RNC vs DNC: More People Watched Trump's Speech Than Hillary's, but more DNC views than RNC views - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50798026]I don't expect much in the way of mitigating global warming for the next 4-8 years.[/QUOTE] In the case that neither the Congress nor Clinton manage to push through comprehensive climate change mitigation, at the very least maintaining the status quo established under Obama would be preferable to Trump. I agree that nuclear power is great and needs to be supported more by both parties but even assuming Trump is 100% on board and made it a key part of his energy policy (he hasn't, but lets assume for funsies) is that really worth losing out on all the environmental protections he would strip away in the name of cutting needless regulation and unnecessary spending?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50798044]In the case that neither the Congress nor Clinton manage to push through comprehensive climate change mitigation, at the very least maintaining the status quo established under Obama would be preferable to Trump. I agree that nuclear power is great and needs to be supported more by both parties but even assuming Trump is 100% on board and made it a key part of his energy policy (he hasn't, but lets assume for funsies) [B]is that really worth losing out on all the environmental protections he would strip away in the name of cutting needless regulation and unnecessary spending?[/B][/QUOTE] Depends on how much you prioritize solving climate change, which is a long term global threat, vs environmental policies that may make the earth shit for a comparatively shorter term which can then be fixed as better environmental policies and administrations come in. Climate change to me comes first. Where we're headed now we are already screwed in the next few decades so I don't give a shit if we fuck ourselves fast with coal or slowly with renewables. I want to fix the problem with nuclear so we change courses.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50798016]I'm not going to go into this topic again. If you really want to solve climate change you need to revive nuclear energy and make it the top source of energy production by 2050.[/QUOTE] but he doesnt give a shit about nuclear? hes grabbing blue collar workers in the energy industry by wanting to bring back more coal/gas/oil production.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50798063]Depends on how much you prioritize solving climate change, which is a long term global threat, vs environmental policies that may make the earth shit for a comparatively shorter term which can then be fixed as better environmental policies and administrations come in. Climate change to me comes first. Where we're headed now we are already screwed in the next few decades so I don't give a shit if we fuck ourselves fast with coal or slowly with renewables. I want to fix the problem with nuclear so we change courses.[/QUOTE] but trump is proposing on actively making the problem worse by fucking pumping more smoke into the skies. he wants to stimulate coal mining and get rid of environmental protections which try to reduce the problem and to mitigate the damage caused no matter what, trump is going to make the environment much worse than clinton. saying "i want to fix the problem with nuclear" ignores the fact he's a fucking global warming denialist

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50798063] Climate change to me comes first. [/QUOTE] My advice: Don't vote Trump.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50798063]Depends on how much you prioritize solving climate change, which is a long term global threat, vs environmental policies that may make the earth shit for a comparatively shorter term which can then be fixed as better environmental policies and administrations come in. Climate change to me comes first. Where we're headed now we are already screwed in the next few decades so I don't give a shit if we fuck ourselves fast with coal or slowly with renewables. I want to fix the problem with nuclear so we change courses.[/QUOTE] I don't understand how you can say climate comes first while voting for someone who literally does not believe in climate change and global warming. Shouldn't that be an immediate red flag?

[QUOTE=srobins;50798193]I don't understand how you can say climate comes first while voting for someone who literally does not believe in climate change and global warming. Shouldn't that be an immediate red flag?[/QUOTE] no Believing in climate change isnt necessary to solving it. Republicans have supported nuclear because of its reliability as an energy source. Democrats who believe in climate change oppose it because they think nuclear power is an accident waiting to happen and nuclear waste isnt managable.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50798222]no Believing in climate change isnt necessary to solving it. Republicans have supprted nuclear because of its reliability as an energy source. Democrats who believe in climate change oppose it because they think nuclear power is an accident waiting to happen and nuclear waste isnt managable.[/QUOTE] but trump literally is going to make it worse. he denies global warming exists and his policies are designed to actively damage the environment even if he built loads of nuclear power plants it still wouldnt offset the damage

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50798222]no Believing in climate change isnt necessary to solving it. Republicans have supported nuclear because of its reliability as an energy source. Democrats who believe in climate change oppose it because they think nuclear power is an accident waiting to happen and nuclear waste isnt managable.[/QUOTE] Dude, read that back to yourself. Believing in climate change isn't necessary to solve it? Investing in nuclear power is great, but if it were that simple we'd have this whole ecological crisis locked down by now. There's a lot more that goes into reversing the decline of our planet than building some power plants, and step one is actually recognizing an issue.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50797929]Uh? [img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/be.png[/img]? What are you doing? [editline]to clarify[/editline] I don't understand, are you not a Belgian-born citizen commenting on our election or is flagdog being silly?[/QUOTE] I have a US nationality, but i live in Belgium. Its irrelevant though, i just found it amusing that his comments fit the stereotypical "why do you hate your own country" canadians.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50798222]no Believing in climate change isnt necessary to solving it. Republicans have supported nuclear because of its reliability as an energy source. Democrats who believe in climate change oppose it because they think nuclear power is an accident waiting to happen and nuclear waste isnt managable.[/QUOTE] Yeah good luck actually getting a single plant built when his tax plan and general foreign relations mishandling causes you to not actually be capable of affording the materials needed or the oversight needed to ensure you don't fuck it up. Hey it doesn't matter that he's a fucking loon who denies climate change because he's [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B]. It doesn't matter that he intends to impose despotic policy to prevent "the turrists" because he's [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B]. It doesn't matter that he actively advocates violence from his cultists because he's [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B]. It doesn't matter that every economist worth their salt has pointed out he's going to destroy the middle and working classes, because he's [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B]. Nah; Trump, mememan2016, daddy cannot do anything wrong because he's [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B].

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50797970]But that's one of his mainline promises. Do you support it or not? Why vote for someone when they're going to crash the global economy at all unless you want that[/QUOTE] Defaulting does not mean "whoops, sorry guys, we arent paying a single dime anymore, please fuck off all of you" knowing trump, he knows a thing or 2 about defaulting... ;) He is not talking about full default, just mediated default or any other form of default. But in all honesty, doing nothing for another 8 years would be worse then flat out defaulting... What is Hilarities plan on getting rid of the debt?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50797909]Trump brought this up during a rally today. Media spun it as a threat of physical violence when Trump's attacks are all verbal. If you want to claim otherwise then you should show the video of what he said. Call me whatever you want, I think for myself. I do not blindly worship Trump despite what you believe. I disagree with some of his statements and policies, but I still want him to become the next President, especially since the other option is Clinton.[/QUOTE] [url]https://youtu.be/0vGkRpOeBzo[/url] Maybe I am wrong. Maybe he wants to physically "hit somebody so hard their heads will spin." Maybe he'll pull the "I was just talking about verbal hits guise." Maybe he'll do that thing where he sues people who puncture his wasp nest thin skin. No matter his intentios, this is not how a possible president should talk. This is how a fucking mobster asshole conducts himself. PS. Fuck your orange Jim Jones

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50798269] But in all honesty, doing nothing for another 8 years would be worse then flat out defaulting... What is Hilarities plan on getting rid of the debt?[/QUOTE] it wouldn't and you have no idea how the global economy works if you say something like "getting rid of the debt"

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50798222]no Believing in climate change isnt necessary to solving it. Republicans have supported nuclear because of its reliability as an energy source. Democrats who believe in climate change oppose it because they think nuclear power is an accident waiting to happen and nuclear waste isnt managable.[/QUOTE] What about a Trump presidency makes you think they will be more likely to fund and subsidize nuclear energy over a Clinton one?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50797585]Ignoring the content of each candidates speeches, I think Trump does a much better job of captivating his audience in his speeches. He's got [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B] even when he uses teleprompters. I don't think Clinton paces herself in an interesting way.[/QUOTE] "High energy" if by that you mean he pauses after every 10 words to let nutter republicans applaud to feed his ego then ya, he's got [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B]!!

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50797686]Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Cory Booker all delivered better speeches than any speaker at the entire RNC. I don't think this is a debatable assessment. Hillary Clinton's own speech may not have been quite as impressive, but she has never been more than a competent public speaker, but neither was Trump's bizarre rambling speech which she aptly described as 'Midnight in America'. Something I did note was the constant appeals to patriotism and to America. I think in Britain, far too many people miss this as a tool. All of the greatest progressive and left-wing orators are so effective because they aren't just a radical. They also appeal to some kind of tradition and conservatism within the public. Martin Luther King hit these chords extraordinarily well, by appealing to religion and quoting the Bible, and [URL="http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/08/martin-luther-kings-dream-speech"]reminding[/URL] his audience 'That all men—yes, black men as well as white men—would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', appealing to Thomas Jefferson's words. Barack Obama, whether or not you agree with his politics or think he is an effective leader, is undoubtedly and undeniably one of the most gifted orators in American politics. But he too appeals to America. I have some criticisms in how this is done - I am skeptical of the 'proposition nation' (nation shared by ideology), but it still forms a major part of his speech linking seamlessly the founding fathers, the American Dream with progressive politics and issues of the present. Tony Benn, one of the greatest speakers in the left in Britain, who has still not been surpassed by his supposed proteges on the left, appealed to British radical tradition of the Chartists and the Levelers. Hilary Benn, arguing forcefully for British intervention in Syria in one of the finest parliamentary speeches for many years, appealed to the left-wing anti-fascist tradition. Yet Trump, and his fellow cultist on the other side of the Atlantic and the spectrum, Jeremy Corbyn, do none of this. The right in America loves to try to [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/who-loves-america.html"]own[/URL] patriotism. Yet as Paul Krugman notes, this has all become a facade to hide something very dark in recent years among many Republicans. Because in reality, the reason why Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn don't appeal to patriotism and America or Britain in the way in which their opponents do is because they don't just want to change the politics of the country, they wish they could change the people within it. It is no accident that Trump is so friendly with Vladimir Putin, despite being one of the greatest enemies of America. It is no accident that Jeremy Corbyn and other left-wingers, frustrated at their own 'brainwashed' proletariat who refuse to revolt, jet off to Latin America to find their excitement. They claim to want to represent the 'working class', yet they're more scared of them than upper-class Tories, so horrified by their views on the EU, or on the death penalty, or on patriotism and the Queen, that they declare them to be brainwashed and wash their hands of them, preferring to faff about protesting Israel or the West in general. Read the twitter bio of any white nationalist, and you will notice that they are not so nationalist and internal after all. They frequently profess support to not only the nationalist of their own, but to Trump, Marie le Pen, Geert Wilders and Orban simultaneously. The reality is that these supposed 'patriots' don't love their country in the slightest. Trump thinks it is midnight in America, not because the military is 'weak' (it isn't) or the economy is a 'disaster' (it did well compared to other developed countries). It is midnight in America because of the people of America are not who they want to represent. They hate the fact that representing America is not just representing white people, or Christians, or straight people. They want to change the people of America, not change the politics, to be more white, more Christian. They don't [I]want[/I] their politics to represent Muslims, or black Americans, or Latinos. These people are almost dirty and unwanted to them regardless of their faith in the country. Jeremy Corbyn wants to replace his people with an excitable Latin American proletariat who may give him his revolution. This is why ultimately the appeals to patriotism of both these 'leaders' (if you can even call what they do this) ring so hollow, if they bother at all. To do this, you need to think there is something good, something great about the country, and the people within it, even if you think things are badly wrong. You can't just rant about how bad everything is, offer no serious solutions (both have formulated almost no serious policy of their own at all). Everyone knows there are problems in America. Because, however, blind anger rather than hard policy work and difficult decisions have been fetishised across the Atlantic by the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, whilst Corbyn sits dead in the polls, this clown can stand a change at becoming the next President. Trump isn't a patriot. He undermines everything that America means. America means liberty and democracy, he is a wannabe dictator. America is a nation of immigrants and a chance for a better life, he wants to deport them and ban them from the country. America is a shining beacon and the leader of the free world, Trump wants to thuggishly squeeze money out of his allies, buddy up with its enemies, and engage in war crimes. Neither of them see this and that is why I think any claim that they are patriotic (especially Trump) is obviously false. I am usually fairly relaxed about political events, as I think most things do tend to be overblown and eventually work themselves out. I am genuinely fearful of a West led by Donald Trump. I don't know if we can recover, and I don't know if America could recover.[/QUOTE] This was essentially a long-winded way of concluding anyone outside of the political center isn't a patriot, mainly taking issue with their frustrations with the fact most people are apathetic or centrist and using it as evidence for some kind of bullshit claim of hypocrisy. What you cite as great progressives are people who never structurally changed anything and tempered both their rhetoric and solutions to meet the needs of the current political context, the affairs of the status quo. This is your idea of patriotic, as distinguished from popular. Your true patriots are not actually popular figures, but people who address a crisis in a unequal system to keep it alive. Why do you think MLK was so successful? He was a man, a christian man, who did not walk with women. He dressed well, spoke well, and (unlike radicals) only asked for the constitutional, liberal rights already guaranteed to whites. The top levels of our state had seen the writing on the wall since the 40s, and between JFK and LBJ it knowingly lost a generation in the south (more than that now), but considered it a necessary sacrifice. That is just how the american right and the white working class finds itself in an anti-establishment boat, the far left and labor is another ball game. There's nothing hypocritical about anyone believing working class or the people vote against their own interests, it's not self-hatred and it certainly doesn't disqualify someone from being a patriot. A western nationalist like Trump isn't a shallow patriot just because he recognizes American interests do not coincide with 'globalist' interests, that globalization has exacerbated American divides that must be conquered with civic and economic nationalism not multiculturalism and open borders, and that Russia is like us in that it is a very diverse, large country whose interests have diverged from the Trump essentially proposes we have, is not the enemy and is actually a boogeyman. The radicalization and polarization is disturbing, but let's not condemn it right away and we should recognize it's happening for a reason. There are 'alternative' (ghosts from the 20th century) currents within both the Western left and right which are currently indicting ruling ideology in mainstream parties. They are two distinct counter-cultures that propose a worldview contrary to that envisioned by our own political and economic elite, one a rejection of liberalism/globalism and the other capitalism. The left's story is old, but very recently the ruling class it identifies began to leave behind nations, homogeneous communities, the old economy and the good times it was associated with, leaving room for nationalists. Globalization is revealing structural problems within our societies, more and more people are for reactionary or progressive reasons rejecting that late 20th century consensus. It's a challenge to 'democracy' [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp0uq-QafYQ[/url] 27:50 Also I only wrote so much since the above is basically the Clinton line on the two front war she deals with right now, particularly with the russia and whiteness deflections of late which are used against both sides.

Hillary has to be one of the most disgusting politicians I've ever seen.

[QUOTE=Arcoz;50798453]Hillary has to be one of the most disgusting politicians I've ever seen.[/QUOTE] Does Trump not exist to you?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50797943]First its Trumpsters, now its Trumpets. If you aren't going to refer to Trump supporters as Centipedes as preferred, at least have some consistency. I don't like how I can walk over to GD and lgbt threads in SH and there's respect for people who want to be ID'd as he/she/whatever but that goes out the window when it comes to Trump supporters.[/QUOTE] I refuse to believe you're comparing the persecution of the LGBT community to how Trump supporters get treated and aren't trolling.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50798693]I refuse to believe you're comparing the persecution of the LGBT community to how Trump supporters get treated and aren't trolling.[/QUOTE] Don't you know political ideologies aren't a choice? No one simply adapts their ideals dependent on what they are around or the circumstances. You're born with your ideology, it's not raised. It's not like their political platforms will affect you or that they'll change the world around them. I say this [sp]completely satirically and that ideologies change the world around you unlike an individual's sexuality.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50798391]What about a Trump presidency makes you think they will be more likely to fund and subsidize nuclear energy over a Clinton one?[/QUOTE] Honestly, nothing really. I'm saying I don't care about his coal policy because it doesn't matter in the long run to me. If [I]anything[/I] inclines me to think he would [I]overwhelmingly[/I] support nuclear, its because he wants to revive the coal industry to bring back jobs for coal miners. Its such a bold and unwanted proposal to the rest of the country that I could see him pulling the same with the nuclear industry [url=http://i.imgur.com/Msw4acH.png?1]if the issue is worded in his favor[/url]. This is why in the AMA I never mentioned climate change, I only talked about jobs and economic prospects. Nuclear power is such a sensitive political topic that no politician dares to have a serious discussion over it. If Trump developed a stance on nuclear energy it would be one of the [I]least[/I] controversial topics in his campaign. I think he's crazy enough to bring nuclear energy onto the political floor. In my opinion, I see his ratings increasing if he chose to support nuclear power because of the climate change implications he doesn't care about.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50797950]You want to crash the global economy Yeah you're not going to get fucking anything resembling sympathy from me when you literally want the US to default on the debt causing another global recession[/QUOTE] I'm not a trump supporter but literally all your posts are cringe

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50798857]Honestly, nothing really. I'm saying I don't care about his coal policy because it doesn't matter in the long run to me. If [I]anything[/I] inclines me to think he would [I]overwhelmingly[/I] support nuclear, its because he wants to revive the coal industry to bring back jobs for coal miners. Its such a bold and unwanted proposal to the rest of the country that I could see him pulling the same with the nuclear industry [url=http://i.imgur.com/Msw4acH.png?1]if the issue is worded in his favor[/url]. This is why in the AMA I never mentioned climate change, I only talked about jobs and economic prospects. Nuclear power is such a sensitive political topic that no politician dares to have a serious discussion over it. If Trump developed a stance on nuclear energy it would be one of the [I]least[/I] controversial topics in his campaign. I think he's crazy enough to bring nuclear energy onto the political floor. In my opinion, I see his ratings increasing if he chose to support nuclear power because of the climate change implications he doesn't care about.[/QUOTE] He is going after coal because there are unemployed coal workers in the US. I am pretty sure you're not going to see any nuclear policy improvement under him. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50798859]I'm not a trump supporter but literally all your posts are cringe[/QUOTE] Cool, good contribution.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50798861] Cool, good contribution.[/QUOTE] Thanks. Now stop being a dick, at least [I]pretend[/I] to be civil. And don't try to get out of it with "[I]but why should I be civil with people who want nuclear apocalypse?[/I]" Give me a break.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50798881]Thanks. Now stop being a dick, at least [I]pretend[/I] to be civil. And don't try to get out of it with "[I]but why should I be civil with people who want nuclear apocalypse?[/I]" Give me a break.[/QUOTE] How have I not been "civil"? I have been. I haven't screamed at anyone that they're garbage, I haven't told them they can't hold their views. I vehemently oppose those views, and out of all the discussions I have read, have yet to even glimpse an actual answer to peoples honest to god questions. I have been told that I don't really get to have an opinion on this as a canadian more than a handful of times, and that's bullshit due to how much this really will effect me and my nation. I am not lacking civility, I am lacking patience due to how many months of constantly dodging actual fucking questions that have real relevance and hiding behind memes, propaganda, and outrage people have practiced. I have no desire to stop people from holding their opinions, they're free to believe whatever shit they want. I will however question it, and question it, and question it. He doesn't have my sympathy, that's true, but sympathy and civility are two different things entirely. He has my civility, he does not have my sympathy.

New page, reposting question because I want an answer. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50797988]I've yet to hear what exactly Clinton would do. All I'm told is not to vote for her because she is corrupt, and emails, and various conspiracy theories about assassinations and Saudi princes. What damage will she do as president? What policy of hers is bad? Like with Trump I can point to policy and say "This will hurt the economy" or "This will cause distrust amongst our allies" or "This won't solve the problem of climate change". Sometimes it's opinion based, like you can have an opinion on how much gun control is necessary and make the point that Clinton has argued too left on that subject, but what damage are people afraid she will do that makes them go for anyone but her? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50798857]Honestly, nothing really. I'm saying I don't care about his coal policy because it doesn't matter in the long run to me. If [I]anything[/I] inclines me to think he would [I]overwhelmingly[/I] support nuclear, its because he wants to revive the coal industry to bring back jobs for coal miners. Its such a bold and unwanted proposal to the rest of the country that I could see him pulling the same with the nuclear industry [URL="http://i.imgur.com/Msw4acH.png?1"]if the issue is worded in his favor[/URL]. This is why in the AMA I never mentioned climate change, I only talked about jobs and economic prospects. Nuclear power is such a sensitive political topic that no politician dares to have a serious discussion over it. If Trump developed a stance on nuclear energy it would be one of the [I]least[/I] controversial topics in his campaign. I think he's crazy enough to bring nuclear energy onto the political floor. In my opinion, I see his ratings increasing if he chose to support nuclear power because of the climate change implications he doesn't care about.[/QUOTE] It's hardly a bold or unwanted proposal. Republicans have been pushing coal since Democrats opposed it. It's a strong issue for them: cheap, plentiful energy that thousands of jobs rely upon. Trump doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would support coal as a stepping stone to announcing a nuclear energy plan. Seems to me he would just make it part of his platform. But he hasn't. It's name dropped in the Republican platform but in a fairly disingenuous way. I also don't understand how you can say you care about climate change but posit that his coal policy "doesn't matter in the long run" to you as well. Coal is pretty dirty. [QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50798859]I'm not a trump supporter but literally all your posts are cringe[/QUOTE] Well you certainly post like a Trump supporter. [QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50798881]Thanks. Now stop being a dick, at least [I]pretend[/I] to be civil. And don't try to get out of it with "[I]but why should I be civil with people who want nuclear apocalypse?[/I]" Give me a break.[/QUOTE] His posts are pretty civil. I dunno what your problem is.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50799097]Well you certainly post like a Trump supporter.[/QUOTE] ...Uh huh. This is what I'm talking about. What does this even mean? This is just you going "it's fine to be a dick so long as I do it to people who support a different candidate than I do", thanks for standing on that high horse that you built for yourself. But if you're eager to call me a Trump supporter because I "post like one", maybe we can do eye for an eye and I'll just refer to you as "Hillary Defense Force Member #3" from now on since that's what you do in every single thread?

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50799121] But if you're eager to call me a Trump supporter because I "post like one", maybe we can do eye for an eye and I'll just refer to you as "Hillary Defense Force Member #3" from now on since that's what you do in every single thread?[/QUOTE] delete this

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50799121]...Uh huh. This is what I'm talking about. What does this even mean? This is just you going "it's fine to be a dick so long as I do it to people who support a different candidate than I do", thanks for standing on that high horse that you built for yourself. But if you're eager to call me a Trump supporter because I "post like one", maybe we can do eye for an eye and I'll just refer to you as "Hillary Defense Force Member #3" from now on since that's what you do in every single thread?[/QUOTE] Honestly, since when did people who support a candidate who has such paper thin skin develop such paper thin skin themselves?