2016 USA Presidential Elections

Is there anybody here who, given that choice and only that choice, wouldn't vote Stalin?

Stalin killed a lot more people than Hitler.

With Stalin listed as a democrat, it was obvious Lev would justify voting against him :lol:
With Stalin listed as a democrat, it was obvious Lev would justify voting against him :lol:
Nah, it's more to do with my family living under Stalin's regime, so I have first hand accounts of the atrocities he committed.
Sorry, that joke was inappropriate then...
So it's purely a numbers game?

I'm probably being naive but I think Hitler's ideology and attempts at world domination were worse.

Stalin killed his own people, Hitler tried to kill the people next door.

This was posted a couple of days ago by the Harvard Republican Club:

Dear Members and Alumni,
In every presidential election since 1888, the members and Executive Board of the Harvard Republican Club have gathered to discuss, debate, and eventually endorse the standard-bearer of our party. But for the first time in 128 years, we, the oldest College Republicans chapter in the nation, will not be endorsing the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans. The rhetoric he espouses ?from racist slander to misogynistic taunts? is not consistent with our conservative principles, and his repeated mocking of the disabled and belittling of the sacrifices made by prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and Purple Heart recipients is not only bad politics, but absurdly cruel.

If enacted, Donald Trump?s platform would endanger our security both at home and abroad. Domestically, his protectionist trade policies and draconian immigration restrictions would enlarge our federal deficit, raise prices for consumers, and throw our economy back into recession. Trump?s global outlook, steeped in isolationism, is considerably out-of-step with the traditional Republican stance as well. The flippancy with which he is willing to abdicate the United States? responsibility to lead is alarming. Calling for the US? withdrawal from NATO and actively endorsing nuclear proliferation, Donald Trump?s foreign policy would wreak havoc on the established world order which has held aggressive foreign powers in check since World War II.

Perhaps most importantly, however, Donald Trump simply does not possess the temperament and character necessary to lead the United States through an increasingly perilous world. The last week should have made obvious to all what has been obvious to most for more than a year. In response to any slight ?perceived or real? Donald Trump lashes out viciously and irresponsibly. In Trump?s eyes, disagreement with his actions or his policies warrants incessant name calling and derision: stupid, lying, fat, ugly, weak, failing, idiot ?and that?s just his ?fellow? Republicans.

He isn?t eschewing political correctness. He is eschewing basic human decency.

Donald Trump, despite spending more than a year on the campaign trail, has either refused or been unable to educate himself on issues that matter most to Americans like us. He speaks only in platitudes, about greatness, success, and winning. Time and time again, Trump has demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge on critical matters, meandering from position to position over the course of the election. When confronted about these frequent reversals, Trump lies in a manner more brazen and shameless than anything politics has ever seen.

Millions of people across the country are feeling despondent. Their hours have been cut, wages slashed, jobs even shipped overseas. But Donald Trump doesn?t have a plan to fix that. He has a plan to exploit that.

Donald Trump is a threat to the survival of the Republic. His authoritarian tendencies and flirtations with fascism are unparalleled in the history of our democracy. He hopes to divide us by race, by class, and by religion, instilling enough fear and anxiety to propel himself to the White House. He is looking to to pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, American against American. We will not stand for this vitriolic rhetoric that is poisoning our country and our children.
President Reagan called on us to maintain this, our shining city on a hill. He called on us to maintain freedom abroad by keeping a strong presence in the world. He called on us to maintain liberty at home by upholding the democratic process and respecting our opponents. He called on us to maintain decency in our hearts by loving our neighbor.

He would be ashamed of Donald Trump. We are too.

This fall, we will instead focus our efforts on reclaiming the Republican Party from those who have done it considerable harm, campaigning for candidates who will uphold the conservative principles that have defined the Republican Party for generations. We will work to ensure both chambers of Congress remain in Republican hands, continuing to protect against executive overreach regardless of who wins the election this November.
We call on our party?s elected leaders to renounce their support of Donald Trump, and urge our fellow College Republicans to join us in condemning and withholding their endorsement from this dangerous man. The conservative movement in America should not and will not go quietly into the night.

A longtime student of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville once said, ?America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.?

De Tocqueville believed in the United States. Americans are a decent people. We work hard, protect our own, and look out for one another in times of need, regardless of the color of our skin, the God we worship, or our party registration. Donald Trump may not believe in that America, but we do. And that America will never cease to be great.

The Harvard Republican Club
I was with them until they invoked Saint Reagan. The man was just as racist and homophobic as Trump ever was.

He announced his intention to run for the presidency at a place that was important to "States Rights Activists", and his handling of the AIDS crisis during its early years was borderline criminal and people died because of his administrations lack of action or even concern.
He announced his intention to run for the presidency at a place that was important to "States Rights Activists", and his handling of the AIDS crisis during its early years was borderline criminal and people died because of his administrations lack of action or even concern.

State's rights are now racist and homophobic?

Small correction - Reagan didn't announce his run for the presidency there, his campaign had started months ago. But that's beside the point. The point is that he did cater to states' rights enthusiasts in Neshoba County, Mississippi which was a strong Klan stronghold and became famous for the Goodman, Schwerner, Chaney murders during the Freedom Summer of 1964. In the resulting federal investigation local politicians detested federal intervention into their affairs and insisted that they can handle the investigation themselves (while Police officers actively participated in the murders, and other Klan activities). "States' rights" and oppression of blacks went hand in hand in states like Mississippi. Reagan spoke there anyways. During the speech he said that the Voting Rights Act of 1964 was "humiliating to the South."

Reagan also vetoed a Congress bill to sanction South Africa for their apartheid regime. He had a close working/business relationship with South African leaders and didn't want to jeopardize that. Thankfully, Congress overruled his veto.

Jason is right to invoke the comparison to Trump. On the campaign trail Reagan repeatedly announced that he would fight for the rights of black people, but once in office his fervor turned to indifference. He launched the "war on drugs" which disproportionately targeted African American communities. The first SWAT teams were established in the 1960s, but most of country saw them emerge in the 1980s as part of the "war on drugs" and they started implementing the no-knock raids, searching to arrest small street drug dealers, mostly ignoring large-scale drug operations that were importing drugs from Colombia. Reagan's 1986 act also established a discrepancy in sentencing - possession of crack cocaine or marijuana lead to mandatory prison sentences, while possession of the much more expensive pure cocaine (the drug of choice of bankers and other yuppies) had higher limits and didn't result in a mandatory prison sentence.

I could go on with examples of how Reagan was the founding father of a lot of racist policies. The South bought into his states' rights spiel, even though he didn't really do much for them during his two terms as a President. Or maybe he did exactly what they wanted - to be left alone and not have the Federal government interfere with their backwards views on life, politics, and race.
Typical ignorant leftist post. Perhaps YOU should learn some US history and realize the importance of states' rights.


Yet you are the one conveniently ignoring the historic facts of Reagan's presidency I outlined above. Perhaps YOU should expand your knowledge of US history in a way that accounts for how your beloved idea of states' rights was used to mask segregation since 1865 and protect Jim Crow-style laws in the South.

Just (re)watch Mississippi Burning for a quick and sobering lesson in history.