Soundwave said:
Azuren said:
I'm sorry, but comments like this absolutely disgust me.
Politics is not a contact sport. Politics isn't a sport. Politics is a debate, but instead of debating they throw shade and sling mud. They resort to BULLSHIT that would actually get you kicked out of debate. Completely meaningless drivel that has no place being somewhere as important as Congress. Politics, as it is, is a disgusting, festering cesspool of degenerates and criminals who sell themselves to the highest bidder. Defend or condone, even in the apathetic "nothing we can do about it" sense again and I'll simply terminate the conversation.
Plenty of people were present to view the presidency numerous times and turned out to be horrible-to-mediocre presidents. Off the top of my head, Bush. That said, being wide to one of the greatest presidents ever in no way entitles you to being a good president. It's clear from her campaign that, despite what (half of) the left will say, Hillary is no better a choice than Trump.
As far as experience is concerned, Trump had kept a multi-billion dollar empire afloat (in spite of setbacks that everyone is rather quick to point out in the face of overwhelming success) for quite some time now. In the mean time, Hillary became (an awful) senator. Just because Trump is Lucifer doesn't mean Hillary isn't Beelzebub. They're both outright awful choices, and no matter how you slice it America is in for another rough 4-8 years.
Side note: At least if Trump or Bernie win, we're not still owned by Goldman Sachs
|
Politics is an ugly game, I know maybe people don't like it characterized that way but that's just how it is.
Goldman Sachs will still have influence (particularily on Trump who has no real tanigable policy that he actually sticks to other than China is bad, and he'll probably back off that too once he realizes fucking with China is probably not smart) no matter who is president. To say that Trump would anti Wall Street banks is laughable, he'd do the same thing Clinton does maybe even moreso.
It's president, not king or queen or czar. They have limited power. Unfortunately corporations have overwhelming power no matter what because money is power on this planet right now.
Maybe in some Star Trek utopia like future things will be different, but that's past our life time most likely.
Generally what I'm saying is there's this dilenation I think between the person being president should be a "nice person who makes you feel good", but that isn't actually a neccessity for getting anything done. I don't have to like my electrican when my power goes out, I just want to know that he knows what he/she is doing when they are doing the repair.
Clinton is not Mrs. Charisma or likable, she has made mistakes (like any long serving politican, find me one with a spotless track record who's been in high ranking positions of power for a long time). That said she is experienced, uniquely so probably because she was first lady for 8 years of a very successful presidency. Say what you want, but she wouldn't be some green novice having to learn things on the fly from day 1. She's had almost 25 years to prep for the job and is reasonably intelligent and thoughtful (doesn't mean she's right all the time, but there does seem to be a logical thought process there, Trump is wildly erratic).
|
Stop it with your votes and vote for the person doing the least amount of mud slinging. To my knowledge, Bernie stays on point roughly twice as often as Hillary or Trump.
Except Trump has openly defied Sachs, as has Bernie. That's one of the biggest parts of his campaign is he's not controlled by anyone but himself (for better or worse). Your statement, no matter how true it may be in the end, runs off of an assumption of the future that he will fold and rely on Sachs. The reality is he is the least likely to do so, because he has his own funds to use and doesn't need any banks to help him.
President is indeed limited in power. However, the President of the United States is, by him or herself, one of the most powerful people in the world. The President has the most sway of any single person in the United States, and that makes owning the president quite an impressive card.
Again, speak with your vote. Don't vote for garbage politicians just because they're the most popular. Popularity is decided by the media, who are wholly owned by some of the entities we need to keep out of the White House. Vote for the person you think stands for freedom, not the person MSNBC or Fox or CNN says you should vote for.
Historically speaking, some of the best Presidents are awful, awful people. But by this very logic, that would make Trump potentially one of the best presidents. That said, we should never vote based off of personality or likability, but what the person has done. And Trump has accomplished a lot more than Hillary has.
Being wife to a good president doesn't make you a good President, and Clinton had the good fortune to be a good President in a very good time. Hillary, on the other hand, has been a worthless husk since before becoming a politician by doing things such as defending rapists. Yes, it's your job as a lawyer to defend your client, but you also have the ability to choose your clients. And she chose to defend a rapist. Hillary, despite what you may think, is just as much of an awful piece of hbuman garbage as Trump is, and defending her is no better than defending Trump.
Like I said, both are bad choices, but thanks to the media having its way (and the democratic party being so divided on picking a good candidate or one just as bad as Trump) it looks like we're in for another 4-8 years of total bullshit. We voted in a man because he was black and said "change" a lot, and we got a new tax (You have to have health insurance by order of federal law, which was intended to drop prices of health insurance but has instead SPIKED THE FUCKLING HELL OUT OF IT BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO HAVE IT AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT NOW). Now we'll vote in an icy bitch because "hurray, first female president" without any thought as to whether or not she's actually a good choice... I wonder what new tax we'll get now. Maybe she'll force everyone to get life insurance.
We're at a point where we, as a nation, can only hope unstable psycho gets rid of the presidential candidates and makes us start the race over. (I don't know how to word this in a way to convey my point, but this is not a threat; only a whimsical daydream of "what if?")
