|
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 November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote:
the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz. On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well. because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches. No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
+ Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
|
On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote:
the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz. On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well. because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches. No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
Do you hate liars ?
|
On November 02 2016 06:08 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well. because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches. No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so Do you hate liars ?
I don't hate people. It's lazy, yet you're the one that carries the burden of that hate (especially if the person doesn't know/care about you), so it's not even a good way to be lazy.
|
On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote:
the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz. On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well. because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches. No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't.
you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are.
I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
|
|
|
United States44171 Posts
On November 02 2016 06:14 plasmidghost wrote:
A shitton of polls are starting to show Trump having momentum going into the final week. Is it going to be enough for him, though? There's already been early voting for at least a week and I'm not sure if his campaigning in Pennsylvania and Michigan is going to be enough to knock Clinton's moderate lead
Probably not. Hillary's firewall is extremely strong.
|
odd, the email thing shouldn't be enough to shift polling by more than it originally did long ago. is there some other effects shifting the poll numbers?
|
On November 02 2016 06:13 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well. because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches. No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
Pretty sure the alternative he wants is democracy
|
United States44171 Posts
On November 02 2016 06:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 06:13 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people. Pretty sure the alternative he wants is democracy
Only some kind of version where Bernie won the Dem primary with fewer votes than Hildawg.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote:
the plutocracy's choice was rubio then cruz. On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well. because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches. No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so im just going by your political positions. you evidently do think that clinton is warped by plutocratic interests, and billionaire donation and support is part of your argument for this conclusion.
do you have any specific ideas on which you think she has been speaking on a commercial interest's behalf, and can you analyze how the ideologies of particular billionaires who support hrc facilitate bad politics?
let me give you an example.
haim saban is a long time influencer of pro-israeli view, would probably push u.s. towards more middle east involvement.
something like this for the various plutocrats you think are supporting hillary
|
On November 02 2016 06:18 zlefin wrote:
odd, the email thing shouldn't be enough to shift polling by more than it originally did long ago. is there some other effects shifting the poll numbers?
Could be the Podesta emails too. Bill Clinton's profit through the Clinton Foundation was big just prior to Comey's announcement. The Wikileaks drip-drop is designed to have a cumulative effect since they don't have any bombshells.
|
On November 02 2016 06:18 zlefin wrote:
odd, the email thing shouldn't be enough to shift polling by more than it originally did long ago. is there some other effects shifting the poll numbers?
I just saw it as a return to equilibrium.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
likely voter polls adjust for enthusiasm.
|
On November 02 2016 06:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 06:19 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2016 06:13 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people. Pretty sure the alternative he wants is democracy Only some kind of version where Bernie won the Dem primary with fewer votes than Hildawg.
The question that was asked was "what could you possibly want as an alternative to plutocracy", and the answer to that question is "Democracy, duh".
|
On November 02 2016 06:13 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
On the right maybe, but it was clear the left leaning plutocrats had Hillary picked years ago. Since, she's picked up quite a few of the right leaning plutocrats and their minions as well. because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches. No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
|
On November 02 2016 06:18 zlefin wrote:
odd, the email thing shouldn't be enough to shift polling by more than it originally did long ago. is there some other effects shifting the poll numbers?
My bullshit prediction: Lots of people outraged over the sex stuff are less outraged now. They now officially "support" Trump but may not actually end up voting for him. In my baseless opinion, both candidates will under perform in voter turnout. But I think Trump will under perform a little worse in this regard. I also don't think republicans see Clinton as an erosion of the fabric of our country the way the left view Trump. Trump is quite frankly doomsday whereas Clinton is just an obnoxious continuation of more Obama bullshit. Republicans hate Clinton, but I don't think they legitimately worry about the future of our country as wide spread as democrats or to the degree of democrats. A lot of not particularly politically active people I know seem to intend to vote just to keep Trump out. Opposition to Trump has become cultural in a lot of ways and extends way beyond the disdain for the political establishment.
|
On November 02 2016 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 06:13 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people. It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility. We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite.
what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that?
what does "real control" mean?
what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy?
|
I have to say, I feel a lot worse about the ballot choices I actually made than I did when I first made them. Hillary and Congressional Democrats have only done harm to their cause with their recent conduct. It's not enough to make me change my vote but more of a "this shit sucks" visceral reaction to being put in this situation.
|
On November 02 2016 06:34 LegalLord wrote:
I have to say, I feel a lot worse about the ballot choices I actually made than I did when I first made them. Hillary and Congressional Democrats have only done harm to their cause with their recent conduct. It's not enough to make me change my vote but more of a "this shit sucks" visceral reaction to being put in this situation.
if its any consolation, no one would have believed that wasnt your default position even before any of the recent events that may have put you off.
|
On November 02 2016 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 06:13 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote:On November 02 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
because the only interest rich people can possibly have is to further their riches.
No. I've told you that several times now. Did it sink in this time? what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy? I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet? then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system? I call them plutocrats because I see them as plutocrats, and plutocracy is pretty much the system they wish to maintain It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across. If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society. I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times. The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with. I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations. + Show Spoiler +Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people. It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility. We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
Elites?
The president for the past 8 years was a community organizer and the new favorite to win started as a lawyer for low income african americans. Bill Clinton was a working class person who worked his way up into the presidency and Reagan was a low level actor.
So when you say we've been lead by elites--is that ignoring the leadership we had for the past 36 years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
