The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

From where I sit, the difference is not great.

The current world order hinges on the ability of the West to hold down assorted illiberal forces of the Third World and maintaining consensus-based democracy as the preferred form of governance. The USA is the centerpiece of this order and its well-being determines whether or not the existing order can be maintained. A weakening or isolationist USA means the rise of totalitarianism, Islamic extremism and other threats all over the world. Since Israel is at the forefront of dealing with these threats, I have a vested interest in the USA remaining the dominant power in the world. It's a simple calculation.

But you must have noticed that the US is in a state of decline. Has been for a while. I understand, and in fact agree with the idea of the US being the leader of the Free world.
But unless we get our own house in order, and rebuild ourselves to what we were in the past, we won't be able to fulfill that role. We may not even be here in 25 years.
So, until such time as we are strong enough, economically, militarily and in every other way to carry out the role you wish us to have, I think we have to look after our own interests first and foremost for a while.

[aretood2]

Direct response.

He's the one that started saying this very thing. Keep up.

[thekillman]

And if he does win, same thing from the other side.

So far:

Trump heavily implying the election is rigged: 1

any democrat doing the same: 0.

I was not aware that PA had 11,000 Jewish crimials in it's "justice/legal" system for them to kill. Or are you equating criminal lives with civilian lives? To be honest a real comparison would have been if the president promised to kill 10,000 Columbians. At which point you can bet that would cause a real front and center issue with a lot of people. Not that I don't think the president's goals aren't a problem here.

It doesn't exactly seem that the guy's worried about whether the people he intends to kill are truly criminal. "criminals" by the way, includes "drug addicts".

Besides, say someone's starving and steals food to survive, you suggest they're less than another human?

[jelgate]

So far:

Trump heavily implying the election is rigged: 1

any democrat doing the same: 0.

Aren't you forgetting Sanders after Clinton won?

[thekillman]

Aren't you forgetting Sanders after Clinton won?

That he implied it, or that the democrat leadership was against him?

Clinton won by a fair margin. So did trump, by the way. It would require extreme rigging to change those outcomes (we're talking millions of votes) and judging that most americans see their government as incompetent as best and maliciously incompetent at worst, i don't see them capable of rigging it that far, not without it leaking to the media.

Not that, by the way, the leaked E-mails showed any kind of serious rigging. At worst the party mildly inconvenienced Sanders.

People seem to remember Sanders as way more popular than he really was, apparently.

[jelgate]

That I don't disagree with. I am commenting that as a Democrat I seem to recall Sanders claiming of rigging elections. I do agree that both claims are just paranoia.

[thekillman]

That I don't disagree with. I am commenting that as a Democrat I seem to recall Sanders claiming of rigging elections. I do agree that both claims are just paranoia.

Interestingly i can find claims that he claimed that, but i can't find him actually claiming it.
(i hope that sentence makes sense).

EDIT:

It seems to refer to this:
http://www.reuters.com/video/2016/05...eoId=368334396

Which seems to better translate to "our election system is screwed up" in which case i'd say he's right. Which is also different from trump, who implies that the system is being actively manipulated against him personally.

[Annoyed]

That he implied it, or that the democrat leadership was against him?

Clinton won by a fair margin. So did trump, by the way. It would require extreme rigging to change those outcomes (we're talking millions of votes) and judging that most americans see their government as incompetent as best and maliciously incompetent at worst, i don't see them capable of rigging it that far, not without it leaking to the media.

Not that, by the way, the leaked E-mails showed any kind of serious rigging. At worst the party mildly inconvenienced Sanders.

People seem to remember Sanders as way more popular than he really was, apparently.

And how much of that margin was comprised of the superdelegates who voted the way the party leadership told them to vote, rather than voting in accordance with what voters wanted? And this is in addition to whatever eventually emerges from the leaked emails that show the party favored Clinton.

I'm convinced that Sanders had the support of more of the rank and file democrat voting base than Clinton, but at the end of the day, the Democratic leadership had made a backroom deal with Clinton back in 2008, promising her the nomination this year, in exchange for her supporting the LSoS in 2008, so they had to nominate Clinton regardless of the will of the voters. Clinton knows where too many of the bodies are buried, in addition to the ones she buried herself.

[jelgate]

You dropped your tin foil hat. You need it for crackpot conspiracy theories

[thekillman]

And how much of that margin was comprised of the superdelegates who voted the way the party leadership told them to vote, rather than voting in accordance with what voters wanted?

zero?

Is there any evidence this is true other than your clear bias against Hillary? Considering how inept you believe Hillary and co to be at E-mails and security, wouldn't such a huge thing be easily distilled from the leaked e-mails?

Besides, you forget that Superdelegates can vote for whoever they want.

I'm convinced that Sanders had the support of more of the rank and file democrat voting base than Clinton

Based upon what? Polls showed people to be in favor of hillary.

but at the end of the day, the Democratic leadership had made a backroom deal with Clinton back in 2008, promising her the nomination this year, in exchange for her supporting the LSoS in 2008, so they had to nominate Clinton regardless of the will of the voters. Clinton knows where too many of the bodies are buried, in addition to the ones she buried herself.

Pure speculation. You believe Sanders to be way more popular than he really was.

[Womble]

But you must have noticed that the US is in a state of decline. Has been for a while. I understand, and in fact agree with the idea of the US being the leader of the Free world.
But unless we get our own house in order, and rebuild ourselves to what we were in the past, we won't be able to fulfill that role. We may not even be here in 25 years.
So, until such time as we are strong enough, economically, militarily and in every other way to carry out the role you wish us to have, I think we have to look after our own interests first and foremost for a while.

But the existing order was created largely by the USA in order to protect and further its interests. If it goes under, so does your house.

You cannot boil in your own juice anymore; the world has grown too small. Historically speaking, all American administrations that thought they could practice political or economic autarky for any length of time were quickly and brutally disabused of that notion.

[aretood2]

But the existing order was created largely by the USA in order to protect and further its interests. If it goes under, so does your house.

You cannot boil in your own juice anymore; the world has grown too small. Historically speaking, all American administrations that thought they could practice political or economic autarky for any length of time were quickly and brutally disabused of that notion.

You're talking to someone that thinks trade wars are a good idea and that attacking Japanese and Canadian economies, as well as Mexican and Chinese economies, is the way to ensure economic stability in the US. Do you really think he understands how and why political or economic autarky is detrimental to the interests of the US?

[jelgate]

You're talking to someone that thinks trade wars are a good idea and that attacking Japanese and Canadian economies, as well as Mexican and Chinese economies, is the way to ensure economic stability in the US. Do you really think he understands how and why political or economic autarky is detrimental to the interests of the US?

Think who you are talking too. He rejects all young people because old people always know better. By that logic the McCarthyism of the 1950s works

[Falcon Horus]

Trump doesn't have the first clue about politics. He's not fit to be a representative of any country.

He is a global disaster in the making.

[Gatefan1976]

Trump doesn't have the first clue about politics. He's not fit to be a representative of any country.

He is a global disaster in the making.

hey-kid-wanna-build-a-wall.jpg