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 September 02 2016 09:27 Danglars wrote: She's not policies, she's not experience, she's the anti-Trump! Trump needs that outstanding debate performance to win because he is behind and he hasn't been campaigning in swing states hard. But if Hillary has a bad show she'll suffer hard.
One of the most dangerous things about Trump is that Hillary is convinced that she can be any degree of shitty president as long as she can just convince people that she isn't Trump so it's automatically good and justified.
Has Hillary even given a compelling reason to vote for her yet? Her message is mostly focused on the status quo and voting against Trump, both of which are problematic in terms of engendering real support for her.
I mean she pretty much has a lengthy policy program on pretty much any topic. it's not really her fault for nobody reading it, can't sum up every policy in a 140 character tweet.
Just went to her site to learn her immigration policy and it turns out there is none??
On September 02 2016 20:30 farvacola wrote: Perhaps it's time to brush up on your website exploration skills then. Her immigration policy is clearly laid out on her campaign's site lol.
oh ok, I did a cursory look on my phone. Will check again when I get some time.
I don't think that's a fair representation of his view at all plansix. From quickly googling, the top hit I got was a blogpost of his ending with the line "Note to Gawker Readers: I don’t say mutual consent is necessary because that should be obvious. If you’re hung up on that, you’re missing the point." And while I don't agree with his opinion that western societies are matriarchies, he in the same blogpost goes on to say that daesh-controlled areas are what real patriarchies look like - if anything he's saying that a real matriarchy is preferable to a real patriarchy.
That said, I do think that while his insight on persuasion and that his moist robot theory of how humans are 'shaped' both have some merit, he's taken it too far and basically entirely discounts policy from the equation, and it largely looks like he's trying to backtrack from his 'trump is gonna win a landslide victory in the general election' prediction through saying that 'it wasn't wrong because I was wrong, but because Hillary consulted with persuasion master wizards because she realized I was right' or something to that effect. I basically think he thinks the persuasion tactics he describes are able to sway a much smaller percentage of the population than what he thinks is the case, especially in the case where an opinion of a person has already been formed. If Trump had been a blank slate prior to the election, perhaps the Scott Adams explanation would've had more to it, but his favorability ratings to me seem fairly consistent, and whether people like Trump or not seems to depend more upon whether they agree with his immigration policy than anything else, not whether they've been convinced that he's an unhinged fascist likely to start nuclear war.
note: I didn't watch the linked youtube video, but I've read most of his persuasion blog series - without being particularly persuaded.
On September 02 2016 20:30 farvacola wrote: Perhaps it's time to brush up on your website exploration skills then. Her immigration policy is clearly laid out on her campaign's site lol.
oh ok, I did a cursory look on my phone. Will check again when I get some time.
It's worth noting that Clinton largely supports Obama's policies as the status quo, so her immigration platform centers around suring up the DREAM Act, DACA, and DAPA while supposedly making the process "more humane." As blue-blooded as I may be, I won't hold my breath on that last bit lol.
I am inferring a bit there and letting my personal opinion of him show through. But I’m grossed out by his blogs about the desire to have sex with women but then portraying that they might say no as some sort of injustice. I’ve seen several of them over the era and there is a reason he put that line about “gawker readers” in there. That is not the first time he has talked about consent in a manner that raises eyebrows.
Its really really not. His analysis isnt anything a Trump fan wont tell you. He isnt telling you anything xDaunt and Oblade havent already implied or suggested for months now.
On September 02 2016 16:51 CorsairHero wrote: apparently "illegal immigrants" is an incendiary term according to Gary Johnson because it just is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs
Its really really not. His analysis isnt anything a Trump fan wont tell you. He isnt telling you anything xDaunt and Oblade havent already implied or suggested for months now.
I'm not really sure why you say that. This guy has a completely different perspective than I do (I'll let oBlade speak for himself, but I suspect that he'd echo my comments).
That said, I find his argument that Trump is the most "libertarian" candidate interesting, and I find it rather hard to disagree. And I also think that Hillary better matches the politics of the #neverTrump republicans (particularly those with neocon leanings) than Gary Johnson does.
On September 02 2016 16:51 CorsairHero wrote: apparently "illegal immigrants" is an incendiary term according to Gary Johnson because it just is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs
Its really really not. His analysis isnt anything a Drumpf fan wont tell you. He isnt telling you anything xDaunt and Oblade havent already implied or suggested for months now.
I'm not really sure why you say that. This guy has a completely different perspective than I do (I'll let oBlade speak for himself, but I suspect that he'd echo my comments).
That said, I find his argument that Drumpf is the most "libertarian" candidate interesting, and I find it rather hard to disagree. And I also think that Hillary better matches the politics of the #neverTrump republicans (particularly those with neocon leanings) than Gary Johnson does.
I dont have the time or the inclination to break down why I think that, so I will just concede being wrong here. My apologies.
On September 02 2016 20:43 Liquid`Drone wrote: whether people like Trump or not seems to depend more upon whether they agree with his immigration policy than anything else
Precisely, he's immigration-centric. His strongest base of support is in tribalistic white nationalists (of which King Birther Trump is probably one). To believe that can win a presidential election is just silly.
Wishing I had bet on Hillary beating Trump last summer, when I predicted it .
Its really really not. His analysis isnt anything a Trump fan wont tell you. He isnt telling you anything xDaunt and Oblade havent already implied or suggested for months now.
I'm not really sure why you say that. This guy has a completely different perspective than I do (I'll let oBlade speak for himself, but I suspect that he'd echo my comments).
That said, I find his argument that Trump is the most "libertarian" candidate interesting, and I find it rather hard to disagree. And I also think that Hillary better matches the politics of the #neverTrump republicans (particularly those with neocon leanings) than Gary Johnson does.
Can I get a timestamp on the "Trump as libertarian" bit? I kind of what to hear his thought process behind that, because I'm not sure I would characterize a single one of Trump's policies as libertarian (even his tax policies) and he's pretty much an anti-Roark/anti-John Galt.