|
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. |
On May 11 2016 01:17 oneofthem wrote:
there is a lot of emotional appeal to Hillary as representing rational, issue based politics. sandernistas clamoring for pogroms vs the rich might not understand
from Cicero to Washington to Obama really, reasonable politics in service of the people and functional democracy. lots of emotional appeal here
So her emotional appeal is her rationality.
|
On May 11 2016 02:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 01:17 oneofthem wrote:
there is a lot of emotional appeal to Hillary as representing rational, issue based politics. sandernistas clamoring for pogroms vs the rich might not understand
from Cicero to Washington to Obama really, reasonable politics in service of the people and functional democracy. lots of emotional appeal here So her emotional appeal is her rationality.
I know, his answer is too funny to really comment on.
|
I just think its the saddest thing that emotional appeal even exists. In an ideal world, candidates would write 2 pages why they should be president. People would read these 2 pages and vote for the name associated with those 2 pages. No debates, no faces, no nothing. Just ideas.
|
On May 11 2016 02:17 Mohdoo wrote:
I just think its the saddest thing that emotional appeal even exists. In an ideal world, candidates would write 2 pages why they should be president. People would read these 2 pages and vote for the name associated with those 2 pages. No debates, no faces, no nothing. Just ideas.
Well, humans don't operate that way, for better or for worse.
|
On May 11 2016 02:17 Mohdoo wrote:
I just think its the saddest thing that emotional appeal even exists. In an ideal world, candidates would write 2 pages why they should be president. People would read these 2 pages and vote for the name associated with those 2 pages. No debates, no faces, no nothing. Just ideas.
I mean then a candidate could lie out their ass and all that. Gotta take the holistic view which for better or for worse has an emotional component as much as we do/ should try to rationalize
|
On May 11 2016 02:03 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On May 10 2016 07:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 10 2016 07:03 Ghostcom wrote:On May 10 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2016 06:28 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 05:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 10 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best.
Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train.
Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad. I don't think we have a whole lot to discuss, you and me, so I will politely leave that discussion. I didn't have you pegged as one of those left wingers who is afflicted with retrograde illiberalism. Looks like I was wrong. Someone politely tells him that they don’t see a lot to be gained by the discussion, XDaunt calls them stupid. As I expected. You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different. I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views. But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade. Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite? People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative. It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy. 1. Socioeconomic problems (white privilege eroding, economy not doing well, general instability of where people see themselves and their country down the road) 2. Unrest leads to scapegoating (Mexicans, Muslims) 3. Populist suggests policies targeting scapegoats Trump's points to address point 1 directly are laughable, but we can at least have a sensible discussion about them. His main platform, however, is point number 3. I reject that position outright, and we SHOULD ignore people wanting to talk about policies regarding singling out muslims, or building walls for mexicans, because we should not take that type of stupid scapegoating seriously. We should have a sensible discussion about immigration policy reform. We should not have it on the assumption that mexicans are rapists and murderers. We should have a discussion about how to deal with radical Islam abroad, and foreign policy to deal with it. We should not have it on the basis of banning all muslims from entering the US. "Illegals don't rape at a rate higher than the normal populace!" the left will cry. Actually, they do. By a lot. Again, I need to post this again it seems. From an extremely leftist news source even. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html So here is literal proof of saying, "Hey.. 4 out of 5 women are getting raped" and the left responds with righteous indignation, "omg how could you. They don't rape more than anyone else". "Uhh.. but.. 4 out of 5.." "You fucking racist bigot." "No really.. this is a problem and I don't want this on our hands. This problem doesn't belong to us." "RACISTTTTT." Are we seriously to pretend that a country that doesn't solve 99% of its murders and is cartel country is really our loving, totally equal companion? Egalitarian fantasy much? Also, it is the peoples country. And the polls suggest (even among democrats) that banning all Muslim entry temporarily is favorable. If the people of the country agree, how is that not acceptable? Poland is 100% against Muslim immigration and against Islam in general. That's their country, they are very free to do that. Germany and Sweden are not. Does anyone want to live in Malmo Sweden where grenades have gone off because they were top of the charts on tolerance? What did their tolerance get them? Mexican government providing the manual. So yes, it's true for Trump to say, "When Mexico sends its people" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.htmlSo answer this after reading those. When Trump says, "When Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best etc." Is he wrong? Is he wrong on that statement? Does Islam integrate well with western nations? How is building a wall a terrible idea when Mexico is proven to be actively sending their poorest people and trying to get rid of them. Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants very harshly. Why should the US treat them with such tender love and care when these same people did not respect the law? Countries aren't shelters for the needy and you cannot take in all of the worlds poor and somehow give them a better life in America. These are two very popular positions in the US. Since when does anyone else in the world have a right to move into your country against your peoples wishes? If the USA said, "alright, no more Canadians for a while until they say the word about properly" even as silly as that is, they could make that distinction because it is their country. They are 100% ok to make the silliest fucking laws they want if that's their peoples wish. I've found Europeans especially pretentious and overly liberal about Americas problems. Comparing tiny Scandinavian countries to America is ludicrous. Even comparing the UK and Germany to America is ludicrous. I myself used to be on that European side. The left Jon Stewart side. I still am in many ways, but right now I think America desperately needs Trump. They have real issues that have been ignored. But not just ignored, completely ridiculed and then they themselves are ostracized. And don't dodge the question on Mexican illegals up there. Someone from the left had better answer to it. 4 out of 5 women raped, and the mexican government has been proven to be helping them along to break the law to enter America. The question is: Is Trump wrong to be saying that they aren't sending their bests and that a lot of rape, crime, and drugs comes with them? Considering that they've all broken the law to enter the country, the crime rate is literally 100%. Testie, I 100% agree with your reasoning and i believe that we are both coming from the same place in support of Trump. I am too, typically very liberal on many social issues, yet i find myself very intrigued by Trump's proposals. Trump is not a racist or a bigot. He is a man who speaks his mind and openly addresses the issue even if it doesnt fit under political correctness. With that said, i think democrats and liberals are severely underestimating the base of trump supporters. Trump has way more appeal to swing democrats to vote for him than clinton has for republicans. Trump has managed to keep his campaign broad enough to draw in supporters from all walks of life.
Are you two literally against the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy in favor of "civil rights only matter to the people I deem they're okay for"
This is just sick.
|
TBH now that Cruz is out of picture, I really don't care either way. Out of the two I prefer Hillary but I'm not sure which would actually bring more long term change.
|
On May 11 2016 02:20 ragz_gt wrote:
TBH now that Cruz is out of picture, I really don't care either way. Out of the two I prefer Hillary but I'm not sure which would actually bring more long term change.
Trump will definitely be more likely to bring "long term change" much the same way Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about "long term change"
|
On May 11 2016 02:20 ragz_gt wrote:
TBH now that Cruz is out of picture, I really don't care either way. Out of the two I prefer Hillary but I'm not sure which would actually bring more long term change.
Cruz is not out of the picture as he is lobbying for a platform change at the convention.
|
On May 11 2016 02:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 02:20 ragz_gt wrote:
TBH now that Cruz is out of picture, I really don't care either way. Out of the two I prefer Hillary but I'm not sure which would actually bring more long term change. Cruz is not out of the picture as he is lobbying for a platform change at the convention.
So bizarre. The GOP has never been so fractured. Such a reliably loyal party, suddenly split into (at least) 2 pieces.
|
On May 11 2016 02:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 02:20 ragz_gt wrote:
TBH now that Cruz is out of picture, I really don't care either way. Out of the two I prefer Hillary but I'm not sure which would actually bring more long term change. Cruz is not out of the picture as he is lobbying for a platform change at the convention.
That can't possible succeed... right? Right??!
Why you do this to me.... 
|
On May 11 2016 02:36 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 02:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On May 11 2016 02:20 ragz_gt wrote:
TBH now that Cruz is out of picture, I really don't care either way. Out of the two I prefer Hillary but I'm not sure which would actually bring more long term change. Cruz is not out of the picture as he is lobbying for a platform change at the convention. That can't possible succeed... right? Right??! Why you do this to me....
Ted Cruz refused to commit his support to Donald Trump as the Republican nominee on Tuesday, and did not rule out resurrecting his campaign for president despite having dropped out of the race last week.
In an interview with Glenn Beck, the Texas senator said that picking a presidential candidate “is not a choice that we as voters have to make today”. Cruz pointed out there are still two months until the Republican National Convention in Cleveland and six months until the general election, saying “we need to watch and see what the candidates say and do”.
Although Cruz had long committed to supporting the Republican nominee in the past, his tone changed after Trump repeatedly made personal attacks against Cruz and his family.
Source
|
Yeah I saw that but I don't really see how it's viable beyond he can say "I was leading the charge against that Trump thing" later.
|
He is waiting for small chance of a delegate rebellion at the convention to show himself as the safe bet for the establishment. Alongside the Evangelicals having an identity crisis as their support vanishes.
|
Tinfoil hat: Republicans "threw in the towel" to Trump so that all the important people could continue to not endorse him, making him look even less viable. Not endorsing before he's the presumptive nominee is one thing. Not endorsing the only guy left in the race? That's some heavy shit. Then at the convention, suddenly it is someone other than Trump.
Interestingly, I think attacks against Trump as the nominee is significantly more potent than when he was just a candidate. Now it is people openly defying the party leader. That naturally just brings down Trump.
|
It's an interesting schism-- Paul Ryan has said he won't support Trump, the number 2 and 3 have said they would and the number 4 is with Ryan
|
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday will sketch out an agenda for helping families with young children, including an ambitious promise to put high-quality child care within financial reach of all working parents.
Clinton will explain her vision, campaign aides told The Huffington Post, during an appearance in Kentucky. The speech will mark the second consecutive day in which Clinton, front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, is focusing on work-family issues.
The most concrete part of the agenda, the campaign aides say, will be the two narrow but potentially important proposals. One would bolster a highly regarded “home visiting” program designed to help low-income children at risk of emotional, intellectual, and physical harm. If Clinton has her way, the program, known as the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Initiative, would reach twice as many children as it does today.
The other initiative Clinton plans to introduce Tuesday would seek to boost pay for child-care workers, as a way to improve retention and attract educators with stronger qualifications. Clinton will call this the RAISE initiative, for “Respect And Increased Salaries for Early Childhood Educators,” and it will be based on successful pilot programs now operating in several states.
But by far the most intriguing part of Tuesday’s speech may be a promise that Clinton intends to make. According to the campaign aides, Clinton will say that the federal government should commit to making sure that no family ever pays more than 10 percent of its income on child-care expenses.
It’s an audacious vow, given that many families now spend far more than 10 percent of income on child care, and one that’s impossible to evaluate without details about funding and program design that the Clinton campaign has yet to provide. One big challenge is that efforts to improve the quality of child care, like hiring teachers with better credentials, inevitably make it more expensive. A serious effort to make child care better and more affordable simultaneously, as Clinton apparently has in mind, would inevitably cost a great deal of money — money that would have to come from either new taxes or cuts to other programs, given Clinton’s vow to find offsets for any new government spending.
Source
|
On May 11 2016 03:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton on Tuesday will sketch out an agenda for helping families with young children, including an ambitious promise to put high-quality child care within financial reach of all working parents.
Clinton will explain her vision, campaign aides told The Huffington Post, during an appearance in Kentucky. The speech will mark the second consecutive day in which Clinton, front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, is focusing on work-family issues.
The most concrete part of the agenda, the campaign aides say, will be the two narrow but potentially important proposals. One would bolster a highly regarded “home visiting” program designed to help low-income children at risk of emotional, intellectual, and physical harm. If Clinton has her way, the program, known as the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Initiative, would reach twice as many children as it does today.
The other initiative Clinton plans to introduce Tuesday would seek to boost pay for child-care workers, as a way to improve retention and attract educators with stronger qualifications. Clinton will call this the RAISE initiative, for “Respect And Increased Salaries for Early Childhood Educators,” and it will be based on successful pilot programs now operating in several states.
But by far the most intriguing part of Tuesday’s speech may be a promise that Clinton intends to make. According to the campaign aides, Clinton will say that the federal government should commit to making sure that no family ever pays more than 10 percent of its income on child-care expenses.
It’s an audacious vow, given that many families now spend far more than 10 percent of income on child care, and one that’s impossible to evaluate without details about funding and program design that the Clinton campaign has yet to provide. One big challenge is that efforts to improve the quality of child care, like hiring teachers with better credentials, inevitably make it more expensive. A serious effort to make child care better and more affordable simultaneously, as Clinton apparently has in mind, would inevitably cost a great deal of money — money that would have to come from either new taxes or cuts to other programs, given Clinton’s vow to find offsets for any new government spending. Source
Bernie responds by guaranteeing every pregnant woman their own doctor, who then goes on to stay with the family until the child reaches age 18. Condemns Clinton for being in the pockets of the childcare industry.
|
On May 11 2016 03:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 03:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton on Tuesday will sketch out an agenda for helping families with young children, including an ambitious promise to put high-quality child care within financial reach of all working parents.
Clinton will explain her vision, campaign aides told The Huffington Post, during an appearance in Kentucky. The speech will mark the second consecutive day in which Clinton, front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, is focusing on work-family issues.
The most concrete part of the agenda, the campaign aides say, will be the two narrow but potentially important proposals. One would bolster a highly regarded “home visiting” program designed to help low-income children at risk of emotional, intellectual, and physical harm. If Clinton has her way, the program, known as the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Initiative, would reach twice as many children as it does today.
The other initiative Clinton plans to introduce Tuesday would seek to boost pay for child-care workers, as a way to improve retention and attract educators with stronger qualifications. Clinton will call this the RAISE initiative, for “Respect And Increased Salaries for Early Childhood Educators,” and it will be based on successful pilot programs now operating in several states.
But by far the most intriguing part of Tuesday’s speech may be a promise that Clinton intends to make. According to the campaign aides, Clinton will say that the federal government should commit to making sure that no family ever pays more than 10 percent of its income on child-care expenses.
It’s an audacious vow, given that many families now spend far more than 10 percent of income on child care, and one that’s impossible to evaluate without details about funding and program design that the Clinton campaign has yet to provide. One big challenge is that efforts to improve the quality of child care, like hiring teachers with better credentials, inevitably make it more expensive. A serious effort to make child care better and more affordable simultaneously, as Clinton apparently has in mind, would inevitably cost a great deal of money — money that would have to come from either new taxes or cuts to other programs, given Clinton’s vow to find offsets for any new government spending. Source Bernie responds by guaranteeing every pregnant woman their own doctor, who then goes on to stay with the family until the child reaches age 18. Condemns Clinton for being in the pockets of the childcare industry.
Bernie would not be that much of a sellout.
Bernie would go back to school, become a doctor, clone himself, and be the personal childcare doctor of every child born in america from now until the end of time--then blame Hilary for being in the pockets of the child healthcare industry.
|
Barack Obama has announced he will visit Hiroshima, Japan, becoming the first sitting president to visit the site where the US dropped an atomic bomb in 1945, killing an estimated 140,000 people in the final days of the second world war.
In a statement the White House confirmed the visit, saying Obama’s visit will “highlight his continued commitment to pursuing peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons”.
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that the US bears a “special responsibility” for the bombing of Hiroshima but was also quick to pay tribute to the “greatest generation” who fought in the second world war.
“There are a lot of people with a lot of opinions about this trip,” he told reporters on Tuesday. “The president will have an opportunity to visit the peace park and offer up his own reflections about his visit to that city.”
Earnest added: “The president certainly does understand the United States bears a special responsibility. The United States continues to be the only country to have used nuclear weapons. It means our country bears a special responsibility to lead the world in eliminating them.
“There’s also no diminishing the important contribution of the greatest generation of Americans who didn’t just save the United States but saved the world from tyranny.”
Earnest declined to comment on the morality of America’s decision to drop the atom bomb, for which some believe it should apologise. He insisted: “The president intends to visit to send a much more forward-looking signal for his ambition of realising the goal of a planet without nuclear weapons.”
Asked if the visit might be seen as an apology, Earnest replied: “If people do interpret it that way, they’ll be interpreting it wrongly.”
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
