US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5038

On September 20 2016 02:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
what if there's already present a number of people who might statistically be more likely to become autocombusters if they are discriminated against by the reasoning that they are more likely to autocombust than other people? Like, say there are 1000000 people living somewhere, and they have an autocombustability rate of 1/100000, so 10 of those are gonna autocombust the next year. Then, from the outside, there's a group of 100000 people, who are exactly the same as that first group, except their autocombustability rate is 20/100000- so by admitting that group, you'd have a tripling of the autocombusting. However, the first group of 1000000 which has a current autocombustability rate of 1/100000 is going to somehow start combusting more frequently if the first group is not admitted (because the restriction of access to that group is bound to be coupled with distrust and mistreatment towards people who seem to belong to that group and people experiencing distrust and mistreatment are more likely to autocombust), perhaps reaching an autocombustability rate of 5/100000, which would be more total than what we'd experience allowing the initial group of high-risk autocombusters to enter.

On September 20 2016 02:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
what if there's already present a number of people who might statistically be more likely to become autocombusters if they are discriminated against by the reasoning that they are more likely to autocombust than other people? Like, say there are 1000000 people living somewhere, and they have an autocombustability rate of 1/100000, so 10 of those are gonna autocombust the next year. Then, from the outside, there's a group of 100000 people, who are exactly the same as that first group, except their autocombustability rate is 20/100000- so by admitting that group, you'd have a tripling of the autocombusting. However, the first group of 1000000 which has a current autocombustability rate of 1/100000 is going to somehow start combusting more frequently if the first group is not admitted (because the restriction of access to that group is bound to be coupled with distrust and mistreatment towards people who seem to belong to that group and people experiencing distrust and mistreatment are more likely to autocombust), perhaps reaching an autocombustability rate of 5/100000, which would be more total than what we'd experience allowing the initial group of high-risk autocombusters to enter.

On September 20 2016 02:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Just heard a HRC ad and did some googling to see Trump's language. "Good-paying jobs" instead of "well-paying jobs" from both parties makes my blood boil.

/end grammar Nazi

(yeah, yeah, colloquial adverb, but if I hear both of them at the debates say "we're doing good" or any version of that my faith is going to totally go)

On September 20 2016 02:37 IgnE wrote:


in a sense isn't that what opposition to syrian refugees is about? or even the idea of quarantining muslims until they civilize themselves? i dont think your objection makes sense

On September 20 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:

We're gonna win and we're gonna win bigly.

On September 20 2016 02:48 LegalLord wrote:

We're gonna win and we're gonna win bigly.

On September 20 2016 02:51 GoTuNk! wrote:


Appealing to the average voter with left wing rethoric.

Trump tries to inspire his voting base, unlike Hillary. There is a massive gap between voting intent and actually getting up and going to vote that favors Trump.

"Make America Great Again" v/s "I suck but he sucks more".

On September 20 2016 02:56 Doodsmack wrote:
"In Israel...[t]hey see somebody that’s suspicious they will profile. They will take that person and they’ll check them."

"[Attacks are] something that will happen perhaps, more and more all over the country.”

On his solution to the problem:

“We’re going to have to do something extremely tough over there...Like knock the hell out of them. And we have to get everybody together and we have to lead for a change...We’re going to have to be very tough and you have other countries over there that we are getting devastated far more than we are. And you have to get them together. It’s called leadership. And they have to fight. You know, they have to fight the battle. The battle is over there. And we have to fight the battle and we can’t let any more people come into this country and when we have bad ones — you know, we have people going over fighting for ISIS and coming back and we know they are fighting for ISIS and we take them. Once you leave this country, you fight for ISIS, you never come back.”


- D. Trump, 9/19/16




For now I'm going to keep the faith that most Americans recognize this rhetoric for the non-solution that it is.

On September 20 2016 02:56 KwarK wrote:

How is the implication that America is no longer great and needs a clown like Trump to fix it inspirational? I feel Trump's message has been overwhelmingly negative. That America is broken, that it is being overrun with terrorists, Mexican rapists and people who hate Christmas, guns and Jesus. That's why the Democrats have stolen so much patriotic "USA USA USA" ground.

On September 20 2016 02:51 GoTuNk! wrote:


Appealing to the average voter with left wing rethoric.

Trump tries to inspire his voting base, unlike Hillary. There is a massive gap between voting intent and actually getting up and going to vote that favors Trump.

"Make America Great Again" v/s "I suck but he sucks more".

On September 20 2016 03:09 oBlade wrote:
Hillary's slogan is I'm With Her.

On September 20 2016 03:12 oBlade wrote:
Yes, stronger to get her to the presidency.