|
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. |
United States42008 Posts
On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote: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.
There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though.
|
On November 02 2016 00:26 kwizach wrote:A spot-on column by Krugman: Show nested quote +Working the Refs
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. Source
Spot on how? The comments about Comey are purely speculative given that we don't even know what the evidence is. For all we know, he could have emails showing that Clinton committed felonies, or he could have nothing at all. And as for his comments about the right berating the mainstream media, this fool still won't even admit that there's obviously a problem with media bias. Yeah, spare me the details of instances where the media got it right and the right got it wrong. There are plenty of instances where the media has carried huge amounts of water for the democrats and their politicians, this election notwithstanding. The liberal media's loss of credibility is its own fault.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 02 2016 00:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote: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. Wtf kwark
Oh please. She's an old lady. Half the country has been arming themselves for years awaiting the day the government comes after them to force them into FEMA death camps. They'd leap at the chance to have Clinton coming after them in person. Hell, that's probably fan fiction for them at this point.
If Trump wins there's a genuine risk of there not being new elections in 2020. Clinton, even dressed up as a the predator with that shoulder laser cannon and hunting people for sport, can be voted out in four years.
|
On November 02 2016 00:33 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +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 didn't say people were on the verge of supporting Trump, just that no one denied Trump could have had a good chance winning the election if he was not the terrible candidate he turned out to be. And I would challenge you to find a regular poster in this thread, who wrote that Trump would lose even if the pivot that was promised happened. Alas, I am too lazy to search back and quote all the people and so don't ask the same of you.
|
We have two former governors that know a thing or two about hunting the predator, it'll be fine!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't think a victory for trump means victory for fascism. it would mean victory for kleptocracy and general chaos.
trump will sell domestic policy and foreign policy. he would collapse the western position for the interests of plutocrats from russia/china, by completely undercutting existing rules against corruption and application of u.s. law to foreign business interests.
domestically, it will be a combination of the worst of both worlds. we'd have a big tax cut, for the rich of course, and especially on intergenerational wealth transfer and real estate. we would also have a pretty big recession generated by tremendous loss of faith in the dollar and stability of u.s., a position that had allowed low interest rate on treasury bonds. suddenly, the debt gets real and investment dives.
we'd probably also have a foreign policy crisis or two as weakening nato commitments would just embolden russia to do some stuff in the baltics. trump will get impeached during all this, and mr. pence declares some sort of war on russia.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 02 2016 00:44 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think a victory for trump means victory for fascism. it would mean victory for kleptocracy and general chaos.
trump will sell domestic policy and foreign policy. he would collapse the western position for the interests of plutocrats from russia/china, by completely undercutting existing rules against corruption and application of u.s. law to foreign business interests.
domestically, it will be a combination of the worst of both worlds. we'd have a big tax cut, for the rich of course, and especially on intergenerational wealth transfer and real estate. we would also have a pretty big recession generated by tremendous loss of faith in the dollar and stability of u.s., a position that had allowed low interest rate on treasury bonds. suddenly, the debt gets real and investment dives.
we'd probably also have a foreign policy crisis or two as weakening nato commitments would just embolden russia to do some stuff in the baltics. trump will get impeached during all this, and mr. pence declares some sort of war on russia.
How do you reconcile that with his opposition to a free press if it criticizes him, his insistence that the electoral system cannot be trusted to create the "right" results and his total refusal to believe reality in the event of any personal failure? Does he look like a man who leaves office willingly to you?
|
On November 02 2016 00:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 00:37 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote: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. Wtf kwark Oh please. She's an old lady. Half the country has been arming themselves for years awaiting the day the government comes after them to force them into FEMA death camps. They'd leap at the chance to have Clinton coming after them in person. Hell, that's probably fan fiction for them at this point. If Trump wins there's a genuine risk of there not being new elections in 2020. Clinton, even dressed up as a the predator with that shoulder laser cannon and hunting people for sport, can be voted out in four years.
yeah, you goin cray cray kwark.
Trump doesn't have the power to shut down elections, he's far too divisive and hated. and the military wouldn't support him.
Trump is more likely to be the first impeached and removed from office president than anything.
you really going off the rails here, heck I doubt you can even still see the rails.
|
I'm with KwarK on this one, there really isn't much Clinton could do to get me to vote for Trump, because I'd much rather have a corrupt career politician than a fascist moron.
Isn't it awesome these are our choices?
EDIT: I don't think he's that crazy. Look at how much our political atmosphere has changed after 1.5 years of a Trump campaign. Who the fuck knows what it will look like after 4 years of a Trump presidency. The scariest part about Trump is not him, it's his craziest supporters, and actually winning would embolden them like we haven't seen yet. Hard pass.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 02 2016 00:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 00:40 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 biology]major wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote: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. Wtf kwark Oh please. She's an old lady. Half the country has been arming themselves for years awaiting the day the government comes after them to force them into FEMA death camps. They'd leap at the chance to have Clinton coming after them in person. Hell, that's probably fan fiction for them at this point. If Trump wins there's a genuine risk of there not being new elections in 2020. Clinton, even dressed up as a the predator with that shoulder laser cannon and hunting people for sport, can be voted out in four years. yeah, you goin cray cray kwark. Trump doesn't have the power to shut down elections, he's far too divisive and hated. and the military wouldn't support him. Trump is more likely to be the first impeached and removed from office president than anything. you really going off the rails here, heck I doubt you can even still see the rails.
You understand that I'm still closer to the rails than "I'll support the election results if I win" Trump, right?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 00:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 00:44 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think a victory for trump means victory for fascism. it would mean victory for kleptocracy and general chaos.
trump will sell domestic policy and foreign policy. he would collapse the western position for the interests of plutocrats from russia/china, by completely undercutting existing rules against corruption and application of u.s. law to foreign business interests.
domestically, it will be a combination of the worst of both worlds. we'd have a big tax cut, for the rich of course, and especially on intergenerational wealth transfer and real estate. we would also have a pretty big recession generated by tremendous loss of faith in the dollar and stability of u.s., a position that had allowed low interest rate on treasury bonds. suddenly, the debt gets real and investment dives.
we'd probably also have a foreign policy crisis or two as weakening nato commitments would just embolden russia to do some stuff in the baltics. trump will get impeached during all this, and mr. pence declares some sort of war on russia.
How do you reconcile that with his opposition to a free press if it criticizes him, his insistence that the electoral system cannot be trusted to create the "right" results and his total refusal to believe reality in the event of any personal failure? Does he look like a man who leaves office willingly to you?
well, it's not for lack of want on the part of trump.
i mean i can see a scenario in which congressional republicans accept a lot of trumpism in exchange for FAIR TAX etc. but to transition this country into fascism you'd have to overcome a lot of institutional resistance.
he's also pretty incompetent, so chances are there'd be a lot of impeachable crimes within the first three months.
|
there are plenty of reasons i wouldn't vote hillary if they turned out to be true. it's a little ridiculous to play the hypotheticals game, which is very much part of the guilty until proven innocent/ clinton rules ilk and is really just an argument in bad faith.
but that doesn't change the fact that trump has given me zero reasons to vote for him.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 02 2016 00:51 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 00:46 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:44 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think a victory for trump means victory for fascism. it would mean victory for kleptocracy and general chaos.
trump will sell domestic policy and foreign policy. he would collapse the western position for the interests of plutocrats from russia/china, by completely undercutting existing rules against corruption and application of u.s. law to foreign business interests.
domestically, it will be a combination of the worst of both worlds. we'd have a big tax cut, for the rich of course, and especially on intergenerational wealth transfer and real estate. we would also have a pretty big recession generated by tremendous loss of faith in the dollar and stability of u.s., a position that had allowed low interest rate on treasury bonds. suddenly, the debt gets real and investment dives.
we'd probably also have a foreign policy crisis or two as weakening nato commitments would just embolden russia to do some stuff in the baltics. trump will get impeached during all this, and mr. pence declares some sort of war on russia.
How do you reconcile that with his opposition to a free press if it criticizes him, his insistence that the electoral system cannot be trusted to create the "right" results and his total refusal to believe reality in the event of any personal failure? Does he look like a man who leaves office willingly to you? well, it's not for lack of want on the part of trump. i mean i can see a scenario in which congressional republicans accept a lot of trumpism in exchange for FAIR TAX etc. but to transition this country into fascism you'd have to overcome a lot of institutional resistance. he's also pretty incompetent, so chances are there'd be a lot of impeachable crimes within the first three months.
You'd think there would be a lot of institutional resistance but here we are with one of the two major parties running on a platform that includes denouncing the elections as rigged and calling for the assassination of the victor if they lose. You're placing a lot of faith in a system that had to fail catastrophically for us to get this far.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 00:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 00:51 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 00:46 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:44 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think a victory for trump means victory for fascism. it would mean victory for kleptocracy and general chaos.
trump will sell domestic policy and foreign policy. he would collapse the western position for the interests of plutocrats from russia/china, by completely undercutting existing rules against corruption and application of u.s. law to foreign business interests.
domestically, it will be a combination of the worst of both worlds. we'd have a big tax cut, for the rich of course, and especially on intergenerational wealth transfer and real estate. we would also have a pretty big recession generated by tremendous loss of faith in the dollar and stability of u.s., a position that had allowed low interest rate on treasury bonds. suddenly, the debt gets real and investment dives.
we'd probably also have a foreign policy crisis or two as weakening nato commitments would just embolden russia to do some stuff in the baltics. trump will get impeached during all this, and mr. pence declares some sort of war on russia.
How do you reconcile that with his opposition to a free press if it criticizes him, his insistence that the electoral system cannot be trusted to create the "right" results and his total refusal to believe reality in the event of any personal failure? Does he look like a man who leaves office willingly to you? well, it's not for lack of want on the part of trump. i mean i can see a scenario in which congressional republicans accept a lot of trumpism in exchange for FAIR TAX etc. but to transition this country into fascism you'd have to overcome a lot of institutional resistance. he's also pretty incompetent, so chances are there'd be a lot of impeachable crimes within the first three months. You'd think there would be a lot of institutional resistance but here we are with one of the two major parties running on a platform that includes denouncing the elections as rigged and calling for the assassination of the victor if they lose. You're placing a lot of faith in a system that had to fail catastrophically for us to get this far.
i'd say the media and the electorate are failing. the government is not failing, at least the military and agencies.
congress is failing, so that's a fair point.
|
Literally the only way Trump could get my vote is if Hillary swore she was going to nuke the US on her first day.
|
Distrusting the US electoral process is quite rational. I don't get why that incited so much pearl clutching.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 00:55 Hagen0 wrote:
Distrusting the US electoral process is quite rational. I don't get why that incited so much pearl clutching.
because guns lol
|
Even the rational and intellectual elite that comprise this forum are not immune to feels. The hypothetical by legallord really shows how detached from reality everyone is. A year and half of confirmation bias and hatred for the opposing candidate eventually leading to rationalizations so deep that murder is accepted, lmao, what a bunch of shills.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 02 2016 00:55 Hagen0 wrote:
Distrusting the US electoral process is quite rational. I don't get why that incited so much pearl clutching.
Trust in the electoral system is what allows us to peacefully overthrow the government every four years and have everyone, from all sides of the political spectrum, accept the result. It's what stops diehard leftists and rightists shooting each other in the street. It's literally what keeps politics from anarchy.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 02 2016 00:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are plenty of reasons i wouldn't vote hillary if they turned out to be true. it's a little ridiculous to play the hypotheticals game, which is very much part of the guilty until proven innocent/ clinton rules ilk and is really just an argument in bad faith.
but that doesn't change the fact that trump has given me zero reasons to vote for him.
The hypothetical is really just a more indirect way of asking, "how committed are you to the 'anyone but Trump' line?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
