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 October 01 2016 06:27 parkufarku wrote: Trump sounded unpolished;
Hillary sounded like a liar she is - constantly yapping about how she's all for the middle class, which is absolute BS. She stole a ton of ideas from the Bernie camp too.
I hope this country doesn't get Trump but I sure as hell hope this country doesn't get Clinton.
That is how elections and party politics work. People run to talk about ideas that are important to them, and if they do well, those ideas are part of the platform and agenda.
On October 01 2016 06:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I find it fascinating that the defense Trump-supporters in this thread go to when he insults women is that he insults everyone else as well. It was argued to death that this does not make it less mysogenist, but that they would rather vote for someone that is an asshole to everyone speaks volumes. Don't worry guys, he won't just insult Mexicans, he will also insult Europeans and Muslims and especially China! That is a good thing! The man has no policies apart from vague promises of greatness, so you don't want him for those in the white house. You are also not voting for him because of his political experience, even though he claims he is the only one that can fix it. But not because he is corrupt. So that only leaves character, right? But you just claimed he is an asshole. So do you just want to see the world burn? He is not Hillary Clinton, i give you that, but then again a baby is not Hillary Clinton and you wouldn't vote for the baby.
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn.
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me.
On October 01 2016 05:36 Sermokala wrote: Trump will be a net positive for the republican party if it shows that everything trump pivoted to during the election was fucking terrible and wrong and collectively realize they should pivot in the 180 degree other direction.
He draws attention to some genuinely important and neglected issues but the way he does it does far more harm than good.
What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
On October 01 2016 05:36 Sermokala wrote: Trump will be a net positive for the republican party if it shows that everything trump pivoted to during the election was fucking terrible and wrong and collectively realize they should pivot in the 180 degree other direction.
He draws attention to some genuinely important and neglected issues but the way he does it does far more harm than good.
What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
On October 01 2016 05:36 Sermokala wrote: Trump will be a net positive for the republican party if it shows that everything trump pivoted to during the election was fucking terrible and wrong and collectively realize they should pivot in the 180 degree other direction.
He draws attention to some genuinely important and neglected issues but the way he does it does far more harm than good.
What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
Well, that and the only times any of the war articles were invoked were about terrorist groups and Middle Eastern wars.
On October 01 2016 05:36 Sermokala wrote: Trump will be a net positive for the republican party if it shows that everything trump pivoted to during the election was fucking terrible and wrong and collectively realize they should pivot in the 180 degree other direction.
He draws attention to some genuinely important and neglected issues but the way he does it does far more harm than good.
What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
Well, that and the only times any of the war articles were invoked were about terrorist groups and Middle Eastern wars.
Of course, that factoid is about as relevant as the fact that the US has not declared war since WWII. Technically true, but also fully missing the point that it really is just a technicality because official application of the legal statutes is much more significant than just their "informal" use.
On October 01 2016 05:41 xDaunt wrote: I love how all of the leftists in this thread have all of these arm chair opinions about what the republican party and the American right need to be. Yes, I'm sure that you guys have our best interests at heart when you can't even demonstrate a passable understanding of what conservativism and its real problems even are.
What do you think the problems with US conservatism are, and what do you think the American right needs to be?
How much time do you have? The single biggest issues are that conservatives have lost control of the terminology of the debate and that conservatives have lost the initiative in setting proactive policies.
Might this be because the party has been taken over by the 'tea party'? That the tea party section in the party has taken over the narrative and lead into the rise of Trump? If so, how exactly is Trumps primary win a positive for conservatives? How do they come out stronger out of this? If anything I think it shows that conservatives lost the battle for the party and that drastic measures are needed to regain the ability to carry their message forward.
The tea party is a reaction to the root problems of the republican party, not the cause.
I'll look forward to your post later then since I genuinly hope the Republican party can transform into something acceptable to promote useful politican discourse and I wonder where you think it went wrong.
On October 01 2016 05:36 Sermokala wrote: Trump will be a net positive for the republican party if it shows that everything trump pivoted to during the election was fucking terrible and wrong and collectively realize they should pivot in the 180 degree other direction.
He draws attention to some genuinely important and neglected issues but the way he does it does far more harm than good.
What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
Well, that and the only times any of the war articles were invoked were about terrorist groups and Middle Eastern wars.
And we have exhibited such great leadership during those wars. I bet the EU expected the US from the 1940 to show up, full of sacrifice, a will to make the world a better place and forward thinkers attempting to pour money into a nations that could be allies for decades. Instead they got faux patriotism, missions accomplished and a plan to cash in on military contracts. Followed by elections in countries who have never elected anyone.
And the sad thing is I would take the Republican party that did that over the current bunch of assholes we have right now.
On October 01 2016 05:36 Sermokala wrote: Trump will be a net positive for the republican party if it shows that everything trump pivoted to during the election was fucking terrible and wrong and collectively realize they should pivot in the 180 degree other direction.
He draws attention to some genuinely important and neglected issues but the way he does it does far more harm than good.
What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
Well, that and the only times any of the war articles were invoked were about terrorist groups and Middle Eastern wars.
Of course, that factoid is about as relevant as the fact that the US has not declared war since WWII. Technically true, but also fully missing the point that it really is just a technicality because official application of the legal statutes is much more significant than just their "informal" use.
Well, okay? But I don't see what that has to do with NATO now.
I mean, France said fuck off when you tried to drag them into Iraq. Sure, you gave them the stink-eye for it, but they're still in NATO.
On October 01 2016 05:43 LegalLord wrote: [quote] He draws attention to some genuinely important and neglected issues but the way he does it does far more harm than good.
What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
Well, that and the only times any of the war articles were invoked were about terrorist groups and Middle Eastern wars.
Of course, that factoid is about as relevant as the fact that the US has not declared war since WWII. Technically true, but also fully missing the point that it really is just a technicality because official application of the legal statutes is much more significant than just their "informal" use.
Well, okay? But I don't see what that has to do with NATO now.
I mean, France said fuck off when you tried to drag them into Iraq. Sure, you gave them the stink-eye for it, but they're still in NATO.
The damage of France not joining the Iraq War will be felt for generations:
On October 01 2016 05:43 LegalLord wrote: [quote] He draws attention to some genuinely important and neglected issues but the way he does it does far more harm than good.
What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
Well, that and the only times any of the war articles were invoked were about terrorist groups and Middle Eastern wars.
Of course, that factoid is about as relevant as the fact that the US has not declared war since WWII. Technically true, but also fully missing the point that it really is just a technicality because official application of the legal statutes is much more significant than just their "informal" use.
Well, okay? But I don't see what that has to do with NATO now.
I mean, France said fuck off when you tried to drag them into Iraq. Sure, you gave them the stink-eye for it, but they're still in NATO.
Coercion comes in more forms than just legal mandate.
On October 01 2016 05:43 LegalLord wrote: [quote] He draws attention to some genuinely important and neglected issues but the way he does it does far more harm than good.
What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
Well, that and the only times any of the war articles were invoked were about terrorist groups and Middle Eastern wars.
Of course, that factoid is about as relevant as the fact that the US has not declared war since WWII. Technically true, but also fully missing the point that it really is just a technicality because official application of the legal statutes is much more significant than just their "informal" use.
Well, okay? But I don't see what that has to do with NATO now.
I mean, France said fuck off when you tried to drag them into Iraq.
That was before Atlanticists took over diplomacy and foreign policy.
On October 01 2016 06:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I find it fascinating that the defense Trump-supporters in this thread go to when he insults women is that he insults everyone else as well. It was argued to death that this does not make it less mysogenist, but that they would rather vote for someone that is an asshole to everyone speaks volumes. Don't worry guys, he won't just insult Mexicans, he will also insult Europeans and Muslims and especially China! That is a good thing! The man has no policies apart from vague promises of greatness, so you don't want him for those in the white house. You are also not voting for him because of his political experience, even though he claims he is the only one that can fix it. But not because he is corrupt. So that only leaves character, right? But you just claimed he is an asshole. So do you just want to see the world burn? He is not Hillary Clinton, i give you that, but then again a baby is not Hillary Clinton and you wouldn't vote for the baby.
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn.
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me.
Which values are those? You say you are voting the republican ticket and then you said Trump represents your values. However Trump despises politics (at least he claims that) and has basically ambushed and murdered the republican party. I'd say you can't both vote the ticket and like Trumps platform.
On October 01 2016 05:49 Sermokala wrote: [quote] What issues are those? His campaign is based on reactionary positions on common sense issues. You can't argue against free trade over protectionism no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
Well, that and the only times any of the war articles were invoked were about terrorist groups and Middle Eastern wars.
Of course, that factoid is about as relevant as the fact that the US has not declared war since WWII. Technically true, but also fully missing the point that it really is just a technicality because official application of the legal statutes is much more significant than just their "informal" use.
Well, okay? But I don't see what that has to do with NATO now.
I mean, France said fuck off when you tried to drag them into Iraq. Sure, you gave them the stink-eye for it, but they're still in NATO.
Coercion comes in more forms than just legal mandate.
Right, so which wars were the US dragged into by coercion?
On October 01 2016 06:09 LegalLord wrote: [quote] NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart.
The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
Well, that and the only times any of the war articles were invoked were about terrorist groups and Middle Eastern wars.
Of course, that factoid is about as relevant as the fact that the US has not declared war since WWII. Technically true, but also fully missing the point that it really is just a technicality because official application of the legal statutes is much more significant than just their "informal" use.
Well, okay? But I don't see what that has to do with NATO now.
I mean, France said fuck off when you tried to drag them into Iraq. Sure, you gave them the stink-eye for it, but they're still in NATO.
Coercion comes in more forms than just legal mandate.
Right, so which wars were the US dragged into by coercion?
I'll give a better response in a few hours. On the road right now.
On October 01 2016 04:44 Nevuk wrote: I feel bad for the conservatives in this thread. You can tell that their heart really isn't in actually defending Trump (he's not defensible) so they have to constantly contort arguments in a manner that seems somewhat painful in order for them not to sink into the ethereal miasma of their candidate.
Spare me the pity party. Even if Trump loses, the election will still be a net-positive for conservatives and the republican party. As I have been saying for some time now, the American right needs makeover. A Trump loss isn't going to stop the process that has begun.
The good news is their candidate lost. The bad news is basically all the primary challengers, of varying quality, lost. So the process may be very long. McConnell is still the leader of the Senate, and Ryan still gave away the farm on the budget.
On October 01 2016 06:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I find it fascinating that the defense Trump-supporters in this thread go to when he insults women is that he insults everyone else as well. It was argued to death that this does not make it less mysogenist, but that they would rather vote for someone that is an asshole to everyone speaks volumes. Don't worry guys, he won't just insult Mexicans, he will also insult Europeans and Muslims and especially China! That is a good thing! The man has no policies apart from vague promises of greatness, so you don't want him for those in the white house. You are also not voting for him because of his political experience, even though he claims he is the only one that can fix it. But not because he is corrupt. So that only leaves character, right? But you just claimed he is an asshole. So do you just want to see the world burn? He is not Hillary Clinton, i give you that, but then again a baby is not Hillary Clinton and you wouldn't vote for the baby.
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn.
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me.
you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other?
On October 01 2016 06:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I find it fascinating that the defense Trump-supporters in this thread go to when he insults women is that he insults everyone else as well. It was argued to death that this does not make it less mysogenist, but that they would rather vote for someone that is an asshole to everyone speaks volumes. Don't worry guys, he won't just insult Mexicans, he will also insult Europeans and Muslims and especially China! That is a good thing! The man has no policies apart from vague promises of greatness, so you don't want him for those in the white house. You are also not voting for him because of his political experience, even though he claims he is the only one that can fix it. But not because he is corrupt. So that only leaves character, right? But you just claimed he is an asshole. So do you just want to see the world burn? He is not Hillary Clinton, i give you that, but then again a baby is not Hillary Clinton and you wouldn't vote for the baby.
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn.
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me.
you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other?
On October 01 2016 06:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I find it fascinating that the defense Trump-supporters in this thread go to when he insults women is that he insults everyone else as well. It was argued to death that this does not make it less mysogenist, but that they would rather vote for someone that is an asshole to everyone speaks volumes. Don't worry guys, he won't just insult Mexicans, he will also insult Europeans and Muslims and especially China! That is a good thing! The man has no policies apart from vague promises of greatness, so you don't want him for those in the white house. You are also not voting for him because of his political experience, even though he claims he is the only one that can fix it. But not because he is corrupt. So that only leaves character, right? But you just claimed he is an asshole. So do you just want to see the world burn? He is not Hillary Clinton, i give you that, but then again a baby is not Hillary Clinton and you wouldn't vote for the baby.
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn.
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me.
you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other?
It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary.
If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person.
EPT![[image loading]](https://vice-images.vice.com/images/articles/meta/2014/02/28/nobody-knows-why-we-still-call-them-freedom-fries-1413250013348.jpeg?resize=*:*&output-quality=75)
