| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 30 2016 16:18 xDaunt wrote: Don't worry, democrats. Hillary has more than earned her shitty reputation. Can't chalk that one up to the vast right wing conspiracy. Maybe the Russians did it though. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On July 30 2016 15:47 LegalLord wrote: She has a long history of flip-flopping on issues (consistent with changes in public opinion) and she's had her fair share of shifty dealings in her career. Emails being one of them. I always wondered. Why is that considered a bad thing? I'd rather have a politician who does what the public wants even if she herself disagrees with it on a personal level than someone who ended up in a position to make those decisions due to the whole "package" of her being popular and then forcing one particular aspect that's really, really unpopular onto people just because it's part of what she stands for | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
Definitely the Russians. Seriously I'm certainly left of middle and I can't take this hardcore denial. It makes Trump supporters look more reasonable. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
1. Hacking (and leaking) is not a big deal everybody does it and it is just to be expected. Nothing to see here. 2. There is too little proof of Russian involvement, let's wait for more information. But from this basis, he tries to establish 3. Poor Russia, scapegoated again. Look at these crazy conspiracies. This is of course incongruent because if 1. was true, Russian involvement would be unsurprising (especially since it is obvious even to him that Putin would prefer Trump) and if he truly believed 2., he would not push aggressively a narrative where Russia explicitedly isn't involved. But the issue is now obfuscated by 3. and if attacked a fallback to 1. or 2. is always possible. The true genius is, how hermitic the argument is. If in a couple of weeks or after the election there is an exhaustive report showing Russian involvement, we are back at 1. without having to admit to anything (of course the report itself will also be attacked but that's just secondary). If there is not, then that will be seen as conclusive proof that Russia wasn't involved, which can be used by way of 3. in the next argument. While I should continue where I left last night, I have to admit defeat. It is just too exhausting for me without offering any reward. Chapo! In general this election has left some of my more optimistic beliefs in ruins (and this has nothing to do with whether Trump wins or not, he is just symptom) and it is time to take a step back and reflect a bit... | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24368 Posts
whether Trump wins or not, he is just symptom Bout time someone realized this. If you think Trump is a terrible presidential candidate the surprise is he does actually represent a significant chunk of the US. As of current polling ~50% of voters. If you're losing to Trump, you picked the wrong candidate, period. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Ho sorry it's Trump my fault.  Seriously, Trump's speech about the DNC is freaking hillarious. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4455 Posts
On July 30 2016 18:46 Toadesstern wrote: I always wondered. Why is that considered a bad thing? I'd rather have a politician who does what the public wants even if she herself disagrees with it on a personal level I agree. Most of the modern left who seemingly despise "Populism" will disagree See Brexit and the protests of anti-democracy marchers after the vote. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On July 30 2016 19:59 GreenHorizons wrote: Bout time someone realized this. If you think Trump is a terrible presidential candidate the surprise is he does actually represent a significant chunk of the US. As of current polling ~50% of voters. If you're losing to Trump, you picked the wrong candidate, period. Hey, it's more like 44-45%. Don't give him or Clinton too much credit by implying either is polling at a majority at the moment. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22627 Posts
On July 30 2016 22:11 WhiteDog wrote: There's Green Horizon giving his point of view about Bernie : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aDCpAyBie4 Ho sorry it's Trump my fault. Seriously, Trump's speech about the DNC is freaking hillarious. Got to try and grab those Berniebro's because he cant do it on just angry middle aged white males And since he cant win them on his policy all he has is their feeling of betrayal by Bernie | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8194 Posts
More of Trump and his team's weird connection with Russia (and pro-Russian ukrainian side).. The fact that Republican don't see that as a problem considering the rhetoric they used for the last eight years (in short Obama was weak with Putin and so on and so on because Russia is n°1 enemy) is freaking hilarious. And as usual the amount of intellectual dishonesty on the right is staggering. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On July 30 2016 18:46 Toadesstern wrote: I always wondered. Why is that considered a bad thing? I'd rather have a politician who does what the public wants even if she herself disagrees with it on a personal level than someone who ended up in a position to make those decisions due to the whole "package" of her being popular and then forcing one particular aspect that's really, really unpopular onto people just because it's part of what she stands for (1) Because oftentimes when people are divided over an issue, there isn't an overwhelming consensus (see Brexit), thus on these issues we need leaders with vision and strength, not people who hesitate and don't do shit. (2) Because on a good chunk of subjects "public opinion" is irrelevant, as in, there is a clear best possible decision to take based on evidence and experts' advice (see international politics, jail policy, education, etc etc). If the leader decides to take the bad decision because of clueless people in the street and on the Internet, then democracy has failed. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 30 2016 18:46 Toadesstern wrote: I always wondered. Why is that considered a bad thing? I'd rather have a politician who does what the public wants even if she herself disagrees with it on a personal level than someone who ended up in a position to make those decisions due to the whole "package" of her being popular and then forcing one particular aspect that's really, really unpopular onto people just because it's part of what she stands for It could be considered a bad thing because politicians will get elected on the basis of following through with various claims of what they are going to do and then they "change their mind" once they've been elected. (or just never do it) | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 30 2016 22:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: I agree. Most of the modern left who seemingly despise "Populism" will disagree See Brexit and the protests of anti-democracy marchers after the vote. Populism by definition is negative. Regardless of who disagrees or not. I said it yesterday, a politician needs to make unpopular choices. Because as is blatantly obvious for the last 12 months, the public majority is retarded if it comes to political decisions. Literally mentally not able to think something through to the end. And they actually don't need to, as long as a politician does. IF he does. Which he wouldn't if he constantly flipflops and chases whatever the public opinion is at the moment. It's like telling parents that the kid should totally be able to tell them where to go on holiday (the moon), what to eat (pizza every day), and generally how to spend time (not working but playing). It's idiotic. The public can not be trusted with political decisions, as is shown over and over again. A populist that constantly does what the public wants, would be exactly that. I'd rather vote for a person who sticks to whatever he's promising, even though it's not the popular decision. You know, someone with a spine. edit: makes voting actually mean something on top, if you just have a dude doing whatever the public wants, you just have a "presidential lottery". Pull a number, congratulation, you're the next person who.. well doesn't decide anything. You really just announce. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On July 30 2016 22:55 OtherWorld wrote: (1) Because oftentimes when people are divided over an issue, there isn't an overwhelming consensus (see Brexit), thus on these issues we need leaders with vision and strength, not people who hesitate and don't do shit. (2) Because on a good chunk of subjects "public opinion" is irrelevant, as in, there is a clear best possible decision to take based on evidence and experts' advice (see international politics, jail policy, education, etc etc). If the leader decides to take the bad decision because of clueless people in the street and on the Internet, then democracy has failed. about 1), I said "really, really unpopular" for a reason. I agree that it's more complex in most situations but if you have a 10/90 split and the politician is among the 10% people I'd like him/her to ignore that personally if there's not a very good reason to stick to it (see #2) about 2), yeah obviously I'm only talking about things you can discuss to some level and logically go both ways. I'm happy noone exaggerated into something along the lines of "well as long as enough people are in favour of it, we should start killing babies even if I'm personally against it!" because that's obviously not what I'm trying to get at here. in that sense perhaps I should have said that I don't get how it's always perceived as something bad. It doesn't even have to be based on popular opinion, it could very well be something that wasn't well understood at some point, 10 years later we know more about it and thus people can come to better conclusions. Someone sticking to his old conclusion about a topic just for principles sake is certainly something bad for me. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On July 30 2016 23:10 Toadesstern wrote: about 1), I said "really, really unpopular" for a reason. I agree that it's more complex in most situations but if you have a 10/90 split and the politician is among the 10% people I'd like him/her to ignore that personally if there's not a very good reason to stick to it (see #2) about 2), yeah obviously I'm only talking about things you can discuss to some level and logically go both ways. I'm happy noone exaggerated into something along the lines of "well as long as enough people are in favour of it, we should start killing babies even if I'm personally against it!" because that's obviously not what I'm trying to get at here. in that sense perhaps I should have said that I don't get how it's always perceived as something bad. It doesn't even have to be based on popular opinion, it could very well be something that wasn't well understood at some point, 10 years later we know more about it and thus people can come to better conclusions. Someone sticking to his old conclusion about a topic just for principles sake is certainly something bad for me. Changing your opinion on a topic can be good or bad depending on the context. Sure, if you believed A when you were younger but then you grew older and wiser and now you see your mistake and suddenly believe in B then that is not a bad thing. You changed your opinion because you were convinced B is better than A. Buf if you have been paid to support A early in your campaign and then a month later polls indicate that voters prefer B and you suddenly say that you are in full support of B then it is a little bit more questionable. Do you really support B or are you just trying to get the votes and then you revert back to support A? I can understand any person who things hillary is not trustworthy for changing her opinion on these things so quickly when it turns out voters prefer it. There is no law that forces her to stick to her old promises once she is elected president. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10165 Posts
On July 30 2016 23:01 m4ini wrote: Populism by definition is negative. Regardless of who disagrees or not. Nope, it's not. You are not a child, and the state is not your papa, and certainly making unpopular choices is against democracy in itself. You are there to represent the people, not to rule against them because they don't know any better. But this is the representation on why you are seeing the rise of populism around the globe, while the political stablishment (the right or the left equally, the distinction is silly) seem to dismiss why it's happening using a buzzword which they already stablished as evil or wrong. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22627 Posts
On July 30 2016 23:22 RoomOfMush wrote: Changing your opinion on a topic can be good or bad depending on the context. Sure, if you believed A when you were younger but then you grew older and wiser and now you see your mistake and suddenly believe in B then that is not a bad thing. You changed your opinion because you were convinced B is better than A. Buf if you have been paid to support A early in your campaign and then a month later polls indicate that voters prefer B and you suddenly say that you are in full support of B then it is a little bit more questionable. Do you really support B or are you just trying to get the votes and then you revert back to support A? I can understand any person who things hillary is not trustworthy for changing her opinion on these things so quickly when it turns out voters prefer it. There is no law that forces her to stick to her old promises once she is elected president. From what I understand the stuff where people silly Hillary flip flopped on is at times a decade or more old. Years, not months or weeks. Plus there is years of senate voting records to show that Hillary does indeed vote for what she believes (at the time). | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On July 30 2016 23:22 RoomOfMush wrote: Changing your opinion on a topic can be good or bad depending on the context. Sure, if you believed A when you were younger but then you grew older and wiser and now you see your mistake and suddenly believe in B then that is not a bad thing. You changed your opinion because you were convinced B is better than A. Buf if you have been paid to support A early in your campaign and then a month later polls indicate that voters prefer B and you suddenly say that you are in full support of B then it is a little bit more questionable. Do you really support B or are you just trying to get the votes and then you revert back to support A? I can understand any person who things hillary is not trustworthy for changing her opinion on these things so quickly when it turns out voters prefer it. There is no law that forces her to stick to her old promises once she is elected president. I just brought it up because earlier during the Republican race the same was said about Rubio iirc? Was it Bush with that really, really awkward video?... "flip flopping" to me just sounds like a stupid buzzword without context | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On July 30 2016 23:31 Toadesstern wrote: I just brought it up because earlier during the Republican race the same was said about Rubio iirc? Was it Bush with that really, really awkward video?... "flip flopping" to me just sounds like a stupid buzzword without context Flip flopping got popularized by a specific John Kerry gaf where he was asked for details on something he had voted on in which he said "I was for it before I was against it" in an attempt to place his answer into a quantum state of yes and no at the same time, wherein people then labeled everything he said after that event as flip flopping. It has been overly expanded beyond its initial use because he lost the election afterwards and it was generally blamed on that gaf/flip flop moment. As for politicians, you are either on two camps. You either believe changed is done by a team of people or change is done by an individual. If you believe it's a team effort then you want the leader of the team to care more about what the team's goals should be and not what her own goal should be, placing her skill sets on what strategies are best needed to enact those goals. If you believe change is a one man March then you want an uncompromising big picture rabble rouser who sounds like he's saying good things even when he doesn't tell you how he will implement them. To you, the yelling is more important than actual change happening. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On July 30 2016 23:31 Toadesstern wrote: I just brought it up because earlier during the Republican race the same was said about Rubio iirc? Was it Bush with that really, really awkward video?... "flip flopping" to me just sounds like a stupid buzzword without context On July 30 2016 23:29 Gorsameth wrote: From what I understand the stuff where people silly Hillary flip flopped on is at times a decade or more old. Years, not months or weeks. Plus there is years of senate voting records to show that Hillary does indeed vote for what she believes (at the time). I dont actually know anything about Hillary changing her opinions on certain topics. I have not followed that at all. I was just giving a general example of what could be considered bad about changing your opinion on a whim to reflect the public opinion. Regardless of whether the accusations of Hillary doing it are true or false, if somebody believes it to be true then I can see how this person could interprete her supposed behavior as a bad thing. | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
The PondCast
OSC
Stellar Fest
OSC
Stellar Fest
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
FEL
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
