Election Day 2016 Thread (aka Political Grievance Therapy)

[barnes]

Our civilians alone have 300 million guns, and a lot of little boys and little girls in rural areas have shot a gun with parental supervision by age 6.

It's one of those things for which I respect your country.

[Baker]

@bfg666

If you French know-it-alls are so smart ... why do people say France is becoming a shithole?

Apparently all this "knowledge and insight" you French know-it-alls supposedly have, doesn't work in your own country.

So who are you to talk about mine?

[Mugwump]

Because it is?

Yeah well, I never said our ruling caste was more competent/less corrupt than yours, or our general public wiser... On the contrary, the few times I mentioned french politicians here, I emphasized how shitty and untrustworthy they are, including the ones who are supposed to be on the people's side.
I also never said I felt any smarter than you guys, especially you Baker.

Like I said, I really hope I'm wrong about your new prez, but his background and personality don't bode well.

On an unrelated note, I think Electric Donkey Bottom Biters would make a great band name...

[nahuel]

sorry for this, but i cant avoid to post it
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-bbYH_akHg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-bbYH_akHg[/ame]

[Focalor]

... as he spent most of his advertising campaign bashing Democrats and Clintoris - funny thing is, that's also the republican MO here in France...) and excessively inflammatory rhetoric instead?

You're possibly underinformed on that one. Trump spent exponentially LESS money on his advertising campaign than Clinton did. A perfect example would be the TV ads run during game 7 of the Chicago Cubs vs Cleveland Indians World Series. Clinton paid for 3 or 4 ads to air during the game, and ALL of them were heavy shit-slinging ads that ONLY focused on how detrimental Trump would be for this country, calling him sexist, racist, etc. Trump ran only ONE ad, and it detailed all of the good things he promised to do if he got elected. It may have spent maybe 3 seconds of the 30 second ad describing how Clinton would NOT do good things for America as a comparison, but other than that, it was altogether a "positive" ad.

I'm not saying Trump didn't have ANY nasty negative anti-Clinton ads, he definitely did. But he had far fewer TOTAL ads than Clinton did. Overall, Clinton spent WAAAAAAY more money on her campaign and advertising than Trump did. That's precisely why the media was so dumbfounded when they were counting the votes Tuesday night and they discovered that Trump had won in Florida which was an early indicator that he was most likely going to win the entire election. They could not fucking believe that Clinton had massively outspent him with her huge 2 billion dollar budget, and she STILL lost.

A businessman who by the way has filed for bankruptcy 3 times IIRC...

Again, you are underinformed. This is gonna be kinda funny, but actually... it was FOUR times, haha! The thing is, I don't think HE HIMSELF filed for bankruptcy 4 different times, I think it was 4 of his companies that filed for bankruptcy. And considering he's had a hand in over 500 different businesses, 4 out of 500 is a pretty good average. Bankruptcy is used as a tool to try to salvage and rebuild a company or an individuals finances. It can happen because of stupid reckless financial decisions, or it can just be "bad luck." Either way, if those 4 bankruptcy filings were stupid financial decisions, there's 500 other success stories in his pocket to make those 4 seem pretty insignificant.

Because whether you like it or not, the USA still are a major player in shaping the world, both directly and indirectly. American politics concern everyone on this planet

Our politics really only effect others in so far as they effect the stock markets (in which the US Dollar is the standard) and others within NATO. But in the latter case, it'd be US foreign policy that would effect everyone else the most. And wouldn't you know it, but Clinton was our Secretary of State for the past several years, and any complaints you have about our foreign policies within the last 8 years, you can focus them on her, because SHE was the #1 person in charge of that. And yet... you still wanted to see her get elected? I guess the shit that's happened in the last 6 or 8 years hasn't be quite awful enough, so lets give her the presidency so she can CONTINUE to have a hand in world affairs. Sheeeesh.

The Republican majority obstructed his work as much as they could, and not necessarily because they were against it: even when they agreed off-the-record, they still obstructed because fucking with the Democrats has become the sport of choice of Republicans

As if the Democrats don't engage in the same thing? Neither party is clean and innocent when it comes to that kinda shit. They both want to destroy one another like they're living in a Highlander movie. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!! They use stupid pointless issues like abortion and gay marriage and such to draw the dividing line between themselves, both parties knowing full well that those stupid pointless issues that the line is comprised of aren't even the real issues they truly want to care about or address. But those stupid pointless issues are simple and clear and easy for even the dumbest American voter to understand and have a strong opinion about, and using it as a focal point will actually get these stupid people up off of their asses and into the polls come time to vote.

[Baker]

Because it is?

Yeah well, I never said our ruling caste was more competent/less corrupt than yours, or our general public wiser... On the contrary, the few times I mentioned french politicians here, I emphasized how shitty and untrustworthy they are, including the ones who are supposed to be on the people's side.
I also never said I felt any smarter than you guys, especially you Baker.

Like I said, I really hope I'm wrong about your new prez, but his background and personality don't bode well.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

And being a red-blooded American, I can respect others opinions if they can respect mine.

Probably all I have to say --- I'm more interest in Quake stuff anyways. I'll leave you with this famous work ...

[Dutch]

Hell yeah!

[Mugwump]

Trump spent exponentially LESS money on his advertising campaign than Clinton did.

I know, almost half. But that's not what I meant. When I talked about advertising, it was more a way of mocking what presidential campaigns have become in general during this century. Hell, I didn't even know your politicians resorted to actual commercial ads! Despite their crookedness, at least ours still refrain from doing that (also, comparative advertising is illegal in France, so there's that). No, I was actually referring to the presidential debates, which Quackshot has largely used as a slandering platform while Clintoris kept herself collected, respectful and on topic. BTW, considering how badly this attitude reflected on him, one doesn't have to be a conspirationist to guess who prompted the FBI to very timely re-open a case that they had closed for lack of evidence...

Again, you are underinformed. This is gonna be kinda funny, but actually... it was FOUR times, haha! The thing is, I don't think HE HIMSELF filed for bankruptcy 4 different times, I think it was 4 of his companies that filed for bankruptcy.

Fair enough.

Our politics really only effect others in so far as they effect the stock markets (in which the US Dollar is the standard) and others within NATO. But in the latter case, it'd be US foreign policy that would effect everyone else the most.

I don't think Colombia's development of cocaine mass production, for example, has anything to do with stock markets or official foreign policy. Similarly, I don't think there would've been a 9/11 if it weren't for the US meddling in the Middle East in the first place. And neither had anything to do with her. But more than countless similar examples, I also said "indirectly", by which I meant that other countries tend to act in reaction to what America does.

As if the Democrats don't engage in the same thing?

Certainly not nearly as systematically as Republicans do.

[Dutch]

Certainly not nearly as systematically as Republicans do.

If you've ever been to California, you'd realize just how badly republicans get fucked over in that state by the democrats. And what a surprise, California has the largest state debt because of the out-of-control welfare systems, outrageous taxes and regulations resulting in a mass exodus of business that's stifling their economy, and a rising crime rate despite their ridiculous gun laws they impose on law-abiding citizens. I could keep going, I used to live there.

I for one am hoping they do secede from the Union

Main point here: the Democrat's policies bankrupt everything, which means everyone else is riding shotgun. The republicans realize this, and in turn the media/the left carries out a smear campaign on them.

EDIT: I'd like to add that there are a lot of dumbass republicans too, and I'm actually a non-partisan myself. In general, though, I tend to agree with the economic policies of the republicans.

[Mugwump]

If you've ever been to California, you'd realize just how badly republicans get fucked over in that state by the democrats.

I haven't and all I can say about it is that there's always exceptions to any rule.

outrageous taxes and regulations resulting in a mass exodus of business that's stifling their economy

That's what happens when you let business do anything it wants. Delocalizations should be outlawed. Also, you gotta get the money somewhere. Better to take it where it is (business and rich people) than to bleed the working class even more than it already is.

I for one am hoping they do secede from the Union

Heh, don't worry, I've heard that the scientists are more and more convinced that the Big One is coming...

Main point here: the Democrat's policies bankrupt everything

From what you've just said, I would infer that it's the delocalizations that bankrupt everything, i.e. the reactions to the policies rather than the policies themselves.

In general, though, I tend to agree with the economic policies of the republicans.

Economic policies of the right wing usually favor the rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor, so I can't condone that.

[DeathMaster]

All I can say is that if California succeeds from the Union, nobody'll miss them.

[Dutch]

@bfg

No, it's the policies themselves that run out business. Here's a few examples:

* minimum wage in cali is through the roof compared to other states.

* their tax rate is a lot higher than nearby states.

* registration prices for diesel trucks is jaw dropping, I imagine trucking companies are leaving for nearby states.

* the extreme ban on guns has gun stores and manufacturers moving to nearby states.

* properly tax for farms and ranches is huge. Since farmers and ranchers can't just pick up and leave for another state, they simply raise their prices on product so that people like me have to spend more in the store, essentially footing the bill.

* state sponsored utilities such as electricity is generally very high, making the cost of operating a business expensive compared to other states.

* fuel taxes contribute to high fuel prices, making it more expensive for everyone just to commute to work.

A lot of people and businesses are fleeing cali and moving up to Idaho where I live because idaho is very business friendly and has a low unemployment rate. Its easy to start and maintain a business here and make decent money while you're doing it.

The more financial burden on a business, the less people they hire, the less money they pay the ones they do hire, and the higher the prices they charge the you, the customer.

Cali (democrat) unemployment is 6.3%. Idaho (republican) is 3.8%. That speaks volumes.

I'm on the lower end of the middle class myself. If the state govt came in tomorrow and told my company it has to pay me more, or they bump up the tax rate on the business, or increase regulations, or any other bad economic policy, myself and several others will be out of a job, because they won't be able to afford to pay us. Its very simple math.

And outlawing delocalizations is completely anti-freedom. A business owner should be able to conduct business anywhere they want.

EDIT: you have to remember that we are coming from 2 different mindsets here. I favor individualism. I don't want help from the govt, and I don't think very many people should be receiving help from the govt. You seem to believe govt involvement is good, and that it should act in the economy. As we have all just seen, America is split between these two ideals as well.

EDIT2: in regard to your comment on "getting the money from somewhere", myself and a lot of conservative economists believe in a percentage based income tax: everyone pays somewhere between 5 and 15% regardless what they make. Its fair this way and doesn't punish people for trying harder to make more money. If the govt can't make do on that, its clearly spending too much.