|
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 August 12 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:23 PassiveAce wrote:
If your car doesn't run, you can't get to work. if America doesn't run, the world can't get to work.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are both responsible, hard working republican governors with a proven record. Don't vote for a clown just because you'd like to see DC go up in flames Also if you decide to vote for Johnson over Trump then you can just stay home on election day and tell everyone you voted Johnson. That's a win/win. There's literally no downside to staying home if you're a Johnson supporter.
This logic really applies to anyone you vote for, even if you vote in a swing state.
This would only not apply if someone won your state by a margin of one vote.
|
On August 12 2016 03:20 BallinWitStalin wrote:I thought this was a super interesting article, where someone posits two people tweet from the trump account (presumably trump and a staffer(s)), one on an android and one on an iPhone. There's definitely differences between the content of the two tweeting devices. Which one is Trump? The android one seems to be the Trump we're most familiar with stylistically, and what I found interesting was that the one retweeting from white supremacist sites is (apparently, according to the comments section) the one coming from the android, which the article authors are supposing is coming more directly from Trump (there's still problems assuming it's coming totally from him, but I appreciate the analysis). Neat breakdown. I'm also a bit of an amateur R nerd (I use it a lot in school/analysis) so I appreciate the coding  http://varianceexplained.org/r/trump-tweets/
That's a cool analysis but it's not so surprising that tweets that sound like Trump come from Trump.
|
Norway28736 Posts
On August 11 2016 23:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election.. Founder and co-founder may be a little aggressive, but Hillary and Obama were certainly the equivalent of Series A investors with all of the weapons that they funneled to Syria to topple Assad.
forgot this one for a while
I think saying that Obama founded ISIS is pretty much an exact equivalent to saying that Ronald Reagan founded Al-Qaeda. If anything, the latter statement is probably slightly more true (but both are bullshit).
|
On August 12 2016 03:27 PassiveAce wrote:
I really want to see Johnson on the debate stage.
I want to see him debate his religious liberty views on any stage. If he was on the big stage this time, it would be funny having a post-Republican candidate for the Republican Party alongside a post-libertarian candidate for the Libertarian party!
|
On August 12 2016 03:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:14 biology]major wrote:On August 12 2016 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 03:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 12 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote:
I can understand not wanting Clinton to be president but not wanting Clinton to be president so badly that you'll take Trump? I don't get it. I honestly think in the grand scheme of things it won't even be that bad if Clinton is elected president. I think there's probably a better than 90% chance I'd survive a Trump presidency. But still. I mean Jesus, can we not do better than that? No we really can't. The politicians need a time out and go the corrupt corner of the classroom and think about their mistakes for the next 4 years. First Past The Post has a lot to answer for. Out of curiousity, given the total opposition to constitutional reform across both parties and the need for crossparty consensus to achieve it, do you have any hope? Because the formation of two distasteful and largely unaccountable blocs is pretty much on the founding fathers imo. FPTP was always going to become a two party system and, as we've seen with the DNC, they get away with corrupt bullshit that wouldn't pass if it wasn't a private organization that was simultaneously a central part of American democracy. We're talking structural problems that are built by, maintained and work for the very people empowered to fix the problems and the longer they're not fixed for the less power the people will have to address them. Personally I think we're fucked forever. You?
If you have such a pessimistic attitude about it then why don't you vote for trump and take that small chance he might actually be effective while causing some serious change in politics? He might be able to set a precedent for non politicians a way into power in future elections and give more competition to career politicians. Hopefully it will be a more well spoken and tempered outsider in the future but it's what we have now. The Republican Party will forever be changed and hopefully become more socially moderate.
And as to your question idk, I think conservatism will either die or morph into something completely different. The changing demographics and the rise of liberal values in young people might damage one party so much that it will not be able to recover.
|
United States43503 Posts
|
United States43503 Posts
On August 12 2016 03:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 03:23 PassiveAce wrote:
If your car doesn't run, you can't get to work. if America doesn't run, the world can't get to work.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are both responsible, hard working republican governors with a proven record. Don't vote for a clown just because you'd like to see DC go up in flames Also if you decide to vote for Johnson over Trump then you can just stay home on election day and tell everyone you voted Johnson. That's a win/win. There's literally no downside to staying home if you're a Johnson supporter. This logic really applies to anyone you vote for, even if you vote in a swing state. This would only not apply if someone won your state by a margin of one vote.
You're not wrong and nor is the logic.
|
Canada11395 Posts
Oh so given a chance to back up and be more accurate, it turns out he did not mean power vacuum, but really, really wants use the word 'founder'.
An incredibly sympathetic interviewer trying to steer him to more truthful territory, but Trump isn't buying.
+ Show Spoiler +HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.
DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.
HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.
DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?
HH: Well, that, you know, I have a saying, Donald Trump, the pneumonic device I use is Every Liberal Really Seems So, So Sad. E is for Egypt, L is for Libya, S is for Syria, R is for Russia reset. They screwed everything up. You don’t get any argument from me. But by using the term founder, they’re hitting with you on this again. Mistake?
DT: No, it’s no mistake. Everyone’s liking it. I think they’re liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don’t know if you heard that.
HH: I did. I did. I played it.
DT: I gave her the co-founder.
HH: I know what you’re arguing…
DT: You’re not, and let me ask you, do you not like that?
HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.
DT: Well, I disagree.
HH: All right, that’s okay.
DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about.
HH: That’s…
DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.
HH: That’s true.
DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.
HH: And that’s, I’d just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I’m keeping you long, and Hope’s going to kill me.
DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?
http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/#more-31501
The reality is the way he is using that word, I don't think it means what he thinks it means, despite him having the best words. If it were Buckley we might hear about proximate cause, which is the closest one could assign to Obama or really any US president. ISIS doesn't necessarily form in the power vacuum. Something does, but not necessarily ISIS, but we had Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his folks as the ultimate cause and here we are. I guess he's trying to pin Obama Founder of ISIS in the same way he got 'Crooked' Hillary, but it's just wrong the way he's using the word founder.
One might as well call King George and Prime Minister Frederick North the Founding Fathers of America, but that would never fly.
|
On August 12 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:28 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 03:21 zlefin wrote:On August 12 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote:
I can understand not wanting Clinton to be president but not wanting Clinton to be president so badly that you'll take Trump? I don't get it. Things would have to be a lot worse for me to consider Trump, or more generally the Republican Party, over even Hillary. But holy fuck is that a bad option. And I don't see any desire for change within the party or the politically active base so it's only likely to get worse. Hillary won't crash the nation and lead it to hell but I am quite sure the country will be worse off after the end of her presidency than it is right now. worse off under which metrics? I ask because there's a great number of possible ways to measure worse off. More ill-thought-out military confrontations. More poorly implemented trade/globalization schemes. Less support for socially progressive movements with only a small bit of true progress through her tenure. More willingness to support even the shitty candidates that the Republican Party will put up by virtue of how weak of a candidate and leader she can be. Ineffective policy implementation in general if her history is any indication. Basically I see Hillary as a "status quo minus" president, a president who will not really push the country forward but who people who are already well off will be happy with. somewhat measurable; though I'd prefer something more clearly measurable. One of the problems with stuff the gov't does imho, is that they don't establish enough good clear metrics by which to measure whether some new program was a success/failure, so they end up always claiming afterwards that it was a success/failure based on partisanship, and due to the nature of politics/lawyering they can always find some arguments for that position; since they didn't establish clear metrics at the start. also, objective measurements, while not capturing the whole story and somewhat malleable, are at least less subject to the bias/distortion of politicians.
Meh, it's a highly subjective / objective but unmeasurable matter. Sticking to what is measurable and objective just because it's what you can measure is probably even more foolish than ignoring data where it is available.
No one knows what the next 4-8 years will look like and we have even less of an idea what the long-term consequences of those years will be. What I predict is based on the results of her previous tenure in office which is not all that great. And I see more effort to spin her mistakes into successes rather than acknowledge them for what they are.
|
On August 12 2016 03:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election.. Founder and co-founder may be a little aggressive, but Hillary and Obama were certainly the equivalent of Series A investors with all of the weapons that they funneled to Syria to topple Assad. forgot this one for a while I think saying that Obama founded ISIS is pretty much an exact equivalent to saying that Ronald Reagan founded Al-Qaeda. If anything, the latter statement is probably slightly more true (but both are bullshit).
I just chalk it up to increasingly dishonest political rhetoric that we see on both sides.
Trump's just gone and escalated it more
On August 12 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 12 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 03:23 PassiveAce wrote:
If your car doesn't run, you can't get to work. if America doesn't run, the world can't get to work.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are both responsible, hard working republican governors with a proven record. Don't vote for a clown just because you'd like to see DC go up in flames Also if you decide to vote for Johnson over Trump then you can just stay home on election day and tell everyone you voted Johnson. That's a win/win. There's literally no downside to staying home if you're a Johnson supporter. This logic really applies to anyone you vote for, even if you vote in a swing state. This would only not apply if someone won your state by a margin of one vote. You're not wrong and nor is the logic.
I don't disagree. I can literally not vote and the result will be the same (unless my state is decided by a margin of 1)
I actually had an argument with one of my professors when they were trying to motivate me to vote in 2012 against this line of reasoning I put forth to justify my not-voting.
One of the points they brought up was that if everyone applied my reasoning, no one would vote and the entire thing ceases to function
I think it just goes to support a critical flaw in democracy. If everyone has the power to vote, then no one really has the power to vote. Your vote is diluted and meaningless in a sea of the collective
|
On August 12 2016 02:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 00:08 Doodsmack wrote:On August 12 2016 00:04 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election.. Chalk another one up for bravado. This election shows how many people in left and center-left simply prefer a media bending over backwards to cover for politicians like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the like. It comes from men and women put forward with experts having ivy league school degrees. The tone is muted and frequently has the NPR vibe. But it is none the less stupid bullshit politely called political spin. So I'm having great trouble sympathizing with Trump's detractors as he goes two steps beyond sane policy statements to the absurd. You just don't like the brash, cocksure flavor of tripe, and would rather have the other kind. Secondly, you're more at home with admitted lies that error close to the left's worldview than the selfsame exaggerations from the right. The histrionics from you and others make this all the more hilarious ... trust me when I've seen the opposite--the Obama administration and fellow-travelers have made it impossible to have a civil political discourse and much of the blame for a bad shift in political climate rests on his shoulders. Yes, pretend Trump's rhetoric is not fundamentally more foul than that of others. Whatever makes you comfortable in your support of Trump, honesty be damned. I just have to stand in disbelief when I mention the difference in tone and draw a distinction along other lines, then back comes a response pretending I'm making a separate claim.
There is a difference in tone, and one is fundamentally more foul and therefore worse. Your "stupid bullshit" equivocation ignores that one could still be fundamentally more foul and damaging.
|
Norway28736 Posts
Danglars was not disputing that Trump's tone is fundamentally more foul. He's rather putting the blame on the left for refusing to acknowledge the message Trump brings until someone with as foul of a tone as Trump brought it.
|
On August 12 2016 03:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 11 2016 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election.. Founder and co-founder may be a little aggressive, but Hillary and Obama were certainly the equivalent of Series A investors with all of the weapons that they funneled to Syria to topple Assad. forgot this one for a while I think saying that Obama founded ISIS is pretty much an exact equivalent to saying that Ronald Reagan founded Al-Qaeda. If anything, the latter statement is probably slightly more true (but both are bullshit). I just chalk it up to increasingly dishonest political rhetoric that we see on both sides. Trump's just gone and escalated it more Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 03:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 12 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 03:23 PassiveAce wrote:
If your car doesn't run, you can't get to work. if America doesn't run, the world can't get to work.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are both responsible, hard working republican governors with a proven record. Don't vote for a clown just because you'd like to see DC go up in flames Also if you decide to vote for Johnson over Trump then you can just stay home on election day and tell everyone you voted Johnson. That's a win/win. There's literally no downside to staying home if you're a Johnson supporter. This logic really applies to anyone you vote for, even if you vote in a swing state. This would only not apply if someone won your state by a margin of one vote. You're not wrong and nor is the logic. I don't disagree. I can literally not vote and the result will be the same (unless my state is decided by a margin of 1) I actually had an argument with one of my professors when they were trying to motivate me to vote in 2012 against this line of reasoning I put forth to justify my not-voting. One of the points they brought up was that if everyone applied my reasoning, no one would vote and the entire thing ceases to function I think it just goes to support a critical flaw in democracy. If everyone has the power to vote, then no one really has the power to vote. Your vote is diluted and meaningless in a sea of the collective
So you're not going to vote? I would say that's fitting for those who think it's np for one candidate to escalate dishonest rhetoric.
|
On August 12 2016 03:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Danglars was not disputing that Trump's tone is fundamentally more foul. He's rather putting the blame on the left for refusing to acknowledge the message Trump brings until someone with as foul of a tone as Trump brought it.
When I say fundamentally foul I'm not referring to tone but to consequence - I should instead say "fundamentally more damaging".
|
"I think saying that Obama founded ISIS is pretty much an exact equivalent to saying that Ronald Reagan founded Al-Qaeda. If anything, the latter statement is probably slightly more true (but both are bullshit)."... Whaaaaa
You just said the truth then qualified it by calling it bullshit... lol good job bro. That some American education going well for you?
It was actually under Jimmy Carter that Zbigniew Brzezinskii came up with the plan to create an army of radical islamists to invade Afghanistan drawn in the Soviets to weaken them www.counterpunch.org... It says "Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.".....
Im sure you are feeling smart (sorry to troll)... Yes ofcourse the Obama government armed rebels in the name of overthrowing Assad and before that Qaddafi... And yes many of them did become ISIS..
www.thedailybeast.com
This is practically a white wash but it still says it...www.bbc.com
Actually I got this book in my hard written by one of my professors at university.. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-dirty-war-on-syria/5491859
(lol still feeling smart)
Please don't pretend to be smart while saying something destroyed in 15 seconds of google searches (and years of academic study)... Don't try and pretend that Hillary had no role in producing this disaster and armed terrorist rebels...
www.theguardian.com..... Yeah thanks Hillary (from Obama) lol
|
On August 12 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On August 12 2016 03:28 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 03:21 zlefin wrote:On August 12 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote:
I can understand not wanting Clinton to be president but not wanting Clinton to be president so badly that you'll take Trump? I don't get it. Things would have to be a lot worse for me to consider Trump, or more generally the Republican Party, over even Hillary. But holy fuck is that a bad option. And I don't see any desire for change within the party or the politically active base so it's only likely to get worse. Hillary won't crash the nation and lead it to hell but I am quite sure the country will be worse off after the end of her presidency than it is right now. worse off under which metrics? I ask because there's a great number of possible ways to measure worse off. More ill-thought-out military confrontations. More poorly implemented trade/globalization schemes. Less support for socially progressive movements with only a small bit of true progress through her tenure. More willingness to support even the shitty candidates that the Republican Party will put up by virtue of how weak of a candidate and leader she can be. Ineffective policy implementation in general if her history is any indication. Basically I see Hillary as a "status quo minus" president, a president who will not really push the country forward but who people who are already well off will be happy with. somewhat measurable; though I'd prefer something more clearly measurable. One of the problems with stuff the gov't does imho, is that they don't establish enough good clear metrics by which to measure whether some new program was a success/failure, so they end up always claiming afterwards that it was a success/failure based on partisanship, and due to the nature of politics/lawyering they can always find some arguments for that position; since they didn't establish clear metrics at the start. also, objective measurements, while not capturing the whole story and somewhat malleable, are at least less subject to the bias/distortion of politicians. Meh, it's a highly subjective / objective but unmeasurable matter. Sticking to what is measurable and objective just because it's what you can measure is probably even more foolish than ignoring data where it is available. No one knows what the next 4-8 years will look like and we have even less of an idea what the long-term consequences of those years will be. What I predict is based on the results of her previous tenure in office which is not all that great. And I see more effort to spin her mistakes into successes rather than acknowledge them for what they are.
you seem to have missed the point about the objectivity. it's to try to prevent politicians from always arguing a program succeeded/failed based on their political position.
the thing is, most of your points to look at are vague enough that you can easily argue you were right regardless of what happens.
e.g.: "More poorly implemented trade/globalization schemes."
|
On August 12 2016 03:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I actually had an argument with one of my professors when they were trying to motivate me to vote in 2012 against this line of reasoning I put forth to justify my not-voting.
One of the points they brought up was that if everyone applied my reasoning, no one would vote and the entire thing ceases to function
I think it just goes to support a critical flaw in democracy. If everyone has the power to vote, then no one really has the power to vote. Your vote is diluted and meaningless in a sea of the collective
On a singular level applied to only one person it may be true. But given that the groups of people who don't have this attitude and instead always vote get what they want a disproportionate amount of the time, voting does seem to make a difference.
On August 12 2016 03:56 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On August 12 2016 03:28 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 03:21 zlefin wrote:On August 12 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote:
I can understand not wanting Clinton to be president but not wanting Clinton to be president so badly that you'll take Trump? I don't get it. Things would have to be a lot worse for me to consider Trump, or more generally the Republican Party, over even Hillary. But holy fuck is that a bad option. And I don't see any desire for change within the party or the politically active base so it's only likely to get worse. Hillary won't crash the nation and lead it to hell but I am quite sure the country will be worse off after the end of her presidency than it is right now. worse off under which metrics? I ask because there's a great number of possible ways to measure worse off. More ill-thought-out military confrontations. More poorly implemented trade/globalization schemes. Less support for socially progressive movements with only a small bit of true progress through her tenure. More willingness to support even the shitty candidates that the Republican Party will put up by virtue of how weak of a candidate and leader she can be. Ineffective policy implementation in general if her history is any indication. Basically I see Hillary as a "status quo minus" president, a president who will not really push the country forward but who people who are already well off will be happy with. somewhat measurable; though I'd prefer something more clearly measurable. One of the problems with stuff the gov't does imho, is that they don't establish enough good clear metrics by which to measure whether some new program was a success/failure, so they end up always claiming afterwards that it was a success/failure based on partisanship, and due to the nature of politics/lawyering they can always find some arguments for that position; since they didn't establish clear metrics at the start. also, objective measurements, while not capturing the whole story and somewhat malleable, are at least less subject to the bias/distortion of politicians. Meh, it's a highly subjective / objective but unmeasurable matter. Sticking to what is measurable and objective just because it's what you can measure is probably even more foolish than ignoring data where it is available. No one knows what the next 4-8 years will look like and we have even less of an idea what the long-term consequences of those years will be. What I predict is based on the results of her previous tenure in office which is not all that great. And I see more effort to spin her mistakes into successes rather than acknowledge them for what they are. you seem to have missed the point about the objectivity. it's to try to prevent politicians from always arguing a program succeeded/failed based on their political position. the thing is, most of your points to look at are vague enough that you can easily argue you were right regardless of what happens. e.g.: "More poorly implemented trade/globalization schemes."
In this case that's more a factor of me not wanting to write a long essay in response to a pretty generic query. I could definitely give a more specific description if I really was interested in fleshing out my position. But I don't think that would do this thread much good right now.
|
On August 12 2016 03:02 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 02:58 a_flayer wrote:
I'm just so relieved that the American public finally seems to be coming to their senses. I was almost willing to go on my knees and beg people not to vote Trump. It was terrifying watching this over the past few months without being able to influence the results. I couldn't believe it when it started to become a real possibility that he would be voted into office... I just don't understand how people can still defend that man after all this.
I'd like to ask some of the recent converts what finally put them over the edge to stop supporting him? The tipping point for me was his incompetence recently, he should have stayed on message after rnc and watched Clinton defeat herself. Instead he takes the attention off policy and goes into controversy after controversy which lets Clinton go completely invisible in the media. I don't support him, but I will still probably vote for him. Anti Clinton is all it is at this point.
What? Voting for him is supporting him...
|
On August 12 2016 03:54 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 12 2016 03:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 11 2016 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election.. Founder and co-founder may be a little aggressive, but Hillary and Obama were certainly the equivalent of Series A investors with all of the weapons that they funneled to Syria to topple Assad. forgot this one for a while I think saying that Obama founded ISIS is pretty much an exact equivalent to saying that Ronald Reagan founded Al-Qaeda. If anything, the latter statement is probably slightly more true (but both are bullshit). I just chalk it up to increasingly dishonest political rhetoric that we see on both sides. Trump's just gone and escalated it more On August 12 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 03:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 12 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 03:23 PassiveAce wrote:
If your car doesn't run, you can't get to work. if America doesn't run, the world can't get to work.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are both responsible, hard working republican governors with a proven record. Don't vote for a clown just because you'd like to see DC go up in flames Also if you decide to vote for Johnson over Trump then you can just stay home on election day and tell everyone you voted Johnson. That's a win/win. There's literally no downside to staying home if you're a Johnson supporter. This logic really applies to anyone you vote for, even if you vote in a swing state. This would only not apply if someone won your state by a margin of one vote. You're not wrong and nor is the logic. I don't disagree. I can literally not vote and the result will be the same (unless my state is decided by a margin of 1) I actually had an argument with one of my professors when they were trying to motivate me to vote in 2012 against this line of reasoning I put forth to justify my not-voting. One of the points they brought up was that if everyone applied my reasoning, no one would vote and the entire thing ceases to function I think it just goes to support a critical flaw in democracy. If everyone has the power to vote, then no one really has the power to vote. Your vote is diluted and meaningless in a sea of the collective So you're not going to vote? I would say that's fitting for those who think it's np for one candidate to escalate dishonest rhetoric.
I'm probably going to vote by absentee ballot
My ideal November is Trump winning presidency with the Senate/House being taken over by the Democrats
|
On August 12 2016 04:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 03:54 Doodsmack wrote:On August 12 2016 03:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 12 2016 03:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 11 2016 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election.. Founder and co-founder may be a little aggressive, but Hillary and Obama were certainly the equivalent of Series A investors with all of the weapons that they funneled to Syria to topple Assad. forgot this one for a while I think saying that Obama founded ISIS is pretty much an exact equivalent to saying that Ronald Reagan founded Al-Qaeda. If anything, the latter statement is probably slightly more true (but both are bullshit). I just chalk it up to increasingly dishonest political rhetoric that we see on both sides. Trump's just gone and escalated it more On August 12 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 03:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 12 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 03:23 PassiveAce wrote:
If your car doesn't run, you can't get to work. if America doesn't run, the world can't get to work.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are both responsible, hard working republican governors with a proven record. Don't vote for a clown just because you'd like to see DC go up in flames Also if you decide to vote for Johnson over Trump then you can just stay home on election day and tell everyone you voted Johnson. That's a win/win. There's literally no downside to staying home if you're a Johnson supporter. This logic really applies to anyone you vote for, even if you vote in a swing state. This would only not apply if someone won your state by a margin of one vote. You're not wrong and nor is the logic. I don't disagree. I can literally not vote and the result will be the same (unless my state is decided by a margin of 1) I actually had an argument with one of my professors when they were trying to motivate me to vote in 2012 against this line of reasoning I put forth to justify my not-voting. One of the points they brought up was that if everyone applied my reasoning, no one would vote and the entire thing ceases to function I think it just goes to support a critical flaw in democracy. If everyone has the power to vote, then no one really has the power to vote. Your vote is diluted and meaningless in a sea of the collective So you're not going to vote? I would say that's fitting for those who think it's np for one candidate to escalate dishonest rhetoric. Trump winning presidency
That is one dangerous dice roll my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
