Author Topic: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton  (Read 1442 times)

Offline DespondenSea

  • Member
  • Posts: 222
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2016, 06:08:23 pm »
Quote
As in, if she gets into power, she pretty much got away with murder to get there. What does that say about the future? I don't even think she's that smart, she's just the stereotypical puppet, she just has the machine behind her, for me she is suffering from severe delusion, probably from that blot clot a few years back.

Somebody's been spending too much time drinking jaybug's Kool-aid.


Offline halfelite

  • Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2016, 08:31:54 pm »

What precedents are you referring to?  Not having elderly white men as Presidents?  If you're worried about the President taking greater power for himself/herself, you should have been worrying about that 35 years ago.


Also, what Surdumil said.  Trump is a deluded ill-mannered misogynistic bigoted narcissistic liar.  On top of that, some of his policies or statements on policy border on lunacy.  Among other things, his economic plan is projected to add as much as $5 trillion to the national debt, as opposed to Clinton's plans which would likely add closer to $200 billion to the debt.  I've noticed that people that think Trump is just going to fix everything wrong about the economy have a tendency to ignore some of these important little details.

A Presidents economic plan is pointless it has and always will be congress that passes all budget plans so its a mute point looking at anyone's budget plan. Take a look at under Obama before he took office the budget committee had speculated when he left office the national debt would be $9 trillion not the $19 trillion its sitting at. People point the finger at Obama but it was congress that pushed most of the bills through he just signed them he did not Veto any and things like the ACA that he pushed for very hard did add a lot. But budget is on congress' shoulders. As for clinton's plan it would add more then $200 billion. As she would have to clean up the ACA which has turned into a disaster and will either need a trillion dollars pumped into it or put in a place a single payer system which would take more then $200 billion.

As for the good vs bad list on Trump I would say the bullet point given also matches Clinton to the T also they are both two terrible sides that have a lot of matching characteristics about them.

Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5871
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2016, 12:15:54 am »
There difference between trump and hilary is that Trump is more honest, what you see is what you get. so when they reach that presidential platform, it'll be easier for the history books to know the behind the scenes fuck ups. Ofcourse I could be wrong but I never said he was a good guy, but surely Hilary makes him into the more honest candidate right?

This is one of the strangest twists of logic I've yet seen.  Trump isn't more honest because "what you see is what you get".  He's simply a hell of a lot more blatant about his lies than Clinton is.  He gets called out on it a LOT, and statistically, has been caught in more falsehoods than Clinton over the course of this campaign.  Not a primary source, but close enough for conversation.  Trump is either a really bad liar, or he's deluded, or he simply doesn't give a shit.  None of these are particularly admirable qualities.  Maybe I'm in the minority, but if a politician is going to lie to me, I at least would like them to be good at it.  It's somewhat less insulting to my intelligence.


A Presidents economic plan is pointless it has and always will be congress that passes all budget plans so its a mute point looking at anyone's budget plan. Take a look at under Obama before he took office the budget committee had speculated when he left office the national debt would be $9 trillion not the $19 trillion its sitting at. People point the finger at Obama but it was congress that pushed most of the bills through he just signed them he did not Veto any and things like the ACA that he pushed for very hard did add a lot. But budget is on congress' shoulders. As for clinton's plan it would add more then $200 billion. As she would have to clean up the ACA which has turned into a disaster and will either need a trillion dollars pumped into it or put in a place a single payer system which would take more then $200 billion.

Source:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/candidate-plans-national-debt/

I understand perfectly well that Congress holds the purse strings, but some people are voting for Trump at least partly on the basis that he's somehow going to "fix" the economy.  His plan and his public comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the problems or the solutions.  In other words, he doesn't know what he's doing, and some people think he does, so it's fair game to comment on it.

The President does submit a budget to Congress, but obviously Congress can do whatever the hell it wants (and usually does).


As for the good vs bad list on Trump I would say the bullet point given also matches Clinton to the T also they are both two terrible sides that have a lot of matching characteristics about them.

I don't think that Clinton is misogynistic or a sexual predator, and I don't think she displays signs of narcissism.  I'm not going to argue that Clinton is unlikable, though.


And as much as I bash on Trump, I must restate that I didn't vote for Clinton either.  I don't want her as President, but she's vastly more experienced than any other candidate.  She's at least capable of doing the job, even if you don't like her policies or don't trust her judgment.  Trump has never held public office, and I rather suspect that his style of governance would not work well in high office.  (It also irks me to no end that Jill Stein has also never held public office -- a big strike in my book against anyone running for President.)
If I ever meet God in person, I'm going to ask Him why he created so many stupid people, and then punch Him in the nose before he answers.

Offline Tanis

  • Member
  • Posts: 3247
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2016, 01:27:58 am »
Whenever anyone makes the claim that 'Trump & Hillary Are Two Sides Of The Same Coin'...

I just roll my eyes like a motherfucking katamari.



Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5871
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2016, 02:19:41 am »
The key difference, Tanis, is that the anti-Clinton side puts more weight on Clinton's apparent or perceived record to determine her trustworthiness, and gives less regard to what she's been saying during the current election cycle.  The anti-Trump side tends to put more weight on how Trump acts and what he says, and gives somewhat less regard to his record.  (Not that his record is all that great or consistent -- he swings more than a 70's disco dancer.)

I've seen more than one anti-Clinton person simply ignore any logical arguments against Trump.  All that matters is what Clinton has done or is perceived to have done; Trump's faults, if any, are unimportant or outweighed by Clinton's apparent sins.  Conversely, I've also seen more than one Clinton supporter with the same attitude about Clinton's faults -- ie, if her faults exist, they are unimportant.  From where I stand, though, I can't see literally a single positive thing about Trump which would offset HIS faults.
If I ever meet God in person, I'm going to ask Him why he created so many stupid people, and then punch Him in the nose before he answers.

Offline halfelite

  • Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2016, 04:03:16 am »
The key difference, Tanis, is that the anti-Clinton side puts more weight on Clinton's apparent or perceived record to determine her trustworthiness, and gives less regard to what she's been saying during the current election cycle.  The anti-Trump side tends to put more weight on how Trump acts and what he says, and gives somewhat less regard to his record.  (Not that his record is all that great or consistent -- he swings more than a 70's disco dancer.)

I've seen more than one anti-Clinton person simply ignore any logical arguments against Trump.  All that matters is what Clinton has done or is perceived to have done; Trump's faults, if any, are unimportant or outweighed by Clinton's apparent sins.  Conversely, I've also seen more than one Clinton supporter with the same attitude about Clinton's faults -- ie, if her faults exist, they are unimportant.  From where I stand, though, I can't see literally a single positive thing about Trump which would offset HIS faults.

Trump has no positives but what a lot of people see in him is the old way of the cold hard truth and they may be seeing something that is not really there. We are at a period in time where issues are more divided. You have people claiming equality for men and women in the workplace yet you have the liberal side trying "affirmative action" which from my point of view nothing about that is equality. So when you have Trump say some totally out there about men/women in the workforce you might not agree with what he says but its more on the side of your view then Hilary.  Same can be said about immigration. I am not against immigration I am against illegal immigration and being I live in California next to a few safe harbor cities I can see what we have in place now first hand and agree it does not work. So while I dont agree with his all Mexicans are criminals his plan has more merit with my view the Clinton's let open the boarders more policies.  Both the Candidates are to the extreme on there policies that people that sit middle ground are stuck picking a side and get lumped into the bad or the good. I have stood by I am more conservative then I am liberal but if you show me how a policy can be done with a positive fiscal impact I can get behind it.
 Extreme example say someone said we should give every homeless guy $10000.00 to help them get there life on track I would fight it every step of the way as I see no way that would work financially in the long run. Now maybe if you said we spend $2 million and build 2 factories that only homeless people can work out for a wage and a bed I could see the finical gain in that plan and go with it.

Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5871
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2016, 11:21:46 am »
Trump has no positives but what a lot of people see in him is the old way of the cold hard truth and they may be seeing something that is not really there. We are at a period in time where issues are more divided. You have people claiming equality for men and women in the workplace yet you have the liberal side trying "affirmative action" which from my point of view nothing about that is equality. So when you have Trump say some totally out there about men/women in the workforce you might not agree with what he says but its more on the side of your view then Hilary.  Same can be said about immigration. I am not against immigration I am against illegal immigration and being I live in California next to a few safe harbor cities I can see what we have in place now first hand and agree it does not work. So while I dont agree with his all Mexicans are criminals his plan has more merit with my view the Clinton's let open the boarders more policies.  Both the Candidates are to the extreme on there policies that people that sit middle ground are stuck picking a side and get lumped into the bad or the good. I have stood by I am more conservative then I am liberal but if you show me how a policy can be done with a positive fiscal impact I can get behind it.
 Extreme example say someone said we should give every homeless guy $10000.00 to help them get there life on track I would fight it every step of the way as I see no way that would work financially in the long run. Now maybe if you said we spend $2 million and build 2 factories that only homeless people can work out for a wage and a bed I could see the finical gain in that plan and go with it.

This is why I've come to realize that the 2 party system isn't all that it's cracked up to be.  AceHigh is one of the guys that got me thinking about it.  With the 2 party system, we gain stability and candidates who must strategically appeal to the largest portions of the voting base.  But I think what we end up with is another form of tyranny of the majority instead.  With candidates trying to appeal to everybody, we end up with candidates who appeal to nobody.  The system forces all of us to compromise our beliefs and to try to align with whoever's closest.  This is fine if your beliefs are mainstream or fit in with the segments that the politicians are reaching out to.  But for the rest of us, we have to deal with nearly always being unsatisfied about our choices, which in turn leads to feelings of disenfranchisement.  It's no wonder that nobody likes to vote -- the system itself inadvertently discourages it!  And when voters feel like their choices are limited, it turns into this horrible "us versus them" mentality which is what we've seen run rampant these last few decades.  You HAVE to vote for your guy even if you don't like him, because the OTHER guy is so much worse or too different.  What a bunch of crap!

At least if we had a multi-party system, it would be easier for voters to find someone they liked, which hopefully in turn would increase voter engagement and voter turnout.  The politicians would still have to find common ground once they got into office in order to get anything done, but, fuck it, that's the nature of the job.  Let them fight out, and let the rest of us relax a bit, knowing that the Trumpsters and the Clinton fanboys aren't going to wreck the world because there's a dozen other parties sharing power.

And whether a 2 party system or a multi-party system is more vulnerable to influence by special interests, I can't say for sure.  But I'd wager that the damage done is less in a multi-party system because there are more parties and it certainly would be easier for a new party opposing a special interest to gain a foothold.
If I ever meet God in person, I'm going to ask Him why he created so many stupid people, and then punch Him in the nose before he answers.

Offline surdumil

  • Member
  • Posts: 1660
  • Yeah! I'm lookin' at you!
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2016, 12:25:52 pm »
I think a Rhinoceros Party might be the way to go in an election like this.
When available choices are bad, at least one can vote for a party and a candidate who states that the mainstream parties have failed and that an unqualified nobody is a better choice than the high-profile alternatives the parties have selected for the electorate.  This might send the right message to those who really need it.

@Tanis - great cartoon!  Where did you find that one?

p.s. @Tanis - I've just checked out her website.  Thoughtful editorials.  Pretty cool! 
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 08:54:01 pm by surdumil »

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #48 on: November 04, 2016, 03:27:01 pm »
Trump has no positives but what a lot of people see in him is the old way of the cold hard truth and they may be seeing something that is not really there. We are at a period in time where issues are more divided. You have people claiming equality for men and women in the workplace yet you have the liberal side trying "affirmative action" which from my point of view nothing about that is equality. So when you have Trump say some totally out there about men/women in the workforce you might not agree with what he says but its more on the side of your view then Hilary.  Same can be said about immigration. I am not against immigration I am against illegal immigration and being I live in California next to a few safe harbor cities I can see what we have in place now first hand and agree it does not work. So while I dont agree with his all Mexicans are criminals his plan has more merit with my view the Clinton's let open the boarders more policies.  Both the Candidates are to the extreme on there policies that people that sit middle ground are stuck picking a side and get lumped into the bad or the good. I have stood by I am more conservative then I am liberal but if you show me how a policy can be done with a positive fiscal impact I can get behind it.
 Extreme example say someone said we should give every homeless guy $10000.00 to help them get there life on track I would fight it every step of the way as I see no way that would work financially in the long run. Now maybe if you said we spend $2 million and build 2 factories that only homeless people can work out for a wage and a bed I could see the finical gain in that plan and go with it.

This is why I've come to realize that the 2 party system isn't all that it's cracked up to be.  AceHigh is one of the guys that got me thinking about it.  With the 2 party system, we gain stability and candidates who must strategically appeal to the largest portions of the voting base.  But I think what we end up with is another form of tyranny of the majority instead.  With candidates trying to appeal to everybody, we end up with candidates who appeal to nobody.  The system forces all of us to compromise our beliefs and to try to align with whoever's closest.  This is fine if your beliefs are mainstream or fit in with the segments that the politicians are reaching out to.  But for the rest of us, we have to deal with nearly always being unsatisfied about our choices, which in turn leads to feelings of disenfranchisement.  It's no wonder that nobody likes to vote -- the system itself inadvertently discourages it!  And when voters feel like their choices are limited, it turns into this horrible "us versus them" mentality which is what we've seen run rampant these last few decades.  You HAVE to vote for your guy even if you don't like him, because the OTHER guy is so much worse or too different.  What a bunch of crap!

At least if we had a multi-party system, it would be easier for voters to find someone they liked, which hopefully in turn would increase voter engagement and voter turnout.  The politicians would still have to find common ground once they got into office in order to get anything done, but, fuck it, that's the nature of the job.  Let them fight out, and let the rest of us relax a bit, knowing that the Trumpsters and the Clinton fanboys aren't going to wreck the world because there's a dozen other parties sharing power.

And whether a 2 party system or a multi-party system is more vulnerable to influence by special interests, I can't say for sure.  But I'd wager that the damage done is less in a multi-party system because there are more parties and it certainly would be easier for a new party opposing a special interest to gain a foothold.

Europe is full of multi-party systems, my own country has one as well. Our elections to the parliament were in fact two weeks ago. Given what I've seen before hand and what I'm seeing now. You aren't correct in either of your points.

You still have the basic blocks. The dems and the conservatives, and everyone else is either a major point party(piracy, immigration, the greens... etc) or something that's basically the dems or conservatives just with a slight difference(liberals vs conservatives).

You still have to choose the least worst candidates. The voter turnout rate is generally the same.

There's fewer things known because to form a majority you still have to form a coalition, which in turn requires compromises on their ideals and beliefs. This in general leads to "even less shit getting done", because no one really calls the shots. In fact, our elections were two weeks ago, we still have no fucking clue who the opposition is and who the leading parties are and they don't either. Because they can't decide on a coalition.

While you don't get people as polarising as Clinton and Trump for president, because in a multi party system that'd be suicide, what you do get is a lot of people who are straight in the center and you literally have to look at each one of them for a few hours to figure out what's what Because the difference is literally only in the details. This requires are significantly higher interest in politics than actually exists in the population.

A multi party system also exists as outlets for fringe politics they are dangerous elements that CAN grow into something massive. And in fact have done so. The problem with them is the same as is the problem with other "single point parties" it is that they have to do shit beyond that one point and experience tells us that they have no fucking clue how to do that. So populism is a REAL problem in the multiparty system.

In general, yes, multi party systems are better at representing people. However, they require far more voter involvement than a two party system does, and don't take this as an insult. But America has already proven to us, that with only two parties around, you have difficulties presenting a message across. Hell, Trump is a prime example here, the only reason he's standing on the podium is because he's a show man and he's created an image that's easy to distinguish.

Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5871
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2016, 05:33:27 pm »
So basically no matter what form of government you've got, we're all fucked.  Got it.  Anarchy for everyone!   :mml:
If I ever meet God in person, I'm going to ask Him why he created so many stupid people, and then punch Him in the nose before he answers.

Offline halfelite

  • Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #50 on: November 06, 2016, 09:32:14 pm »

In general, yes, multi party systems are better at representing people. However, they require far more voter involvement than a two party system does, and don't take this as an insult. But America has already proven to us, that with only two parties around, you have difficulties presenting a message across. Hell, Trump is a prime example here, the only reason he's standing on the podium is because he's a show man and he's created an image that's easy to distinguish.

I dont think that is it all the way. I think Politics has gotten so messy that people dont understand at all what they are truly voting for. No one has time to sit and read 150 pages of a bill that is worded so loosely 500 people read it and 500 people get a different take on it. Everything should be a single item vote. Not prop56 says we will give schools more money but if schools get more money then 5% of that goes to this 2% goes to this and because this is passing we also are giving pig farmers a tax break for the next 5 years.  As that is how most of our bills are worded these days.  Which as you said trump is a show man but he also dumbs everything down either on purpose or because he doesn't know any better himself who knows. But I think that gets people interested its not that people are dumb or dont care its how they can relate to the issue.