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 November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses.
Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
stealth -> tens of billions off the stock market is meaningless, that much disappears and reappears on a daily basis just due to market fluctuation. more like hundreds of billions iirc.
On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses.
Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
it'd also help if trump somehow showed some fitness for office; but that seems very unlikely given how many chances he's had to do so and failed to do so. If it was something like Clinton vs Romney, it'd be much easier to switch the vote.
On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses.
Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
On November 02 2016 00:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'm so sick of this election that I never wish to be reminded of this year ever again in my life. I will vote Clinton because it's a matter of reform by inches (where Clinton will steal and take credit for everything because that is who she is) to Trump who aims to be an American strongman.
I honestly don't care anymore to be honest, if Trump manages to win tens of billions will be wiped out in the US stock market by morning after the result and the economy will tank later on. A country has to burn to ground to becomes a better one I guess, just look at Germany and France. After that the GOP will probably never be in power again after Trump tries to shut down media and newspapers and I guarantee you his White House will have an enemy list which will surface.
TLDR: Fuck all of this. Trump is a fascist and Clinton is a dipshit egomaniac whose sole goal is to become President because it beats therapy.
Sorry world.
This is the one silver lining to a Trump presidency. He all but guarantees a loss 4 years from now by historic numbers that when combined with changing demographics spells the end of the Republican party as we know it. They will have to reform as a more centrist party.
On November 01 2016 23:40 KwarK wrote: Don't engage zeo unless you're willing to outbid his Kremlin paymasters.
No need to be so nervous around me Kwark.
The only thing about you that makes me nervous is the state of democracy when people like you get a vote.
'People that don't agree with me shouldn't get to vote' 'I'm concerned about the rise of fascism in America'
It's like that Jonny Depp movie where he realises he was the killer all along.
I don't want to take away your vote. It's just a sorry state of affairs when someone can reach adulthood with such a poor understanding of the world as you have. Working democracy relies upon education and clearly you have been horribly let down in that regard. You're an example of how much work we have left to do.
Yeah, people who don't agree with you need re-education. Sounds like something out of Stalins Russia. The irony here being that the "education" you want to pump into them is totally bogus anyway, full of lies - Exhibit A Obama : Premiums will go down under Obamacare
I don't buy it but who knows, maybe. Would be one of the biggest upsets in history if trump manages to win.
But ya,this cycle is the absolute low of the many election cycles I have seen. The new president wont have the same credibility and authority in the world that Obama had.
On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses.
Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office. We need to distinguish between things that will make me not want Hillary to be President, of which there are limitless hypothetical crimes she could have committed, and things that will make me want to support the rise of fascism in the global Hegemonic power, of which I can't picture any.
On November 02 2016 00:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'm so sick of this election that I never wish to be reminded of this year ever again in my life. I will vote Clinton because it's a matter of reform by inches (where Clinton will steal and take credit for everything because that is who she is) to Trump who aims to be an American strongman.
I honestly don't care anymore to be honest, if Trump manages to win tens of billions will be wiped out in the US stock market by morning after the result and the economy will tank later on. A country has to burn to ground to becomes a better one I guess, just look at Germany and France. After that the GOP will probably never be in power again after Trump tries to shut down media and newspapers and I guarantee you his White House will have an enemy list which will surface.
TLDR: Fuck all of this. Trump is a fascist and Clinton is a dipshit egomaniac whose sole goal is to become President because it beats therapy.
Sorry world.
she works awfully hard on the issues to be such a craven egomaniac.
The cryptic letter James Comey, the F.B.I. director, sent to Congress on Friday looked bizarre at the time — seeming to hint at a major new Clinton scandal, but offering no substance. Given what we know now, however, it was worse than bizarre, it was outrageous. Mr. Comey apparently had no evidence suggesting any wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton; he violated longstanding rules about commenting on politically sensitive investigations close to an election; and he did so despite being warned by other officials that he was doing something terribly wrong.
So what happened? We may never know the full story, but the best guess is that Mr. Comey, like many others — media organizations, would-be nonpartisan advocacy groups, and more — let himself be bullied by the usual suspects. Working the refs — screaming about bias and unfair treatment, no matter how favorable the treatment actually is — has been a consistent, long-term political strategy on the right. And the reason it keeps happening is because it so often works.
You see this most obviously in news coverage. Reporters who find themselves shut up in pens at Trump rallies while the crowd shouts abuse shouldn’t be surprised: constant accusations of liberal media bias have been a staple of Republican rhetoric for decades. And why not? The pressure has been effective.
Part of this effectiveness comes through false equivalence: news organizations, afraid of being attacked for bias, give evenhanded treatment to lies and truth. Way back in 2000 I suggested that if a Republican candidate said that the earth was flat, headlines would read, “Views differ on shape of planet.” That still happens.
On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses.
Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office.
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then?
On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote: We need to distinguish between things that will make me not want Hillary to be President, of which there are limitless hypothetical crimes she could have committed, and things that will make me want to support the rise of fascism in the global Hegemonic power, of which I can't picture any.
The real question I'm getting at is, "how bad do the alternatives have to be for you to agree that Trump is the lesser of two evils?"
On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses.
Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
There's no situation where it makes sense for Trump to be president. He is a glorified protest vote. He has no political experience and we have absolutely no reason to think he would be remotely capable. I would choose Gary Johnson over Trump any day of the week. Trump is just not even a legitimate candidate. He's just what happens when populism gets out of hand and people say "enough already!". It isn't a reasonable thought, just people letting their emotions get out of line. Its not a matter of me disagreeing with his stances on issues, it's that he isn't even a real choice.
At the end of the day, I see no difference between voting for Trump and Dr Dre.
On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses.
Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office.
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then?
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump.
The problem with the what would it take question is that it is just too late. Trump got his chance, even in this topic, most people were like "ok, now he just needs to not be terrible in the debates and this could be a thing" and "oh, he just made faces for the stupid gop crowd, but he will pivot to reason any time now!". That ship has now sailed, he had months, and didn't make dick of it, why would anyone who paid attention the whole season take seriously any miraculous revelation that came this last week?
I would probably write in giant meteor if we saw evidence of Clinton genocide or whatever. At that point, there's no way in hell my vote matters anyway since Trump will win in a landslide-lesser of two evils is irrelevant to me at that point.
If on the other hand I'm some supreme arbitrator of who becomes president and determine 270 electoral college votes, I'd have the power to pick someone else over Trump. And I would.
If I'm forced to use all my 270 electoral votes for Trump or genocide Clinton, I wonder how I got into this hellish world and just give up.
If I have some strange mind control forcing me not to do these things I do whatever the strange mind control tells me to do.
What comey did was fine,like wth? He just updates on everything,trying to be as open as possible. He first said the investigation was closed,now they found new evidence and reopen the investigation so he let congress know. Its incredibly stupid from the democrats to make an issue about this.
On November 02 2016 00:30 Evotroid wrote: The problem with the what would it take question is that it is just too late. Trump got his chance, even in this topic, most people were like "ok, now he just needs to not be terrible in the debates and this could be a thing" and "oh, he just made faces for the stupid gop crowd, but he will pivot to reason any time now!". That ship has now sailed, he had months, and didn't make dick of it, why would anyone who paid attention the whole season take seriously any miraculous revelation that came this last week?
No lol,the die hard contributers to this thread all but a few favor Clinton by a big margin. No matter what happens their position wont chance. It is almost like they are campaigning for Clinton on this forum,all objectivity is being lost.
Noone here had the feeling "now he just doesn't need to be terrible at the debates and this could be a thing" There are like 3 trump supporters in this thread who always support him, and like 20 Clinton supporters for who Clinton can do no wrong at all. Its so polarized,almost no one is objective
On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses.
Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office.
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then?
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump.
Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets.
On November 02 2016 00:30 Evotroid wrote: The problem with the what would it take question is that it is just too late. Trump got his chance, even in this topic, most people were like "ok, now he just needs to not be terrible in the debates and this could be a thing" and "oh, he just made faces for the stupid gop crowd, but he will pivot to reason any time now!". That ship has now sailed, he had months, and didn't make dick of it, why would anyone who paid attention the whole season take seriously any miraculous revelation that came this last week?
No lol,the die hard contributers to this thread all but a few favor Clinton by a big margin. No matter what happens their position wont chance. It is almost like they are campaigning for Clinton on this forum,all objectivity is being lost.
Noone here had the feeling "now he just doesn't need to be terrible at the debates and this could be a thing" There are like 3 trump supporters in this thread who always support him, and like 20 Clinton supporters for who Clinton can do no wrong at all. Its so polarized,almost no one is objective
I disagree with the idea that Clinton can do no wrong. She absolutely can. But Trump has already done so much wrong that it doesn't turn it into a two horse race for me. She doesn't need to be a perfect candidate to win my support which is good because she isn't one.
On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses.
Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough.
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that.
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question)
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office.
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then?
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump.
EPT
