{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/4/2016 3:41:22 PM
1
That electing an outsider---with little regard or consideration for WHO that outsider is and what they stand for----is an improvement over a broken system.
Hitler----once again----was an "outsider'.
Sometimes the Devil you Know truly IS better than the Devil you don't.
English
-
So what you're saying is you have no faith in our system of government...
-
Perhaps more towards the fact that he and many others, have less confidence in certain people's choices for the presidency. Including yours...!
-
A system is only as good as people's dedication to the principles that led to its creation. Which is why the notion of "Oh it can't happen here" is a dangerous indulgence. Is it much less LIKELY to happen here than other places? Yep. Its it IMPOSSIBLE that the US could give away its democracy? No. We've already given it away partially through apathy and a willingness to sell our elections to the highest-bidder via our asinine campaign finance laws...and a SCOTUS that stupidly equated money with "speech" with no regard for the level of corruption that could lead to.
-
Edited by Wicked: 10/4/2016 4:24:08 PMWhen you say "the notion of 'oh it can't happen here' is a dangerous indulgence", what are you referring to?
-
Edited by TheArtist: 10/4/2016 4:41:09 PM"It Can Happen Here" is the title of a novel written by Sinclair Lewis about life in a fascist United States. It where the quote, "When fascism comes to America, it will wrap itself in the Flag and be carrying a Cross" is from. The dangerous indulgence is to think that we could never give away our democracy. Because there are very much elements in this society who see the world in authoritarian terms and are comfortable giving control to a "strong leader" ( ironically the same terms the typical German used to refer to Hitler). Or being that authoritarian leader themselves. So there are elements who would be more than happy to take away our democracy if we get careless with it or put partisan and other tribal agendas ahead of its preservation.
-
I understand all that. What I'm asking is where is that coming from? How is that linked to our current presidential predicament?
-
The nexus between Trump's narcissism and the authoritarian elements on the Right that Trump shamelessly courted to win the primary. He's flirting with a group of people who want America run THEIR WAY, and don't care what they have to do to achieve that end. So a very dangerous game is being played by someone who lacks the character or the temperment to understand and respect that danger.
-
So what is the danger you see from Trump being elected?
-
Actually you ought to reflect that question to yourself yet ask, "What aren't the dangers........"?
-
The same question can be asked when considering Clinton. Also, I am by no means suggesting that I want Trump to be president. I just do not want Clinton in office.
-
Edited by bLooM_pHaZe: 10/5/2016 2:43:12 AMTruth be told neither do I, but I'd rather her than him...ANYDAY.
-
I don't want either one of them in office. But I'd rather Trump because he's not smart enough to avoid impeachment. Clinton is.
-
You know that is a rather silly intellectual reason for voting who the president is, no offense.
-
Edited by Wicked: 10/5/2016 3:40:01 AMYes, I realize that my reasoning is ridiculous. But such are the times we live in. IMO anyway. Our country is in a bad way and neither of our current presidential candidates are going to make things any better. If Trump gets elected well probably get nuked by Canada because he can't keep his fat mouth shut. If Clinton gets elected we'll probably end up nuking ourselves because of some kind of internal crisis.
-
Ha ha ha, that's hilarious matey. Thanks, you made laugh.
-
Edited by TheArtist: 10/4/2016 7:13:03 PMRealistically? A strengthening and further emboldening of the anti-democratic agenda of right-wing authoritarian elements within the Republican party that election of our first non-white President and the economic meltdown of 2008 unleashed. A movement that some people refer to derisively (and only slightly tongue-in-cheek) as "Neo-Jim Crow". IOWs you have a group of reactionary (mainly) white traditional and cultural conservatives that found a home in the "Tea Party Movement" that are reactionaries who are deeply resentful of the social changes wrought by the 1960s and whose agenda is to drag the country back (by any means necessary ) to a social order of the 1950s, pre-civil rights. Pre-Women's Movement America. These people are scared, angry, and do not see America as a nation of democratic principles....but one that the "rightful property" of white Europeans....and white MALE Europeans in a particular. They see that their losing their struggle to drag the nation back to the 1950s at the Federal level...so they're trying to pervert the democratic process and subvert civil liberties by using the power of Governemt at the State level to attack various "out-groups" that they don't like. IOWs to carve out a country-within-country in the Red States, where the protections of the Constitution only apply to white Christian heterosexuals...and everyone else has to accept some form of second-class citizen status.....ala 1950. So far the Supreme Court and Obama's Justice Dept. has acted as a significant check upon these abuses of the legislative process. But now gives us a Republican Administriation....led by someone who has an impaired ability to empathize with anyone (let alone people different from him) who openly courted these people's support in is bid for power..... ...and suddenly you may be looking at a legislative open-season on every out-group across the Red States, and swing states with Republican state governmnets like Ohio. Where we've (both Democrats in the state legislature and voter referendums) have had to smack down a number of these initiatives over the last 8 years. On the international arena, I fear a return to the sort of thuggish, simple-minded foreign policy that was the trademark of Bush's neo-cons. Which did nothing but exhaust our military in two protracted wars...and tripled the national debt.
