|
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 October 02 2016 06:40 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +In an interview with the New York Times published early Saturday, Trump discussed whether he would accept the results of the election if he lost.
“We’re going to have to see. We’re going to see what happens. We’re going to have to see,” Trump told the Times.
That’s a far cry from what the Republican nominee said Monday, during the first presidential debate of the general election.
After Clinton asserted that she “certainly will support the outcome of this election,” debate moderator Lester Holt posed the same question to Trump.
Trump’s response: “Look, here’s the story. I want to make America great again. I’m going to be able to do it. I don’t believe Hillary will. The answer is, if she wins, I will absolutely support her.”
Trump has long claimed that the U.S. political system was “rigged,” but in recent months, the business mogul has propagated fears that the election itself would be unfairly stacked against him.
...
Trump also previewed a new Clinton attack line in his Times interview, suggesting that he would bring up former President Clinton and his marital infidelities during his next debate with the Democratic nominee.
Trump slammed Mr. Clinton for his relations with Monica Lewinsky and his other sexual exploits, claiming that they “brought shame onto the presidency, and Hillary Clinton was there defending him all along.”
“Hillary Clinton was married to the single greatest abuser of women in the history of politics,” he added about Mr. Clinton. “Hillary was an enabler, and she attacked the women who Bill Clinton mistreated afterward. I think it’s a serious problem for them, and it’s something that I’m considering talking about more in the near future.” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-weighs-post-election-options-if-he-loses/
Another appeal to the “second amendment folks” in sight?
|
This "I will attack Bill' line is just so wierd. Even aside from its effectiveness (which I would rate low) surely the idea is to catch your opponent off-guard and not signaling it 2 weeks in advance so they can prep a retort.
And faking the line of attack to make Hillary 'waste' prep time doesnt make much sense either since she looked more then ready last time.
|
On October 02 2016 04:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 03:19 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2016 03:05 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 02:55 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 07:59 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 07:49 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 06:36 biology]major wrote: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. aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? and why would sociopathy be more disqualifying than other disorders, given its prevalence, and evident usefulness in high level positions? whoa dude are you defending sociopathy tout court as societally useful especially among our leaders? how come everyone in this thread cares more about biologymajor's deficient understanding of human beings than this radical suggestion? I think you have a typo in your first paragraph, or something which autocorrected wrong, which makes me unable to tell what your statement is so I can respond to it. the part where you say "tout court" nah its not a typo, maybe i should have italicized it. b. tout court /tu kur/ , in short, in little, simply, without qualification or addition. 1747 H. Walpole Let. 26 June in Corr. (1955) XIX. 420 My eagle is arrived—my eagle tout court, for I hear nothing of the pedestal. 1888 R. Kipling Wee Willie Winkie 38 Judy was officially ‘Miss Judy’; but Black Sheep was never anything but Black Sheep tout court. 1928 C. Dawson Age of Gods xii. 262 There are grave objections to the identification tout court of the Nordic race with the Indo-European stock. 1958 Oxf. Mag. 15 May 435/1 Hove, instead of asking for Psychology tout court, has a course by a Harley Street psychiatrist. 1981 J. Sutherland Bestsellers xxiv. 240 Len Deighton's..history tout court of the Second World War (Bomber and Fighter). http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/203980?redirectedFrom=tout court#eid163706549 hmm, never seen that one before. In that case, the short answer is yes. a longer answer would get into things like "to an extent", elaborations and limitations and uncertainties.
why would you want a sociopath as a political leader when politics is an essentially human endeavor with irrational premises?
|
On October 02 2016 06:51 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 06:40 Doodsmack wrote:In an interview with the New York Times published early Saturday, Trump discussed whether he would accept the results of the election if he lost.
“We’re going to have to see. We’re going to see what happens. We’re going to have to see,” Trump told the Times.
That’s a far cry from what the Republican nominee said Monday, during the first presidential debate of the general election.
After Clinton asserted that she “certainly will support the outcome of this election,” debate moderator Lester Holt posed the same question to Trump.
Trump’s response: “Look, here’s the story. I want to make America great again. I’m going to be able to do it. I don’t believe Hillary will. The answer is, if she wins, I will absolutely support her.”
Trump has long claimed that the U.S. political system was “rigged,” but in recent months, the business mogul has propagated fears that the election itself would be unfairly stacked against him.
...
Trump also previewed a new Clinton attack line in his Times interview, suggesting that he would bring up former President Clinton and his marital infidelities during his next debate with the Democratic nominee.
Trump slammed Mr. Clinton for his relations with Monica Lewinsky and his other sexual exploits, claiming that they “brought shame onto the presidency, and Hillary Clinton was there defending him all along.”
“Hillary Clinton was married to the single greatest abuser of women in the history of politics,” he added about Mr. Clinton. “Hillary was an enabler, and she attacked the women who Bill Clinton mistreated afterward. I think it’s a serious problem for them, and it’s something that I’m considering talking about more in the near future.” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-weighs-post-election-options-if-he-loses/ Another appeal to the “second amendment folks” in sight?
Useless quote if we can't see the question or what they were talking about.
I'm sure he'd sue for a Florida recount if necessary.
|
Trump sounds like a sore loser right now. It's not hard just to give the generic, and correct, answer that you stand by the president whoever said person ends up being. It's even easier not to double down on a losing strategy.
|
Another funny thing is that Trump bad mouthed Clinton's accusers in the 90s too.
|
Trump gave Romney a lot of shit for losing to Obama, now he's gonna have to face the music if he manages to lose crooked
|
On October 02 2016 05:36 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Everyone sees a small and aging population as a weakness at all times. That's not necessarily true anymore. I honestly think that many western countries with large, young, migrant populations will consider them as a significant problem in the near future (if we are not there already). Because with automation the lowest skilled workers are cut first which leads to significant unemployment which can lead to social unrest. And cultural differences and racism make it harder to make large sweeping changes to social security that is required to deal with this.
Most countries would probably rather have 1 guy overseeing 9 robots than 1 guy overseeing 9 robots and 9 unemployed people to support and keep from rioting.
Not saying population doesn't matter at all but it matters much less. Even military population size is much less relevant than economic strength since just fielding large amounts of men is not relevant anymore.
It's not about the number of young people in cour country, it's about the relation of people creating wealth to old people consuming it. I guess the US don't have federal pensions payed for by the working people, but Europe has got that.Once there aren't enough people around to pay for more and more pensioneers who get older and older, this system will face...difficulties.
|
That's when you start importing young people from countries you used to bomb
|
On October 02 2016 07:22 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 05:36 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Everyone sees a small and aging population as a weakness at all times. That's not necessarily true anymore. I honestly think that many western countries with large, young, migrant populations will consider them as a significant problem in the near future (if we are not there already). Because with automation the lowest skilled workers are cut first which leads to significant unemployment which can lead to social unrest. And cultural differences and racism make it harder to make large sweeping changes to social security that is required to deal with this.
Most countries would probably rather have 1 guy overseeing 9 robots than 1 guy overseeing 9 robots and 9 unemployed people to support and keep from rioting.
Not saying population doesn't matter at all but it matters much less. Even military population size is much less relevant than economic strength since just fielding large amounts of men is not relevant anymore. It's not about the number of young people in cour country, it's about the relation of people creating wealth to old people consuming it. I guess the US don't have federal pensions payed for by the working people, but Europe has got that.Once there aren't enough people around to pay for more and more pensioneers who get older and older, this system will face...difficulties.
US has that too. Healthcare and pensions are a looming financial crisis for the US as well. Less pay-in, more retirees.
|
Whoops, wrong thread  Here's a funny article.
WASHINGTON — Add this to your presidential scorecard: Donald Trump is "nastier."
That's what he told The New York Times on Friday, comparing himself to his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
“She’s nasty, but I can be nastier than she ever can be,” he told the Times.
Trump's comment came in the context of his plans for the next presidential debate scheduled for Sunday, Oct. 9 from 9 to 10:30 p.m. at Washington University in St. Louis.
Trump told the Times he's thinking about bringing up former president Bill Clinton's marital infidelities and alleging that Hillary Clinton played a role in attacking the women who went public about them. Trump described Hillary Clinton as an "enabler'' and the women with whom her husband has liaisons as "mistreated afterwards.''
During Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 1992 Hillary Clinton described Gennifer Flowers as “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on” in an interview with ABC News. Flowers had publicly claimed to have a 12-year sexual relationship with the then-governor of Arkansas.
Bill Clinton admitted to his affair with Flowers in a 1998 court deposition involving the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones dating back to May 1991.
Jones accused Bill Clinton of groping her when she was alone with him in a room of Little Rock’s Excelsior Hotel when he was governor.
The lawsuit by Jones also brought to public attention allegations that Bill Clinton had a sexual encounter with White House intern Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.
Hillary Clinton’s close friend Diane Blair wrote in her personal papers that the first lady referred to Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Blair’s personal papers were donated to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library after the political scientist’s death in 2000 and made available to the public in 2010. The “correspondence, diaries, interviews, strategy memos and contemporaneous accounts of conversations with the Clintons ranging from the mid-1970s to the turn of the millennium," were first reported by the Washington Free Beacon in February 2014.
Hillary Clinton is 'nasty, but I can be nastier,' Trump says
|
On October 02 2016 07:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 04:41 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 03:19 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2016 03:05 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 02:55 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 07:59 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 07:49 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 06:36 biology]major wrote: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. aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? and why would sociopathy be more disqualifying than other disorders, given its prevalence, and evident usefulness in high level positions? whoa dude are you defending sociopathy tout court as societally useful especially among our leaders? how come everyone in this thread cares more about biologymajor's deficient understanding of human beings than this radical suggestion? I think you have a typo in your first paragraph, or something which autocorrected wrong, which makes me unable to tell what your statement is so I can respond to it. the part where you say "tout court" nah its not a typo, maybe i should have italicized it. b. tout court /tu kur/ , in short, in little, simply, without qualification or addition. 1747 H. Walpole Let. 26 June in Corr. (1955) XIX. 420 My eagle is arrived—my eagle tout court, for I hear nothing of the pedestal. 1888 R. Kipling Wee Willie Winkie 38 Judy was officially ‘Miss Judy’; but Black Sheep was never anything but Black Sheep tout court. 1928 C. Dawson Age of Gods xii. 262 There are grave objections to the identification tout court of the Nordic race with the Indo-European stock. 1958 Oxf. Mag. 15 May 435/1 Hove, instead of asking for Psychology tout court, has a course by a Harley Street psychiatrist. 1981 J. Sutherland Bestsellers xxiv. 240 Len Deighton's..history tout court of the Second World War (Bomber and Fighter). http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/203980?redirectedFrom=tout court#eid163706549 hmm, never seen that one before. In that case, the short answer is yes. a longer answer would get into things like "to an extent", elaborations and limitations and uncertainties. why would you want a sociopath as a political leader when politics is an essentially human endeavor with irrational premises?
I'm not saying they're necessarily actively preferable, but that it should not be disqualifying, and that they can do a fine job anyways sometimes. Also, as with many things, it's a spectrum, and some level of such traits may be helpful in certain occupations. (since there would tend to be an evolutionary value to them, either directly, or they're an overshoot of something that is valuable, like sickle-cell)
|
On October 02 2016 07:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 04:41 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 03:19 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2016 03:05 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 02:55 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 07:59 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 07:49 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 06:36 biology]major wrote: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. aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? and why would sociopathy be more disqualifying than other disorders, given its prevalence, and evident usefulness in high level positions? whoa dude are you defending sociopathy tout court as societally useful especially among our leaders? how come everyone in this thread cares more about biologymajor's deficient understanding of human beings than this radical suggestion? I think you have a typo in your first paragraph, or something which autocorrected wrong, which makes me unable to tell what your statement is so I can respond to it. the part where you say "tout court" nah its not a typo, maybe i should have italicized it. b. tout court /tu kur/ , in short, in little, simply, without qualification or addition. 1747 H. Walpole Let. 26 June in Corr. (1955) XIX. 420 My eagle is arrived—my eagle tout court, for I hear nothing of the pedestal. 1888 R. Kipling Wee Willie Winkie 38 Judy was officially ‘Miss Judy’; but Black Sheep was never anything but Black Sheep tout court. 1928 C. Dawson Age of Gods xii. 262 There are grave objections to the identification tout court of the Nordic race with the Indo-European stock. 1958 Oxf. Mag. 15 May 435/1 Hove, instead of asking for Psychology tout court, has a course by a Harley Street psychiatrist. 1981 J. Sutherland Bestsellers xxiv. 240 Len Deighton's..history tout court of the Second World War (Bomber and Fighter). http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/203980?redirectedFrom=tout court#eid163706549 hmm, never seen that one before. In that case, the short answer is yes. a longer answer would get into things like "to an extent", elaborations and limitations and uncertainties. why would you want a sociopath as a political leader when politics is an essentially human endeavor with irrational premises?
Who says that this is what politics is? Lee Kuan Yew turned Singapore from a swamp into a first world nation by treating politics as what you could call 'rational management'
|
On October 02 2016 07:25 Sent. wrote:
That's when you start importing young people from countries you used to bomb
You also have to call anyone who disagrees a racist.
|
Why would Trump think attacking Clinton with her husbands infidelities would work?
He himself has done the same thing in his marriages and that kind of attack can easily be spun by Clinton as an attack on her as a woman.
|
On October 02 2016 08:16 Slaughter wrote:
Why would Trump think attacking Clinton with her husbands infidelities would work?
He himself has done the same thing in his marriages and that kind of attack can easily be spun by Clinton as an attack on her as a woman.
Whatever infidelities befell Trump, his wives didn't stay with him, it was in the papers.
|
|
|
On October 02 2016 05:36 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Everyone sees a small and aging population as a weakness at all times. That's not necessarily true anymore. I honestly think that many western countries with large, young, migrant populations will consider them as a significant problem in the near future (if we are not there already). Because with automation the lowest skilled workers are cut first which leads to significant unemployment which can lead to social unrest. And cultural differences and racism make it harder to make large sweeping changes to social security that is required to deal with this.
Most countries would probably rather have 1 guy overseeing 9 robots than 1 guy overseeing 9 robots and 9 unemployed people to support and keep from rioting.
Not saying population doesn't matter at all but it matters much less. Even military population size is much less relevant than economic strength since just fielding large amounts of men is not relevant anymore.
One of the reasons they're importing more people is to keep the housing bubble afloat.
You're in Sweden, you should realise this.
More people = higher house prices (demand/supply) + easier to keep GDP "growing" (even though that GDP growth is supported by unsustainable govt welfare spending on the new migrants).
It is literally a ponzi scheme.
|
On October 02 2016 08:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 07:25 Sent. wrote:
That's when you start importing young people from countries you used to bomb You also have to call anyone who disagrees a racist.
Only the short sighted ones thar justify their mistrust of refugees by saying they are "realistic". Since reality and statics do not support that distrust.
|
On October 02 2016 08:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 08:22 oBlade wrote:On October 02 2016 08:16 Slaughter wrote:
Why would Trump think attacking Clinton with her husbands infidelities would work?
He himself has done the same thing in his marriages and that kind of attack can easily be spun by Clinton as an attack on her as a woman. Whatever infidelities befell Trump, his wives didn't stay with him, it was in the papers. So in a country whose general values have a strong Christian undercurrent, somehow being a serial adulterer while simultaneously attacking the wife of a serial adulterer who actually "stuck with him because of family values" (as if she was somehow to blame) is expected to be a profitable line of attack? I feel like the segways nicely into my next point, which is really what I came here to say: how the fuck are you guys even seriously considering such a stupid man to run for president? The latest morning tweets alone should pretty much disqualify him; they served no function, and we're just exceedingly clumsy and stupid avenues of attack. The really funny part about them is that he made them at early morning hours - I really think he did it then because there were no handlers around him to be like "no Donald, this is a really fucking dumb idea, please for the love of god don't do this". The man is smart enough to be sneaky (in the same sense that a child is sneaky when avoiding parental attention) enough to post the really stupid, self-gratifying shit that he thinks. And some of you guys think this man is capable of leading the free world? There's no 3D chess going on here, this man is actually impulsive, and fucking dumb. how the hell are some of you even supporting this mans bid to become the most powerful man in the world? I don't like Hillary, but at least I trust that she's rational enough that she won't destroy everything in her own self interest. This has reached a shameful state of affairs :/
partisanship; i'ts not that uncommon really for such levels of partisanship to occur.
add in a large measure of confirmation bias , and voila.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
