Well, the presidential debates happened They were... interesting, at least. I find it interesting that the choice has gone down to a politician that no one actually likes and is seen as "The less shittier of two turds" by most people who support and is pretty much just a generic stereotype of an awful politician, and either a racist moron, or a grand manipulator saying racist, moronic things. Honestly, I thought both their performances were sub-par, but what did you guys think?
I didn't bother to watch since I didn't want to vote for either.
But not voting for one of them is like voting for both of them!
Fine. I'd rather vote Trump then.
Well it was hardly surprising Hillary was going to win the debate. She's got a lot more experience at debates and politics in general.
However, Trump's a crackhead, meaning you could punch him in the face all day and it isn't going to faze him. He probably came out of that debate believing he won it.
Loved his comment about how everyone could agree that everything he called Rosie O Donell was justified and deserved though. Lol.
I loved the comedy show. I half expected it to be on Comedy Central.
Anyways, I pretty much have End's opinion.
Oh, and check out this. It's hilarious.
Yeah, the debate kind of made me see some more problems with Trump, but I'm still supporting him. Clinton won, but it certainly wasn't the blowout that everyone was expecting (which could say a lot about either her or Trump depending on your perspective). She won by a slight margin. Trump could have utterly destroyed her by constantly attacking her weaknesses (emails, her comments that could be seen as racist, flip flops, corruption, etc) but he instead chose to defend his business practices. I'm like, what the fuck?
At one point he was hitting her hard about the email scandal, then he just as quickly stopped and began addressing something she said that would have been forgotten if he left it alone. Why didn't he just keep pressing her? Whenever he did, she rarely had a serious rebuttal.
So I'd somewhat agree with you saying that they both had poor performances. Hillary wasn't any different than how she usually is: robotic, awkward, and condescending. She's at her best when she's debating other robots. Trump could have demolished her, but he can't stay focused on that simple goal because he has to keep defending business practices. He also tends to ramble, but I think that has more to do with how he's used to speaking.
EDIT: Plus, the moderator seemed to be in Clinton's pocket.
EDIT: Krusty Krab is unfair. Hillary thinks Krusty Krab IS fair.
@Danaos, can you explain to me why you're supporting Trump?
I honestly cannot understand why anyone would vote for him. Setting aside the fact that he's an openly evil megalomaniac, he's wildly unfit for office by any metric. He asked three times in an hour-long security briefing why the US can't just solve its problems with nukes, and you want to put him in charge of the world's largest nuclear stockpile? If he were running as a Democrat, I'd vote Republican, and I'm a socialist.
It's one entry in a long, long list of examples of how Trump understands nothing about how to govern. This goes beyond ideological beliefs. He is simply not qualified for the job.
Ax, it's like if I asked you did you want a sleazy, greedy businessman as your accountant, or a grizzly bear with a party hat. Sure, one of them probably is the better choice if you're going to be entirely pragmatic about the situation, but come on, your finances are going to end up fairly shit either way, might as well have a bit of craic.
I loved the part where Trump was questioned about his opinion of Obama's birth and how he was proven wrong and his resonpse was rambaled which ended up with him talking about the defeat of ISIS in a sudden jump of topics.
Well, since Trump was never on a national televised debate with a single opponent before, then he did pretty good.
Also, since Clinton is pretty has the natural talent of not being liked much no matter what, then she did pretty good.
While Hillary showed that she is actually not a robot and is not about to die from some alien disease pneumonia, Trump also illustrated to the crowd that he is actually able to be on television and not say something extremely stupid. However, Trump showed that he does not like being insulted by political opponents (gasp!) and Hillary illustrated that she isn't that much better than Trump at debating despite her experience.
Basically, I expect absolutely nothing to happen to the polls. Nobody had a "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience" moment. Perhaps a scandal can occur that has Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton secretly going to a sketchy motel in Nevada...
That's where Las Vegas and the Madness Series are.
Trump is not as stupid as I once thought, but I still don't like him. Hillary Clinton still has a very punchable face. To sum it up, I won't be voting this time.
Only Democrats and Republicans get electoral votes or whatever they are. Third parties literally can't get elected president.
Has a third-party ever even won the election?
John Adams, Milliard Fillmore, Zachary Taylor, John Quincy Adams, James Madison, John Tyler, William Harrison, James Monroe and Thomas Jefferson, with George Washington not being in any political party in his two terms.
I meant more recent presidents, but thanks.
You said "ever".
Trump got wrecked by Hillary's admittedly lukewarm performance, but his supporters aren't voting for him based on anything that resembles normal human logic, so I doubt it'll matter.
The Bush administration did the same thing, lol
Trump would probably admit if he fucked up? Hillary cares too much about her image in comparison with Donald Trump? Donald "I don't pay taxes because I play the game" Trump would be less corrup? That's just nonsense.
When you've been forced at gunpoint to choose between pushing a button that gores babies to death with a tent stake up the ass, and pushing a button that slowly lowers charity workers into a meat grinder feet-first, you just wanna feel like you're making the right choice, and you'll do anything to justify one or the other. It's going to be a shitty presidency either way, but hey, if Trump wins, then the US will finally grow to hate Trump so much that they'll vote for the opposite of Trump next time. If Hillary wins, the next president won't be Hillary.
In the mean time, he'll do his best to undermine the first and fourth and the seventh.
I mean, the only thing of interest to me was when Trump practically admitted that he paid little or no taxes. Sure, it's legal, and sure, any smart guy would pay the bare minimum in taxes, but it could have swung a few undecided voters (which is important because undecided voters will probably decide this election, seeing as Clinton and Trump's voters will likely not change sides).
Having watched the highlights of the Presidential Debate I can only conclude that Democracy has been replaced by Theater and hell on earth would be being trapped in a lift with either Clinton or Trump or both :D Personally, whenever I look at all the insane things Trump's said, I can only conclude if the majority of Americans elect him to be President then they deserve all the inevitable national calamities that will almost certainly follow that decision, many European politicians still seem amazed that a candidate like Trump was even being seriously considered, the joke stopped being funny when it became more real. On the other hand I've never really liked Hilary either, she's sleazy and fake but politically experienced and will at least not leave disasters in her wake. But yeah... politics has taken a strange course in America lately :)
Anyway that's just my random thoughts and have as much chance of being accurate as anyone else's :D
In the words of my History teacher, "At this point you just vote for whoever you hate the least."
Mandatory viewing as proposed by professor.
By this point, I believe the only reason Trump even decided to run for president was so he could lower his own taxes. Lol.
Edit: Nevermind. I forgot he doesn't even pay his taxes to begin with. That's probably why he's so wealthy.
The New York Times just published an interesting article about Trump.
Is it really a shock, though? He's been extremely suspicious about revealing his tax records, so it shouldn't be surprising that he's hiding shit.
After all that talk, Trump never did try to grab Hillary.
"Make America great again, by grabbing ISIS by the pussy!"
This debate was more entertaining than the last one.
Yeah... I imagine people like Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt (both of them) are turning in their graves thinking "what has happened to the Presidency..." :( It's one of those things people have to laugh at because taking it seriously is just too depressing :)
Haha sorry, reading back over that comment makes it look like a massive downer :D
This isn’t an attack on you Will, but I’m sort of wondering why you’ve been lamenting the whole Trump/american politics thing when you were applauding Brexit and thought it was a good idea for the UK in the Brexit thread.
I mean from a leftist/liberal perspective most thought that was the UK equivalent of voting for Trump.
Haha that's a good point but many in the UK felt exploited by the EU and considered it as other countries gaining at the UK's expense while the Trump-Clinton thing is a choice between a misogynistic racist and a dishonest fame-chaser for running one of the greatest countries in the world which rather makes the UK leaving the EU pale by comparison. I disagree with a few things about the UK leaving the EU (like the UK's attitude towards immigrants and immigration) but almost everything Trump says reminds me of some of the sexist, homophobic and racist guys I used to meet when I worked on building sites (though in fairness they were the friendliest bunch of guys in the world to people they considered "one of us" a.k.a. white, hard-working straight guys like me, who I imagine form the majority of Trump's support-base).
Part of the reason I'm ok with the UK leaving the EU I guess is that I don't live in the UK at the moment and probably won't for a few years so mine is hardly an insider's perspective :P Then again I'm not American so again it's just my opinion which has as much chance as being right or wrong as anyone else's :D Haha but it's important to express an opinion about important issues otherwise there's no point having a voice, living in China I get a firsthand impression of what it's like for people who are generally so non-opinionated and general about everything people rarely put forward any opinions in conversation for fear of offending someone else or being contradicted and corrected (I'm not exaggerating. Most of my Chinese friends don't even like picking restaurants to go and eat dinner in just in case someone disagrees with them!)
Sorry rambling again but I'm at school and it's either write this or do the work I'm supposed to be doing :P
When I go places around town, I see Hispanic families that have "Vote Trump!" posters all over their house. America is really depressing right now. Want to move to Canada. Then realize I can't for so many reasons.
Canada's healthcare is not as good as everyone says it is.
To be fair, they'd probably be more missed that we elected a black guy , so there's that.
Yeah,,, actually Lincoln and the Roosevelts would probably be ok with it but Washington and most of the other founding fathers would be very "WTF?" :)
Lincoln said several times was against blacks voting, let alone holding office, Theodore said whites were the "forward race" and the others the "backward races" and Franklin invited all the white Olympic especially but didn't invite the four medal winning Jesse Owens, so probably not the coolest.
It's a real bummer to think that all the cool people from history would just be like the old racist grandad if they were around today.
Yup. A lot of people don't know that if Lincoln could have kept slavery while maintaining the Union, he would have done so.
And yet he chose to emancipate them and declare slavery forever illegal in the thirteenth amendment. But yeah... history is full of racists actually with enlightenment only really kicking in during the last century or two in most countries...
You realize that the Emancipation Proclamation was a military decision, right? I mean, it certainly did pave the way to the complete banning of slavery, but it doesn't change the fact that Lincoln would have kept slavery if it would have prevented/ended the Civil War.
Ah a debate :D
Yes Lincoln had to appear publicly as moderately anti-slavery to help keep the Border States (slave owning states still within the Union) of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware pacified and supportive. In 1863 he wrote a letter to Horace Greely in which he said in part "if I could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves I would do it or if I could preserve the Union by freeing not a single slave I would do it. Whether I end slavery or not is only relevent in so far as it goes towards preserving the Union" which was his public stance almost throughout the War because he knew many white Americans fighting to preserve the Union were also ambivalent about slavery or just flat out racist, even in the North.
Privately Lincoln often admitted he despised slavery such as in his 1855 letter to Joshua Speed: "You know I dislike slavery and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it" and again when talking about seeing slaves shackled together "that sight was a continued torment to me and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio or another slave border". The Emancipation Proclomation was portrayed as a war measure while the Fifteenth Amendment ending slavery in the USA in January of 1865 had very little to do with preserving the Union (though again it was often portrayed as such to gather more support) and more to do with making Lincoln's anti-slavery views into a reality.
For me the most conclusive views of Lincoln's anti slavery views was his speech on 11 April 1865 when he promised voting rights for African-Americans in Louisiana (of all places to start!) which was completely unecessary as the war was practically over by then and if that isn't anti-slavery I don't know what is. It was the speech that John Wilkes Booth heard three days before he assassinated Lincoln and promised "that's the last speech he'll ever make". The extent of Lincoln's anti-slavery views is still a matter of debate but I think the majority of historians believe Lincoln was looking for an opportunity to end slavery from about the summer of 1862 on and he was certainly perceived as an abolitionist in the South and by some in the North, a view that actually turned out to be correct in light of his actions.
Sorry for the ramble but as Lincoln is one of my favorite people from history and patron saint of the bad joke I get excited when I get a chance to argue about him :D Of course I could be completely and utterly wrong. :P
What? I can't say I've ever heard that before. Whilst he was against black people holding power, I don't think I've ever heard that he was pro-slavery.
Yup. He was never pro-slavery, but was also never anti-slavery (there have been many of our past leaders that didn't approve of slavery, but weren't outright opposed to it). I don't know the full details, but I'm assuming it was something in the context of, "If keeping slavery would keep the Union together, I would do it." Remember, Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the Union at almost any cost.
Teddy Roosevelt would be surprised. He bought into the Kipling "white man's burden" school of thought.
The best line was Trump's "Because you'd be in jail."
He could have dropped the mic and walked off like a champ. What made it funnier was how the moderators asked the crowd to not cheer for it. Funny how they didn't do the same to a Clinton applause.
muh crooked media
Yeah if there was anything Trump did well during the debates, it was the one liners (but that's pretty much where the list of things Trump did well ends.)
My favorite one was "You can go first Hillary, I'm a gentleman," or something to that effect. I remember watching that one live, Hillary hesitated for a good amount before proceeding, and due to her expression, and I was fully expecting her to lose her patience then and say something like "I didn't know gentlemen brag about sexually abusing women and being able to get away with it due to their societal status" or something like that. And then maybe go on to list all of the Trump gaffes.
So here's the clip of what I'm referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1YCA85M3Ss
So uh I'm definitely not praising what led up to the comment (Hillary should have just gone instead of trying to attack Trump), just mentioning it to bring up how patient Hilary was when it came to the extraordinary claims Trump was making.
I agree. That was hilarious. It was a "You gotta be fucking kidding me." moment. Also I found it highly amusing how he answered all the sexual assault allegations with "I will defeat Isis."
I'm honestly praying to God at this point that Deez Nuts will make a reappearance and save America from these two.
That was one of his better lines. He does have a certain... "charm" for lack of a better word, that Clinton just has none of, that's giving him a hand in the debate.
I really can't get why anybody would vote for Trump.
Because he succeeds in scaring Republicans into thinking that Islamic terrorists will kill them eventually. Which of course is highly unlikely because terrorism barely makes up a fraction of deaths in America. The scariest threat in America is heart disease. Meaning that the best thing he could do to save lives is to ban restaurants from being able to serve undercooked meat. Honestly, what moron thought that that would be a good idea?
I'm not old enough to vote, but I hope Trump wins because of
- Gun rights
- Banning or minimizing abortion
- Hillary Clinton is a bit too corrupt in my opinion
He also said the same thing about cyber, which I later was informed meant cyber sex... :/
"Trump needs better cyber" - Presidential Debate 2016
What I took away from it is that Trump owns a lot of property and only wants to be President for money. Hillary Clinton wants better gun control and if that's all she does it would be amazing.
Well as usual, started off calm and then degenerated into a sissy slap fight. The moderator kept pretty good control overall though.
Yes! It was literally 'You're not fit to run for president!" to "Nuh-uh, that's you!"
It's coming around the corner and the polls are close. Who's ready?
Murica, I fear for your future.
This year's election, where...
-You now have the progressive choice of being fucked in the ass by a woman instead of a man!
-A talking Howler monkey flinging dynamite inscribed with racist messages has wandered onto the stage, and people love him!
-The Jew was the only one with hyper-capitalisms meaty dick in their mouth!
-We've learned that all empires fall, like Rome, Persia, Spain and soon to be the United States.
-The Americans realized that they basically had royal families, only their royal families held power.
-We found proof of an orgy between a blobfish, Senator Joe McCarthy, the Zodiac Killer and Mrs Doubtfire, and the collective orgy baby attempted to run for office.
-We found the least cool black guy in existence.
-Like a boy with a badly burnt hand, America learned to stop touching the stove that is the Bush family.
-The international community realized that lead in the water had effected the entire nation.
-A new form of power was found by attaching a turbine to Cesar Chavez' spinning grave.
-People genuinely wanted to make a wall.
-People screamed freedom while not knowing what it is.
Yeah, that's about it. Death to America.
Admin. Penalty - Seriously, knock it off with the "death to America" schtick.
Anyway, BRB voting for Trump.
Nearly forgot about that. Anyhow, I resent that penalty. I stand by my "Death to America!" stance. America's an abhorrent country, and its filled with far too many twat-waffles, fags and other scumfucks.
Nah, I believe its main problem is that it's too proud and in love with itself to listen to others.
No, it's got more than a few problems. Insane levels of patriotism is only one.
You make your kids swear allegiance to a flag in school. I don't think any other country does that, in fact, I believe that is one of the reasons of brainwashed shit for brains extremist "patriots".
I'll assume you're mistaking by nationality when you say "you", seeing as in my schools kids rarely even see a tricolor, let alone pledge to it.
This guy gets it.
Eh, it ain't that bad. It's just that it's very vocal about the fact that Sturgeon's law applies to 85% of everything in it instead of just 70%.
Pffh, the words of an American dog. It's a hyper-capitalist, militaristic, imperialistic state that massacres civilians for "freedom" while supporting brutal regimes, has a populace of naive idiots and bigots and on top of that, thinks its great.
Mhm. You could pretty much say that about any place, now or in history. Of course, not the "Freedom" part. "Freedom"'s pretty much our thing. "Civilization" was the most recent excuse for everyone, IIRC, and I'd like to see what the next one is going to be. But hey, when you're an empire's bastard with a single, unintergrating non-culture, sometimes you just want to be the world police.
Yes, classic hyper-capitalist, militaristic, imperialistic Sweden.
Are you kidding? Sweden used to be part of a very feared, hyper-capitalistic (Not only to the point of disregarding workers in exchange for a more efficient economy, but to the point of mass slavery! :D) regime that literally lived for military service and conquest. You could say they were among the best Americans.
Not now, so what's your point?
Now or in history. They're post-Americans. Every nation has phases of being an asshole, and I'd argue that every nation is a different kind of asshole if I didn't have better things to do than scrounge up examples. America hasn't got over it yet, but keep in mind, the other guys have had literally thousands of years and two world wars to get over their dickitude, America's had about 300 years and not much in the way of tragedies and atrocities for it to learn lessons with. It's like a mean toddler.
Oh sorry, misunderstood your point. I thought you meant both now and in history, my bad. Anyhow, your point of all countries at some time or another being assholes is just ridiculous. To act like America's "behind" on other countries like Europe is stupid, as its not like it started off as a mismatch of tribes in the 18th century like Europe did back however many years ago, it was birthed from the British colonies. You simply can't act like it suddenly began societal evolution anew, as it was as culturally advanced as Britain at the time. By your reasoning, countries like Ireland or New Zealand should be as imperialistic as America is.
And they would have been, if they got ahead soon enough to have been imperialistic, and hadn't been dicked over by imperialism themselves. America was probably in the process of being dicked over by imperialism, which certainly would've changed their minds about most of the Spanish-American war shit and all the Cold War stuff, but the Revolutionary War happened, so not only were they not dicked enough to find Imperialism abhorrent, but they were now an individual nation that had to get as imperialistic as all the European kingdoms so it could dick them over first.
Nations that get ahead of other ones tend to dick over everyone they can get their hands on. That's how it was when America was founded. Since two world wars that we weren't really heavily involved in dicked everyone else over, nations in the area have taken extensive measures to make sure that nobody does that sort of thing again, and as a result, are less dickish... Except America, who, as I've said, wasn't really involved, aside from fighting for Islands and jumping in in the last few years to help England. And they moved right on to squabbling with Russia and the Middle East. We haven't had a tradgedy that makes us hate the idea of war and imperialism like the Europeans have. We haven't ever lost a war so much as left a war, never had to deal with the consequences of war and imperialism on mainland soil, etc. etc.
Except, of course, the Civil war, but the point everyone takes from that is that Slavery is bad and America can even kick its own ass, since it was only ever itself and not other nations going at it. The point that you shouldn't dehumanize citizens of other nations and treat them as resources was never made, because the south was never really there long enough to have become another nation. It just split off. That, and everything about the Civil War is either a toneless history lesson, or a Wild Western thing about how badass everyone was. There's nothing highlighting the horrors of war actually happening in America, so nobody feels that strongly.
And speaking of nobody feeling that strongly, I highly doubt anyone except the vocal minority of mobility-scooter Trumphats thinks America really is great. 90% of everyone I've met in life either hates the way things are going, or is intensely apathetic because we rarely get choices that A) we can agree on enough to vote in, and B) Will change anything in any amount of time. The inability to change anything has filled our politics with a load of schmucks and idiots who just want the money, because there's really nothing else to do in Washington, because virtually nothing happens.
Death to the imperials! America belongs the Stormcloaks.
Hoo boy don't even get me started on the Stormcloaks, though. They're assholes and zeallots, who will drive Skyrim into the dirt as soon as they have their way with it.
Whoa. Don't go off on me! khajiit did nothing wrong!
How was New Zealand dicked over by imperialism? Sure, the Maori were to an extent, but they're not the main population of New Zealand. The country was made as colonies, which then left peacefully, and the descendents of these colonists now, for the most part, make up New Zealand. Hence, as you said they should've been swinging their weight around over the weaker Maori people and acted in an Imperialistic fashion towards them, but they didn't, which is why such a strong Maori connection exists there to this day.
What is this about countries dicking over whoever's smaller than them? We don't see most of the European countries doing any of this shit to weaker countries like Africa or the Middle East. And to say that America never had a war to show them the consequences is firstly nonsense, given the civil war took place. You say in the same sentence that people learned slavery's bad, but not treating other people as resources. You can't just discount the civil war because it was on America soil.
You also brush WW1 and WW2 aside, even though they hold critical things like Pearl Harbor and the Luisitania, as well as quite a few bombings on American soil. You skip past Vietnam and Korea because they weren't on American soil, but thanks to television for Vietnam and radio for Korea, these were wars that did show the American people the horrors of war, which was why there was such a strong-anti war movement.
Hell, Switzerland is a powerful economic country that hasn't been in any wars since even before the American Civil War, they're not sauntering around staring wars in foreign countries.
Even despite those two points, I don't see why it matters. Even if the US hasn't, and they have, seen the horrors of war in any real way, why would that change the fact that it's an imperialistic state. Providing a reason for it to be like this doesn't excuse the behavior anymore than explaining the destabalization of the middle east excuses ISIS' behaviour.
The fact that Americans complain about the way the country's heading doesn't change anything. You're a country that has children pledge allegiance to the flag daily, still has the concept of pride in country to a huge extent more than anywhere else, has a huge amount of nostalgia for past America in many cases, and has had every successful politician in memory had to kiss the ass of your country. IIRC, something like 10% of Americans think there are countries greater than the US.
Ah, I was thinking of Australia's prison-coloniness. The fact of the matter is, they just weren't big enough to have started dicking everyone over. They've been around as countries since the 1840s, but you rarely hear of them on an international scale outside of WWII when they were defending themselves.
Oh, no, we don't see that. That all already happened, for them. The thing about slaves, is that the slaves were American. They were a more tangible people because they were already in America and upset. The thing about imperialistic slavery, is that very few people who wouldn't be okay with it normally are confronted with it, in the news or otherwise. The Civil War brought America together, but it sure wasn't any great epiphany for its foreign policy. America has, otherwise, never suffered the consequences of losing a war to an invading force, other than itself. The time it did lose, it managed to defend itself from any real impact through some diplomatic miracle.
Yes, WWI and WWII did have those events, but to say they ended up as fucked as Europe because of them is ridiculous. I'd argue that a lot of the reasons that it got swept up in the world wars were rather the same as the ones that got them involved in the "Anti-Terrorism" wars, or at least those were the ones that got the public to approve. They learned something along the lines of "They shot at us first!" and "They want to destroy us, so fuck them!" rather than "Boy, war sure sucks. I think we should avoid it." Because battles never happened here, entire cities were not destroyed, we were not occupied by oppressive regimes, we were fighting the Germans because of some conspiracies on a boat and squabbling to get more Islands than the Japanese. The horror was offshore, our armies were protecting us from the horrors of war, they were not protecting our existence, which is very, very different from what was happening in Europe. That's why they have an EU trying to make them all interdependant, and we have NATO because fuck Communists. Notice the two very different starting goals for these organizations, because our nations recieved two very different lessons from these wars.
It's the same thing with Vietnam and Korea, they weren't here. They were just scary stories to 90% of Americans. But, unlike most aspects of today's imperialism, they were constantly confronted with it in the news to let people know that America was dealing with the Red Menace. Only, vehement anti-communism skipped a generation, because that generation was no longer concerned with everyone else's government, and just wanted the war to stop, so they did something about it. It was an idea that they didn't want to fight anymore, but now we have a different idea that we hate, so we're fighting a boundary-less mafia as if it were a country, because America still has that World War mindset. If we had enough people who gave a fuck and weren't de-sensitized by the media CONSTANTLY showing the same horrible bullshit, I'm sure something would also be done about our shit in the middle east, but everyone's still squabbling over social issues, so nobody's got the time, resources, or opportunities to repair that timesucking clusterfuck.
I know it doesn't, but I'm just saying, it's not going to be like this forever. America is a mean toddler right now, but it's going to grow up eventually. Thing is, Countries change really, really, really slowly. So long as people live there, the "Death" of the establishment won't stop it, it would only make it a shitty place. It would possibly be the event that makes it "Grow up", but, of course, it's going to take maybe a lifetime, and some turmoil in between, wherein it will suck for America and everyone around it, before they get the point... In which case, a shitty election like this might just be a tragedy in the right direction...
I do hope you understand how much of a joke the pledge is over here. Those of us in high school that still do it often use silly voices, talk to the people next to us instead, rush through it to get back to what they're doing, or can't remember half the lines. And, well I highly doubt any more than 10% of people like anywhere else better than the place they live. If you live somewhere long enough, it's easier to see other places as crappy because they have different problems. I think where I live now is the best place to live. To live in, say, a different neighborhood, to me, would suck ass because I would have to adapt to a whole different set of problems than the ones I don't notice because I'm used to them. Everywhere also has a huge amount of nostalgia for the past of everywhere, be it long ago or recent. It's the golden age fallacy, which exists for everyone indiscriminately of their nationality. It's just that our stereotype is the morbidly obese Cowboy-hat-wearing hick who wishes them damn Africans weren't allowed to sit next to him on the bus. "American Pride" is a hilarious joke, something we use to separate the naive seniors from the regular ones.
Not big enough to dick everyone over, but absolutely big enough to dick over the Maori populace. Plus, given Australia was doing it, no one would give a fuck. But they didn't.
Yeah, it happened, just like America's colonization and conquest of Native American lands. However in the modern day, we don't see it happening, but with America we do.
America's a big place. Many people wouldn't have had much more contact with slaves as a middle-class farmer sticking to their own turf than they would with Europeans. Hell, Ohio didn't even have slaves at that time IIRC, so they wouldn't had no contact. The fact that it was countryman against countryman doens't mean that the message of war as awful wouldn't then be able to be applied to all war. If anything, it shows the message as war as a destructive war as worse.
Sure, the world wars didn't badly damage America, but the horrors were still evident in the few times that it did spill over. The war didn't damage Switzerland at all, but we don't see a term of pro-war sentiment there.
They weren't just scary stories, they were being witnissed by all of America. We see a massive anti-war sentiment starting here and only growing, which is one of the main reasons America lost. For any other country this would've been the end to its militeristic phase, but America just bounds right into another issue. You pointing out that yeah, America did just repeat this cycle even though it had, like many other countries, been faced with the horrors of war that led to an anti-war generation, doesn't exonerate it for these actions.
So then what exactly is your point? I think America's a "a hyper-capitalist, militaristic, imperialistic state that massacres civilians for "freedom" while supporting brutal regimes". You don't seem to be disagreeing with that here, so I question what the point of making that. You can point out that America's in a toddler stage, but the same can be said much more realistically about ISIS and Iraq which actually was sent spiralling back to a chaotic stage of pre-government, only with more advanced technology. America's not a toddler in age, as it didn't start again with its birth, it was taking on all the societal evolution that Britain had done. Speaking of, Britain has changed to a much more peaceful country than the Imperialistic country it was only a short time ago, while in that time, America has not. If anything, American has only grown more imperialist over that time period.
Kids, as kids do, don't take it seriously, but they're still taught it, there's still a time to say it every morning, and that still does have an effect on the American psyche. You can find countless studies that talk about American patriotism, and how they're among, if not the most, depending on the study, patriotic countries. You really don't find the sentiment here in Ireland that we're the best country. Hell, I can't remember the last time I saw an Irish flag, and we're one of the most patriotic countries there is. Hell, in some places in Europe like Germany there's debates about whether you should even claim to proud of your country, while again, politicians get blasted if they say anything but patriotic bullshit.
Yeah, but that's because they had to keep all the sheep under control.
That's also true, but Manifest destiny has only become a horror story comparatively recently. People often learn about Africa struggling with its existence due to its tumultuous past very early in life, the fact that it sucks to live in Africa is practically taken for granted, whereas the USA's self being built on imperialism is practically taken for granted. I think there's a lot that goes into people not thinking about it as much, a lot of it being that the United States is one country, like China, that was put together by conquering all of the different peoples in its borders, so someone from China is thought of as Chinese and not as someone from Yunnan.
Sure, they might not have known slaves, but that isn't to say black people weren't around. I'm not saying people who didn't own slaves are immune to being racist, but hey, the thought of your neighbor, coworker, employee, vanishing overnight and being dragged to a place where all black people are either slaves or sold into slavery, can be a tad chilling, even if you're not fond of them. And you can be sure there's always someone with personal experience either with someone they know disappearing, or having been a slave, who's going about trying to convince people why slavery is bad. It wasn't as much the talk of the nation as history lessons seem to imply that it is, but the subject touched a lot of people far more often and more closely than anything we deal with today. The message that people seemed to draw from it, more than the horrors of the war, was just that we shouldn't fight each other. It really put people off seceding, but since we are the same country, and people usually thought of themselves as one country until the secession, nobody really got the message that exploiting faraway people was bad. That point wasn't effectively made by the civil war, and you can tell that by the way that history lessons and documentaries are constructed.
Oh, oh yes, I'm sure that people in America actually witnessed the horrors of the Vietnam war. In America. I'm sure what they were hearing and seeing wasn't just being told and shown to them, but they were actually witnessing their villages being burned down and watching people getting executed, not receiving word and sensibly limited from the news. It was still far away, and the Americans who had to deal with the actual horror and the actual consequences were a definite minority. America was briefly, psychologically touched by Vietnam and Korea, but it's a lot like those threads where I get sad and try to stop insulting people on the internet, I am genuinely depressed about the things I'm talking about, but eventually I do have to let my problems go, and when I'm not so bothered, I get dragged into something else that pisses me off and I'm calling people fucktards again.
I actually think I was on the verge of making a point, but I got lost somewhere. Sometimes, when I find myself apathetic about something I feel like I should have an opinion on, I'll just pitch something and see how it does so I can see what I think about things as the other guy brings up points. I probably agree with you, in all honesty, just not that the death of America would solve any of it.
So? The fact that it's only been seen as wrong recently doesn't effect the fact that it happened back then when all countries were doing it, and most of the other countries stopped, but America didn't. This doesn't seem to be an arguement.
We shouldn't fight each other seems to be pretty much the same message as don't go to war. If you think the lesson needs to be that specific, then every country should need to have a horrifying war in every form war exists to know to stop having that form of war with that country. You're also acting as if America was one big, unified country, when it wasn't. The divide between states was much stronger than you're letting on. Hell, the fact that in one state you could buy a human being as property and in another state you can't should show that. The point clearly could've been made, it just so happens that America avoided doing so and went back to militeristic imperialism, because America's shitty. The civil war was most definitely a moment to show the horrors of war. The only factor you seem to be mentioning between this and another country's defining civil war that sent them towards peace, such as Ireland, is America itself.
You seem to be saying that with sarcasm, but I don't understand how you possibly could. Sure, it was limited, but television had a MASSIVE influence on the Vietnam war. LBJ himself said that. It was called a living room war at the time. In one of its few good sides, America has freedom of press, and the press reported on the horrors of the war. You say sarcastically that the US people watched US Soldiers lightning houses on fire. They did. In 1965, CBS showed footage of such an event. There's the footage of the child running from a Napalm strike, or the crying man executed by the South Vietnamese Police Officer. Virtually every historian agrees that it was a major reason, if not the main reason, the US lost the war due to such a fall in public support.
The slogan means a lot of things. It's been used to express anti-American sentiment, used to express frustration at American involvement, mean a calling for a Jihad against the American people and been a decry at American politics. To assume that it means the death of America is as childish as to assuming "Eat a dick" is an order for the cannabalism of genitalia.
The deal is, it wasn't very publicised, so the message was missed until it already happened, and since we don't seem to be doing exactly the same thing, it's sort of like the Rwanda syndrome. (Never again, Hitler!) They don't think it's happening, though, if it was put into schools earlier and the message was brought forth earlier, people wouldn't have put up with imperialism. Whereas, with Europe, there were actually Europeans trying to stop the Scramble, and it definitely wound down at the end of the Imperial age. Europeans certainly wouldn't put up with it now, because they've known for a long time that it's bad.
It's different when someone's overseas, psychologically and geographically. It's different to see your houses being burned down, and it's most certainly different to watch someone die in front of you. The Civil War had visceral consequences that happened to America, directly, and only to America, the Vietnam and Korean wars had vicseral consequences in Vietnam and Korea. The Civil War brought America together on virtue that the Civil War was horrible, and it was countryman against countryman, but there's that same imperialistic mindset that was happening back then, and the psychological and geographical disconnect between foreigners you never see up close, and that's what makes the Civil War different. Not only did it directly happen during an age of imperialism, from which they were directly benefitting, but the Civil War happened in America, which is all well and good for scaring America into not having a war in America, but the fact that other nations probably shouldn't be treated that way is a point that's yet to be made.. Yes, it's horrible when you watch these things happening, but it's not the same as seeing it happen in a place nearby, or a place that could be near you, or truly seeing it happen, period. Yes, the imagery was realistic and disturbing, but it wasn't a direct, visceral effect to the public the same way it would've been if Korea had been, say, somewhere along the Canadian border.
That's not even mentioning the fact that the Cold War Meddle-With-Everyone-Movement wasn't imperialism, which it almost certainly was. While it was always established that the wars were bad, they were always sold to the public as "Working with Freedom-Fighters" or "Promoting Capitalism". Things done directly "For America" in the sense of Nationalism, but rather in the sense of "Fuck the Second World". It was never called imperialism when people started cracking down on the word, post-world-war.
I feel like Death to anything is just such a poorly worded/extreme term. There's good and bad facets of every thing, and to say away with it all is just silly. Something like "Fuck America" because you disagree with aforementioned things works a lot better. Its an overly absolute term.
What? It was known at the very foundation of America that it was wrong to do bad things to the Native Americans. George Washington said that the Native American was equal to them, though their society was inferior. Dude had a plan to civilise them that included punishing those who violated their rights, and there were countless people after him. There's no way you can argue ignorance that it was bad.
The message shown was that war is horrible to experience. Unless you're saying that the American people lack empathy in all regards, applying this to it being bad to do to other people follows. It's what happened in many other countries. And sure, watching it on the TV doesn't have as strong an effect as being there, that's obvious, but it still clearly has an effect. We know this from the massive repercussions this had on America, giving it a strong anti-war movement we had never seen before. This exact situation lead to cultural shifts away from imperialism in other countries, but in America, it did not, the only factor being different being the America part. You can point out that the effect wasn't as strong, but unless you want to argue that the use of televisions didn't have a MASSIVE effect on the anti-war movement and argue that the anti-war movement wasn't there, you have to admit that America had been shown, like every other country, that war was awful.
So? The fact that America slaps labels like "YEAH, FREEDOM!" "CAPITALISM, GUYS!" and "DEMOCRACY" is one of the things I first said was shitty about America. Your point that it wasn't called imperialism is as stupid as the point that the KKK don't label themselves as racism.
"Death to America" came about in the Islamic World which felt the brunt of America shitting on it. In their language, Death to America is what's used instead of Fuck America. I don't see how Fuck is any less absolute than Death to, given the context behind the phrase in its history.
I think it's pretty safe to day that the majority of America did not think or agree with what the founding fathers thought. He also said slavery was going to be a temporary industry while everything was getting built, but the South believed that it was their way of life and would be that way forever, and half the North joined the war for reasons other than slavery. Overtime, the whole, "Let's be cool with the Native Americans" clause faded away in the public eye, and people aren't educated about it as early. Nobody teaches kids about the Native American oppression, and it isn't talked about as much as the days that Africa had a really bad time.
I don't, really. America's never had to deal with the physical consequences of a big, long war, other than the one it had with itself, and that's not the lesson everybody took from that. Yeah, we all know war is awful, but it's never learned that war should be avoided, and that the consequences of it are awful.
The point is, that people don't and didn't know that America was being imperialistic as it happens, because it's never called that. The whole Cold War thing is still not called that even though most would admit we were being dicks. That isn't covered in history lessons, and as far as the student is concerned, it ended when we let the Phillipines and the Carribean Islands go independant.
Well, yeah, but we both know there's a difference between "I hate this" and "I want this to die". If someone pisses you off on the internet, you don't say "Please, just die"... Wait, nevermind.
So? The majority of Europe was OK with the scramble of Africa. You pointed out that a few Europeans being against it was what differentiated it from the treatment of Native Americans, but America actually had more prominent politicians coming out against it than Europe ever had. Hence, if anything America had more reason to end its imperialistic ways than Britain, and again the only factor of you can point out as being different is America didn't learn its lesson even though it had more reason to do so than Britain, which if anything is a point for the whole "Death to America" bit.
1. Neither did many countries like Switzerland that never dealt with ANY physical consequences, yet we don't see imperialist tendencies remaining with them to this day. 2. "Other than the one it had with itself" is said so off-handedly, when it's an admission that yes, America did deal with a massive war much larger than many other countries did, but it just didn't learn its lesson, which again, only points to America being shitty as that was the factor. 3. The lesson war should be avoided was clearly there, as the anti-war movement came about during Vietnam! That was an entire generation dedicated to being against war, which was a hell of a lot more than many other countries got. The only factor being different from many other countries who experienced such a strong cultural shift, many of whom had extremely similar situations, is America, hence leading back to the Death to America thing.
First there were clearly people who called their treatment imperialistic, as we know there were people talking about how the native Americans deserved rights at the time and continuing. Hell, your first president was one of the first to do so. You then act like there still hasn't been critics of their behavior in things like the Cold War, which is nonsense, as there are endless people who spoke out against it, many doing so in the modern-day, but we're not seeing a shift away from this attitude. Second, do you think that England or Spain believed they were being imperialistic in a negative way as it happened? If anything, they had far less critics than America did, so America had more reason to give up their imperialistic ways. Still, what we see is that America remained imperialistic, so as stated above, America didn't learn its lesson even though it had more reason to do so than Britain, which if anything is yet another point for the whole "Death to America" bit.
And I think we both know there's a difference between "Eat a dick" and an order to cannibalize genitalia. You're taking it in a literal meaning, which you clearly shouldn't given context.
Does Ireland get nothing but Fox News or something when it comes to American TV?
Because I’d argue that the country doesn’t have nearly enough patriotism given how much bitching about it is a national past time here. Especially in recent decades.
I’d say more US citizens sound more like Steve when it comes to the country.
All that’s going to happen after this election is:
Hillary is going to get elected
Right wingers will bitch and moan
Trump will be on some new reality show and go on about how he trolled everyone
A bunch of promises that were made, only 10% of them will be kept at best
People in general will bitch and moan about Hillary
We will continue to bomb the shit out of brown people
Brown people will continue to say Death to America while still wanting to come here to reap the benefits of it (and still saying it) without having to live in a third world shithole
Europe and Europeans will continue to bitch and moan about America being too right wing all the while getting fucked in the ass because they’re all so afraid of offending some third world shithole (and their people) so they’ll just shuffle some papers around and hope everything sorts itself out eventually.
China will continue to keep quiet and build up their own shit and laugh at all the round eyes in private.
We’ll be plagued by twat-waffles, fags and other scumfucks and STILL be better off than 99% of the world (Except for those smug Swiss fuckers)
Oh, you forgot one thing. The House of Representatives will give Hillary the middle finger and she'll return the favor. Thus, nothing will get done as usual. :)
I'd really question if you've visited Europe if you think America has too little patriotism.
Well yeah according to most Euros, anyone who displays even the most minor form of patriotism even to the smallest degree is a fascist ready to go invade Poland.
Euros in general are so fucking wrapped up in feeling guilty about your colonialist/imperialist past that you sit around waggling a finger at anyone else who does it, but of course not actually doing any more than that without hemming and hawing and filling out 100 pieces of paperwork, consulting the U.N. which about the only thing that’s any good for is wearing blue helmets and sucking cocks.
Various European nations already had all their fun flag waving nationalistic colonialism “we’re the greatest nation in the world” time. So all you look like is a bunch of hypocrites.
And for the Euro countries that weren’t lucky to have all that, well you shouldn’t have sucked so much and getting horse fucked by your more successful neighbors. (Yes, excluding those smug Swiss assholes) All you look like is resentful that you never got your historical moment to stride the world like a Colossus because again, you got horse fucked by your more successful neighbors so an "anti-imperialist" stance is about all you got.
So really why should anyone actually listen to you lot? It all just comes off as an impotent whine for the most part.
We’re just doing the same, and considering America is one of England’s children, we learned from the best about how to go about being complete dicks to the world.
Well who else was going to do it? Our gay ass brother Canada? Our other slacker brother, Australia which only bothered to exterminate Aborigines?
And of course I haven’t visited Europe, because on top of being a dedicated bigoted sneering imperialist citizen of the Empire, I don’t even like leaving the fucking house if I can help it.
Just think of it as one less asshole American tourist coming to Ireland to bother you and spreading my infectious cultural feces all over your country. You may thank me now.
Spirit cooking? Isn't that just, like, black cuisine or something?
Here, I'll give an entirely inaccurate synopsis of the candidates:
President Hillary Clinton: after almost being defeated by a Jewish socialist from the second smallest state in the union (who who wasn't even a Democrat), Hillary finally is within inches of her lifelong dream of gaining an ecstatic amount of power serving the American people. Her main detriments are that she unquestionably broke the law accidentally used a secret email account so that her deals with Satan her personal life could be personal and that she flips on policy positions more commonly than Steve makes great storygames. Among her policy positions are: murdering babies, raising taxes on the upper class, selling the United States to Mexico, emigration amnesty for aliens reform, civil rights for all, destroying Christianity, and trying to bring some stability to the Middle-East.
Donald Trump: after facing the largest and most incompetent group of Republicans ever in the primaries, Donald Trump prevailed since he ranted unceasingly about Mexico and random groups of people is the voice of the American people. Donald Trump is now exceedingly close to reaching a random spur of the moment and commercial for his brand POTUS. His main detriment is that he says more utterly stupid and disturbingly insensitive amazingly intelligent things than could possibly be registered by mortal men. Among his policy positions are: making America great again, building a the Berlin wall across the US-Mexico border, being tough on any of our allies or enemies, maybe having a few conservative policy positions, kicking out anybody brown, building a wall, making America great again, and building a wall.
Gary Johnson: after possibly being able to break double digits, everybody realized that he's just a high, liberal hippie who has no idea about anything foreign at all including "a leppo".
Jill Stein: after never doing swell in the polls, it appears that she will not receive good results on this Tuesday. Also, she thinks wi-fi causes cancer or some sort of hippie crap like that.
Egg Mcmuffin Evan McMullin: after being known by absolutely nobody, a random Mormon from Utah decided to run as an Independent because he hates politicians with orange skin who are not true conservatives. Evan is now hilariously close the beating Trump in Utah which is the most Republican state in the nation. His main detriment is that he's a a forty year old guy who shaves his head and that only Utah likes him. Among his policy positions are: anything generically Republican, liking gay-marriage because why not?, and giving Trump the middle finger.
Personally, I would take even Richard Nixon over these buffoons. :)
Family's telling me I need to vote, but I can't bring myself to do it. Not sure what to do.
Vote for Trump, it'll provide the most lulz if he actually wins which he won't, but you can at least say you didn't exactly throw your vote away since he isn't a third party candidate.
Plus you can always lie and say you voted for Hillary if someone asks and really gives a shit about wanting you to vote republican lite democrat.
Actually the polls are close enough that if trump gets Florida, he has a good chance of winning.
Actually, I have to disagree. (I'm totally a nerd when it comes to this. You have been warned.) :)
Assuming that Trump should be able to win all of the Romney states with the exception of North Carolina, he would be at 191 EC votes which is 79 away from the magical 270. If the polls are correct, Trump has a good chance of winning Iowa and Ohio which would cause his 191 to become a 215. If he does win Florida, then he'd be at 244 which is 26 away from 270.
The question is now how to receive the final 26. Currently, North Carolina is polling extremely closely to Florida, so I'll be merciful to Trump and give him those 15 EC votes as well. Now, there is just 11 to go... But, there's not much left. Michigan seems to be safely in HRC's (about +5 for the dems). Main's second Congressional district is leaning to Trump... Let's give him that as well. Now, there's 10 to go. Colorado, Wisconsin, Virginia, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania all appear to be under Hillary's shadow as well.
This leaves just two states: Nevada and New Hampshire. Together, they do give Trump exactly the 10 that he needs, but I do not think either state would go for him. New Hampshire has been trending left for over two decades. Until last week, it was leaning Clinton by over 11 points in some polls. When Hillary's Weiner email scandal took prominence, it abruptly switched to about a dead even heat (which is a far greater jump than any other state in the nation which suggest polling errors). Nevada is also a product of poor polling. Nevada is consistently considered a swing state only to break hard-blue. Why? Well, for some reason everybody forgets to include more than a fraction of the Hispanic voting population there. Republicans, especially their orange skinned nominee, are not popular among this demographic. Thus, this state is most likely a lean-blue state as well.
Therefore, if "Trump gets Florida" he still does not have a good chance of winning (unless he wins Florida by a landslide which would translate to the rest of the nation as well, but that is never going to happen). However, if Trump wins New Hampshire, Virginia, Michigan, or Pennsylvania early on in the night, I would say that he will win. (Even though that is not likely. Hillary is still the favorite to win.)
My point still stands. Florida is huge for trump. It doesn't matter how the others states vote if he doesn't get Florida.
I have plans in place in case of catastrophe...
Lex Luthor 2020
Trump / Pence 2016. "Some men just want to watch the world burn."
I would only sway for trump since if something were to happen tragic occurred. I would enjoy a Pence run country.
The dude doesn't believe in Evolution or Global warming, supported the PATRIOT Act, is against Gay Marriage and gay rights in general, wants flag desecration to be a crime and supported the Iraq war. For all his faults, if Trump wins I'll be hoping his heart lasts the four years.
If Trump wins, Pence will be president, along with every other wingnut batting for the right wing. He has a very foggy understanding, if any understanding, of how the government works, so he's going to shrug everything off onto the party once he realizes that he can't really do anything. That's how he got everyone in the business to support him in the first place.
Fair point. Though at least if Trump lives the downward spiral will have a hilarious figurehead.
Well, if he's voted in, it's because he got a little over half the vote and we couldn't put up a united front against him because all the other candidates were shit, history books are going to credit the ideas of everyone around him to him, he makes speeches that rile people up, but has no idea how to actually do things in politics... He could be literally Hitler, except much lamer, and without any big evil shitstorm. He's just Shitler.
I am ready to rejoin the Great Britain Empire vote for Trump.
Would that qualify as Brenter?
Sort of surprised Seto would vote for Trump, unless he’s joking of course.
I am deadly serious. Emphasis on the deadly xD
Dear lord......voting for either of them feels like a sin. Its like a "who do you think will fuck america less" sort of thing.