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 13 2016 06:30 Doodsmack wrote: "[ISIS is] hoping and praying that Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, because they’ll take over not only that part of the world, they’ll take over this country."
- Ronald McDonald, 10/12/16
You say Ronald McDonald but I can't help feeling like it was some other clown.
I'm not exactly sure who you're calling a clown--but I don't want you to ever clarify this. Bravo sir.
On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote: The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
The rare species of the libertarian youtuber who rants about the military industrial complex. The fucking South sudan argument lol, the average age in that nation is <18, by definition most soldiers are child sodiers. Christ man.
...So what's your point?
that the concept of a child soldier on a continent with a median age of 19 years is utterly meaningless?
I'm going to need more clarification there. You don't see a problem with military help of an entity that uses child soldiers, as long as they have a logical reason to use them?
edit: we probably should go pm with that, it's not really related to US.
Everyone, please try to be more aware of the mod note at top saying we will be stricter from here on out. Providing a source is good but you are also going to have to provide some kind of statement detailing why you've linked it, what it's about, and why it's important. Don't just automatically assume people are going to know what you're talking about. Above all, DO NOT passive/aggresively post a YouTube video link to someone just to prove a point.
On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote: The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors.
But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it.
Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
Reductive arguments that constantly claim that any sort of regulation is impossible because gun ownership is a basic right and to risky are the reason we can’t have discussions on the subject. Speech and voting are also rights, but we limit those. Same with religion. We can restrict rights as long as everyone is allowed due process.
And the arguments would hold more water if the NRA and gun lobby was not trying to limit every aspect of the government’s interaction with guns. The CDC can’t do researching into gun violence. Sections of the government designed to regulate are prohibited from creating data bases. I have not checked recently, but there was a while where in the late 2000s where the ATF couldn’t make requests about gun sales using a computer.
So as much as I love the discussion about guns being a basic right, we really need to get down the fundamental that the gun lobby is preventing laws that currently exist on the books from being enforced.
I'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary.
What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.
The public and/or the government has access to countless lists, e.g.
Where basically everyone lives Anyone that owns a car Anyone that has any number of licenses to practice a particular profession Anyone that has committed a crime Anyone that's done any federal service Anyone that's traveled to certain places
And, again, I could go on and on, but the point is that "the government having a list is scary" is a ridiculous argument. The government has lists of people for all kinds of purposes in relation to all kinds of things. Being scared of a list of registered gun owners is nothing but paranoia considering that the government can already find you in countless other ways.
Your first three are for registration purposes's the fourth is for the government to know which rights to limit for you the fifth is again registration related and the last is for the government to use to take away your constitutional rights again but for special circumstances such as a disease or national security.
Being scared of a list of gun owners and the guns they own can be used to identify who has guns and take them away. You can't argue with that statement. I'm not saying the government will or I'm afraid the government will or I believe Obama or Hillary ever wanted to or would do in any circumstance. But the fact remains that it scares a portion of the population that are then extremely motivated to vote.
Its no different in this case then for pro Israel politics. Its a legitimate concern because it effects politics in the country in a very real way.
I know why people don't like the idea of a gun registry, but that doesn't make it a good argument.
There's nothing special about the 2nd amendment that states that a person's right to gun ownership can't be limited, and there are many, many precedents for how limiting that right would occur.
In recalling the aftermath of 9/11, Giuliani wrongly told the crowd: “I don’t remember seeing Hillary Clinton there.” There are numerous photographs of Clinton, then a New York senator, with Giuliani at Ground Zero.
On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote: The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
The rare species of the libertarian youtuber who rants about the military industrial complex. The fucking South sudan argument lol, the average age in that nation is <18, by definition most soldiers are child sodiers. Christ man.
...So what's your point?
that the concept of a child soldier on a continent with a median age of 19 years is utterly meaningless?
I'm going to need more clarification there. You don't see a problem with military help of an entity that uses child soldiers, as long as they have a logical reason to use them?
edit: we probably should go pm with that, it's not really related to US.
Don't think we need to take it to PM as this is relevant to US foreign policy. The US has repeatedly issues waivers to grant military support to nations like South Sudan or also Iraq that recruit child soldiers, which in that case most often means people aged 14-16 who are drafted into the military.
These countries are often fairly young and have barely managed to establish a stable government that at least grants some form of basic security and organisation. If teenagers have to be drafted to keep the state in existence in a nation where the alternative is being run by ISIS then that seems hardly immoral or wrong.
On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote: The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
The rare species of the libertarian youtuber who rants about the military industrial complex. The fucking South sudan argument lol, the average age in that nation is <18, by definition most soldiers are child sodiers. Christ man.
...So what's your point?
that the concept of a child soldier on a continent with a median age of 19 years is utterly meaningless?
I'm going to need more clarification there. You don't see a problem with military help of an entity that uses child soldiers, as long as they have a logical reason to use them?
edit: we probably should go pm with that, it's not really related to US.
Don't think we need to take it to PM as this is relevant to US foreign policy. The US has repeatedly issues waivers to grant military support to nations like South Sudan or also Iraq that recruit child soldiers, which in that case most often means people aged 14-16 who are drafted into the military.
These countries are often fairly young and have barely managed to establish a stable government that at least grants some form of basic security and organisation. If teenagers have to be drafted to keep the state in existence in a nation where the alternative is being run by ISIS then that seems hardly immoral or wrong.
That sounds like moral clarity to me. You're okay with a practice that you would denounce if it was used by an entity you oppose, on the basis that it's done by the good guys here and that they don't have other options.
It sounds like you should either have a problem with child soldiers in every situation, or in no situation. If you're going to issue a law against military help of entities that have child soldiers on the basis that having child soldiers is immoral, and then grant exceptions everytime it's convenient, I don't really see the point of the law in the first place.
The chairman and chief executive of Wells Fargo & Co., John Stumpf, has resigned effective immediately in the wake of a scandal over the bank's past practice of secretly selling services to unsuspecting customers.
Stumpf will be replaced by President and Chief Operating Officer Timothy Sloan, long considered to be Stumpf's eventual successor.
Wells Fargo has been hammered in recent weeks by critics who say the bank unfairly took advantage of customers to meet sales targets. In September, the bank agreed to pay $185 million to settle charges that it had opened as many as 2 million accounts without the knowledge or approval of customers.
The bank's board already had sought to discipline Stumpf by requiring him to forfeit $41 million in unvested equity.
On October 13 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote: This election gets more terrifying every day. I don’t even know what the third debate is going to look like.
The only word is glorious. The first two debates were like watching SNL skits, so much so that the actual SNL skits after them actually felt MORE like a debate than the debate they were mocking. I can't see how you'd experience anything less than joy watching it.
On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote: The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
The rare species of the libertarian youtuber who rants about the military industrial complex. The fucking South sudan argument lol, the average age in that nation is <18, by definition most soldiers are child sodiers. Christ man.
...So what's your point?
that the concept of a child soldier on a continent with a median age of 19 years is utterly meaningless?
I'm going to need more clarification there. You don't see a problem with military help of an entity that uses child soldiers, as long as they have a logical reason to use them?
edit: we probably should go pm with that, it's not really related to US.
Don't think we need to take it to PM as this is relevant to US foreign policy. The US has repeatedly issues waivers to grant military support to nations like South Sudan or also Iraq that recruit child soldiers, which in that case most often means people aged 14-16 who are drafted into the military.
These countries are often fairly young and have barely managed to establish a stable government that at least grants some form of basic security and organisation. If teenagers have to be drafted to keep the state in existence in a nation where the alternative is being run by ISIS then that seems hardly immoral or wrong.
That sounds like moral clarity to me. You're okay with a practice that you would denounce if it was used by an entity you oppose, on the basis that it's done by the good guys here and that they don't have other options.
It sounds like you should either have a problem with child soldiers in every situation, or in no situation. If you're going to issue a law against military help of entities that have child soldiers on the basis that having child soldiers is immoral, and then grant exceptions everytime it's convenient, I don't really see the point of the law in the first place.
I'm okay with a bad practice if it prevents catastrophic outcomes. If South Sudan or some other African country is overrun by some crazed insurgency you're going to have state sanctioned slavery and child soldiers, at least in this case it's going to be kept to a minimum.
Makes about as much sense as being outraged about child workers in Bangladesh. Does it look morally outrageous? Sure but it wouldn't help them if we'd ban it. There's no alternative given the demographic situation and the economic and political environment.
On child soldiers, my main question would be: what is the legal age of majority in the country, and what is the cultural considered age of majority in the country (in case there's alot of exceptions, or the law is little heeded, so in practice the age of majority is lower) A quick wiki look indicates most countries use 18 as the age of legal majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority
using soldiers below the age of majority seems bad to me; both in general ethics, and as practical considerations of its long-term effects. I'd say it's fine to start military training before adulthood, but they shouldn't be in until then. I'd have to review the grants in these particular cases to see the arguments being made; my default position would be skeptical and to not support those using child soldiers.
On October 13 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote: This election gets more terrifying every day. I don’t even know what the third debate is going to look like.
The only word is glorious. The first two debates were like watching SNL skits, so much so that the actual SNL skits after them actually felt MORE like a debate than the debate they were mocking. I can't see how you'd experience anything less than joy watching it.
The only part that will be enjoyable is the day after when the polls come how showing Trump lost again. And then re-reading the posts in this thread from all the people claiming he did great. But after November 8, 2016, I'm really concerned that the GOP will just let Trump try to discredit Clintons win for their own political gain.
#repealthe19th is trending on twitter after 538 earlier posted a map of the electoral situation if only men could vote, which had Trump winning by a landslide
On October 13 2016 07:08 Dan HH wrote: #repealthe19th is trending on twitter after 538 earlier posted a map of the electoral situation if only men could vote, which had Trump winning by a landslide
They're pretty sure that the last black Trump voter has become disillusioned so they're going to start on women.
EPT
