General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 352

Multiple people have accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment and assault/rape. Two women have accused Assange of rape, as well as lesser charges related to sexual assault. Are all of these women lying? I refer to them as rapists because, more often than not, multiple accusations are evidence of an individual that rapes women.

 

Trump campaign CEO Stephen Bannon not a fan of ‘whiny brat’ Jews

holy shit

 

is it in bad taste to make an ice pick joke

i dont want to kill the guy but i really want to make an ice pick joke

 

Bill Clinton has a history of sexual assault and rape. I think its safe to call him a rapist. Its unfortunate (or rather its exactly what his wealth and privilege have afforded him) that a jury never had the opportunity to appropriately punish him for it but it doesn't change the fact that he's a rapist.

 

Trump is very good at being Nazi adjacent

 

Owen Smith suggests Labour hustings audience might be ‘entryists' after they laugh at him

 

Funny considering Trump only wants "little guys in yarmulkes" handling his finances.

 

Jill Stein answers science questions

And she still low key panders to the anti-vaccine crowd, while still wrongly stating GMOs haven't been proven safe, and doesn't even mention nuclear energy in which she wrongly compares to WMDs. Yeah, still anti-science to me.

 

Are the anti-vaxxers a voting bloc that is crucial to winning?

 

There are dozen of us (them).

 

good lord imagine if Jenny McCarthy was the one who decided the election

 

Yes, baldly stating as fact something of which you have no concept, and worse, doing so knowing there's a considerable chance you're completely wrong, and then feigning outrage when someone says "we shouldn't baldly state guilt absent facts" is a far more nuanced position. All the nuance of the guy inciting the mob or re-sharing false crime stats. Also, no one is insinuating equal standing between accused and accuser. Heck, I'm not even saying you aren't free to ignorantly presuppose. But I think it's fairly evenhanded to suggest that maybe you shouldn't spout off and actively parlay your ignorance into others' misinformation.

I'm not discrediting the victim's account(s), as your predictable straw man presumes: I'm discrediting you and your ilk.

 

Back in the 80's when Mike Pence was studying law at Indiana University, he unleashed his humor in his comic strip for the student newspaper. Warning: this is only funny for law students.

 

1. She has a point, that corruption exists in medicine regulation and of course it causes a distrust of the system. She said flat out that she's pro vaccine but I guess now that's anti-vax. Thanks, liberals. 2. She's wrong and overly cautious on GMO's imo. Ok. 3. She may be hyperbolic about nuclear energy but reactors are highly dangerous and potentially disasterous, albiet low risk. Clean energy is feasible enough that it doesn't make sense to accept that risk. And anyway, we shouldn't be expanding nuclear until we can figure out what to do with the highly toxic waste, at the very least.

Stein has some issues but the blanket anti-science attack is dishonest. To me at least, she's still lightyears better on the issues that matter than Trump, Clinton, and Johnson.

 

I never said she is anti-vax, and she definitely isn't. But every time someone asks her about her stance, instead of just saying she is pro-vaccine, she continues on about reasons people should be concerned. Also, I would agree we should not be expanding nuclear as of now. But I would also say we should not be phasing out nuclear until we phase out fossil fuels first. If we get rid nuclear as soon as possible, it will lead to an increase in production of natural gas or coal. Nuclear is much safer and cleaner than any fossil fuel. Phase out fossil fuels first, then decide what to do about nuclear.

 

To the extent part of your point on these issues is that she's not good at running for an election, I agree.
I know you said you were on the fence before (I think), but just curious, taking out the fact that Trump is running would you vote for Stein over Clinton?

 

Lol "thanks liberals". After Trump, she definitely has the worst ability in conveying her views. Which is shitty because her stance, at its core, is fantastic. It's not the fault of liberals that she makes such elementary errors.

 

13 illuminating Donald Trump immigration tweets - CNNPolitics.com

 

Exxactly. She has some great ideas. And she's a terrible fucking candidate.

 

Yeah I was on the fence. I would like to think it would be yes. Although I obviously don't agree with everything I do agree more with her than Clinton. However if she became president I honestly believe she would be a terrible president. Too many of her proposals are really just fantasy and she would have trouble working with congress to compromise, while I know that Hillary can get things done and work with congress.

 

"Realistic discourses" may be one of the funniest things said in this thread.

 

Nuance is saying that, despite multiple accusations, the likelihood of guilt remains the same. Got it.

 

That doesn't make her "anti-science." I agree she is continually leaving openings to attacks on certain topics, and the recent offhand dismissal of Assange's rape allegations is the most disturbing of her missteps, but the anti-science label from the liberals is playing politics and its dishonest. I understand that's how it goes when you're running for office, but its still annoying.