All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[numberthirty]

and how did trump do that? because all i saw him talking about was building a cartoonish wall around mexico and banning all muslims from entering the country(Because Muslim?=Terrorist)or taking endless jabs at Hillary and Obama for no reason other than to annoy people

Donald Trump is the real life personification of a internet troll plain and simple

he doesn't operate on any reasonable logic he just randomly does and says things without any idea of the consequences

why should we reward the person who up to now has belittled and bullied anyone who disagrees with him publicly on twitter?

I'm talking about that his opponent did not do that...

[Chrysalis_Changling]

I'm talking about that his opponent did not do that...

well it's kinda hard to do that when your opponent is constantly interrupting you and being as rude and dickish as possible

how the hell do you even debate someone that won't let you speak before they go ranting like a Mad Man about Mexican's being murderous rapists and Muslims being secret terrorists in hiding?

[Dalak]

Your premise needs work. It is seriously flawed.

So are you saying that there is nothing that could earn your vote against Trump? 'Voting Against BLANK' was a huge part of the votes for either major candidate this go-around, so except for the word Vote in regards to a President I don't see any flaws.

So, why didn't you think that Trump earned your vote against him? What was there about his campaign/Trump that you found not worth voting against?

[numberthirty]

So are you saying that there is nothing that could earn your vote against Trump? 'Voting Against BLANK' was a huge part of the votes for either major candidate this go-around, so except for the word Vote in regards to a President I don't see any flaws.

So, why didn't you think that Trump earned your vote against him? What was there about his campaign/Trump that you found not worth voting against?

If you are counting on a vote "Against" your opponent to win you an election, you are waiting around to lose.

It's really as simple as that.

[numberthirty]

As for that second question, I make it a point not to vote "Against".

Haven't done it yet. Can't see a time where I ever will.

It's just dumping another can of gas on a dumpster fire that doesn't look like it's going out any time soon.

[numberthirty]

Look at it this way.

Some of you have obviously noted that I'm not the biggest fan of HRC.

That didn't get me to vote "Against" her. It was up to her opponent to earn that vote. He certainly never got within a mile of doing that.

[numberthirty]

In all seriousness, look at this last presidential election. It was voting "Against" taken almost to it's furthest.

Did it actually get you anywhere you would want to go?

[Dalak]

I'm glad that there's nothing that can convince you to vote against someone, it does explain a few things about your behavior.

I however believe that there are things that are repugnant and wrong enough to vote against, and that we're going to be seeing some of them a lot more often in the next few years. Blatant denial of reality in defiance of the proof clearly in front of you is one of those things, and Trump embodies that when he's played clips of him saying things he continues to deny he said.

Something you may not have considered though, if you aren't willing to fight against something you strongly disagree with more than words you will never succeed in affecting anything you aspire to change. If you want to get change to happen you need to sling some money around if you can, protest and demonstrate for your causes, and above all VOTE against those that will actively work against your interests. If you get someone that doesn't advance your interests as much as you'd like, at least they'll not be regressed and things will not get worse during the push to get better folks into office.

[numberthirty]

That bit at the end?

That's why the wheels have been spinning in the mud for years.

I just can't see the point in wasting time more saying "Sure. Maybe, this will finally be the time that Acme kit doesn't just blow up in my face."

[worstblogever]

Hey, WBE. He later actually calls tenure 'Un-American'.

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Mis...nts-to/238886/

Rick Brattin was also the guy who wanted scholarships revoked from Missouri players after they threatened to boycott games for the University doing nothing about a slew of racist incidents on campus. A real "smaller government" kind of moron, that guy.

[Tendrin]

Rick Brattin was also the guy who wanted scholarships revoked from Missouri players after they threatened to boycott games for the University doing nothing about a slew of racist incidents on campus. A real "smaller government" kind of moron, that guy.

Figured you had him but couldn't check at the time. Good one for his next update, though. Yeah, I remember reading about that back in the day.

[Dalak]

That bit at the end?

That's why the wheels have been spinning in the mud for years.

I just can't see the point in wasting time more saying "Sure. Maybe, this will finally be the time that Acme kit doesn't just blow up in my face."

The wheels have been spinning for 20 years or so now due to an obsessively regressive policy when in power and the rabid obstructionism shown in the minority by the conservatives in government in my opinion, though I do think that the dems need to be far more aggressive. Trying to reach across the aisles has resulted in being slapped in the face far too often at this point. I'm also very frustrated by the inability to get $ out of the system thanks to Citizens United. Still, supporting an All or Nothing philosophy will get you nothing far more often than not. You can disagree with that all you like, it doesn't make it any less true.

And I blame these last few posts on the late hour and a bit too much Mike's.

[Gray Lensman]

I don't believe in purity tests. You're never going to find that perfect candidate. And you can't put "none of the above" in office.

True, and although I'm not from PA, drug prices directly affect me in a big way since my wife takes a few medications and my income is only in the lower middle class. My ability to absorb increasing drug costs is very little - so I consider any vote to 'keep drug prices high for my campaign donors!' to be a direct attack on my financial security. That vote to me says Booker wants to knock me from lower middle class to just lower class, and I will hold it against him.

I can't afford to not have purity tests on issues that have the potential to hit me as hard as this one does.

[numberthirty]

Really, how does that count as a "Purity" test?

We're talking about the Democrat who has taken the most money from that sector over the last six years voting directly in their interest.

"Purity" doesn't get within a mile of that scenario.

[Gray Lensman]

Really, how does that count as a "Purity" test?

We're talking about the Democrat who has taken the most money from that sector over the last six years voting directly in their interest.

"Purity" doesn't get within a mile of that scenario.

That depends on how many issues matter to you. If one candidate is on my side for 5 issues and the other for 2 (and not the same issues) my choices are what's more important to me. You can't have it all, but some issues are so big they override several others. One that potentially puts me from a decent living to the poor house all by itself is one of the big ones.