

Ooh shiny new megathread, very nice indeed.

This isn't Turkey, we don't need a military coup to save our core ideals...come to think of it, no nation besides Turkey can really make that claim.

Anyway, even with a Libertarian President, there's still Congress to contend with, so they couldn't get that much done.

If they do a lot, they've missed the point of libertarianism.

I mean obliterating our institutions and replacing them with little to nothing would arguably be doing a lot. If a libertarian president just left things as they stand, I doubt you'd be pleased.

[USS Monitor]

I have rapidly come to fucking hate "satirical posters".

I hope you don't feel that way about ironclads...

[Shrillland]

I have rapidly come to fucking hate "satirical posters".

I hope you don't feel that way about ironclads...

Rest assured, our love of ironclads is immovable here.

[Hurdergaryp]

I have rapidly come to fucking hate "satirical posters".

I hope you don't feel that way about ironclads...

Ironclads are cool, even though they are utterly obsolete.

[Llamalandia]

Ooh shiny new megathread, very nice indeed.

If they do a lot, they've missed the point of libertarianism.

I mean obliterating our institutions and replacing them with little to nothing would arguably be doing a lot. If a libertarian president just left things as they stand, I doubt you'd be pleased.

Although, they can't unconstitutionally eliminate them. I mean if President Johnson just drafts an executive order to say abolish the dept of Ed, while I might agree with his goal, I would decry his means for achieving it.

[Philjia]

Severely missed opportunity to name the thread "The Audacity of Hype".

At this point it's a question of who can get to November with more wheels left on their cart. It looks like it will be Hillary at the moment, but there's plenty of time for it to turn out that she drinks the blood of virgins or something. Trump might just pull out if he keeps polling badly because he doesn't want to lose any more money.

[Llamalandia]

Severely missed opportunity to name the thread "The Audacity of Hype".

At this point it's a question of who can get to November with more wheels left on their cart. It looks like it will be Hillary at the moment, but there's plenty of time for it to turn out that she drinks the blood of virgins or something. Trump might just pull out if he keeps polling badly because he doesn't want to lose any more money.

A. We all know she does that already, that's hardly news.
B. You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Hurdergaryp]

Severely missed opportunity to name the thread "The Audacity of Hype".

At this point it's a question of who can get to November with more wheels left on their cart. It looks like it will be Hillary at the moment, but there's plenty of time for it to turn out that she drinks the blood of virgins or something. Trump might just pull out if he keeps polling badly because he doesn't want to lose any more money.

Eh, Trump will probably let somebody else go bankrupt for his shenanigans, because that is the winner's way.

[USS Monitor]

If they do a lot, they've missed the point of libertarianism.

How are you defining "doing things". I mean, eliminating large sections of the government is arguably a rather involved effort and also a libertarian goal. Plus its not like libertarians are against all government just most of it and want it to be kept small.

Gutting everything is libertarian, but also stupid. I'd rather have things gradually scaled back.

But leaving that aside for the moment, when most people talk about the government getting stuff done, that usually means sticking its nose in social justice issues or meddling with the economy or intervening in foreign affairs or stuff like that which Libertarians want less of.

[Llamalandia]

Is there a minimum number of justices the supreme court has to have filled? I mean a divided govt, likely means we won't see any new appointments going through. Ginsberg can't live forever, neither can Thomas. I can easily see the court being reduced as low as five during a CLinton presidency.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

How are you defining "doing things". I mean, eliminating large sections of the government is arguably a rather involved effort and also a libertarian goal. Plus its not like libertarians are against all government just most of it and want it to be kept small.

Gutting everything is libertarian, but also stupid. I'd rather have things gradually scaled back.

But leaving that aside for the moment, when most people talk about the government getting stuff done, that usually means sticking its nose in social justice issues or meddling with the economy or intervening in foreign affairs or stuff like that which Libertarians want less of.

Sticking its nose in social justice? If the Government doesn't create a just society, who's going to do it? And please, before you say 'the free market' the rich 1%'ers controlling that aren't about to undo an unjust system that gives them an advantage.

[Shonburg]

Is there a minimum number of justices the supreme court has to have filled? I mean a divided govt, likely means we won't see any new appointments going through. Ginsberg can't live forever, neither can Thomas. I can easily see the court being reduced as low as five during a CLinton presidency.

Couldn't the executive branch file a lawsuit if congress won't do its job?

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Is there a minimum number of justices the supreme court has to have filled? I mean a divided govt, likely means we won't see any new appointments going through. Ginsberg can't live forever, neither can Thomas. I can easily see the court being reduced as low as five during a CLinton presidency.

No. Because Dems stand to take a majority in the Senate if they win enough down-ballot races in November alone, and could have a supermajority in both houses with in two years.

Also, thats preferable to Trump appointing conservative looney toons to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade.

[Hurdergaryp]

How are you defining "doing things". I mean, eliminating large sections of the government is arguably a rather involved effort and also a libertarian goal. Plus its not like libertarians are against all government just most of it and want it to be kept small.

Gutting everything is libertarian, but also stupid. I'd rather have things gradually scaled back.

But leaving that aside for the moment, when most people talk about the government getting stuff done, that usually means sticking its nose in social justice issues or meddling with the economy or intervening in foreign affairs or stuff like that which Libertarians want less of.

Despite their capitalistic mindset, many libertarians seem suspiciously isolationist. Given the USA's history, does that mean libertarianism is simply a cleverly marketed rebranding of concepts that were abandoned in the past for good reasons?