That’s Debatable [ IMAGE ]

I have been fascinated by politics for almost my entire life. During that time, I have tried to learn and absorb whatever information I could about it. A lot of stuff reaffirmed my own held personal beliefs, while other information had me questioning them. Regardless, both expanded my knowledge base and understandings of the governmental landscape around us. Simply put: I love politics!

That said, I think Omake Theater sums up my opinion of this year’s presidential election perfectly.

OH! I made a tweet about last night’s debate, earlier today.

Comments

  • theycallmetomu

    All I can tell you is, facts matter to one of the two significant presidential candidates, and not to the other. That’s a large enough distinction for me.

  • 仔细瞧瞧再说!

  • Metal C0Mmander

    Maybe it’s because I’m a dumb Canadian but I seriously don’t understand why people hate Hilary enough to consider Trump anything else than a lying idiot. Fuck it’s really not that complicated a choice. I don’t care if you vote Clinton or if you independant you just have to vote for anyone beside Trump.

    • Wisdomcube2000

      South Park summed it up the best. She is THE Turd Sandwich. She was a terrible choice for the Dem. presidential candidate. Third Parties never really seem to catch on in the US so that likely won’t be a choice for most people. So when faced between a douche and a turd, people turn to (what they believe is) the lesser of two evils.

      Also to assume Hilary is not a liar, and that Trump is the only liar, is not a bright idea. Video below of her getting caught in the recent debates for an example of something recent.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAmHYIkAYhw

      Hilary also has a number of ongoing scandals that refuse to die down as more evidence surfaces. This drops peoples trust in her word. Hell, a number of my friends who are voting for her, still don’t trust what she says (and that is just sad). Combine all the above with the fact that the media in this election has been hilariously one sided, and you’ll just keep seeing more people move to Trump’s side. At the rate things are going, I’m expecting Trump to win this in the end.

      • theycallmetomu

        It’s a question of frequency and scale. In Monday’s debate, Trump had 34 lies, compared to Clinton’s 4.

        Presenting the two as equally detestable is absolute hogwash.

        • Wisdomcube2000

          I only cited recent examples. Don’t be a fool. They have both lied. To assume Hillary is some paragon of truth is beyond stupid (to put it politely).

          • theycallmetomu

            You’re basically saying “you’re dumb for citing -4 as a positive number” when what I said was “-4 is less negative than -40”

            Plz 2 avoid straw man.

          • Wisdomcube2000

            Not a strawman as it was not my point? I apologize if that was how it came across as I didn’t mean to say you were stupid, just that doing something like saying that Clinton is the more “innocent” candidate is silly.

            I’m looking at the broader picture here (hence why I said it was foolish to imply Hillary was not near Trump levels of lies). That is also why I noted that I only cited >>>RECENT<<< examples. She has had an extensive career in politics, and has been caught on numerous occasions with her pants on fire (so to speak lol). So in that respect it is very comparable to say they have both been caught on numerous occasions. I mean hell, just look at her responses to the FBI on her email scandal (video below).

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

            But anyway, it's not my intent to sh!t up the comments here, my only point was to keep an open mind this election, as I have noticed far too many are shutting out all opposing thoughts. Hell even some of the fact checking articles I've read are spinning different things said by both sides as lies when the truth is that they are not so cut and dried. So much of this political process has been spun by the media, that we really need to look into our choices much harder than in the past. So with that said, I'm out, and I hope you have a great day :)

          • theycallmetomu

            So wait: you’re saying only recent things mattering, and then going back months for Clinton?

            Trump keeps getting graded on a curve dude. You’re doing it right now. I’ll concede that Clinton has fumbled the email questions a lot, but that’s because it’s a complicated issue (namely, the classified messages were incorrectly left without the classified header so it would have been reasonable to assume that they’re not classified; eg, Clinton was somewhat negligent, and it would be understandable for her to not understand the situation. Hanlon’s razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained via stupidity).

            Compare this to Trump, who just repeatedly brazenly says the same lies over and over and over again constantly even after he’s been called on it. Clinton’s email thing had some traits on that, but as it continued to hurt her, she has since (finally) evolved on the issue.

            All that being said, I’m voting on the basis of policy anyway, so I guess the “What the actual fact” discussion is kind of irrelevant (except as it pertains to determining policy). Clinton’s emails aren’t a policy issue, but building an ineffective and colossally expensive wall is a policy issue, so eh.

          • Wisdomcube2000

            “So wait: you’re saying only recent things mattering, and then going back months for Clinton?”

            Please read more carefully before jumping to conclusions. I was only listing recent bits for Clinton to show that she has lied. I figured best way to show that was with something recent and fresh in people’s mind. Then later I showed examples of her past actions to show support for my comment on her having a long career where she has lied on a number of occasions. Not saying she has lied on every issue, but she has lied enough that not everyone is willing to trust her word anymore. Hell Trump is the same way, as they both score very poorly in polls on how trust worthy they are.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/can-hillary-clinton-overcome-her-trust-problem/2016/07/03/b12eeb52-3fd8-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html

            I’m not saying Trump is better. They are both sh!tty candidates for this election. And vote however you like, I was just making a suggestion for those to keep an open mind. Too many are looking for an echo chamber to spin the news/facts to fit their own bias in support of their candidate, and that is just sad.

          • theycallmetomu

            You can be free of an echo chamber and still believe that Clinton is leaps and bounds better than Trump.

            Indeed, to suggest that because Both Sides™ have made misstatements they are equal in magnitude in terms of anti-factualness *is itself an echo chamber.*

            As long as you’re objective in your criticism of both candidates, and don’t grade Trump on a curve on account of the fact that he’s Trump, then fine. But when you do that, you don’t come to the conclusion that they’re equally shitty candidates.

          • Wisdomcube2000

            You are free to believe whatever you like my friend. I’ve attacked Trump on a number of occasions too, though not much here as that wasn’t the point of my comments. IMO Hillary is just as bad as Trump (though each for different reasons that I won’t go into here, this comment chain is long enough already lol). That is my opinion and you are free to disagree. Just don’t imply I base this on absolutely nothing however or that I have some kind of bias for Trump. I do not.

            “But when you do that, you don’t come to the conclusion that they’re equally shitty candidates.”

            I get you are pro-Hillary (or at least leaning Hillary over Trump, forgive me if that is incorrect assuming on my part), that’s fine, but to act as if that makes your take as the sole truth on the matter is why this whole election has been so divisive.

            They both have plenty of faults. To try to claim one is statistically less sh!t at this point is also a fools errand given how subjective everything is or can be (see your take on her email scandal for example). Of course we could try to do the “you show a lie/bad policy, I show a lie/bad policy” pissing contest and be here all week going back and fourth given the vast amount of sh!t to work with lol, but that wouldn’t be a productive use of our time I think :)

            But anyway metomu, I really would like to move on (comment wise lol, I never intended to get into a back and fourth), so if we could end this conversation here, that would be great (I said I didn’t want a long chain to sh!t up the comments here, and look what happened anyway lol).

            So before I go though, I want to say (again, I know lol) to have a great day (or night if you live near me =P).

          • theycallmetomu

            See, this is what’s wrong with political debates: everyone thinks they’re entitled to their “opinion” but then acts as if their interpretation of the facts is an opinion and thus can’t be questioned.

            Just look up Politifact’s ratios of truths to falsehoods for Trump and Clinton respectively, and tell me who is the worse liar. Check to see which of the two candidates is backed by white supremacist movements, and retweets things by said white supremacists. Tell me which of them has endorsed tax policies that are tremendously regressive that have shown to hurt the middle class and lower income Americans. Look at the facts, and you see that there is a tremendous amount of difference between the two candidates.

            Just the facts.

            Not opinion.

            Facts.

            An opinion would be “I consider it IMPORTANT to not have regressive tax policy.”

            If people are willing to say “well, I don’t care that Trump’s movement is a white supremacist movement” or “I don’t care that Trump lies with greater frequency than Clinton” or “I don’t care that, objectively, building the wall is a terrible idea.” Those are opinions. You are free to say you do not care. But when you act as if things that are demonstably not true are simply “your opinion” then you have abandoned objectivity.

          • Frankie D.

            Compared to trump she is.

      • Metal C0Mmander

        Don’t get
        me wrong I actually don’t know a lot about Hilary Clinton but in my
        defense it’s really hard to want to learn more when most people talking
        about her are the scum of the earth that want me to honestly believe
        she’s mentaly sick. She could take a dump on stage during her next debate and she would
        still be a better candidate than mr. I said on a presidential debate
        that I made my money by abusing the systems in place.

        But seriously if you really hate both candidates that much then you vote for anyone that’s independant and running where you live. Even if they lose that’s still giving them momentum they can use to win a later election and sending the message that you’re tired of the 2 curent political parties.

        • Wisdomcube2000

          “Don’t get me wrong I actually don’t know a lot about Hilary Clinton but
          in my defense it’s really hard to want to learn more when most people
          talking about her are the scum of the earth that want me to honestly
          believe she’s mentaly sick.”

          I agree. I’ve seen so much of this on both sides this election. Worse election I’ve seen by far in terms of how much vitriol each side is filled to the brim with.

          “But seriously if you really hate both candidates that much then you vote for anyone that’s independant and running where you live. Even if they lose that’s still giving them momentum they can use to win a later
          election and sending the message that you’re tired of the 2 curent
          political parties.”

          I wish this would catch on as I have never been a fan of the two party system. I may vote third party this year (I have yet to decide), but I doubt many others are willing to do the same. I’ve heard plenty say not voting for blank is a vote for the other guy/gal! It’s thinking like this that is killing third party candidates imo.

          • Andrew

            “I may vote third party this year”

            If you are a Democrat in Texas or the South, or a Republican in California, New York, Maryland, Washington, etc… then your vote doesn’t really “matter” because most states go by winner takes all for the electoral college. That’s why campaigns focus on the swing states, because that is how you win in the end!

            So, if you don’t live in a swing state, then please vote third party, it will help give momentum to their parties for future elections. And even if you live in a swing state, at least consider it ;)

          • theycallmetomu

            I live in Georgia, so I could vote for Jill Stein…

            But she’s ALSO a terrible candidate! She’s an anti-vaxxer apologist, and has no conception of the consequences hitting the debt ceiling would have (she argued against raising it, and while saying that she opposes austerity, saying that she’d instead cut spending and raise taxes-the very definition of austerity).

            That leaves Gary Johnson. If you’re an actual libertarian-you believe that government doesn’t work (my arguments for why that’s the wrong position to have can wait), but believe in personal freedom-then he’s an okay candidate.

            However, the issue with Trump is that, he’s an ideological candidate that is endorsed by white supremacy movements-the Alt Right as it were (if anyone contests this point, I’m certainly willing to make the case: I find it self evident, but we do live in a time where it’s more a faux pas to call someone a racist than it is to be a racist). If we want to oppose white supremacy ideologically, it’s not enough to deny Trump the white house, but rather it’s necessary to humiliate him electorally. That means that the closer the country comes to a landslide in opposition to Trump, the more that ideology supporting him is repudiated. Thus, while a vote against Trump (which, in terms of how it will be reported, means a vote for Clinton-sorry, but anything else doesn’t widen the lead the victor has on him) has no impact on determining the presidency, it does have an impact on repudiating the ideology under which it stands.

            Don’t get me wrong: if I were to design the system from the ground up, I’d replace the electoral college with a simple popular vote direct runoff system (eg if Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein all go in, and Clinton gets 44% and Trump 40%, with Stein and Johnson getting 16% between the two of them, then there would be a second round of voting with only Clinton or Trump, until a single candidate has majority of votes cast). But opposing the “two party system” is this counter-cultural meme that inherently assumes that because the democrats and republicans are the existing power structure, and that the way the power structure is set up makes it more difficult for third parties, that those two parties are evil and therefore third parties are inherently good.

            I would be less annoyed by people voting third parties if I felt like they were accurately reflecting how politics actually works. Instead of causing the people who most closely associate with their policy positions to lose (eg Nader causing Gore, who is much closer to the Green party than Bush was back in 2000), third parties should advocate for the aforementioned Direct Runoff Election system specified above, so that voters *don’t have to choose* between the worst plausible choice, and the best implausible choice. But they don’t do that. Why? Simple.

            Third party candidates are as corrupt as anyone else. They hide behind the “You can’t vote for me because I can’t win, but I can’t win because you don’t vote for me” line in order to disguise the fact that the majority of people aren’t voting for them because they don’t actually agree with them. Even in the runoff election system described above, Clinton would still beat Stein and Johnson despite more people voting for each (I would wager), and I’d guess Trump would still come in first or second place. Because most people don’t really side with libertarian ideology. And the Green Party has no idea what it’s talking about, and actual policy wonks know that (also, there’s a very strong “hippy punching” ideology in America that works against them even when they’re being reasonable).

            There are more reasons not to vote third party than just because it’ll cause your “lesser evil” to lose to the greater evil.

    • Andrew

      The president has much less power than everyone seems to think, Congress passes laws and budgets, not the president. In any case, iIf Trump wins he will be impotent, and unable to do the asinine things he is claiming. He will only be supported in Congress by Tea-Party Republicans and few others. Clinton on the other hand, she can do damage. Seeing her flip-flop over the years on trade, gay rights, foreign policy, distancing herself from Obama, then getting closer, etc… she only says what she needs to say in order to get 51% of the vote, she is relatively unprincipled, even for a politician.

      That said, I am voting for Johnson, not that voting actually matters unless you live in a swing state…