Welcome to Crestfall Gaming

Register now to Crestfall Gaming. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Aquane

American political thread

Who did you want to be POTUS?   91 members have voted

  1. 1. The President

    • Trump
      39
    • Clinton
      3
    • Third Party or write-in
      10
    • I'm not American and/or I'm not eligible to vote.
      39

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
131 posts in this topic

You've got Gary "Don't offend people who broke laws to get here", "Bake the cake", and "I'm too high to do this seriously" Johnson with his VP Bill "Going to promote Clinton as much as I can" Weld, and Jill "Wifi is bad for us" Stein.

Basically, third party is a joke this year, and there's no way I'd vote for Clinton (I wouldn't have voted for Sanders either. I like the money I work to earn, and I still enjoy my rights).

+1 God Emperor Trump.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah! Asura, you, of EVERYONE here, should stay out of this thread! LoL! I love it though. (Even if i disagree)

If this were an american only project, you just would've lost half your clientele. 

someone on twitter put it best: "At least we'll be having sex wednesday, cause whoever wins we're all screwed!"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

make of these what you will, recall that john podesta is hillary's campaign manager right now

pics.jpg

also, rumor has it that the podesta(s) purged their emails the day after she went missing, not too sure about that though, but wikileaks gets used as a reference

pic.PNG

actually i think that second picture doesn't match but its not a realistic head shape in the sketch either; for some reason i cant edit the post to delete it though

and don't forget to vote tomorrow

Edited by Aquane
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Asura said:

You've got Gary "Don't offend people who broke laws to get here", "Bake the cake", and "I'm too high to do this seriously" Johnson with his VP Bill "Going to promote Clinton as much as I can" Weld, and Jill "Wifi is bad for us" Stein.

Basically, third party is a joke this year, and there's no way I'd vote for Clinton (I wouldn't have voted for Sanders either. I like the money I work to earn, and I still enjoy my rights).

+1 God Emperor Trump.

God Emperor of America: Trump the Spice Lord by Asura Herbert. I'd read that. Also I'd vote Asura for president any day... make wow great again! 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-11-02 at 3:04 PM, Aquane said:

Clinton Strategist: We need to "produce an unaware and compliant citizenry" to defeat Trump:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599#efmARKATm

 

Congratulations! You just played right into the hands of some anti-Clinton or anti-establishment agent, being part of the misinformed cattle you're refering to, by falling for simple quote mining.

The actual quote, from Bill Ivey (not sure if he's actually campaign staff), states that "we've all been quite content to (...) produce an unaware and compliant citizenry." We'll never know whom (we all) he's referring to but he may as well (going by what he writes next) be talking about the general politician-media confluence of the past 50 or 100 years. They've all been playing the game of feeding the masses digestable lumps of processed truth to be able to deal with real issues behind their backs. Issues that, for various reasons, can't be discussed publicly, most commonly because since ordinary people actually wouldn't understand them anyway it would only make matters worse.

Clinton's done her share of shady deals of course. That's the game she's in. But my point is that there's nothing to suggest that the Democratic party would be worse than any of their competitors, either GOP media or the alt-right movement or foreign agents, when it comes to slanting information and dumbing down the news.

The simple fact that Clinton's emails are publicly available and Trump's aren't shouldn't be an asset to Trump unless somehow the world is filled with people less cynical than me.

Edited by Skrofler
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skrofler said:

Congratulations! You just played right into the hands of some anti-Clinton or anti-establishment agent, being part of the misinformed cattle you're refering to, by falling for simple quote mining.

The actual quote, from Bill Ivey (not sure if he's actually campaign staff), states that "we've all been quite content to (...) produce an unaware and compliant citizenry." We'll never know whom (we all) he's referring to but he may as well (going by what he writes next) be talking about the general politician-media confluence of the past 50 or 100 years. They've all been playing the game of feeding the masses digestable lumps of processed truth to be able to deal with real issues behind their backs. Issues that, for various reasons, can't be discussed publicly, most commonly because since ordinary people actually wouldn't understand them anyway it would only make matters worse.

Clinton's done her share of shady deals of course. That's the game she's in. But my point is that there's nothing to suggest that the Democratic party would be worse than any of their competitors, either GOP media or the alt-right movement or foreign agents, when it comes to slanting information and dumbing down the news.

The simple fact that Clinton's emails are publicly available and Trump's aren't shouldn't be an asset to Trump unless somehow the world is filled with people less cynical than me.

I googled "we've all been quite content to (...) produce an unaware and compliant citizenry." and didn't find anything i recognized aside from buzzfeed, and I don't go there anyway, nor do i think that I should believe that to be a generally reputable website; in total there were 3 search results not including your forum post, which actually wasn't in the search results; guess the google crawler or whatever hasn't combed this thread yet

I get the feeling that something in Skrofler's post went over my head though

"And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry." -Bill Ivey, in an email to John Podesta

Now I'm gonna try picking apart the whole paragraph that the quote is in or clarifying or interpreting it or whatever, though being a young adult theres some stuff I'm just not gonna know about:

This is an email from Bill Ivey to John Podesta, who is currently the Clinton campaign chairman.

"Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious. How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging." -Wikileaks

please excuse my inconsistency in how the author is referred to below, stuff in parenthesis I'm not so sure about or something

They thought that the big problem for keeping the establishment in power(an assumption), was Citizens United and Koch Brothers getting in our way(I don't know much about them, though I think I should). Turns out the money isn't all that important if you can combine entertainment with the electoral process. Trump can already do this, since hes a celebrity and manipulates the media into giving him free coverage over and over again because its monetarily profitable for them to do so, we also downplay and insult Trump quite a few times. Because the media repeats Trump's ideas so much, people pick up on it, and discontent against the media attaches to a strongman, Trump; the discontent isn't against Trump though. They call the entertainment/electoral process(or more accurately politics) combination celebrity politics, which JFK Jr had a magazine which saw it coming and was ahead of its time. They think Trump to be a very serious threat to the two-faced establishment. They don't know how to handle it in the general election to make their candidate(Hillary) win the general election. Clinton is not an entertainer, and wouldn't really fit into the celebrity politics stuff, and Hillary is not a celebrity in the Trump/Kardashian mold, and they wanted to know what Hillary could do to offset that. They're certain that the poll-rigging insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the democrat conventions are over for whatever reason, but Bill Ivey thinks not. I restate that (he typed we've)I, Bill Ivey, and others involved with underhanded stuff in the democratic party including yourself, John Podesta, have been content to demean(compromise?) [the] government, stop focusing on civics(start focusing on identity politics?) and in general conspire to make the citizens not be aware of whats going on and listen to our media outlets while also believing our media too. The unawareness about our underhanded activity remains strong, but the confidence that the masses have in the media is obviously decreasing rapidly. They want to seriously, seriously think about it, and not just solve it by using emotional manipulation and identity politics(and immigration?) to try to make Hillary go up in the polls.

 

so should I not trust wikileaks or what?

edit: well i edited the opening quote in OP Skrofler

Edited by Aquane
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I get the feeling that something in Skrofler's post went over my head though

That's always a possibility, and I'm happy to explain myself when there's confusion.

Quote

 

They thought that the big problem for keeping the establishment in power(an assumption), was Citizens United and Koch Brothers getting in our way(I don't know much about them, though I think I should).

 

Koch Brothers are easy to google or wiki to get a basic grasp of. Basically they're influential business moguls who fund Republican think tanks and generally stuff a lot of dollars in pockets to work against the Democrats' agenda.

Quote

They think Trump to be a very serious threat to the two-faced establishment.

Hardly, since Trump is just as two-faced. Ivey is likely more concerned about the unpredictable nature of today's voters.

Quote

I restate that (he typed we've)I, Bill Ivey, and others involved with underhanded stuff in the democratic party including yourself, John Podesta, have been content to demean(compromise?) [the] government, stop focusing on civics(start focusing on identity politics?) and in general conspire to make the citizens not be aware of whats going on and listen to our media outlets while also believing our media too. The unawareness about our underhanded activity remains strong, but the confidence that the masses have in the media is obviously decreasing rapidly

He's most likely referring to the general unawareness of the deeper political issues among the general public/voters. As long as voters remain unaware and compliant they are easy to herd into the voting booths. It's the game Democrats and Republicans (and everyone else) like to play every election. Ivey's referring to Trump voters as unaware and non-compliant, which must be the most dangerous situation for the political elite. These voters are still basically idiots but won't do as they're told anymore. They've become unpredictable in a way and is likely to be swayed by more basic instincts than the liberal media would like.

With this interpretation there's no reason to believe "we all" refers to Democrats specifically.

Quote

so should I not trust wikileaks or what?

Their source material seems perfectly alright so far. Clinton even confirmed the authenticity of the emails.

However, was that picture of quotes provided by Wikileaks or by someone else? Since Ivey is intentionally misquoted saying "We need to..." whoever put that together is a bit naughty indeed. Ivey didn't write that. Secondly, a "Clinton strategist" is stretching the truth a bit since Ivey is clearly no staff member.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked Trump.

Then I read the rest of the options.

pkaansG.png

There's an option for non-'muricans. Dammit.

10 hours ago, Ugondiss said:

If this were an american only project, you just would've lost half your clientele. 


But since it isn't, he gained another half :P!

Edited by Xaverius
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because Clinton is corrupt doesn't mean it's safe to assume every politician is corrupt. I'm sure there's shady crap going on in the GOP too and, from the emails and media collusion, it's pretty evident that the major players in the GOP and DNC are on the same team. Hence why the Bushes and Koch Brothers are actually advocating for Clinton. It's all controlled opposition to keep big money in power.

However, the Clintons have been known for the the past 30 years to be "extremely shady, but nobody can touch them" because of the exact excuse @Skrofler is making - "it's not Clinton herself doing this" but she has a habit of surrounding herself with the most corrupt, disgusting people. It's a pattern, and exactly how they could never touch the Mafias or Capone. More importantly, why do people assume this level of corruption is normal? Sure, it's become normal in some circles (which we are now discovering to be much much larger than the public had thought) because of complacency, media coverups and normalization. It's been a steady descent into this crap hole we call the US Government, but that's exactly why we need to start fighting back against it.

To excuse the Clintons for being so corrupt because "it's normal now" is not only extremely pathetic but also very dangerous. You're resigning yourself to the idea that the government will never get better, so there's no point trying. So when it continues to get worse until it's beyond the point of no return - what then?

We're reaching insane levels of corruption and we're too busy to be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. Infact, if the polls are actually correct in assuming Hillary has the majority of the country behind her, then the slow descent into madness is met with roaring applause...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Malediction said:

However, the Clintons have been known for the the past 30 years to be "extremely shady, but nobody can touch them" because of the exact excuse @Skrofler is making - "it's not Clinton herself doing this"

I didn't say or mean to suggest that.

Quote

 

More importantly, why do people assume this level of corruption is normal?

 

Because it's rational? Why wouldn't it be normal? They're involved in the dirtiest, most lucrative and generally most important race on the planet. Who in that position wouldn't use everything they got to get ahead?

In fact, who even gets to that position without fighting dirty? That's a natural assumption, isn't it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in the thread you were posting about how it wasn't a Clinton Campaign member, just 'some guy' (who seems to be in pretty consistent contact with her campaign manager and close friend..?)

1 minute ago, Skrofler said:

Because it's rational? Why wouldn't it be normal? They're involved in the dirtiest, most lucrative and generally most important race on the planet. Who in that position wouldn't use everything they got to get ahead?

In fact, who even gets to that position without fighting dirty? That's a natural assumption, isn't it?

This is the exact thing I'm talking about. It's not just 'fighting dirty'. You're normalizing corruption in the government. Collusion with PACs, media, paying off the "mentally ill" to start riots and "nerd virgins" to post online and spread misinformation. Taking millions in donations from foreign governments and mega corporations who will expect favors in return. This is corruption.

I don't want the person who lies the most and pays the most to win the White House. I want someone who can stick to their word and actually make a convincing argument for why they should hold this position and not flip flop, lie, cheat and steal just to be in a position to make backroom deals with investors.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Malediction said:

Earlier in the thread you were posting about how it wasn't a Clinton Campaign member, just 'some guy' (who seems to be in pretty consistent contact with her campaign manager and close friend..?)

I didn't say it was 'some guy' either. My whole objection to the OP started because I wanted to point out what happens when you spread false quotes and link that to the context of the Ivey talk about unawareness. How is that defending Clinton? I didn't once mention what Clinton has done or said in a positive nor a negative light.

I think you're guessing at my motives and failing. I'm just interested in politics, the truth, and a lot of other things. I'm no supporter of any American political party or person.

Quote

 

This is the exact thing I'm talking about. It's not just 'fighting dirty'. You're normalizing corruption in the government. Collusion with PACs, media, paying off the "mentally ill" to start riots and "nerd virgins" to post online and spread misinformation. Taking millions in donations from foreign governments and mega corporations who will expect favors in return. This is corruption.

I don't want the person who lies the most and pays the most to win the White House. I want someone who can stick to their word and actually make a convincing argument for why they should hold this position and not flip flop, lie, cheat and steal just to be in a position to make backroom deals with investors.

 

How am I the one normalizing it? I'm just calling it as I see it. All of these things happen.

I think we all would like more honesty in politics, and we might get it a bit better, but there are just too many votes to be won from clueless people. That means the one who goes for the easy targets is gmore likely to win. Then all the idealists can sit by the side lines and say whatever they want, but they won't win. In the end that's what it comes down to. Modern politics is at best a blend of idealism, elitism, and populism.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02.11.2016 at 8:11 PM, Chilaverde said:

Madelein Albright is a jew.  Serbian family saved her life during WW2, because nazis could simply send her to concentration camp. Guess what she did in 1998 when she ve been Secretaty of State? Decided to bomb the shit out of Serbia. In Prague, on her book presentation, some czech guys who call their movement smth like "czech people, supporting Serbian Kosovo" came to that presentation with pictures of dead serbian civilians, who died during bombings. Albright yelled "Disgusting serbs! Go out!". 

She supports Hillary this election. Hard to find more nasty and two-faced person in politic nowadays.

i feel you my slavic brother! that rat allbright is simply a zionist. And not WHite or Human at all. If i were american u would vote Trump no doubt. Slava Serbii!

Edited by Oratai
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm definitely surprised by the huge support for Trump here (esp from Asura, lol). As a non American though I'm grateful that I don't have to vote for one of the two most hated candidates in the history of the US elections.

Corrupt Clinton vs Racist Trump - no thanks.

Edited by Sque
damn, that autocorrect
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if you dont wanna vote then at least pick gary johnson so there might be a libertarian candidate in 2020, hes not gonna win this election anyway

Edited by Aquane
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Sque said:

I'm definitely surprised by the huge support for Trump here (esp from Asura, lol). As a non American though I'm grateful that I don't have to vote for one of the two most hated candidates in the history of the US elections.

Corrupt Clinton vs Racist Trump - no thanks.

still waiting for proof that Trump is racist.

 

Trump is only disliked because the media demonizes everything he says, when everything he says is just common fucking sense

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sque said:

Racist Trump

It's a shame the media has run with this lie and people just eat it up.

Racist against who? Hispanics? No. Illegal Immigrants? Yes. There's about 11 million (or 16 if you go by the DNC leaks) living in the US without a visa. It's a huge strain on the economy, job market, welfare and social programs. They're working for $4 / hr or less in some places, it's slavery - why are people supporting this? They're uninsured in both Automobile and Health, so if they get into a car accident, the other driver's insurance has to pick up the slack. There's actually "uninsured motorist" coverage you have to pay extra for. Insurance companies charge you more for these expenses.

Same with Health Insurance. Hospitals must admit anyone to the ER, insurance or no. If no insurance, the hospitals usually treat this as a 'charity' case and simply eat the expenses. But here's the thing, they have to do this so often that healthcare providers simply charge 10x more for paying customers to compensate for this. Insurance companies negotiate the prices down to a 'customary rate' but Doctors and Hospitals can say they charged $1000 for a bandaid, get paid $50 and write it down as a $950 loss as a tax write-off. Prices continue going up, healthcare gets rich, illegal immigrants don't have to pay a dime, and US citizens get fucked.

Racist against Muslims? No. I've seen this lie spread way too much. He does not want to kick all Muslims out of the country. He wants to put a temporary ban on any immigrants coming from countries like Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc until we can find a way to vet these people thoroughly. At the moment, even Pres Obama said we cannot vet them properly. Look at Europe, there's 10s of thousands of "women and children" coming from Syria... who are actually mostly 18-30 y.o. men from Libya, Morocco, Algeria, etc -- NOT SYRIA. When they come into Turkey from the Middle East, they give their info but do you think Turkey vets them properly? No. They give them a paper to show to European immigration officials with this potentially-forged info, and it gets treated as fact.

If anyone calls someone Racist, please keep in mind this is probably coming from the media of a society that is trying to say Voter IDs are racist...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, my observation of Trump is through his public speeches, media outlets including John Oliver (whose views are in line with mine except for immigration) and opinions by friends from overseas (I am European). This is the first place that someone actually openly defends and supports him.

I really don't like how Trump changes his stances quite often and outright denies some of the things he said before.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aquane

ivoted.png

There, I went out and voted. It was only a block away so I had no excuse. Fulfilling my duty as a 'murican

 

Quote

I really don't like how Trump changes his stances quite often and outright denies some of the things he said before.

Welcome to the world of American politics...or pretty much politics in general...haha. 

Edited by cell007
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did it. I f***ing voted. 

You're welcome. 

Although, I kept needing a new ballot. Everytime I looked at the canidates for POTUS, I couldn't stop throwing up. I need a shower...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*yawn* 5.30 AM

"Trump 87% likely to win" - NY times

I'm still dreaming right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0