|
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 22 2016 06:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2016 05:49 farvacola wrote:
GH isn't actually a part of anything and y'all are doing him no favors by pretending otherwise. Haha, just to be clear, you guys are expecting Bernie delegates to just fall in line and no signs of division? As long as Hillary gets the correct number of delegates relative to the primary results, I don’t see a problem with the Bernie delegates getting to vote how they want. I think it would be very foolish to force the fake party unity that the RNC attempted.
Well it's too late for that. They are certainly trying to force fake unity. Though some people are legitimately scared of a potential President Trump, the actual support for Clinton is very underwhelming. Even with many of her CD delegates I spoke with at the state convention they weren't so much pro-Clinton as they were anti-Trump and convinced Bernie couldn't beat Trump but Hillary could. You'd probably be disturbed how absent of information regarding the numbers/polls they were in their position. I basically convinced a handful they were wrong but they conceded it was too late to change their position. I informed them about how that wasn't necessarily the case and they suggested there was at least a few national delegates (they hadn't won yet at the time) that were susceptible to the same line of argument. It possible but not likely (they would be ostracized to no end) that she doesn't get all of the delegates she won. Not out of spite or anything like that, but because some of her delegates have been convinced that their position on who could win was based on flawed reasoning and therefore their support was misplaced (among other reasons like learning about Hillary's involvement in Honduras, Libya, etc...).
The delegate votes are also cast anonymously iirc, so if delegates are comfortable they won't be singled out (since they are still org'd by state) it's possible her delegate count is short of expectations. Of course she already knows this much and has been trying to sway some of Bernie's delegates as well using the message that they want to appear unified (or else Trump!?!?).
We'll see how that pans out I imagine she nets what's expected within 1%
|
On July 22 2016 06:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2016 05:49 farvacola wrote:
GH isn't actually a part of anything and y'all are doing him no favors by pretending otherwise. Haha, just to be clear, you guys are expecting Bernie delegates to just fall in line and no signs of division? As long as Hillary gets the correct number of delegates relative to the primary results, I don’t see a problem with the Bernie delegates getting to vote how they want. I think it would be very foolish to force the fake party unity that the RNC attempted.
Yep. I'd actually rather avoid stupidity like the Utah delegates being awarded to Trump for...some reason. I'm pretty sure some people are going to make asses of themselves to try to make a statement but I don't think it will hold a candle to Trump campaign-organized Cruz booing.
On July 22 2016 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:23 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2016 05:49 farvacola wrote:
GH isn't actually a part of anything and y'all are doing him no favors by pretending otherwise. Haha, just to be clear, you guys are expecting Bernie delegates to just fall in line and no signs of division? As long as Hillary gets the correct number of delegates relative to the primary results, I don’t see a problem with the Bernie delegates getting to vote how they want. I think it would be very foolish to force the fake party unity that the RNC attempted. Well it's too late for that. They are certainly trying to force fake unity. Though some people are legitimately scared of a potential President Trump, the actual support for Clinton is very underwhelming. Even with many of her CD delegates I spoke with at the state convention they weren't so much pro-Clinton as they were anti-Trump and convinced Bernie couldn't beat Trump but Hillary could. You'd probably be disturbed how absent of information regarding the numbers/polls they were in their position. I basically convinced a handful they were wrong but they conceded it was too late to change their position. I informed them about how that wasn't necessarily the case and they suggested there was at least a few national delegates (they hadn't won yet at the time) that were susceptible to the same line of argument. It possible but not likely (they would be ostracized to no end) that she doesn't get all of the delegates she won. Not out of spite or anything like that, but because some of her delegates have been convinced that their position on who could win was based on flawed reasoning and therefore their support was misplaced (among other reasons like learning about Hillary's involvement in Honduras, Libya, etc...). The delegate votes are also cast anonymously iirc, so if delegates are comfortable they won't be singled out (since they are still org'd by state) it's possible her delegate count is short of expectations. Of course she already knows this much and has been trying to sway some of Bernie's delegates as well using the message that they want to appear unified (or else Trump!?!?). We'll see how that pans out I imagine she nets what's expected within 1%
I can only imagine how you would react to news of a Clinton supporter trying to coerce pledged Sanders delegates into swapping to her back in February.
|
On July 22 2016 06:33 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 22 2016 05:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Cruz took politics way too personally, and I think that's a big weakness of a candidate. Donald Trump will relentlessly attack someone to win, but he shrugs it off, it's nothing personal, just business.
He has made it clear he doesn't agree with Trump, but either way, comes November, it's Trump or Hillary... And as a Cruz supporter, you really should find a lot more comfort in Trump than Hillary, so you've got to stop being stubborn instead of just handing over votes to Hillary if you're so against her. We all know we don't have the best candidates, partly due to who was running on the Democratic side, and party due to voters jumping on the Trump train... Because fuck Washington apparently.
Either way, if you're a fiscal conservative, and centrist/mildly-progressive when it comes to social policy, at least the ideas of Trump are what's the most logical to side with imo. Saying otherwise, I think you haven't taken a proper look and might be reading a lot of liberal media, or are too bothered by his vulgarity and his silly antics (which is fair). I think fiscal conservatives would be a lot more comfortable with Trump if he was consistent with his fiscal views-but he's really not. He's waffled all over tax plans, the ACA, and the like, and put his foot in his mouth over international trade quite a bit. Protectionism and the like are pretty out of favor in fiscal conservative circles as well, and that's a good chunk of his more consistent rhetoric. I am extracting most of the information by reading in between the lines and extracting what I think about the candidate, rather than listening to what they say, as I think right now, both candidates are lying through their teeth to get votes and appeal to wider bases. + Show Spoiler +"I am reinterpreting Trump's statements entirely in my own way". Yep, most Trump supporters do. Otherwise he'd lose the election because the media would take everything out of context, and too many people wouldn't spend the time to educate themselves (or know how). Reinterpreting entirely in your own way does not constitute educating yourself. It constitutes wanting to believe something. We should not discuss further. It's not entirely in my own way, others interpret it in the same way - like I said, anyone who listens to an election at face value is a fool. To win elections you have to do some of this stuff, to make everyone happy, you have to be able to send multiple messages to different people. At the end of the day, extracting their values and character and voting on that is really what you should do imo. If that wasn't the case, Hillary would be sweeping the election. edit: Good way to say it oBlade, thanks. You're still just making up what Trump's supposed ideas are. It's not standard for someone to believe their candidate's ideas are so different than the words coming out of the candidate's mouth.
Where are they different? I've followed Trump and watched almost every interview of his since 2 months before the primaries.
I began with the fascination of this silly candidate, and eventually started to fight for his side with people who read and take liberal media at face value. He's far from a saint, but I've made my stance clear many times throughout this thread with explanation for why I think he is a better candidate than Clinton.
As for your previous point, it's much harder to speak out against liberals than conservatives... My opinion for the case of why this is, is because business operates best when people work in a liberal environment, and I think naturally most big companies, especially the standard corporate business, wearing suits stuff... It doesn't look good to come out with so much "hate", at least what it looks like on the surface. Media companies are businesses, and because of that, I think a lot of people are scared to come out.
It's certainly difficult for me to bring up Donald Trump while someone saying I support Bernie Sanders just gets a shrug from people, you know. So maybe that's a bit flawed, but this is my quick impromptu explanation for it. I'm not even a US citizen, this election will hardly effect my life at all, though I am unsupportive of the liberal socialist movement and I supportive the fiscal conservatism, and I'm just trying to throw out some reasoning to get people to not dismiss Trump before they take a real look first.
|
On July 22 2016 06:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:23 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2016 05:49 farvacola wrote:
GH isn't actually a part of anything and y'all are doing him no favors by pretending otherwise. Haha, just to be clear, you guys are expecting Bernie delegates to just fall in line and no signs of division? As long as Hillary gets the correct number of delegates relative to the primary results, I don’t see a problem with the Bernie delegates getting to vote how they want. I think it would be very foolish to force the fake party unity that the RNC attempted. Yep. I'd actually rather avoid stupidity like the Utah delegates being awarded to Trump for...some reason. I'm pretty sure some people are going to make asses of themselves to try to make a statement but I don't think it will hold a candle to Trump campaign-organized Cruz booing.
Let Bernie get the votes he earned, let him speak and say what he wants. I doubt anyone is going to make that big of an ass of themselves. But I have put my faith in democrats before and be let down in amazing fashion.
|
Ted cruz is never going to be anyone in the republican party again. I doubt he'll retain his seat in texas. Republicans will acept a lot of really shitty personal things from a candidate but the two things that they can't stand even more then the rest of america is a loser and someone whos disloyal. The convention is the time for the party to have a "come to jesus" moment and unite against the blue team.
No one is ever going to forget what he did and no ones going to trust him enough to vote for him again. He was embaressed in the election but he could have recovered by taking any option given to him to not support trump but to go against him at the convention is a sin republicans won't forget.
Man that guy pisses me off now and I have to tolerate Trump being the "conservative choice".
|
On July 22 2016 06:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:33 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 22 2016 05:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Cruz took politics way too personally, and I think that's a big weakness of a candidate. Donald Trump will relentlessly attack someone to win, but he shrugs it off, it's nothing personal, just business.
He has made it clear he doesn't agree with Trump, but either way, comes November, it's Trump or Hillary... And as a Cruz supporter, you really should find a lot more comfort in Trump than Hillary, so you've got to stop being stubborn instead of just handing over votes to Hillary if you're so against her. We all know we don't have the best candidates, partly due to who was running on the Democratic side, and party due to voters jumping on the Trump train... Because fuck Washington apparently.
Either way, if you're a fiscal conservative, and centrist/mildly-progressive when it comes to social policy, at least the ideas of Trump are what's the most logical to side with imo. Saying otherwise, I think you haven't taken a proper look and might be reading a lot of liberal media, or are too bothered by his vulgarity and his silly antics (which is fair). I think fiscal conservatives would be a lot more comfortable with Trump if he was consistent with his fiscal views-but he's really not. He's waffled all over tax plans, the ACA, and the like, and put his foot in his mouth over international trade quite a bit. Protectionism and the like are pretty out of favor in fiscal conservative circles as well, and that's a good chunk of his more consistent rhetoric. I am extracting most of the information by reading in between the lines and extracting what I think about the candidate, rather than listening to what they say, as I think right now, both candidates are lying through their teeth to get votes and appeal to wider bases. + Show Spoiler +"I am reinterpreting Trump's statements entirely in my own way". Yep, most Trump supporters do. Otherwise he'd lose the election because the media would take everything out of context, and too many people wouldn't spend the time to educate themselves (or know how). Reinterpreting entirely in your own way does not constitute educating yourself. It constitutes wanting to believe something. We should not discuss further. It's not entirely in my own way, others interpret it in the same way - like I said, anyone who listens to an election at face value is a fool. To win elections you have to do some of this stuff, to make everyone happy, you have to be able to send multiple messages to different people. At the end of the day, extracting their values and character and voting on that is really what you should do imo. If that wasn't the case, Hillary would be sweeping the election. edit: Good way to say it oBlade, thanks. You're still just making up what Trump's supposed ideas are. It's not standard for someone to believe their candidate's ideas are so different than the words coming out of the candidate's mouth. I began with the fascination of this silly candidate, and eventually started to fight for his side with people who read and take liberal media at face value.
This is a common story. I really don't think Trump would have much support if people didn't hate the media so much. Which leaves open the question of whether Trump is a viable President independent of media coverage of him.
|
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country?
|
On July 22 2016 06:29 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On July 22 2016 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 22 2016 05:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Cruz took politics way too personally, and I think that's a big weakness of a candidate. Donald Trump will relentlessly attack someone to win, but he shrugs it off, it's nothing personal, just business.
He has made it clear he doesn't agree with Trump, but either way, comes November, it's Trump or Hillary... And as a Cruz supporter, you really should find a lot more comfort in Trump than Hillary, so you've got to stop being stubborn instead of just handing over votes to Hillary if you're so against her. We all know we don't have the best candidates, partly due to who was running on the Democratic side, and party due to voters jumping on the Trump train... Because fuck Washington apparently.
Either way, if you're a fiscal conservative, and centrist/mildly-progressive when it comes to social policy, at least the ideas of Trump are what's the most logical to side with imo. Saying otherwise, I think you haven't taken a proper look and might be reading a lot of liberal media, or are too bothered by his vulgarity and his silly antics (which is fair). I think fiscal conservatives would be a lot more comfortable with Trump if he was consistent with his fiscal views-but he's really not. He's waffled all over tax plans, the ACA, and the like, and put his foot in his mouth over international trade quite a bit. Protectionism and the like are pretty out of favor in fiscal conservative circles as well, and that's a good chunk of his more consistent rhetoric. I am extracting most of the information by reading in between the lines and extracting what I think about the candidate, rather than listening to what they say, as I think right now, both candidates are lying through their teeth to get votes and appeal to wider bases. + Show Spoiler +"I am reinterpreting Trump's statements entirely in my own way". Yep, most Trump supporters do. Otherwise he'd lose the election because the media would take everything out of context, and too many people wouldn't spend the time to educate themselves (or know how). Reinterpreting entirely in your own way does not constitute educating yourself. It constitutes wanting to believe something. It's not "reinterpreting," it's just "interpreting," which is the same thing the media itself does to begin with. Okay you can take off the re but the point remains the same. And why does every statement in support of Trump have to also criticize the media?
They don't.
On July 22 2016 06:29 Doodsmack wrote:
Is Trump a good candidate independent of media coverage of him (which he wants and loves)?
No, he's a good candidate despite the media's coverage.
|
On July 22 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:33 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 22 2016 05:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Cruz took politics way too personally, and I think that's a big weakness of a candidate. Donald Trump will relentlessly attack someone to win, but he shrugs it off, it's nothing personal, just business.
He has made it clear he doesn't agree with Trump, but either way, comes November, it's Trump or Hillary... And as a Cruz supporter, you really should find a lot more comfort in Trump than Hillary, so you've got to stop being stubborn instead of just handing over votes to Hillary if you're so against her. We all know we don't have the best candidates, partly due to who was running on the Democratic side, and party due to voters jumping on the Trump train... Because fuck Washington apparently.
Either way, if you're a fiscal conservative, and centrist/mildly-progressive when it comes to social policy, at least the ideas of Trump are what's the most logical to side with imo. Saying otherwise, I think you haven't taken a proper look and might be reading a lot of liberal media, or are too bothered by his vulgarity and his silly antics (which is fair). I think fiscal conservatives would be a lot more comfortable with Trump if he was consistent with his fiscal views-but he's really not. He's waffled all over tax plans, the ACA, and the like, and put his foot in his mouth over international trade quite a bit. Protectionism and the like are pretty out of favor in fiscal conservative circles as well, and that's a good chunk of his more consistent rhetoric. I am extracting most of the information by reading in between the lines and extracting what I think about the candidate, rather than listening to what they say, as I think right now, both candidates are lying through their teeth to get votes and appeal to wider bases. + Show Spoiler +"I am reinterpreting Trump's statements entirely in my own way". Yep, most Trump supporters do. Otherwise he'd lose the election because the media would take everything out of context, and too many people wouldn't spend the time to educate themselves (or know how). Reinterpreting entirely in your own way does not constitute educating yourself. It constitutes wanting to believe something. We should not discuss further. It's not entirely in my own way, others interpret it in the same way - like I said, anyone who listens to an election at face value is a fool. To win elections you have to do some of this stuff, to make everyone happy, you have to be able to send multiple messages to different people. At the end of the day, extracting their values and character and voting on that is really what you should do imo. If that wasn't the case, Hillary would be sweeping the election. edit: Good way to say it oBlade, thanks. You're still just making up what Trump's supposed ideas are. It's not standard for someone to believe their candidate's ideas are so different than the words coming out of the candidate's mouth. I began with the fascination of this silly candidate, and eventually started to fight for his side with people who read and take liberal media at face value. This is a common story. I really don't think Trump would have much support if people didn't hate the media so much. Which leaves open the question of whether Trump is a viable President independent of media coverage of him.
Current media is a product of idealistic, illogical, and emotionally charged thinking of the left who want the world to be a utopia. It's not that the media is evil, in my opinion it's this social shift that has caused it, and it's a social position I don't agree with (in realistic possibility of implementation).
When 50% of what Hillary says on issues is talking about LGBT... My response is, please. Yes, it's an issue, but stop trying to put so much attention to it. Transgender bathrooms, okay okay, but come on, stop making big issues out of things that 90% of people don't care about at all and work fine the way they are, and instead focus on getting people to live a good life, which means effective transportation, low costs, jobs, safe products, etc.
I don't know how many people share my perspective, but it's a large reason (besides Hillary being completely immoral), that I'm fighting for Trump. I would never vote for a religious fanatic in the Republican party ever, if I go back the last 30 years, I'd probably vote Democrat every single time, but the direction were headed is just wtf nation to me.
|
On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country?
Yeah, people are pretty dumb.
|
On July 22 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:33 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 22 2016 05:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Cruz took politics way too personally, and I think that's a big weakness of a candidate. Donald Trump will relentlessly attack someone to win, but he shrugs it off, it's nothing personal, just business.
He has made it clear he doesn't agree with Trump, but either way, comes November, it's Trump or Hillary... And as a Cruz supporter, you really should find a lot more comfort in Trump than Hillary, so you've got to stop being stubborn instead of just handing over votes to Hillary if you're so against her. We all know we don't have the best candidates, partly due to who was running on the Democratic side, and party due to voters jumping on the Trump train... Because fuck Washington apparently.
Either way, if you're a fiscal conservative, and centrist/mildly-progressive when it comes to social policy, at least the ideas of Trump are what's the most logical to side with imo. Saying otherwise, I think you haven't taken a proper look and might be reading a lot of liberal media, or are too bothered by his vulgarity and his silly antics (which is fair). I think fiscal conservatives would be a lot more comfortable with Trump if he was consistent with his fiscal views-but he's really not. He's waffled all over tax plans, the ACA, and the like, and put his foot in his mouth over international trade quite a bit. Protectionism and the like are pretty out of favor in fiscal conservative circles as well, and that's a good chunk of his more consistent rhetoric. I am extracting most of the information by reading in between the lines and extracting what I think about the candidate, rather than listening to what they say, as I think right now, both candidates are lying through their teeth to get votes and appeal to wider bases. + Show Spoiler +"I am reinterpreting Trump's statements entirely in my own way". Yep, most Trump supporters do. Otherwise he'd lose the election because the media would take everything out of context, and too many people wouldn't spend the time to educate themselves (or know how). Reinterpreting entirely in your own way does not constitute educating yourself. It constitutes wanting to believe something. We should not discuss further. It's not entirely in my own way, others interpret it in the same way - like I said, anyone who listens to an election at face value is a fool. To win elections you have to do some of this stuff, to make everyone happy, you have to be able to send multiple messages to different people. At the end of the day, extracting their values and character and voting on that is really what you should do imo. If that wasn't the case, Hillary would be sweeping the election. edit: Good way to say it oBlade, thanks. You're still just making up what Trump's supposed ideas are. It's not standard for someone to believe their candidate's ideas are so different than the words coming out of the candidate's mouth. I began with the fascination of this silly candidate, and eventually started to fight for his side with people who read and take liberal media at face value. This is a common story. I really don't think Trump would have much support if people didn't hate the media so much. Which leaves open the question of whether Trump is a viable President independent of media coverage of him.
For profit media is the doom of US politics. Unlimited money flowing into elections, which flows into for profit companies for ads. Social media that uses complex systems to feed you things you are likely to agree with run by those same companies. Its an entire system designed to reap profits, but also distorts our view of the world. And the public is left less informed with zero faith in media and a distrust of institutions.
Its sad that I turn to teh BBC for coverage of my own country, but that is the state of US News Media today.
|
On July 22 2016 06:47 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:33 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
I think fiscal conservatives would be a lot more comfortable with Trump if he was consistent with his fiscal views-but he's really not. He's waffled all over tax plans, the ACA, and the like, and put his foot in his mouth over international trade quite a bit. Protectionism and the like are pretty out of favor in fiscal conservative circles as well, and that's a good chunk of his more consistent rhetoric. I am extracting most of the information by reading in between the lines and extracting what I think about the candidate, rather than listening to what they say, as I think right now, both candidates are lying through their teeth to get votes and appeal to wider bases. + Show Spoiler +"I am reinterpreting Trump's statements entirely in my own way". Yep, most Trump supporters do. Otherwise he'd lose the election because the media would take everything out of context, and too many people wouldn't spend the time to educate themselves (or know how). Reinterpreting entirely in your own way does not constitute educating yourself. It constitutes wanting to believe something. We should not discuss further. It's not entirely in my own way, others interpret it in the same way - like I said, anyone who listens to an election at face value is a fool. To win elections you have to do some of this stuff, to make everyone happy, you have to be able to send multiple messages to different people. At the end of the day, extracting their values and character and voting on that is really what you should do imo. If that wasn't the case, Hillary would be sweeping the election. edit: Good way to say it oBlade, thanks. You're still just making up what Trump's supposed ideas are. It's not standard for someone to believe their candidate's ideas are so different than the words coming out of the candidate's mouth. I began with the fascination of this silly candidate, and eventually started to fight for his side with people who read and take liberal media at face value. This is a common story. I really don't think Trump would have much support if people didn't hate the media so much. Which leaves open the question of whether Trump is a viable President independent of media coverage of him. Current media is a product of idealistic, illogical, and emotionally charged thinking of the left who want the world to be a utopia. It's not that the media is evil, in my opinion it's this social shift that has caused it, and it's a social position I don't agree with (in realistic possibility of implementation).
That's fine but it still leaves open the question I mention. And you should consider the realistic possibility of implementation of Trump's ideas.
|
On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country?
Beacuse america? The resistance to gay marriage and abortion isn't new or sharp its been going on sense the conversation has been going on.
representative democracies means that everyone gets representation so you get blocks of voters that are ignorant and dumb that get more power then they would under a parliament system where you can just ignore groups of people you don't agree with.
|
On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country?
They're not laughed out of politics because they present themselves as victims of the librul media
|
On July 22 2016 06:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:33 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
I think fiscal conservatives would be a lot more comfortable with Trump if he was consistent with his fiscal views-but he's really not. He's waffled all over tax plans, the ACA, and the like, and put his foot in his mouth over international trade quite a bit. Protectionism and the like are pretty out of favor in fiscal conservative circles as well, and that's a good chunk of his more consistent rhetoric. I am extracting most of the information by reading in between the lines and extracting what I think about the candidate, rather than listening to what they say, as I think right now, both candidates are lying through their teeth to get votes and appeal to wider bases. + Show Spoiler +"I am reinterpreting Trump's statements entirely in my own way". Yep, most Trump supporters do. Otherwise he'd lose the election because the media would take everything out of context, and too many people wouldn't spend the time to educate themselves (or know how). Reinterpreting entirely in your own way does not constitute educating yourself. It constitutes wanting to believe something. We should not discuss further. It's not entirely in my own way, others interpret it in the same way - like I said, anyone who listens to an election at face value is a fool. To win elections you have to do some of this stuff, to make everyone happy, you have to be able to send multiple messages to different people. At the end of the day, extracting their values and character and voting on that is really what you should do imo. If that wasn't the case, Hillary would be sweeping the election. edit: Good way to say it oBlade, thanks. You're still just making up what Trump's supposed ideas are. It's not standard for someone to believe their candidate's ideas are so different than the words coming out of the candidate's mouth. I began with the fascination of this silly candidate, and eventually started to fight for his side with people who read and take liberal media at face value. This is a common story. I really don't think Trump would have much support if people didn't hate the media so much. Which leaves open the question of whether Trump is a viable President independent of media coverage of him. For profit media is the doom of US politics. Unlimited money flowing into elections, which flows into for profit companies for ads. Social media that uses complex systems to feed you things you are likely to agree with run by those same companies. Its an entire system designed to reap profits, but also distorts our view of the world. And the public is left less informed with zero faith in media and a distrust of institutions. Its sad that I turn to teh BBC for coverage of my own country, but that is the state of US News Media today.
One would think "news" outlets selling coverage to sponsors is not something the DNC should be doing while proclaiming on stage they are going to challenge that cabal, yet not a peep about that on corporate media or within Hillary's camp.
|
On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country?
We hate sex, women, gays and secularism. Not really, but we like to act like we do to get elected and pander to the most terrible brand of Christians on the planet.
|
On July 22 2016 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:49 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:33 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:
[quote]
I am extracting most of the information by reading in between the lines and extracting what I think about the candidate, rather than listening to what they say, as I think right now, both candidates are lying through their teeth to get votes and appeal to wider bases. + Show Spoiler +"I am reinterpreting Trump's statements entirely in my own way". Yep, most Trump supporters do. Otherwise he'd lose the election because the media would take everything out of context, and too many people wouldn't spend the time to educate themselves (or know how). Reinterpreting entirely in your own way does not constitute educating yourself. It constitutes wanting to believe something. We should not discuss further. It's not entirely in my own way, others interpret it in the same way - like I said, anyone who listens to an election at face value is a fool. To win elections you have to do some of this stuff, to make everyone happy, you have to be able to send multiple messages to different people. At the end of the day, extracting their values and character and voting on that is really what you should do imo. If that wasn't the case, Hillary would be sweeping the election. edit: Good way to say it oBlade, thanks. You're still just making up what Trump's supposed ideas are. It's not standard for someone to believe their candidate's ideas are so different than the words coming out of the candidate's mouth. I began with the fascination of this silly candidate, and eventually started to fight for his side with people who read and take liberal media at face value. This is a common story. I really don't think Trump would have much support if people didn't hate the media so much. Which leaves open the question of whether Trump is a viable President independent of media coverage of him. For profit media is the doom of US politics. Unlimited money flowing into elections, which flows into for profit companies for ads. Social media that uses complex systems to feed you things you are likely to agree with run by those same companies. Its an entire system designed to reap profits, but also distorts our view of the world. And the public is left less informed with zero faith in media and a distrust of institutions. Its sad that I turn to teh BBC for coverage of my own country, but that is the state of US News Media today. One would think "news" outlets selling coverage to sponsors is not something the DNC should be doing while proclaiming on stage they are going to challenge that cabal, yet not a peep about that on corporate media or within Hillary's camp.
Although I agree and I wish it were different, I don't believe in protesting by stabbing yourself in the leg before trying to win a 5 mile run. Its just stupid.
|
On July 22 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country? We hate sex, women, gays and secularism. Not really, but we like to act like we do to get elected and pander to the most terrible brand of Christians on the planet.
Eastern orthodox?
Edit:7k post insulting russians as god intends its chosen people to do so.
|
On July 22 2016 06:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country? We hate sex, women, gays and secularism. Not really, but we like to act like we do to get elected and pander to the most terrible brand of Christians on the planet. Eastern orthodox?
Southern born again Christians. For no one passes judgment on others faster than the converted.
|
On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country?
It's like they made a list of everything that is good and right in the world and went like "yeah let's do the exact opposite". I mean in what way is coal clean energy? How does that make any sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
