General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 229

I'd say that there are plenty of POC and other marginalized people at risk in this election who are voting third party because of their minority status.

 

The appropriate response is a huge facepalm. A vote for corruption is a vote for condoning corruption.

 

Imagine being soOoooooOoooOoOOo liberal that u vote for Hillary Clinton

 

1. It sucks, because she's a former coworker and a second generation Indian who certainly has a more personal experience with racism than I can politically conceptualize. For instance, when she was hired at my former workplace, my boss asked her where she was from, to which she responded, "Chicago, IL". Predictably, the follow-up question was, "No, I mean, where are you from ?"

 

Pretty much.

 

Maybe you don't have to respond? There can be truth in both this and the things raised by people in this thread.

 

Just listened to Obama's speech. Very well done pulling on the emotion strings in an inspirational way and decent job of making a case for Hillary.

Man, imagine if he actually had a cooperative congress. If Hillary is elected and the house stays the same I'm not exactly sure how a do-nothing-congress can lower the bar, but I am most certain that they will succeed in finding a way.

 

Was able to argue with Justice Alito for a bit about the death penalty yesterday, twas pretty cool.

 

Has anyone looked at this yet? I’m Donald J. Trump and I'm Your Next President of the United States. • /r/The_Donald

The answers he gives are some of the least detailed answers possible. This one is my favorite cause of how stupid it is

Question: What is your plan for reducing or removing the influence of money on politics?
Answer: Keeping Crooked Hillary Clinton out of the White House!

 

I mean, it's not a bad strategy.

 

I liked this headline
Donald Trump's Reddit AMA Was Very Low-Energy. Sad!

He's so good at pandering by saying Reagan is one of his favorite presidents

 

Debunking The Bullshit Claim: “You’re Privileged If You Don’t Vote For Clinton”

 

"I wonder if you folks are just as angry at Obama. His FP hasn't been much different than his predecessors. Criticizing Clinton for things she hasn't even done yet is typical absurdist logic used by people who value their egos above the good of the country." - white guy

 

I'll take Clinton's past decisions any day over the potential havoc Trump could wreck on the US and the world

 

Awesome, thanks. There are actually a lot of black grassroots candidates that have sprung up, particularly at the state level, this cycle, which is awesome. But I haven't sufficiently vetted the others. She's been campaigning with Eric Morrison for Governor, who seems okay, but is going to get steamrolled because of Koster's money.

 

clintonian neoliberalism is the reason trump/fascism is on the rise, signing up for four more years of an ideology that is fundamentally broken and has resulted in mass incarceration and economic collapse and disenfranchisement is kind of mind boggling to me

 

So you want Trump? That is even more mind boggling.

 

Yes, not wanting Clinton means wanting trump. Exactly right

 

Economic collapse? Of Venezuela? Certainly not the US

The only other alternative that can realistically win is Trump, and there's nooo way he's even close to being an acceptable person for president

 

Well it is either gonna be Clinton or Trump winning the presidency. So essentially he is saying that.

 

Sorry to break it to you, but I am have some bad news on how American elections work. Maybe you should sit down for this...

 

You can dislike both just fyi

 

You WILL vote for Clinton, and you will like it!!!

 

Rarely feel qualified to contribute, but Re: Jill Stein's views on Science. First, as others have pointed out, removing corporate/generally malevolent interests from science =/= refusing to accept scientific fact.

Furthermore, it is pretty unfair to criticize the Green Party in this regard without engaging in the policies of the democrats. Scientifically speaking, the Democrat's approach to global warming, i.e. vague language about the need to accept it as truth, small tax incentives for renewable energy, simply does not go far enough. It doesn't matter if eliminating the use of fossil fuels by 2030 strikes you as "starry-eyed", because this is actually one of the only proposed policies that would truly tackle climate change, which is undeniably an existential threat to humans. Given that there is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that it is already too late to stop global warming, things really must be halted immediately for there to be any hope at all of stopping the rise in temperatures at an acceptable point.

Also, there are many issues that currently trouble scientists that are almost entirely ignored by all mainstream parties. For example, antibiotic resistance will create a public health crisis within the foreseeable future unless there is some action taken to limit the way antibiotics are prescribed/consumed. If there really is a political party with scientifically acceptable views, where is their stand against this issue? What action are they taking to heed factual warnings about this almost inevitable crisis? Engaging with science requires more than just debunking far-right myths, it requires actually problem solving. Like on social issues, the Democrats are really just paying lip service to acceptable solutions while doing very little to truly address the important issues.

In general, it must also be said that the entire relationship an average person has with science is flawed; it is very rare I encounter someone outside of a scientific profession where they do not have some sort of fundamental misconception about healthcare-type research/genetics in general. For example, the supposed "breakthrough" about ALS is worth celebrating as it is concrete information, which can never hurt. However, it is extremely unlikely this finding will actually lead to knowledge/progress the public would view as tangible. Even if it does prove to be significant in the end, there is still will still be decades and decades of work needed to expand upon it, and it will ultimately not be the most significant finding in terms of pursuing this extremely specific area of study within the disease.

TL;DR: Those complaining about the Green Party's scientific stances should first take a long, hard look at their own relationship with science and the Democratic Party's relationship with science.