|
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 20 2016 12:25 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 12:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Really spurring my curiosity: How will this election affect Trump's business. Anyway. This has been catastrophic for his businesses IMO. He's pissed off well over half the country. Most of his base can't afford his products. They're not staying at his hotels and stuff so this isn't good. However doing something like TrumpTV is 100% the play. His current companies are doomed, that's where he can still make money. His base will watch the alt-right nationalistic stuff and but the prepper products. He needs to shift that way if he doesn't want to end up bankrupt.
Most polls from when they were reasonably even suggested that the average Trump supporter is wealthier than the average Hillary supporter. I haven't looked poll specifics in like 2-3 weeks though... No need for a poll at this point to predict the outcome with a 99.9% confidence.
But I agree, that it should be bad on his business, but yeah, hard to predict how big of an impact getting his name out there had.
|
On October 20 2016 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
well i guess ingrahams a msm shill who would have guessed
|
Reminds me of a fundamental foreign policy question that relates to the situation in Iraq which lead to ISIS success in parts of there:
what to do when a nascent supported democracy elects someone who's causing everything to fail.
|
On October 20 2016 12:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Really spurring my curiosity: How will this election affect Trump's business. Anyway.
Yeah, looks like we Trump guys wont win, but at least getting 45% will hopefully send a strong message that there's plenty of people unhappy with the current direction... Especially when that 45% people will have voted for almost suicide for their country to show their unhappiness.
That should be a strong message that things are not okay.
Literally anyone would get 40% or more running for either party
|
On October 20 2016 12:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 12:23 CatharsisUT wrote:On October 20 2016 12:02 zlefin wrote:
Bleh, listening to more people's call-ins on cspan; so many people are so utterly clueless.
Reminds me of a basic balance problem in democracy:
balancing making all voices be heard and represented, and filtering out the stupid/crazy. So are you like the most patient man in the world's apprentice? no. I'm not sure how patient I am compared to the average, as I lack a good baseline, I find myself to be somewhat more patient than average, more than that I can't say.
Referencing this:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Ironically, the only way that Trump could possibly win now is if the election really is rigged...
|
On October 20 2016 12:27 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 12:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Really spurring my curiosity: How will this election affect Trump's business. Anyway.
Yeah, looks like we Trump guys wont win, but at least getting 45% will hopefully send a strong message that there's plenty of people unhappy with the current direction... Especially when that 45% people will have voted for almost suicide for their country to show their unhappiness.
That should be a strong message that things are not okay. Literally anyone would get 40% or more running for either party
Sounds like a pretty shitty democracy, no?
Interesting that's not being addressed, so either way, the losers imo will still be able to come out as the victims in all of this, and benefit from it.
|
On October 20 2016 12:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It is in a sense, he doesn't need the status or fame, he'd be a celebrity president whereas Obama's a president turned celebrity.
|
It's a nice sentiment but it ignores the profound ethically responsibilities that are tied into voting.
To very, very briefly sum up some of the major points that shoot down Mike Rowe's "voting is a right not a responsibility" line,
1) He simply states "voting is a right, not a responsibility". It's purely emotional sentiment. In no way does he actually support either of the statements in that quote.
2) Voting is your opportunity to hold our elected leaders accountable. If you forfeit your vote, then you've compromised your ability to complain about what's going on when you refuse to participate in fixing it in any way.
3) Voting has far more ethical weight to it than just exercising a random right, like owning a gun. When you vote, you are giving certain individuals the legal authority to coerce you and your fellow citizens into doing or not doing things. In other words, you are indirectly forcing your fellow citizens to conform to a certain legal and societal framework.
This discussion can get far more nuanced than 3 points, but I really don't want to get into it now. Suffice to say, I found Mike Rowe's idea to be shallow and intellectually lazy, even if it was an appealing sentiment that was eloquently worded.
|
On October 20 2016 12:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 12:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 20 2016 12:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Really spurring my curiosity: How will this election affect Trump's business. Anyway.
Yeah, looks like we Trump guys wont win, but at least getting 45% will hopefully send a strong message that there's plenty of people unhappy with the current direction... Especially when that 45% people will have voted for almost suicide for their country to show their unhappiness.
That should be a strong message that things are not okay. Literally anyone would get 40% or more running for either party Sounds like a pretty shitty democracy, no? Interesting that's not being addressed, so either way, the losers imo will still be able to come out as the victims in all of this, and benefit from it.
I'm not sure it's possible to fix that issue.
And I'm sure it's not quite literally anyone who could get that far; but policy stances account for a lot, and there's sufficient policy differences that there's a fair portion of people for whom the margin is large enough that a much less competent candidate with much closer policy alignment is preferable.
A democracy is only as a good as its voters, and people are idiots 
but if you'd like to try out some new governmental structures, I'd be happy to provide them. However I find few are truly interested in trying otu new forms and sub-forms of government.
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 12:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 12:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 20 2016 12:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Really spurring my curiosity: How will this election affect Trump's business. Anyway.
Yeah, looks like we Trump guys wont win, but at least getting 45% will hopefully send a strong message that there's plenty of people unhappy with the current direction... Especially when that 45% people will have voted for almost suicide for their country to show their unhappiness.
That should be a strong message that things are not okay. Literally anyone would get 40% or more running for either party Sounds like a pretty shitty democracy, no? Interesting that's not being addressed, so either way, the losers imo will still be able to come out as the victims in all of this, and benefit from it.
People always say, "the system is shitty if this is all we could come up with".
the problem is that we constantly have had the opportunity to come up with different candidates, and 1) when you come up with "different" candidates, you come up with clueless picks like Trump, Johnson, and Stein, and 2) the people only have themselves to blame. Our voter turnout is absolutely atrocious, and voter turnout for primaries averages less than 25%!
|
On October 20 2016 12:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 12:29 oBlade wrote:It is in a sense, he doesn't need the status or fame, he'd be a celebrity president whereas Obama's a president turned celebrity. Dude, again, that is kind of silly. There is no known person in the world who would be like "psssshhh being leader of the richest, most technologically advanced, and most powerful empire in the history of the planet is a step down from my regular day-to-day life". It might be a lot of work, and it might be hard. That person might not want the job because of it. But in no common usage of the phrase "a step down" is that actually true.
The election is 20 days away and the Trumps are already claiming the grapes are sour
|
On October 20 2016 12:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:It's a nice sentiment but it ignores the profound ethically responsibilities that are tied into voting. To very, very briefly sum up some of the major points that shoot down Mike Rowe's "voting is a right not a responsibility" line, 1) He simply states "voting is a right, not a responsibility". It's purely emotional sentiment. In no way does he actually support either of the statements in that quote. 2) Voting is your opportunity to hold our elected leaders accountable. If you forfeit your vote, then you've compromised your ability to complain about what's going on when you refuse to participate in fixing it in any way. 3) Voting has far more ethical weight to it than just exercising a random right, like owning a gun. When you vote, you are giving certain individuals the legal authority to coerce you and your fellow citizens into doing or not doing things. In other words, you are indirectly forcing your fellow citizens to conform to a certain legal and societal framework. This discussion can get far more nuanced than 3 points, but I really don't want to get into it now. Suffice to say, I found Mike Rowe's idea to be shallow and intellectually lazy, even if it was an appealing sentiment that was eloquently worded.
I think his actual point is that he doesn't want to tell people to vote, he wants to tell people to get informed (which indirectly leads to voting). But yeah it's definitely more nuanced because there *is* responsibility to not let some people in power.
It's a weird thing because in an ideal democratic world, you would tell racists/homophobes/zealots to vote... but you can see how one might not want that, so they may not want to blindly tell everyone to vote. It's a weird moral stance.
https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/posts/1310702022273271
|
On October 20 2016 12:37 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 12:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 20 2016 12:29 oBlade wrote:It is in a sense, he doesn't need the status or fame, he'd be a celebrity president whereas Obama's a president turned celebrity. Dude, again, that is kind of silly. There is no known person in the world who would be like "psssshhh being leader of the richest, most technologically advanced, and most powerful empire in the history of the planet is a step down from my regular day-to-day life". It might be a lot of work, and it might be hard. That person might not want the job because of it. But in no common usage of the phrase "a step down" is that actually true. The election is 20 days away and the Trumps are already claiming the grapes are sour
The Hillary camp would probably be doing the same if she was losing. You want to win, gotta keep it cool.
|
Voter turnout is a joke. Trying to suppress votes is a joke. We should want everyone to have a voice in this democracy, even if that voice disagrees with us. If our standard policies are being left in the dust because they're untenable in a modern society then those policies need to be jettisoned or changed instead of trying to suppress democracy to shoe horn them in.
We absolutely need to do a better job of teaching civics, skepticism, science literacy. A better job with education across the board so we have a smarter more well informed electorate in the future. And we need to do more to make sure everyone gets to vote and actually shows up to do it.
The system is shitty but if you actually care go do something about it. Work to make things better, work to make people smarter, more informed, work to make sure everyone has a voice.
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 12:37 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 12:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 20 2016 12:29 oBlade wrote:It is in a sense, he doesn't need the status or fame, he'd be a celebrity president whereas Obama's a president turned celebrity. Dude, again, that is kind of silly. There is no known person in the world who would be like "psssshhh being leader of the richest, most technologically advanced, and most powerful empire in the history of the planet is a step down from my regular day-to-day life". It might be a lot of work, and it might be hard. That person might not want the job because of it. But in no common usage of the phrase "a step down" is that actually true. The election is 20 days away and the Trumps are already claiming the grapes are sour
No, not sour grapes. If you live a life of boundless opulence in mansions and estates all around the country nothing's forcing you to live a life surrounded by bodyguards and have the job of running everything and being on endless 24 hour call. This is something he's said since the primary, that he doesn't need to be running, unlike people who actually make it their career. It's interesting you say sour grapes because I constantly see people insisting the election is already over, including people in the media, which is not a great thing to do for voting.
|
A nice sentiment ouchy, but does it lead to the best outcomes? Is there not value in ensuring decisions are made soundly by filtering out that which is demonstrably untrue? of course the educating people more is good (subject to cost limitations). but the balance of representation vs filtering is a serious one.
|
On October 20 2016 12:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 12:37 Dan HH wrote:On October 20 2016 12:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 20 2016 12:29 oBlade wrote:It is in a sense, he doesn't need the status or fame, he'd be a celebrity president whereas Obama's a president turned celebrity. Dude, again, that is kind of silly. There is no known person in the world who would be like "psssshhh being leader of the richest, most technologically advanced, and most powerful empire in the history of the planet is a step down from my regular day-to-day life". It might be a lot of work, and it might be hard. That person might not want the job because of it. But in no common usage of the phrase "a step down" is that actually true. The election is 20 days away and the Trumps are already claiming the grapes are sour No, not sour grapes. If you live a life of boundless opulence in mansions and estates all around the country nothing's forcing you to live a life surrounded by bodyguards and have the job of running everything and being on endless 24 hour call. This is something he's said since the primary, that he doesn't need to be running, unlike people who actually make it their career. It's interesting you say sour grapes because I constantly see people insisting the election is already over, including people in the media, which is not a great thing to do for voting.
I'm sure that's also why he's claiming massive scale voter fraud with no evidence, because he's such a good sport that just doesn't need this
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
