• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:04
CEST 10:04
KST 17:04
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy4Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27
Community News
Classic & herO RO8 Interviews: "I think it’s time to teach [Rogue] a lesson."2Rogue & GuMiho RO8 interviews: "Lifting that trophy would be a testament to all I’ve had to overcome over the years and how far I’ve come on this journey.7Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2)13BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1
StarCraft 2
General
Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2) Rogue & GuMiho RO8 interviews: "Lifting that trophy would be a testament to all I’ve had to overcome over the years and how far I’ve come on this journey. I have an extra ticket to the GSL Ro4/finals Classic & herO RO8 Interviews: "I think it’s time to teach [Rogue] a lesson." Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Semi Finals & Finals $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
ASL20 Preliminary Maps BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Recent recommended BW games FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 4
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 34471 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4116

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 10093 Next
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_Slaught
Profile Joined August 2008
United States12190 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-23 17:55:30
June 23 2016 17:52 GMT
#82301
On June 24 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:
GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.

PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl.


It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage.

The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it.

please don't say literally when you mean figuratively.
I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin.


I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies.

We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions.


I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d

Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.

Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.

What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.

“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.”
“We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.”
“We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.”
“We’re not fighting it strongly enough.”

"We should go after them" and give them hugs and cuddles?


He literally said "he doesn't necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists." We have no idea what he would actually do. Anybody who claims they do is lying or omniscient.

Why would we elect somebody who we have little to no idea what he would do on so many issues? The fact he changes his stances so often tells me he probably doesn't even know what he wants to do. He might fire bomb the whole country or he might decide it isn't worth our time and ignore them. WHO KNOWS. Guy is all over the place.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21594 Posts
June 23 2016 17:53 GMT
#82302
On June 24 2016 02:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:
GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.

PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl.


It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage.

The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it.

please don't say literally when you mean figuratively.
I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin.


I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies.

We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions.


I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d

Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.

Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.

What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.

“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.”
“We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.”
“We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.”
“We’re not fighting it strongly enough.”


Isn't that what I argued he was getting at like 2-3 weeks ago prior to a thread lock when everyone was bringing up how it made him such a monster?

Golly-gee what a coincidence

except instead of bringing up alternate statements you spend 6 posts trying to deny factual statements with an included source....

notice the difference?
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
SK.Testie
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
Canada11084 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-23 17:58:28
June 23 2016 17:58 GMT
#82303
That was quick.
Social Justice is a fools errand. May all the adherents at its church be thwarted. Of all the religions I have come across, it is by far the most detestable.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42471 Posts
June 23 2016 17:58 GMT
#82304
On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive.

It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
On_Slaught
Profile Joined August 2008
United States12190 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-23 18:02:31
June 23 2016 18:01 GMT
#82305
On June 24 2016 02:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:
GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.

PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl.


It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage.

The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it.

please don't say literally when you mean figuratively.
I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin.


I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies.

We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions.


I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d

Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.

Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.

What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.

“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.”
“We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.”
“We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.”
“We’re not fighting it strongly enough.”

"We should go after them" and give them hugs and cuddles?


He literally said "he doesn't necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists." We have no idea what he would actually do. Anybody who claims they do is lying or omniscient.

Why would we elect somebody who we have little to no idea what he would do on so many issues? The fact he changes his stances so often tells me he probably doesn't even know what he wants to do. He might fire bomb the whole country or he might decide it isn't worth our time and ignore them. WHO KNOWS. Guy is all over the place.


Going to clarify this post. My point isn't that Trump won't do some of the the bad/stupid things that he has claimed he will do.

My point is that I fail to see a positive reason to vote for Trump. Voting against Hillary? Sure. But voting for Trump? Based on what? We have no real idea what he will do. He has contradicted himself on almost every single issue he has ever raised (as this thread has pointed out multiple times). Voting for him because he will (or CAN for that matter) actually do a specific thing seems like a shaky proposition at best.
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
June 23 2016 18:02 GMT
#82306
On June 24 2016 02:53 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 02:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:
GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.

PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl.


It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage.

The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it.

please don't say literally when you mean figuratively.
I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin.


I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies.

We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions.


I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d

Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.

Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.

What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.

“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.”
“We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.”
“We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.”
“We’re not fighting it strongly enough.”


Isn't that what I argued he was getting at like 2-3 weeks ago prior to a thread lock when everyone was bringing up how it made him such a monster?

Golly-gee what a coincidence

except instead of bringing up alternate statements you spend 6 posts trying to deny factual statements with an included source....

notice the difference?


Except that didn't happen and you are using 'rhetoric and hyperbole' to get a pants-on-fire rating form politifact.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 23 2016 18:02 GMT
#82307
On June 24 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive.

It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous.

Its the classic coded messaging done by Nixon and to a lesser extent, McCarthy. The war on drugs was never really about drugs. The war on crime was never really about crime. McCarthy’s attacks were never really about communism. But it sounded good and they could always deny their real intent.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-23 18:07:33
June 23 2016 18:04 GMT
#82308
On June 24 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive.

It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous.


Do you think that really makes sense?

Do you think birthers are going to vote for Hillary Clinton even if he stops 'pandering to them' like you think he is to 'let them know he's one of them'?

I just fail to see his motive in doing what you think he's doing. It makes no rational sense when the alternative explanation makes perfect sense. Why attribute the irrational interpretation of someone's argument to them when a perfectly reasonable explanation exists? This is the 'principle of charity' concept all over again.
Trainrunnef
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States599 Posts
June 23 2016 18:08 GMT
#82309
On June 24 2016 03:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive.

It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous.


Do you think that really makes sense?

Do you think birthers are going to vote for Hillary Clinton even if he stops 'pandering to them' like you think he is to 'let them know he's one of them'?

I just fail to see his motive in doing what you think he's doing. It makes no rational sense when the alternative explanation makes perfect sense. Why attribute the irrational interpretation of someone's argument to them when a perfectly reasonable explanation exists? This is the 'principle of charity' concept all over again.


No but they may decide not to vote at all if they see him turn toward the middle in too obvious a manner.
I am, therefore I pee
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
June 23 2016 18:10 GMT
#82310
On June 24 2016 03:08 Trainrunnef wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 03:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive.

It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous.


Do you think that really makes sense?

Do you think birthers are going to vote for Hillary Clinton even if he stops 'pandering to them' like you think he is to 'let them know he's one of them'?

I just fail to see his motive in doing what you think he's doing. It makes no rational sense when the alternative explanation makes perfect sense. Why attribute the irrational interpretation of someone's argument to them when a perfectly reasonable explanation exists? This is the 'principle of charity' concept all over again.


No but they may decide not to vote at all if they see him turn toward the middle in too obvious a manner.


So you think he's making a conscious choice to pander to a minority birther voterbase to ensure they vote for him at the expense of the media backlash the majority of voters will see?
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 23 2016 18:10 GMT
#82311
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42471 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-23 18:14:51
June 23 2016 18:13 GMT
#82312
On June 24 2016 03:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:
On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive.

It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous.


Do you think that really makes sense?

Do you think birthers are going to vote for Hillary Clinton even if he stops 'pandering to them' like you think he is to 'let them know he's one of them'?

No, I think he genuinely believes that Obama is a foreign Muslim ISIS agent but someone has told him that he cannot say that so instead he says

He (Obama) doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands. It's one or the other.


We're led by a man who is a very — look, we're led by a man that either is, is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can't believe it. People cannot — they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the ways he acts and can't even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There's something going on. It's inconceivable.


Later asked to explain what he meant by "something else in mind" and "something going on" he said

Well, you know, I’ll let people figure that out for themselves. Cause to be honest with you there certainly doesn’t seem to be a lot anger or passion when he – when we want to demand retribution for what happened over the weekend. There was certainly not a lot of passion, there was certainly not a lot of anger. You know, I’ll let that, we’ll let people figure it out.


Out of curiousity, have you figured out what Trump meant by "something going on"? Either you think you know what he meant or you don't. What do you think he meant?
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
GGTeMpLaR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States7226 Posts
June 23 2016 18:14 GMT
#82313
On June 24 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case.


So interpret everything he says under the assumption that he is a narcissistic attention-whore that doesn't think about anything he says unless it nets him more attention?

Is this a productive or fair way to engage with someone you disagree with?
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 23 2016 18:18 GMT
#82314
On June 24 2016 03:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case.


So interpret everything he says under the assumption that he is a narcissistic attention-whore that doesn't think about anything he says unless it nets him more attention?

Is this a productive or fair way to engage with someone you disagree with?

In the case of Trump and his actions since hoping onto the Birther movement in 2008, yes. I do not believe Trump is anything more than a narcissistic bigot that won in a field of lack luster opponents. It is not the way I approach everyone I disagree with. But Trump’s stances on issues are so irrational, scattershot and self serving, I can see no other way to view him.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
June 23 2016 18:22 GMT
#82315
On June 24 2016 02:34 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 24 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the danger of mentally unstable white people to the danger of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous. The critical difference is that, unlike the lone, mentally unstable white person who shoots up a bunch of people, Islamic terrorists have an actual agenda that is backed by a lot of people: supplanting Western culture with Muslim culture. It's this assault on Western identity that merits governments giving extra -- and if you look at it in a vacuum, undue -- attention to Islamic terrorists.


Am I less dead if someone kills me without an agenda? If not I don't really care. The dangerous part is the murder thing, not the agenda

Sure, but the point is that Islamic terrorism also threatens those who won't die from the immediate acts of terrorism. It's not a "one off" type of thing.


Yeah, but the immediate danger of it is limited. There's not that many ISIS guys around to bring the US or Europe down and they literally have to blow themselves up every time they're attacking someone, that's a really bad way to fight a war. They're not in a position of power and the only way you empower them is if you buy into their narrative or agenda. That's why it's important to not treat their attacks like something special and put in in contrast to the overall level of violence and safety threats.
Blitzkrieg0
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States13132 Posts
June 23 2016 18:24 GMT
#82316
On June 24 2016 03:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case.


So interpret everything he says under the assumption that he is a narcissistic attention-whore that doesn't think about anything he says unless it nets him more attention?

Is this a productive or fair way to engage with someone you disagree with?


If he didn't want this to happen you would think he would make more clear statements instead of being misinterpreted all the time for the past however long it has been. Or you accept that it is his intention to be ambiguous so he can say things without saying them.
I'll always be your shadow and veil your eyes from states of ain soph aur.
Trainrunnef
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States599 Posts
June 23 2016 18:31 GMT
#82317
On June 24 2016 03:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case.


So interpret everything he says under the assumption that he is a narcissistic attention-whore that doesn't think about anything he says unless it nets him more attention?

Is this a productive or fair way to engage with someone you disagree with?


If you have ever paid attention to the way his speeches are written compared to others you will find that they are much more self centered and self aggrandizing than the competition. Let me know if you want actual examples otherwise i will assume that you agree.
I am, therefore I pee
SolaR-
Profile Blog Joined February 2004
United States2685 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-23 18:37:15
June 23 2016 18:35 GMT
#82318
If Trump is dumb, why are we trying to decrypt and cipher the hidden message that he is trying to send to a small group of conspiracy theorists?

I think you guys are over analyzing this a bit too much. I think Trump purposely gives ambiguous statements, because people will fill in the blanks on their own and make their own inference. So, you can have so many different people with different perspectives and backgrounds all thinking that Trump is specifically speaking to them as a group.

With the Obama statements by Trump that Kwark sourced, i think it is a good example of what I'm talking about. Trump knows that most of his base dislikes Obama for so many different reasons. I believe Trump's statement is ambiguous enough for someone to draw any conclusion on what he meant about Obama.

Not only that but people flock to the us vs them mentality. Trump is trying to make hillary and obama the enemy to his supporters or to anyone who might listen. Pretty much every politician does this.
oBlade
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
United States5492 Posts
June 23 2016 18:35 GMT
#82319
On June 24 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2016 03:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 24 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case.


So interpret everything he says under the assumption that he is a narcissistic attention-whore that doesn't think about anything he says unless it nets him more attention?

Is this a productive or fair way to engage with someone you disagree with?

In the case of Trump and his actions since hoping onto the Birther movement in 2008, yes. I do not believe Trump is anything more than a narcissistic bigot that won in a field of lack luster opponents. It is not the way I approach everyone I disagree with. But Trump’s stances on issues are so irrational, scattershot and self serving, I can see no other way to view him.

He wasn't a birther in 2008 I don't think, because his book Think Like A Champion expresses high hopes and praise for Obama. The birther movement had quieted down by 2011, until Trump brought it up again as a shortcut for catapulting himself into the spotlight because he was seriously thinking about running in 2012 (as he had been since 2000 and earlier).
"I read it. You know how to read, you ignorant fuck?" - Andy Dufresne
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-23 18:39:33
June 23 2016 18:38 GMT
#82320
I don’t believe we are over thinking it at all. The man previously argued that Obama is Muslim and not born in the US, despite overwhelming evidence. I have seen nothing to make me think that Trump no longer holds those views. Only that he cannot express them without massive backlash. So he does it in a more round about way.

Edit: oBlade, I apologize for the error. My deep knowledge of the birther movement is pretty much limited to it being really stupid, sort of racist and Trump buying into it. I'm pretty fuzzy on the dates.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Prev 1 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
GSL Code S
08:00
Semi-Finals & Finals
Rogue vs herOLIVE!
Classic vs GuMiho
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Larva 509
Nal_rA 489
Leta 246
Shinee 64
Mind 48
NotJumperer 38
Barracks 23
Bale 20
eros_byul 5
ivOry 5
[ Show more ]
JulyZerg 4
Dota 2
XcaliburYe362
XaKoH 269
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1660
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King113
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor84
Other Games
C9.Mang01190
WinterStarcraft535
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Secondary Stream5767
Other Games
gamesdonequick611
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 39
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2166
League of Legends
• Stunt444
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1h 56m
WardiTV Qualifier
7h 56m
BSL: ProLeague
9h 56m
Bonyth vs Dewalt
Cross vs Doodle
MadiNho vs Dragon
Replay Cast
15h 56m
Wardi Open
1d 2h
Replay Cast
1d 15h
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
3 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
3 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Serral vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
SC Evo League
6 days
Circuito Brasileiro de…
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-11
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
BLAST Open Fall 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.