|
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 July 21 2016 03:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You guys don't give a shit about the moral stakes in this or 'playing dirty' in politics; you're just pissed off about this 'team' you've attached yourselves to as the 'good guys' getting completely rolled over by the 'opposite team' you've set up as the 'bad guys'.
No, you are the one who got called out on a bullshit claim, and now that you don't have anything to back it up, you are just pissed and bring in morality and what not.
|
On July 21 2016 03:29 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You guys don't give a shit about the moral stakes in this or 'playing dirty' in politics; you're just pissed off about this 'team' you've attached yourselves to as the 'good guys' getting completely rolled over by the 'opposite team' you've set up as the 'bad guys'. this post is some next level irony
I have no attachment to the Republican party any more than I do the Democratic party. I wanted Obama to win against McCain and Romney in both 2008 and 2012
Don't mistake my support for the Republican candidate in one presidential election for being more than just that
|
On July 21 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2016 03:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Trump campaign's official response on the Melania speech Meredith McIver, an in-house staff writer from the Trump Organization, has released a statement regarding Melania Trump's speech from July 18th, 2016, at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. SourceSource to Statement Lol so now they admit it... sigh, so much easier if they just admit a mistake right away. Do you really expect that they knew what happened immediately?
I'd have expected them to say something like "hmmm, we're not sure, we'll look into it and get back to you."
then they could've given us this 2 days later, and it'd have been a non-issue.
|
On July 21 2016 03:33 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You guys don't give a shit about the moral stakes in this or 'playing dirty' in politics; you're just pissed off about this 'team' you've attached yourselves to as the 'good guys' getting completely rolled over by the 'opposite team' you've set up as the 'bad guys'. No, you are the one who got called out on a bullshit claim, and now that you don't have anything to back it up, you are just pissed and bring in morality and what not.
I have no idea what you're talking about
|
Once in a while, cognitive dissonance is so apparent that one can only laugh. Needless to say, this thread has been quite funny since Trump became the presumptive nominee 
|
On July 21 2016 03:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:33 Evotroid wrote:On July 21 2016 03:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You guys don't give a shit about the moral stakes in this or 'playing dirty' in politics; you're just pissed off about this 'team' you've attached yourselves to as the 'good guys' getting completely rolled over by the 'opposite team' you've set up as the 'bad guys'. No, you are the one who got called out on a bullshit claim, and now that you don't have anything to back it up, you are just pissed and bring in morality and what not. I have no idea what you're talking about
That Clinton staff have been literally calling Trump Hitler for so long, and thus it is ironic, that people are scared by the trump staffs call for killing of hillary.
|
On July 21 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:Once in a while, cognitive dissonance is so apparent that one can only laugh. Needless to say, this thread has been quite funny since Trump became the presumptive nominee
Want to elaborate more on your passive aggressive point here?
|
On July 21 2016 03:35 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 21 2016 03:33 Evotroid wrote:On July 21 2016 03:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You guys don't give a shit about the moral stakes in this or 'playing dirty' in politics; you're just pissed off about this 'team' you've attached yourselves to as the 'good guys' getting completely rolled over by the 'opposite team' you've set up as the 'bad guys'. No, you are the one who got called out on a bullshit claim, and now that you don't have anything to back it up, you are just pissed and bring in morality and what not. I have no idea what you're talking about That Clinton staff have been literally calling Trump Hitler for so long, and thus it is ironic, that people are scared by the trump staffs call for killing of hillary.
Clinton's staff has called Trump Hitler? When did this happen? Did you dream this?
|
Toadessstern already laid it out about as plain as can be, so there's really no need. A lot of this actually tracks quite nicely with the lead up to the 2012 election, in fact, so why rehash old arguments?
|
On July 21 2016 03:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote:On July 21 2016 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2016 03:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Trump campaign's official response on the Melania speech Meredith McIver, an in-house staff writer from the Trump Organization, has released a statement regarding Melania Trump's speech from July 18th, 2016, at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. SourceSource to Statement Lol so now they admit it... sigh, so much easier if they just admit a mistake right away. Do you really expect that they knew what happened immediately? I'd have expected them to say something like "hmmm, we're not sure, we'll look into it and get back to you." then they could've given us this 2 days later, and it'd have been a non-issue.
We don't live in that world because something like an hour after the speech the media was already running with "Look at this plagiarism!"
|
On July 21 2016 03:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 02:36 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2016 02:23 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 21 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:Buzz feed is the only one with this right now: https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-vets-adviser-clinton-should-be-put-in-the-firing-line?utm_term=.xaKaGegjn#.qb6k6X7Aq“I’m a veteran that went to Desert Shield, Desert Storm. I’m also a father who sent a son to war, to Iraq, as a Marine Corps helicopter avionics technician. Hillary Clinton to me is the Jane Fonda of the Vietnam,” he said. “She is a disgrace for the lies that she told those mothers about their children that got killed over there in Benghazi. She dropped the ball on over 400 emails requesting back up security. Something’s wrong there.”
“This whole thing disgusts me, Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason,” he added.
We 1960’s soviet union right now? Is this for real? We are advocating for the execution of our political opponents now? We just going to start calling people who don’t vote for Trump traitors too? Dont worry. The man is military, he knows what he is speaking about. If you trust this man with your safety and to defend the american values overseas you should also trust him in his judgement of political candidates. And law. He should be deciding who is executed, because that is how the legal system works. The idea that the Trump GOP is actively pushing and feeding a narrative that the other party is corrupt and their nominee traitor is a asking for disaster. This isn't debate about policy, it is turning your opposition into villains. And if the GOP loses, the people that buy into this won't see it as democracy at all. I am actually laughing at how absurdly hypocritical you guys are being. The left has been slandering Trump as literally Hitler for a year and NOW you start to care? ROFL
I hope you're joking on this one. There is an enormous difference between pointing out parallels in stated approach to policy/policy goals and calling for someone to be executed martial law style.
|
On July 21 2016 03:35 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 21 2016 03:33 Evotroid wrote:On July 21 2016 03:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You guys don't give a shit about the moral stakes in this or 'playing dirty' in politics; you're just pissed off about this 'team' you've attached yourselves to as the 'good guys' getting completely rolled over by the 'opposite team' you've set up as the 'bad guys'. No, you are the one who got called out on a bullshit claim, and now that you don't have anything to back it up, you are just pissed and bring in morality and what not. I have no idea what you're talking about That Clinton staff have been literally calling Trump Hitler for so long, and thus it is ironic, that people are scared by the trump staffs call for killing of hillary.
I said the left not the Clinton staff.
Very few people from the left have been willing to show any degree of moral shaming here of that sort of behavior. Ironically, the people who did not criticize it at all are the same ones throwing a smug 'moral highground' fit now. I have no problem with criticism of the rhetoric that Clinton should be executed, I'm just criticizing the motives and hypocrisy of very specific individuals in this thread doing so.
I don't think this sort of behavior from the right is acceptable at all. That should be made very clear so you/others don't assume I'm taking a stance I'm not.
|
On July 21 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:This is huge. He does not even intend to be president. How is this shitshow still going. god damn GOP, you really fucked up this year.
"An anonymous source from the Kasich campaign..."
lol @ anyone who buys this kind of stuff.
|
On July 21 2016 03:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:34 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote:On July 21 2016 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2016 03:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Trump campaign's official response on the Melania speech Meredith McIver, an in-house staff writer from the Trump Organization, has released a statement regarding Melania Trump's speech from July 18th, 2016, at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. SourceSource to Statement Lol so now they admit it... sigh, so much easier if they just admit a mistake right away. Do you really expect that they knew what happened immediately? I'd have expected them to say something like "hmmm, we're not sure, we'll look into it and get back to you." then they could've given us this 2 days later, and it'd have been a non-issue. We don't live in that world because something like an hour after the speech the media was already running with "Look at this plagiarism!"
Yeah, but they doubled down on it for an entire day, claiming that she was inspired by things like My Little Ponies.
|
On July 21 2016 01:36 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 01:26 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 01:20 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 21 2016 00:11 IgnE wrote:On July 20 2016 23:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin. Even if it is, you cant deny that the US is not outright saying they want to kill innocent civilians. The other side is. So if they really wanted to kill civilians it would be fine so long as they didn't "outright say" they wanted to? The opposite of "A is better than B" is not "A is good". I say it is better that they try to not kill civilians (and I believe them until there is proof that suggests otherwise) rather than trying to kill as many civilians as possible. That is a better thing. Does that make it good? Of course not. How can you even make such a ridiculous assumption? It wasn't an assumption. It was a question. Note the interrogative punctuation. I was trying to clarify your ambiguous statement which should be clear from the discussion preceding this post. It would be an interesting (but wrong) position to take that only what they say their intentions are (ie the outward representation) matters. My statement was not ambigious at all. I said it numerous times and I can say it again: Those who try to be good are better than those who try to be bad. Maybe it is simpler now. Of course we could assume the US is not actually trying to be good but even that is still better than actively trying to be bad. But neither of those things make them good by default. Just because you try does not mean you succeed. Its just better than not trying at all.
Yes, dude, your statement was ambiguous. You said, and I quote, "Even if it is, you cant deny that the US is not outright saying they want to kill innocent civilians. The other side is." You chose to emphasize the "saying" rather than the "intending" or even the "doing." It's like you don't know what ambiguity is. Let me help you. It doesn't depend on intentions. I know you know what you meant to say, but what you actually said was ambiguous. Maybe if you weren't so defensive your conversations wouldn't devolve into these boring conclusory statements of beliefs and/or values.
On July 21 2016 01:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 01:05 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 00:58 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I disagree with your claim that the us views them as ants to be trampled in pursuit of its war aims. I ask for proof/citations that that is the US government view.
I would also note that the US often does give something equivalent to weregild payments to victims. Though I don't have highly specific data. What are you talking about? The proof is in the drone strikes killing civilians time and again, and the government not ENDING the program in response to this statistical certainty. Like Chomsky says, they are not idiots. They know it's a certainty. They are choosing to kill innocent civilians time and again. And in doing so they are saying US citizens matter more than foreign innocents. US citizens are people and foreign citizens are ants. They are choosing to kill civilians while also killing bad guys. There are several different groups of drone strike targets, and the validity of each of them varies. The claim that they value their own citizens rather than foreign citizens may well be true; but it's not necessarily the basis for the strikes, and seems like a claim you're adding in now. The question of how much obligation to accept risk is/should be required is a complicated one.
I don't know what the bolded part means. What would it mean for the basis of the strikes to be that foreign citizens have the same moral value as ants? Are you suggesting that the drone strike planners are not accounting for a (significant) percentage of innocent casualties, and so the casualties are not part of the basic assumptions about the consequences of the strikes? Or is it something else? Because as far as I can tell, the basis for the strikes can still be preemption of future terrorist attacks on US civilians, and yet the moral calculus can still involve as a consequence the "de-person-ing" of foreign innocents. So I'm not sure what you think I'm "adding in now". The very assumption of "risk" involves an impermissible crossing of a moral line because it involves the statistical certainty of executing innocents. It's like saying that the death penalty is ok, even if we execute some innocents, because most of the time we get it right.
In war there are casualties; would it be justifiable to go to war against the Nazis knowing there would also be innocent casualties? If yes, then it's a question of the details in each case; if no, well, then we just have different beliefs. I'm also wondering which ethical system(s), or blend thereof, you're using. No great matter, but if you'd like to look through here and pick some out (feel free not to of course, it's a lot to read): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics#Normative_ethics
The Nazis were a state party at the head of a militarized state and were direct aggressors against other states. It wasn't a question of preemption in WW2, and if you would sanction the firebombing of Tokyo, for example, as a permissible "war aim" against a militarized state aggressor I guess we needn't continue this comparatively minor drone strike analysis, right? If you insist on an ethical labeling here, I'll tentatively select "anarchist" ethics with the caveat that that is not meant to be a binding affirmation.
|
On July 21 2016 03:40 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:This is huge. He does not even intend to be president. How is this shitshow still going. god damn GOP, you really fucked up this year. "An anonymous source from the Kasich campaign..." lol @ anyone who buys this kind of stuff.
Its the NYT, they don't make up quotes. If they say the source is legit, there is little reason to not believe them. Unless you really want to not believe them, then go ahead.
|
On July 21 2016 03:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:35 Evotroid wrote:On July 21 2016 03:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 21 2016 03:33 Evotroid wrote:On July 21 2016 03:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You guys don't give a shit about the moral stakes in this or 'playing dirty' in politics; you're just pissed off about this 'team' you've attached yourselves to as the 'good guys' getting completely rolled over by the 'opposite team' you've set up as the 'bad guys'. No, you are the one who got called out on a bullshit claim, and now that you don't have anything to back it up, you are just pissed and bring in morality and what not. I have no idea what you're talking about That Clinton staff have been literally calling Trump Hitler for so long, and thus it is ironic, that people are scared by the trump staffs call for killing of hillary. I said the left not the Clinton staff. Very few people from the left have been willing to show any degree of moral shaming here of that sort of behavior. Ironically, the people who did not criticize it at all are the same ones throwing a smug 'moral highground' fit now. I have no problem with criticism of the rhetoric that Clinton should be executed, I'm just criticizing the motives and hypocrisy of very specific individuals in this thread doing so. I don't think this sort of behavior from the right is acceptable at all. That should be made very clear so you stop assuming I'm taking a stance I'm not.
you're still simply wrong about the motives; and wrong about the hypocrisy. And you've obviously not tracked who actually said what on the issues, and are simply casting unfounded aspersions against some individuals. (there are some against whom your claim may have merit).
|
I agree that Hillary Clinton (and Barack Obama) definitely committed treason multiple times.
But I don't think I'd want them executed. I actually would want them in prison for the rest of their lives, serving as examples. No one should be above the law.
|
On July 21 2016 03:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:39 oBlade wrote:On July 21 2016 03:34 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote:On July 21 2016 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2016 03:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Trump campaign's official response on the Melania speech Meredith McIver, an in-house staff writer from the Trump Organization, has released a statement regarding Melania Trump's speech from July 18th, 2016, at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. SourceSource to Statement Lol so now they admit it... sigh, so much easier if they just admit a mistake right away. Do you really expect that they knew what happened immediately? I'd have expected them to say something like "hmmm, we're not sure, we'll look into it and get back to you." then they could've given us this 2 days later, and it'd have been a non-issue. We don't live in that world because something like an hour after the speech the media was already running with "Look at this plagiarism!" Yeah, but they doubled down on it for an entire day, claiming that she was inspired by things like My Little Ponies.
They never represented that she drew inspiration from MLP, the guy who talked about that was making a point about common phrases. They were defending themselves because like I just said, they were instantly attacked by the media over it.
|
On July 21 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2016 03:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Trump campaign's official response on the Melania speech Meredith McIver, an in-house staff writer from the Trump Organization, has released a statement regarding Melania Trump's speech from July 18th, 2016, at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. SourceSource to Statement Lol so now they admit it... sigh, so much easier if they just admit a mistake right away. Do you really expect that they knew what happened immediately?
No, but that seems to be the standard nowadays.
Just like how hours after the new years Eve cologne incident and all kinds of shootings that resulted into "we're not sure yet and investigating it before we can say anything specific" statements get shot down for the same reasons since people think it's being PC messages to swipe something under the rug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
