[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 432 KB, 470x640, slavoj-zizek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8692394 No.8692394[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

http://inthesetimes.com/article/19410/clinton-trump-and-the-triumph-of-ideology

>> No.8693391

>>8692394
I came here for Zizek with a MAGA hat.

>> No.8693665

>>8692394
I just want the working class to wake the fuck up and (among other things) burn down the white house with hillary, trump, and all surviving presidents in it, is that too much to ask?

>> No.8693699

He's completely correct here and you all know it.

>> No.8693713

>>8693699
I don't think anyone here disagrees though

>> No.8693723

>>8693713
And yet people here will still vote for someone other than Trump on election day...

>> No.8693735

>>8693723
I don't think Slavoj is putting his hat into the Trump camp here mate. Might want to reread the text.

>> No.8693739

>>8693699
>>8693723
>Euros should care about whoever comes bumbling into the Oval Office
>And especially what a Slovenian glue addict has to say about them
Right.

>> No.8693743

>>8693735
>The thing to attack and undermine now is precisely this democratic consensus against the villain (Trump)
He's supporting Trump dude

>> No.8693744

>>8693739
Keep your head in the sand all you like, when America sneezes, Europe gets a cold

>> No.8693747

>>8693665
>burn down the white house with hillary, trump, and all surviving presidents in it
underage b8 detected
What would the other 8th graders say if they knew you were on 4chan?

>> No.8693748
File: 16 KB, 231x244, 1418212807792.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8693748

>>8693735
Have you not heard?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/trump-gets-the-zizek-endorsement.php
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/04/slavoj-zizek-vote-trump-hillary-real-danger/

>> No.8693750

>>8693743
He's not supporting Trump, he's attacking those who attack Trump

>> No.8693755

>>8693750

It's the same fucking thing. You can pretend it isn't.

>> No.8693761

>>8693748
He's not endorsing him though. Are you not familiar with the Slizzle brah?

>> No.8693764

>>8693761
I didn't use the word 'endorse,' that article did, and the content of the article definitely indicates that he 'supports' Trump relative to his opposition to Hillary.
Split hairs all you want. Zizek would vote for Teflon Don if he could.

>> No.8693765

>>8693755
>not eating an orange is the same as eating the apple!

>> No.8693766

>>8693755
Only to the simple minded

>> No.8693768

>>8693750
Which in the world of politics is to in effect support Trump. I realize he does not raise his right hand and say "I Sniffman, am officially pledging my endorsement to the Trump campaign, amen," but this is how these things are done. He needs to save face with his commie uni crowd.

>> No.8693769

>>8693755
He's talking about a mode of discourse. It should be pretty obvious Zizek doesn't want a wall

>> No.8693774

>>8693768
>Which in the world of politics is to in effect support Trump

Yes but who gives a shit about that world

>> No.8693781

>>8693755
Typical /pol/ splitting, grow up.

>> No.8693791

>>8693765
>"I would vote for Donald Trump if I could" doesn't mean "I support or agree with Donald Trump in some capacity"
Hmm.
>>8693766
In a context like this, where everyone but his supporters is doing all they can to convince the world that he's the Antichrist, anyone who doesn't attack him is defending him or perceived as defending him. You can disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a war going on between the Clintonites and the Trumpists, and anyone voting for Gary Johnson because Trump is too mean is supporting Hillary just like anyone calling the media's attacks on Trump 'too extreme' or 'distracting' is defending him.
>>8693769
It doesn't fucking matter, does it? Voting for Trump is voting for Trump. It's fucking tautological. No amount of mental gymnastics on your part can get rid of the literal video evidence, encoded on the Breitbart article, or Zizek saying he would vote for Trump if he were American.

>> No.8693794

>>8693774
This is a political race, is it not? The candidates only care about getting into office, which is the goal of politics. What is the use of theory if you never take one step into the world of practice? You can know all the words in all the books, but it's all for nothing if you fail to act.

>> No.8693797

>>8693764
Zizek is a meme master friend, you have to read between the lines

>> No.8693798

>>8693774
Right now, 4 days out from the US elections? A lot of people.
>>8693781
I don't see an argument.

>> No.8693803

>>8693797
How about you explain to me how he didn't mean that he would vote for Trump if he were American and had to choose between him and Hillary? How about you just explain what you mean?

>> No.8693808

>>8693794
>What is the use of theory if you never take one step into the world of practice?

Ah but don't you see it is the exact opposite which is the point of Zizek endorsing Trump, practice itself is the illusion. Real action is exactly in the changes of discourse

>> No.8693823

ITT: leftists defend Zizek instead of calling him an obvious fraud for supporting Trump, only opening themselves up to additional deceits by this conman

Why do leftists love being duped?

>> No.8693826

>>8693803
Because Zizek will say things he doesn't mean to get people thinking outside the box. In this case he wants Lefitsts to distinguish themselves from liberals so he says he'd vote for Trump because, being a Leninist, that's not what one 'expects'. Of course he's really talking to center-right liberal Democrats and pretend Lefties.

>> No.8693833

>>8693823
As a Leftist I considered voting for Trump as a means to accelerate the collapse of the US.

>> No.8693835

>>8693826
>Because Zizek will say things he doesn't mean to get people thinking outside the box.
But does that mean that he wouldn't vote for Trump in a world where he is an American? I mean, come on, it's almost like you didn't understand my question, but that can't be the case because it was such a simple one. Zizek is dealing in something concrete here, it just isn't an example drawn from Soviet history, which is why it seems a bit odd--not odd enough to excuse your thinking that he's not somewhat serious in preferring Trump to Clinton, though.
I say again: what contradicts the video embedded in the Breitbart article? Certainly, not the article in the OP.

>> No.8693841

>>8693808
>the ruling class trembles over the bantz
>change the national conversation meme

This is what Zizek says, and it's the reason he is a hack. This is why Occupy failed. Sizemore isn't interested in threatening the status quo mentality. He's an anti revolutionary in the first world, but he's for it everywhere else. The guy is supposed to convince you of just that: don't do anything and it will all come. This guys a hack.

>> No.8693842

ITT kiddos who don't know what accelerationism is

>> No.8693852

>>8693842
t. retard who follows meme politics

>> No.8693880

>>8693841
Occupy failed only if your measurement for success is that it overthrew Capitalism. It did however introduce the vocabulary of class conflict back into America which Trump himself is part of.
What Zizek is not interested in is getting someone in office so they can slightly raise the minimum wage and focus efforts on bringing in slightly better healthcare reforms while the planet boils over and hordes more refugees swarm into the West

>> No.8693893

>>8693835
>But does that mean that he wouldn't vote for Trump in a world where he is an American?
Yes? I think he'd just not vote, period. When he says that he'd vote Trump over Hillary he's just saying Hillary is shit and is not a leftist choice.

>> No.8693898

>>8693747
I didn't realize 8th graders these days were so smart, things are looking up America!

>> No.8693900

>>8693880
>It did however introduce the vocabulary of class conflict back into America
This is how pathetic this country is.

>> No.8693901

>>8693893
>Yes? I think he'd just not vote, period.
Well, we have him on video saying that he'd vote for Trump, which is what my question is about. I don't so much care about your hypothetical Zizek, I care about his own hypothetical Zizek.
>When he says that he'd vote Trump over Hillary he's just saying Hillary is shit and is not a leftist choice.
So what? He's not saying that he wouldn't vote for Trump, he's saying the exact opposite.

>> No.8693926

>>8693880
Occupy failed in accomplishing anything because they had no concrete demands, bargaining rights, internal organization, stable leadership, etc. I don't think they were looking to overthrow capitalism, just secure economic justice for the housing crisis bubble and issuing recession. Improving the conditions here at home does not harm, and in matters concerning foreign policy nothing has shown me that Trump takes the issues of the world more seriously than his opponent, at least in solving the principle causes of them, like the refugee surge. If he were interested in stoping that, he'd focus on stoping the Syrian civil war so they can return him, rather than using it to appeal to nervous white people who are afraid sometime in the imminent future they'll have to share a public space with a Muslim. His 'friendship' towards Putin is still vague, not anywhere near as close as he should be to forming a condominium with the Russians to solve the threat of radical Islam and restore stability to the region. He's had plenty of time to make his position clear and reach out to Putin in a official manner. I'm not convinced his gestures will amount to anything. So we have two candidates appealing to cultural sentiments who offer the same package, but one has as a possibility blip on the radar something of progressive mindedness, meaning they can take measures as president that can improve the well being of their population. To be clear though, I'm deeply dissatisfied with either choice. Zizek is still a hack though. You should say something yourself if you want to say it instead of revising the speech of another. I'm familiar with Zizek, is thought and his role in political life.

>> No.8693940

>>8693926
>and in matters concerning foreign policy nothing has shown me that Trump takes the issues of the world more seriously than his opponent, at least in solving the principle causes of them, like the refugee surge. If he were interested in stoping that, he'd focus on stoping the Syrian civil war so they can return him, rather than using it to appeal to nervous white people who are afraid sometime in the imminent future they'll have to share a public space with a Muslim.
Two points:
1) The Islamic State being wiped off the face of the Earth would most certainly involve addressing the CSW, so I don't understand why you think Trump would do nothing about Syria.
2) Why are those not legitimate concerns? Do you oppose freedom of association? People deserve to decide things for themselves if they live in a democracy. If a majority of people don't want to import Muslim refugees, then they shouldn't be forced to by a vocal minority.

>> No.8693947

>>8693926
>Occupy failed in accomplishing anything because they had no concrete demands, bargaining rights, internal organization, stable leadership, etc.

But this is exactly the success of Occupy Wallstreet if there was any, that they did not issue demands. If they did its very likely they would be as you described, simply humble requests for slight more oversights on economic systems and a bit of social democracy. But if they did issue these demands and recieve them it would be the tragedy of the movement. Their success was exactly in them being a more pure expression of something they could not actually issue rationally due to the constraints of ideology.

>You should say something yourself if you want to say it instead of revising the speech of another.

Nonsense, this is how we always communicate whether you recognise it or not.

>> No.8693948

>pro-trump marxist

We truly live in wonderful times.

>> No.8693952

>>8693947
>But this is exactly
Stop trying to be Zizek. You will never be Zizek.

>> No.8693958

>>8693947
>But this is exactly the success of Occupy Wallstreet if there was any, that they did not issue demands...But if they did issue these demands and receive them it would be the tragedy of the movement.
lmao
>Their success was exactly in them being a more pure expression of something they could not actually issue rationally due to the constraints of ideology.
That's not exactly a success. Failure to accomplish anything in terms of policy is not success.

>> No.8693959
File: 55 KB, 1280x720, When the ideology is critiqued just right..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8693959

>>8692394
I think the world is a little too fucky right now to be making these kinds of accelerationist gambles.
He's right that if Trump gets elected, the worst probably would'nt happen. But why would the best happen?
What kind of guarantee does Zizek have that things will turn out better in the end? Is there a historical precedent for this kind of thing?

>> No.8693967

>>8693947
>I Think I'm Slovenian Communst Man
>>8693959
>He's right that if Trump gets elected, the worst probably would'nt happen. But why would the best happen?
If Hillary is elected, what happens?
Anyone who doesn't frame it in terms of 'better' and 'worse' and instead opts to use the more extreme 'best' and 'worst' is making a terrible mistake, or actively shilling.

>> No.8693971

>>8693952
>>8693967
But I am Zizek

>> No.8693977

>>8693971
No, I am Zizek.

>> No.8693978

>>8693971
timestamp or fuck off

>> No.8693983

>>8693967
>If Hillary is elected, what happens?
More of the same. That's the point, she's "the establishment".
But if Trump gets elected, it will show polticians on both sides what they need to do and be to get elected in the future.
And let's be real here, that's the major thing most of them care about.
If Trump's form of politics is rewarded, why would politicians try to do better, instead of just emulating him?

>> No.8693986

>>8693971
>>8693977
We can all be Zizek.

>> No.8693993
File: 11 KB, 171x266, nick land.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8693993

>>8693959
>accelerationist gambles.
Literally nothing wrong with this.

>> No.8694000

>>8693983
>More of the same. That's the point, she's "the establishment"
Yeah, and Trump is an alternative to that establishment, which is demonstrably corrupt and is literally the capitalist elite that Marxists despise for the sake of maintaining their own reason to live. You're acting as if these people aren't scum and as if being established means being good.
>If Trump's form of politics is rewarded, why would politicians try to do better, instead of just emulating him?
Same question, but with the Clintons instead.
Trump's 'brand' of politics is just populism, which is actually synonymous with democracy, and which is actually the best thing that can happen to a republican government that becomes just another vehicle for the enrichment of politicians and which doesn't even bother to do its job effectively while declaring pointless wars to enrich billionaires.
I find the idea of allowing this establishment to perpetuate itself a bit more when it's obvious that a blow, however significant or insignificant, can be struck to be appalling.

>> No.8694003

>>8693940
I'm all for whiling ISIS off the map and yes I do think people in a democracy should have a say on the issues that matter to them. That is what I think the basis for democracy is: if you have to put up with the consequences, you should have a say in making the decisions.

I just suggested that the way he goes about solving these problems tells me he really has no plan in mind, and if he has no plan in place, these fits of vulgarities are just rhetorical devices for getting into power. If he had a rational plan that he then presented to us, the public, and promised to find support for from foreign allies, I'd consider taking him seriously. However, all his claims are Delphic aversions used to bail him out of coming to any such consensus.

>>8693947
>the sign that they accomplished something is the fact that they accomplished nothing
I don't agree with your idea of activism then. Like I replied to some anon further up the thread, changing the conversation is not enough. It brings nothing I terms of addressing the demands of working people. By this rationale the Sanders campaign was a massive success, although he stands zero chance of becoming president and none of his views were picked up by either of the remaining candidates.

>> No.8694011

proof that zizek doesn't actually listen to what people say but what his friends say about what they say, but we all already knew that

>> No.8694014

Trump isn't t he accelerationist candidate you dumb dumbs

>> No.8694016

>>8694000
I'm not saying the establishment is good.
I'm asking if Trump is a better alternative.
Honestly, I'm surprised Zizek says this stuff, considering the stuff he said about Brexit. Seems kinda contradictory.

>> No.8694022

>>8694003
>It brings nothing I terms of addressing the demands of working people.

I know but look who was doing the protests, they were predominantly heavily ignorant and deluded liberal graduates and hipsters.
They were never going to give voice to the vast majority of people, the best they could do was simply be a lightening rod for their anger while the moment they opened their mouths they'd reveal they had nothing to offer.
Its the very fact they had no voice that they could stay in touch with the rest of the working class.

>> No.8694023

>>8693959
>What kind of guarantee does Zizek have that things will turn out better in the end?
Dialectic materialism.

>> No.8694028
File: 303 KB, 1347x1035, 1445595799547.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8694028

>>8694023
This lads on the money

>> No.8694032

>>8694003
>I just suggested that the way he goes about solving these problems tells me he really has no plan in mind
The President isn't the one who plans out military operations, he's the one who OKs them. The President executes the law. His power is actually pretty limited and his administration does the important work. It comes down to whether or not his or her staff are competent. How competent are Hillary's staff?
>If he had a rational plan that he then presented to us, the public, and promised to find support for from foreign allies, I'd consider taking him seriously. However, all his claims are Delphic aversions used to bail him out of coming to any such consensus.
But he has made concrete statements about his plans, like working closer with Russia and enforcing the consequences of failures to live up to the requirements of NATO treaties.
Clinton's concrete statements about foreign policy are all completely moot. She has taken money from practically every major terrorist-sponsoring government in the Middle-East. Her policies are made behind closed doors, and she says bullshit when she has to make a public statement. Nothing Clinton says about foreign policy can be taken at face value for all these reasons, and in addition to this it is obvious that her time as Secretary of State exposed her to highly classified information that she can't reveal to the public.

>> No.8694034

>>8694023
I wanna say that that's not how it works, but I don't know enough about dialectic materialism to disprove it.

>> No.8694035

>>8694016
>I'm asking if Trump is a better alternative.
And I'm telling you that Zizek and I and millions of other people think that it might be. Very few people are certain that a Trump presidency will be the best thing ever. A lot of people are willing to try something new, when what has been tried for so long is so obviously corrupt and dysfunctional.

>> No.8694040

>>8693739
>people in foreign countries care about what happens in the most powerful and influential country in the world
whoa thats dumb lol

>> No.8694041
File: 543 KB, 1494x988, fist fucking.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8694041

It's another "/pol/ misreads Zizek" thread, isn't it?

>> No.8694042

>>8694035
I've never won the lottery before, because I've never entered it. Obviously I must now try, because maybe, just maybe, I'll win -- and I wasn't winning before, right?

>> No.8694044

>>8694035
Zizek doesn't actually think Trump would be better though, just that he would be so obviously shit that it might wake people up. He clearly doesn't like the guy.

>> No.8694047

>>8694041
Yes, but don't worry we're re-educating them

>> No.8694052

>>8694032
>The President isn't the one who plans out military operations, he's the one who OKs them. The President executes the law.

Yes but he can specify significant changes if he so wishes

>> No.8694053

>>8694042
More like
>I've been playing these numbers for decades, why not change one digit this time?
>>8694044
>Zizek doesn't actually think Trump would be better though, just that he would be so obviously shit that it might wake people up.
Which is somehow not 'better' in anybody's eyes?
>He clearly doesn't like the guy.
So what? Most people hate all politicians.

>> No.8694055

>>8694000
>implying Trump isn't also a member of the very same capitalist elite

As Gramsci writes, "The historical unity of the ruling classes is realized in the state."

You have to be incredibly naive to believe that Donald Trump has any intention to (((shake things up))) as far as the markets are concerned. The only thing he has to offer the "proletariat" is a libidinal release of the psychic trauma of capitalism on to marginalized communities. In this sense Trump is more dangerous than Clinton: he seeks to harness the anger that capital generates and safely direct it toward the powerless instead of the powerful. He's the anti-Sanders, essentially. With Clinton, that anger remains to be seized by the Left.

>> No.8694057

>>8694052
Are you implying that Hillary is a better armchair tactician, not only a more experienced diplomat, than Trump?

>> No.8694059

>>8694022
I'm not bashing them, and I do agree that they did make class consciousness a main issue again, which is important when neither side of the political spectrum would never dare allude to anything close to it.

Just so I can understand exactly, what is the goal of activist movements like occupy in your opinion? You know we've had a lot of them in American history (abolitionism, progressives, labor, student movement, civil rights, anti war) and usually the purpose is, like it is in politics, to achieve some goal that takes the form of policy, reform, political action of some kind. It's not an abstract artistic expression or theoretical musing, as Sniffman suggests. I don't mean to bully. Just curious where all this is coming from.

>> No.8694061

>>8693983
>But if Trump gets elected, it will show polticians on both sides what they need to do and be to get elected in the future.
Trump's schtick has only worked this well because it sets him apart from the establishment politicians. Because he doesn't act like the establishment, his supporters can at least hope that his policies won't be those of the establishment.

If politicians started talking and acting like Trump but kept the same policies, it wouldn't make them the slightest bit more popular with Trump voters.

>> No.8694063
File: 112 KB, 425x632, First as Tragedy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8694063

>>8694047
Send them to the Gulag

>> No.8694065

>>8694057
No just simply specifying its more than a rubber stamp role

>> No.8694068

>>8694055
>You have to be incredibly naive to believe that Donald Trump has any intention to (((shake things up))) as far as the markets are concerned.
Again, I'm not fucking concerned about what he wants to do about the general structure. I'm concerned about Hillary Clinton's being what she is. Electoral politics is not the same as a violent revolution. Anybody LARPing as if they're out there forwarding the interests of the working class by doing anything other than organizing effective unions should be banned.
I refuse to even read your psychobabble. You aren't fucking Zizek and you should stop pretending that Lacanian truisms have anything to do with the issue of choosing between Presidential Candidate A and Presidential Candidate B, neither of whom are perfect but one of whom deserves to be hanged in public for treason.

>> No.8694073

>>8694059
>Just curious where all this is coming from.
Hungary

>> No.8694076

>>8694059
>ou know we've had a lot of them in American history (abolitionism, progressives, labor, student movement, civil rights, anti war) and usually the purpose is, like it is in politics, to achieve some goal that takes the form of policy, reform, political action of some kind.

I agree though but what is to be done when people are furious that there is clearly a fundamental issue with society and are eager to mobilize into protest but do not have any faith in themselves to recognize the correct answer to the problem?
I think in that case protesting without demands is more effective than protesting with the wrong demands.
The point of the protests is to simply bring recognition that there is a problem.

>> No.8694079

>>8694053
>Which is somehow not 'better' in anybody's eyes?
No, ofcourse it's not better.
There's absolutely zero guarantee that a Trump election would change things for the better. Zero.
>So what? Most people hate all politicians.
There are varying degrees of hatred. For most Americans, Trump is on the far end, while Hillary is closer. It's why she's winning, because people hate Trump more than they hate her.

>> No.8694085

>>8694068
>Marxists are just LARPing
>Clinton should be hanged at dawn for high treason!

Trump should be hanged for exploiting the world's working people, desu.

I'm not voting for either candidate, and it's obvious that Clinton is going to win by a sizeable margin in the Electoral College.

Donald Trump will decimate any effective unions left with his Reagonomic tax breaks for the wealthy. I get wanting to be contrarian, anon, but there's no Trump "position" that has anything at all for working people to be excited about. The idea that he isn't pure status quo is a meme.

>> No.8694086

>>8694076
>I think in that case protesting without demands is more effective than protesting with the wrong demands.
>The point of the protests is to simply bring recognition that there is a problem.
I've been hearing this every single fucking day since Occupy, and I'm about tired of it. It's about time the Left put up or shut up.

>> No.8694098

>>8694079
>There's absolutely zero guarantee that a Trump election would change things for the better. Zero.
Where the fuck have I mentioned a fucking guarantee? Where the fuck has anyone? You fucking moron, nobody is 'guaranteeing' you anything, nobody CAN 'guarantee' you anything in politics, YOU can only choose between the individuals pursuing their own interests within a power/legal structure when you exercise your vote. You choose the one who seems like a BETTER choice, not the one who you are entirely certain is going to bring Heaven down to Earth upon entering office. This is one of the most fucking naive things I've seen in this election season and you should be embarrassed.
>For most Americans, Trump is on the far end, while Hillary is closer. It's why she's winning, because people hate Trump more than they hate her.
I don't think 'most Americans' hate Trump. I think Trump just now became a politician. I think a lot of people on the Left and Right despise Hillary for various reasons, and that this number is growing every day. I didn't hate her this much a week ago. A week ago I might have voted for her. Not anymore.
>>8694085
>>Marxists are just LARPing
The ones on 4chan are, yes.
>Trump should be hanged for exploiting the world's working people, desu.
There's that LARPing again. At least people *do* get punished for treason in this day and age. There hasn't been a Communist revolution in a long time.

>> No.8694100

>>8694086
You say that as if the orgnaized Left were in charge of Occupy but they weren't which is the entire point. All I'm doing is intepreting how it operated not what my ideal protest would be.

>> No.8694101

>>8694032
I don't buy the excuse that because the president isn't an absolute monarch he cannot make specific arrangements to resolve conflicts. Look at any of the strong executives of the past. They not only has plans, they were willing to fight to get them. As far as I can tell, saying the president has not enough power to do anything significant is similar to building an alibi for inaction. That vague outreach to Russia you mentioned is the only thing he's done, and it has not been pursued to any serious degree since. I don't have faith in Hillarys people just to be clear, but she's not the one claiming to fix all the reasons why we are not winning. I don't understand Trumpmania. I guess that's what I'm getting at, and I worry he will be disastrous because he's unrestrained and eager to make the appearance of change but does not get to the real issues. With her I expect Obama 2.0

>> No.8694103

>>8694076
protesting has done fuck all

>> No.8694108

>>8694098
Is there any actual reason to think that electing Trump would cause more good than harm? Any concrete evidence?
Because if there is, I haven't seen it yet.

>> No.8694112

>>8694100
I don't give a fuck which segment of the Left was behind it, they've all adopted this tone and it's fucking disgusting.
>>8694101
I'm not saying he can't, I'm saying that generally that's how it works out. The structure of the USG is meant to constrain every individual's powers.
>and I worry he will be disastrous because he's unrestrained and eager to make the appearance of change but does not get to the real issues. With her I expect Obama 2.0
So you don't see a difference between them?

>> No.8694115

>>8694108
>Is there any actual reason to think that electing Hillary would cause more good than harm? Any concrete evidence?
>Because if there is, I haven't seen it yet.
Aside from that
1) Yes, he would appoint judges who would try to abide by the wording of the Constitution, as opposed to Hillary's admitted penchant for activist judges.
2) Yes you have, you just haven't paid enough attention to how bad the Clintons are and how biased the media is.

>> No.8694116

>>8694103
>protesting has done fuck all

And yet Donald Trump has been campaigning from the beginning on the basis of him not being bought off by rich doners

>> No.8694125

>>8694115
I think it's obvious we aren't gonna change eachother's mind. I guess we'll just have the find out on the 9th how things go.