General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 389

I think there's a difference between being firmly on "your side" ideologically vs. party identification. I.E. I would gladly vote for a Republican if they were suddenly proposing ideas I agreed with ideologically, i.e. the examples i used in the last post. They would no longer be the Republican party as we know it today lol, but that's kind of the point I suppose.

The Republicans as a party, on the other hand, turned against their own policies because the other party started supporting them. That's bonkers, IMO.

The Republican Party as it's constructed today probably has close to zero, if not zero, policy proposals that I support on a personal level. They've just jumped way too far right since Obama got elected, after already being pretty far right thanks to Nixon's "southern strategy" and the Reagan Revolution.

 

Importantly, these are two-way polls between Trump and Clinton, meaning they aren't separating out Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. It's hard to compare 2016's four-way race to 2012's, as polls this year are counting third-party candidates far more often than polls did in 2012 (when Stein and Johnson were also their parties' candidates).

However, including Stein and Johnson bumps the number of people who pick neither major party candidate way higher. In the 10 most recent Trump vs. Clinton polls listed on RealClearPolitics, an average of 12.5 percent of people chose neither candidate. Make it a four-way poll with Johnson and Stein, and almost 20 percent of Americans chose someone other than Clinton or Trump or were simply undecided. Around the same time in 2012, the share was only around 13 percent (according to the few four-way 2012 polls RealClearPolitics lists).

So there are two different forces at work here. One is that a bunch of people are undecided — right now, around 7.5 percent, whether you look at this year's two- or four-way polls. That puts this year's average a couple points higher than where it was at this point in 2012 — somewhere just above 5 percent. A couple of percentage points may not seem like a big deal right now, but then, that's millions of potential voters to get off the fence.


Voters Are Rejecting Both Major Party Presidential Candidates Far More Than In 2012

 

Oh dear god he's talking about education policy please make it stop.

 

But when those ideas previously held by Republicans move over into the Democratic ideology you begin to support them don't you? I mean, Obama was the guy who kept Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense, appointed Hillary to secretary of state, adopted a major Heritage/Romney approved health-care policy, shepherded a harsh anti-drug policy, strictly punished whistle blowers, and oversaw a spike in both government surveillance and unmanned drone strokes in third-world countries.

 

Not really. I support certain aspects of the ACA, for example, but that doesn't mean I support the law fully, nor that I don't believe that the original idea that the Dems had (public option) is a far better idea. I can also defend parts of the ACA without saying "those are great ideas" or it needs to be repealed, or point out that it's helping more people than were previously being helped and that is a good thing.

Or, just because Obama and the Dems have dragged their feet on anti-drug policy, doesn't mean I support said dragging of feet, and I will point out they are generally in favor of decriminalizing weed while the Repubs are still stuck on reefer madness.

 

Oh lordy. Ok. Another question. What would Hillary have to do to get you to not vote for her? Like if Wikileaks released a phone conversation of Clinton yelling racial epithets at a staffer would you stay home on election day?

 

Can't justify not voting, no matter how much I hate the choices. If something like that came to light id probably vote Stein, as terrifying as she is. She would become, IMO, the lesser of 4 evils at that point.

As it stands right now, Clinton has some decent policy ideas and some bad ones, she knows what she's doing and/or talking about, and she's not batty. That makes her, sadly, the best choice between the 4.

 

I think you're smart David, what an endorsement

 

That's quite the straw man

 

North Dakota becomes first US state to legalise use of armed drones by police

 

Two weeks later.

 

never tweet

 

2016 is stupid.

 

PS: Trump wants to defund the organization that uncovered it.
PPS: The fine is ridiculously small.

 

Y'all this starts tomorrow. This is some of the most important activism happening right now. Corporations could lose billions of dollars over this - which means the state and corporate response will be swift and powerful. Pay attention. Work in solidarity. Demonstrate, if possible. Prisoners are risking their lives and what is left of their freedom - that is, not being in solitary confinement, which amounts to torture. This is more important than I can state.

This Week May See the Largest Prison Strike in US History

Why?
Announcement of Nationally Coordinated Prisoner Workstoppage for Sept 9, 2016 | IWW Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee
Masked Racism: Reflections on the Prison Industrial Complex
http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Angela-Davis-Are_Prisons_Obsolete.pdf
The Function of Prison | The Anarchist Library
Anarchy Works | The Anarchist Library

 

I just had to have the bank erase illegitimate overdraft fees from my account, too. Banks need to be placed under national control and disassembled. I don't understand why anti-trust laws haven't been implemented against them.

 

Word.

 

Did Clinton just say "terrorists are praying to Allah for Trump to win"? Did I read the right quote verbatim?

 

Holy shit. Jesus Christ.

 

Fuck Clinton.

 

Hundreds of inmates riot at Florida prison

 

tbqh if you're not 100% with this i don't fuck w ur politics at all

 

The actual quote:

Citing an article in Time magazine by Matthew Olsen, the former head of the US National Counterterrorism Center, Clinton said she was surprised how clear and compelling a case he made that Islamic State was “rooting for Donald Trump’s victory because Trump made Islam and Muslims part of his campaign.” Olsen, she said, basically argued that “the jihadists see this as a great gift. They are saying, ‘Please, Allah, make Trump president of America.’” Clinton’s remarks came in response to a question about whether she would use the term “war on radical Islam.”

Brietbarts' editing was a tad different.