|
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 September 19 2016 07:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 07:32 LegalLord wrote:
Kasich is only ok until you actually listen to what he has to say.
Which is hard to do because he has like no presence whatsoever. Yeah, for the first couple weeks I was a guy rooting for Kasich even though I expected Trump to take the primary... And then the more I listened, bleh. He was the only one of the four than accepted global warming due to human causes though, that was the gg no re play.
So believing that makes you an invalid presidential candidate, in your opinion?
|
On September 19 2016 09:44 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 07:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 07:32 LegalLord wrote:
Kasich is only ok until you actually listen to what he has to say.
Which is hard to do because he has like no presence whatsoever. Yeah, for the first couple weeks I was a guy rooting for Kasich even though I expected Trump to take the primary... And then the more I listened, bleh. He was the only one of the four than accepted global warming due to human causes though, that was the gg no re play. So believing that makes you an invalid presidential candidate, in your opinion?
I understood him the other way around. He liked Kasich, then he listened to him and didn't like him, but the fact that he accepts global warming still makes him better than any of the other republican candidates.
|
On September 19 2016 09:15 Nevuk wrote:Man, Johnson... I thought you stopped smoking weed a few months ago... Show nested quote +
Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson appeared on CNN on Sunday, where he had a conversation about the three violent events that took place over the weekend. Unfortunately, the former New Mexico governor slipped up when he seriously undercounted the amount of people who were harmed.
Johnson is still coming off of his “what is Aleppo” gaffe from a few weeks ago, and Stelter asked for his thoughts about the attacks.
“[I’m] just grateful that nobody got hurt,” said Johnson. “Secondly, law enforcement is on the scene, responders are on the scene. If there’s anything I learned having been governor of New Mexico for eight years is that these people really do care, they are really qualified.”
Twenty-nine people were harmed by the bombing in New York City, while 9 more were stabbed by a knifeman at a mall in Minnesota. It is possible that Johnson meant to say that no one was killed, since neither event resulted in any deaths.
Following the interview, Johnson’s campaign website put out a statement expressing sympathy for those who were hurt in the attacks.
“Our thoughts are with the those injured in the attacks in New York City and Minnesota,” the press release reads. “Our law enforcement authorities will get to the bottom of these attacks, we will learn, and we will act.”
Watch above, via CNN.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gary-johnson-is-glad-nobody-got-hurt-in-nj-ny-mn-attacks/
The most ridiculous part is that the last thing the anchor says before that is 'stabbings at a mall in Minnesota, that person then shot by the police' and he still doesn't get it
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States42689 Posts
I dunno, seems a pretty clear case of having misspoken, given that nobody died. He put his foot in his mouth but we all know what he actually wanted to say. It's not like "Obama founded ISIS".
|
Feel like it's pretty obvious he meant killed. But I do find it amusing that their gaffs get more attention than anything sensible they say. The media isn't even trying to pretend to be informative any more. they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info".
|
On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info".
Hence Donald Trump, the TV candidate.
|
On September 19 2016 09:09 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:04 IgnE wrote:On September 19 2016 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 05:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:The extent of my formal knowledge training is (read that whole book word for word): https://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Professional-Engineering-Geoscience-Paperback/dp/0176509909and a course on: "A case study analysis of the practice of science as a human activity. The theories linking the emergence of modern science to western culture are considered. An analysis of ideas of the social structure of scientific activity including: the role of examples in forming scientific theories, the value system of scientists in both basic research and applied research environments, "individual genius" vs multiple discovery, and the influence of "leading" figures. The linkages of scientific activity with other cultural dimensions are explored and the bases for formulation of "science policy" are considered." I wasn't captivated enough in the topics, we discussed the four popular ethical systems... I was the say it was the virtue ethics (Plato or Aristotle?), locke's rights ethics, Kant ethics, and Mill's Utilitarianism. In my eyes they are use different assumptions that have no merit in absolute terms... And even when we discussed professional ethics, it's like oh, consider this ethic, oh this doesn't look socially acceptable, so use a different ethos instead. They weren't philosophy courses, but man, the way they taught it, and the people around me, bleh.... Not a fan. You get a different answer depending on depth your argument gets to, and you can go to an infinite depth or until you reach the conclusion that nothing has any meaning, and you say fuck it. I spent quite some time and discussions on this, and it didn't lead to anything. If someone like me can't reach a result with significant time investment and genuine interest, I definitely don't think the majority of the public will either. And blindly following an ethos to me is like blindly following a religion... It's meaningless if you don't justify it to yourself, which makes it even more screwed up, because then it makes no sense to pursue the interests of your philosophy for anything else but your self interest. that's a decent coverage then; but it doesn't change that science, evidence, and reason can be useful tools for exploring those issues. and that most people of the public will get far has NO bearing on whether they're useful tools. and the point is to not blindly follow; that goes against the ENTIRE point of science. The point is that everything is backed up by piles of evidence and support. so again that point has no bearing. i.e. you said a bunch of reasonable things; they just don't support your initial premise, which was the topic of the dispute. fiwikaki is making a great point: trumpism is political. it reinstates the "us vs. them" that defines politics. the technocratic bureaucratization of the Third Way, which is really just the evolution of the apolitical liberalism post-Kennedy, turned politics into economics. the republicans and democrats became competitors in a kind of economic sense, not enemies (hostis), and so sapped the truly political from politics. the only question was which bureaucrat to pick to regularize our lives for us, hollowing out the concept of the sovereign and replacing it with technocratic administration of biopower. now the right (and the left in the form of bernie sanders) have reinjected the human element into lawmaking and the political element into politics. its not surprising given the american obsession with locke that it leads the world in this technocratic move to efface sovereignty, since as carl schmitt notes it was locke who said that "law gives authority" but did not recognize to whom it gives authority. in this case the authority is now diffused through the executive and his administrative/regulative law making/executing apparatus. look at congress. this is not really germane to the discussion we were having, at all. So I'm not sure why you're replying to our discussion with it. It's also a bunch of pseudophilosophical nonsense.
it's totally germane. he basically said that "liberals" were apolitical "rationalists" and that "conservatives" have values which would necessarily put them into conflict.
|
On September 19 2016 09:58 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info". Hence Donald Trump, the TV candidate.
The man knows his audience. No coincidence that the guy most universally accepted as the worst nominated candidate in any of our lives is statistically tied (and gaining voters) with the candidate, who before this cycle was the most certain winner we can remember.
At some point people are going to have to admit Hillary has to be a terrible candidate or Trump isn't as bad as they/she paints him (or America really is full of terrible people).
|
On September 19 2016 09:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:09 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 09:04 IgnE wrote:On September 19 2016 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 05:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:The extent of my formal knowledge training is (read that whole book word for word): https://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Professional-Engineering-Geoscience-Paperback/dp/0176509909and a course on: "A case study analysis of the practice of science as a human activity. The theories linking the emergence of modern science to western culture are considered. An analysis of ideas of the social structure of scientific activity including: the role of examples in forming scientific theories, the value system of scientists in both basic research and applied research environments, "individual genius" vs multiple discovery, and the influence of "leading" figures. The linkages of scientific activity with other cultural dimensions are explored and the bases for formulation of "science policy" are considered." I wasn't captivated enough in the topics, we discussed the four popular ethical systems... I was the say it was the virtue ethics (Plato or Aristotle?), locke's rights ethics, Kant ethics, and Mill's Utilitarianism. In my eyes they are use different assumptions that have no merit in absolute terms... And even when we discussed professional ethics, it's like oh, consider this ethic, oh this doesn't look socially acceptable, so use a different ethos instead. They weren't philosophy courses, but man, the way they taught it, and the people around me, bleh.... Not a fan. You get a different answer depending on depth your argument gets to, and you can go to an infinite depth or until you reach the conclusion that nothing has any meaning, and you say fuck it. I spent quite some time and discussions on this, and it didn't lead to anything. If someone like me can't reach a result with significant time investment and genuine interest, I definitely don't think the majority of the public will either. And blindly following an ethos to me is like blindly following a religion... It's meaningless if you don't justify it to yourself, which makes it even more screwed up, because then it makes no sense to pursue the interests of your philosophy for anything else but your self interest. that's a decent coverage then; but it doesn't change that science, evidence, and reason can be useful tools for exploring those issues. and that most people of the public will get far has NO bearing on whether they're useful tools. and the point is to not blindly follow; that goes against the ENTIRE point of science. The point is that everything is backed up by piles of evidence and support. so again that point has no bearing. i.e. you said a bunch of reasonable things; they just don't support your initial premise, which was the topic of the dispute. fiwikaki is making a great point: trumpism is political. it reinstates the "us vs. them" that defines politics. the technocratic bureaucratization of the Third Way, which is really just the evolution of the apolitical liberalism post-Kennedy, turned politics into economics. the republicans and democrats became competitors in a kind of economic sense, not enemies (hostis), and so sapped the truly political from politics. the only question was which bureaucrat to pick to regularize our lives for us, hollowing out the concept of the sovereign and replacing it with technocratic administration of biopower. now the right (and the left in the form of bernie sanders) have reinjected the human element into lawmaking and the political element into politics. its not surprising given the american obsession with locke that it leads the world in this technocratic move to efface sovereignty, since as carl schmitt notes it was locke who said that "law gives authority" but did not recognize to whom it gives authority. in this case the authority is now diffused through the executive and his administrative/regulative law making/executing apparatus. look at congress. this is not really germane to the discussion we were having, at all. So I'm not sure why you're replying to our discussion with it. It's also a bunch of pseudophilosophical nonsense. it's totally germane. he basically said that "liberals" were apolitical "rationalists" and that "conservatives" have values which would necessarily put them into conflict.
ok, now that is more intelligible. Perhaps your other post was done in some sort of jargon?
|
On September 19 2016 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:58 Doodsmack wrote:On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info". Hence Donald Trump, the TV candidate. The man knows his audience. No coincidence that the guy most universally accepted as the worst nominated candidate in any of our lives is statistically tied (and gaining voters) with the candidate, who before this cycle was the most certain winner we can remember. At some point people are going to have to admit Hillary has to be a terrible candidate or Trump isn't as bad as they/she paints him (or America really is full of terrible people).
what nonsense are you talking about? lots of people have admitted hillary is a poor candidate for a long time now; including a lot of people voting for her.
|
On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feel like it's pretty obvious he meant killed. But I do find it amusing that their gaffs get more attention than anything sensible they say. The media isn't even trying to pretend to be informative any more. they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info".
I'm wondering if Johnson's best strategy wouldn't be to make a gaffe almost every day, honestly. I'm not sure what voters he could really lose and increased exposure would likely only help him.
|
On September 19 2016 10:06 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2016 09:58 Doodsmack wrote:On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info". Hence Donald Trump, the TV candidate. The man knows his audience. No coincidence that the guy most universally accepted as the worst nominated candidate in any of our lives is statistically tied (and gaining voters) with the candidate, who before this cycle was the most certain winner we can remember. At some point people are going to have to admit Hillary has to be a terrible candidate or Trump isn't as bad as they/she paints him (or America really is full of terrible people). what nonsense are you talking about? lots of people have admitted hillary is a poor candidate for a long time now; including a lot of people voting for her.
There are LOTS of people still acting as if Hillary is a great candidate (or neglected to admit they were wrong about how great they claimed she was all primary) not all of them are here, but one that comes to mind is Kwiz.
On September 19 2016 10:07 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feel like it's pretty obvious he meant killed. But I do find it amusing that their gaffs get more attention than anything sensible they say. The media isn't even trying to pretend to be informative any more. they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info". I'm wondering if Johnson's best strategy wouldn't be to make a gaffe almost every day, honestly. I'm not sure what voters he could really lose and increased exposure would likely only help him.
He didn't take any hit on Aleppo at all, my guess is people who didn't know about him didn't know what Aleppo was either and the people who do don't care because they want out anyway.
|
On September 19 2016 09:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:09 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 09:04 IgnE wrote:On September 19 2016 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 05:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:The extent of my formal knowledge training is (read that whole book word for word): https://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Professional-Engineering-Geoscience-Paperback/dp/0176509909and a course on: "A case study analysis of the practice of science as a human activity. The theories linking the emergence of modern science to western culture are considered. An analysis of ideas of the social structure of scientific activity including: the role of examples in forming scientific theories, the value system of scientists in both basic research and applied research environments, "individual genius" vs multiple discovery, and the influence of "leading" figures. The linkages of scientific activity with other cultural dimensions are explored and the bases for formulation of "science policy" are considered." I wasn't captivated enough in the topics, we discussed the four popular ethical systems... I was the say it was the virtue ethics (Plato or Aristotle?), locke's rights ethics, Kant ethics, and Mill's Utilitarianism. In my eyes they are use different assumptions that have no merit in absolute terms... And even when we discussed professional ethics, it's like oh, consider this ethic, oh this doesn't look socially acceptable, so use a different ethos instead. They weren't philosophy courses, but man, the way they taught it, and the people around me, bleh.... Not a fan. You get a different answer depending on depth your argument gets to, and you can go to an infinite depth or until you reach the conclusion that nothing has any meaning, and you say fuck it. I spent quite some time and discussions on this, and it didn't lead to anything. If someone like me can't reach a result with significant time investment and genuine interest, I definitely don't think the majority of the public will either. And blindly following an ethos to me is like blindly following a religion... It's meaningless if you don't justify it to yourself, which makes it even more screwed up, because then it makes no sense to pursue the interests of your philosophy for anything else but your self interest. that's a decent coverage then; but it doesn't change that science, evidence, and reason can be useful tools for exploring those issues. and that most people of the public will get far has NO bearing on whether they're useful tools. and the point is to not blindly follow; that goes against the ENTIRE point of science. The point is that everything is backed up by piles of evidence and support. so again that point has no bearing. i.e. you said a bunch of reasonable things; they just don't support your initial premise, which was the topic of the dispute. fiwikaki is making a great point: trumpism is political. it reinstates the "us vs. them" that defines politics. the technocratic bureaucratization of the Third Way, which is really just the evolution of the apolitical liberalism post-Kennedy, turned politics into economics. the republicans and democrats became competitors in a kind of economic sense, not enemies (hostis), and so sapped the truly political from politics. the only question was which bureaucrat to pick to regularize our lives for us, hollowing out the concept of the sovereign and replacing it with technocratic administration of biopower. now the right (and the left in the form of bernie sanders) have reinjected the human element into lawmaking and the political element into politics. its not surprising given the american obsession with locke that it leads the world in this technocratic move to efface sovereignty, since as carl schmitt notes it was locke who said that "law gives authority" but did not recognize to whom it gives authority. in this case the authority is now diffused through the executive and his administrative/regulative law making/executing apparatus. look at congress. this is not really germane to the discussion we were having, at all. So I'm not sure why you're replying to our discussion with it. It's also a bunch of pseudophilosophical nonsense. it's totally germane. he basically said that "liberals" were apolitical "rationalists" and that "conservatives" have values which would necessarily put them into conflict.
If Trump is the new face of the 'political' then bring the soulless bureaucrats back pls
|
On September 19 2016 10:07 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feel like it's pretty obvious he meant killed. But I do find it amusing that their gaffs get more attention than anything sensible they say. The media isn't even trying to pretend to be informative any more. they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info". I'm wondering if Johnson's best strategy wouldn't be to make a gaffe almost every day, honestly. I'm not sure what voters he could really lose and increased exposure would likely only help him.
With a gaff based strategy he could encroach on Trump's monopoly in the memester demographic
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2016 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:58 Doodsmack wrote:On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info". Hence Donald Trump, the TV candidate. At some point people are going to have to admit Hillary has to be a terrible candidate or Trump isn't as bad as they/she paints him (or America really is full of terrible people).
I think all three assertions are at least partially valid.
|
On September 19 2016 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:58 Doodsmack wrote:On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info". Hence Donald Trump, the TV candidate. The man knows his audience. No coincidence that the guy most universally accepted as the worst nominated candidate in any of our lives is statistically tied (and gaining voters) with the candidate, who before this cycle was the most certain winner we can remember. At some point people are going to have to admit Hillary has to be a terrible candidate or Trump isn't as bad as they/she paints him (or America really is full of terrible people).
I thought we already knew that America was full of terrible people? The whole world is, and the average person in every country is going to be a bumbling moron who is easily persuaded by lies and fancy commercials or outrageous clickbait articles?
|
On September 19 2016 10:07 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feel like it's pretty obvious he meant killed. But I do find it amusing that their gaffs get more attention than anything sensible they say. The media isn't even trying to pretend to be informative any more. they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info". I'm wondering if Johnson's best strategy wouldn't be to make a gaffe almost every day, honestly. I'm not sure what voters he could really lose and increased exposure would likely only help him.
How many Americans know what Aleppo is? Can't only 1/3 of Americans find Iraq on the map? I think we're overestimating the impact of his minor gaffe.
|
On September 19 2016 10:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 10:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 19 2016 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Feel like it's pretty obvious he meant killed. But I do find it amusing that their gaffs get more attention than anything sensible they say. The media isn't even trying to pretend to be informative any more. they are just outright openly infotainment at this point, and light on the "info". I'm wondering if Johnson's best strategy wouldn't be to make a gaffe almost every day, honestly. I'm not sure what voters he could really lose and increased exposure would likely only help him. How many Americans know what Aleppo is? Can't only 1/3 of Americans find Iraq on the map? I think we're overestimating the impact of his minor gaffe.
The Aleppo one probably helped him overall due to how much play it got (and it honestly sounded kind of hilarious), this one will be a better test of his numbers I think as while it's a smaller actual mistake it's much easier to relate to.
|
I suspect Johnson just thought they were discussing the NJ race bombing where, indeed, nobody was injured. Or maybe he was only briefed on that one.
The whole thing is getting real fucking weird though with this video showing one man dropping off the second unexploded pressure cooker in a duffel bag + plastic bag and two other men coming and taking it out of the duffel bag and just leaving it there. Oh, and leaving a piece of paper there with what's possibly a note (which makes no sense if it was ever going to explode).
And it doesn't even really make sense if it was a warning/"this also could have blown" thing, because then there's no reason to involve another two people. Just bizarre.
|
On September 19 2016 09:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 09:00 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2016 06:05 LegalLord wrote:
I am strongly of the opinion that Ted Cruz' speech at the RNC is going to be bad for his career. He's hoping to weather the Trump storm and go back to business as usual for next election cycle. But Trump didn't win for no reason, and the factors that made him popular will still exist next time around. You sound like you're making the argument that the party is going one direction and Cruz is going another. That's really not tied to a speech. He came to the convention and made one hell of a gambit by pretty much implicitly denouncing the party nominee. He didn't explicitly do it but everyone knows that that's what he meant to do. He does that in the hopes that after Trump loses, the party will return to where it was and he'll be lauded for being one of the brave anti-Trump skeptics. Well it's not going to work like that - Trump won because a lot of the party supports him, and Cruz is going to be seen as a mutineer of the party for the next cycle. So he's going to be, at best, a safe Senator that everyone hates.
I liked that speech and was half surprised at the big media coverage on the rest. Good job talking about American freedoms, good criticism of Obama and Hillary. Now for a guy whose wife was criticized on her looks, conspiracy on the father, birtherism round two ... voting your conscience was about as far as support could be expected to go. That's just where conservatives still remain now, conscience demands Hillary not be elected president. So the speech for me wasn't all that big a deal. Reagan himself didn't endorse Ford in Reagan's losing primary campaign (Manafort funny enough working for the Ford campaign back then). I keep going back to it because I wonder what I missed, and every time it looks as manufactured as the Trump campaign allowing him on stage and orchestrating the boos afterwards. Simultaneously, it was too unremarkable to be "lauded as a brave anti-Trump skeptics" by anybody but the craziest of fans. Cruz before, during, and after the campaign is so static a portrayal to be plain to me he has no need for crazy hopes and plays that focus around Trump. He was a conservative and has an agenda in line with it, and continues to back the same issues.
I'm still open on where the party goes from here. Trump trade policy sickens me but it's found support. xDaunt has some persuasive arguments on republican virtue and the pandering to a new base strategy. If you're not a minority or LGBT (some would add 'or a woman' here), the dems aren't interested in crafting policy to gain your vote. Trump swoops in blaming the economy on China and doesn't call your immigration views racist and your foreign policy views Islamophobic. He throws a couple useful bones to conservatives like Pence, secure the border, cut taxes, and he's locked in that vote to go after a liberal stimulus (Double Hillary's!) & entitlement program. I just don't know how much Trumpism or new identity politics/pandering will settle into the party. We might get to see what issues Trump fights on after election if Hillary keeps fumbling around for campaign direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
