I'm not an American but how many Americans actually believe that it is uncommon for politicians to do this kind of thing? How many Americans expects candidates not to do this kind of thing?
Clutching your pearls over this instead of the myriad wrongs being actively committed paints you as unserious. Trump used his money to pay hush money to cover up an affair.
It was done in an illegal way. That's not an indicator of especially heinous wrongdoing. That's an indicator of the failings of the US legal system - war crimes that presidents have committed for centuries aren't recognized in the US.
Where are your priorities that you fixate on crime defined by an inherently criminal government?
I'm sorry, but the conversation is still a binary choice, of which both are not the best.
We get very few choices in first past the pole.
Until we change it somehow, for the better -
We can vote to pick our states electoral votes for the president.
There are only ever going to be 2 options. We vote for one of them.
The war machine is what keeps the world economy going.
I'm concerned about, and have protested the industrial military complex for as long as I've been aware of it.
Regarding genocide currently:
We have Christian crazy folks convinced Israel has to exist. I protest it, I'm against it. I don't have as much cash to bribe politicians.
That's what it comes down to. We get the votes. We don't get to pick all the policy. I don't have money to write policy like these super pacs or other orgs.
The argument was why focus on the felonies instead of the war crimes...
It's a binary choice,
A. one guy wants to be a dictator with extra war crimes allowed and encouraged and local crimes. Promises further disregard for law in 1000 page writeup. Happens to be a felon, proving the criminal status locally.
B. Other guy has a track of following the pulse and kinda changing opinion to match the room, shows compassion sometimes. with war crimes allowed. Dislikes dictators..
C.
We are a world built in and on war. The current human organizations are not ready to allow us to run things peacefully. Nations get paid money when they commit atrocities against one another, not lives restored.
We're actually controlled by banks and the mega rich the world over. Option c is included with either of the above or any new options as it has been since civilization began.
The war machine is what keeps the world economy going. I'm concerned about, and have protested the industrial military complex for as long as I've been aware of it. Regarding genocide currently: We have Christian crazy folks convinced Israel has to exist. I protest it, I'm against it. I don't have as much cash to bribe politicians.
That's what it comes down to. We get the votes. We don't get to pick all the policy. I don't have money to write policy like these super pacs or other orgs.
You're voting based on aesthetic. The term dictator is pretty hollow when all it takes is an executive order to murder people, US citizens or otherwise.
If a single election can end democracy in the US, that democracy was pretty broken to begin with.
That seems like a poor position. Lots of beautiful and amazing things are also incredibly fragile.
A single person, with help, can turn any type of country into a dictatorship via coup. Every country is pretty broken by your definition.
Significant portions of American law historically were based on etiquette to preserve order. These need to be codified in a fair manner by independent parties.
Our congress has been hijacked in half by a party hell-bent on trying to establish a dictatorship.
American founders argued that the system had to be defended. The phrase is one bad apple spoils the barrel. Corruption can spread and grow in any environment if unchecked.
The powers are supposed to be separated and able to keep each other in balance or in check. That isn't how it's been working altogether lately.
I like how you took the time to address my argument and reply to any of the core points about why you think I'm wrong.
Your summary at the end really speaks volumes to your point and why you think everything I'm writing is incorrect. /s
Please make an attempt to reply or do more than personally attack my character.
I'm not an American but how many Americans actually believe that it is uncommon for politicians to do this kind of thing? How many Americans expects candidates not to do this kind of thing?
This isn't common among all political races and it shouldn't be. There's always spin and media narratives.
The felony convictions were for literally paying a newspaper to run and or squash stories for cash.
Your attitude seems to be, well of course there's corruption. Why are you upset? It's normal.
No, it's not supposed to be allowed to work that way. People who let it go and say "ah whatever" are what allow it to continue.
Clutching your pearls over this instead of the myriad wrongs being actively committed paints you as unserious. Trump used his money to pay hush money to cover up an affair.
It was done in an illegal way. That's not an indicator of especially heinous wrongdoing. That's an indicator of the failings of the US legal system - war crimes that presidents have committed for centuries aren't recognized in the US.
Where are your priorities that you fixate on crime defined by an inherently criminal government?
I'm sorry, but the conversation is still a binary choice, of which both are not the best.
We get very few choices in first past the pole. Until we change it somehow, for the better - We can vote to pick our states electoral votes for the president.
There are only ever going to be 2 options. We vote for one of them. The war machine is what keeps the world economy going. I'm concerned about, and have protested the industrial military complex for as long as I've been aware of it. Regarding genocide currently: We have Christian crazy folks convinced Israel has to exist. I protest it, I'm against it. I don't have as much cash to bribe politicians.
That's what it comes down to. We get the votes. We don't get to pick all the policy. I don't have money to write policy like these super pacs or other orgs.
The argument was why focus on the felonies instead of the war crimes... It's a binary choice, A. one guy wants to be a dictator with extra war crimes allowed and encouraged and local crimes. Promises further disregard for law in 1000 page writeup. Happens to be a felon, proving the criminal status locally.
B. Other guy has a track of following the pulse and kinda changing opinion to match the room, shows compassion sometimes. with war crimes allowed. Dislikes dictators..
C. We are a world built in and on war. The current human organizations are not ready to allow us to run things peacefully. Nations get paid money when they commit atrocities against one another, not lives restored. We're actually controlled by banks and the mega rich the world over. Option c is included with either of the above or any new options as it has been since civilization began.
Maybe this system fucking sucks then
So much of it isn't fair.
I want to improve it.
We can't fix it by simply tearing it down, that leaves us all vulnerable to the fascists and the ones already abusing things to abusing things harder.
We have to fix it like the ship of Theseus, one plank at a time.
It's hard, messy, and thankless.
I don't remember signing up to be here, I didn't see a consent form. Here we are.
You're voting based on aesthetic. The term dictator is pretty hollow when all it takes is an executive order to murder people, US citizens or otherwise.
If a single election can end democracy in the US, that democracy was pretty broken to begin with.
That seems like a poor position. Lots of beautiful and amazing things are also incredibly fragile. A single person, with help, can turn any type of country into a dictatorship via coup. Every country is pretty broken by your definition.
Significant portions of American law historically were based on etiquette to preserve order. These need to be codified in a fair manner by independent parties. Our congress has been hijacked in half by a party hell-bent on trying to establish a dictatorship.
American founders argued that the system had to be defended. The phrase is one bad apple spoils the barrel. Corruption can spread and grow in any environment if unchecked.
The powers are supposed to be separated and able to keep each other in balance or in check. That isn't how it's been working altogether lately.
deleted by creator
I'll reply to your reddit ass post with a reddit ass answer
"Oh honey"
Very nuanced discussion.
Here's another redditism: "garbage in garbage out"
deleted by creator
I like how you took the time to address my argument and reply to any of the core points about why you think I'm wrong. Your summary at the end really speaks volumes to your point and why you think everything I'm writing is incorrect. /s Please make an attempt to reply or do more than personally attack my character.
deleted by creator
Fuck you forever