Who is your ideal candidate?
21 Jun 2019, 8:29 pm
My thoughts there, I feel it will go that way no matter what, no matter who gets elected. With freedom we have the freedom to manipulate, corrupt people have the freedom to seek power and change things to benifit themselves and others like them. Eventually we will evolve to having a system set up like in the kingdom days, leaders nobles and peasants. But like I said, we had swords against swords then, this time the will have technology that will make revolting impossible.
RushKing
Veteran
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
22 Jun 2019, 10:22 am
Crimadella wrote:
I have explained this before, I think you misunderstand the situation, he isn't attacking freedom of press by calling out press for lieing, and they are. Particular leftist press are enemy of the people
Freedom of the press is freedom of the press. Left, right or center it doesn't matter. The constitution is supposed to protect the press from government interference.
The Trump administration is attacking and violating the First Amendment. They just threw foreign a journalist; Julian Assange behind bars.
22 Jun 2019, 10:41 am
RushKing wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
I have explained this before, I think you misunderstand the situation, he isn't attacking freedom of press by calling out press for lieing, and they are. Particular leftist press are enemy of the people
Freedom of the press is freedom of the press. Left, right or center it doesn't matter. The constitution is supposed to protect the press from government interference.
The Trump administration is attacking and violating the First Amendment. They just threw foreign a journalist; Julian Assange behind bars.
That's the huge flaw in thinking, criticizing and banning are two completely different things. He is not trying to alter the constitution to rid freedom of press nor freedom of speech. People take a ridiculous leap to suggest that. Show me the bill which Trump is trying to pass to ban freedom of press, otherwise he isn't trying to attack freedom of the press. On another note some leftist actually are attacking freedom of press, insisting that news they don't agree with should be banned online. If as crazy as Alex Jones is, he has a right to speak, and he is not the only voice being attacked. CNN is actually the ones who pressured all popular social media to silence him, that is an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of press being that they banned 'Info Wars' a press outlet. In my opinion, CNN is just as full of s**t as Alex Jones.
Last edited by Crimadella on 22 Jun 2019, 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
22 Jun 2019, 11:11 am
Lets see, leftist agenda which violate the constitution. Attempting to silence opinions they dislike on social media, the modern online town square, ruled as so in supreme court. On one hand they say they are a platform, everyone has a voice an entitled to their opinion, on the other hand they are acting as the can control what people say and what opinions can be expressed, a publisher. Certain states are going against the electoral voting system, you need like 75% of states to over throw that, yet certain states are saying they are going to give all votes to the popular vote even if the actual law isn't changed, I do believe that is directly going against the constitution. They are trying to come up with hate speech laws which directly goes against the constitution, freedom of speech. In fact, we are going to end up having to make political alignment/affiliation a protected class because liberals are discriminating on conservatives in various ways. You can't eat here you conservative, you can't rent my apartment you conservative, I don't have to sell you anything you conservative, soon enough I expect to see liberal only pies pop up. Last but not least, they are attempting and being successful in banning some conservatives from even being able to have a bank account with certain banks, and that number is growing. It started with banning alt-righters, as sh***y as they are they have a right to have bank accounts. But it didn't stop at the alt-right, they are now trying to label conservatives they really dislike as alt-right and get them banned from banking also. There is one conservative lady that has even been banned from Uber taxi services, for being conservative.
22 Jun 2019, 11:57 am
The_Walrus wrote:
Why have Tulsi Gabbard when you can have Mike Gravel?
He's got the same socialist and anti-war credentials while also being good on social issues and justice reform. I don't particularly like him but I can at least respect him, whereas Gabbard gives politicians a bad name.
There are a lot of actually good candidates on the Democrat side. Booker, Buttegieg and Gillebrand would all make great presidents. Jay Inslee would be good but doesn't excite me in the way those three do. O'Rourke and Harris are a bit left-wing for my taste but I'd be happy supporting them. Biden, yeah, fine. Yang is a bit one note but it's a good note. Hickenlooper is a meme. Swalwell is a literal Who and I think he goes too far on gun control. Bill Weld is too fiscally conservative for my liking, and has no chance of winning the nomination, but he is a respectable man and is clearly a better candidate than Trump or Gabbard. Elizabeth Warren is a leftie but isn't too obnoxious.
Then the candidates I don't really like. John Delaney's campaign seems totally reliant on his first-mover status; he's too authoritarian for my tastes. I would hold my nose while supporting Sanders or Klobachar; Sanders is much too left-wing and Klobachar is an authoritarian. Mike Gravel would be strong domestically, but an utter disaster on foreign policy. There's no foreign dictator too evil for Tulsi Gabbard to support them. I would very reluctantly prefer her to Donald Trump - I imagine if she beat Trump she'd be out in 2024 and a good Republican would take over.
I naively supported a third-party candidate in 2012 and won't be making that mistake again. I might consider voting that way if I lived in a safe state (or a state where they had a genuine chance of beating the greater of two evils), but frankly the quality of third-parties in America tends to be very low. The Green and Libertarian Parties do not offer sensible platforms, the Justice Party is in even worse shape than in 2012, and the Constitution Party is not one I could ever consider supporting. I think all the sensible liberals are basically in the Democratic Party, and I can tolerate having a coalition with socialists and socdems.
He's got the same socialist and anti-war credentials while also being good on social issues and justice reform. I don't particularly like him but I can at least respect him, whereas Gabbard gives politicians a bad name.
There are a lot of actually good candidates on the Democrat side. Booker, Buttegieg and Gillebrand would all make great presidents. Jay Inslee would be good but doesn't excite me in the way those three do. O'Rourke and Harris are a bit left-wing for my taste but I'd be happy supporting them. Biden, yeah, fine. Yang is a bit one note but it's a good note. Hickenlooper is a meme. Swalwell is a literal Who and I think he goes too far on gun control. Bill Weld is too fiscally conservative for my liking, and has no chance of winning the nomination, but he is a respectable man and is clearly a better candidate than Trump or Gabbard. Elizabeth Warren is a leftie but isn't too obnoxious.
Then the candidates I don't really like. John Delaney's campaign seems totally reliant on his first-mover status; he's too authoritarian for my tastes. I would hold my nose while supporting Sanders or Klobachar; Sanders is much too left-wing and Klobachar is an authoritarian. Mike Gravel would be strong domestically, but an utter disaster on foreign policy. There's no foreign dictator too evil for Tulsi Gabbard to support them. I would very reluctantly prefer her to Donald Trump - I imagine if she beat Trump she'd be out in 2024 and a good Republican would take over.
I naively supported a third-party candidate in 2012 and won't be making that mistake again. I might consider voting that way if I lived in a safe state (or a state where they had a genuine chance of beating the greater of two evils), but frankly the quality of third-parties in America tends to be very low. The Green and Libertarian Parties do not offer sensible platforms, the Justice Party is in even worse shape than in 2012, and the Constitution Party is not one I could ever consider supporting. I think all the sensible liberals are basically in the Democratic Party, and I can tolerate having a coalition with socialists and socdems.
And you seem very keen on war? Have you ever thought about joining the army? Perhaps once you'd seen your best friend blown to pieces in front of you and heard a woman crying after her child was blown to bits by a missile you might change your mind? Gabbard is a veteran and knows the costs of war.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
22 Jun 2019, 11:59 am
Crimadella wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
I have explained this before, I think you misunderstand the situation, he isn't attacking freedom of press by calling out press for lieing, and they are. Particular leftist press are enemy of the people
Freedom of the press is freedom of the press. Left, right or center it doesn't matter. The constitution is supposed to protect the press from government interference.
The Trump administration is attacking and violating the First Amendment. They just threw foreign a journalist; Julian Assange behind bars.
That's the huge flaw in thinking, criticizing and banning are two completely different things. He is not trying to alter the constitution to rid freedom of press nor freedom of speech. People take a ridiculous leap to suggest that. Show me the bill which Trump is trying to pass to ban freedom of press, otherwise he isn't trying to attack freedom of the press. On another note some leftist actually are attacking freedom of press, insisting that news they don't agree with should be banned online. If as crazy as Alex Jones is, he has a right to speak, and he is not the only voice being attacked. CNN is actually the ones who pressured all popular social media to silence him, that is an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of press being that they banned 'Info Wars' a press outlet. In my opinion, CNN is just as full of s**t as Alex Jones.
I agree but Rush is right about Assange.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
22 Jun 2019, 12:17 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
And you seem very keen on war? Have you ever thought about joining the army? Perhaps once you'd seen your best friend blown to pieces in front of you and heard a woman crying after her child was blown to bits by a missile you might change your mind? Gabbard is a veteran and knows the costs of war.
McCain was a veteran and knew the costs of war far better than almost any other person alive (that is to say someone who had lived through a war).
He generally was supportive of more military intervention in Iraq and believed the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... e_note-157
Criticizing Walrus's foreign policy stances for not being a veteran is a mode of argument of authority. Reasonable people can have opinions on interventionist policies versus pacifist policies versus isolationist policies without having to have served in the military.
I personally don't have an opinion on what should be done in the Middle East, as there seem to be no good options.
I'm curious, in your eyes are there any circumstances in which war is justified?
_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."
22 Jun 2019, 12:36 pm
Antrax wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
And you seem very keen on war? Have you ever thought about joining the army? Perhaps once you'd seen your best friend blown to pieces in front of you and heard a woman crying after her child was blown to bits by a missile you might change your mind? Gabbard is a veteran and knows the costs of war.
McCain was a veteran and knew the costs of war far better than almost any other person alive (that is to say someone who had lived through a war).
He generally was supportive of more military intervention in Iraq and believed the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... e_note-157
Criticizing Walrus's foreign policy stances for not being a veteran is a mode of argument of authority. Reasonable people can have opinions on interventionist policies versus pacifist policies versus isolationist policies without having to have served in the military.
I personally don't have an opinion on what should be done in the Middle East, as there seem to be no good options.
I'm curious, in your eyes are there any circumstances in which war is justified?
Yeah "songbird" McCain who told on all his friends. Because he was hot property as his dad was famous he was allowed to live. He later went on to support Al Qaeda in Syria and neo Nazis in Ukraine. Scum of the earth. Iraq was based on a pack of lies.
Every war is based on lies. I'm anti war but would fight and support retaliation against a state that was openly trying to destroy my country.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
22 Jun 2019, 12:57 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Antrax wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
And you seem very keen on war? Have you ever thought about joining the army? Perhaps once you'd seen your best friend blown to pieces in front of you and heard a woman crying after her child was blown to bits by a missile you might change your mind? Gabbard is a veteran and knows the costs of war.
McCain was a veteran and knew the costs of war far better than almost any other person alive (that is to say someone who had lived through a war).
He generally was supportive of more military intervention in Iraq and believed the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... e_note-157
Criticizing Walrus's foreign policy stances for not being a veteran is a mode of argument of authority. Reasonable people can have opinions on interventionist policies versus pacifist policies versus isolationist policies without having to have served in the military.
I personally don't have an opinion on what should be done in the Middle East, as there seem to be no good options.
I'm curious, in your eyes are there any circumstances in which war is justified?
Yeah "songbird" McCain who told on all his friends. Because he was hot property as his dad was famous he was allowed to live. He later went on to support Al Qaeda in Syria and neo Nazis in Ukraine. Scum of the earth. Iraq was based on a pack of lies.
Every war is based on lies. I'm anti war but would fight and support retaliation against a state that was openly trying to destroy my country.
Whatever you think of McCain's later policy decisions, the man was a POW for 5 years, refused an early release, repeatedly tortured, and couldn't lift his arms above his head the rest of his life. To dismiss that by calling him "songbird" and saying he was allowed to live is really something.
If you would fight and support retaliation against a state that was openly trying to destroy your country, would you fight and support retaliation against a state that was openly trying to destroy another country or is that that country's problem?
_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."
22 Jun 2019, 2:04 pm
As a European, I do feel crimadella is right; it's terrifying just how quickly Americans have been stripped of their rights. Just ten years ago, both lefties and righties would have been up in arms about the current assaults on freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of religion (among other things). People are so obsessed with fitting into a narrow and idiotic identity notch ("I'm a 'liberal', so I have to believe this, despite knowing it to be wrong"; "this is foolish, but I'm a conservative, so I have to support it") that they fail to see their common humanity being assaulted by the billionaires and neo-feudal elites. I just can't understand how shallow and myopic both sets of people are in America, which will soon be China #2, as Crimadella pointed out. Nobody will get brownie points for having bet on the right horse.
The above is particularly noticeable with "liberals" whose (justified) hatred of Trump exceeds their love of their own freedom, dignity and prosperity.
I really do think Dostoevsky had a point with his "Grand Inquisitor" fable; the masses really do hate their freedom and will do anything to rid themselves of it.
22 Jun 2019, 2:30 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
I have explained this before, I think you misunderstand the situation, he isn't attacking freedom of press by calling out press for lieing, and they are. Particular leftist press are enemy of the people
Freedom of the press is freedom of the press. Left, right or center it doesn't matter. The constitution is supposed to protect the press from government interference.
The Trump administration is attacking and violating the First Amendment. They just threw foreign a journalist; Julian Assange behind bars.
That's the huge flaw in thinking, criticizing and banning are two completely different things. He is not trying to alter the constitution to rid freedom of press nor freedom of speech. People take a ridiculous leap to suggest that. Show me the bill which Trump is trying to pass to ban freedom of press, otherwise he isn't trying to attack freedom of the press. On another note some leftist actually are attacking freedom of press, insisting that news they don't agree with should be banned online. If as crazy as Alex Jones is, he has a right to speak, and he is not the only voice being attacked. CNN is actually the ones who pressured all popular social media to silence him, that is an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of press being that they banned 'Info Wars' a press outlet. In my opinion, CNN is just as full of s**t as Alex Jones.
I agree but Rush is right about Assange.
I can agree to the Assange issue, he did nothing illegal, he published material. That particular situation isn't a Trump or conservative issue, both democrats and republicans are behind that attack.
22 Jun 2019, 3:02 pm
Antrax wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Antrax wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
And you seem very keen on war? Have you ever thought about joining the army? Perhaps once you'd seen your best friend blown to pieces in front of you and heard a woman crying after her child was blown to bits by a missile you might change your mind? Gabbard is a veteran and knows the costs of war.
McCain was a veteran and knew the costs of war far better than almost any other person alive (that is to say someone who had lived through a war).
He generally was supportive of more military intervention in Iraq and believed the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... e_note-157
Criticizing Walrus's foreign policy stances for not being a veteran is a mode of argument of authority. Reasonable people can have opinions on interventionist policies versus pacifist policies versus isolationist policies without having to have served in the military.
I personally don't have an opinion on what should be done in the Middle East, as there seem to be no good options.
I'm curious, in your eyes are there any circumstances in which war is justified?
Yeah "songbird" McCain who told on all his friends. Because he was hot property as his dad was famous he was allowed to live. He later went on to support Al Qaeda in Syria and neo Nazis in Ukraine. Scum of the earth. Iraq was based on a pack of lies.
Every war is based on lies. I'm anti war but would fight and support retaliation against a state that was openly trying to destroy my country.
Whatever you think of McCain's later policy decisions, the man was a POW for 5 years, refused an early release, repeatedly tortured, and couldn't lift his arms above his head the rest of his life. To dismiss that by calling him "songbird" and saying he was allowed to live is really something.
If you would fight and support retaliation against a state that was openly trying to destroy your country, would you fight and support retaliation against a state that was openly trying to destroy another country or is that that country's problem?
Uhh, he was bombing civilians in a war based on lies. The man was scum. He was allowed to live because of who his father was. I never agree with torture.
Name one?
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
22 Jun 2019, 4:32 pm
I'll give you three.
Germany 1939-Poland 1939: Germany invades Poland with the aim of conquering the Polish people and subjugating them to the German government.
North Korea 1950- South Korea 1950: North Korea invades South Korea with the aim of conquering the South Korean people and subjugating them to the North Korean government.
Iraq 1990- Kuwait 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with the aim of conquering the Kuwait people and subjugating them to the Iraqi government.
_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Joe Lieberman first Jewish VP candidate is dead |
27 Mar 2024, 7:13 pm |
| MO GOP candidate torches library books |
08 Feb 2024, 1:01 am |
| Trump compares "offensive" candidate to MLK |
08 Mar 2024, 9:03 am |
