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 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote: Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers.
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing.
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc.
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke.
You for real?
what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged.
On October 12 2016 19:48 Grumbels wrote: I don't understand this "in good conscience" concept. You are not endorsing Hillary, you are not justifying her actions, you are not retroactively whitewashing her every crime, you don't have to become her new best friend and staunch supporter. You are just tactically choosing to prefer Hillary over Trump as the next president. This idea that one's vague principles are more important than actually making a difference in the world by a making a sound tactical choice is honestly immature.
I think you are being unnecessarily dismissive of my opinion regarding the voting process by referring to my opinion as "voting on vague principles" and I am offended by that. My "vague principles", as you call them, are based on and encompass what I think would be a sound tactical choice in terms of world affairs. It by and large does not match with HRC or Trump think is best, hence I would not vote for them. While I don't think the ridiculously preposterous notion that voting for her would mean being her best friend or even being a staunch supporter, I do believe that by voting for her you are to some extent endorsing the actions she is likely to take while in office (e.g. continue to sell weapons to the Saudis and Israel, continue to use drone strikes against vaguely defined "enemy combatants", and so forth). I don't think that it is an unreasonable viewpoint to say that by voting for a specific person, you are supporting their views on the issues. And I recognize that you might not think these are serious issues or you might even agree with his & her approach on these issues, but I do not. I think it unfounded (and a little offensive) to describe this kind of an attitude as "immature".
In my case, as someone who doesn't want to be involved in day-to-day politics, activism or protesting because I need to work my job and that is the limit of what I can do in the world, my vote would be the only say I have in these kinds of things. So if I were then to use that single vote in order to support someone who is advocating things that I fundamentally disagree with, then yeah, that would go against my good conscience. I'll add that I honestly feel somewhat relieved that I don't have the burden of being able to vote in the US.
Also, based on what I'm hearing here, I'm assuming all of you Americans who are complaining about the two-party system -- while simultaneously proclaiming it is a good reason to vote for one of the two douche bags running in it -- are actively working to overthrow this system from within? Or do you also just vote once every four years and that is the extent of your involvement aside from the occasional discussion amongst friends or a few strangers?
While I wouldn't classify my stance as against the two-party system per se, I have voted in every election for going on ten years (I turn 28 in a little over a month and a half). Furthermore, I've worked for both state and federal government agencies and am planning to continue to do so for the remaining future.
Though I'm not sure you meant to highlight this, it should be clear that presidential politics distract many from the much more attainable goal of influencing local and state politics.
What I was trying to illustrate with the last paragraph is that it is perhaps a little foolish to condemn someone for not being willing to vote for "a lesser of two evils" in a system that forces such a choice if you are essentially unwilling to do anything at all to help dismantle that system (despite agreeing that the system is not a good way of handling democracy). People here have said nice words about "working within the system to change it" but you're not doing anything regarding that problem if all you do is cast a single vote for someone who is operating within that system and is effectively working to keep it the same. I don't think you can condemn someone for voicing his or her opinion on this through a vote or even a lack of vote if you agree with the general idea but disagree with their approach and then refuse to take any sort of action yourself. I would again like to emphasize, though, that the democratic system that is in place is largely irrelevant when it comes to obtaining my vote or support.
On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote: a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical.
I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible.
You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question.
You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"?
If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide.
This I refuse to accept as truth. If only 10% would be willing to vote, then any sort of half-decent person in a leadership position must realize that something needs to change and should work towards that. It cannot be, even if it is written as law in golden ink on silver paper, that a democratically-minded person would be willing to make decisions on behalf of millions with only 10% of the people feeling that the system in place is sufficiently adequate for them to participate.
On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote: Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers.
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing.
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc.
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke.
You for real?
what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation.
On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote: Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers.
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing.
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc.
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke.
You for real?
what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation.
Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton regardless of the FBI's opinion. Why have they not done so?
So, an Ohio poll just came out covering the 9th to 11th (exclusively time since the tapes leaked). Clinton is at +11 (adjusted to +10 based upon past results by 538 but not a lot of pollster history).
Wonder if it was the tapes, the debate, or the Chinese steel. Probably all three.
(also, LAtimes/USC is tied. Truly dark days for the Trump)
On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote: I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible.
The system is completely fucked, we've been through this before. But the only way to un-fuck the system is to participate in it. You don't un-fuck the system by sitting out. As bad as it sounds, the only way to make the game less shit is to play it.
The problem is getting over the activation energy of getting enough people who care to participate in the system and enact change. When they all don't participate because they think the system is bad, the system stays bad.
I think no internet discussion is really complete without an argumento ad hitlerium, so let me take that one for the team and try to double down on Kwark's metaphor.
In 1932, the Weimar republic was fucked. It was corrupt, inefficient, unable to lift Germany from a horrendous crisis, and disconnected from the people. By your logic, you then don't vote at all, or vote for an obscure candidate that has no chance of getting any seat. Now, you introduce Adolf. Does your position still holds? No. You vote Otto Wels, who was indeed much more shitty than Clinton, because of course, he is the lesser of two evils by a universe and a half. Yet, 30% of Germans didn't bother to vote that day.
Ok, Trump is not Hitler, but America is not fucked like Germany was and Clinton is not Otto Wels. The difference between the statu quo and the horror that is looming is absolutely gigantic here.
You have a choice, between, essentially four more years of Obama, because it's the same party, with leaders that are actually quite similarly minded, and have a very close agenda, and a potential political catastrophe. How bad Trump would be for America, no one really knows, but most probably extremely, extremely bad.
When we think of those Germans who didn't vote on July the 31st 1932, we think that they were crazy and irresponsible. Well, it might be that history judges you the same way one day. Trump has the potential to destabilize and fuck up the whole world and screw up America for decades.
I suggest you also watch that video of an uncompromising and principled person if there is one, who has an extremely negative opinion of Clinton. He says that if he lived in a swing state, of course he would vote for her because of the enormity of the danger Trump represents. It's Noam Chomsky:
On October 12 2016 22:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: So, an Ohio poll just came out covering the 9th to 11th (exclusively time since the tapes leaked). Clinton is at +11 (adjusted to +10 based upon past results by 538).
Wonder if it was the tapes, the debate, or the Chinese steel. Probably all three.
(also, LAtimes/USC is tied. Truly dark days for the Trump)
Probably all three yeah. How much influence do you think Kasich's anti-Trump protests have had in Ohio?
On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote: Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers.
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing.
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc.
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke.
You for real?
what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation.
That's not an answer to the question I asked at all
On October 12 2016 22:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: So, an Ohio poll just came out covering the 9th to 11th (exclusively time since the tapes leaked). Clinton is at +11 (adjusted to +10 based upon past results by 538).
Wonder if it was the tapes, the debate, or the Chinese steel. Probably all three.
(also, LAtimes/USC is tied. Truly dark days for the Trump)
Probably all three yeah. How much influence do you think Kasich's anti-Trump protests have had in Ohio?
Marginal influence at best, he's actually been rather quiet all things considered.
On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote: Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers.
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing.
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc.
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke.
You for real?
what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation.
That's not an answer to the question I asked at all
The answer to your question is that Trump is the voice of frustration from millions of Americans about how fucked this whole process is. You haven't asked yourself why so many Americans are frustrated though, it's always alt-right idiots living in conspiracy la la land, but it goes much deeper than that.
On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote: Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers.
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing.
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc.
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke.
You for real?
what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation.
That's not an answer to the question I asked at all
The answer to your question is that Trump is the voice of frustration from millions of Americans about how fucked this whole process is. You haven't asked yourself why so many Americans are frustrated though, it's always alt-right idiots living in conspiracy la la land, but it goes much deeper than that.
"millions of Americans" is too general to be an accurate descriptor, there are a number of prominent traits shared by Trump supporters. Do you know what those are?
Trump lies and a lot of his supporters believe him. I am not going to completely blame his supporters because their party has been completely devoid of leadership since Obama won in 2008. They are desperate for change and progress, but it isn’t being offered to them.
But that doesn’t excuse Trump and his threats to jail his opponents. Or his attacks on the democratic process and the rule of law. He continues to delusion his supporters by claiming he is leading and going to win, against all the evidence. And if he doesn’t accept the results, we will have a real problem on our hands.
On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote: Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers.
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing.
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc.
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke.
You for real?
what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation.
That's not an answer to the question I asked at all
The answer to your question is that Trump is the voice of frustration from millions of Americans about how fucked this whole process is. You haven't asked yourself why so many Americans are frustrated though, it's always alt-right idiots living in conspiracy la la land, but it goes much deeper than that.
that's literally irrelevant. It is a yes/no question. Has any us presidential candidate called for jailing their opponent?
On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote: Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers.
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing.
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc.
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke.
You for real?
what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation.
Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton regardless of the FBI's opinion. Why have they not done so?
@biology]major Still waiting for an answer on this question.
On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote: Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers.
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing.
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc.
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke.
You for real?
what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation.
Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton regardless of the FBI's opinion. Why have they not done so?
@biology]major Still waiting for an answer on this question.
On October 12 2016 20:35 Aquanim wrote: Real question: why does Trump want to increase military spending, if he doesn't intend foreign intervention and it is not at the behest of the military industrial complex?
He most likely is at the behest of the Military Industrial Complex.Likely if he moved against them he would be assassinated. I will say at least he can admit the Iraq war was a total disaster as with Afghanistan. Obama has continued the Neo-Con PNAC plan, that much is undeniable.Tick Libya and Syria off the list. Behind schedule but better late than never right?
In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran
Two leading civil rights organizations are calling for the complete decriminalization of personal drug use in the US in a comprehensive new report released on Wednesday.
The report, published by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, concluded that last year someone was arrested every 25 seconds on drug use or possession charges.
The research catalogues the enforcement of laws that criminalize personal drug use, for which police make more arrests than any other crime. The organizations’ stand is one of the most forceful yet in the ongoing conversation about the country’s sprawling criminal justice system and the lasting effect that low-level drug offenses can have on Americans.
“This is first time both organizations have come together and made such a strong call for [decriminalization],” said Tess Borden, the report’s author.
The report, titled Every 25 Seconds, after the frequency of drug arrests, looks specifically at personal drug use, and not trafficking or other drug crimes. Last year, more than 1.25 million arrests were made by local law enforcement for drug use or possession alone, and about half of those were for marijuana use or possession, according to the report.
Tyler Marshall, a Louisiana man who spoke to Human Rights Watch using a pseudonym, was charged with marijuana possession in 2015 and sentenced to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty. The report quotes court transcripts of Marshall entering his guilty plea, as most drug cases are resolved. After Marshall’s defense attorney instructs him to plea guilty, he tells the court: “Oh, I have to? Yeah. But I’d be lying though.”
The large majority of drug cases are resolved through plea deals. In New York, for example, the report found that 99.8% of adults convicted of drug possession in a five-year period accepted plea deals.
Marshall told Human Rights Watch that his wife has a disability, and was two months behind on rent without him to help support her. “My wife, I cook for her, clean for her, bathe her, clothe her,” he said. “Now everything is on her, from the rent to the bills, everything.”
The rate of drug arrests varies widely by state, although data indicates that non-marijuana drug use is largely consistent throughout the country.
On October 12 2016 20:35 Aquanim wrote: Real question: why does Trump want to increase military spending, if he doesn't intend foreign intervention and it is not at the behest of the military industrial complex?
He most likely is at the behest of the Military Industrial Complex.Likely if he moved against them he would be assassinated. I will say at least he can admit the Iraq war was a total disaster as with Afghanistan. Obama has continued the Neo-Con PNAC plan, that much is undeniable.
In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran
Obama has been awfully passive on the Syrian problem for years (basically adopting the opposite strategy than in Lybia) until ISIS started to hit the West. Remember when he was putting "red lines" (like the use of chemical weapons) that Assad was crossing without giving a fuck, and that the US still didn't do anything? He also has made a nuclear deal with Iran that makes the perspective of a war very and much more unlikely.
Your conspiracy reasoning doesn't resist facts for a change.
As for Trump getting assassinated if he proposed to reduce the military spending, lol. The only think that would happen is that he would lose votes from many of his voters who apparently get a hardon when they see a gun (and so probably a orgasm when they see a tank or a missile).
EPT
