• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Elections 2016 Presidential Election General Discussion v2

How satisfied are you voting for your candidate?


  • Total voters
    71
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump uses his inexperience and ignorance as a plus. This is George w all over again.
This and it's sickening. It's like no one learned from the catastrophe that was GWB that embracing ignorance or rejecting facts is a bad thing. People used to say "I feel like I could have a beer with GWB but Gore is a stiff know it all prick."

Makes you realize that even some people that appear book smart have terrible judgement and very little ability to use critical thinking skills.
 
Alot of anger ITT because everyone's corrupt hero can't put away "Dumb Idiot" Trump and might lose.
 
Couldn't believe Trump was praising Putins approval ratings last night and Gary Johnson was openly admitting he had no idea "what" Aleppo is. I mean - is this real or just a sick joke? And yet Matt Lauer, who has no business hosting anything political btw, grilled HRC for nearly the entire 30 minutes on email use despite it being a forum to discuss veteran and foreign affairs.

The double standards are an embarrassment of the highest order.

How about asking actual policy questions and getting to the bottom on where candidates stand on current events and what the US' place is or should be in the world going forward.

Her extreme mishandling of classified information is a national security issue. And she should have been grilled harder.
 
This and it's sickening. It's like no one learned from the catastrophe that was GWB that embracing ignorance or rejecting facts is a bad thing. People used to say "I feel like I could have a beer with GWB but Gore is a stiff know it all prick."

Makes you realize that even some people that appear book smart have terrible judgement and very little ability to use critical thinking skills.
I would admittedly vote for whomever shows more respect for science and critical thinking. If that were Trump, I'd vote for him.

Neither candidate, unfortunately, impresses me on that score.
 
Couldn't believe Trump was praising Putins approval ratings last night and Gary Johnson was openly admitting he had no idea "what" Aleppo is. I mean - is this real or just a sick joke?
His brainfart on Aleppo doesn't bother me, but the simplicity of his approach does. He blames regime change and wants to partner with Russia to broker peace there. I'd like to know why he thinks that, what he's basing that on. I'm not confident he understands the issues there. It sounded like a typical Johnson soundbite- which is what Johnson sounds like whether he talks for 45 seconds or 45 minutes.
 
His brainfart on Aleppo doesn't bother me, but the simplicity of his approach does. He blames regime change and wants to partner with Russia to broker peace there. I'd like to know why he thinks that, what he's basing that on. I'm not confident he understands the issues there. It sounded like a typical Johnson soundbite- which is what Johnson sounds like whether he talks for 45 seconds or 45 minutes.

It seems like more and more (maybe it's just a short memory and a good old days bias, though) people are thinking you can substitute ideology for knowledge and denigrating the whole idea of intelligent governance.

That affects discussions around all types of policies, but with regard to foreign policy, do people who like Johnson think that just saying, "I'm a non-interventionist" means you don't have to pay attention to what's going on or that stating in advance that you won't get involved militarily anywhere unless the U.S. is directly attacked will lead to better outcomes for us and others? I don't personally know a ton about foreign policy, but it seems to me that a lot of people feel really comfortable talking about it without knowing anything or having any kind of a coherent point of view.
 
It seems like more and more (maybe it's just a short memory and a good old days bias, though) people are thinking you can substitute ideology for knowledge and denigrating the whole idea of intelligent governance.

That affects discussions around all types of policies, but with regard to foreign policy, do people who like Johnson think that just saying, "I'm a non-interventionist" means you don't have to pay attention to what's going on or that stating in advance that you won't get involved militarily anywhere unless the U.S. is directly attacked will lead to better outcomes for us and others? I don't personally know a ton about foreign policy, but it seems to me that a lot of people feel really comfortable talking about it without knowing anything or having any kind of a coherent point of view.
Well it's certainly not something that can be hammered out with just one mallet. I don't see Johnson or the non-interventionists giving any comprehensive explanation as to why a non-interventionist policy is always so good that it should be the guiding principle. Just to take 4 different cases in the middle east, we require very different approaches to Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. None of those four countries can be handled in the same way, yet all of them have various problems that share elements. The answers may range from strongly interventionist to hands-off, and there is a lot of analysis and debate that has to happen for each, and further examination of how one policy might affect another.

I don't expect a candidate to delve into any of that, or even have a particularly strong opinion, but fuck's sake, show me that you understand it's complicated. Don't tell me we are the evil empire and Russia is our friend, and then tell me it's raining.
 
How many books do you read in a year?

It's not a judgement thing or a "I'm better than you" gimmick. I just sincerely want to know. You don't have to read Dostoevsky and Nietzsche to be eligible. Damn, if you read everything by Ann Coulter, I won't judge you: I'll put you in the "reading books regularly" team.

Of course, I have a premise: reading books, any book, stimulate the brain. If helps you organize the information and gain access to it rapidly. It also stimulates the love or writing, which is even better: it forces you to really dig into your brain, access long-time stocked information and mix it up with things you just heard, things you imagine and things that don't exist yet.

My hypothesis is simple: If reading and writing were common practice in the US, we wouldn't see what we're seeing in this Presidential race. If reading and writing were encouraged and hyped by the media as much as movies, shows and music, it would raise the overall level of discussion. It could even eradicate things like bigotry, misogyny, racism and immigration paranoia.

So just tell me Trump fans: how many books do you read in a year?

If a mod or a platinum could create a poll, it would be great. Just answer with a simple number if you don't want to engage in the discussion.
___________

PS: I rarely post in the War Room so be kind...
 
I believe the type of material one reads matters the most. Someone could say "I read Sherdog everyday." That's not quite the same as reading War and Peace.

I also believe it's important to read different subject matters as well.
 
I read Soldier of Fortune magazine while I take a shit when I get home from working in a coal mine.
 
Weird question. 1 a month maybe on average.
Plus some work related papers.
 
People who you disagree with must not read. This is a groundbreaking theory.
 
Most of the literature I consume is in the form of scientific journals these days.

When I was a teen I read Dostoyevsky. Crime and Punishment was my favorite. Used to read a lot of science fiction too.

To answer the TS, about 12?
 
Let's be honest, most adults do NOT read books regularly anymore. They're too preoccupied with online forms of media for entertainment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top