US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4731

On August 13 2016 09:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Worse we could see large scale post political violence if Trump and his supporters don't get their way, first in history for this country.

On August 13 2016 08:09 TheYango wrote:

Sure, I'll agree that he pivoted at a point where it was simply politically expedient for him, and that's reasonable to hold against him. But the idea that "personally against abortion but support pro-choice" is somehow a logically indefensible position as is stated by the second article you linked is just wrong in my mind. The first article is much more convincing.

The role of lawmaking is to create rules to maintain a functioning society. It is not to impose certain morals on that society. In some cases, the two are aligned with one another (i.e. a society where people are allowed to kill or steal from each other wouldn't function very well, so laws punishing murder and theft both protect commonly accepted morals as well as maintain society's function), but in places where moral issues do not directly impact society's proper function, or even impede proper function, lawmakers bringing their personal morals into the business of lawmaking is a conflict of interest.

Intelligent lawmakers should recognize where these conflicts arise, and as such, Christian morals should never even enter into the discussion of the legality of abortion. As far as lawmaking is concerned, it should be totally irrelevant. Thus, being "personally against abortion but against making laws against it" is completely reasonable. That people think it's not and are holding it against Kaine detracts from more legitimate arguments against him.

On August 13 2016 09:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Worse we could see large scale post political violence if Trump and his supporters don't get their way, first in history for this country.

On August 13 2016 10:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
-Everyone acting like the Trump supporters being violent if Hillary wins will be a problem when we've already had violent and destructive riots at Trump rallies from neverTrumpers and he hasn't even won yet

Lol

On August 13 2016 09:41 TheYango wrote:
I don't believe for a second that Hillary represents the working class but she's at least politically obligated to throw them a bone because of the party she's aligned herself with.

Trump has no such obligation because its the fucking GOP.

On August 13 2016 10:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
-Everyone acting like the Trump supporters being violent if Hillary wins will be a problem when we've already had violent and destructive riots at Trump rallies from neverTrumpers and he hasn't even won yet

Lol

On August 13 2016 10:05 Introvert wrote:


We've had some... aggressive protests from leftists (not as many as I feared may occur), but not any from never Trump people. nevertrump refers to certain people on the right, not just those who oppose Trump generally.

On August 13 2016 10:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
-Everyone acting like the Trump supporters being violent if Hillary wins will be a problem when we've already had violent and destructive riots at Trump rallies from neverTrumpers and he hasn't even won yet

Lol

On August 13 2016 10:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


I guess I was using a more broad definition of the term 'neverTrumpers' to encompass the violent/destructive riots that happened throughout June

On August 13 2016 10:02 Danglars wrote:

Thank you for allowing that he radically changed his opinions on morals when it made sense in political expediency.

I can't go with you as far as "it should be totally irrelevant," for grounds you might expect. Preserving a lawfully functioning society does mean defending its unborn, just as it used to be "commonly accepted morals" in the past, and ought to be in the future. However, this is the fiercely debated line that neither candidate makes their rallying cry, and so it will remain in the backlines for the 2016 election.

The leader of Islamic State’s branch in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been killed in a US drone strike, the American military has confirmed.

The death of Hafiz Saeed Khan – confirmed by a US defence official on Friday night – is a blow to efforts by Isis to expand its control from its Middle East territory into Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It marks the second US killing of a prominent militant in the region in recent months. In May a US drone killed Mullah Akhtar Mansour, the Afghan Taliban leader, in a strike in Pakistan.

Despite that, Afghanistan’s 15-year-old war grinds on with no clear victory in sight. Taliban fighters have been threatening at least two provincial capitals this summer, in Helmand and Kunduz, and a US government report said Afghan forces have lost 5% of territory this year.

Isis has been largely confined to a handful of districts in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province – where Khan was killed – which borders Pakistan. Isis militants – mostly defectors from the Taliban – are blamed for raiding villages and government outposts in the area.

However worries that Isis might be expanding its operational reach heightened this week when the group claimed credit for an attack on a hospital that killed at least 74 people in the Pakistani city of Quetta. A Pakistani Taliban faction also claimed responsibility.

Khan had been reported dead before. Last year Afghan intelligence agents claimed he had been killed but the report was never confirmed.

On August 13 2016 10:19 TMagpie wrote:


It's always easy to lump together different groups of people you disagree with into one negative slogan so can more easily be hateful to all of them at once.

On August 13 2016 10:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


I don't hate any of them I'm making a point that I'm really not worried at all about violent Trump supporters come November if Clinton wins when most of them are older people with working jobs and families

I don't have any statistics to back this up maybe someone can confirm/refute me here but I'd be willing to bet that more violent crime offenders or destruction of property offenders are democrats than republicans

I'd be much more worried of the riots if Trump wins than if he loses

another positive of Clinton winning I suppose - less violent riots

On August 13 2016 10:33 IgnE wrote:


is that because democrats are more likely to be black?

On August 13 2016 10:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


I don't know. If anyone here has stats on it that would be interesting

Is one party more likely to commit violent crimes / destroy property than the other and to what degree

and if the trends exist, do they transcend race

my bet is yes on all accounts for the democrats being more likely, but to what degree I have no idea

On August 13 2016 10:42 zlefin wrote:


poking around some online; there doesn't appear to be good or reliable data. There's a lot of confounding factors which make it hard to tell.
most of the effects that are detected are the result of confounding factors from what I can tell.

and I decline to bet, as there is insufficient information; and the risk of bias making you think the other side commits more crimes seems high.

On August 13 2016 10:08 oBlade wrote:
So she pretends to care to keep people voting for the blue scam, and meanwhile no Republican would ever be the best choice because, I mean, come on, Republicans, that's just the wrong party.

On August 13 2016 10:02 Danglars wrote:
I can't go with you as far as "it should be totally irrelevant," for grounds you might expect. Preserving a lawfully functioning society does mean defending its unborn, just as it used to be "commonly accepted morals" in the past, and ought to be in the future. However, this is the fiercely debated line that neither candidate makes their rallying cry, and so it will remain in the backlines for the 2016 election.