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 July 05 2016 08:06 biology]major wrote: The right labels Hillary as corrupt, the left labels Donald as incompetent. which is worse ? To be incompetent or corrupt?
Also I think it's funny how little support Donald has from his own party, he is completely isolated and alone in this election. Hillary has the support of her entire party minus Bernie supporters and Obama is going to start campaigning for her, which is such a huge advantage. If trump still wins in these circumstances I think he single handedly accomplished something crazy
Oh the left think's he's outright malicious, at least the kooks out here in California. After that he's purportedly incompetent in foreign affairs and will bring on WWIII or what have you.
He's isolated and alone in this election with little support from his own party ... except for a plurality of his own party's voters. Lest we forget, many Tea Party candidates primaried the incumbent having great support from the party.
Trump's still got a terribly weak candidate in the form of Clinton, a win here wouldn't be crazy. If we imagine a Gore or Mister Clinton in her spot in these circumstances, then he really gets my props.
Man can Cruz be more of an asshole? He asked questions, doesn't like the answers and complains about the persons he summoned to testify explaining why Cruz's pet issue is dumb. What an ass.
On July 05 2016 12:00 Plansix wrote: Man can Cruz be more of an asshole? He asked questions, doesn't like the answers and complains about the persons he summoned to testify explaining why Cruz's pet issue is dumb. What an ass.
Lol he says hes not arguing semantics. Thats exactly what the fuck hes doing. IF you are worried that people working in intelligence wont follow up on issues because official documentation scrubs words like Jihad and Radical Islam then they shouldnt be working that job in the first place, because they are probably not very intelligent. Ted Cruz might need buzzwords documented to identify threats properly but people with a brain dont.
This is such a non issue its hilarious that so much time and money is spent investigating this shit. This is the kind of shit I am used to experiencing in third world democracies that are corrupt to the core with small people and big egos wasting time on pointless as fuck issues while the rest of the world suffers.
Almost makes you wonder how fucked the US is... good luck. Seriously so many of the steps being taken here are typical off dysfunctional countries that I have grown up in myself its really really scary to see the regression over the last decade or so that I have lived in North America. For those of you who take the efficacy of your institutions for granted its going to suck balls if this sort of thing becomes mainstream.
In a flurry of activity on Monday, Donald Trump named three Republican politicians seemingly in contention to be named as his vice-presidential pick at the party’s national convention in Cleveland later this month.
Those named were the first-term Iowa senator Joni Ernst, the first-term Arkansas senator Tom Cotton – like Ernst a military veteran – and the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence. Trump spent time with Pence and his family on Sunday and was due to meet Ernst in New Jersey on Monday.
Ernst was endorsed by the Tea Party and won her Senate seat in 2014, running an infamous ad featuring a boast of growing up “castrating hogs on an Iowa farm” and the promise that once in Washington she would “know how to cut pork”, thus making “big spenders … squeal”. In 2015, she delivered the Republican response to Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.
Cotton, 39 and thought by some a likely post-Trump presidential candidate in 2020, has not been as often named among potential Trump VPs as Pence and Ernst. In his tweet, Trump said Cotton had been “great on Meet the Press yesterday. Despite a totally one-sided interview by Chuck Todd, the end result was solid!”
Cotton gave little away in his NBC interview, saying Trump could “make the case for himself” as to why he should be president. He was more forthright in attacking Hillary Clinton, who he said had been “responsible for many of the worst decisions of the Obama administration”.
Trump’s note of complaint about Todd’s questioning echoed another tweet sent on Monday, in which he blamed the “dishonest media” for a furor over a tweet he sent and then deleted on Saturday, which showed Clinton next to a six-pointed star against a background of dollar bills, prompting accusations of antisemitism. The image was later found by reporters on a white supremacist message board, in a post predating Trump’s tweet.
You can see it on the director's face the entire time. The expression of "why the fuck am I here? Do you expect military feature words for your pet political issues?"
On July 05 2016 13:21 Plansix wrote: You can see it on the director's face the entire time. The expression of "why the fuck am I here? Do you expect military feature words for your pet political issues?"
Also the that rather unnecessary chart in the back is rank full of spelling mistakes. Wouldnt wanna get the terms wrong because you were mispronouncing them Ted.. might make America less safe. Its hard to avoid calling him a scumbag.
I went to a couple of shows on Jon Stewarts last 2 weeks on TDS last year (and really I was only in town to pick up my stuff and say good byes before moving to Toronto) one was Obama and the other was Ted Cruz. Cruz did not show up so they replaced him last minute. I dont even remember with who. Some science guy. Anyway since I had been there for Obama I knew the routine so I was ready to ask a question. I asked just around the time he was about to ask if people wanted to ask questions lol. I asked him how upset hee was hat Ted Cruz did not show up today. "Im not upset at all, I fucking hate that guy. My day just got alot better."
On July 05 2016 15:52 Velr wrote: I think that discussion took place a few pages back.
All of this has happened before, and it will happen again... again... again...
On July 05 2016 12:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Which is why some of us hope it is the last death rattle of overly religious nationalistic tendencies and ego that inhabits the US.
Au contraire, I think religous nationalistic tendencies are on the rise and have been for a few years now. Well, from a certain perspective any way. Nation states are waning in power, people get anxious, people want to build walls. Religion is waning in power (well, has been for a century or two now), people get anxious...
On July 05 2016 15:47 NukeD wrote: Just curious; how much people here approve of the Obama's policy of excluding words islam, jihad and the like when talking about these issues?
Jihad or Jihadi have literal historic meanings that give credibility toward such fighting, not calling the people we are fighting Jihadist's (particularly ISIS) is obviously (to me and the overwhelming majority of professionals) the right choice.
It would be like if westboro baptist starting blowing themselves up and we called them all martyrs or warriors for Jesus. Connecting the people we are fighting with Islam is just a terrible idea.
I'm not saying Islam bears no burden, just that this semantics battle is devoid of the real world implications.
On July 05 2016 15:47 NukeD wrote: Just curious; how much people here approve of the Obama's policy of excluding words islam, jihad and the like when talking about these issues?
I think it's mostly irrelevant with some minor benefit of not subtly linking 1.5 billion people to a small minority of violent criminals and some minor loss of trust by a group of people within America who already distrust him. Those who trusted the president in the first place accept his rationale for not using those words.
Also, it is generally a good idea to disagree with Ted Cruz. Even if you don't know why at that point, you will find out that he was wrong all along lateron.
On July 05 2016 15:47 NukeD wrote: Just curious; how much people here approve of the Obama's policy of excluding words islam, jihad and the like when talking about these issues?
I'm mostly indifferent (I can see both sides of the argument) but I think that policies, rather than semantics, should play the central role here. If Trump were arguing for a more realistic policy of how to deal with the cultural influence of radical Islam rather than just concentrating on the words (and on an unrealistic, unclear policy of "ban them because there's something going on") then I'd be more approving of his platform.
On July 05 2016 16:02 Surth wrote: Au contraire, I think religous nationalistic tendencies are on the rise and have been for a few years now. Well, from a certain perspective any way. Nation states are waning in power, people get anxious, people want to build walls. Religion is waning in power (well, has been for a century or two now), people get anxious...
US and European nationalist movements are decidedly different in character and in their motivations. I don't think we can really lump them together the same way you could do so between different European countries.
On July 05 2016 16:14 Simberto wrote: Also, it is generally a good idea to disagree with Ted Cruz. Even if you don't know why at that point, you will find out that he was wrong all along lateron.
Not sure about all of his reasoning but I have to give Cruz credit for standing up against the NSA and such.
On July 05 2016 12:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Which is why some of us hope it is the last death rattle of overly religious nationalistic tendencies and ego that inhabits the US.
Au contraire, I think religous nationalistic tendencies are on the rise and have been for a few years now. Well, from a certain perspective any way. Nation states are waning in power, people get anxious, people want to build walls. Religion is waning in power (well, has been for a century or two now), people get anxious...
Hence the hopeful death rattle. Look at Indiana and Ted Cruz the Christian version of Sharia. He was leading in Indiana then in hopes of seal revealed a blatant anti LGBT ad and it backfired. Even Republican voters rejected it.
EPT
