EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3133
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:37 m4ini wrote: Let's not be condescending and give credit where credit is due. He's right. And i do see a difference between some dudes holding up signs and a former president yelling shit at people via megaphone. Thank you. Plansix: you can apologize for calling me a liar when you're ready. I guess while I'm at it I'll add some videos of other cheating from the Hillary camp. (kind of a nutty source but the information is legit) There's more, if I really need to keep digging to prove my point | ||
KwarK
United States43971 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:36 Ravianna26 wrote: I guess people don't understand where Donald Trump is coming from at all. For a while I didn't completely get it either. Donald Trump is a businessman so he's thinking in business terms. Like if you let employees from other businesses into your business without verifying their loyalty to you your business isn't going to last very long. Just like if we keep on allowing people into the United States without verifying their loyalty to the United States, the United States isn't going to last much longer. This is absurd. I'm in the United States and I have no loyalty to the United States. But it's not going to disappear anytime soon. Like seriously, what exactly do you think the mechanic by which the United States is going to fail to last is? How do you see the United States ending? And how is a lack of loyalty going to trigger this? Is it going to get broken up into parts and sold to Canada/Mexico/Russia? Is Trump going to burn it down for the insurance? What exactly do you see happening here? Be specific. I want to know what not to do with my lack of loyalty. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22332 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:37 m4ini wrote: Let's not be condescending and give credit where credit is due. He's right. And i do see a difference between some dudes holding up signs and a former president yelling shit at people via megaphone. And people have repeatedly said that they don't think it is ok what Bill did but unless he broke the actual law and is being charged for it there isn't much your going to do to stop him. Bill might be a walking Hillary commercial but he is a human being and as such he is allowed to walk around and talk to people. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
edit And people have repeatedly said that they don't think it is ok what Bill did but unless he broke the actual law and is being charged for it there isn't much your going to do to stop him. You must've missed that Plansix called GH a liar and sore loser for bringing it up, refuting that exact thing. And going by what GH showed, he clearly broke that law. If he's getting charged for it is a different story, it doesn't matter though. If i break into a vehicle, i broke a law. I don't need to be charged to be "a criminal". I am by breaking the law already. | ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
Also why is vermin supreme never on the national debates if people are looking for anti-establishment candidates? He is is mockery of the system incarnate. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:45 Gorsameth wrote: And people have repeatedly said that they don't think it is ok what Bill did but unless he broke the actual law and is being charged for it there isn't much your going to do to stop him. Bill might be a walking Hillary commercial but he is a human being and as such he is allowed to walk around and talk to people. Breaking the law and getting charged are separate issues. That he wasn't charged is more indicative of how the system works than it is of whether he actually broke the law or not. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Question for the Americans, since Obama is considered a shitty president since everything he has tried to do has been blocked (in house? by congress? dunno your system) wouldn't a "disastrous" president like Trump or Sanders also be blocked on everything they tried to change? Sanders yes, trump no, since he's the (likely) republican candidate. And they're the ones obstructing solutions because the fuck do i know. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:29 oBlade wrote: It's baffling that academics came up with something like this and we're to accept it on their authority. Makes sense though, laissez-faire stuff and negative freedoms are the best tool to keep minorities in shitty positions right now. It's interesting because it has heavily reversed in the last three decades or so. The market can segregate cities faster than any evil bureaucrat could have dreamed of. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:52 kwizach wrote: Too funny to see Sanders supporters claim Hillary stole Iowa :-D Stay classy, folks. I'm not saying she "stole" Iowa, I'm putting a rest to the crap about not providing evidence her camp has been cheating. Now instead of talk about the evidence you so wanted, you've already shifted to fighting a strawman. Typical. | ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:52 kwizach wrote: Too funny to see Sanders supporters claim Hillary stole Iowa :-D Stay classy, folks. If her supporters utilized illegal ways to get her more votes, then she cheated Iowa out of Sanders. Plain and simple. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14113 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:47 Thaniri wrote: Question for the Americans, since Obama is considered a shitty president since everything he has tried to do has been blocked (in house? by congress? dunno your system) wouldn't a "disastrous" president like Trump or Sanders also be blocked on everything they tried to change? Also why is vermin supreme never on the national debates if people are looking for anti-establishment candidates? He is is mockery of the system incarnate. The congress has two parts the senate (which is 2 per state) and the house of representatives (whose membership is based on a state by state basis of population). The congress is the legislative branch and yes the democrat party that Obama has been leading hasn't had much success. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:51 Nyxisto wrote: Campaigning against negative liberties and redistribution policies is a better way to hurt those in poverty and offer them no way out. The difference is, you can feel very smug about yourself while doing it. You're helping the poor after all.Makes sense though, laissez-faire stuff and negative freedoms are the best tool to keep minorities in shitty positions right now. It's interesting because it has heavily reversed in the last three decades or so. The market can segregate cities faster than any evil bureaucrat could have dreamed of. Rhetoric on one side, the corresponding rhetoric on the other. Why would there even be two sides on this issue if each didn't cleave to their own explanations? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour. But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 03 2016 11:01 Danglars wrote: Campaigning against negative liberties and redistribution policies is a better way to hurt those in poverty and offer them no way out. The difference is, you can feel very smug about yourself while doing it. You're helping the poor after all. Rhetoric on one side, the corresponding rhetoric on the other. Why would there even be two sides on this issue if each didn't cleave to their own explanations? The problem is simply that there is the smug "well people who support affirmative action are the real racists" argument, as if people who believe in actively empowering socially disadvantaged groups must automatically believe that the people are innately incapable or something like that, but nobody actually believes this. Acknowledging that being part of a marginalized group might mean that you cannot pull yourselves out of it isn't racism. It would be equally true if skin colors were reversed. It's a really cheap trick to play on the American idea that everybody is responsible for themselves and not helping black people actually shows how confident you are in their skills and so on, but in the end it's just a trick to keep the status quo in tact. If the federal government and proactive social policies would help keeping old hierarchies intact the Koch Brothers would be funding Bernie Sanders. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not saying she "stole" Iowa, I'm putting a rest to the crap about not providing evidence her camp has been cheating. Now instead of talk about the evidence you so wanted, you've already shifted to fighting a strawman. Typical. The title of the second video you posted starts with "How Hillary Clinton stole Iowa". Who's fighting a strawman? Also, you provided evidence that Bill Clinton was too close to a polling station, not that there were other instances of cheating. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote: GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it. And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour. But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. On March 03 2016 11:08 kwizach wrote: The title of the second video you posted starts with "How Hillary Clinton stole Iowa". Who's fighting a strawman? Also, you provided evidence that Bill Clinton was too close to a polling station, not that there were other instances of cheating. You've got to be kidding. I can't pick the title of videos. How is participating in a caucus without verifying registration or that your even in the appropriate district not cheating? How is campaigning illegally during voter registration not cheating? How is not following the caucus count rules not cheating. I honestly can't believe people who call themselves progressives/democrats are actually defending this crap just because it's their preferred candidates camp doing it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote: And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 03 2016 07:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I love how while debating these topics especially regarding families everyone here is skirting around the issue they either don;t want to endorse or have never heard of. Basic Income. The economy would thrive, unemployment would become negligible and as a result benefits would no longer ot be needed, nor medicaid needed to be such high funding. Crime would go way down. I don't think society is rich enough to use basic income; We'd need about another 100-200 years of growth at the rates of the past centuries to get to that point. However we could implement a universal job guarantee. | ||
| ||
