| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
parkufarku
882 Posts
On October 12 2016 07:57 Nevuk wrote: Even if the craziest of Clinton's conspiracies were true, she'd still be miles ahead of what's been confirmed about Trump. what, having journalists assassinated? What's "confirmed" about Trump? He said mean things? He sexually harrassed someone? lol... | ||
|
parkufarku
882 Posts
On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote: 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. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:55 parkufarku wrote: what, having journalists assassinated? What's "confirmed" about Trump? He said mean things? He sexually harrassed someone? lol... Setting up a charity, not donating to it, then using those funds to pay off lawsuits? (I'll let other people fill in the other 20+ things to bring up). | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:55 parkufarku wrote: what, having journalists assassinated? What's "confirmed" about Trump? He said mean things? He sexually harrassed someone? lol... lol, the assassination thing is a total joke. Have you heard about the Trump University? About the Trump foundation? About the 4000 lawsuits he has been involved in? I mean, imagine if Clinton had used the money of her foundation to cover her legal fees.. You guys would go fucking nuts. And for once you would be right. But it's Trump so let's talk about the email server that sounds much more important than using the money given to a charity for your personal use. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:12 Biff The Understudy wrote: 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: + Show Spoiler + Yeah, I watched that as it aired. I honestly just think Trump is a bit of a joke and not much would change if he were to take office. He might be even more of a puppet to corporate interests than HRC, similar to Reagan in that respect, but not some sort of evil dictator or tyrant. Maybe a bit Cheney'esque, which, admittedly, is not a good prospect. So yeah, if I lived in a US swing state, I might also be persuaded to vote for Hillary because of the reality of the situation that I would be in. It's hard to argue against Chomsky in most cases. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21368 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Matt Borges had had enough. The Ohio Republican Party chairman had spent a crazed Saturday on the phone, inundated by demands to respond to newly leaked audio of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault, and by questions about whether Trump was even staying in the race. So early Sunday morning, Borges called the Republican nominee himself. “Are you considering withdrawing from the race?” Borges asked Trump, fearful that there might be more devastating revelations about his party’s nominee still to come. “Absolutely not,” Trump replied, a rebuke to the slew of spooked Republican lawmakers who were calling on him to quit. According to Borges, he warned Trump that he needed to “knock it out of the park” at the presidential debate that night to survive—and they hung up agreeing to talk after the contest. But by Monday, Trump surrogates—and increasingly the candidate himself—seemed just as focused on tearing into the Republicans defecting from Trump as they did on talking up Trump’s debate performance. That prompted Borges to send an email to the other 167 members of the Republican National Committee. “Those candidates and officeholders deserve the leeway to follow their conscience without fear of retribution from the party,” wrote the swing state party chair and former Kasich supporter. “And the criticism of these folks from our nominee, his campaign, and others within the party needs to stop immediately.” A half-hour after sending the letter, he took a call from Trump, who wanted to discuss the debate—and Borges gave the candidate the same message. “You are the person who put these people in this position,” Borges said he told Trump, describing himself as “pissed off.” “You did that. Not them. These are your words. You need to own that.” “OK, OK,” Trump replied in a noncommittal way, according to Borges. Yet on Tuesday, in the culmination of a four-day horror show, Trump was back at it, going nuclear on those who abandoned him over the tape. He tweeted that “the shackles have been taken off me” and warned that “Disloyal R’s are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary.” With just weeks to go until Election Day, it’s as close as it gets to a nightmare scenario for battleground state Republicans. Pro-Trump loyalists have declared war on those who have renounced their presidential nominee, candidates can’t get their message out because of the din, and Democrats are milking it for all it’s worth, with some even rethinking shifting resources to down-ballot contests that previously looked out of reach. And it's all due to Trump's meltdown. Source | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote: If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote: If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? This is a totally bunk way of thinking (false equivalency). You assume a reasonable middle has to be 1/2 way between Trump and Clinton but you can't prove that's how it should be. More importantly, it also fails miserably at Occam's Razor. Which is more likely: the entire media, both journalist and otherwise + 60% of america (unfavorability ratings) + many politicians on both sides + many foreign observers + an overwhelming majority of minorities are all motivated to bash Trump unfairly or that Trump deserves negative coverage. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4315 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:54 Biff The Understudy wrote: 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. . Yeah and Bush was passive in the middle east until 9/11 happened.Convenient that such events allow an excuse to spend billions on new weaponry, mercenaries like blackwater, huge construction contracts (check out the cost of the US embassy in Iraq), kickbacks for people who tow the line. Bush also said there were WMDs in Iraq, even though UN inspectors found zero.Likely any Syrian chemical weapon attacks were false flag attacks to have an excuse to intervene more and try install the puppet government the US desires.It has consistently commented on it's desire to remove Assad.Whats hard to understand here? It appears the exact same thing could be happening in Yemen soon according to recent reports. How many times does the exact same story need to play out before you "get it"? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:02 a_flayer wrote: 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. 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. Pardon for intruding on this discussion--but I hate the lie that people supposedly vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Americans have full control over the entirety of their State and Federal Government. You get to vote for who teaches your kids, you guards your streets, who cleans your trash, who collects your taxes, who enforces your laws, who your city, state, municipal, leaders are, who your state AND federal representatives are, you get to elect someone to argue for you in the senate, and argue for you in the house, you get to choose who the local judges will be in your area, and if that judge does awesome enough he gets to be in the running for the higher courts--and sometimes even the supreme court. You get to decide not only who your government leader is, but you also get to build the establishment that creates that supports that leader. Anyone who is believes they are "forced" to only have one of two choices in America is only because they don't give a damn about politics outside of waxing poetic on online forums to feel better about themselves. Do you know how many representatives I have talked to complaining that only 10%-20% of people show up to local elections? How the establishment is decided simply because 1-2 churches decides to tell its members to show up that election cycle? The Democratic AND Republican party can be ANYTHING the people want it to be, they can mold and construct it from the ground up with literally no resistance. Change the party base by focusing on local elections and you end up with an establishment that supports your ideals. Put your eggs only on the presidential basket and you'll simply reap what you actually sow. Hilary is one of the better politicians we have. A politician that cares more about the people she works with than simply wanting to put her own personal biases as the core of her policies. She's willing to change her stance if the people want her to because she, above anything else, wants to represent her constituents. She is not some sacrificial lamb trying to find some moral feel good to martyr herself on. The more her "scandalous" emails and speeches are revealed the more we learn that she is literally just someone trying to make the world she lives in work. Someone who is doing what she can to create policies that help people by figuring out how to make those policies passable to the ones in power who could stop it. There's a reason I stopped liking Bernie Sanders after the first debate. Because it turned out Bernie was no different than Trump. Willing to say anything that made him feel good and showing a lack of desire to actually do the work of empathizing and finding common ground with the enemy. He was someone willing to vilify any and all things his opposition said or did. And there was Hilary, showing us experts, testimonials, plans, links to her ideas, links to her policies. The same strategies shes doing against Trump. The more leaks happen the more we see that she's a normal human being living in a political world. And people feel forced to vote for her thinking she's the only choice when in reality--she's simply embodying the "established" DEM base that democrats should have been voting for but haven't for the past sixteen years. We get to vote for who the establishment is almost every two years. The mayors, Governors, Senators, Congressmen, Judges, and Officials who all make up the establishment, who make up the precedents that eventually generate federal laws, the ones who pass federal laws, the ones who defend federal and state laws--we get to choose who those people are MORE often than we get to choose the person who gets to veto the ideas. I disagree 100% that people only have 2 bad choices. People only have 2 choices for this 1 specific office. They also have choices for the hundreds of thousands of other offices that also highly impact this country. Being blind to the political process is not the same as being stuck with only 2 choices. Choosing not to engage in the options available is not you being prevented from having those choices. | ||
KwarK
United States41991 Posts
A) Syria definitely had chemical weapons B) They didn't attack anything notable with them A false flag is meant to justify an action. A chemical weapon attack on Tel Aviv would have worked but not this shit. If an atrocity happens and the US takes action you call it a false flag. If an atrocity happens and the US doesn't take action, well, you still call it a false flag attempt. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote: If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Why exactly do you think the establishment backing someone necessarily means the system is rigged? Couldn't it just mean the other person is just awful? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On October 12 2016 23:05 a_flayer wrote: Yeah, I watched that as it aired. I honestly just think Trump is a bit of a joke and not much would change if he were to take office. He might be even more of a puppet to corporate interests than HRC, similar to Reagan in that respect, but not some sort of evil dictator or tyrant. Maybe a bit Cheney'esque, which, admittedly, is not a good prospect. So yeah, if I lived in a US swing state, I might also be persuaded to vote for Hillary because of the reality of the situation that I would be in. It's hard to argue against Chomsky in most cases. Well then I disagree with you. First of all, we should judge politicians by the change they bring (or don't bring). You elect someone, and the only thing that matters is the comparison between the state of the country when he takes office and the state of the country when he leaves office. You compare Clinton and Reagan. Reagan changed America for the worst. Not a bit, but enormously. He transformed society, transformed education, transformed the economy, transformed culture in a disastrous way (what we call neoliberalism). Comparing them only has a sense if you assume that Clinton will keep pushing the country in that direction. It would be a spectacular 180° considering the job the Obama administration has done and considering her platform. Obama has been a good and successful president because he has pushed the country in a good way. America is in a better shape and a better place than when he took office. There is nothing that doesn't allow one to postulate Clinton would have similar result, and her platform is a good one. So in my opinion, your assessment of Clinton is wrong. Pragmatically speaking, she will probably leave America a better place, even if you think she is too far right. What matters is that she is at the left of where America is now. Second point: you completely underestimate, in my opinion, what Trump can do. The guy is clueless, completely unstable, completely megalomaniac, and a total jerk. If he follows, even a bit, his platform, he will fuck up the economy, widen exponentially inequalities, destroy the efforts that have been made for climate change and environment in general (and god knows we can't afford to lose time anymore), exacerbate tensions between races and religions with his toxic rhetoric, completely destabilize international relations and jeopardize America's place in the world, fuck up as much as possible the social security making the life of the poor much, much harder etc etc etc. Clinton simply won't. She will make things incrementally better. Those things matter In fact they are the only things that matter. He is also gonna chose the most conservative Justice he can which, in itself, is a reason to vote Clinton, because that can change the country radically. Not choosing between the abyss and incremental improvement because you want drastic improvement is unbelievably irresponsible. People, a shitloads of people are going to suffer if Trump is elected. Since I am doing ad hitlerium today, I'de like to remind you that people didn't take Adolf seriously in 1932. They thought he was not dangerous, that he didn't mean it, that he was a lunatic and a big mouth. Really, they did, as extraordinary as it sounds today. Well, bad luck, he was serious. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
Oh didn't know this was determined by congress. Guess they can't get a vote to pass? Not sure. Seems like a good idea to me. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On October 12 2016 23:22 biology]major wrote: Oh didn't know this was determined by congress. Guess they can't get a vote to pass? Not sure. Seems like a good idea to me. It's not. The FBI didn't carry on because they didn't have a case because there is no indication or way to prove she had criminal intents or was anything more than not careful enough. You know we've been talking about those fucking emails for 1000 pages or so, and nobody except for you gives a fuck anymore. We are not electing an email server, and you are the only one here to think that this is the worst thing anybody has ever done. Just drop it, it's annoying, and we are all repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21368 Posts
On October 12 2016 23:22 biology]major wrote: Oh didn't know this was determined by congress. Guess they can't get a vote to pass? Not sure. Seems like a good idea to me. Here is a funny reason why they might not have done so. They know they have nothing and that 'emailghazi' is a complete dud. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 12 2016 23:22 biology]major wrote: Oh didn't know this was determined by congress. Guess they can't get a vote to pass? Not sure. Seems like a good idea to me. iirc, they could get the votes to pass it, but didn't try to do so. not entirely sure though. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Stormgate  30515Calm  6513Sea  3289Rain 3161Horang2 2096Shuttle 1040Jaedong 815Soulkey 481Mini 341Snow 216[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games hiko1175 XBOCT324 hungrybox312 Lowko303 B2W.Neo302 RotterdaM194 Liquid`VortiX186 Mlord122 ArmadaUGS114 Mew2King41 kaitlyn37 Trikslyr35 ZerO(Twitch)20 KnowMe14 JuggernautJason14 |
|
BSL Nation Wars 2
Poland vs Latino America
PiG Sty Festival
TLO vs Scarlett
qxc vs CatZ
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Bunny vs Nicoract
Lambo vs Nicoract
herO vs Nicoract
Bunny vs Lambo
Bunny vs herO
Lambo vs herO
PiG Sty Festival
Lambo vs TBD
SC Evo Complete
Classic vs uThermal
SOOP StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SOOP
SortOf vs Bunny
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
