He was a true one-off. Can't think who the Reagan is either. A dumb, conniving, populist back-stabber republican.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
He was a true one-off. Can't think who the Reagan is either. A dumb, conniving, populist back-stabber republican.
I’m sorry, but that’s totally irrational, when faced with 1 mediocre and 1 terrible choice, you choose the better one.
If one somehow had a choice to suffer broken finger or cracked skull, everyone will choose the finger.
You cannot seriously think Hillary is as bad as Trump.
That's the nature of the US system. You can vote for whoever you like but only one of two people from the two major parties will win. At that point you have to make a choice whether you are ok with the worse of the two candidates winning or whether you are flexible enough to support the better of the two.
Given what he had to deal with for 8 years, Obama was a great President and I don't know why this is even a debate. No other President in modern history encountered the challenges he faced...and we're not even talking about all the racial shit being thrown at him and his family. His race made him ineligible to become President for many many people in the US but he took it all in stride for 8 long years.
Anyone who thought a choice between Hillary and Trump was a hard one for President needs to have their heads examined. As I've said before, ONLY in America where there's a choice between banning guns and the safety of school kids. As much as you'd want to debate this, America isn't exactly the poster child of deliberating smart choices.
If you want I could lists the many many awful policies Obama put forward or you could just do some research and save us both some time.
You'd be better off educating yourself.
Given the circumstances, especially the obstruction he faced, he did very well.
It was great how he didn't let racism stop him from deporting the most people ever.
I’d be interested to see how it works out as a percentage.
I'd venture that a "great [Democratic] president" shouldn't even be in the conversation of who deported the most people.
You could at least mention that his figure was higher due to the change in definition of what constitutes a deportation.
A lot of people thought at the time he was elected, Obama had the potential to become one of the great presidents but he fell well short in the end. He'll be remembered as a good president though.
He could’ve been better had he not inherited the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression. He also didn’t adequately sell his policies to the public (namely Obamacare), to avoid the R/T Party wave in 2010. Additionally, the usual group of naive voters who thought he would completely disengage from overseas foreign policy were obviously disappointed with him as well. All things said, he was too accommodating of consensus building and not aggressive enough in simply implementing what he ran on.
Are you saying deportations are linked to racism? What is your position on the matters of immigration and illegal immigration? If people come here illegally, do you think they should not be deported? There's no need to comment on DACA people as there seems to be a consensus with a majority of saner people.
Sigh. Prete said he overcome racism to accomplish things. I said one of the things he accomplished was massive deportations.
I do not think people should be deported unless they have committed a serious crime. I support a path to citizenship for all people in the country, regardless of where they were born.
No no. It is absolutely 100% rational and far more moral than "vote for the least of two evils".
Also Hilary was not mediocre. She was also terrible. She lobbied hard for 3-strikes and private prisons, she is a Wall Street pawn who pushed the FSMA and CFMA and she was the biggest Democrat pusher of the awful Iraq war.
To me that is two terrible candidates.
And it is absolutely 100% rational to refuse to vote for people that I believe are morally reprehensible.
Sorry but I find the belief that people MUST vote for one of the two parties simply because that is who the monied elites want to nominate is morally repulsive.
I would only ever vote for a candidate I actually believed in. If the majority of people were moral like that, then the US never would have had two atrocious candidates like Clinton and Trump to begin with.
Hillary was perfectly qualified to be President based on her previous jobs. Trump, was coming off of hosting a reality TV show and the Miss Universe pagent. They are about a million miles apart in terms of qualifications so its hard to say they are in the same category of terrible candidates. Even if you vehemently disagree with some of her policy positions, she is far more qualified to be President than any other recent candidate.
I did not know this - but, has the definition changed after Obama left as well? Because his numbers eclipse Trumps' despite ICE's (more) open and gratuitous cruelty now.
I don't want to get too down this rabbit but in short
I don't believe in someone being "qualified" simply because they worked in government previous. For Hilary I already gave three examples of extremely terrible things she did when she was in power previous. For me those awful choices of hers disqualify her to earn my vote. She would have already lost it with how she acted from 80s to 2008. If neither candidate can inspire more than 50% confidence in me then neither deserves me vote. If everyone actually voted for who they believed in, neither Hilary nor Drumpf would have been anywhere near their parties nomination.
This is why I much prefer multi-party systems. They aren't perfect either but from my experience and readings I would always choose a multi-party system over a two-party system.
You obviously disagree with her on policy, which is fine. But that's an entirely different debate than saying a person's prior work experience does not qualify them. She was a U.S. Senator for a prominent state for eight years, Sec State for four, and prior to that she was an unusually active policy-centric first lady for 8 years (and that's not counting all the years she was first lady of Arkansas back in the day, where she was also steeped in policy). Oh and she also has a JD from Yale, which is more or less like having a PhD in governance. So whatever ones policy differences are, she clearly has the skills and background to compete for the Presidency. Trump on the other hand, had zero background in governance or policy, and is basically little more than a demagogue who wants to be loved. They are light years apart.
As for a multi-party system - I doubt that will ever happen here because each time someone tries it, one of the two large parties simply subsume the polices of the emerging 3rd party and the people who may vote for it just end up voting for one of the two major parties.
Last edited:
There's just no need to sigh. Are you saying that if anyone enters the country whether it is illegal or legal should not be deported if they don't commit a serious crime with a path to citizenship for all? Never mind Obama, that is not a viable position for Sanders or Jill Stein or even Harambe. Might as well close all the embassies and abolish all the visa laws today. Eboue, you want to be taken seriously? Take practical and serious stance on issues, not outlier and utopian views.
I'm quite content with you not taking me seriously.
Sorry, as @Raoul has pointed out above, there's no way that Hillary is in the same category of terrible candidates as Trump.
Your choice may be "moral", but it not rational at all, like my example above, no one chooses to break a bone, but given a choice, everyone will prefer a broken finger to a cracked skull.
My point is what she did during those years, she disqualified herself from ever earning a vote for me. I don't particularly care if someone has tonnes of experience in government if what they did with it wasn't positive. I personally don't weigh just being in government prior as a positive factor to vote for someone. If someone has government experience and they have already pushed three atrocious policies (private prisons + 3 strikes, Iraq War and Finance deregulation for Wall Street) then that should have already ended her career. She should never have run in 2008 let alone 2016, it was greed for personal power that made her run. I can't support that.
Ok bub, try to prove its not rational.
I could lay out the logical syllogisms for my thought process if you really want but since you are the one making the critique lets see you prove it. Prove its not rational.
You might disagree with it and I can respect it but its perfectly rational and its really just trolling for you to just be insulting without any sound logic.
Fair enough. Having some degree of experience in a particular field of work is however essential when competing for a job in said field. Trump has absolutely nothing in this regard, just as Hillary would have no experience if she went into Trump's business of building hotels and golf courses.
Unless you somehow arrived at the conclusion that Hillary is really just as unfit for the job as Trump, it's surely more rational to vote for the lesser evil (regardless of how much you dislike her).
But to me this is just a false dichotomy and totally irrelevant to any vote decision. Even in a two-party I simply don't accept the premise that I *have* to vote for either of the two major parties. So comparing Hilary to Trum to me is irrelevant comparison since neither one reaches the threshold to earn my vote.
IMO if everyone thought like this, instead of believing the false propaganda of both parties, then we wouldn't get such poor candidates.
Nope, there were just fewer people attempting to cross the border and getting caught. Actual deportations from people already living within the US (so excluding the number apprehended at the border) rose significantly.
Fair enough. I will return the favor.
Its only rational if one already accepts the premises that you are basing your logic on. I don't accept your premises that one must vote for one of the two parties so your thought process is "irrational" to me. Irrational doesn't mean what you seem to think it means Cal?
From my perspective your opinion is based on too many cognitive biases to be rational.
You obviously aren't obliged to vote for either candidate. You can vote for any number of the half dozen or so fringe third party candidates; but if you're realistic, you will know that none of them have any chance of winning and will only benefit one of two major party candidates. At that point you have to genuinely ask yourself whether your vote counts for anything other than tilting things in favor of either a Republican or a Democrat.
Sorry, I didn't get this.
I know the totals rose every year from 08-12, and have been falling since 2012, a fall that has continued under Trump. When was the definition changed?
rational
raʃ(ə)n(ə)l/Submit
adjective
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Everyone in the world knows that only Hillary and Trump stand any chance of getting elected in 2016, voting 3rd party = not voting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
- legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.
If someone believes that neither candidate speaks to them, represents their interests nor deserves to be President then it is perfectly rational and IMO respectable for them to vote 3rd party. Or like many I have met over the decades, they simply don't vote. Its ridiculous to blame voters if a candidate is not appealing to them to begin with! If people flock to a third party then the only people to blame are the candidate not the voters.
The way I see it, the two-party system is a giant con game where both sides can simply play the poor and middle class off against each other and the only ones who benefit are the rich and powerful corporations. Its really interesting from a psychological and coercion perspective how the DNC and RNC convince the majority of Americans that there is no choice. But its really sad that when someone can overcome the false dichotomy propaganda, the powers in control will threaten the family of honest candidates like Perot.
Even taken an actual university level logic course Cal? Serious question.
My view point is perfectly logical because I don't believe in the same premises that you do.
You call my view "irrational" simply because you are operating under different premises.
- Status