American Elections

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

What do you mean when you use the word mainstream to describe the decent Christian conservative folk?

I am not trying to be snarky, but I do wish to understand what you are conveying when you use the word mainstream in the context of Christians. Do you mean Baptists? Perhaps Roman Catholic? Perhaps another denomination. Perhaps you mean something else that I am not even considering.

I was basically speaking in general about the millions and millions of christians in this country who are often politically informed by their faith (and tend to take traditionally conservative stances on many issues) but who largely are good decent people who strive to help the needy and treat people with decency and respect, people I work with and live among who Ive always ALWAYS got along with and respected and regularly called friends. These folks seem more and more to be slipping into the angry crazy conspiracy alternative reality created on the web and through social media connections that hold abhorrent notions like Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy and no children died. Or that Obama is a muslim terrorist looking to impose Sharia Law on the US and take away everyones guns. Or even much much darker stuff. And its tragic to me that these formerly decent kind people are falling down that rabbit hole and being transformed into hate spewing brain washed monsters.

And its NOT christian AT ALL of course...

[Butterbeer]

I just feel sorry for Val's children... he wrestles away control of the computer with the promise..."wont be long kids, just going to write a quick comment on Entmoot"
Now i know why there hasn't been a quote game post for so long

Interesting read.
Maybe America just had a blonde moment? You can imagine the film treatment:

*deep trailer voice*:

"2 dumb blondes, one great nation divided...
from the creators of the twilight zone,
and the multiple Rasberry-winning director of "you just couldnt make this (beep) up"
and the heart-wrenching classic soul-destroying Horror "Politics 2016"...
comes a modern day tale of Misogyny and Mexicans, Corruption and crookedness"

I'm curious, since everyone tends to agree its the two worst candidates of all time, who our American Mooters would have liked to see run (be nominated by the Donkeys and the Elephants) instead and why?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Besides my disappointment with Trump, I'm even more disappointed in our media. They were in the tank for Clinton. They've been trending that way for years, always favoring the liberal/progressive/Democratic Party candidates and agenda. To the extent that they have given up on unbiased reporting and have become a mouthpiece for the Left. [...] And... they did their best to report anything bad about Trump (most often out of context) and to avoid reporting anything bad about Clinton. Anything about Trump has been presented in a biased way.

Funny, I've had a different experience: I've seen a media that Would. Not. Could. Not. Shut. Up. about those bloody emails, even when there was no new information and they STILL kept going on and on about it, trying to drum up drama where there was little to be had. IMO they certainly milked it until it created a 'no smoke without fire' effect that people started to really think there was far more foul play in the email-thing than there really was, resulting in hurting Clinton's credibility. Comey played right into that.

I think the biggest problem the media has is not being the Mouth of the Left but being too invested in drama. If an election isn't dramatic enough, they'll find something to make it dramatic and that's what we see here. If the news they bring is boring, then people aren't interested, so it must be livened up, even if that's digging up drama where there isn't any. Trump, now Trump is a drama-generating machine all on his own. The media love Trump, he will always say something divisive they can put on the newspaper headline. Trump knows this too, most of his money comes from perpetuating his own brand of Trumpishness.

Also, RE this specifically:

[...] they did their best to report anything bad about Trump (most often out of context)

No. Just no. There is NO context possibly in which some of Trump's quotes about women are not horrible. None of that 'just locker room talk' excuses as if that makes it okay in any way. No to the nth.

This guy is advocating rapist views on primetime, and I bet he has made a lot of fans in that area. Loudly threathening to sue all the women who have accused him of abuse? Pretending it couldn't have happened because they're not pretty enough for him? Classic rapist tactic and that's not the only one.

It's shown time and time again that sexual assault is one of the hardest things to prove, and one of the fields in which the least prosecutions and convictions happen, people like him thrive on that.

As I said, I don't like a lot of things about Trump. He is NOT of the character I want to see in a President of the United States. However - Bill Clinton is guilty of doing everything (with women) that Donald Trump is. Maybe more. Bill isn't running this time - Hillary is, right? Well... Hillary didn't just "stand by her man" - she attacked any woman who accused Bill of taking liberties, abuse, rape - whatever it was. Even from before their White House days, when he was governor of Arkansas. Yet Hillary talks like we need to protect women from abuse. And you know what - Bill gets a pass, and Hillary gets a pass, both from the media and the American people (at least, the Left). But - not Trump. Fair?

Fair? Let's look a litte closer here, because IMO there is some covert social misogyny at the bottom here. A wife of a cheater is always the loser. Why? Because there is NOTHING she can do or say that will not make her a target for criticism and besmearchment. Nothing.

She stands by her cheating husband? Shame on her, the spineless [expletive], does she have no will of her own? She denounces her husband? Shame on her, the treacherous [expletive], doesn't she know any loyality? She remains silent? Shame on her, the two-timing [expletive] she should take a stand! She defends him? Shame on her, the betraying [expletive] she must be lying, bet she was in on it from the start!

Think about it, what is a woman in that position to do? The reaction of the wife is always critisized much worse than the actual crime of the husband because, well, 'boys will be boys, right?' His crime will always be thrown in her face. Never the other way around. Is that fair, hell no, but that's society for you. I will have no part of shaming women for the crime of others.

All this hubbub about the Electoral College. I still think it's a good system - better than direct popular vote. If we change it, and the Democrats lose the next election by popular vote and would have won it by electoral vote - they'd want to change it right back. This is about sour grapes, and about winning. But to me - the electoral college keeps us from have voter fraud determine our President.

Again, my experience is different. I hear no one complaining about the elector-system or even the winner-takes-all-principle of some states. But I do hear a lot of grumbling about gerrymandering and I don't think that's entirely unfounded. The very process seems to be designed to distort the democratic process rather than accentuating it.

Do you have this in Europe? Voting without an ID? Does it seem crazy?

Heh, I've always been told that our current ID system was set up during the German Occupation and that subsequent Belgian authorities thought it too useful to ditch, even though it technically was a tool of the Oppresser. Puts IDs in a bit of different light, eh? Anyway, I have Opinions about the Belgian ID-system (ooh yes), but I have to say it has advantages for the people as well as the politicians and so it should.

So I don't think voting with ID should be much of a problem, (heck, I've been doing it for years) but only if it isn't used as a weapon to deny people of legal voting standing the chance to vote. IDs too should be IMO obtainable without Kafka-like mechanisms or pricy pricetages (pointed look at Belgian officials) that leave the poor, migrants or less-informed without legal papers and no representation. And the issues with who controls the voter rolls and how they can be changed also plays a part. And IMO that seems where most of the fear against letting the GOP handling ID for voting comes from, rather than the actual principle of voting on ID.

Trump expressed concern in advance about the election being "rigged" - and was ridiculed for it.

And is now backpeddling like mad to prevent recounts. I guess the election was only rigged if it wasn't in his favour, right? Or as long as he doesn't actually have to prove anything.

I am rather interested in the recounts now, though I don't think it'll change the outcome. But it would be interesting to see if the process could was rigged. I mean, everybody's been opining away about potential rigging to high heaven these last weeks, well let's stop whining and nuckle down to find out once and for all so we can stop guessing. Shouldn't everybody now be interested to know whether the system is sound? Was it all hot air? Or should a lot of democracies that use computer voting be wanting to check their own systems?

Some are worried that Trump will get us into a war with his perceived recklessness, but Hillary seems like she would lead us right into conflict with Russia.

You know, if European history is anything to go by, appeasement of war-hungry strong neighbours often turns out to be a really bad move for most people... And then I mean people, common people, not necessarily nations or governments.

And the Russians are notoriously bad at reading maps, too.

Then - as fringe-crazy as this sound, there are a LOT of Clinton enemies, especially Hillary Clinton enemies, who meet mysterious deaths.

Ooookay, then why isn't Trump or Bernie buried like ten feet under now?

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

The debt is astronomical. Bush II doubled the debt from the end of Clinton, and BHO more than doubled the debt from the end of Bush II.

I do not know how the debt can keep increasing without everything shutting down. I wish I was able to personally run up debt like this without issue. (instead I would get everything repossessed and put in jail for fraud)

As long as someone is still willing to lend you money, you can wrack up any debt you want. I believe at the moment, China is bankrolling most of the USA. May have something to do with those eerily similar stealth fighters, eh Val? (Just kidding!)

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

Sometimes I wonder if there is any significant difference between a monarchy and what we have as a representative republic.

With a quote like that I wonder whether you've ever lived in a monarchy, because if you had, you would immediately know the significant difference: the extended, costly, mostly-good-for-nothing, Royal Family, of course!

At least most republics have the opportunity to get rid of those once and a while! Monarchies usually need a honkin' fullblown revolution for that...

At least with a monarchy, there is no illusion of the general public having a say in how things are run.

Uh, yes there is. Not all monarchies are ruling monarchies. You can have everything from absolute rulers to purely ceremonial figureheads in monarchies.

[Butterbeer]

I suspect mithrand1r has watched one too many Walt Disney movies...
Shrek isn't representative of most Modern day Democratic Monarchies...

now, if you will excuse me, Snow White and I have to go bow/curtsy to Queen Grimhilde, repress some Dwarves and stamp out silly illusions.

@ Eärniel wish you'd stop sitting on the fence all the time

This is one of those threads where if you start ...you'd find yourself writing for ages. Frankly it's far too early in the morning for such Tookish tom-foolery.

The one thing i will say from reading the different (largely) partisan views on both sides ref 'THE Media' is... that's a misnomer and an increasingly out of date one too. If y'all mean the 'mass media' then its slightly more accurate but again id say increasingly out of date - media has diverged, mass media is out of touch- a hidebound unchanging beast slowly throttling and choking itself that is quickly becoming a dodo, and knows it. But even then there is much more divergence than ever there was- you can pick and choose what mass media you prefer to be irate at...

That's liberal Humanism meeting free markets for yah- via new technologies - a rather combustible combination eh wot?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

@ Eärniel wish you'd stop sitting on the fence all the time

Funny, it looks like a nice comfy chair from where I'm sitting...

This is one of those threads where if you start ...you'd find yourself writing for ages. Frankly it's far too early in the morning for such Tookish tom-foolery.

Yes but Tooks have all the fun and adventures!

[Mari]

Thanks Earn, most of the things you said was what I was thinking, but I'm not that good at expressing myself.

[Earniel]

Thanks, but I have to say: the time to sit down and calmly construct your argument without time pressure always makes me looks articulate. Real time me is so not.

[Mari]

At least you manage if you have time

[brownjenkins]

Good stuff Eärniel! Couldn't have said it better!!

[Earniel]

And now it's official...

...which part of me is still boggling about.

If the last few days are an indication we're not going to like the next few years, I'm thinking. We're going to be kept on our toes daily. And there will be a lot of insulting, gaslighting, fake news and sneaky lies, blatant lies, and more lies 'alternative facts' indeed until we're not sure anymore what's right and what's three rights.

[Insidious Rex]

"Truth" is irrelevant. If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes fact. So Trump clearly had 9 billion people to his inauguration. Putin can corroborate that. And if you say otherwise or post pictures showing otherwise you are clearly involved in a political conspiracy trying to undermine his win. Sad!

[Snowdog]

I'm trying to look on the bright side of USStRumpistan this and.... well.... I guess it won't matter WHAT anybody else who runs for President may have or has done or is doing or will do, the whole 'get down on' this or that person for this or that has really become irrelevant. I mean, this first month of trumpshirtism makes Nixon and Watergate look so damn trivial. And to believe Gary Hart pulled out of running for President in 1984 because he was seen on a yacht with a woman other than his wife, or the Republicans tried to impeach a sitting president for getting a blow job from an intern. I mean, all the things that used to be expected of a President of the USA have all be shoveled into the bin with trump and his clown-car of billionaires doing the American Citizens, and by extension, the rest of the world, from behind and grabbing the cash while they do it. Putin won the cold war with the help of a bunch of white racists and all who indirectly agreed with them by casting their vote for this. Onya you fools.

[The Gaffer]

This is a great post, and 100% accurate.

If Hillary had done what Trump has been doing she would have been burnt at the stake.

[Mari]

Yes, well. It's mind-boggling.