# [POLL] Who are/would you vote for United States President?



## drewby (Aug 25, 2016)

Hey everyone!

I just wanted to know GBATemp's opinion on the candidates for the United States president!

Please feel free to start a discussion below, as well as voting in the poll above!

Thanks!


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Nobody, it's a country full of ignorant imbeciles. The US should follow Europe, so they can improve.


----------



## 3DSPoet (Aug 25, 2016)

Personally, I think we need a political satirist....John Stewart or Stephen Colbert!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

If I could vote it'd be Jill Stein at this point. Not that she really has any shot at winning


----------



## drewby (Aug 25, 2016)

If I was old enough to vote, I would vote for Gary Johnson.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 25, 2016)

Anyone, but Trump


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2016)

A thread for this already exists.
http://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-u-s-presidential-election-2016.430411/


----------



## MisterPantsEyes (Aug 25, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Anyone, but Trump


Literally this. I voted for Jill Stein, but there's absolutely no chance she'll win. It's either Donald 'Retard' Trump or Hillary 'Full Capitalist' Clinton.

RIP IN PIPI AMERICA


----------



## dpad_5678 (Aug 25, 2016)

You forgot Darrel Castle in The Constitution Party lol.

Bernie Sanders should be the Democratic Nominee. The DNC rigged the election. I'd vote for Jill Stein because I don't believe in voting for the "greater of two evils" (Clinton).x

Gary Johnson seems okay, but I'd never vote for a conservative.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> Nobody, it's a country full of ignorant imbeciles. The US should follow Europe, so they can improve.


What?


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A thread for this already exists.
> http://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-u-s-presidential-election-2016.430411/


Although that thread has been derailed to a point. Plus alot has happened since that thread was started so to say the polling would be the same is not too good.


Anyway I am proudly voting for Johnson as his ideas are most inline with mine in regards to policy. Plus I want my vote to count for something and Johnson does that in my case.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> You forgot Darrel Castle in The Constitution Party lol.


He doesn't have ballot access to 270 votes yet, so it is my opinion that to include him now but exclude others would be arbitrary and inconsistent.



dpad_5678 said:


> Bernie Sanders should be the Democratic Nominee. The DNC rigged the election.


The DNC did not rig the election. Whether or not we like it, Secretary Clinton won the Democratic nomination because she got more votes than Senator Sanders fair and square.



RevPokemon said:


> Plus alot has happened since that thread was started so to say the polling would be the same is not too good.


I wasn't aware that threads had a time limit. Plus, people have the ability to change their votes in the original thread. This thread and its poll are practically identical to the other one, so it is unnecessary. I'm assuming OP wouldn't have posted this with knowledge of the other thread.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The DNC did not rig the election. Whether or not we like it, Secretary Clinton won the Democratic nomination because she got more votes than Senator Sanders fair and square.


Wiki leaks? Email leaks? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? lol


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> Wiki leaks? Email leaks? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? lol


Did any of these emails demonstrate any tangible acts that actually disenfranchised Senator Sanders and affected the election, or did they demonstrate mere spitballing? _lol_


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

American politics are confusing, i'd rather have bernie sanders if i was in this situation but hes out of the picture so yeah.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I wasn't aware that threads had a time limit. Plus, people have the ability to change their votes in the original thread. This thread and its poll are practically identical to the other one, so it is unnecessary. I'm assuming OP wouldn't have posted this with knowledge of the other thread.


I feel atleast that people are more likely to revote differently then to go back and change their vote.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Aug 25, 2016)

What a coincidence. The things that can happen to some people huh?


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Did any of these emails demonstrate any tangible acts that actually disenfranchised Senator Sanders and affected the election, or did they demonstrate mere spitballing? _lol_


I personally would say the views of the DNC officials would count as affecting the campaign.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Did any of these emails demonstrate any tangible acts that actually disenfranchised Senator Sanders and affected the election, or did they demonstrate mere spitballing? _lol_


Let's see. Why did Debbie whatsherface resign as CEO of the DNC as soon as she was questioned?


----------



## DinohScene (Aug 26, 2016)

I'd vote for Trump.
Why?
Cause fuck you that's why!
I want to see how badly he can fuck up an entire country.
Is he worse then Bush?
You will see that in the next episode of "4 years of Presidency!"


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 26, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I'd vote for Trump.
> Why?
> Cause fuck you that's why!
> I want to see how badly he can fuck up an entire country.
> ...


Or 8 if they renew the series after the first four seasons.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I feel atleast that people are more likely to revote differently then to go back and change their vote.


It all depends on which thread is active. The minimization of duplicate threads is preferred, and a new thread doesn't give us anything new nor beneficial.



Gingerbread Crumb said:


> What a coincidence. The things that can happen to some people huh?


The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate any of this conspiracy garbage is true. Otherwise, you're just committing an association fallacy.



RevPokemon said:


> I personally would say the views of the DNC officials would count as affecting the campaign.


Even DNC officials are allowed to have candidate preferences. Otherwise, you're condemning people for thought crimes. What matters is whether or not they act impartially and don't give favorable treatment to a candidate. So far, a lack of impartiality in the actions of the DNC has not been demonstrated.



dpad_5678 said:


> Let's see. Why did Debbie whatsherface resign as CEO of the DNC as soon as she was questioned?


Because she made controversial statements for someone in her position, and she didn't want to distract from the convention nor the campaign.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate any of this conspiracy garbage is true. Otherwise, you're just committing an association fallacy.
> 
> Do you not find any of that strange? Why would they all die in similar ways like that? Of course you know as well as I that I can't prove any of this, but doesn't it make you wonder even a little? Either they're very lucky or something is going on.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Do you not find any of that strange? Why would they all die in similar ways like that? Of course you know as well as I that I can't prove any of this, but doesn't it make you wonder even a little? Either they're very lucky or something is going on.


I know three people who have died in two separate car crashes. Does that mean I killed them? And this is without me being President of the United States and having a connection to just about everyone in government, widening my pool of mortal human beings. People die. There are no red flags in the debunked conspiracy silliness you've posted.

Donald Trump is 70 years old and has been a public figure for quite some time. I'm sure I could put on my tinfoil hat, pull up everyone who has ever died in his life, categorize them by cause of death, and make just as substantive a conspiracy theory.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Even DNC officials are allowed to have candidate preferences. Otherwise, you're condemning people for thought crimes. What matters is whether or not they act impartially and don't give favorable treatment to a candidate. So far, a lack of impartiality in the actions of the DNC has not been demonstrated.


All I am saying is that when you are personally supportive of someone you are naturally more inclined to act in their favor.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> All I am saying is that when you are personally supportive of someone you are naturally more inclined to act in their favor.


Everyone has opinions and preferences, including DNC officials, judges, etc. That does not mean they cannot compartmentalize their opinions and the job that requires impartiality. The burden of proof is on the person claiming misconduct.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I know three people who have died in two separate car crashes. Does that mean I killed them? And this is without me being President of the United States and having a connection to just about everyone in government, widening my pool of mortal human beings. People die. There are no red flags in the debunked conspiracy silliness you've posted.
> 
> Donald Trump is 70 years old and has been a public figure for quite some time. I'm sure I could put on my tinfoil hat, pull up everyone who has ever died in his life, categorize them by cause of death, and make just as substantive a conspiracy theory.


Yes you're right but you seem to forget the thing that makes you and her different. The people that died either had dirt on the Clintons or were investigating them or they were going to testify against them. Either way ignoring the pic I posted, it doesn't change the fact that Hillary is a snake that can't even keep her dirty secrets under wraps.


----------



## Issac (Aug 26, 2016)

I don't want to vote in this poll, because I'm not informed enough to be honest. Even though I'm a "right wing" guy here in Sweden (and by that I don't mean far right), I think Democrats are the best bet in the US. I actually get the feeling that Obama is like the right wing party here, and our left wing is.... messed up. 

From what little I know, I'd say Bernie seemed like a cool dude. Hillary doesn't really feel all that bright somehow. And Donald Duc- I mean Trump, well that goes without saying.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Yes you're right but you seem to forget the thing that makes you and her different. The people that died either had dirt on the Clintons or were investigating them or they were going to testify against them. Either way ignoring the pic I posted, it doesn't change the fact that Hillary is a snake that can't even keep her dirty secrets under wraps.


How is she a _snake_?


----------



## Shining Greninja (Aug 26, 2016)

The election is Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, aka a Big Turd vs. a Shit Sandwich, that's always how it will be


----------



## vb_encryption_vb (Aug 26, 2016)

I'll take Trump over Hillary any day.

The bitch will not be coming for my guns...


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

vb_encryption_vb said:


> The bitch will not be coming for my guns...


And what guns do you have that you think she's going to take?


----------



## vb_encryption_vb (Aug 26, 2016)

Nothing will scare off an intruder like an ar15.


----------



## Viri (Aug 26, 2016)

Donald Trump of course!


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

vb_encryption_vb said:


> Nothing will scare off an intruder like an ar15.


Are you that bad a shot that you need an AR-15 to scare off a home intruder?


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Everyone has opinions and preferences, including DNC officials, judges, etc. That does not mean they cannot compartmentalize their opinions and the job that requires impartiality. The burden of proof is on the person claiming misconduct.


The party is supposed to conduct a fair primary so that it's members can select it's next leader. A few high powered leaders of the party aren't supposed to be able to select the candidate of their choice. They are supposed to remain neutral and support the candidate the members elect. Emails indicating that they think their role is anything but that, and then further emails showing they have a preferred candidate and are actively trying to use their position within the party to further their own personal agenda.  Any party leadership is going to do what they think is best for that party, to include pushing the candidate they think is most likely to win in an election, however it comes to a point where they cross the line. It is very safe to say that they crossed it.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The party is supposed to conduct a fair primary so that it's members can select it's next leader.


Which is what happened.



RevPokemon said:


> A few high powered leaders of the party aren't supposed to be able to select the candidate of their choice.


Which did not happen.



RevPokemon said:


> They are supposed to remain neutral and support the candidate the members elect.


Which is what happened.



RevPokemon said:


> Emails indicating that they think their role is anything but that, and then further emails showing they have a preferred candidate and are actively trying to use their position within the party to further their own personal agenda.


The leaked emails show nothing more than some personal preference and spitballing. There were no thumbs on the scale. Senator Sanders was not disenfranchised. The primary was fair. The burden of proof is on the person claiming impropriety.



RevPokemon said:


> Any party leadership is going to do what they think is best for that party, to include pushing the candidate they think is most likely to win in an election, however it comes to a point where they cross the line. It is very safe to say that they crossed it.


Where did they cross the line? Regardless of some people's personal preferences and spitballing hypotheticals, neither candidate received any sort of advantage from the Democratic Party.

Senator Sanders lost the primary because Secretary Clinton received over 3 million more votes. It wasn't rigged.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The leaked emails show nothing more than some personal preference and spitballing. There were no thumbs on the scale. Senator Sanders was not disenfranchised. The primary was fair. The burden of proof is on the person claiming impropriety.


https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/592 - Planning for withdrawal in April
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5823 - Damn Liar
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508 - Atheist vs Jew
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9999 - Bernie will not be president

I do not understand how you could honestly consider that simply to be mere personal preference.


----------



## MisterPantsEyes (Aug 26, 2016)

I always laugh at Trump supporters. You can never be sure if they're actually serious or just satirical because what they say sounds so ridiculous.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 26, 2016)

MisterPantsEyes said:


> I always laugh at Trump supporters. You can never be sure if they're actually serious or just satirical because what they say sounds so ridiculous.


Absolutely it really is hard to consider his ridiculousness as serious.


----------



## vb_encryption_vb (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Are you that bad a shot that you need an AR-15 to scare off a home intruder?


Na, just like to see body parts fly. But we get it, go put your squirt gun away...


----------



## Viri (Aug 26, 2016)

vb_encryption_vb said:


> Nothing will scare off an intruder like an ar15.


I actually thought about buying an 80% complete AR from this site, and putting it together. They have Youtube videos and such on how to do it. Plus, it looks damn fun to do! Best part is, I'll have a damn AR-15 that I built my self!

http://www.80percentarms.com/


----------



## Ridge (Aug 26, 2016)

Were I a US resident, I would vote for Hillary Clinton. Not because I like her, because I don't, but because she can beat Trump. Other candidates have next to no chance at beating Trump, so Hillary is the only hope they have left at not getting Donald Trump as president.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 26, 2016)

Viri said:


> I actually thought about buying an 80% complete AR from this site, and putting it together. They have Youtube videos and such on how to do it. Plus, it looks damn fun to do! Best part is, I'll have a damn AR-15 that I built my self!
> 
> http://www.80percentarms.com/


Or more technically, 20% you built yourself


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/592 - Planning for withdrawal in April
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5823 - Damn Liar
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508 - Atheist vs Jew
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9999 - Bernie will not be president
> ...


https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/592 --> Clinton was very much ahead. It would be idiotic to not start planning these things. The DNC didn't act on it, nor did it declare a winner until everything was all said and done.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5823 --> A private conversation about some personal opinions regarding Senator Sanders arguably being disengenuous. It had no bearing on the race.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508 --> The spitballing of hypotheticals that I mentioned earlier that had no bearing on the election. They didn't actually do anything that was proposed as a hypothetical.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9999 --> A person's private opinion in response to an attack by Bernie. As I mentioned earlier, this isn't evidence of impropriety nor election-rigging.

If you think these emails are evidence of election-rigging and/or impropriety, then I suggest you research the times these things actually do occur. There's a stark contrast.



vb_encryption_vb said:


> Na, just like to see body parts fly. But we get it, go put your squirt gun away...


Excuse me if I don't care about your desire to see body parts fly. I think there are more important things.


----------



## Viri (Aug 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Or more technically, 20% you built yourself


Reminds me of putting a PC together, except it's a bit harder, and the outcome is an object that can kill around 20+ people in less than a minute. 

You know, pretty much the same


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Clinton was very much ahead. It would be idiotic to not start planning these things. The DNC didn't act on it, nor did it declare a winner until everything was all said and done.


Actually as you understand the election is not over until it is done. Sanders at that point still could of won the nomination, so for the party to planning his withdrawal implies the fact that despite his possibility of winning they already were moving on to Clinton.



Lacius said:


> A private conversation about some personal opinions regarding Senator Sanders arguably being disengenuous. It had no bearing on the race.





Lacius said:


> The spitballing of hypotheticals that I mentioned earlier that had no bearing on the election. They didn't actually do anything that was proposed as a hypothetical.


The idea that you can openly state your own negative personal views yet still be called impartial to either side is ludicrous.



Lacius said:


> A person's private opinion in response to an attack by Bernie. As I mentioned earlier, this isn't evidence of impropriety nor election-rigging.


Yes, stating the he was NOT GOING TO BE THE DNC PICK is by no means proof of being impartial.



Lacius said:


> If you think these emails are evidence of election-rigging and/or impropriety, then I suggest you research the times these things actually do occur. There's a stark contrast.


I strongly suggest that you realize that election fraud is not always done on a huge over the top way. Again I will say that when you have the top leaders expressing their own personal preference that it is hard to consider that as impartial.

Regardless it does not matter to much to me about who the DNC candidate is but rather my concerns over how the primary was conducted. Regardless I think we agree that we fundamentally disagree on this. Either way I am actually voting for Gary Johnson where my vote actually counts.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Actually as you understand the election is not over until it is done. Sanders at that point still could of won the nomination, so for the party to planning his withdrawal implies the fact that despite his possibility of winning they already were moving on to Clinton.


It was unlikely that Sanders was going to win, and it doesn't matter. There's nothing nefarious about planning for the general election and operating based on what's likely to happen. And, again, the DNC didn't actually do anything tangible until after the election was over.



RevPokemon said:


> The idea that you can openly state your own negative personal views yet still be called impartial to either side is ludicrous.


First, one can openly state one's personal views and still act impartially. Whether or not someone expresses an opinion is not our standard for assessing whether or not one can do his or her job fairly, particularly in the world of politics when members of a political party are almost certainly going to have political points of view. Our standard is one's actions.

Second, these were private emails. No one was stating his or her views on Hillary vs. Bernie openly and publicly. Do not pretend that this issue is anything more than you condemning people for having opinions and sharing them privately.



RevPokemon said:


> Yes, stating the he was NOT GOING TO BE THE DNC PICK is by no means proof of being impartial.


See above.



RevPokemon said:


> I strongly suggest that you realize that election fraud is not always done on a huge over the top way.


I strongly suggest you realize that election fraud occurs when an _act_ of election fraud is committed, by definition. Privately expressing an opinion is not fraud. If you want to say that privately or even publically expressing an opinion is fraud and/or means one cannot compartmentalize and act impartially, then every moderated debate, every primary contest, every judge ruling, etc. has been a fraudulent bias orgy.



RevPokemon said:


> Again I will say that when you have the top leaders expressing their own personal preference that it is hard to consider that as impartial.


See above.



RevPokemon said:


> Regardless it does not matter to much to me about who the DNC candidate is but rather my concerns over how the primary was conducted.


Can you articulate a single instance when the actual primary election was poorly conducted and a candidate was given an advantage?



RevPokemon said:


> Regardless I think we agree that we fundamentally disagree on this. Either way I am actually voting for Gary Johnson where my vote actually counts.


A vote for Gary Johnson might be right for you, but don't pretend it's going to have any bearing on who wins the election and count as anything more than a protest vote.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 26, 2016)

Viri said:


> Reminds me of putting a PC together, except it's a bit harder, and the outcome is an object that can kill around 20+ people in less than a minute.
> 
> You know, pretty much the same


I'm confused as to how that sounds more appealing


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A vote for Gary Johnson might be right for you, but don't pretend it's going to have any bearing on who wins the election and count as anything more than a protest vote


It is actually worth more for me and to be honest about 40 other states as well. I live in a very deep red state where Trump is leading by around 12-15 percent in my state. Likewise Vermont, Alaska, California, Texas and so on are states where Clinton or Trump are ahead by such large amounts that voting for either one of them is basically a wasted voted. For example Johnson or Castle or Stein may have no chance of winning for their electoral votes) but to be honest neither does Clinton or Trump (Alaska for Clinton or California for Trump). In some cases however a vote for someone like Johnson does have more value simply because of the fact that depending on the state or area it could determine what is a "Major Party" and thus give say the Libertarian Party more rights for example.



Lacius said:


> First, one can openly state one's personal views and still act impartially. Whether or not someone expresses an opinion is not our standard for assessing whether or not one can do his or her job fairly, particularly in the world of politics when members of a political party are almost certainly going to have political points of view. Our standard is one's actions.


Lacius, do you really believe that you or I could express your opinions strongly for or against a topic and then be required to be impartial to the topic? The fact is that when you yourself have such sentiments for any issue, you really can not be impartial to the cause as needed.



Lacius said:


> Second, these were private emails. No one was stating his or her views on Hillary vs. Bernie openly and publicly. Do not pretend that this issue is anything more than you condemning people for having opinions and sharing them privately.


Lacius, do you really believe that they only said this to these senders? That they did not tell other top officials about this via other emails, texts, or what not?  You do not have to make your statement on CNN to show you are partial to someone. When you openly discuss your negative opinions to other top officials and then act as if you are impartial to both sides as bounded to by the rules then you have an issue.



Lacius said:


> I strongly suggest you realize that election fraud occurs when an _act_ of election fraud is committed, by definition. Privately expressing an opinion is not fraud.


I am not stating that stating an opinion = fraud. What I am stating is the fact that these officials had these views showing they were partial to one of the sides and then were called to act impartial even though as seen they were not.



Lacius said:


> Can you articulate a single instance when the actual primary election was poorly conducted and a candidate was given an advantage?


1. The debate schedule heavily favored Clinton over the other candidates. By the end of 07 you had 17 Democratic debates. In 16 you had 4 chosen debates plus 2 more to be decided. Who do you think has an advantage here? The candidates like O'Malley or Sanders who were not as well known and could use the exposure or someone like Clinton who had been well known for almost 30 years or so by the general public.

2. Just over half of super delegates in November 2015 had committed themselves to Clinton before their states had even held primaries according to an AP survey. Swapping sides is quite rare and for perspective that amount of super delegates gave her 15% before the first democratic primary

3. Again although you disagree, having top officials have disdain for a candidate running in the election is considered being partial to the other side

4. After a staffer accessed Clinton's campaign data, the entire DNC blocked his entire campaign from use of the DNC's voter files.That was a big deal and the Sanders campaign sued over the actions by the DNC as they felt it was to undermine them and put them in an unfair position.


Ultimately though we disagree strongly and we probably should not continue on as I highly doubt we will come to an agreement.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Aug 26, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If I could vote it'd be Jill Stein at this point. Not that she really has any shot at winning


True, but I'm glad she became more out there recently via CNN


----------



## migles (Aug 26, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Anyone, but Trump


including hillary cünt?


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 26, 2016)

migles said:


> including hillary cünt?


I am voting Hillary because I'd much rather have her over Trump. I'd honestly rather have a baked turd on the sidewalk over Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> It is actually worth more for me and to be honest about 40 other states as well. I live in a very deep red state where Trump is leading by around 12-15 percent in my state. Likewise Vermont, Alaska, California, Texas and so on are states where Clinton or Trump are ahead by such large amounts that voting for either one of them is basically a wasted voted. For example Johnson or Castle or Stein may have no chance of winning for their electoral votes) but to be honest neither does Clinton or Trump (Alaska for Clinton or California for Trump). In some cases however a vote for someone like Johnson does have more value simply because of the fact that depending on the state or area it could determine what is a "Major Party" and thus give say the Libertarian Party more rights for example.


It's still a protest vote that won't actually count for anything. To be clear, I'm not saying _don't vote for Gary Johnson if he's your guy_. I'm just acknowledging the reality of the situation.



RevPokemon said:


> Lacius, do you really believe that you or I could express your opinions strongly for or against a topic and then be required to be impartial to the topic? The fact is that when you yourself have such sentiments for any issue, you really can not be impartial to the cause as needed.


I don't think you know how impartiality works. To say someone cannot act impartially because he or she has committed the _gravest of sins_, holding an opinion, flies in the face of how many of this country's systems work. You are conflating holding a view with committing an act. Judges recuse themselves, for example, on the basis of acts, not on the basis of opinions. Until you demonstrate that the DNC somehow acted in a way that benefitted Secretary Clinton, you have a non-argument.



RevPokemon said:


> Lacius, do you really believe that they only said this to these senders? That they did not tell other top officials about this via other emails, texts, or what not?  You do not have to make your statement on CNN to show you are partial to someone. When you openly discuss your negative opinions to other top officials and then act as if you are impartial to both sides as bounded to by the rules then you have an issue.


If you are going to claim, for example, that the DNC nefariously told top officials, such as superdelegates, not to vote for Senator Sanders, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, wearing my tinfoil hat is enough to combat your argument and the other voices in my head.



RevPokemon said:


> I am not stating that stating an opinion = fraud. What I am stating is the fact that these officials had these views showing they were partial to one of the sides and then were called to act impartial even though as seen they were not.


Their views are irrelevant to whether or not they acted impartially. See above.



RevPokemon said:


> 1. The debate schedule heavily favored Clinton over the other candidates. By the end of 07 you had 17 Democratic debates. In 16 you had 4 chosen debates plus 2 more to be decided. Who do you think has an advantage here? The candidates like O'Malley or Sanders who were not as well known and could use the exposure or someone like Clinton who had been well known for almost 30 years or so by the general public.


The debate schedule arguably might have favored Secretary Clinton in hindsight. We don't know for sure, and there's no quantitative evidence to suggest that it did. However, both parties decided just after the 2012 election that a lighter primary debate schedule would be beneficial for multiple reasons. In addition, there is no evidence of any intent to harm Senator Sanders with the debate schedule, nor is there evidence of collusion between Secretary Clinton and the DNC. The debate schedule was finalized well before Clinton even announced she was running.



RevPokemon said:


> 2. Just over half of super delegates in November 2015 had committed themselves to Clinton before their states had even held primaries according to an AP survey. Swapping sides is quite rare and for perspective that amount of super delegates gave her 15% before the first democratic primary


I'm not sure how this is relevant. It's a superdelegate's job not to be impartial, and there actually is historical precedent for high numbers of superdelegates to change their votes when a candidate gets a majority of the popular vote and/or pledged delegates. Superdelegates switched their votes from Clinton to Obama in droves when the latter caught up in pledged delegates.

The existence of superdelegates is stupid, and they shouldn't exist. However, since the creation of superdelegates, they've always solidified the win of the candidate with a majority of pledged delegates. Having overwhelming support from the superdelegates is in no way evidence of DNC collusion against Senator Sanders.



RevPokemon said:


> 3. Again although you disagree, having top officials have disdain for a candidate running in the election is considered being partial to the other side


I asked you to articulate when a candidate _was given an advantage_. You're grasping at straws if you're going to include people's opinions on your list.



RevPokemon said:


> 4. After a staffer accessed Clinton's campaign data, the entire DNC blocked his entire campaign from use of the DNC's voter files.That was a big deal and the Sanders campaign sued over the actions by the DNC as they felt it was to undermine them and put them in an unfair position.


A staffer accessed Clinton's campaign data. Any tech-savvy Temper who looks at what happened objectively understands that what the DNC did was the textbook response. The issue was sorted out in a matter of days.



RevPokemon said:


> Ultimately though we disagree strongly and we probably should not continue on as I highly doubt we will come to an agreement.


No, we likely won't come to an agreement. You've committed to a narrative despite being unable to articulate any reason to think the DNC did anything nefarious. When a belief is formed without a rational basis, it takes more than reason to shake that belief.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 26, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> True, but I'm glad she became more out there recently via CNN


Actually, now that I'm doing research on her, I'd say Hillary is the better option. I've heard a few people say that even though her policies are on the far liberal side, her rhetoric is very "Trump-like"


----------



## ComeTurismO (Aug 26, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually, now that I'm doing research on her, I'd say Hillary is the better option. I've heard a few people say that even though her policies are on the far liberal side, her rhetoric is very "Trump-like"


Yea, i have good thoughts on Hillary too, most of the hate on her is either exaggerated or fake that came from unofficial news sources, mostly unreliable


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually, now that I'm doing research on her, I'd say Hillary is the better option. I've heard a few people say that even though her policies are on the far liberal side, her rhetoric is very "Trump-like"


Putting aside the fact that Stein is apparently willing to risk for no reason having a Trump presidency by taking away votes from Clinton (it's happened before), which does cause me to seriously question her judgment, Stein is too anti-science for me. She's anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, and anti-vaccination.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, and anti-vaccination.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't think you know how impartiality works. To say someone cannot act impartially because he or she has committed the _gravest of sins_, holding an opinion, flies in the face of how many of this country's systems work. You are conflating holding a view with committing an act. Judges recuse themselves, for example, on the basis of acts, not on the basis of opinions. Until you demonstrate that the DNC somehow acted in a way that benefitted Secretary Clinton, you have a non-argument.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> No, we likely won't come to an agreement. You've committed to a narrative despite being unable to articulate any reason to think the DNC did anything nefarious. When a belief is formed without a rational basis, it takes more than reason to shake that belief.


Although I find your logic ultimately flawed, it is good to come to a conclusion on that.



Lacius said:


> Putting aside the fact that Stein is apparently willing to risk for no reason having a Trump presidency by taking away votes from Clinton (it's happened before), which does cause me to seriously question her judgment, Stein is too anti-science for me. She's anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, and anti-vaccination.


Although from a solely policy perspective there is an argument to vote Stein for progressives.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Although from a solely policy perspective there is an argument to vote Stein for progressives.


Well, Stein and Clinton are 95% the same, but we've had this discussion already.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Well, Stein and Clinton are 95% the same, but we've had this discussion already.


Yes but still the TPP controversy, Iraq vote, Whistle blower issues,  and other foreign issues are legitimate as a cause but as you stated we discussed it before (although it was more of Greens vs Democrats than Jill vs Hill but oh well).


----------



## Lacius (Aug 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Yes but still the TPP controversy, Iraq vote, Whistle blower issues,  and other foreign issues are legitimate as a cause but as you stated we discussed it before (although it was more of Greens vs Democrats than Jill vs Hill but oh well).


Clinton has consistently opposed the TPP in its current form.

Edit: I also don't think 5% merits throwing one's vote away and risking a Trump presidency.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Clinton has consistently opposed the TPP in its current form.
> 
> Edit: I also don't think 5% merits throwing one's vote away and risking a Trump presidency.


Yes but she previously had supported it as secretary of state (although around 12 or so she admitted some issues with it) and just that fact will worry some people (rightfully or not). But it does not bother me as I am voting Libertarian so it can get major party status.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> Edit: I also don't think 5% merits throwing one's vote away and risking a Trump presidency.


depends, If like me you live in a state where one of them (Trump or Clinton) leads by 10% plus in a four way race then it is absolutely fine and really there is no reason not to and just support local politicians in the big two parties


----------



## Lacius (Aug 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Yes but she previously had supported it as secretary of state (although around 12 or so she admitted some issues with it) and just that fact will worry some people (rightfully or not).


Secretary Clinton never supported the TPP as we know it. She said she hoped it would be the gold standard for trade, and that was before it had been negotiated with its controversial elements. Something like a week after it was negotiated and finalized, she came out against it. This is a non-issue.

I acknowledge your points on whistleblowers and the Iraq War, although Clinton quickly came around on the latter. In summary, the above isn't worth throwing one's vote away to cast a protest vote for Jill Stein, an unelectable troll who has never held high office and resurfaces every four years to feed without any regard for the consequences.



RevPokemon said:


> But it does not bother me as I am voting Libertarian so it can get major party status.


That's not even going to come close to happening. It's a throw-away protest vote.



RevPokemon said:


> depends, If like me you live in a state where one of them (Trump or Clinton) leads by 10% plus in a four way race then it is absolutely fine and really there is no reason not to and just support local politicians in the big two parties


This is an unfortunate truth about the electoral college, but it doesn't take away from my point.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's not even going to come close to happening. It's a throw-away protest vote.


My bad in explaining it. I do not mean it will be a "major party" in the sense that it will go toe to toe with the GOP or Democrats but I mean it in that if the Libertarian Party gets 5% of the popular vote then they will be semi considered a "major party" in many areas and will get funding as per http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml . What I am speaking of is almost guaranteed since his polling is so good (other than Anderson in 80 all third party candidates have gotten with in 3% or so of the polling) but I am voting for him to get that 5%.



Lacius said:


> Secretary Clinton never supported the TPP as we know it. She said she hoped it would be the gold standard for trade, and that was before it had been negotiated with its controversial elements. Something like a week after it was negotiated and finalized, she came out against it. This is a non-issue.


I never said she currently supported the newish TPP but I meant she supported the old one (how much it is different we will never know but oh well). Plus even still it will bug some people regardless.



Lacius said:


> This is an unfortunate truth about the electoral college, but it doesn't take away from my point.


I disagree as unless neither one of them got the required amount to become President it really does not matter who you vote for in many states due to the electoral college.


----------



## emigre (Aug 27, 2016)

I see Trump winning this poll. Good work on disappointing me again UStemp.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 27, 2016)

emigre said:


> I see Trump winning this poll. Good work on disappointing me again UStemp.


Donald Trump won the last poll, too. And there's a good discussion about why.


----------



## emigre (Aug 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Donald Trump won the last poll, too. And there's a good discussion about why.



That's actually a good explanation and fits with the polling data. Thankfully Trump tanks with literally every other demographic.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 27, 2016)

emigre said:


> That's actually a good explanation and fits with the polling data. Thankfully Trump tanks with literally every other demographic.


Except racists, KKK members,and Holocaust deniers.

Any Trump will always do better in online non serious polls than real ones since he is the best not for America but for Lulz and Pepe


----------



## Joe88 (Aug 28, 2016)

I'm just here waiting for wikileaks to drop the clinton bombshell documents...


----------



## Lacius (Aug 28, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> I'm just here waiting for wikileaks to drop the clinton bombshell documents...


It is highly unlikely they have anything and haven't released it yet. Take their claims with a grain of salt, because this would be far from the first time WikiLeaks embellished what they actually had or released information that turned out to be false.

I'm not saying they certainly don't have a bombshell, but it would be silly to think they do until they actually release it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 28, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> I'm just here waiting for wikileaks to drop the clinton bombshell documents...


Considering there's... what... 73 days left in her campaign?, I highly doubt that they would keep waiting if they actually had anything


----------



## Joe88 (Aug 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Considering there's... what... 73 days left in her campaign?, I highly doubt that they would keep waiting if they actually had anything


He is most likely going to release it days before the 1st debate to do the most damage, just like the dnc leak.
Timing is everything as they say.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 28, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> He is most likely going to release it days before the 1st debate to do the most damage, just like the dnc leak.
> Timing is everything as they say.


Like I said earlier, there's no reason to think this _bombshell_ actually exists until it's actually released. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have claimed as far back as 2009 and just about every year since then to have had specific bombshells that to this day haven't been released.


----------



## vayanui8 (Aug 28, 2016)

This poll is clearly missing Vermin Supreme


----------



## Lacius (Aug 28, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> This poll is clearly missing Vermin Supreme


Last I checked, he was last seen failing to get the Libertarian nomination. You're free to vote _Other_ though.


----------



## rasputin (Aug 28, 2016)

wow, what a laugh!


----------



## CeeDee (Aug 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Last I checked, he was last seen failing to get the Libertarian nomination. You're free to vote _Other_ though.


I thought that was the Bernie button?


----------



## RepeatingDigits (Aug 28, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> Nobody, it's a country full of ignorant imbeciles. The US should follow Europe, so they can improve.


Ow, the edge! And what's this about following Europe? Yes goy, allow more immigrants! Surely no bad things could happen at all! Surrender your identity goy.
How about we form an American Union, and we have a single currency. Let's allow other countries to dictate our policies, what could possibly go wrong?

You know nothing.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 28, 2016)

It's encouraging to see Trump ahead here at gbatemp. Not because I support Trump. Not hardly. I just oppose Clinton by a MUCH, MUCH greater margin.


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 28, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> Nobody, it's a country full of ignorant imbeciles. The US should follow Europe, so they can improve.


Pipe down, the adults are talking.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



vb_encryption_vb said:


> Nothing will scare off an intruder like an ar15.


Not that I'm arguing against guns, or even assault-weapons (a.k.a. "scary-looking guns"), but a shotgun is much more effective as a means of home defense.  Both in actual defensive capabilities, and in 'make intruders shit their pants' factor.  The distinctive sound of a shotgun being cocked is enough to scare off all but the most brazen intruders.  Plus, a shotgun isn't going to be penetrating walls causing injury to innocent bystanders.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It is highly unlikely they have anything and haven't released it yet. Take their claims with a grain of salt, because this would be far from the first time WikiLeaks embellished what they actually had or released information that turned out to be false.


Although I must say that holding the information until later would have benefits. Think about it, if they released it with the DNC leaks then come November it probably would have been forgotten. Holding it until later gives Clinton less time to do damage control for her campaign so it would make sense to hold the information until later so it gets the more media attention rather than dumping it all together where some of the leaks would not get much attention (in theory this is semi what Snowden did in how he decided to leak his information).

Although I am not suggesting that he has the leak or if he does that it will be as he says.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 28, 2016)

RepeatingDigits said:


> And what's this about following Europe?


Actually, I have to agree with him, we really should follow the EU model


> Yes goy, allow more immigrants! Surely no bad things could happen at all!


Other than isolated cases, there really hasn't been anything major that's been linked directly to immigrants and/or refugees. Fearmongering is a factor on both sides, though


> Surrender your identity goy.


Wat


> How about we form an American Union, and we have a single currency.


And the problem with that is...?


> Let's allow other countries to dictate our policies, what could possibly go wrong?


Haaaaaa you make it sound like the US doesn't already do that. If anything an AU would give other countries more of a voice, since right now we seem to just do whatever the hell we want


> You know nothing.


That's an awfully bold statement


----------



## vayanui8 (Aug 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually, I have to agree with him, we really should follow the EU model


For all the people saying we should copy Europe, why don't you consider moving to Europe? I think we'd be better off with different countries having different forms of government than everyone copying eachother. Then people could move somewhere that fits their own personal desires better. 


TotalInsanity4 said:


> Other than isolated cases, there really hasn't been anything major that's been linked directly to immigrants and/or refugees. Fearmongering is a factor on both sides, though


Fearmongering has definitely been an issue lately. I think we're better off coming to a compromise in the middle than completely banning refugees or letting them all in no questions asked. I'm pretty sure we already have background check laws in place on them, but I don't know how strictly they're being enforced right now.


TotalInsanity4 said:


> If anything an AU would give other countries more of a voice, since right now we seem to just do whatever the hell we want


Why should other countries have a say in our own internal affairs?


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 28, 2016)

I will just put this here...
I am now selling #JillNotHill shirts! All profit goes to the #Jill2016 campaign! Please RT! https://t.co/hih6rjQoJE pic.twitter.com/zHmdjLty9E— I pwned U! (@IpwnedU123) August 16, 2016

As for the claims that Jill is anti-vax, anti-science, etc., those are just lies spread by Hillary's paid trolls.


Spoiler



Inb4 Lacius replies to me with a "You are wrong! Hail Hillary!" post.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 28, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I will just put this here...
> https://twitter.com/IpwnedU123/status/765671270541201409
> As for the claims that Jill is anti-vax, anti-science, etc., those are just lies spread by Hillary's paid trolls.
> 
> ...



Secretary Clinton didn't accept _bribes_. I suggest you look up what a _bribe_ is.
Secretary Clinton didn't break any laws that I'm aware of.
There is no evidence that Secretary Clinton rigs elections and/or controls the media.
It's like the creator of this wasn't even trying. There are much better criticisms of Secretary Clinton with actual evidence.

As for the claims that Jill Stein is anti-science, I just pulled these off of her own campaign website:

Regarding her GMO views:


> Lead on a global treaty to halt climate change. End destructive energy extraction: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, and uranium mines. Protect our public lands, water supplies, biological diversity, parks, and pollinators. Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. Protect the rights of future generations.





> A Stein administration will mandate GMO food labeling so you can be sure that what you're choosing at the store is healthy and GMO-free! YOU CAN FINALLY FEEL SECURE THAT YOUR FAMILY IS EATING SAFELY WITH NO GMO FOODS ON YOUR TABLE!



Regarding her views on nuclear power:


> Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies.





> I also met with the organizers of the San Onofre nuclear power plant resistance. They succeeded in getting their nuclear power plant shut down, inspiring communities everywhere threatened by nuclear disaster to do the same. They still have a nuclear waste crisis to deal with, showing yet again why nuclear power is a catastrophe waiting to happen, not a solution to our energy problems. Like so many activists, they too are realizing the only livable future is Green, for our politics as for our energy.



With regard to her views on vaccines, which aren't readily available on her website outside of some brief interviews responding to the controversy itself, she acknowledges their health benefits and doesn't peddle some of the conspiracy nonsense (e.g. vaccines causing autism). She has, however, brought up conspiracy nonsense about mercury in vaccines, and she has advocated in the past for personal choice with regard to vaccinations.

Even if Jill Stein were to flip-flop on these science issues, it's irrelevant to what I've said in the past about her being a troll and lacking good judgment.


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Secretary Clinton didn't accept _bribes_. I suggest you look up what a _bribe_ is.
> Secretary Clinton didn't break any laws that I'm aware of.
> There is no evidence that Secretary Clinton rigs elections and/or controls the media.
> It's like the creator of this wasn't even trying. There are much better criticisms of Secretary Clinton with actual evidence.
> ...


It is official, I am psychic!

The prediction from my spoiler was spot on!


I pwned U! said:


> Inb4 Lacius replies to me with a "You are wrong! Hail Hillary!" post.


And here is a *huge* shocker for you:

*Being anti-GMO (like me) and anti-nuclear power (also like me) != Being anti-science*​
It means that *people have a right to know what is in their food*, and that *we should support better, clean forms of energy*, such as wind or solar.


Lacius said:


> but muh hillary...


There is no point in commenting on these parts, because, just like Hillary, it appears that you like to ignore the facts.

At least I can always count on these "Hail Hillary!" posts for a good laugh!


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Other than isolated cases, there really hasn't been anything major that's been linked directly to immigrants and/or refugees.




sure, man.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Regarding her GMO views:


I am not saying she is pro or anti science (personally I strongly disagree with most of Stein's views) but do you personally support mandatory GMO labeling @Lacius ?


----------



## Joe88 (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> There is no evidence that Secretary Clinton rigs elections and/or controls the media.


Yeah its not like she staged a big stunt on a popular talk show or anything


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> *Being anti-GMO (like me) and anti-nuclear power (also like me) != Being anti-science*​


When one condemns beneficial and potentially world-saving advances in science as unsafe due to ignorance, that's anti-science.



I pwned U! said:


> and that *we should support better, clean forms of energy*, such as wind or solar.


Arguably, nuclear power could be considered cleaner and more efficient than wind and solar. It has the potential to more efficiently produce energy that's cheaper, and it might be able to do so with less of an effect on the environment.



I pwned U! said:


> There is no point in commenting on these parts, because, just like Hillary, it appears that you like to ignore the facts.


I have no choice but to ignore _the facts_ when you haven't provided anything specific nor substantive for me to respond to.



RevPokemon said:


> I am not saying she is pro or anti science (personally I strongly disagree with most of Stein's views) but do you personally support mandatory GMO labeling @Lacius ?


I do not.



Joe88 said:


> Yeah its not like she staged a big stunt on a popular talk show or anything


I think you need to look at actual examples of when governments and leaders control the media.


----------



## Nightwish (Aug 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually, I have to agree with him, we really should follow the EU model



Seriously? You think the Euro works and will live for more than a few years, at best? Ask Puerto Rico how having no say in anything went for them, BTW. I'm pretty sure that most of the American continent would tell you to piss off.



Lacius said:


> When one condemns beneficial and potentially world-saving advances in science as unsafe due to ignorance, that's anti-science.


Alright, save me of my ignorance, I wouldn't mind being put at ease: are GMO's safe for IBD and IBS sufferers, or hasn't even been studies on the population that is most likely affected by any change in food?

On the main topic:
I doubt Trump has a chance, I hope you can't insult your way to rule a country. Pissing off vets was terrible move. On the other hand, he's a master manipulator, so who knows. Either way, no republican can present an economic plan where the numbers add up (neither could Sanders, sadly. I don't know if it was propaganda or incompetence. He was nowhere near as wrong, though).
Hillary has been in the pocket of wall-street for ages, and completely incompetent and untrustworthy (not to mention criminal) with national security. I'd have to live in a very contested swing state to even consider it. Her mandate will be very ineffectual and do nothing about the increasing tension in the US, and won't do enough to stop the defacto recession. Inequality and xenophobia will continue to grow, making the appearance of a populist who makes Trump look presidential very likely.
Libertarians are insane and have no notion of what happened in the past when the government got out of the way.
So it would be Stein, of who I know very little, or a write-in for someone.

Oh, as to nuclear power, there's no better choice at this point, especially for the US. Modern nuclear power, not models with 40 years of wage. There's no time and no political will to build a national grid to make renewables the major part of American power, if you could make it dependable enough for base power.


----------



## Supster131 (Aug 29, 2016)

I can't vote, but considering that I'm the one influencing my parents' vote, I may as well state my opinion.
All the current candidates fucking suck. I was really hoping Bernie would win the democratic party, but Americans were too retarded to vote for him.
So now what?

I won't deny that Trump is racist and stupid, but at least he's not a criminal. I don't want Hillary to win. We can't let her win. Sure, she's a female, so what? Doesn't make the shit she did any less illegal.
I would much rather have an idiot in the White House than a criminal. I'm just hoping Americans are smart enough to realize that.

I'm going to leave this here for now:


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Arguably, nuclear power could be considered cleaner and more efficient than wind and solar. It has the potential to more efficiently produce energy that's cheaper, and it might be able to do so with less of an effect on the environment.


It's hard to consider nuclear energy clean when you look at all the highly hazardous nuclear waste that remains dangerous for, something like 200,000 years.

Stop changing my link into an embedded video; Stupid auto-BBcodes.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> Alright, save me of my ignorance, I wouldn't mind being put at ease: are GMO's safe for IBD and IBS sufferers, or hasn't even been studies on the population that is most likely affected by any change in food?


There is no evidence that GMOs cause or exacerbate IBS.



Nightwish said:


> Hillary has been in the pocket of wall-street for ages


I getting tired of this baseless meme. She has consistently campaigned for imposing restrictions on Wall Street, and she endorses financial regulation laws such as Dodd-Frank. When it comes to Wall Street, she and Senator Sanders are more alike than they are different.



Nightwish said:


> and completely incompetent and untrustworthy (not to mention criminal) with national security.


I don't recall her ever having been indicted for anything.



Nightwish said:


> and won't do enough to stop the defacto recession.


We are not in a financial recession.



Nightwish said:


> Libertarians are insane and have no notion of what happened in the past when the government got out of the way.


Hear, hear! I've been saying this here and in the other thread for awhile now.



Nightwish said:


> So it would be Stein, of who I know very little, or a write-in for someone.


You can go back in this thread for my criticisms of Jill Stein, and she has virtually no chance (<0.01%) of winning the election. Write-in candidates have no chance (0%) of winning the election. If one cares who wins this election, it's a binary choice between Trump and Clinton.



Supster131 said:


> I was really hoping Bernie would win the democratic party, but Americans were too retarded to vote for him.


If you cared at all about Senator Sanders' policy positions, you would endorse Secretary Clinton. They are in alignment roughly 99% of the time on policy.



Supster131 said:


> but at least he's not a criminal. I don't want Hillary to win. We can't let her win. Sure, she's a female, so what? Doesn't make the shit she did any less illegal.


Secretary Clinton is not a criminal. There is no evidence she has ever done anything criminal. She has never been indicted for anything. If you want to argue that what's in your YouTube video shows otherwise, you can articulate here in your own words what she's done and how it's criminal. When it comes to her emails, for example, she didn't actually break any laws.



grossaffe said:


> It's hard to consider nuclear energy clean when you look at all the highly hazardous nuclear waste that remains dangerous for, something like 200,000 years.


The kind of nuclear waste you're talking about is a relatively small amount, easily contained, and has virtually no effect on the environment, which can't be said for hardly any other source of energy (wind comes close but still isn't very efficient). In addition, nuclear waste is the kind of waste that isn't useless. It's a potential source of energy, and it may very well be used as a kind of fuel in future generations of nuclear power plants.

Edit: To be clear, I very much support green energy such as wind and solar as well.


----------



## Nightwish (Aug 29, 2016)

Not for modern designs, though there's no guarantee they'll work in real life. FYI, radioactive elements are either very dangerous or have a long half-life, not both.
The issues are more political and economic, even if the designs aren't good enough they can only get better with a lot more testing.
Renewables aren't enough by themselves without a huge improvement in energy storage, and coal is incredibly pollutant and causes a lot more deaths per year than nuclear.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> There is no evidence that GMOs cause or exacerbate IBS.


I don't personally care if it hasn't been proved, I want to know if it has been suficiently studied. All I could find without spending much time were some questionable sites a Yale professor saying that links had indeed been found. I would really like someone to prove them wrong, because it's debilitating enough as it is.


> I getting tired of this baseless meme. She has consistently campaigned for imposing restrictions on Wall Street, and she endorses financial regulation laws such as Dodd-Frank. When it comes to Wall Street, she and Senator Sanders are more alike than they are different.


Lol, Dodd-Frank did shit for preventing derivatives of subprimes to reappear.



> I don't recall her ever having been indicted for anything.


You got the head of the FBI saying they would investigate further if the AG would ever indite her.
And that's not even relevant, she didn't secure national security documents, everyone knows that's a fucking felony. There was someone soon afterward that was punished for doing much less.


> We are not in a financial recession.


As usually defined, no. Real wages keep decreasing, though.



> If one cares who wins this election, it's a binary choice between Trump and Clinton.


And if you don't live in a heavily disputed swing state your vote is completely irrelevant, except to try and make a third party viable.[/quote][/QUOTE]


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> Seriously? You think the Euro works and will live for more than a few years, at best? Ask Puerto Rico how having no say in anything went for them, BTW. I'm pretty sure that most of the American continent would tell you to piss off.


I find it interesting that you mention Puerto Rico specifically, because that's one of the territories that I was referring to about getting a voice should an AU be founded



vayanui8 said:


> For all the people saying we should copy Europe, why don't you consider moving to Europe? I think we'd be better off with different countries having different forms of government than everyone copying eachother. Then people could move somewhere that fits their own personal desires better.


Boy I wish I could. I have no means as of right now, though, as I am both underage and too poor to get there even if I wasn't, considering I'm planning on going to college in the next year and here in good ole 'murica that costs money


> Fearmongering has definitely been an issue lately. I think we're better off coming to a compromise in the middle than completely banning refugees or letting them all in no questions asked.


I totally agree with you here


> Why should other countries have a say in our own internal affairs?


That's a little hypocritical, considering we have a say in a lot of other countries internal affairs (either directly or indirectly via things like military presence)


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> When one condemns beneficial and potentially world-saving advances in science as unsafe due to ignorance, that's anti-science.


Yes, because the enormous increase in pesticide usage that has paralleled GMO production is totally "beneficial" for the environment and will definitely be "world-saving."

As for GMO crops themselves, they are almost always pesticide-laden and have done much more harm for people's health than good. As for the "benefits," there have not been any long-term studies about how ingesting GMO products affects your health, but the short-term studies (independent, unbiased ones) have shown nothing but a negative impact on your health.


Lacius said:


> Arguably, nuclear power could be considered cleaner and more efficient than wind and solar. It has the potential to more efficiently produce energy that's cheaper, and it might be able to do so with less of an effect on the environment.





Lacius said:


> I have no choice but to ignore _the facts_ when you haven't provided anything specific nor substantive for me to respond to.


As I implied, me and others have presented the facts to you a million times before, only for you to ignore them. Because of this, I knew that it would be a waste of time.


Lacius said:


> I do not.


You must be in bed with Monsanto and company. I honestly cannot think of any other reason why someone would want people to be kept in the dark about this.


Lacius said:


> I think you need to look at actual examples of when governments and leaders control the media.


I did. During the Democratic National Convention, I saw a bunch of pictures and videos on Twitter of how the anti-Hillary people were being mistreated and censored. And lo and behold, very little of the content from those pictures and videos made its way to reports from the mainstream media.

Blocking Bernie supporters from the view of mainstream media's cameras. White noise machines to try to cancel out the chants of dissenters. Bernie supporters being kicked out and being put behind a wall outside. A Craigslist ad for hiring "actors" to "cheer and show their support for Hillary."

I was surprised by how this was happening in America, because I always associated this type of situation with China. And for this reason, I would argue that the most dangerous export from China is not knockoff products. It is not products for kids containing lead paint.

The most dangerous Chinese export is Hillary Clinton's policies.


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The kind of nuclear waste you're talking about is a relatively small amount, easily contained, and has virtually no effect on the environment, which can't be said for hardly any other source of energy (wind comes close but still isn't very efficient). In addition, nuclear waste is the kind of waste that isn't useless. It's a potential source of energy, and it may very well be used as a kind of fuel in future generations of nuclear power plants.
> 
> Edit: To be clear, I very much support green energy such as wind and solar as well.


Relatively small?  Volumetrically, sure, but in potential for devastation?  Hardly.  And where do you get the idea that it's easily contained?  Because we put it in a container that's rated for less than one half-life of the substance when it takes about ten for it to become inert?  Because we store the container underground where it hopefully won't fall victim to earthquakes and other natural disasters or terrorists?


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I do not.


Putting aside our sharp disagreements on economics I must ask this.

Assuming I am like you and support a mixed capitalist system (rather than anarcho capitalism or socialism) with sensible government regulations because without them it would be awful. Under that system wouldn't you argue that it is a sensible regulation to require companies that use GMO to label them? On the company's side it is not that hard to comply to and on the consumer's side it is something they should know about even if it is not harmful. Most industrial nations and the EU require them. Plus I do not feel that GMOs are bad personally but requiring them to be labeled =/= thinking they are bad since you could argue there is a right to know what is in the products.


Also off topic but since this has been mentioned, I support open borders with no restrictions when it comes to immigration.


----------



## Joe88 (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I think you need to look at actual examples of when governments and leaders control the media.


lets look at some recent examples


It doesnt exactly take a brain surgeon to know mass media is manipulating people's thought's and actions, and it not just the huff post, pretty much all major news outlets

another one where pbs censored jill steins interview that were comments against clinton
https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/770076410882949124

cnn removing part of trumps tweet
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...crubbing-crooked-moniker-to-describe-hillary/

yet another but more extreme example of cnn censoring
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/cnn-edits-out-milwaukee-victims-sister-sherelle-sm/


Govt control of media censorship isnt new by any means but this by the far the worst anyone has seen (at least in the usa)
Turn on any news channel or vist their website and you will most likely find pro-clinton news, and negative trump news, most of which are made up and claimed as "internal sources" but its the equivalent of "CNN told CNN".
Even just recently trump said he would release his media records if clinton would too (because a certain media outlet called him out on his health trying to downplay and coverup clinton's health reports) mass media went full damage control yet again and covered it up and we get trash like this instead http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-mental-health-mika-brzezinski-227492


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2016)

I'm confused as to how this whole "Clinton is in poor mental health" thing spread. You guys do realize that that was a rumor started on the National Inquirer, right?


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm confused as to how this whole "Clinton is in poor mental health" thing spread. You guys do realize that that was a rumor started on the National Inquirer, right?


http://www.usmagazine.com/entertain...d-after-hillary-clinton-health-claims-w436445

I by no means think she has poor mental health but it is not hard for a large amount of people to believe garbage


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> http://www.usmagazine.com/entertain...d-after-hillary-clinton-health-claims-w436445
> 
> I by no means think she has poor mental health but it is not hard for a large amount of people to believe garbage


Can you quote what you're trying to highlight? I'm on school wifi and it totally breaks the format of that site


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Can you quote what you're trying to highlight? I'm on school wifi and it totally breaks the format of that site


Basically Trump supporters are saying CNN canceled Dr.Drew after he said something about those claims regarding her health. Trump supporters are saying it is due to his statements and thus CNN helping trump.

Personally I think it is bullshit to say her health is bad and also bullshit to say this is CNN helping Clinton.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Basically Trump supporters are saying CNN canceled Dr.Drew after he said something about those claims regarding her health. Trump supporters are saying it is due to his statements and thus CNN helping trump.
> 
> Personally I think it is bullshit to say her health is bad and also bullshit to say this is CNN helping Clinton.


I'm gonna be honest, CNN really is doing what they can to give Clinton a hand by reporting on stuff non-objectively. However, now that the Democratic National Convention is over and CNN is a more liberal media source anyway it doesn't really matter anymore


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> Lol, Dodd-Frank did shit for preventing derivatives of subprimes to reappear.


Dodd-Frank did and continues to do a lot of good, actually. It's also far from anything Wall Street supports.



Nightwish said:


> You got the head of the FBI saying they would investigate further if the AG would ever indite her.


You have it reversed.



Nightwish said:


> And that's not even relevant, she didn't secure national security documents, everyone knows that's a fucking felony.


Secretary Clinton didn't send or receive any information marked classified on her server.



Nightwish said:


> As usually defined, no. Real wages keep decreasing, though.


It is true wages are stagnant, but that's not a recession.



I pwned U! said:


> Yes, because the enormous increase in pesticide usage that has paralleled GMO production is totally "beneficial" for the environment and will definitely be "world-saving."
> 
> As for GMO crops themselves, they are almost always pesticide-laden and have done much more harm for people's health than good. As for the "benefits," there have not been any long-term studies about how ingesting GMO products affects your health, but the short-term studies (independent, unbiased ones) have shown nothing but a negative impact on your health.


There is no evidence that GMOs have any negative effect on one's health. Also, the presence of GMOs is actually positively correlated with the use of fewer pesticides, in addition to a reduced need for land and other resources. I suggest you research how most GMOs actually work.



I pwned U! said:


> As I implied, me and others have presented the facts to you a million times before, only for you to ignore them. Because of this, I knew that it would be a waste of time.


First, you make a quip that I respond to everything. Now you're saying I ignore things? Which is it? Because I'm pretty sure I've directly responded to each _fact _that I've been presented.



I pwned U! said:


> You must be in bed with Monsanto and company. I honestly cannot think of any other reason why someone would want people to be kept in the dark about this.


I shouldn't even respond to such a disingenuous and desparate comment.



I pwned U! said:


> did. During the Democratic National Convention, I saw a bunch of pictures and videos on Twitter of how the anti-Hillary people were being mistreated and censored. And lo and behold, very little of the content from those pictures and videos made its way to reports from the mainstream media.


Can you demonstrate causation? If not, you're spewing non sequitur nonsense.



I pwned U! said:


> Blocking Bernie supporters from the view of mainstream media's cameras. White noise machines to try to cancel out the chants of dissenters. Bernie supporters being kicked out and being put behind a wall outside. A Craigslist ad for hiring "actors" to "cheer and show their support for Hillary."


Half of what you've listed is unsubstantiated nonsense. A simple check on Snopes for most of this would have stopped you from embarrassing yourself. You're so emotionally invested in this particular narrative that you're not even bothering to fact-check anything that you think supports it.



grossaffe said:


> Relatively small?  Volumetrically, sure, but in potential for devastation?  Hardly.  And where do you get the idea that it's easily contained?  Because we put it in a container that's rated for less than one half-life of the substance when it takes about ten for it to become inert?  Because we store the container underground where it hopefully won't fall victim to earthquakes and other natural disasters or terrorists?


The EPA has rules that require a nuclear waste storage facility, such as Yucca Mountain, to be able to withstand the effects of hypothetical earthquakes. It's really not that much waste to manage, it's not that difficult to manage, the environmental effect of it pales in comparison to the negative environmental effect of things like the construction of solar panels, and the nuclear waste will very likely have a use in the future.

When looked at objectively, nuclear energy is a very viable source of green energy that has the potential to produce great amounts of energy with very little downside. Most of the people I've talked to about the issue, yourself included, seem to be against it because it feels bad or feels dangerous, but these kinds of decisions aren't based on arbitrary feelings; they're based on facts.



RevPokemon said:


> Putting aside our sharp disagreements on economics I must ask this.
> 
> Assuming I am like you and support a mixed capitalist system (rather than anarcho capitalism or socialism) with sensible government regulations because without them it would be awful. Under that system wouldn't you argue that it is a sensible regulation to require companies that use GMO to label them? On the company's side it is not that hard to comply to and on the consumer's side it is something they should know about even if it is not harmful. Most industrial nations and the EU require them. Plus I do not feel that GMOs are bad personally but requiring them to be labeled =/= thinking they are bad since you could argue there is a right to know what is in the products.


In principle, I don't mind the idea of mandatory labeling. However, in practice, since there's no reason to think GMOs are any worse for a person than their non-GMO counterparts, and since the labeling realistically creates an undue burden on the GMO manufacturers due to the anti-GMO propaganda, I can't support it. I think the state has a vested interest in incentivizing the use of GMOs.

Because of how I view it in principle, the issue of labeling isn't one I'm particularly passionate about. What I am passionate about is stopping the spread of all this misinformation and anti-GMO propaganda.



Joe88 said:


> lets look at some recent examples
> 
> It doesnt exactly take a brain surgeon to know mass media is manipulating people's thought's and actions, and it not just the huff post, pretty much all major news outlets
> 
> ...


This doesn't demonstrate any sort of government or Democrat-controlled media. For some of these, you've highlighted some poor decision-making on the part of certain media outlets (CNN is often times an idiotic news outlet). For others, you've highlighted perfectly rational decisions. Trump and his campaign say and do so many controversial things that there's obviously going to be a perceived bias in coverage. Just because a particular candidate is more outlandish than the other and gets negative news coverage because of it doesn't mean the media is biased. In fact, one could argue a bias against Clinton when there are misguided attempts to equalize negative coverage.


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I suggest you research how most GMOs actually work.


I suggest that you spend the rest of your day reading through Vani Hari's articles on foodbabe.com.


Lacius said:


> First, you make a quip that I respond to everything. Now you're saying I ignore things? Which is it? Because I'm pretty sure I've directly responded to each _fact _that I've been presented.


You do both. You do respond to everything, and in each response, you make it clear that you are completely oblivious to the facts that are presented to you.


Lacius said:


> I shouldn't even respond to such a disingenuous and desparate comment.


At that point, you had not yet offered an explanation for your anti-consumer position, and unless you have financial ties with Monsanto and company, I could not even begin to imagine why you would want people to be left in the dark.


Lacius said:


> In principle, I don't mind the idea of mandatory labeling.


Yet, you said the other day that you did not support it...

I recommend making up your mind.


Lacius said:


> Can you demonstrate causation? If not, you're spewing non sequitur nonsense.





Lacius said:


> Half of what you've listed is unsubstantiated nonsense. A simple check on Snopes for most of this would have stopped you from embarrassing yourself. You're so emotionally invested in this particular narrative that you're not even bothering to fact-check anything that you think supports it.


Google is your friend. I can demonstrate causation, but there are way too many tweets about it for me to even know where to begin, and there are other things that I would rather work on today.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I suggest that you spend the rest of your day reading through Vani Hari's articles on foodbabe.com.


Not exactly scholarly and unbiased. From Wikipedia:


> Hari's ideas on food safety have been criticized by scientists as pseudoscience and chemophobia, and others have drawn attention to her apparent financial interest through promotion and marketing of natural foods.


I'm glad you brought her up, because she fully encapsulates the anti-GMO, anti-vaccination, chemophobic, and generally anti-science view that I'm arguing against.



I pwned U! said:


> You do both. You do respond to everything, and in each response, you make it clear that you are completely oblivious to the facts that are presented to you.


Just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the facts. Another option is that I'm right.



I pwned U! said:


> At that point, you had not yet offered an explanation for your anti-consumer position, and unless you have financial ties with Monsanto and company, I could not even begin to imagine why you would want people to be left in the dark.


I more than adequately explained my views on GMOs as a safe and highly beneficial product. It doesn't take someone with financial ties to Monsanto to acknowledge this. When you've bought into a narrative of demonization, I can't be surprised that you would jump from A to C and baselessly lump me into the group of people you consider the bad guys. I was wrong to say you were being disingenuous and desperate before, and I apologize. That's actually how you make sense of the world, and I'm not sure which is worse.



I pwned U! said:


> Yet, you said the other day that you did not support it...


I don't support it.



I pwned U! said:


> I recommend making up your mind.


If you're not going to read nor include what immediately followed, don't bother responding to my posts.



I pwned U! said:


> Google is your friend. I can demonstrate causation, but there are way too many tweets about it for me to even know where to begin, and there are other things that I would rather work on today.


Forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.


----------



## Supster131 (Aug 29, 2016)

@Lacius '_>'
You're trying so hard.
Sure, even if you don't consider her a criminal, you can't deny that she hasn't done a lot of shady shit in the past.

Whatever, if you want someone as shady as Hillary to become president, be my guest.


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Not exactly scholarly and unbiased. From Wikipedia:
> I'm glad you brought her up, because she fully encapsulates the anti-GMO, anti-vaccination, chemophobic, and generally anti-science view that I'm arguing against.


You need to realize that there is a good portion of the people who say that she is biased who have financial ties with the food and bioengineering industries. Of course they will try to discredit her and anyone who poses a threat to their business.


Lacius said:


> Just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the facts. Another option is that I'm right.


Then why do you keep posting so much misinformation?


Lacius said:


> If you're not going to read nor include what immediately followed, don't bother responding to my posts.


I did read what immediately followed. And it appeared to contradict your other statement.


Lacius said:


> Forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.


You do not need to take my word for it. Take the words of the thousands of people who documented what happened.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> @Lacius '_>'
> You're trying so hard.
> Sure, even if you don't consider her a criminal, you can't deny that she hasn't done a lot of shady shit in the past.
> 
> Whatever, if you want someone as shady as Hillary to become president, be my guest.


Most of the shady shit I'm aware of is just that: shit. Forgive me if I don't buy into the unsubstantiated meme that Clinton is somehow corrupt. Republicans have been working on that one for decades.



I pwned U! said:


> You need to realize that there is a good portion of the people who say that she is biased who have financial ties with the food and bioengineering industries. Of course they will try to discredit her and anyone who poses a threat to their business.


Potential biases and financial ties aside, she's an anti-science whackjob for the reasons I listed above.



I pwned U! said:


> Then why do you keep posting so much misinformation?


If you're going to argue that I'm posting misinformation, you're going to have to do more than merely assert it.



I pwned U! said:


> I did read what immediately followed. And it appeared to contradict your other statement.


I was very clear that I was against mandatory GMO labeling each time I commented on the issue. I'm sorry if my words confused you, but I didn't contradict myself. I would support mandatory labeling on principle, but as I already explained, how mandatory labeling would work in practice is enough for me to be against it.



I pwned U! said:


> You do not need to take my word for it. Take the words of the thousands of people who documented what happened.


If you are going to argue that something is the case, it is up to you to show that it's true. If you're going to pull a Giuliani and just say, "Look on the internet," then there's nothing for us to discuss here.


----------



## grafate (Aug 29, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I'd vote for Trump.
> Why?
> Cause fuck you that's why!
> I want to see how badly he can fuck up an entire country.
> ...



Osama, I mean Obama, is the worse.  Our country don't need another 4 year term with Clinton continuing Obama's policies.


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> she's an anti-science whackjob for the reasons I listed above.





Lacius said:


> she fully encapsulates the anti-GMO, anti-vaccination, chemophobic, and generally anti-science *view*


Except that you did not even list any reasons. You just said that she fits into your stereotype that you have. (your "generally anti-science view" of her, as you put it)


Lacius said:


> If you're going to argue that I'm posting misinformation, you're going to have to do more than merely assert it.


I have given you proof or you spreading misinformation many times, and so have other users. Read just about every single post where someone quotes you and replies to you.

Here is a shining example of you passing off an opinion as if it were a fact, freshly copied and pasted from the beginning of this reply:


Lacius said:


> she's an anti-science whackjob for the reasons I listed above.





Lacius said:


> she fully encapsulates the anti-GMO, anti-vaccination, chemophobic, and generally anti-science *view*


Yes, stereotypes are always considered facts...


Lacius said:


> If you are going to argue that something is the case, it is up to you to show that it's true.


Finally, something that I agree with!

If you are going to argue that I am wrong, it is up to you to present to me some independent, unbiased sources that prove that what I said is not the case.


----------



## Supster131 (Aug 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Most of the shady shit I'm aware of is just that: shit. Forgive me if I don't buy into the unsubstantiated meme that Clinton is somehow corrupt. Republicans have been working on that one for decades.


If you wanna be in denial, be my guest ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'll end my discussion here since there's no point in arguing.
Talking to Hillary supporters is like trying to play Chess with a pigeon, they'll never listen.

Like I already stated, both Trump and Hillary suck, it just depends on who's less worse.
This is the only reason I prefer Trump, and I'm fucking Mexican.

This thread's gonna go downhill, if it hasn't already.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Except that you did not even list any reasons. You just said that she fits into your stereotype that you have. (your "generally anti-science view" of her, as you put it)


I listed very specific examples of how she's anti-science. Sorry that wasn't good enough for you. If you want me to be even more specific, here's one of her many anti-vaccination articles:
http://foodbabe.com/2011/10/04/should-i-get-the-flu-shot/



Supster131 said:


> If you wanna be in denial, be my guest ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> I'll end my discussion here since there's no point in arguing.
> Talking to Hillary supporters is like trying to play Chess with a pigeon, they'll never listen.


I'm all ears. The problem is you're making blanket statements about how she is corrupt without articulating any reason to think so. How am I supposed to respond to that other than to say, "No she's not"?


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> here's one of her many anti-vaccination articles:


An article that you did not even bother to read through to the end, because otherwise, you would have noticed this:


> I am not “anti-vaccination”, I choose not to take the flu shot for the ingredients they contain as stated above.


She supports real vaccinations, not the chemical filled pseudo-vaccinations that flu shots are.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> An article that you did not even bother to read through to the end, otherwise, you would have noticed this:


Saying she's not anti-vaccination doesn't mean her post is not anti-vaccination, and it doesn't mean she's not anti-vaccination. She is.



I pwned U! said:


> She supports real vaccinations, not the chemical filled pseudo-vaccinations that flu shots are.


And there's the chemophobia, by definition.


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Saying she's not anti-vaccination doesn't mean her post is not anti-vaccination, and it doesn't mean she's not anti-vaccination. She is.


Also from her article:


> *Why do I have to get a Flu Shot every year?*  Aren’t vaccines suppose to immunize you for life? They have to continuously give you a flu shot, because *it is not a real vaccine*. Let’s say for instance, you get a vaccine for another virus like Hepatitis A or B – you are immunized for life. Why isn’t this the case with the flu vaccine? Because the scientists have not developed a real vaccine for the flu and are continuously guessing on how to come up with a new chemical formula that could be effective.
> 
> Research has shown that it takes close to a full year to develop an effective vaccine against a virus – however, in developing the flu shot – scientists spend less than 4 months producing it so they can get it out for production before flu season starts. They don’t have time to thoroughly test it or judge it’s reactions in the human body. They take a chance on the symptoms it causes and that it _might_ work – are you willing to take this chance too?


Essentially, she is saying that flu shots are not technically vaccines, and she lists a bunch of specific differences between these two different things.


----------



## Monado_III (Aug 30, 2016)

If I was American (which thankfully I'm not, as much as I dislike Trudeau he's still a far better president/PM than any candidate the USA has) I wouldn't even vote for anyone. Either way the corporations edit: people with money and influence will get their way seeing as Trump is an embarrassing idiot (as his opinions on climate change shows) and Hillary is a corrupt moron (as the whole email server thing and Benghazi showed well enough).


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Also from her article:
> 
> Essentially, she is saying that flu shots are not technically vaccines, and she lists a bunch of specific differences between these two different things.


Flu shots are vaccines. She doesn't know what she's talking about, which demonstrates my earlier point about what it means to be anti-science, and this isn't the only anti-vaccine thing she states in the article that's BS.


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Flu shots are vaccines. She doesn't know what she's talking about, which demonstrates my earlier point about what it means to be anti-science, and this isn't the only anti-vaccine thing she states in the article that's BS.


If you have any specific examples of her saying that she is anti-vaccine and any evidence that flu shots are actually vaccines (independent and unbiased, and not just your own interpretations of what she posted, or your own personal opinions), then I suggest that you follow your own advice from earlier:


Lacius said:


> If you are going to argue that something is the case, it is up to you to show that it's true.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> If you have any specific examples of her saying that she is anti-vaccine and any evidence that flu shots are actually vaccines (independent and unbiased, and not just your own interpretations of what she posted, or your own personal opinions), then I suggest that you follow your own advice from earlier:


It's common knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine

If a vaccine works against one strain of a virus, but it doesn't work against a mutated strain, which requires a new vaccine, that doesn't make the aforementioned vaccination any less of a vaccination. Not to make an appeal to authority, but I have a BS in biology, so I know what I am talking about.


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's common knowledge.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine
> 
> If a vaccine works against one strain of a virus, but it doesn't work against a mutated strain, which requires a new vaccine, that doesn't make the aforementioned vaccination any less of a vaccination. Not to make an appeal to authority, but I have a BS in biology, so I know what I am talking about.


Thank you for *finally* providing a specific example for one of your statements.

Of course, this still does not prove your other statement that Vani Hari is anti-vaccine. She only said specifically that *she opposes the unnecessary ingredients* in flu shots, and *she did not come out against other vaccines*.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Thank you for *finally* providing a specific example for one of your statements.
> 
> Of course, this still does not prove your other statement that Vani Hari is anti-vaccine. She only said specifically that *she opposes the unnecessary ingredients* in flu shots, and *she did not come out against other vaccines*.


I've provided plenty of specific examples throughout this thread. I've even quoted specific campaign websites, so please.

Her opposition is irrational, and advocating against flu shots is demonstrably harmful to people. She is anti-vaccine without regard for the consequences.

Anyway, I'm done.


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The EPA has rules that require a nuclear waste storage facility, such as Yucca Mountain, to be able to withstand the effects of hypothetical earthquakes. It's really not that much waste to manage, it's not that difficult to manage, the environmental effect of it pales in comparison to the negative environmental effect of things like the construction of solar panels, and the nuclear waste will very likely have a use in the future.
> 
> When looked at objectively, nuclear energy is a very viable source of green energy that has the potential to produce great amounts of energy with very little downside. Most of the people I've talked to about the issue, yourself included, seem to be against it because it feels bad or feels dangerous, but these kinds of decisions aren't based on arbitrary feelings; they're based on facts.


I addressed very specific concerns about nuclear energy, not "feelings".  I'm not against nuclear as a concept, but there are some very real safety concerns involved in it that you're so quick to hand-wave away and condemn as "feelings".

I will be watching to see what happens with the tests being done on a Thorium-based fission for nuclear energy as it's said to be safer and Thorium is in high abundance.


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> She is anti-vaccine without regard for the consequences.


She is *anti-additives*, not anti-vaccine.

It is very reasonable to conclude from what she wrote that if flu shots did not have all of those unnecessary additives, then she would be much more open to getting them.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> She is *anti-additives*, not anti-vaccine.
> 
> It is very reasonable to conclude from what she wrote that if flu shots did not have all of those unnecessary additives, then she would be much more open to getting them.


Re-read the article. She expresses more concerns than just the additives. So no, it would not be reasonable to conclude that.


----------



## I pwned U! (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> She expresses more concerns than just the additives.


Except that those other concerns are minor in comparison, and she made it clear that they did not impact her conclusion.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Except that those other concerns are minor in comparison, and she made it clear that they did not impact her conclusion.


She talks about a flu vaccine literally wearing off, which is not how it works. She talks about how it's bad solely because it's artificial. She talks about how it's ineffective when it's not. She talks about how it's better to naturally expose yourself to the flu as if that's at all healthy and inherently better because it's natural. She talks about how being exposed to the flu will naturally immunize you against more strains of the flu virus than a flu shot. She says the flu shot weakens the immune system. She says elderly people shouldn't get the flu virus because it will hurt them. She says the flu shot leads to "respiratory tract infections, eye problems, abnormal blood pressure, asthma, hives, and gastrointestinal problems that could also lead to other complications." She explicitly states the flu shot is a money-making scheme. This is where I draw the line. Your comments are as though you haven't even read the article, because her other concerns aren't "minor," and I shouldn't waste my time talking to someone with this level of insincerity. I'm done.

And none of this is including her comments outside the article stating the flu shot was used as a form of genocide, and it doesn't include her numerous other pseudo-scientific and naturalistic fallacy claims.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> However, in practice, since there's no reason to think GMOs are any worse for a person than their non-GMO counterparts, and since the labeling realistically creates an undue burden on the GMO manufacturers due to the anti-GMO propaganda, I can't support it. I think the state has a vested interest in incentivizing the use of GMOs.
> 
> Because of how I view it in principle, the issue of labeling isn't one I'm particularly passionate about. What I am passionate about is stopping the spread of all this misinformation and anti-GMO propaganda.


I agree with most of what you said (wow) but I would also add the labeling is not a burden on the companies but more or less just harms them due to the idiotic consumers who worry needlessly about GMO when AFAIK it is perfectly safe.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I agree with most of what you said (wow) but I would also add the labeling is not a burden on the companies but more or less just harms them due to the idiotic consumers who worry needlessly about GMO when AFAIK it is perfectly safe.


That's what I meant when I mentioned the burden, not the act of actually printing labels.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's what I meant when I mentioned the burden, not the act of actually printing labels.


Good and understood.

Also it is funny how in some sense we have been talking about being anti science but have not mentioned the regular evolution and climate change stuff that comes up. Although I really do not see how in 2016 there are people against evolution or climate change.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Good and understood.
> 
> Also it is funny how in some sense we have been talking about being anti science but have not mentioned the regular evolution and climate change stuff that comes up. Although I really do not see how in 2016 there are people against evolution or climate change.


I think conservatives are better on the issue of climate change than libertarians. Conservatives, sincere or not, claim to not actually believe in human-caused climate change, so the logical course of action is nothing. However, libertarians often acknowledge the problem of human-caused climate change, but then they make the conscious choice to do nothing about it. It's like how Todd Akin was better on rape and abortion than most conservatives. He didn't believe pregnancy could result from rape, so abortion in the case of rape was a non-issue. Most conservatives, on the other hand, acknowledge the possibility of pregnancy from rape, but they choose to do nothing about it.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 30, 2016)

None. They are all corrupt. I don't just trust them.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I think conservatives are better on the issue of climate change than libertarians. Conservatives, sincere or not, claim to not actually believe in human-caused climate change, so the logical course of action is nothing. However, libertarians often acknowledge the problem of human-caused climate change, but then they make the conscious choice to do nothing about it.


As a libertarian who believes in man made climate change, I think part of the issue is that many of the proposed solutions to climate change violate other libertarian ideas. Carbon taxes? that is taxation so it is bad. Granted many libertarians do somewhat agree that a carbon tax could be good as per http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/12/a-libertarian-argues-for-a-carbon-tax as does Johnson. Plus i feel since most of the key supporters of climate change action are more to the left (Al Gore for example) that it also scares them off.

Although I do feel Walter Block offers some good ideas about free market solutions to climate change. Personally I support a mix between the two of regulations (on principal of property rights) and free market solutions (like those of Prof.Block).

Also I think it is a problem as tier is not a singly defined group of "libertarians" as they are much more diverse then conservatives or liberals are.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> As a libertarian who believes in man made climate change, I think part of the issue is that many of the proposed solutions to climate change violate other libertarian ideas. Carbon taxes? that is taxation so it is bad. Granted many libertarians do somewhat agree that a carbon tax could be good as per http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/12/a-libertarian-argues-for-a-carbon-tax as does Johnson. Plus i feel since most of the key supporters of climate change action are more to the left (Al Gore for example) that it also scares them off.
> 
> Although I do feel Walter Block offers some good ideas about free market solutions to climate change. Personally I support a mix between the two of regulations (on principal of property rights) and free market solutions (like those of Prof.Block).


Johnson is opposed to a carbon tax, despite his outloud thinking that it might be a libertarian position:


> If any of you heard me say I support a carbon tax...Look, I haven't raised a penny of taxes in my politicial career and neither has Bill [Weld]. We were looking at—I was looking at—what I heard was a carbon fee which from a free-market standpoint would actually address the issue and cost less. I have determined that, you know what, it's a great theory but I don't think it can work, and I've worked my way through that.
> 
> And I support a person's right to choose, so when it comes to vaccinations we should be able to make the decision whether we want to vaccinate our kids or not. I choose to vaccinate my kid and you never say never. Look, in the case of a zombie apocalypse taking over the United States, and there is a vaccine for that, as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine.


http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/libertarian-gary-johnson-comes-out-again

You might have also caught his dangerous thinking on vaccinations at the end there. If the previous conversations in this thread are any indication, vaccinations should be mandatory.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Johnson is opposed to a carbon tax, despite his outloud thinking that it might be a libertarian position:


I did not notice that he switched posistions as I have been very busy the last week



Lacius said:


> Johnson is opposed to a carbon tax, despite his outloud thinking that it might be a libertarian position:
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/libertarian-gary-johnson-comes-out-again
> 
> You might have also caught his dangerous thinking on vaccinations at the end there. If the previous conversations in this thread are any indication, vaccinations should be mandatory.



*Today, there are no federal laws mandating vaccinations, and that is as it should be. No adult should be required by the government to inject anything into his or her body.

Each of the 50 states has varying vaccination requirements for children, consistent with their responsibilities for public education and providing a safe environment for students who are required to attend school under state law. Likewise, each of the 50 states has varying opportunities for parents to seek exemptions from vaccination requirements for legitimate reasons of personal belief. That, too, is as it should be.

And while I personally believe some states' 'opt-out' provisions are not adequate in terms of personal freedom, those laws and requirements are appropriately beyond the scope of the federal government—including the President.

Clearly, if and when a major outbreak of a communicable disease occurs that crosses state lines or sweeps the nation, then appropriate levels of government have an obligation to act—and act rapidly. As President, it would be irresponsible to rule out scientifically and medically sound responses to such an emergency.

Government has a responsibility to help keep our children and our communities safe. At the same time, government has a responsibility to preserve individual freedom. Vaccination policies must respect both of those responsibilities. I personally believe in vaccinations, and my children were vaccinated. But it is not for me to impose that belief on others. - Gov. Johnson
*
Personally I think that is a good policy and I support it. Plus in my own case this is a minor issue as I agree with him on issues I feel are more important such as freeing Ross Ulbricht, the internet, whistle blowers, abortion, social security, and other issues.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 30, 2016)

grafate said:


> Osama, I mean Obama, is the worse.  Our country don't need another 4 year term with Clinton continuing Obama's policies.


Do explain, please. I'm in the mood for being entertained


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I did not notice that he switched posistions


Which means that he acknowledges climate change but doesn't want to do anything about it. Like I said earlier, that's arguably worse than the conservative point of view, which is to deny that climate change is happening at all.



RevPokemon said:


> *Today, there are no federal laws mandating vaccinations, and that is as it should be. No adult should be required by the government to inject anything into his or her body.
> 
> Each of the 50 states has varying vaccination requirements for children, consistent with their responsibilities for public education and providing a safe environment for students who are required to attend school under state law. Likewise, each of the 50 states has varying opportunities for parents to seek exemptions from vaccination requirements for legitimate reasons of personal belief. That, too, is as it should be.
> 
> ...


I believe much of his position is silly, particularly when he called a parent's _personal belief_ a legitimate reason to not vaccinate one's child. He ends with, "I personally believe in vaccinations, and my children were vaccinated. But it is not for me to impose that belief on others," but I believe it is the right of the state to impose the scientific understanding of vaccines on others, particularly when you're hurting more than just your own child when you don't vaccinate. It's an issue of public health, not just private health.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 30, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Do explain, please. I'm in the mood for being entertained


He thinks that since they are the same party then they will push the same policies when it could not be further then the truth.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> He thinks that since they are the same party then they will push the same policies when it could not be further then the truth.


Obama and Clinton are in alignment roughly 99% of the time on policy. I can think of a couple instances in which Clinton is further to the left of Obama (e.g. TPP). I think it's fair to say a vote for Clinton is a vote to continue Obama policies; I just don't think that's a bad thing.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Obama and Clinton are in alignment roughly 99% of the time on policy. I can think of only a couple instances in which Clinton is further to the left of Obama (e.g. TPP). I think it's fair to say a vote for Clinton is a vote to continue Obama policies; I just don't think that's a bad thing.


But the assumptions that they automatically will pursue the same policies in the same ways with the same ideas is foolish. The Clinton plans may very well have the same goals that Obama's but there execution will ultimately be different.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> But the assumptions that they automatically will pursue the same policies in the same ways with the same ideas is foolish. The Clinton plans may very well have the same goals that Obama's but there execution will ultimately be different.


They're obviously not the same person, but their policies and how they pursue them will likely be very similar.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 30, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> He thinks that since they are the same party then they will push the same policies when it could not be further then the truth.


No, that part is correct, it's the part where he said that "Osama, I mean Obama" was the worst thing that happened to this country that I'd like explained


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> They're obviously not the same person, but their policies and how they pursue them will likely be very similar.


Sure but again, how they will execute them will be atleast a little different. Although if you do have a problem with Obama's policies then vote for someone else



TotalInsanity4 said:


> "Osama, I mean Obama" was the worst thing that happened to this country that I'd like explaine


They feel his policies have hurt this country so he was a bad thing to happen to this country, so bad it is worse then 9/11.



Lacius said:


> I believe it is the right of the state to impose the scientific understanding of vaccines on others, particularly when you're hurting more than just your own child when you don't vaccinate. It's an issue of public health, not just private health.


I believe you could argue under NAP that it could be justifiable but I again think it is best as a mix of personal freedom with knowledge of public health. I support mandatory vaccines for all contagious illnesses but not for non contagious ones although they should be covered just the same.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I support mandatory vaccines for all contagious illnesses.


Without religious and/or philosophical exemption? Because if that's the case, you and Johnson differ on this.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Without religious and/or philosophical exemption? Because if that's the case, you and Johnson differ on this.


1. I know me and Johnson disagree on this. We disagree on many things but I agree more with him then Trump, Clinton, Stein, or Castle which is why I support him and will vote for him. For example, my support of Ross Ulbricht and he accordingly will pardon him (according to my talk with his mom). Ultimately this issue of vaccination is a non issue for me.

2. I, in theory am OK with religious exemptions but due to abuse I would be against religious exemptions. The only religious group against them is Christian Science AFAIK but the vast majority of religious exceptions are not in that group.


----------



## Nightwish (Aug 31, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I find it interesting that you mention Puerto Rico specifically, because that's one of the territories that I was referring to about getting a voice should an AU be founded


And you think Americans would let them? That's hilarious!


TotalInsanity4 said:


> I
> Boy I wish I could. I have no means as of right now, though, as I am both underage and too poor to get there even if I wasn't, considering I'm planning on going to college in the next year and here in good ole 'murica that costs money


It usually costs some money everywhere. I suggest to anyone thinking about moving to the Eurozone to research how economically, politically and socially it's completely fucked up.



Lacius said:


> Dodd-Frank did and continues to do a lot of good, actually. It's also far from anything Wall Street supports.


A lot that isn't enough to prevent another derivative crisis very soon and did nothing to stop the leechings on the economy. I'm not particularly impressed, sorry.

You have it reversed.


Lacius said:


> It is true wages are stagnant, but that's not a recession.


Fine, I went too far. It's near secular stagnation, which no economist in the world knows how to deal with.



Lacius said:


> There is no evidence that GMOs have any negative effect on one's health.


I don't give a fuck. Food and medicine must be proven safe (within reason, like anything) to change the food chain and ingest daily. If they haven't bothered to test (they might have, I don't know) with a group that is very likely to be affected, then it's not safe.
You just have no idea how fucking terrifying it is to eat anything different. Be very, very thankful.



Lacius said:


> Also, the presence of GMOs is actually positively correlated with the use of fewer pesticides,


Of course it is, the pesticides go inside GMOs, not outside. Which I'm sure people with allergies and IBD/IBS love.




Monado_III said:


> If I was American (which thankfully I'm not, as much as I dislike Trudeau he's still a far better president/PM than any candidate the USA has) I wouldn't even vote for anyone.


The guy who lied and approved TTIP and CETA?



grossaffe said:


> I will be watching to see what happens with the tests being done on a Thorium-based fission for nuclear energy as it's said to be safer and Thorium is in high abundance.


The problem is that money to fund physical research is needed, otherwise it'll never be usable.



RevPokemon said:


> Although I really do not see how in 2016 there are people against evolution or climate change.


Well, I'm certainly against climate change.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 31, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> Well, I'm certainly against climate change.


Sorry. I never meant to imply you were.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 31, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> And you think Americans would let them? That's hilarious!
> 
> It usually costs some money everywhere. I suggest to anyone thinking about moving to the Eurozone to research how economically, politically and socially it's completely fucked up.
> 
> ...


Don't make the mistake of lumping all pesticides with the subsection of them that are chemical. In many cases, we're talking about genetically modified crops that artificially produce a protein or bacteria, for example, that acts as a natural pesticide, instead of using chemicals. I just wanted to make that clear before we start saying GMOs "have pesticides inside of them."

Thousands of studies have shown that GMOs are just as safe as their non-GMO counterparts, and it is the overwhelming scientific consensus. I can't say I'm aware of specific studies on people who already have IBS, but based on my limited experience with GMOs in my undergraduate days, there are going to be GMOs that are physiologically indistinguishable from their non-GMO counterparts once they get to your shopping cart, which is why much of this debate is nonsense. The only difference by that point, regarding the examples I'm thinking of, would lie solely in the genotype, not phenotype, and some extra nucleotides alone aren't going to hurt you.

I'm summary, GMOs are safe, and for some, I can't even come up with a hypothetical mechism for how they would be less safe.


----------



## Monado_III (Aug 31, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> The guy who lied and approved TTIP and CETA?





Monado_III said:


> If I was American (which thankfully I'm not, as much as* I dislike Trudeau* he's still a far better president/PM than any candidate the USA has)


and TTIP isn't even Canadian, we have the CETA but TTIP is an US-EU deal.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm summary, GMOs are safe, and for some, I can't even come up with a hypothetical mechism for how they would be less safe.


Simple. Because people don't know about them, which causes them to believe they are dangerous despite the fact they are not. 

I also think there is a little part of fear is of corporations using them since some people feel corporations are always evil and always do harm, even when you have regulations that stop them and also lawsuits prevent them from doing things that are truly dangerous. 

Also those companies lobbying against mandatory labels also (rightfully IMO)is concerning in the public eye.

Although let it be known that I feel GMOs are safe.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 31, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I also think there is a little part of fear is of corporations using them since some people feel corporations are always evil and always do harm, even when you have regulations that stop them and also lawsuits prevent them from doing things that are truly dangerous.


Actually, I don't think that this one is necessarily true, or at least consciously. It seems as though the people who are anti-GMO tend to be the same people who believe that a truly free market can't exist when regulations are imposed on corporations


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 31, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually, I don't think that this one is necessarily true, or at least consciously. It seems as though the people who are anti-GMO tend to be the same people who believe that a truly free market can't exist when regulations are imposed on corporations



In polling views among GMOs and vaccines are relatively close among liberals and conservatives although it should be noted liberals are more likely to support evolution and climate change.

Either way there are some people who do view the fact of corporations lobbying regarding GMOs to be concerning. But that is only one reason why I feel people could be against them but there are more of course.

Likewise my support of libertarian ideals is partially why I support GMOs.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 31, 2016)

I hate politics but, I remember something really significant from the South Park TV Series; democracy is always between a turd sandwich and a douche.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Aug 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Senator Sanders lost the primary because Secretary Clinton received over 3 million more votes. It wasn't rigged.


When Democratic voters side with Hillary Clinton simply because she has a vagina and is married to Bill Clinton (which is a lot of them), rigging the votes is much more appealing to me. You can _try_ to fix something in the DNC, but you cannot fix stupid.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 31, 2016)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> When Democratic voters side with Hillary Clinton simply because she has a vagina and is married to Bill Clinton (which is a lot of them), rigging the votes is much more appealing to me. You can _try_ to fix something in the DNC, but you cannot fix stupid.


If you're going to claim that Clinton won the primary by 3 million votes because she has a vagina and is married to Bill, then you're more sexist than the people you're alleging voted for her on the basis of sex.

People largely voted for Hillary Clinton because she was a consequential First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State with high name recognition. To diminish her accomplishments and votes on the basis of sex is pretty sexist.



Jiehfeng said:


> I hate politics but, I remember something really significant from the South Park TV Series; democracy is always between a turd sandwich and a douche.


The moral of the episode wasn't that a two-party democratic election is always a choice between turd sandwich and giant douche. The moral was that if one perceives the election to be a choice between turd sandwich and giant douche, and has no preference between the two candidates, it makes no sense to try and make that person vote for one of those candidates. In other words, the right to vote includes the right not to vote.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The moral of the episode wasn't that a two-party democratic election is always a choice between turd sandwich and giant douche. The moral was that if one perceives the election to be a choice between turd sandwich and giant douche, and has no preference between the two candidates, it makes no sense to try and make that person vote for one of those candidates. In other words, the right to vote includes the right not to vote.



We could debate on whether the intended moral was what I said or you said, but the truth remains the same; when comes choice, the wrong will always be chosen, just for the sheer fact that all the options available are all wrong.
It's like you are taken hostage, the ones who have taken you hostage give you a choice. "There are 7 fruits here. One of them is not poisonous. Choose wisely, because the fruit you choose, you will be forced to eat."
It's a 1/7 chance; 6 idiots, and one ray of hope for change. How many people in the world, or in the world of politics, do you think is capable of really not being either an idiot or a fool (a turd sandwich or a douche), to make the right change needed for a country? It's like finding a needle in a haystack. A 1 in a million chance to choose the right candidate in this situation.
Think about it, only idiots run for politics, because they either want to be a hero or be worshiped.  And trying to be a hero just means you are trying to prove something to the world, that you're not just worthless, and when everyone else sees you as a hero, you see yourself as a hero too, because how in the world would 6-7 billion people be wrong?
So you're choosing between essentially the same thing.

TL;DR... for anyone chosen as candidate, America is inevitable to get fucked up.


----------



## Nightwish (Aug 31, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> liberals are more likely to support evolution and climate change.


You're still writing it wrong. No one supports climate change (well, maybe people in Alaska...). And I don't think people support evolution either, they just believe in it and then go on with their lives since nature doesn't really care.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 31, 2016)

Jiehfeng said:


> We could debate on whether the intended moral was what I said or you said, but the truth remains the same; when comes choice, the wrong will always be chosen, just for the sheer fact that all the options available are all wrong.
> It's like you are taken hostage, the ones who have taken you hostage give you a choice. "There are 7 fruits here. One of them is not poisonous. Choose wisely, because the fruit you choose, you will be forced to eat."
> It's a 1/7 chance; 6 idiots, and one ray of hope for change. How many people in the world, or in the world of politics, do you think is capable of really not being either an idiot or a fool (a turd sandwich or a douche), to make the right change needed for a country? It's like finding a needle in a haystack. A 1 in a million chance to choose the right candidate in this situation.
> Think about it, only idiots run for politics, because they either want to be a hero or be worshiped.  And trying to be a hero just means you are trying to prove something to the world, that you're not just worthless, and when everyone else sees you as a hero, you see yourself as a hero too, because how in the world would 6-7 billion people be wrong?
> ...


Your argument fell apart when you left out public service as a reason why one might run for office.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 1, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> You're still writing it wrong. No one supports climate change (well, maybe people in Alaska...). And I don't think people support evolution either, they just believe in it and then go on with their lives since nature doesn't really care.


In hindsight, yes you are right. of course no one supports climate change, I meant to say they agree with the consensus that evolution is real and climate change is happening. I need to remember not to post when I only have had 4 hours of sleep. 



Lacius said:


> Your argument fell apart when you left out public service as a reason why one might run for office.


Of course there are some people who truly run for doing common good out of there hearts (I feel seen best in the local level), but the issue is that many politicians are career politicians who do it for their own reasons such as those that were mentioned. Likewise for others it is more or less the same such as 1. to help the party, 2. personal gain, 3. status which I feel is sad. I also could go into how term limits would be a good thing but I digress.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> In hindsight, yes you are right. of course no one supports climate change, I meant to say they agree with the consensus that evolution is real and climate change is happening. I need to remember not to post when I only have had 4 hours of sleep.
> 
> 
> Of course there are some people who truly run for doing common good out of there hearts (I feel seen best in the local level), but the issue is that many politicians are career politicians who do it for their own reasons such as those that were mentioned. Likewise for others it is more or less the same such as 1. to help the party, 2. personal gain, 3. status which I feel is sad. I also could go into how term limits would be a good thing but I digress.


I don't know when the term "career politician" became an insult, but being a career politician isn't necessarily a bad thing, and he or she could still be running for office, at least in part, for selfless reasons.

As for term limits, I only think they're appropriate for the executive branch of a government. When it comes to the people who actually write bills, it can take years to learn the ropes, and I don't want a congressperson term limited out of office right when he or she is getting the hang of things and beginning to be effective. Otherwise, we have a bunch of congresspeople who can all vote for or against bills but can't write them very well.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't know when the term "career politician" became an insult, but being a career politician isn't necessarily a bad thing, and he or she could still be running for office, at least in part, for selfless reasons.


I will admit I think some of the view that is an insult comes from the reputation of certain long serving members such as McCain, Kennedy, Biden, and Young who are all disliked by certain political people. But I think some people dislike it due to the fact that when someone serves in politics so long that it becomes a career, it no longer would be its original  purpose of regular people serving to have their voices heard.




Lacius said:


> As for term limits, I only think they're appropriate for the_ executive branch of a government_


Unrelated but just for my own information and a little insight, what about for governors who are term limited?



Lacius said:


> When it comes to the people who actually write bills, it can take years to learn the ropes, and I don't want a congressperson term limited out of office right when he or she is getting the hang of things and beginning to be effective. Otherwise, we have a bunch of congresspeople who can all vote for or against bills but can't write them very well.


I understand that, but I feel it also depends on how long the term limit would be. I personally feel that maybe 12 years or so would be a good limit and one where you could get some bills done depending on the party of you and how congress is at the time. Plus I think that stopping people from say the Reagan Era (it is weird to think how long those people have been around) from staying in the 25+ year range would ultimately help the system.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I will admit I think some of the view that is an insult comes from the reputation of certain long serving members such as McCain, Kennedy, Biden, and Young who are all disliked by certain political people. But I think some people dislike it due to the fact that when someone serves in politics so long that it becomes a career, it no longer would be its original  purpose of regular people serving to have their voices heard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know why it's wrong for politics to become a career. A teacher isn't called a career teacher just because he or she has been teaching 30 or 40 years, and doing something for a long time doesn't inherently take away from any of the original public service intentions.

As for governors, that's the executive branch.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't know why it's wrong for politics to become a career. A teacher isn't called a career teacher just because he or she has been teaching 30 or 40 years, and doing something for a long time doesn't inherently take away from any of the original public service intentions.
> 
> As for governors, that's the executive branch.


Politics is supposed to be a service, not a career.  Politics is something where the longer you're in it, the better you can game the system and the more power you can amass.  Career politicians are easier for Lobbyists to sink their claws into.  And career politicians are more detached from the people whom they rule serve as they've been too long removed from being one of them.  Plus with career politicians, you're stuck with a bunch of old people who don't understand new technology writing the laws governing said technology.  Career politicians are bad news.  A career in politics is generally for those into power acquisition, not those looking to serve their fellow man.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Politics is supposed to be a service, not a career.  Politics is something where the longer you're in it, the better you can game the system and the more power you can amass.  Career politicians are easier for Lobbyists to sink their claws into.  And career politicians are more detached from the people whom they rule serve as they've been too long removed from being one of them.  Plus with career politicians, you're stuck with a bunch of old people who don't understand new technology writing the laws governing said technology.  Career politicians are bad news.  A career in politics is generally for those into power acquisition, not those looking to serve their fellow man.


"Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so." - Gore Vidal

Being a politician is not a career, it's a duty. Politicians are not rulers, they are servants. They are beneath us, not the other way around, and they should not use their political power to amass wealth as their political power was given to them, not earned. It's not a "job", being a politician is being a mouthpiece for your constituents. They're briefly enjoying a position that's supposed to be respectable, but the respect it once inspired is all but lost at this point.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 1, 2016)

I am honestly shocked so many people support Trump. I'm sorry, but are people trolling or are people real being serious about this? He's not leadership material, he's crude, vulgar, and can't even hold his own against a News reporter, the hell makes you think he's fit to run the country? What makes him fit to sit in a room with other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who can't even handle questions from FOX to handle questions from other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who doesn't even think before he speaks to speak to other World Leaders? Does he really seem like a fit leader to run our country?
Clinton may not be the best the Democrats have to offer, but at least she can hold her own and has some form of dignity.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I am honestly shocked so many people support Trump. I'm sorry, but are people trolling or are people real being serious about this? He's not leadership material, he's crude, vulgar, and can't even hold his own against a News reporter, the hell makes you think he's fit to run the country? What makes him fit to sit in a room with other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who can't even handle questions from FOX to handle questions from other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who doesn't even think before he speaks to speak to other World Leaders? Does he really seem like a fit leader to run our country? Clinton may not be the best the Democrats have to offer, but at least she can hold her own and has some form of dignity.


Mrs. Clinton has "some form of dignity"? Are we talking about the same person, the woman who lightheartedly jokes about leaking a bunch of intelligence?



"My computer was hacked? Like, with a hatchet? Wipe my drive? Like, with a cloth?" - idiot.

By the way, it's the crudeness and vulgarity of Trump that's appealing to some people - it's an advantage, not a detriment. He speaks in public in the same way he would speak in a pub, and that kind of sincerity is something some people crave at this point as they're sick of politicians who consistently act like robots and run everything through PR machines. A no-nonsense approach isn't necessarily a bad one. If Trump really wasn't able to hold aces up his sleeve in negotiations, he wouldn't be a billionaire.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 1, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Politics is supposed to be a service, not a career.  Politics is something where the longer you're in it, the better you can game the system and the more power you can amass.  Career politicians are easier for Lobbyists to sink their claws into.  And career politicians are more detached from the people whom they rule serve as they've been too long removed from being one of them.  Plus with career politicians, you're stuck with a bunch of old people who don't understand new technology writing the laws governing said technology.  Career politicians are bad news.  A career in politics is generally for those into power acquisition, not those looking to serve their fellow man.





Foxi4 said:


> "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so." - Gore Vidal
> 
> Being a politician is not a career, it's a duty. Politicians are not rulers, they are servants. They are beneath us, not the other way around, and they should not use their political power to amass wealth as their political power was given to them, not earned. It's not a "job", being a politician is being a mouthpiece for your constituents. They're briefly enjoying a position that's supposed to be respectable, but the respect it once inspired is all but lost at this point.


Again, the imposed limitation on time seems arbitrary to me, and length of service doesn't necessarily conflict with the job description of public service. I also don't think making a career out of politics necessarily leads to a lot of the things listed above. In addition, to go back to my previous analogy, I can say many of these same things about old teachers who _don't understand new technology_. That doesn't make them ineffective teachers.



Foxi4 said:


> Mrs. Clinton has "some form of dignity"? Are we talking about the same person, the woman who lightheartedly jokes about leaking a bunch of intelligence?


In all fairness, the idea that she maliciously or negligently leaked intelligence is a joke.



Foxi4 said:


> By the way, it's the crudeness and vulgarity of Trump that's appealing to some people - it's an advantage, not a detriment. He speaks in public in the same way he would speak in a pub, and that kind of sincerity is something some people crave at this point as they're sick of politicians who consistently act like robots and run everything through PR machines. A no-nonsense approach isn't necessarily a bad one. If Trump really wasn't able to hold aces up his sleeve in negotiations, he wouldn't be a billionaire.


Do we want someone to be president who speaks like he would in a pub without thinking first?


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Mrs. Clinton has "some form of dignity"? Are we talking about the same person, the woman who lightheartedly jokes about leaking a bunch of intelligence?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, a joke, so bad. Trump also called all the Mexicans entering the US, "Rapists" and "murders," saying, "they are sending their worst." Then accused all entering Refugees of terrorism.
Being crude and vulgar is not a selling point for a World Leader. That may fly with some people, but it's not going to fly with a group of World Leaders. 
And if it's all a PR stunt, then he's making a complete mockery of the Presidential system and making a complete mockery of the US. We are already seen as loud vulgar trash, we don't need a President to appease that stereotype.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2016)

Whether she did it maliciously or not is not of any importance - fact of the matter is that she's an idiot. E-mail is not "new technology", it's been around since the dawn of the Internet. She's out of touch with reality and shows no remorse over her quite frankly reckless behaviour.

As for Trump and Mexicans, he specifically talks about illegal aliens. He has no issue with people entering the country legally, so beating that strawman to death isn't doing anything.

As for whether you'd want a president who addresses the public in the same fashion he would address someone privately then yes, that is what you want.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Again, the imposed limitation on time seems arbitrary to me, and length of service doesn't necessarily conflict with the job description of public service. I also don't think making a career out of politics necessarily leads to a lot of the things listed above. In addition, to go back to my previous analogy, I can say many of these same things about old teachers who _don't understand new technology_. That doesn't make them ineffective teachers.


A teacher teaching a class on a technology they don't know is an ineffective teacher.  A politician passing laws on a technology they don't understand is a harmful policy-maker.
Also your previous analogy breaks down because the profession of teaching reaps minimal benefits.  It's not a profession that rewards greedy self-interest, but rather a profession that people choose to take on even though the pay is a pittance.  It neither grants them money nor power, so it does not attract the greedy and the power hungry.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> A teacher teaching a class on a technology they don't know is an ineffective teacher.  A politician passing laws on a technology they don't understand is a harmful policy-maker.
> Also your previous analogy breaks down because the profession of teaching reaps minimal benefits.  It's not a profession that rewards greedy self-interest, but rather a profession that people choose to take on even though the pay is a pittance.  It neither grants them money nor power, so it does not attract the greedy and the power hungry.


A teacher is similar to a politician, however the scale is different. Teachers and students create a microcosm with similar relations to politicians and constituents. A teacher with an outdated skill set creates a generation of youths with outdated skills who, by extension, are unemployable and have wasted their time in school. That teacher should not be teaching, he or she should be retired or in active training. I'm a teacher by trade, although I don't work in my field, and the first thing we were taught was to never stop learning as the world around us changes and so should the material we teach and our means to convey it. Similarly a politician who has no idea how the world works can only push it backwards, back into his or her comfort zone, never forwards, and the range here is the entire nation, thus the damage is much larger in scale.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 1, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> A teacher teaching a class on a technology they don't know is an ineffective teacher.  A politician passing laws on a technology they don't understand is a harmful policy-maker.


Duration of time in politics isn't correlated with a better or worse understanding of technological issues. There are plenty of rookie legislators who are idiots on the issue of technology, and there are plenty of veteran legislators who are not.



grossaffe said:


> Also your previous analogy breaks down because the profession of teaching reaps minimal benefits.  It's not a profession that rewards greedy self-interest, but rather a profession that people choose to take on even though the pay is a pittance.  It neither grants them money nor power, so it does not attract the greedy and the power hungry.


Teaching comes with a paycheck and other perks. One could easily argue that a veteran teacher is doing it for the paycheck and retirement coming his or her way, not for the kids. However, duration of service doesn't necessarily mean that's the case.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Whether she did it maliciously or not is not of any importance - fact of the matter is that she's an idiot. E-mail is not "new technology", it's been around since the dawn of the Internet. She's out of touch with reality and shows no remorse over her quite frankly reckless behaviour.
> 
> As for Trump and Mexicans, he specifically talks about illegal aliens who statistically commit 75% of crimes committed by residents of Mexican origin, at least from what I've read, he has no issue with people entering the country legally, so beating that strawman to death isn't doing anything.
> 
> As for whether you'd want a president who addresses the public in the same fashion he would address someone privately then yes, that is what you want.


At this point, I am honesty sad to see you like this.
First, with the emails. Cool, she's outdated, doesn't disqualify her from office. If anything only shows that she needs a few computer lessons. Of course you ignore Trump's extremely reckless behavior and language.
I would like to see these statistics, with some actual creditable sources.
He's not your buddy at the pub, he's suppose to be a World leader. And no, I would much rather have a person hold a civil conversation if they are going to be the leader of my country. Not someone who just says the first thing that pops into their head. Not to mention you've yet to address the fact that he can't even handle questions from News reports. He can barely hold a debate within his own party, what the hell makes you think he's going to hold his own with World leaders?


----------



## JohnGT (Sep 1, 2016)

trump is winning. you are all bunch of idiots.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Whether she did it maliciously or not is not of any importance - fact of the matter is that she's an idiot. E-mail is not "new technology", it's been around since the dawn of the Internet. She's out of touch with reality and shows no remorse over her quite frankly reckless behaviour.


First, she's shown remorse about a thousand times. Don't get disingenuous in an attempt to win an argument. Second, while what she did with email wasn't the smartest decision, it wasn't actually reckless.



Foxi4 said:


> As for Trump and Mexicans, he specifically talks about illegal aliens who statistically commit 75% of crimes committed by residents of Mexican origin, at least from what I've read, he has no issue with people entering the country legally, so beating that strawman to death isn't doing anything.


No, Trump is engaging in pandering, fear-mongering, and demagoguery. If you think this is an issue about crime, you've been duped. He was very clear the other night about how he wants to deport all illegal immigrants (2 million in the first hour of his presidency), build a wall, end protections for Dream Act kids, and even impose new limits on legal immigration. His talk about crime is a scapegoat, and while we've had our disagreements, I figured you were level-headed enough to not buy into this.



JohnGT said:


> trump is winning. you are all bunch of idiots.


By every measure, Trump is behind in the polls nationally and in just about all of the swing states. He could definitely turn things around between now and November, particularly with a strong debate performance, but it's not looking good for Trump right now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2016)

This is something that interests me - what's wrong with deporting illegal immigrants? They're in the country illegally, they're breaking the law. Every country I can think of has an aggressive policy against residents who entered the country illegally, deportation is an everyday occurrence, what's the outrage? There are two options - either they become citizens and thus begin contributing to the system in taxes and in exchange become protected by the law of the land or they have to leave. You don't even have VAT, so their monetary contribution to the system is non-existent outside of states with a sales tax.


----------



## vayanui8 (Sep 1, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I am honestly shocked so many people support Trump. I'm sorry, but are people trolling or are people real being serious about this? He's not leadership material, he's crude, vulgar, and can't even hold his own against a News reporter, the hell makes you think he's fit to run the country? What makes him fit to sit in a room with other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who can't even handle questions from FOX to handle questions from other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who doesn't even think before he speaks to speak to other World Leaders? Does he really seem like a fit leader to run our country?
> Clinton may not be the best the Democrats have to offer, but at least she can hold her own and has some form of dignity.


People will vote for Trump for the same reason people will vote for Clinton - He is preferable to the alternative. There are plenty of people who do not consider Trump ideal, but would rather have him over Hillary. Likewise, there are many people who don't like Clinton much but will still vote for her because they prefer her to Trump. There are naturally people who do like them, thats how they got there in the first place, but it hardly accounts for everyone. When it comes down to it if you are going to vote, you have to choose from one of the candidates, and an important part of that choice is whoever has an actual chance at winning. Thats what turns alot of people away from 3rd parties. As much as I hate her I can completely understand why some people would vote for Hillary over Trump, but I don't see why its suddenly crazy to choose Trump over Hillary either. They both have many flaws, neither of them are ideal, and when it comes down for it the one you're voting for will be influenced more by your personal priorities than anything else


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> This is something that interests me - what's wrong with deporting illegal immigrants? They're in the country illegally, they're breaking the law. Every country I can think of has an aggressive policy against residents who entered the country illegally, deportation is an everyday occurrence, what's the outrage? There are two options - either they become citizens and thus begin contributing to the system in taxes and in exchange become protected by the law of the land or they have to leave. You don't even have VAT, so their monetary contribution to the system is non-existent outside of states with a sales tax.


There's more options than that.  Gary Johnson's is to let them apply for work visas and pay taxes on their earnings.  Deport the trouble makers but let the good ones work and pay their share without granting them citizenship.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> There's more options than that.  Gary Johnson's is to let them apply for work visas and pay taxes on their earnings.  Deport the trouble makers but let the good ones work and pay their share without granting them citizenship.


That's also acceptable, however Johnson's been betraying quite a few libertarian principles as of late - I'm not sure how his future will look like in the party in terms of support with his Nazi cakes and all.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> There's more options than that.  Gary Johnson's is to let them apply for work visas and pay taxes on their earnings.  Deport the trouble makers but let the good ones work and pay their share without granting them citizenship.


I'd like Gary Johnson if he wouldn't single-handedly fuck our entire education system


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> This is something that interests me - what's wrong with deporting illegal immigrants? They're in the country illegally, they're breaking the law. Every country I can think of has an aggressive policy against residents who entered the country illegally, deportation is an everyday occurrence, what's the outrage? There are two options - either they become citizens and thus begin contributing to the system in taxes and in exchange become protected by the law of the land or they have to leave. You don't even have VAT, so their monetary contribution to the system is non-existent outside of states with a sales tax.



Illegal immigrants do indeed participate in the economy. As you mentioned, they also pay some taxes.
It costs a lot of resources to deport illegal immigrants, let alone 2,000,000+ of them.
Immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship is a great idea. Trump does not support these because the issue isn't one of legal vs. illegal.
Trump talked just the other night about putting new restrictions on legal immigration, and this isn't the first time he's done that.
Trump has surrounded himself with alt right rational behind his immigration plan, making the issue less about legal vs. illegal and more about race and ethnicity.
Trump himself has given rational for his views that is demagoguery and often outright false, including but not limited to some of his false claims about the correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime.
Demonizing a group of people as illegal, illegitimate, and undesirable is not a first in this country. It's been done numerous times for political gain, and it's as much a red herring as it is disgusting.
Oh, and painting the issue as "What's wrong with deporting illegals?" ignores more complicated issues such as, for example, breaking up families, deporting people who have lived here most of their lives, and not acknowledging our broken legal immigration system.



vayanui8 said:


> People will vote for Trump for the same reason people will vote for Clinton - He is preferable to the alternative. There are plenty of people who do not consider Trump ideal, but would rather have him over Hillary. Likewise, there are many people who don't like Clinton much but will still vote for her because they prefer her to Trump. There are naturally people who do like them, thats how they got there in the first place, but it hardly accounts for everyone. When it comes down to it if you are going to vote, you have to choose from one of the candidates, and an important part of that choice is whoever has an actual chance at winning. Thats what turns alot of people away from 3rd parties. As much as I hate her I can completely understand why some people would vote for Hillary over Trump, *but I don't see why its suddenly crazy to choose Trump over Hillary either*. They both have many flaws, neither of them are ideal, and when it comes down for it the one you're voting for will be influenced more by your personal priorities than anything else


Because Trump is a bigoted demagogue with an inconsistent temperament and bad policy. Clinton has the experience, temperament, and policy to be an effective president.



grossaffe said:


> There's more options than that.  Gary Johnson's is to let them apply for work visas and pay taxes on their earnings.  Deport the trouble makers but let the good ones work and pay their share without granting them citizenship.


If one cares who actually wins this year, there are only two choices: Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> There's more options than that.  Gary Johnson's is to let them apply for work visas and pay taxes on their earnings.  Deport the trouble makers but let the good ones work and pay their share without granting them citizenship.


Just to address visas, I feel that citizenship is a better alternative as visas practically guarantee that earnings of visa holders will be siphoned into whatever country they're originally from. It'd be orders of magnitude better, in my opinion, if they settled for good and brought their family over. Keep the capital in the country and whatnot. Without peace of mind every prudent individual will put their savings where their residency is not in jeopardy 24/7.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'd like Gary Johnson if he wouldn't single-handedly fuck our entire education system


And the environment.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

@Lacius Illegal immigrants participate in the economy in the same way as humans participate in the food chain - they're removed from it, but they do eat. They are not paying any taxes beyond sales tax which is not uniform across all states, they do not receive any legal protections and cannot unionize, thus they can be illegally employed at rates below the minimum wage, effectively undercutting every legal worker in the country, they take advantage of public services without contributing to them and they're often times uninsured. You don't *want* them to be in that spot and you most certainly don't *want* more of them.


----------



## vayanui8 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Because Trump is a bigoted demagogue with an inconsistent temperament and bad policy. Clinton has the experience, temperament, and policy to be an effective president


Are you incapable of acknowledging that Hillary Clinton's views go completely against many peoples entire belief systems? I understand that you like her policy, and that's fine, but it is the complete opposite of what many people want. Thus isn't even a race between individual candidates, it's a race between 2 entirely different philosophies. It's only natural that people will side with whichever one is closer to theirs, even if it has many large difference or if there are issues with the candidate representing it


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> And the environment.


The environment exists so that we can use it to the very last molecule and atom, I'm so sick and tired of the "save the planet" movement, I care far more about the well-being of the species than I do about a swamp or a rare plant. This planet is doomed either way - if it won't get hit by an asteroid at some point, it will eventually be engulfed by the sun. Either way, our time here is limited. We should be directing all our efforts to technological progress and leaving Earth as soon as possible, not worry about the environment - the environment's fine. We're not going to kill the planet, the planet has survived life-ending, cataclysmic events far beyond the scope of what humanity can do to it - we can pollute it at worst.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If one cares who actually wins this year, there are only two choices: Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump.


First off, I wasn't advocating him in that post, merely pointing out there were more than the two options to deal with that particular situation.  Secondly, both Trump and Clinton are fucking terrible.  I do care who wins as I will be angry if either Clinton or Trump wins the election, which they will.  That having been said, if I vote for Clinton, IT WILL NOT MAKE HER WIN.  If I vote for Trump, IT WILL NOT MAKE HIM WIN.  The probability of my vote actually deciding the election is miniscule.  The ONLY possible scenario in which my vote swings the election is the scenario in which all of the following happen:
The person I vote for wins
Said person wins my state
Said person wins the election by the margin of my state's electoral votes
Said person wins my state by a margin of my vote

That will not ever happen, thus voting for a person who you think is a genuine piece of shit is the true wasted vote.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> First off, I wasn't advocating him in that post, merely pointing out there were more than the two options to deal with that particular situation.  Secondly, both Trump and Clinton are fucking terrible.  I do care who wins as I will be angry if either Clinton or Trump wins the election, which they will.  That having been said, if I vote for Clinton, IT WILL NOT MAKE HER WIN.  If I vote for Trump, IT WILL NOT MAKE HIM WIN.  The probability of my vote actually deciding the election is miniscule.  The ONLY possible scenario in which my vote swings the election is the scenario in which all of the following happen:
> The person I vote for wins
> Said person wins my state
> Said person wins the election by the margin of my state's electoral votes
> ...


That, and voting against your own convictions and better judgement makes you partially responsible for any and all negative consequences and terrible legislature which comes about as a result if the candidate you voted for does win, as you were a cog in the system that put them in power in the first place.


----------



## Supster131 (Sep 2, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I am honestly shocked so many people support Trump. I'm sorry, but are people trolling or are people real being serious about this? He's not leadership material, he's crude, vulgar, and can't even hold his own against a News reporter, the hell makes you think he's fit to run the country? What makes him fit to sit in a room with other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who can't even handle questions from FOX to handle questions from other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who doesn't even think before he speaks to speak to other World Leaders? Does he really seem like a fit leader to run our country?
> Clinton may not be the best the Democrats have to offer, but at least she can hold her own and has some form of dignity.


I'd rather have an idiot over a criminal as a president.
Oh hey, will you look at that, I'm Mexican.
I don't care. I don't care how racist Trump is, at least he hasn't done illegal and shady shit.

Trust me, I don't like or want to support Trump, but he's miles better than Hillary.
Both candidates suck, Trump's just a little less worse.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

I specifically like how Bill Clinton recently stated that "if Hillary becomes president, the Clinton foundation will stop accepting foreign donations and he will resign from its board". So in short, they "totally weren't doing anything wrong", but if she becomes president, they'll stop doing it. Do you know what's the single best way to detect a scam? It's a scam when someone tells you that it's not a scam. They've now put up a banner saying "hey, if you want to have a say regarding the future of the country, you better donate right now", since unlike lobbyist groups, a charity doesn't have to disclose the source of their donations as far as I'm aware. There's a huge influx of money coming their way, that's a guarantee. It doesn't help that the first live forum between Trump and Clinton is supposed to be moderated by a long-term donor and associate of the foundation, Matt Lauer - no impropriety going on there.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius Illegal immigrants participate in the economy in the same way as humans participate in the food chain - they're removed from it, but they do eat.


If an illegal immigrant earns money and spends money, he or she is contributing as much to the economy as anyone else.



Foxi4 said:


> They are not paying any taxes beyond sales tax which is not uniform across all states


State and local sales taxes are still often times significant, so don't downplay it.



Foxi4 said:


> they do not receive any legal protections, and thus can be illegally employed at rates below the minimum wage and are effectively undercutting every legal worker in the country


If Trump cared about this issue as anything more than a political launching board for himself, he would propose policy that deals with the hiring of illegals and immigration reform, rather than policy that deals with deportation, a bullshit wall, etc.



Foxi4 said:


> they take advantage of public services without contributing to them and they're often times uninsured.


As we just discussed, illegal immigrants contribute to and are a part of public services, whether it's through taxes, being a part of the economy, functioning as potential vectors for disease without adequate health care, etc. You're failing to see how everyone's tied together.



Foxi4 said:


> You don't *want* them to be in that spot and you most certainly don't *want* more of them.


I want a pathway to citizenship and a reform to our legal immigration process. Of course I don't want any of what you just listed.



vayanui8 said:


> Are you incapable of acknowledging that Hillary Clinton's views go completely against many peoples entire belief systems? I understand that you like her policy, and that's fine, but it is the complete opposite of what many people want. Thus isn't even a race between individual candidates, it's a race between 2 entirely different philosophies. It's only natural that people will side with whichever one is closer to theirs, even if it has many large difference or if there are issues with the candidate representing it


I acknowledge other people's views. However, I would argue that Clinton's views are conducive to the well-being of the American society as a whole, and Trump's views are not. Otherwise, my views wouldn't be so in alignment with Clinton's. Trump's statements on immigration, Islam, and other things are also pretty deplorable.

You could turn that around on me and say someone is going to believe the opposite, but one of us is right. That's why supporting Trump is idiotic.



Foxi4 said:


> The environment exists so that we can use it to the very last molecule and atom, I'm so sick and tired of the "save the planet" movement, I care far more about the well-being of the species than I do about a swamp or a rare plant. This planet is doomed either way - if it won't get hit by an asteroid at some point, it will eventually be engulfed by the sun. Either way, our time here is limited. We should be directing all our efforts to technological progress and leaving Earth as soon as possible, not worry about the environment - the environment's fine. We're not going to kill the planet, the planet has survived life-ending, cataclysmic events far beyond the scope of what humanity can do to it - we can pollute it at worst.


You're an idiot if you think greenhouse gases aren't a serious threat to the environment. Oh, and I am very human-centric. I am not an environmentalist because I have some emotional bond to the whales or something. I am an environmentalist because I have some emotional bond to myself and other humans.



grossaffe said:


> First off, I wasn't advocating him in that post, merely pointing out there were more than the two options to deal with that particular situation.  Secondly, both Trump and Clinton are fucking terrible.  I do care who wins as I will be angry if either Clinton or Trump wins the election, which they will.  That having been said, if I vote for Clinton, IT WILL NOT MAKE HER WIN.  If I vote for Trump, IT WILL NOT MAKE HIM WIN.  The probability of my vote actually deciding the election is miniscule.  The ONLY possible scenario in which my vote swings the election is the scenario in which all of the following happen:
> The person I vote for wins
> Said person wins my state
> Said person wins the election by the margin of my state's electoral votes
> ...


You're failing to take into account that if everyone who thinks like you saw their flawed logic, it's less _miniscule_. My point still stands about there only actually being two choices if one cares who actually wins, because they are the only candidates who can win.



Foxi4 said:


> That, and voting against your own convictions and better judgement makes you partially responsible for any and all negative consequences and terrible legislature if the candidate does win, as you were a cog in the system that put them in power in the first place.


That doesn't change my point above.



Supster131 said:


> I'd rather have an idiot over a criminal as a president.


Clinton hasn't done anything criminal, so if this is why you're not voting for her, welcome to Team Hillary.



Supster131 said:


> I don't care. I don't care how racist Trump is, at least he hasn't done illegal and shady shit.


Nothing illegal or shady? What about his alleged ties to the mafia, the instances of illegal housing discrimination he's participated in, Trump University's arguably predatory and illegal practices, his hiring of illegal immigrants in the past, frivolous lawsuits, alleged marital rape, casino fines, and not paying contractors and other workers?

Do I believe all of these are true or noteworthy? No, but they're more legitimate than any of the Clinton _scandals _that have been thrown around here. The fact that you're focusing on Clinton's alleged scandals but not Trump's is some pretty fine special pleading.



Foxi4 said:


> I specifically like how Bill Clinton recently stated that "if Hillary becomes president, the Clinton foundation will stop accepting foreign donations and he will resign from its board". So in short, they "totally weren't doing anything wrong", but if she becomes president, they'll stop doing it. Do you know what's the single best way to detect a scam? It's a scam when someone tells you that it's not a scam. They've now put up a banner saying "hey, if you want to have a say regarding the future of the country, you better donate right now", since unlike lobbyist groups, a charity doesn't have to disclose the source of their donations as far as I'm aware. There's a huge influx of money coming their way, that's a guarantee. It doesn't help that the first debate between Trump and Clinton is supposed to be moderated by a long-term donor to the foundation - no impropriety going on there.


Saying something will be stopped because the public finds it controversial doesn't mean there was ever any wrongdoing. For all you know, it's a reassurance.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Saying something will be stopped because the public finds it controversial doesn't mean there was ever any wrongdoing. For all you know, it's a reassurance.


It's almost an admission of guilt - if there is no impropriety going on, why stop? There's no logical reason to do so other than covering your tracks. This sentiment of yours is coming from the same faction that still demands to see Trump's tax return by the way, as if it was some legal requirement and not just a tradition. I can see some cognitive dissonance going on here.

You also seem to be under the impression that I don't think greenhouse gases threaten the environment - that's not what I said. What I said was that I don't care about the environment - that's a completely different statement.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You're failing to take into account that if everyone who thinks like you saw their flawed logic


Firstly, fuck off


> My point still stands about there only actually being two choices if one cares who actually wins, because they are the only candidates who can win.


Secondly, your argument is now that voting in large numbers can make a difference.  Well if everyone thought like me and actually voted who they wanted to win, then we wouldn't be stuck with only two options.  Fact is, however, that's not how the world works and whomever gets elected will do so regardless of whether or not I vote for them.  And, as I stated before, Both Clinton and Trump are massive pieces of shit and I would not be caught dead voting for them.  So instead of casting a vote against my conscience like a good little sheep, I cast my vote for someone I can believe in.  And when <insert party> loses my swing-state, they'll look over and see all the people voting for Gary Johnson and they may just ask themselves what they can do to earn our votes in the future.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> It's almost an admission of guilt


Except it's not.



Foxi4 said:


> if there is no impropriety going on, why stop?


The public finds it controversial, and the public also consists of voters. lol



Foxi4 said:


> This sentiment of yours is coming from the same faction that still demands to see Trump's tax return by the way, as if it was some legal requirement and not just a tradition. I can see some cognitive dissonance going on here.


You're claiming the Clinton Foundation is guilty or likely guilty due to Bill's statements about no longer accepting donations if Hillary wins, which is a non sequitur. I've already given you a reason why Bill would say what he did without being guilty. I do not think that because Trump has not released his tax returns that he is guilty or likely guilty of something.

However, I could think that, and it wouldn't be contradictory. Bill is doing what would shut down a controversy and reassure the public. Trump is doing the opposite of what would shut down a controversy and reassure the public, and to what end? He has no excuse not to release his tax returns, and there's no reason I can think of not to do it other than to hide what's in there, because not releasing his tax returns is only going to affect him negatively otherwise.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Except it's not.
> 
> 
> The public finds it controversial, and the public also consists of voters.
> ...


He has the best reason of all - it's his tax return and none of your business.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> He has the best reason of all - it's his tax return and none of your business.


First, that doesn't change any of what I said about it hurting him negatively for seemingly no gain other than to perhaps hide something. Second, if you look into the history of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns, you would see why it is our business. I'm not saying he's obligated by law to release them anymore than one is obligated to release his or her medical records, but you can see why the latter is our business too.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, that doesn't change any of what I said about it hurting him negatively for seemingly no gain other than to perhaps hide something. Second, if you look into the history of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns, you would see why it is our business. I'm not saying he's obligated by law to release them anymore than one is obligated to release his or her medical records, but you can see why the latter is our business too.


No, I cannot, because he is a private individual and his private business endeavours are his private matter (Libertarian, remember?), unlike Secretary Clinton who held a public office while the organisation operated, which does make it our business as it can directly skew policy on the basis of donations, and if you try to sell me the story about how she wasn't directly involved again then I'm just going to sigh because it's called The Clinton Foundation for a reason.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Firstly, fuck off


This kind of response to my opinion is why we can't have nice things.



grossaffe said:


> Secondly, your argument is now that voting in large numbers can make a difference.  Well if everyone thought like me and actually voted who they wanted to win, then we wouldn't be stuck with only two options.  Fact is, however, that's not how the world works and whomever gets elected will do so regardless of whether or not I vote for them.  And, as I stated before, Both Clinton and Trump are massive pieces of shit and I would not be caught dead voting for them.  So instead of casting a vote against my conscience like a good little sheep, I cast my vote for someone I can believe in.  *And when <insert party> loses my swing-state, they'll look over and see all the people voting for Gary Johnson and they may just ask themselves what they can do to earn our votes in the future.*


You seem to have been too busy furiously typing "fuck off" to read my qualifier.


Lacius said:


> If one cares *who actually wins this year*, there are only two choices: Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump.


If you have no preference between the two or don't care about this year compared to the next year, we have no problem.


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You don't even have VAT, so their monetary contribution to the system is non-existent outside of states with a sales tax.


That's odd, I thought tax was theft. Anyway, the problem is that you can't just deport all illegal immigrants without destabilizing the economy of the places where a significant amount of them is working. It needs a lot more though put into it, even if you end up deporting them all in the end.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'd like Gary Johnson if he wouldn't single-handedly fuck our entire education system


Your education system is already completely fucked.



Foxi4 said:


> The environment exists so that we can use it to the very last molecule and atom, I'm so sick and tired of the "save the planet" movement, I care far more about the well-being of the species than I do about a swamp or a rare plant. This planet is doomed either way - if it won't get hit by an asteroid at some point, it will eventually be engulfed by the sun. Either way, our time here is limited. We should be directing all our efforts to technological progress and leaving Earth as soon as possible, not worry about the environment - the environment's fine. We're not going to kill the planet, the planet has survived life-ending, cataclysmic events far beyond the scope of what humanity can do to it - we can pollute it at worst.



Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the answer to the Fermi Paradox.


EDIT: sorry, missed a parentheses and it looked all fucked up


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> No, I cannot, because he is a private individual and his private business endeavours are his private matter (Libertarian, remember?), unlike Secretary Clinton who held a public office while the organisation operated, which does make it our business as it can directly skew policy on the basis of donations, and if you try to sell me the story about how she wasn't directly involved again then I'm just going to sigh because it's called The Clinton Foundation for a reason.


One does not get to claim the moniker of _private _when running for public office, by definition. Again, I am not saying one should be compelled by law to release his or her tax returns. I am, however, saying it's our business as voters. It also shows poor judgment and poses a lot of questions when one does not release his or her tax returns, and why Trump still wouldn't do so despite knowing this compounds the questions.

Edit: It's also called the Clinton Foundation because it was founded by Bill Clinton. Not only is there no reason to think Hillary Clinton was involved with the foundation when it took foreign donations, but there is also evidence that she wasn't.



Nightwish said:


> Your education system is already completely fucked.
> Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the answer to the Fermi Paradox.


This post wins the thread.


----------



## andzalot55 (Sep 2, 2016)

I'm voting for her. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> That's odd, I thought tax was theft. Anyway, the problem is that you can't just deport all illegal immigrants without destabilizing the economy of the places where a significant amount of them is working. It needs a lot more though put into it, even if you end up deporting them all in the end.


Just unfair taxation.


> Your education system is already completely fucked.


You're misquoting, that wasn't my statement, correct your quote.


> Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the answer to the Fermi Paradox.


That's actually a really funny and smart joke, well done!


> EDIT: sorry, missed a paratheses and it looked all fucked up


So typical of liberals to misinform and disorient people! THE WALL GREW BY 10 METERS TODAY! 

You are forgiven.


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> He has the best reason of all - it's his tax return and none of your business.



Yeah, I'm finding out more and more that there's a lot of corruption that could have been avoided if everyone running for public office showed their tax returns. I don't like it either, because I believe people have a right to a private life, but I believe it's a tradeoff we must make to save democracy.
Also, it's not like US values privacy very much either. Unless you're rich.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> You're misquoting, that wasn't my statement, correct your quote.


I actually did before you posted the reply  it ate a whole block of text because a ] went missing (don't know if it'll show up now or not)


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> One does not get to claim the moniker of _private _when running for public office, by definition. Again, I am not saying one should be compelled by law to release his or her tax returns. I am, however, saying it's our business as voters. It also shows poor judgment and poses a lot of questions when one does not release his or her tax returns, and why Trump still wouldn't do so despite knowing this compounds the questions.


Running, not holding. Big difference. Trump cannot use his political power to sway anything in either direction as he has none, Clinton could.


> Edit: It's also called the Clinton Foundation because it was founded by Bill Clinton. Not only is there no reason to think Hillary Clinton was involved with the foundation when it took foreign donations, but there is also evidence that she wasn't.


Sure. It's uncommon for politicians to be influenced by the activities of their immediate family, it's also uncommon for groups who wish to influence them to approach them through such channels.


> This post wins the thread.


It sure does. I should engrave it on my tombstone.


----------



## 2ndApex (Sep 2, 2016)

What could possibly go wrong with this thre-

I'm too late.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> This kind of response to my opinion is why we can't have nice things.
> 
> 
> You seem to have been too busy furiously typing "fuck off" to read my qualifier.


You seem to have been too busy being dismissive of other people's opinions.  Sorry we can't all be graced to think like you are your flock and that we're so flawed as to refuse to vote for a person we perceive as an absolute piece of shit.


> If you have no preference between the two or don't care about this year compared to the next year, we have no problem.


My preference is they both die in a plane crash and America has the chance to vote on real candidates.


----------



## TechAndrew (Sep 2, 2016)

FYI:
It has been scientifically proven that polls aren't good at predicting who will win the elections.
For example, during the Brexit referendum, most people voted with their "gut instincts" to leave the E.U., even though most of the "Leave" people regretted their decision later on...
In past pre-Brexit polls, it has been predicted that "Stay" would be majority, however, we all know that that isn't the case.

The same thing will happen at the elections in November. People will either forget about all their decisions and trust their "gut instincts", or will take their vote "seriously" and firmly change their mind at the last minute.

I'm not saying that polls are useless and unnecessary, as they are indeed helpful to find HUGE differences, but they are not helpful to find small differences.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> You seem to have been too busy being dismissive of other people's opinions.  Sorry we can't all be graced to think like you are your flock and that we're so flawed as to refuse to vote for a person we perceive as an absolute piece of shit.
> 
> My preference is they both die in a plane crash and America has the chance to vote on real candidates.


That'd be funny. Who would rise to the challenge? The old geezer socialist Sanders, the "eco-socialist" Stein and Johnson, huh? I guess that's one way to get Libertarianism into a position of power.


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 2, 2016)

Who am I voting for? Anyone who isn't part of the Clinton family, that's for damn sure.


----------



## vayanui8 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I acknowledge other people's views. However, I would argue that Clinton's views are conducive to the well-being of the American society as a whole, and Trump's views are not. Otherwise, my views wouldn't be so in alignment with Clinton's. Trump's statements on immigration, Islam, and other things are also pretty deplorable.
> 
> You could turn that around on me and say someone is going to believe the opposite, but one of us is right. That's why supporting Trump is idiotic.


If you believe Clinton is the better candidates, you should vote for Clinton. If you think Trump is the better candidate, you should vote for Trump. I don't think it's fair to call someone an idiot just because they disagree with you. Political views and intelligence are unrelated. There are intelligent people and stupid people on both sides


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That'd be funny. Who would rise to the challenge? The old geezer socialist Sanders, the "eco-socialist" Stein and Johnson, huh? I guess that's one way to get Libertarianism into a position of power.


Imagine this scenario: The election race is close.  Gary Johnson manages to win a single state.  Clinton and Trump split the rest of the electoral votes.  Neither gets the majority needed to win the election and so the decision goes to congress.  Republicans control congress and they _really_ don't like Trump so they band together and elect Gary Johnson president, as they are allowed to choose between any of the top three performers in the election.  Now _that_ would be a drama-filled election.


----------



## TechAndrew (Sep 2, 2016)




----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> If you believe Clinton is the better candidates, you should vote for Clinton. If you think Trump is the better candidate, you should vote for Trump. I don't think it's fair to call someone an idiot just because they disagree with you. Political views and intelligence are unrelated. There are intelligent people and stupid people on both sides


I think it's absolutely fair to call someone an idiot based on their beliefs if those beliefs are idiotic. In fact, it's the single best reason to call someone an idiot.


grossaffe said:


> Imagine this scenario: The election race is close.  Gary Johnson manages to win a single state.  Clinton and Trump split the rest of the electoral votes.  Neither gets the majority needed to win the election and so the decision goes to congress.  Republicans control congress and they _really_ don't like Trump so they band together and elect Gary Johnson president, as they are allowed to choose between any of the top three performers in the election.  Now _that_ would be a drama-filled election.


I like the plane scenario better - it's more chaos, and chaos is great. I have a game plan - you paint a funny depiction of Muhammad on the plane, I'll fill the cargo bay with bacon, then we'll tell the pilot to fly over Mecca - it'll be a blast!


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> It sure does. I should engrave it on my tombstone.


I should confess, I saw it on Slashdot earlier. But seriously, we might go elsewhere or even fix everything, but it's a pretty big bet with too much uncertainty. I don't think we should risk the existence of civilization because of it _if_ we can help it. Even if we're dead by then.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I like the plane scenario better - it's more chaos, and chaos is great. I have a game plan - you paint a funny depiction of Muhammad on the plane, I'll fill the cargo bay with bacon, then we'll tell the pilot to fly over Mecca - it'll be a blast!


Throw in snakes on the plane and we've got ourselves a plan.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> I should confess, I saw it on Slashdot earlier. But seriously, we might go elsewhere or even fix everything, but it's a pretty big bet with too much uncertainty. I don't think we should risk the existence of civilization because of it _if_ we can help it. Even if we're dead by then.


Don't worry, my bacon/Mecca joke is stolen too, but it fits too well with my devious scheme of painting the plane, so I had to use it. Let's make Mecca the holy land of bacon strips.

Survival of the species is the chief reason for space exploration, it minimises the chance that a cataclysmic event like an asteroid impact wipes out all of humanity like it did with dinosaurs. We *must* colonise it, it's in our DNA, and the sooner we start the better because there is no uncertainty - this planet is doomed, you can't stop the sun from expanding and you can't stop an asteroid the size of Texas.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Running, not holding. Big difference. Trump cannot use his political power to sway anything in either direction as he has none, Clinton could.


I'm not sure how this is relevant.



Foxi4 said:


> Sure. It's uncommon for politicians to be influenced by the activities of their immediate family, it's also uncommon for groups who wish to influence them to approach them through such channels.


Don't commit an association fallacy.



grossaffe said:


> You seem to have been too busy being dismissive of other people's opinions.


You seem to be confusing dismissiveness and disagreement.



TechAndrew said:


> FYI:
> It has been scientifically proven that polls aren't good at predicting who will win the elections.
> For example, during the Brexit referendum, most people voted with their "gut instincts" to leave the E.U., even though most of the "Leave" people regretted their decision.
> In past polls, it has been predicted that "Stay" would be majority, however, we all know that that isn't the case.
> ...


Not all polls are created equal. It's important to focus on the trends and aggregates, not individual polls. In addition, the Brexit polls were practically tied near the end, and the false predictions were actually because people were focusing more on feeling, history, and fundamentals rather than the polling. You're evidence counters your point, because people would have been better prognosticators had they actually focused purely on the data and polls.

In modern American history, the polls have actually been very good at predicting the outcomes of presidential elections. The polls this year are also a lot more consistent and in one candidate's favor than the Brexit polls were.



vayanui8 said:


> If you believe Clinton is the better candidates, you should vote for Clinton. If you think Trump is the better candidate, you should vote for Trump. I don't think it's fair to call someone an idiot just because they disagree with you. Political views and intelligence are unrelated. There are intelligent people and stupid people on both sides


Ridiculous people and beliefs are subject to ridicule, by definition. It's the nature of this kind of discourse. Don't be an idiot.


----------



## vayanui8 (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I think it's absolutely fair to call someone an idiot based on their beliefs if those beliefs are idiotic. In fact, it's the single best reason to call someone an idiot.


It's one thing to call someone an idiot over a certain belief or subset of beliefs, but I think it's foolish and close minded to call someone an idiot over something like their choice of presidential candidate, or what side of the political spectrum they fall on. There are far too many factors to take into account to just throw out a blanket statement about how supporters of X candidate are all idiots.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> It's one thing to call someone an idiot over a certain belief or subset of beliefs, but I think it's foolish and close minded to call someone an idiot over something like their choice of presidential candidate, or what side of the political spectrum they fall on. There are far too many factors to take into account to just throw out a blanket statement about how supporters of X candidate are all idiots.


I never did that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Don't commit an association fallacy.


I promised I'll give you a sigh. Here's the biggest one I found.

*SIGH!*


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 2, 2016)

I'm pretty sure Lacius is one of the clinton campaigns paid "CTR" shills at this point.


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 2, 2016)

Threads like this are the reason I don't openly or willingly discuss politics on the internet.  Yes, it's good to discuss, etc etc, but for me, it just boils my blood.


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 2, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> I'm pretty sure Lacius is one of the clinton campaigns paid "CTR" shills at this point.


I have been thinking the exact same thing!


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You seem to be confusing dismissiveness and disagreement.


No, I'm confident in my interpretation of the post as it is written.  Perhaps you should consider your wording more carefully if you do not want to come off as pretentious and dismissive.  Saying someone's thoughts are flawed is not expressing a disagreement of opinion, but rather calling to question their ability to think.  Don't be surprised when people tell you to fuck off when you question their ability to think.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I promised I'll give you a sigh. Here's the biggest one I found.
> 
> *SIGH!*


If you're going to argue that there was impropriety and Hillary Clinton was involved, it's up to you to demonstrate this. Otherwise, you're making assessments based on your feelings, and forgive me, but I don't care about your feelings. I care about facts.

Should the Clinton Foundation have stopped with foreign donations once Hillary Clinton got political power? I don't think so, but arguably. Regardless, arguable stupidity and controversy doesn't mean there was actually any quid pro quo. I don't know about you, but I don't presume guilt, particularly when there is no reason to think there was impropriety.

Le sigh.



Joe88 said:


> I'm pretty sure Lacius is one of the clinton campaigns paid "CTR" shills at this point.





I pwned U! said:


> I have been thinking the exact same thing!


If only that were true. With the amount of unsubstantiated garbage that's peddled here, it'd be easy money.



grossaffe said:


> No, I'm confident in my interpretation of the post as it is written.  Perhaps you should consider your wording more carefully if you do not want to come off as pretentious and dismissive.  Saying someone's thoughts are flawed is not expressing a disagreement of opinion, but rather calling to question their ability to think.  Don't be surprised when people tell you to fuck off when you question their ability to think.


I'm pretty happy with my wording. I believe your logic was flawed, and I think you were wrong. You also didn't seem to read the very posts you responded to, because you apparently missed my qualifiers entirely.

In discourse, often times someone is going to think he or she is right. That might mean he or she thinks the other person is wrong. If I think you're wrong, I can only conclude your logic is flawed or that you're willfully being wrong. Forgive me that I chose the more flattering option for you.

If you're going to muck around on the internet, you need to grow some thicker skin. It could have been much worse than, "You're logic is flawed, and I think you're wrong." In all fairness to me, even though I thought your logic was flawed, I was only saying so in my post as a hypothetical situation for why your vote matters (i.e. _*if* everyone who thinks like you saw their flawed logic..._).


----------



## Pacheko17 (Sep 2, 2016)

Trump of course.
I don't want America to fall into the hands of the left and go on a spiral downfall for over a decade like what happened here in Brazil.
Thank god we got rid of the commies this week, and now we have a decent president.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm pretty happy with my wording. I believe your logic was flawed, and I think you were wrong. You also didn't seem to read the very posts you responded to, because you apparently missed my qualifiers entirely.
> 
> In discourse, often times someone is going to think he or she is right. That might mean he or she thinks the other person is wrong. If I think you're wrong, I can only conclude your logic is flawed or that you're willfully being wrong. Forgive me that I chose the more flattering option for you.
> 
> If you're going to muck around on the internet, you need to grow some thicker skin. It could have been much worse than, "You're logic is flawed, and I think you're wrong." In all fairness to me, even though I thought your logic was flawed, I was only saying so in my post as a hypothetical situation for why your vote matters (i.e. _*if* everyone who thinks like you saw their flawed logic..._).


Your qualifier changes not your statement on my ability to think.  Your qualifier of "if" is only qualifying the scenario in which the hopelessly inept people such as myself were to realize how stupid we were and change into more perfect beings such as yourself.

Speaking to the scenario itself, it is a flawed scenario in that it requires buy-in from everyone.  And if we could amass buy-in to change the way people choose to vote, then voting who you want to win rather than who you think _can_ win becomes an even more viable option.  Instead of us having an epiphany and voting for pieces of shit, what if people who always vote Republican or Democrat no-matter-what had an epiphany and voted for who they actually wanted to win rather than who they think can win as selected by the oligarchy?

I'm not including you in that group since as far as I can tell you love everything about Hillary, so of course my scenario would be bad news 'cause now your candidate is losing all those free votes that she would have gotten simply for being a Democrat.  The horror.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 2, 2016)

Why bother voting? Our votes generally do not counts and everybody should know that elections are rigged. Perhaps one day everybody should not vote for anybody, just to see how it goes or more along the line of *making* a statement. Problem is there will always be that person whom fells compelled to vote, so this "no vote scenario would never pan out".
I don't trust Hillery nor Trump, as a viable candidate. Then again I generally don't have much trust with anybody running for president, as they all failed to keep all of their campaign promises after being elected.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 2, 2016)

RandomUser said:


> I don't trust Hillery nor Trump, as a viable candidate. Then again I generally don't have much trust with anybody running for president, as they all failed to keep all of their campaign promises after being elected.


That's why we have Castle, Stein, and Johnson


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 2, 2016)

My state will go to Trump. I live in Arizona, which is a primarily conservative electorate(surprisingly). He has the support and endorsements of our incumbent and highly popular Sheriff(Joe Arpaio) and Senator(Jon McCain). However I feel I should leave this here to confront the misconception of a crime rate/immigrant correlation.

https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/REPORTS/Stats/july2016-ethnic_distribution.pdf 

If your not sure of what this report is, its the actual report from the AZ Dept of Corrections for inmate ethnicity and nationality. As you can see by viewing the report, the numbers given by Donald Trump are quite blown out of proportion when compared to actual analysis. Caucasian and Mexican-American dwarf the Mexican-National percentages. This is only Arizona though, however I highly doubt states like Texas or California would veer differently in their reports.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Your qualifier changes not your statement on my ability to think.  Your qualifier of "if" is only qualifying the scenario in which the hopelessly inept people such as myself were to realize how stupid we were and change into more perfect beings such as yourself.
> 
> Speaking to the scenario itself, it is a flawed scenario in that it requires buy-in from everyone.  And if we could amass buy-in to change the way people choose to vote, then voting who you want to win rather than who you think _can_ win becomes an even more viable option.  Instead of us having an epiphany and voting for pieces of shit, what if people who always vote Republican or Democrat no-matter-what had an epiphany and voted for who they actually wanted to win rather than who they think can win as selected by the oligarchy?
> 
> I'm not including you in that group since as far as I can tell you love everything about Hillary, so of course my scenario would be bad news 'cause now your candidate is losing all those free votes that she would have gotten simply for being a Democrat.  The horror.


I really believe Lacius' line of thinking is a direct result of the two-party system getting force-fed to Americans for decades, I'm glad to see that other parties are now getting traction. People stopped voting for other people and started voting for faceless factions, and that's exactly how you get politicians with poor character and no moral fiber.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> People stopped voting for other people and started voting for faceless factions, and that's exactly how you get politicians with poor character and no moral fiber.


Sadly it seems the front of the jersey matters more than the back. But I am doing my part to change that however.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Sadly it seems the front of the jersey matters more than the back. But I am doing my part to change that however.


The very idea that someone would vote for candidate A "because they're a Democrat" or candidate B "because they're a Republican" is really intellectually slothful, it disqualifies better candidates right out of the gate just because they're not in a popular club. It's possibly worse than "voting for the lesser evil" which I also find naive at best, disingenuous at worst, since it perverts the meaning of what a vote is supposed to mean, an expression of support, into a weapon, a means of blocking another candidate whom the voter finds undesirable. It's stonewalling.


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The very idea that someone would vote for candidate A "because they're a Democrat" or candidate B "because they're a Republican" is really intellectually slothful, it disqualifies better candidates right out of the gate just because they're not in a popular club. It's possibly worse than "voting for the lesser evil" which I also find naive at best, disingenuous at worst, since it perverts the meaning of what a vote is supposed to mean, an expression of support, into a weapon, a means of blocking another candidate whom the voter finds undesirable. It's stonewalling.



"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 2, 2016)

I live in alabama. In a very conservative sector. My vote doesn't matter. Only swing-states votes count for president, and even then only certain districts. Everyone else on the ticket, it's about swing counties and whatnot.

Problems of our gerrymandered, representative, first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting system.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

The "my vote doesn't matter" attitude is why you're in this mess to begin with, and it's an on-going problem.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius Illegal immigrants participate in the economy in the same way as humans participate in the food chain - they're removed from it, but they do eat. They are not paying any taxes beyond sales tax which is not uniform across all states, they do not receive any legal protections and cannot unionize, thus they can be illegally employed at rates below the minimum wage, effectively undercutting every legal worker in the country, they take advantage of public services without contributing to them and they're often times uninsured. You don't *want* them to be in that spot and you most certainly don't *want* more of them.


I know that this was two pages ago now, but I'm confused as to how you see this as an immigration issue and not a Greed Incorporated(tm) issue. If business owners didn't have the moral bankruptcy to want to pay their workers as low a wage as possible, to the point where it's not even physically possible to live off of it, undocumented immigrants undercutting the minimum wage wouldn't be an issue at all


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I know that this was two pages ago now, but I'm confused as to how you see this as an immigration issue and not a Greed Incorporated(tm) issue. If business owners didn't have the moral bankruptcy to want to pay their workers as low a wage as possible, to the point where it's not even physically possible to live off of it, undocumented immigrants undercutting the minimum wage wouldn't be an issue at all


A business exists for one thing and one thing only - to make money. If you create an environment in which stealing a buck or scamming someone out of a buck is easier and safer than earning one, 10 out of 10 times people will steal and scam. Conversely, if you create an environment in which earning legitimately is easier than earning illegally, people will earn legitimately.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 2, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> "Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317


"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

"It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

"There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." - George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Pacheko17 said:


> Trump of course.
> I don't want America to fall into the hands of the left and go on a spiral downfall for over a decade like what happened here in Brazil.
> Thank god we got rid of the commies this week, and now we have a decent president.


It would seem as though you have a serious misunderstanding of what the American Left is versus the Brazilian Left. From what I can see, the Brazilian (and Latin American, for that matter) Left is quite a bit more extreme than ours

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> A business exists for one thing and one thing only - to make money. If you create an environment in which stealing a buck or scamming someone out of a buck is easier and safer than earning one, 10 out of 10 times people will steal and scam. Conversely, if you create an environment in which earning legitimately is easier than earning illegally, people will earn legitimately.


So... rather than put restrictions on the businesses to make it legally impossible to do so without serious consequences if caught, just make it impossible for it to happen in the first place?

I get the logic, but I feel that it's a lot more destructive and restrictive to people who really just want to work and live a better life


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 2, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It would seem as though you have a serious misunderstanding of what the American Left is versus the Brazilian Left. From what I can see, the Brazilian (and Latin American, for that matter) Left is quite a bit more extreme than ours


Plus many issues that define parties are country centric


----------



## Pacheko17 (Sep 2, 2016)

The left there is way worse.
The left here is just a bunch of lazy sobs who want free benefits from the government while screaming stupidities like "Fidel Castro was a hero!"


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 2, 2016)

Pacheko17 said:


> The left there is way worse.
> The left here is just a bunch of lazy sobs who want free benefits from the government while screaming stupidities like "Fidel Castro was a hero!"


Is a hero

He is still alive


----------



## Viri (Sep 2, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I live in alabama. In a very conservative sector. My vote doesn't matter. Only swing-states votes count for president, and even then only certain districts. Everyone else on the ticket, it's about swing counties and whatnot.
> 
> Problems of our gerrymandered, representative, first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting system.


I live in a swing state, and will try to turn it red.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Pacheko17 said:


> The left there is way worse.
> The left here is just a bunch of lazy sobs who want free benefits from the government while screaming stupidities like "Fidel Castro was a hero!"


??? I'm confused, what do you think the left here is like?


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 2, 2016)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your vote is pointless. Its very much an act that should be considered almost sacred, as many, many, MANY people have given their blood, sweat, lives, and tears throughout history for the ideal of a republic/democracy and the principle of power to the people. On a national level, it may be less significant, but at a state and local level, it can be game-changing, and will affect your lives directly.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It would seem as though you have a serious misunderstanding of what the American Left is versus the Brazilian Left. From what I can see, the Brazilian (and Latin American, for that matter) Left is quite a bit more extreme than ours
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Everyone wants to live a better life, but there is a certain due process to everything. If you immigrate illegally, you've made a conscious choice to enter a foreign territory while waiving all the benefits of citizenship or even a visa, as such, it's a bed that you made - lay in it or make a better bed. Corporations are not accountable for your well-being just because comparatively speaking they have more money - it's not your money. Hiring citizens and paying them should be incentivised, right now it's not - it's much more paperwork than with an illegal immigrant. Larger corporations have too much to lose, so instead they patch skill gaps by literally importing a worker force from, say, India and sort out H1B visas for them, since they are willing to work for a wage you're unlikely to agree to. This is especially prominent in IT - have you ever wondered why every single consultant is from that part of the world? Home-grown IT specialists are just too expensive to hire. Various social policies that force companies to act like nannies created an environment in which hiring an American is more trouble than it's worth, so they're not hiring Americans. There are two solutions to this problem - making hiring Americans more lucrative by deregulation or making hiring illegals or importing work forces less lucrative, which in turn puts the onus of taking care of the employees on the corporations, for whatever inane reason. You might be surprised to hear this, but not all people abroad have to worry about whether the company they're applying to "covers dental" or not, they just buy their own dental care coverage because they have a job and can afford it.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Your qualifier changes not your statement on my ability to think.  Your qualifier of "if" is only qualifying the scenario in which the hopelessly inept people such as myself were to realize how stupid we were and change into more perfect beings such as yourself.
> 
> Speaking to the scenario itself, it is a flawed scenario in that it requires buy-in from everyone.  And if we could amass buy-in to change the way people choose to vote, then voting who you want to win rather than who you think _can_ win becomes an even more viable option.  Instead of us having an epiphany and voting for pieces of shit, what if people who always vote Republican or Democrat no-matter-what had an epiphany and voted for who they actually wanted to win rather than who they think can win as selected by the oligarchy?
> 
> I'm not including you in that group since as far as I can tell you love everything about Hillary, so of course my scenario would be bad news 'cause now your candidate is losing all those free votes that she would have gotten simply for being a Democrat.  The horror.





Foxi4 said:


> I really believe Lacius' line of thinking is a direct result of the two-party system getting force-fed to Americans for decades, I'm glad to see that other parties are now getting traction. People stopped voting for other people and started voting for faceless factions, and that's exactly how you get politicians with poor character and no moral fiber.


My original statement stands. Either Secretary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to win the election. If one cares who wins this year's election between them, then it's a binary choice between those two candidates. If one doesn't care who wins this year and/or has no preference between those two, then go ahead and vote third party or don't vote at all. It's not rocket science.



RandomUser said:


> Why bother voting? Our votes generally do not counts and everybody should know that elections are rigged. Perhaps one day everybody should not vote for anybody, just to see how it goes or more along the line of *making* a statement. Problem is there will always be that person whom fells compelled to vote, so this "no vote scenario would never pan out".
> I don't trust Hillery nor Trump, as a viable candidate. Then again I generally don't have much trust with anybody running for president, as they all failed to keep all of their campaign promises after being elected.


Elections generally are not rigged in the United States.



brickmii82 said:


> My state will go to Trump. I live in Arizona, which is a primarily conservative electorate(surprisingly). He has the support and endorsements of our incumbent and highly popular Sheriff(Joe Arpaio) and Senator(Jon McCain). However I feel I should leave this here to confront the misconception of a crime rate/immigrant correlation.
> 
> https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/REPORTS/Stats/july2016-ethnic_distribution.pdf
> 
> If your not sure of what this report is, its the actual report from the AZ Dept of Corrections for inmate ethnicity and nationality. As you can see by viewing the report, the numbers given by Donald Trump are quite blown out of proportion when compared to actual analysis. Caucasian and Mexican-American dwarf the Mexican-National percentages. This is only Arizona though, however I highly doubt states like Texas or California would veer differently in their reports.


It's actually a somewhat close race in Arizona right now. As of this post, Trump's aggregate polling is only about +3 over Clinton in Arizona, and several individual polls in recent weeks have shown Clinton ahead by between 1-3 points. This combined with the unprecedented Arizona latino voter outreach that just started shows that it is indeed a competitive race in Arizona. Even John McCain has said that being down-ballot from Donald Trump is going to make this general election race very difficult for him.

I don't think Clinton will win Arizona, but it's close enough that I wouldn't be surprised if she did.



Foxi4 said:


> The very idea that someone would vote for candidate A "because they're a Democrat" or candidate B "because they're a Republican" is really intellectually slothful, it disqualifies better candidates right out of the gate just because they're not in a popular club. It's possibly worse than "voting for the lesser evil" which I also find naive at best, disingenuous at worst, since it perverts the meaning of what a vote is supposed to mean, an expression of support, into a weapon, a means of blocking another candidate whom the voter finds undesirable. It's stonewalling.


Political parties are an efficient way to sift through candidates on the the basis of policy positions. There are plenty of rational arguments for voting on the basis of party if those are the political positions one agrees with. For example, you can pick any national Democrat, and he or she is very likely going to appoint judges and justices I agree with. You can pick any national Republican, and he or she is very likely going to appoint judges and justices I do not agree with. It's not a matter of who wears which jersey; it's a matter of policy, which is arguably the most intellectually diligent way to go.



Pacheko17 said:


> The left there is way worse.
> The left here is just a bunch of lazy sobs who want free benefits from the government while screaming stupidities like "Fidel Castro was a hero!"


I don't know about the rest of the left, but I'm not lazy, and I'm not asking for free stuff.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I know that this was two pages ago now, but I'm confused as to how you see this as an immigration issue and not a Greed Incorporated(tm) issue. If business owners didn't have the moral bankruptcy to want to pay their workers as low a wage as possible, to the point where it's not even physically possible to live off of it, undocumented immigrants undercutting the minimum wage wouldn't be an issue at all


I do see it that way.



Foxi4 said:


> A business exists for one thing and one thing only - to make money. If you create an environment in which stealing a buck or scamming someone out of a buck is easier and safer than earning one, 10 out of 10 times people will steal and scam. Conversely, if you create an environment in which earning legitimately is easier than earning illegally, people will earn legitimately.


Hence the need for laws and regulation.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Sep 2, 2016)

trumpy gravy


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> My original statement stands. Either Secretary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to win the election. If one cares who wins this year's election between them, then it's a binary choice between those two candidates. If one doesn't care who wins this year and/or has no preference between those two, then go ahead and vote third party or don't vote at all. It's not rocket science.


Except that, as established, your vote isn't going to swing the election.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Except that, as established, your vote isn't going to swing the election.


It increases the likelihood of a candidate winning, so my point still stands.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It increases the likelihood of a candidate winning, so my point still stands.


And voting for a third party increases the likelihood of a candidate winning.  Both of them by negligible amounts.  Your vote _will not_ affect the outcome of the election.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> And voting for a third party increases the likelihood of a candidate winning.  Both of them by negligible amounts.  Your vote _will not_ affect the outcome of the election.


A third party candidate isn't going to win. See above.


----------



## suzsuzuki (Sep 2, 2016)

Pacheko17 said:


> Trump of course.
> I don't want America to fall into the hands of the left and go on a spiral downfall for over a decade like what happened here in Brazil.
> Thank god we got rid of the commies this week, and now we have a decent president.



You can't compare Brazil and USA. We have in Brazil a LOT of candidates, all them very bad. Including the former and actual president. If Trump wins, it will be much hard for us, Brazilians, go to US for fun or for business. Trump don't like us...

USA has only a few candidates and them has a side. In Brazil, left, right, middle right, middle left, whatever... all are the same.


----------



## Procyon (Sep 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> And voting for a third party increases the likelihood of a candidate winning.  Both of them by negligible amounts.  Your vote _will not_ affect the outcome of the election.



Well, say.... if the Republican party had another lead, they would have gotten 48% and the Democrats 46% and the third parties 6%. Then the Republican party would've won. Say that it now is 30% Republicans, 47% Democrats and 23% third parties. Which means they have big influences.

This is just a theory, not a real outcome.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Procyon said:


> Well, say.... if the Republican party had another lead, they would have gotten 48% and the Democrats 46% and the third parties 6%. Then the Republican party would've won.


This kind of scenario is extremely likely this year in most states and nationally. To use your specific example, if the 6% who vote for Johnson really don't have a preference between Clinton and Trump, then they did the right thing for them by voting for Johnson. However, if someone in that 6% cares who wins between Clinton and Trump, then voting for Johnson is a stupid decision.

To use a real-life example, Iowa is arguably the closest state right now with projections at 46.0% for Clinton, 45.9% for Trump, and 6.9% for Johnson. People are going around saying, _"My vote doesn't matter,"_ or, _"A single vote isn't going to change the election."_ In reality, very few votes could determine who gets all of Iowa's 6 electoral votes, and Iowa is far from an isolated incident. In a situation where the electoral college is close, a small number of votes in a state like Iowa could determine the entire election.

It wasn't that long ago that 537 votes determined the outcome of the presidential election, and 138,063 votes in that state were for someone other than the two viable major party candidates. I have a feeling that out of those 138,063 votes, more than 537 of them prefered the major party candidate who lost over the major party candidate who won.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Sep 2, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I'd vote for Trump.
> Why?
> Cause fuck you that's why!
> I want to see how badly he can fuck up an entire country.
> ...


Are the lulz really worth ruining millions of people's lives with a xenophobic presidency that will take years to correct and undo?



RepeatingDigits said:


> Ow, the edge! And what's this about following Europe? Yes goy, allow more immigrants! Surely no bad things could happen at all! Surrender your identity goy.
> How about we form an American Union, and we have a single currency. Let's allow other countries to dictate our policies, what could possibly go wrong?
> 
> You know nothing.


Why is it that in every mention of immigrants the context is such that they are pest-like? Why are you against immigration? The discussion about its so-called negative economic implications ('stealing jobs', etc.) has been disproved a thousand times over, instead being met with studies that confirm the converse effect. Immigration creates jobs and develops the economy in a way that benefits both locals and foreigners. The EU has got perhaps the most stable economy on Earth, letting aside the Brexit disaster (in which the consequences of _dismantling_ such a union were made clear, albeit on a smaller scale.)

I would also be hesitant to use the word 'dictate' in response to how legislative decisions within the EU are made. They are usually democratically voted for and for the benefit of the majority.

--

My serious question to the Trump voters in this poll is are you just having a laugh, or do you actually see yourself in his political leanings?


----------



## suzsuzuki (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> This kind of scenario is extremely likely this year in most states and nationally. To use your specific example, if the 6% who vote for Johnson really don't have a preference between Clinton and Trump, then they did the right thing for them by voting for Johnson. However, if someone in that 6% cares who wins between Clinton and Trump, then voting for Johnson is a stupid decision.
> 
> To use a real-life example, Iowa is arguably the closest state right now with projections at 46.0% for Clinton, 45.9% for Trump, and 6.9% for Johnson. People are going around saying, _"My vote doesn't matter,"_ or, _"A single vote isn't going to change the election."_ In reality, very few votes could determine who gets all of Iowa's 6 electoral votes, and Iowa is far from an isolated incident. In a situation where the electoral college is close, a small number of votes in a state like Iowa could determine the entire election.
> 
> It wasn't that long ago that 537 votes determined the outcome of the presidential election, and 138,063 votes in that state were for someone other than the two viable major party candidates. I have a feeling that out of those 138,063 votes, more than 537 of them prefered the major party candidate who lost over the major party candidate who won.



Polls are dangerous. In Brazil there are more than 10 candidates for president and there are several fake polls. They use fake poll to influence people to vote for who has more chances of winning, leaving the minor candidates with no chance. It is anchoring, if I say to you that Donald Trump has 3%, Gary Johnson has 44% and Jill Stein is 43%, you probably will not want to vote for Trump because you think he has no chance of winning.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

@Lacius Okay, let me get this straight... You would vote for candidate X over candidate Y because you _disagree with X less_, thus in order to block Y, you would cast your vote for X despite not agreeing with him at all and despite the fact that there's a candidate Z who proposes better policies, but is less likely to win? I need to wrap my head around this. In my mind this is an assassination attempt on democracy, you're not voting for "your candidate", you're voting to invalidate another person's vote.


----------



## Haider Raza (Sep 2, 2016)

Donald truck


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Donald truck


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

suzsuzuki said:


> Polls are dangerous. In Brazil there are more than 10 candidates for president and there are several fake polls. They use fake poll to influence people to vote for who has more chances of winning, leaving the minor candidates with no chance. It is anchoring, if I say to you that Donald Trump has 3%, Gary Johnson has 44% and Jill Stein is 43%, you probably will not want to vote for Trump because you think he has no chance of winning.


It is true that some polls are outliers. It is also true that polling can have an effect on whether or not people get out and actually vote. However, as long as we do our best to focus on aggregates and trend lines, rather than any one particular poll that contributes to the narrative we want to hear, we should be able to make very good predictions about the race and understand where the election stands at any given point.

As of this post, nationally speaking, Clinton's aggregate polling is about 42.5%, Trump's is about 38.4%, and Johnson's is about 7.8%, depending on where you look. Clinton is also consistently polling ahead of Trump in national and swing state polls. The election is close enough that, a.) Trump could conceivably turn things around and win in November, and b.) the polls shouldn't affect voter turnout too much since neither candidate is shown to be winning by a landslide. However, I would much rather be Clinton than Trump right now. Ignoring the fact that Clinton is winning nationally by +4.1% (Obama beat Romney by +3.9% in 2012, by the way), the electoral college is also even more favorable for her. If we gave Clinton all of the states where she's doing better than the national average of +4.1%, she would already have 272/270 electoral votes needed to win, and that's not factoring in states where she's ahead but by less than +4.1%, and that's not factoring in swing states that are nearly tied and could go either way.



Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius Okay, let me get this straight... You would vote for candidate X over candidate Y because you _disagree with X less_, thus in order to block Y, you would cast your vote for X despite not agreeing with him at all and despite the fact that there's a candidate Z who proposes better policies, but is less likely to win? I need to wrap my head around this. In my mind this is an assassination attempt on democracy, you're not voting for "your candidate", you're voting to invalidate another person's vote.


Let's assume the following, just so I'm clear:

I disagree with both X and Y.
I agree with and like Z.
Only X or Y can win the election.
However, I disagree with X less than I disagree with Y.
I would prefer it if X won instead of Y, even though my first choice is Z.
*In this situation, I would vote for X.*

I'm casting the vote that maximally represents my views in practice, not necessarily in principle. If I cast the vote that maximally represents my views in principle, not necessarily in practice, I would vote for Z. However, given the bulleted premises above, that's as good as throwing my vote away, and I would regret my vote for Z if Y won.

Edit: This isn't an _assassination attempt on democracy_. If anything, it's demonstrative of a flaw in our system, not a flaw in my thinking, because I'm doing the smartest thing in this situation. Something like a preferential voting system would solve this problem, and I support that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It is true that some polls are outliers. It is also true that polling can have an effect on whether or not people get out and actually vote. However, as long as we do our best to focus on aggregates and trend lines, rather than any one particular poll that contributes to the narrative we want to hear, we should be able to make very good predictions about the race and understand where the election stands at any given point.
> 
> As of this post, nationally speaking, Clinton's aggregate polling is about 42.5%, Trump's is about 38.4%, and Johnson's is about 7.8%, depending on where you look. Clinton is also consistently polling ahead of Trump in national and swing state polls. The election is close enough that, a.) Trump could conceivably turn things around and win in November, and b.) the polls shouldn't affect voter turnout too much since neither candidate is shown to be winning by a landslide. However, I would much rather be Clinton than Trump right now. Ignoring the fact that Clinton is winning nationally by +4.1% (Obama beat Romney by +3.9% in 2012, by the way), the electoral college is also even more favorable for her. If we gave Clinton all of the states where she's doing better than the national average of +4.1%, she would already have 272/270 electoral votes needed to win, and that's not factoring in states where she's ahead but by less than +4.1%, and that's not factoring in swing states that are nearly tied and could go either way.
> 
> ...


Excuse my frankness and don't take this the wrong way, but that's the anti-thesis of democracy to me. I would use stronger terms, but I don't mean to offend. You're voting for a candidate you disagree with because you disagree with him less than the alternative? So you're not supporting him at all, you're just trying to put a stick into the wheels of the system. In a hypothetical election of Stalin vs. Hitler you'd vote for Stalin because comparatively speaking his regime would kill less people? You're partially liable for what Stalin does - you put him in power. That's a truly wasted vote, you've put it behind something you don't actually support, just to f*ck with the election. That's not democracy, that's guerilla warfare with votes. With an attitude like that third-parties are never going to become significant.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Excuse my frankness and don't take this the wrong way, but that's the anti-thesis of democracy to me. You're voting a candidate you disagree with because you disagree with him less than the alternative? So you're not supporting him at all, you're just trying to put a stick into the wheels of the system. In a hypothetical election of Stalin vs. Hitler you'd vote for Stalin because comparatively speaking his regime would kill less people? You're partially liable for what Stalin does - you put him in power. That's a truly wasted vote, you've put it behind something you don't actually support, just to f*ck with the election. That's not democracy, that's guerilla warfare with votes. With an attitude like that third-parties are never going to become significant.


See my edit.


Lacius said:


> Edit: This isn't an _assassination attempt on democracy_. If anything, it's demonstrative of a flaw in our system, not a flaw in my thinking, because I'm doing the smartest thing in this situation. Something like a preferential voting system would solve this problem, and I support that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> See my edit.


It's absolutely a flaw in your thinking - third-parties have a lesser chance of ever gaining a foothold because of that thinking, which is shared nationally for some inane reason. The only way to make the third-parties grow is to vote for them and declare support, and with increasing poll numbers or election results election by election people would eventually find voting for them more viable. Voting for something that goes against your ethos is sacrificing your principles, which basically means that they have no value and can be whored out if the circumstances suit you. By not voting for what you actually believe in you destroy any chance of your beliefs ever being represented and your candidates ever being put in a position of power.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> It's absolutely a flaw in your thinking - third-parties have a lesser chance of ever gaining a foothold because of that thinking, which is shared nationally for some inane reason. The only way to make the third-parties grow is to vote for them and declare support, and with increasing numbers people would find voting for them more viable. Voting for something that goes against your ethos is sacrificing your principles, which basically means that they have no value and can be whored out if the circumstances suit you.


No, the support for third-parties is low enough that a vote for them will do nothing substantive but throw my vote away. I want to influence the election and increase the likelihood of my preferred candidate (X) winning. I'm not going to waste a vote on Z to merely make a statement and risk a Y presidency. I'm sorry that it emotionally upsets you that some people aren't voting libertarian because they want to cast a vote that actually matters, but it's objectively the smart thing to do. If you're thinking that Z would have a chance at winning or would at least be substantively more popular if all Z-supporters who are voting for X or Y just switched their vote to Z, polling regularly shows that's highly unlikely. Z support is just too low, even when you include the people holding their noses and voting for X or Y.



Foxi4 said:


> In a hypothetical election of Stalin vs. Hitler you'd vote for Stalin because comparatively speaking his regime would kill less people? You're partially liable for what Stalin does - you put him in power. That's a truly wasted vote, you've put it behind something you don't actually support, just to f*ck with the election. That's not democracy, that's guerilla warfare with votes. With an attitude like that third-parties are never going to become significant.


The lesser of two evils is less evil, by definition. In a situation where only Hitler or Stalin can win, a vote for Stalin is a vote to save lives. I wouldn't regret my vote for Stalin, although the flawed system would make me gag as it does today. I would, however, regret my vote for Gary Johnson if Hitler narrowly won, because I could have used my vote to vote for Stalin and save lives.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> No, the support for third-parties is low enough that a vote for them will do nothing substantive but throw my vote away. I want to influence the election and increase the likelihood of my preferred candidate (X) winning. I'm not going to waste a vote on Z to merely make a statement and risk a Y presidency. I'm sorry that it emotionally upsets you that some people aren't voting libertarian because they want to cast a vote that actually matters, but it's objectively the smart thing to do. If you're thinking that Z would have a chance at winning or would at least be substantively more popular if all Z-supporters who are voting for X or Y just switched their vote to Z, polling regularly shows that's highly unlikely. Z support is just too low, even when you include the people holding their noses and voting for X or Y.
> 
> The lesser of two evils is less evil, by definition. In a situation where only Hitler or Stalin can win, a vote for Stalin is a vote to save lives. I wouldn't regret my vote for Stalin, although the flawed system would make me gag as it does today. I would, however, regret my vote for Gary Johnson if Hitler narrowly won, because I could have used my vote to vote for Stalin and save lives.


That's a short-term solution. You're guaranteeing that Gary Johnsons of this world still don't have a chance in 4 year's time while the Hitlers and Stalins do. If your vote makes you gag, deep down you know you're doing something wrong.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a short-term solution. You're guaranteeing that Gary Johnsons of this world still don't have a chance in 4 year's time while the Hitlers and Stalins do.


Johnson's support is small. Do not blame his popularity gap on some of his supporters voting for X or Y instead. Getting those supporters to throw their vote away on Johnson isn't Step 1, and it's an unfair expectation given Johnson's unpopularity and the flawed system.



Foxi4 said:


> If your vote makes you gag, deep down you know you're doing something wrong.


I metaphorically gag each time I vote in a presidential election, even though my #1 choice is a Democrat and I luckily get to vote for my #1 choice as the smart thing to do. The electoral college system is flawed, and the lack of a preferential voting system is flawed. Does that mean I am doing something wrong? Should I pout and not vote at all? Should I throw a tantrum?


----------



## DinohScene (Sep 2, 2016)

Lucifer666 said:


> Are the lulz really worth ruining millions of people's lives with a xenophobic presidency that will take years to correct and undo?



Bush.
And yes, I don't care either way ;'D
I'm not voting, can't even vote, not from the US.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Johnson's support is small. Do not blame his popularity gap on some of his supporters voting for X or Y instead. Getting those supporters to throw their vote away on Johnson isn't Step 1, and it's an unfair expectation given Johnson's unpopularity and the flawed system.
> 
> I metaphorically gag each time I vote in a presidential election, even though my #1 choice is a Democrat and I luckily get to vote for my #1 choice as the smart thing to do. The electoral college system is flawed, and the lack of a preferential voting system is flawed. Does that mean I am doing something wrong? Should I pout and not vote at all? Should I throw a tantrum?


Not voting is an option if nobody truly represents your interests - hanging your principles up and voting not for the sake of supporting what you believe in, which is constructive, but to stifle someone else's chances, which is destructive, is a concept bad enough to validate not voting at all. Blaming the system for your own poor decisions by saying that it forced you to do them is ridiculous, nobody's putting a gun to your head.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Not voting is an option if nobody truly represents your interests - hanging your principles up not for the sake of supporting what you believe in, which is constructive, but to stifle someone else's chances, which is destructive, is bad enough to validate not voting at all.


If I didn't vote, and Hitler beat Stalin, I would very much regret not voting. Even if I disagree with both viable candidates, I would prefer the lesser of two evils wins.

Fortunately, I don't see Secretary Clinton as merely the lesser of two evils. I support her, and I get to vote for my #1 choice (after Bernie).


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If I didn't vote, and Hitler beat Stalin, I would very much regret not voting. Even if I disagree with both viable candidates, I would prefer the lesser of two evils win.


So you're not going to kill the Jews and the Poles, you'll just kill the Poles because that's comparatively less death. It's that kind of moral relativism that puts dictators in power - people support them because, comparatively speaking, they seem better than whoever they're ousting from power.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> So you're not going to kill the Jews and the Poles, you'll just kill the Poles because that's comparatively less death.


Is that not better than the alternative? I'm not going to potentially kill some Jews in order to make a statement.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Is that not better than the alternative? I'm not going to kill some Jews in order to make a statement.


Is supporting Hitler, becoming a Nazi and gasing a bunch of kids better than starving to death? Because that's the Nuremberg defense - "I was just doing what I was supposed to do", when you had the option to recluse yourself from the process and not have blood on your hands.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Is supporting Hitler, becoming a Nazi and gasing a bunch of kids better than starving to death? Because that's the Nuremberg defense - "I was just doing what I was supposed to do", when you had the option to recluse yourself from the process and not have blood on your hands.


That's a false analogy. One is minimizing death. The other is maximizing death for one's own benefit. Don't be disingenuous.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's a false analogy. One is minimizing death. The other is maximizing death for one's own benefit. Don't be disingenuous.


It's minimising the deaths of your own compatriots, it's not disingenuous. From the perspective of an average German supporting Hitler made total sense... until he started a World War.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> It's minimising the deaths of your own compatriots, it's not disingenuous. From the perspective of an average German supporting Hitler made total sense... until he started a World War.


Nothing about the example until now has brought up nationalism nor minimizing the deaths of one's own compatriots by killing others. Don't change the example, because I said I would vote for Stalin in your previous example solely on the basis of minimizing death. If you change the example, it becomes a false analogy.



Foxi4 said:


> Blaming the system for your own poor decisions by saying that it forced you to do them is ridiculous, nobody's putting a gun to your head.


I have a moral imperative to maximize well-being and minimize, to go along with our previous example, mass death. Therefore, I must vote for the lesser of two evils. To sit idly by, throw one's vote away, and allow the more evil candidate to win is what's immoral.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Nothing about the example until now has brought up nationalism nor minimizing the deaths of one's own compatriots by killing others. Don't change the example, because I said I would vote for Stalin in your previous example solely on the basis of minimizing death. If you change the example, it becomes a false analogy.
> 
> I have a moral imperative to maximize well-being and minimize, to go along with our previous example, mass death. Therefore, I must vote for the lesser of two evils. To sit idly by, throw one's vote away, and allow the more evil candidate to win is what's immoral.


Your moral imperative seems to go against the premise of the voting system. If we go back to the previous example that you insist on, supporting Stalin while being aware of his atrocities because the alternative commits more atrocities is still supporting atrocity.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius Okay, let me get this straight... You would vote for candidate X over candidate Y because you _disagree with X less_, thus in order to block Y, you would cast your vote for X despite not agreeing with him at all and despite the fact that there's a candidate Z who proposes better policies, but is less likely to win? I need to wrap my head around this. In my mind this is an assassination attempt on democracy, you're not voting for "your candidate", you're voting to invalidate another person's vote.




yes, because if my candidate has literally no chance whatsoever to make the cut, because all of his supporters combined would only count for about 10% of all votes, you have to make a choice.

vote your candidate, or use it to make sure that the one very likely winning candidate you don't want, doesn't get the win.

this is simply how it works in a two party system like the us. 
not sure how it is in poland, but i guess you got a multiparty system with about 4-5 parties forging coalitions and stuff?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> yes, because if my candidate has literally no chance whatsoever to make the cut, because all of his supporters combined would only count for about 10% of all votes, you have to make a choice.
> 
> vote your candidate, or use it to make sure that the one very likely winning candidate you don't want, doesn't get the win.
> 
> ...


Party names mean nothing, they're just fronts for people running them. When an old party loses support, they dissolve and start a new one - somehow everything is forgiven then. It's hardly ideal since it's a young democracy still dealing with post-communist power players.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Your moral imperative seems to go against the premise of the voting system. If we go back to the previous example that you insist on, supporting Stalin while being aware of his atrocities because the alternative commits more atrocities is still supporting atrocity.


By definition, your example precludes the option of ending all atrocities. All I can do is minimize them, and doing so doesn't make me responsible for them. I can, however, be held responsible for having the opportunity to minimize suffering but doing nothing.

There's a runaway train barrelling towards a fork in the tracks. In front of me is a lever. If I do nothing, the train hits 10 people. If I pull the lever to the right, the train kills the same 10 people. If I pull the lever to the left, the train kills only 5 of the people. I'm not going to throw my hands up in the air angrily and walk away because I wish the train didn't exist. I'm going to do what I can to maximize well-being. Anything else would idiotic, petty, and immoral.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> By definition, your example precludes the option of ending all atrocities. All I can do is minimize them, and doing so doesn't make me responsible for them. I can, however, be held responsible for having the opportunity to minimize suffering but doing nothing.
> 
> There's a runaway train barrelling towards a fork in the tracks. In front of me is a lever. If I do nothing, the train hits 10 people. If I pull the lever to the right, the train kills the same 10 people. If I pull the lever to the left, the train kills only 5 of the people. I'm not going to throw my hands up in the air angrily and walk away because I wish the train didn't exist. I'm going to do what I can to maximize well-being. Anything else would idiotic, petty, and immoral.


That's only fair if you extrapolate this single instance - the third option is to do something about the tracks so that accidents don't happen in the future. If the population only wants to decide whether they'll sacrifice 5 or 10 people this year instead of lobbying for changing the railroad over the course of a few years, they're willingly accepting that they have to sacrifice some people periodically when they don't. You can make the railroad better, but you don't want to. Unlike railroad accidents, political decisions have long-term consequences, it's an on-going process. You don't want an unsafe railroad.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's only fair if you extrapolate this single instance - the third option is to do something about the tracks so that accidents don't happen in the future. If the population has to decide whether they'll sacrifice 5 or 10 people this year instead of lobbying for changing the railroad over the course of a few years, they're willingly accepting that they have to sacrifice some people periodically when they don't.



In my example, the only options are 5 deaths or 10 deaths. We can't deal with the tracks until after this event.
In your example, the only options are Hitler or Stalin. We can't have anyone else until after we elect one of them.
In reality, the only options are Clinton or Trump. We can't have anyone else until after we elect one of them.
I'm not sure what's so hard about this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> In my example, the only options are 5 deaths or 10 deaths. We can't deal with the tracks until after this event.
> In your example, the only options are Hitler or Stalin. We can't have anyone else until after we elect one of them.
> In reality, the only options are Clinton or Trump. We can't have anyone else until after we elect one of them.
> I'm not sure what's so hard about this.


The problem lies in your deep perception. If a third-party gets 16% this year, 17% next time etc. then your vote wasn't wasted - it was used to build confidence in third-party candidates. This allows you to eventually install someone who you actually support in a position of power. You're actually doing something about the railroad instead of consistently using the railroad knowing that it's shit. You can make a railroad that doesn't put you in a position wherin you have to choose how many people die, which can in fact minimize casualties in the grand scheme of things. After a 100 years you will save more lives because the railroad would no longer require sacrifices, there would be a third track with no people on it, or at least adequate traffic control.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The problem lies in your deep perception. If a third-party gets 16% this year, 17% next time etc. then your vote wasn't wasted - it was used to build confidence in third-party candidates. This allows you to eventually install someone who you actually support in a position of power. You're actually doing something about the railroad instead of consistently using the railroad knowing that it's shit.


Getting third-party supporters to throw away their votes on a third-party candidate isn't how one builds up a third-party. You need to go back to a post I already made in response to this. You're asking people to risk more suffering now for a highly unlikely payout later, and you've got the mechanisms of that payout all wrong.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Getting third-party supporters to throw away their votes on a third-party candidate isn't how one builds up a third-party. You need to go back to a post I already made in response to this. You're asking people to risk more suffering now for a highly unlikely payout later.


Of course I am. It's called having principles. Sticking to your convictions against all odds until they come on-top if you know they're right, or at least better than the alternative. You keep saying that it's a vote that's thrown away when it's not - higher results for third-parties can and do translate to increased voter confidence.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course I am. It's called having principles. Sticking to your convictions against all odds until they come on-top if you know they're right, or at least better than the alternative. You keep saying that it's a vote that's thrown away when it's not - higher results for third-parties can and do translate to increased voter confidence.


Like I've said numerous times, when a third-party is this unpopular, asking third-party supporters to throw away their votes on the third-party candidate instead of voting for the lesser of two evils is not how one builds up a third-party, so it's pure garbage to say it's anything more than a protest throwaway vote.

It looks like this is just going to have to be one of those _agree to disagree_ situations, because I don't know what else to say other than to reiterate that the smart choice is always to vote for the lesser of two evils when presented with only two viable options.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Like I've said numerous times, when a third-party is this unpopular, asking third-party supporters to throw away their votes on the third-party candidate instead of voting for the lesser of two evils is not how one builds up a third-party, so it's pure garbage to say it's anything more than a protest throwaway vote.
> 
> It looks like this is just going to have to be one of those _agree to disagree_ situations, because I don't know what else to say other than to reiterate that the smart choice is always to vote for the lesser of two evils when presented with only two viable options.


It's smart *to you*. It's certainly clever, but it only has short-term gains. Many voters would rather attempt to change the game in lieu of playing it when the rules are stacked against them, and that's an equally viable position to take. Taking part in a system that doesn't behoove you in any way only perpetuates it.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> It's smart *to you*. It's certainly clever, but it only has short-term gains. Many voters would rather attempt to change the game in lieu of playing it when the rules are stacked against them, and that's an equally viable position to take. Taking part in a system that doesn't behoove you in any way only perpetuates it.


It's objectively the smart choice; it's not just my opinion. You've outlined no viable long-term plan.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's objectively the smart choice; it's not just my opinion. You've outlined no viable long-term plan.


Of course I have - the plan is to vote for the candidate that represents you best in hopes that over the course of time candidates like him will gain more support as the public sees that their results are increasing. That's the plan. It's a very time-consuming plan of expansion, but at least it's a plan that introduces change rather than perpetuating stagnation. The first step to changing anything is always to believe that you can change it, no matter what.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course I am. It's called having principles. Sticking to your convictions against all odds until they come on-top if you know they're right, or at least better than the alternative. You keep saying that it's a vote that's thrown away when it's not - higher results for third-parties can and do translate to increased voter confidence.


this is not how a two major party majority voting system works though. 
this is how things work in a system like germany, where there's multiple parties and for the longest time, none of them had much chance to gain a total majority, thus forcing cooperation of two, sometimes three parties at once to build a government. and even here its not that easy to go for parties outside the typical big 6. because there's a minimum 5% hurdle a party must pass before it can occupy seats in the government. meaning a party that totally does 100% of things you support, but even if every single one of their supporters would vote for them, has no saying if all those people only make up 4.9% of the voting population. so you're 100% better off giving your voice to a party that supports 80% of your positions.
because 80% is better than 0%

moving back to the us, the two party system of the usa eventually absorbs all other smaller parties to some degree, should that first party ever make it past x% of voter support, the big parties will do everything to get those politicians to basically move in with them. and they usually gladly make the move because then they'll have a chance to grasp some political power and change at least something.

its a stupid system, but you can't vote with your principles in it. because voting by some weird codex like that means your voice goes unheard 100% of the time. meaning everyone else decides the winner while you knowingly decide to waste your vote.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course I have - the plan is to vote for the candidate that represents you best in hopes that over the course of time candidates like him will gain more support as the public sees that their results are increasing.


Getting all your Johnson-supporters to throw their votes away instead of voting for X or Y as the less evil candidate isn't how you increase support for a third-party when it's this unpopular. You seem to be ignoring this fact.



Foxi4 said:


> That's the plan. It's a very time-consuming plan of expansion, but at least it's a plan that introduces change rather than perpetuating stagnation.


As I've demonstrated several times, your plan has the potential to result in worse candidates being elected or, in our silly example, more people being killed. Your logic is flawed.



Foxi4 said:


> The first step to changing anything is always to believe that you can change it, no matter what.


Believing something is effective _no matter what_ is the kind of disregard for facts and reason that I have no desire to continue responding to.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> this is not how a two major party majority voting system works though.
> this is how things work in a system like germany, where there's multiple parties and for the longest time, none of them had much chance to gain a total majority, thus forcing cooperation of two, sometimes three parties at once to build a government. and even here its not that easy to go for parties outside the typical big 6. because there's a minimum 5% hurdle a party must pass before it can occupy seats in the government. meaning a party that totally does 100% of things you support, but even if every single one of their supporters would vote for them, has no saying if all those people only make up 4.9% of the voting population. so you're 100% better off giving your voice to a party that supports 80% of your positions.
> because 80% is better than 0%
> 
> ...


...until a party that doesn't want to be absorbed comes along and tries to stand on its own. I realize that this seems futile, but having some code of ethics that you stick to or having strong convictions is not a crime. Perpetuating a system that you yourself admit is unfair is stupid and neither of the two major parties will change it because it's a system that guarantees that their candidates will lead the race. As such, the only hope of changing the system lies in third-party candidates, and with changing the system being a priority, only a third-party "wasted" vote makes sense.


Lacius said:


> Believing something is effective _no matter what_ is the kind of disregard for facts and reason that I have no desire to continue responding to.


You can change anything, you just have to adjust your means accordingly. Facts and reason are used to adjust them.

Third-parties are unpopular because nobody votes for them - voting for them makes them more popular, that's self-evident if you take the number of votes as a measure of popularity.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> ...until a party that doesn't want to be absorbed comes along and tries to stand on its own. I realize that this seems futile, but having some code of ethics that you stick to or having strong convictions is not a crime. Perpetuating a system that you yourself admit is unfair is stupid and neither of the two major parties will change it because it's a system that guarantees that their candidates will lead the race.


I'm all for third-parties trying to become viable parties, but what you're describing causes people to throw their votes away for no reason instead of actually building the party up.



Foxi4 said:


> As such, the only hope of changing the system lies in third-party candidates, and with changing the system being a priority, only a third-party "wasted" vote makes sense.


It's much more effective to change a major party from within if you occupy the same political niche as that party.



Foxi4 said:


> You can change anything, you just have to adjust your means accordingly. Facts and reason are used to adjust them.


Then do so.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm all for third-parties trying to become viable parties, but what you're describing causes people to throw their votes away for no reason instead of actually building the party up.
> 
> It's much more effective to change a major party from within if you occupy the same political niche as that party.
> 
> Then do so.


You're promoting a vicious cycle - parties cannot become popular if nobody votes for them - it's the votes that make them popular.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Sep 2, 2016)

@Foxi4 there is no point in voting based on purely idealistic principles. I agree with what you say, except that it is entirely useless in practice and on an individual basis.

Based on media coverage and online polls it's clear that the winning candidate is definitively going to be either Clinton or Trump. At the end of the day a voter only has 1/(total no. of voters) influencing power over the outcome. There is no rule that states that they must vote for whoever represents their political alignments most accurately. In fact, to reflect your argument about the purpose of 'true democracy' you could extend that and claim that if someone would like to use their vote to counter another's, they have the right. It's not beating the system if it's done by employing the system.



Foxi4 said:


> If a third-party gets 16% this year, 17% next time etc. then your vote wasn't wasted - it was used to build confidence in third-party candidates.



4 × [no. of terms until 3rd party candidate is elected] years is likely to be past most of our life expectancies. Getting what you want has to come at a better value of reward per unit waiting time than that. Hence why voting for 2nd best thence becomes a logical move if 2nd best is in close competition for the position of president. Be a little realistic, man.

The Hitler/Stalin analogy referenced above reminds me of the problem of redirecting a train to save lives by killing another life. As much as I dislike bringing literal genocidal rulers into a discussion due to how it trivialises a lot of important and tragic human history, I'll stick with it to develop my point for consistency. Suppose we are in a similar position where one of Hitler, Stalin, and Good Guy is to be elected for president. In terms of how well each resonates with society, Hitler at current rates is expected to garner roughly 45% of votes, Stalin is expected to get around 41%, and Good Guy is expected to sway the remaining 14%. Good Guy fans decide that due to the impossibility that they get their way, they will become team "Not Hitler" under the guise of Stalin supporters, thereby preventing the deaths of several hundred thousand people. Yes, the outcome isn't pleasant either way, but that 14% isn't to blame; it's the 41% who had placed Stalin in the position of being the only sizeable competitor. The only alternative outcome would be more deaths.

It's only logical. If the majority of a country say "Let's not have X" then X should not be elected simply by virtue of having more votes than any other individual. A true democracy represents the majority, and yet with the system in place as described above we were just about to have Hitler win with 45%, which is not the majority. In fact, I suggest you read about Australia's electoral system which does operate based on who actually gets more than 50% (in the end at least.) It uses a ranking system, so rather than writing in a vote for one candidate, you order the candidates by preference. The one with the lowest ratings is eliminated and the process is repeated until there is a final decision between 2 candidates. This is a much more accurate representation of democracy as it avoids awkward positions where candidates roughly have an equal share of the votes but one barely outnumbers the others. In such cases, clearly any outcome is going to be conflicting what the vast majority of voters have written in.

But I digress; my point was initially that a voter has the right to use their right however they see fit. I simply tried justifying it further by highlighting the flaws in the current system, which makes using your vote in a not-quite-as-intended way more understandable.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You're promoting a vicious cycle - parties cannot become popular if nobody votes for them - it's the votes that make them popular.


You have it backwards. People vote for a party when it's popular. Votes don't come from a vacuum. To expect people to vote for an unpopular and nonviable candidate is to ask them to throw their votes away for no discernible gain.

Like I've said a thousand times, the method you're proposing doesn't actually help third-parties become popular.

Edit: In summary, if there are only two possible options, and you have a preference between those options, then it's objectively idiotic to vote for someone who is not that preference, even if he or she is not your first choice.


----------



## kuwanger (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> People vote for a party when it's popular.



And that's the core stupidity of voting against candidate X because Y is "less evil".  If X and Y are so popular, your vote is a throw away regardless.  So, voting for Z, if that's your preference, is no more or less of a throw away.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You have it backwards. People vote for a party when it's popular. Votes don't come from a vacuum. To expect people to vote for an unpopular and nonviable candidate is to ask them to throw their votes away for no discernible gain.
> 
> Like I've said a thousand times, the method you're proposing doesn't actually help third-parties become popular.
> 
> Edit: In summary, if there are only two possible options, and you have a preference between those options, then it's objectively idiotic to vote for someone who is not that preference, even if he or she is not your first choice.


You don't seem to understand my point. If ideologically speaking you already support a third-party party, which is the whole premise of this conversation from the start and neglect to vote for them, you are doing a disservice to their results and, by extension, their "popularity". If people voted for the third-party candidates in lieu of what you propose, which is voting for a lesser evil, their overall results would increase, which would mean that they are statistically "more popular" - true or false? That's all I want from you.


Lucifer666 said:


> @Foxi4 there is no point in voting based on purely idealistic principles. I agree with what you say, except that it is entirely useless in practice and on an individual basis.
> 
> Based on media coverage and online polls it's clear that the winning candidate is definitively going to be either Clinton or Trump. At the end of the day a voter only has 1/(total no. of voters) influencing power over the outcome. There is no rule that states that they must vote for whoever represents their political alignments most accurately. In fact, to reflect your argument about the purpose of 'true democracy' you could extend that and claim that if someone would like to use their vote to counter another's, they have the right. It's not beating the system if it's done by employing the system.
> 
> ...


That's self-serving. The time it takes to get to a just system is irrelevant - you might not live long enough to benefit from it, but your children or their children will.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

kuwanger said:


> And that's the core stupidity of voting against candidate X because Y is "less evil".  If X and Y are so popular, your vote is a throw away regardless.  So, voting for Z, if that's your preference, is no more or less of a throw away.


This doesn't make any sense. X and Y are each popular enough to win. A vote for one increases the chances of that candidate winning.



Foxi4 said:


> You don't seem to understand my point. If ideologically speaking you already support a third-party party, which is the whole premise of this conversation from the start and neglect to vote for them, you are doing a disservice to their results and, by extension, their "popularity". If people voted for the third-party candidates in lieu of what you propose, which is voting for a lesser evil, their overall results would increase, which would mean that they are statistically "more popular" - true or false? That's all I want from you.


I understand your point. The problem is you're ignoring that third-parties are unpopular, even when you include all the third-party supporters who vote for X and Y. Don't blame the gap in popularity on people making smart choices and casting a vote that matters, because it's inconsequential to increasing your party's popularity. Deal with your party's unpopularity before you form unreasonable expectations for your party's potential voters.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> This doesn't make any sense. X and Y are each popular enough to win. A vote for one increases the chances of that candidate winning.


If you don't want either to win then you've already lost.


> I understand your point. The problem is you're ignoring that third-parties are unpopular, even when you include all the third-party supporters who vote for X and Y. Don't blame the gap in popularity on people making smart choices and casting a vote that matters. Deal with your party's unpopularity before you form unreasonable expectations for your party's potential voters.


You didn't answer my question. If a party got 15% support last time and it got 17% this time, is it growing in popularity or not and does that increase in results improve voter confidence once they see the trend? That's all I'm asking.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> ...until a party that doesn't want to be absorbed comes along and tries to stand on its own. I realize that this seems futile, but having some code of ethics that you stick to or having strong convictions is not a crime. Perpetuating a system that you yourself admit is unfair is stupid and neither of the two major parties will change it because it's a system that guarantees that their candidates will lead the race. As such, the only hope of changing the system lies in third-party candidates, and with changing the system being a priority, only a third-party "wasted" vote makes sense.
> You can change anything, you just have to adjust your means accordingly. Facts and reason are used to adjust them.
> 
> Third-parties are unpopular because nobody votes for them - voting for them makes them more popular, that's self-evident if you take the number of votes as a measure of popularity.



no, it doesn't seem futile, it is futile. there have been such parties and they inevitably run into a wall. they can not grow to become a third major party. the other parties would rather sabotage such a party with the same smear campaigns they throw at each other routinely.

for something like this to happen, it would require a revolution-like event. and considering we had a house credit crisis, the worst kind of recession in almost a 100 years, multiple wars and now this supposed decision between two bad options (which i personally don't agree on), its not going to come to revolutions.
jesus himself could come down from heaven and make a party and he wouldn't have a shot at a presidency.

because even though there's no american who couldn't complain 24/7 about how bad his life has become in the last x years, its lightyears away from being bad enough to have the whole nation overrun the palaces and take heads.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> no, it doesn't seem futile, it is futile. there have been such parties and they inevitably run into a wall. they can not grow to become a third major party. the other parties would rather sabotage such a party with the same smear campaigns they throw at each other routinely.
> 
> for something like this to happen, it would require a revolution-like event. and considering we had a house credit crisis, the worst kind of recession in almost a 100 years, multiple wars and now this supposed decision between two bad options (which i personally don't agree on), its not going to come to revolutions.
> jesus himself could come down from heaven and make a party and he wouldn't have a shot at a presidency.
> ...


My country overthrew a communist government through peaceful protest, no palaces were burnt, your point is moot to me. The government sent tanks against people, but they stood their ground, that's how you make things change. You have to have principles and defend them, without that you're just playing a game you don't want to play to begin with.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You don't seem to understand my point. If ideologically speaking you already support a third-party party, which is the whole premise of this conversation from the start and neglect to vote for them, you are doing a disservice to their results and, by extension, their "popularity". If people voted for the third-party candidates in lieu of what you propose, which is voting for a lesser evil, their overall results would increase, which would mean that they are statistically "more popular" - true or false? That's all I want from you.



As @Lacius has said it's popularity that comes first, not votes. More specifically it's likeability/wide appeal --> popularity --> votes, where every node has more than one cause that leads to it, i.e. popularity leads to votes but votes are not only gained by popularity. A lot of votes for a candidate that people don't necessarily agree with (as is about to be the case with Clinton, it seems) doesn't make her more popular. Only more accessible.



Foxi4 said:


> That's self-serving. The time it takes to get to a just system is irrelevant - you might not live long enough to benefit from it, but your children or their children will.



Unless they're never born, because Hitler got elected.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lucifer666 said:


> Unless they're never born, because Hitler got elected.


Liberty has a price.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> If you don't want either to win then you've already lost.


If a voter has no preference between the two and hates them both, then you're right. I've stated numerous times that I'm talking to people who have a preference between the two, even if neither is their first choice.



Foxi4 said:


> You didn't answer my question. If a party got 15% support last time and it got 17% this time, is it growing in popularity or not and does that increase improve voter confidence? That's all I'm asking.


The difference between those years isn't very significant. It might be representative of growing popularity (don't confuse this with being what makes it more popular), but it might not be. Popularity leads to votes, not the other way around.



Foxi4 said:


> Liberty has a price.


Let me fix that for you.


Foxi4 said:


> _The unlikely chance for what I think is liberty is worth enabling the very possible genocide of a group of people, even though enabling this genocide is doing nothing to earn the aforementioned liberty because I am going about it the wrong way._


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

I wonder what the founding fathers would've said if they read this thread. They had the British Empire f*cking them every which way. Gee willikers, who should be our next ambassador? Who f*cks with us less? I mean, we have to stick with His Majesty George the III, there is no alternative. We can't change a system stacked against us, we might as well make the most of it. Who cares about liberty and principles, let's just pick someone who will represent our interests best.

It's spineless and disgusting, and to imply that someone who votes for whoever they truly believe in wastes a vote is offensive to my sensibilities. It's not just, it's cold and calculated to reap as many self-serving benefits as possible in the shortest stretch of time. It goes against everything I hold dear.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I wonder what the founding fathers would've said if they read this thread. They had the British Empire f*cking them every which way. Gee willikers, who should be our next ambassador? Who f*cks with us less? I mean, we have to stick with His Majesty George the III, there is no alternative. We can't change a system stacked against us, we might as well make the most of it. Who cares about liberty and principles, let's just pick someone who will represent our interests best.


If you don't know how that's a false analogy, there's no hope. In fact, it might be evidence of a level of insincerity that warrants me dropping the subject and no longer responding.

I'll give you a hint. Did the founding fathers have representation or voting power with regard to the major issues working against them?

Edit: After settling down after being ripped through time and space, and after someone explained how the internet works, they would probably say, _"If only we were lucky enough to have the ability to vote. Why are you bringing our struggles into this conversation? This might be the syphilis talking, but what an idiot."_


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If you don't know how that's a false analogy, there's no hope. In fact, it might be evidence of a level of insincerity that warrants me dropping the subject and no longer responding.
> 
> I'll give you a hint. Did the founding fathers have representation or voting power with regard to the major issues working against them?


According to you third-party voters have no influence over policy since they're wasting votes on non-viable candidates, so there you have it. The founding fathers went for the alternative and got their way in the end, good for them for believing in themselves and changing the status quo despite facing an overwhelming enemy, against all odds.


> Edit: After settling down after being ripped through time and space, and after someone explained how the internet works, they would probably say, _"If only we were lucky enough to have the ability to vote. Why are you bringing our struggles into thisconversation? This might be the syphilis talking, but what an idiot."_


So they would vote independence despite the fact that George the III would have an overwhelming chance of getting his way? Is that what you're implying? Because if that's the case then we're in agreement.


----------



## Watertoon (Sep 2, 2016)

It is hard not to see that Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton, take their websites for example:
Donald Trump's starts of with Talking about making America great again and has a tab that drops down his 7 main position.
Hillary Clinton's starts with we cant risk a trump presidency and a I agree button. After that is click bait articles like 112 reasons (and counting) Hillary should be our next president or top ten reasons not to vote for trump. Which don't give actual reasons most of the time. Her about is not what she is doing but her whole life's story! (as a bonus she's with $15 minimum wage which will make lots poor and bankrupt a lot of small companies)


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> According to you third-party voters have no influence over policy since they're wasting votes on non-viable candidates, so there you have it. The founding fathers went for the alternative and got their way in the end, good for them for believing in themselves and changing the status quo despite facing an overwhelming enemy, against all odds.


First, I think the founding fathers would agree that, while one should be able to vote for whomever, the smart thing is that one shouldn't waste his or her vote (or to the founding fathers, just male votes) on a candidate who cannot win.

The founding fathers were limited in their choices considering they couldn't vote, which alone makes it a false analogy, and they did something about it using force. We have the ability to elect our leaders, and if a plurality picks someone you don't like, or if you don't like the majority parties, you're not in much of a position to do anything about it other than advocate for change. You could also throw away your vote on a party before it's popular, but I don't recommend it. It's not the smart thing to do. Unlike with your analogy, nobody's rights are being violated. Are you saying they're comparable and we should use force against the winner if Johnson doesn't win? If not, that's also why it's a false analogy. Stop talking nonsense. You're better than that.



Watertoon said:


> It is hard not to see that Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton, take their websites for example:
> Donald Trump's starts of with Talking about making America great again and has a tab that drops down his 7 main position.
> Hillary Clinton's starts with we cant risk a trump presidency and a I agree button. After that is click bait articles like 112 reasons (and counting) Hillary should be our next president or top ten reasons not to vote for trump.


Clinton's website has a dropdown for many more than seven issues and positions on her website's homepage. I'm not sure what you're griping about.



Watertoon said:


> as a bonus she's with $15 minimum wage which will make lots poor and bankrupt a lot of small companies


You might feel like a $15 minimum wage would bankrupt small businesses, but the actual data and evidence from where it's been done shows that it doesn't.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, I think the founding fathers would agree that, while one should be able to vote for whomever, the smart thing is that one shouldn't waste his or her vote (or to the founding fathers, just male votes) on a candidate who cannot win.
> 
> The founding fathers were limited in their choices considering they couldn't vote, which alone makes it a false analogy, and they did something about it using force. We have the ability to elect our leaders, and if a plurality picks someone you don't like, or if you don't like the majority parties, you're not in much of a position to do anything about it other than advocate for change. Unlike with your analogy, nobody's rights are being violated. Are you saying they're comparable and we should use force against the winner if Johnson doesn't win? If not, that's also why it's a false analogy. Stop talking nonsense. You're better than that.


You're better than this as well. This is a very simple hypothetical situation - if the founding fathers had a choice to vote and had to choose between, say, British dominion which is in the lead, Spanish dominion which is trailing behind or a third, alternative vote for soliciting funds from France and declaring independence, what would they pick? This is naturally rethorical - they picked independence even though their chances of success were miniscule because the principle was more important. It's not even a debate, this is what happened, we just introduced a vote to the equation when in reality they "voted" by saying "come get some" and fighting in the Revolutionary War - that was their vote. To say otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You're better than this as well. This is a very simple hypothetical situation - if the founding fathers had a choice to vote and had to choose between, say, British dominion which is in the lead, Spanish dominion


I'm going to stop reading right there. If this is the scenario, the topic of voting is irrelevant, and they should fight for their basic rights. That's not what's going on in 2016. We're talking about voting in a system that's largely fair, despite my previously mentioned gripes.

Edit: In summary, stop using false analogies.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm going to stop reading right there. If this is the scenario, the topic of voting is irrelevant, and they should fight for their basic rights. That's not what's going on in 2016. We're talking about voting in a system that's largely fair, despite my previously mentioned gripes.


You wanted me to adjust the analogy, or rather to explain it better, so I have. Libertarians believe that their principles *are* their basic human rights, you're just choosing not to acknowledge that. They see many forms of government interference in their lives as a violation of their freedom, so they choose to defend their freedom by voting third-party. You can huff and puff about it but that's what they believe and for you to say that's stupid and wasteful is offensive to their entire belief system, moral compass and ethical code. You're calling them morons and idiots solely on the basis of them having different principles and different means to achieve them. To them, their vote is a vote for independence.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You wanted me to adjust the analogy, or rather to better explain it so I have. Libertarians believe that their principles *are* their basic human rights, you're just choosing not to acknowledge that. They see many forms of government interference in their lives as a violation of their freedom, so they choose to defend their freedom by voting third-party. You can huff and puff about it but that's what they believe and for you to say that's stupid and wasteful is offensive to their entire belief system, moral compass and ethical code.


No one is taking your rights nor your principles away from you. That has no bearing on the fact that to vote for a nonviable candidate is to throw one's vote away if you have a preference between the two major party candidates.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> No one is taking your rights nor your principles away from you. That has no bearing on the fact that to vote for a nonviable candidate is to throw one's vote away if you have a preference between the two major party candidates.


If you vote for a candidate that violates 80% of your principles because it's comparatively better than letting a candidate that violates 100% of them win, 80% of your rights are still being f*cked with and at that point you've conceded that they can do that with your vote. That's blatantly obvious to me. By voting for them you have legitimised what you perceive as a violation of your rights.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> If you vote for a candidate that violates 80% of your principles because it's comparatively better than a candidate that violates 100% of them, 80% of your rights are still being f*cked with and at that point you've conceded that they can do that with your vote. That's blatantly obvious to me.


Sure, but what are you going to do about it? Throw your vote away and risk the candidate you disagree with 100% of the time? Voting for an unpopular candidate is not going to help with that candidate's popularity problem, and there's no other tangible gain from voting for him or her.

All you can really do is advocate for change.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Sure, but what are you going to do about it? Throw your vote away and risk the candidate you disagree with 100% of the time? Voting for an unpopular candidate is not going to help with that candidate's popularity problem, and there's no other tangible gain from voting for him or her.
> 
> All you can really do is advocate for change.


I'll take that risk if it means that maybe my children will have a third party to vote for - I will "throw away" vote after vote by sticking to what I believe in until what I believe is right and just wins. Advocating for change is paramount, but so is the voting. In fact, voting is an integral element of the equation. People need to *see* that there is a certain subset of the population that's voting third-party to even entertain the idea that it's a viable choice.

It's not a false analogy and I took you through it step by step - if the founding fathers had a choice, they would choose independence 10 out of 10 times, even if they had to vote for it because that's what they believed in. They thought that their freedom is being violated, so they chose the alternative, even though it had almost no chances for success. If not for the weather, chances are they would've lost, but that didn't matter.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I'll take that risk if it means that maybe my children will have a third party to vote for - I will "throw away" vote after vote by sticking to what I believe in until what I believe is right and just wins. Advocating for change is also paramount, but so is the voting. In fact, voting is an integral element of the equation. People need to *see* that there is a certain subset of the population that's voting third-party to even entertain the idea that it's a viable choice.
> 
> It's not a false analogy and I took you through it step by step - if the founding fathers had a choice, they would choose independence 10 out of 10 times, even if they had to vote for it because that's what they believed in. They thought that their freedom is being violated, so they chose the alternative, even though it had almost no chances for success. If not for the weather, chances are they would've lost, but that didn't matter.


I very clearly explained how those steps make it a false analogy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I very clearly explained how those steps make it a false analogy.


All you've said was that "the founding fathers couldn't vote" which I countered by saying that they voted with their actions and even if they had the ability to vote, they would vote independence over any form of dominion anyways. You also said that "they had no representation" - neither do Libertarians at this point. Neither major party represents their interests. Finally you said that they "defended their rights", to which I replied that so are Libertarians, or so they believe. Not everyone was on-board with independence, Loyalists were a faction after all, and I can see how your reasoning is sensible to you, however that doesn't mean that other points of view are invalid.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> All you've said was that "the founding fathers couldn't vote" which I countered by saying that they voted with their actions and should they have an option to vote, they would vote independence anyways. You also said that "they had no representation" - neither do Libertarians at this point. Finally you said that they "defended their rights", to which I replied that so are Libertarians, or so they believe. Not everyone was on-board with independence, Loyalists were a faction after all, and I can see how your reasoning is sensible to you, however that doesn't mean that other points of view are invalid.


Are you telling me libertarians don't have the right to vote, and they don't have the right to advocate for their positions? I know you're not, so just concede and move on. Don't pretend you're at all analogous to the oppressed.

As for the point of view that one should vote for candidate Z when he or she has a preference between X and Y, that is _invalid_.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Are you telling me libertarians don't have the right to vote, and they don't have the right to advocate for their positions? I know you're not, so just concede and move on.
> 
> As for the point of view that one should vote for candidate Z when he or she has a preference between X and Y, that is _invalid_.


What good is a right to vote if neither candidate represents your interests? If I give you a chance to vote whether you'd like to be shot in the face or the back of the head, that's a false choice - you want to vote to "not die". Getting shot in the face is narrowly worse as it makes your corpse less presentable, technically speaking the back of the head is preferable, but you're not going to vote for it because it violates your core belief that you shouldn't have to choose between how you get shot, how is that in any way confusing? In that situation I choose to tell whoever is trying to shoot me to go f*ck himself, even if it does absolutely nothing. Maybe witnessing my act of defiance will inspire someone.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> What good is a right to vote if neither candidate represents your interests?


It's not my fault that your candidate and views are wildly unpopular.

Edit: In other words, it's not my fault your candidate is nonviable.



Foxi4 said:


> If I give you a chance to vote whether you'd like to be shot in the face or the back of the head, that's a false choice - you want to vote to "not die". Getting shot in the face is narrowly worse as it makes your corpse less presentable, but you're not going to vote for it because it violates your core belief that you shouldn't choose between how you get shot, how is that in any way confusing?


It's as much a false analogy as it is a false choice. If you view the competition between X and Y as analogous to _shot in face_ and _shot in back of head_, then you shouldn't vote for X nor Y. My spiel was about people with a preference.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's not my fault that your candidate and views are wildly unpopular.
> 
> It's as much a false analogy as it is a false choice. If you view the competition between X and Y as analogous to _shot in face_ and _shot in back of head_, then you shouldn't vote for X nor Y. My spiel was about people with a preference.


The preference is not looking mangled during your funeral. To some people their principles are as important as their life, if not more - betraying them is as good as just biting they bullet already.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The preference is not looking mangled during your funeral. To some people their principles are as important as their life, if not more - betraying them is as good as just biting they bullet already.


If you truly have no choice between the two, then you should choose the cause of death you prefer, right? If you don't care, then it doesn't matter.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If you truly have no choice between the two, then you should choose the cause of death you prefer, right? If you don't care, then it doesn't matter.


I'm sorry, but that's the most retarded thing I've ever read. The viable choice is to show defiance so that others don't find themselves in the same situation in the future, seeing that the vote is public. I will sacrifice my visage, which I hold dear as I'm a handsome son of a gun, to make a statement against false choices. The principle outweighs the possible benefits of not looking like a Sloppy Joe in your coffin.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm sorry, but that's the most retarded thing I've ever read. The viable choice is to show defiance so that others don't find themselves in the same situation in the future, seeing that the vote is public. I will sacrifice my visage, which I hold dear as I'm a handsome son of a gun, to make a statement against false choices.


Did you not read my qualifier?


Lacius said:


> *If you truly have no choice between the two*, then you should choose the cause of death you prefer, right? If you don't care, then it doesn't matter.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Did you not read my qualifier?


Did you read mine? Even with a gun against my head I can choose option 3, which is telling whoever is putting my life in jeopardy to go f*ck himself, regardless of whether option 1 or option 2 is going to "win" because it doesn't matter to me as much as having some dignity. Option 3 doesn't save my life and I'll potentially get shot in the face which is worse than the back of the head, but at that point I don't care, my option is still better.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Did you read mine? Even with a gun against my head I can choose option 3, which is telling whoever is putting my life in jeopardy to go f*ck himself, regardless of whether option 1 or option 2 is going to "win" because it doesn't matter to me as much as having some dignity.


Lol, did you not read my other qualifier?


Lacius said:


> If you truly have no choice between the two, then you should choose the cause of death you prefer, right? *If you don't care, then it doesn't matter.*


If you're going to ignore me, then I'm done.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Lol, did you not read my other qualifier?
> 
> If you're going to ignore me, then I'm done.


I'm getting shot either way. Trump or Hillary will win the election, but I can still vote Johnson because it's better than either of the candidates in the lead. I can tell them to go f*ck themselves. I'm still getting shot, how I get shot is immaterial.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm getting shot either way. Trump or Hillary will win the election, but I can still vote Johnson because it's better than either of the candidates in the lead. I can tell them to go f*ck themselves. I'm still getting shot, how I get shot is immaterial.


It sounds like you lack a true preference between the two major party candidates, which kind of makes this entire conversation pointless.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It sounds like you lack a true preference between the two major party candidates, which kind of makes this entire conversation pointless.


Out of the two I prefer Trump as I'm right-leaning, however I wouldn't necessarily vote for him if I were American because certain policies of his go against what I believe. He's the "gun against the back of the head" in this equation, in case it requires a qualifying statement.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 2, 2016)

Watertoon said:


> It is hard not to see that Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton, take their websites for example:
> Donald Trump's starts of with Talking about making America great again and has a tab that drops down his 7 main position.
> Hillary Clinton's starts with we cant risk a trump presidency and a I agree button. After that is click bait articles like 112 reasons (and counting) Hillary should be our next president or top ten reasons not to vote for trump. Which don't give actual reasons most of the time. Her about is not what she is doing but her whole life's story! (as a bonus she's with $15 minimum wage which will make lots poor and bankrupt a lot of small companies)


Speaking of Trump's website, didn't he say he was self-funding his campaign with his "beelleeons" of dollars?






Awkward...


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Awkward...


We both know he doesn't self-fund his campaign. He has loaned his campaign money that it pays back to Trump using money people have donated. He also charges his campaign exorbitant amounts of money for the use of the things he privately owns in order to siphon campaign donations into his pocket. Finally, Trump got a super PAC not long after he won the nomination.

Anyone who says Trump self-funds doesn't know the facts.


----------



## 2ndApex (Sep 3, 2016)

TechAndrew said:


>




You should watch the full episode where both of these clips come from, it's a good show


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 3, 2016)

To be honest it makes absolutely no sense in the current situation with the electoral college to vote big 2 unless you are in what is considered a swing state (maybe less than 8% plus in a 4 way poll) or agree the most with the either of them. You actually can do more voting 3rd since there are things that can happen such as getting party status or 5% for federal funding.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 3, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> To be honest it makes absolutely no sense in the current situation with the electoral college to vote big 2 unless you are in what is considered a swing state (maybe less than 8% plus in a 4 way poll) or agree the most with the either of them. You actually can do more voting 3rd since there are things that can happen such as getting party status or 5% for federal funding.


It's just 5% of funding Rev, it doesn't matter, you're wasting your vote, right? That money can't be spent on promoting the party and making it grow, resistance is futile, you should just succumb to Clinton-borg Collective or the Trumpian Empire. God, this makes me so pissed off.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 3, 2016)

So anyone gonna talk about how clinton "didnt know" that the "C" symbol meant CLASSIFIED on documents even after being a first lady, a senator, and secretary of state? 
http://gizmodo.com/hillary-clinton-had-11-blackberrys-while-secretary-of-s-1786108731

She even had blackberries and ipads destroyed, some with hammers before the fbi could seize them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 3, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> So anyone gonna talk about how clinton "didnt know" that the "C" symbol meant CLASSIFIED on documents even after being a first lady, a senator, and secretary of state?
> http://gizmodo.com/hillary-clinton-had-11-blackberrys-while-secretary-of-s-1786108731
> 
> She even had blackberries and ipads destroyed, some with hammers before the fbi could seize them.


She thought that's how you play Whack-a-Mole on iOS, you can't blame her. It said to tap at the moles, so she did - no harm done.

What's curious is that somehow she manages to simultaneously play the roles of a wise and experienced politician and an old lady with dementia and no clue what's going on around her when in truth she is neither.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 3, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> To be honest it makes absolutely no sense in the current situation with the electoral college to vote big 2 unless you are in what is considered a swing state (maybe less than 8% plus in a 4 way poll) or agree the most with the either of them. You actually can do more voting 3rd since there are things that can happen such as getting party status or 5% for federal funding.


First, that would require that one care more about these things than about who wins the election this year. My point was about people who care who wins between the big two.

Second, with regard to your criteria for swing state status, about 20 states this year are within 8 points.



Joe88 said:


> So anyone gonna talk about how clinton "didnt know" that the "C" symbol meant CLASSIFIED on documents even after being a first lady, a senator, and secretary of state?
> http://gizmodo.com/hillary-clinton-had-11-blackberrys-while-secretary-of-s-1786108731
> 
> She even had blackberries and ipads destroyed, some with hammers before the fbi could seize them.


Clinton did not send or receive emails properly marked as classified. The c you're referring to is an improper marking, and it's in the body of the email. That means one has to open it in order to see that it's classified. Whoops.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, that would require that one care more about these things than about who wins the election this year. My point was about people who care who wins between the big two.


The issue however is that if one really cares who wins the election then it would also depend on the state. Look at DC, it is overwhelmingly Democrat so much so that even if Trump is your preference between  the two that voting for him is pointless As he has no shot to win the electoral votes. Same with Clinton in red states. Under the system there is no point to say that if you care who wins you should vote Hillary or Trump if the truth is that your state is going to vote overwhelmingly one way.




Lacius said:


> Second, with regard to your criteria for swing state status, about 20 states this year are within 8 points.


Well considering my point stands for 30 states than that is ok. Second I think you could even get away with a much lower number depending on the polling methods (6% is safe as or even 5% in a 4 way match).


----------



## Lacius (Sep 3, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The issue however is that if one really cares who wins the election then it would also depend on the state. Look at DC, it is overwhelmingly Democrat so much so that even if Trump is your preference between  the two that voting for him is pointless As he has no shot to win the electoral votes. Same with Clinton in red states. Under the system there is no point to say that if you care who wins you should vote Hillary or Trump if the truth is that your state is going to vote overwhelmingly one way.


Yes yes, the electoral college is stupid. Yes, the worth of a person's vote is based very much on which state one lives in. However, that doesn't take away from my argument. A vote for Trump or Hillary is still infinitely more substantial than a vote for Johnson if you care who actually wins, regardless of the state one lives in. If, however, one lives in a deep red/blue state and cares more about, for example, getting the libertarian party funding during the next election cycle rather than who wins the election, then I have no problem. My comments were not addressed to people who don't care who wins the election. In other words, if there's some other tangible thing that you value more than who actually wins the election, my argument is not for you.



RevPokemon said:


> Well considering my point stands for 30 states than that is ok. Second I think you could even get away with a much lower number depending on the polling methods (6% is safe as or even 5% in a 4 way match).


Polling is far too volatile right now to make much of a determination regarding which states will be swing states this year. We know which ones will definitely be swing states (e.g. Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and many others), but there are others that are less clear. I actually really like your 8% number, because anything at around 6-8% difference could realistically fall to the 1-3% range by November. A state at 9-10% is unlikely to get very close by November.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Polling is far too volatile right now to make much of a determination regarding which states will be swing states this year. We know which ones will definitely be swing states (e.g. Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and many others), but there are others that are less clear. I actually really like your 8% number, because anything at around 6-8% difference could realistically fall to the 1-3% range by November. A state at 9-10% is unlikely to get very close by November.


True as we have to wait and see. In terms of how the states are going, well I personally see them growing further apart after the debates which Clinton will most likely do much better in giving her the lead wider and giving 3rd party members more relief that their vote will not be deciding elections. But I do feel if it is around the 6% or 8% about a week before election day then it will stay that way since the amount of people who decide day of is generally low.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 3, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> In terms of how the states are going, well I personally see them growing further apart after the debates which Clinton will most likely do much better in giving her the lead wider and giving 3rd party members more relief that their vote will not be deciding elections.


I think this is what's most likely, but there will still be plenty of swing states.



RevPokemon said:


> But I do feel if it is around the 6% or 8% about a week before election day then it will stay that way since the amount of people who decide day of is generally low.


If a state is 6-8% in November, it's not even close to being a swing state. Today, however, a state could be 5-6% and reasonably become a swing state by November. If one looks at the aggregates today, Missouri and South Carolina are at 5% and 6% respectively (both with Trump leading), but individual polls have shown them within striking distance for Secretary Clinton. It wasn't long ago that Clinton was ahead in Missouri by +5 in one good poll, and the two most recent polls out of South Carolina show a tie.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If a state is 6-8% in November, it's not even close to being a swing state. Today, however, a state could be 5-6% and reasonably become a swing state by November. If one looks at the aggregates today, Missouri and South Carolina are at 5% and 6% respectively (both with Trump leading), but individual polls have shown them within striking distance for Secretary Clinton. It wasn't long ago that Clinton was ahead in Missouri by +5 in one good poll, and the two most recent polls out of South Carolina show a tie.


Although I must say that it heavily depends on who is ahead by the 5% or so today. I really do not think that Trump can make it up in time unless there is a big release about her past actions or he kills her in the debates (which I could see bit do not expect it).


----------



## Lacius (Sep 3, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Although I must say that it heavily depends on who is ahead by the 5% or so today. I really do not think that Trump can make it up in time unless there is a big release about her past actions or he kills her in the debates (which I could see bit do not expect it).


Debates make the race much less predictable, and it doesn't take much to throw things into chaos. In 2012, Obama went from about +5 nationally to about +1 nationally almost overnight because he came off as low-energy and aloof during the first presidential debate. He spent the rest of the campaign season trying to regain the ground he lost after that debate, and he never fully recovered. He won by a little less than +4.

If Hillary Clinton is perceived to be shrill, bitchy, cold, wonkish, etc. during the debate, Trump can narrow the gap easily. Even if Clinton has a decent debate performance, all Trump needs to do is get off a quick one-liner soundbyte that everyone talks about, and he can narrow the gap easily.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Debates make the race much less predictable, and it doesn't take much to throw things into chaos. In 2012, Obama went from about +5 nationally to about +1 nationally almost overnight because he came off as low-energy and aloof during the first presidential debate. He spent the rest of the campaign season trying to regain the ground he lost after that debate, and he never fully recovered. He won by a little less than +4


Plus it looked alot worse as polling in November had it much narrower at (AFAIK) around 2%. The issue (AFAIK) was they predicted that the amount of voters would slightly favor Romney since the minority vote was relatively low. 



Lacius said:


> If Hillary Clinton is perceived to be shrill, bitchy, cold, wonkish, etc. during the debate, Trump can narrow the gap easily. Even if Clinton has a decent debate performance, all Trump needs to do is get off a quick one-liner soundbyte that everyone talks about, and he can narrow the gap easily.



Basically like the GOP debates. For most of  them (not sure if you watched) the others really were better at debating and made better points but Trump got moments that ultimately helped him (I.e. new York values) thanks to the media.


----------



## Natethekidrs00 (Sep 4, 2016)

I would vote for other my other being harambe


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 4, 2016)

Natethekidrs00 said:


> I would vote for other my other being harambe


----------



## rasputin (Sep 4, 2016)




----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 4, 2016)

rasputin said:


>



http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/


----------



## Lacius (Sep 4, 2016)

rasputin said:


> video


In this country, everyone, even the guilty, has a right to legal representation. If we held lawyers accountable for the crimes of their clients, our justice system would fall apart, and you obviously have no idea how our justice system works.

During this case, which was assigned to Clinton, she hated it, but she finished the job. After the case was over, she requested to never do something like it ever again. This is a non-story that does nothing but demonstrate that Clinton is a competent lawyer who always finishes the job, even when it's difficult and/or unpleasant.

Politicians are disproportionately lawyers for obvious reasons, and I can find cases like this for most of them, because that's how the American justice system works. In fact, in some states, a lawyer can be required by law to defend a client in court if there is a shortage of public defenders. This is not what happened to Hillary Clinton, but it shows another way your argument to demonize someone for his or her client's alleged crimes is absurd.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/


There's no reason to think Donald Trump actually raped anybody. The closest thing to a legitimate scandal involving rape and Donald Trump that I can think of is, when he was accused of raping one of his wives, that he hired a lawyer who said spousal rape does not exist.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 4, 2016)

Lacius said:


> There's no reason to think Donald Trump actually raped anybody. The closest thing to a legitimate scandal involving rape and Donald Trump that I can think of is, when he was accused of raping one of his wives, that he hired a lawyer who said spousal rape does not exist.


I'm aware, I picked that one though because the testimony is very powerful


----------



## Lacius (Sep 4, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm aware, I picked that one though because the testimony is very powerful


It's also garbage.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 4, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's also garbage.


As is the video the other guy posted

Although, in all seriousness, there's no reason to doubt the testimony given, especially since she says the encounter was initiated by a known sex offender


----------



## Lacius (Sep 4, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> As is the video the other guy posted


Agreed.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Although, in all seriousness, there's no reason to doubt the testimony given, especially since she says the encounter was initiated by a known sex offender


We don't believe something because there's _no reason to doubt_ it. We believe something when there's reason to believe the story is true. Bill Clinton has allegedly been accused of rape, but that doesn't mean the story isn't garbage.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 4, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We don't believe something because there's _no reason to doubt_ it. We believe something when there's reason to believe the story is true. Bill Clinton has allegedly been accused of rape, but that doesn't mean the story isn't garbage.


The issue with Bill however was he had extramarital affairs which to some point fueled the rape claims.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 4, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The issue with Bill however was he had extramarital affairs which to some point fueled the rape claims.


Are you saying the extramarital affairs are reason to believe the rape claims, or are you saying the extramarital affairs explain the presence of the garbage rape claims?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 4, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Are you saying the extramarital affairs are reason to believe the rape claims, or *are you saying the extramarital affairs explain the presence of the garbage rape claims*?


The later.
 His (consensual) extramarital affairs were something that they realized could be used in the allegations as it would help portray him as a man who has committed sexual misconduct. I do not believe the rape claims would have been the same if not for the extramarital affairs.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 4, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The later.
> His (consensual) extramarital affairs were something that they realized could be used in the allegations as it would help portray him as a man who has committed sexual misconduct. I do not believe the rape claims would have been the same if not for the extramarital affairs.


I agree. However, Trump has had scandals and notoriety that could arguably lead to rape allegations in the same way, perhaps on a smaller scale until now. I don't think there's reason to believe either is true.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 4, 2016)

1. Trump clearly shows no interest in American groups; he goes to them just to get votes. For example, he never spoke up against police brutality but defended every single cop when it started rising a couple years ago, or even a few days/months/weeks after he announced his candidacy. Now when he visits African-Americans up in Detroit, he acknowledges them over there? He admits that they're now victims of hate crime? At least Hillary heard their voices from day one, actually visited them and gave them moral support. 

2. Release your tax returns, Trump!


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 4, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> For example, he never spoke up against police brutality but defended every single cop when it started rising a couple years ago, or even a few days/months/weeks after he announced his candidacy. Now when he visits African-Americans up in Detroit, he acknowledges them over there?


Detroit was never about  the African American vote. It was about getting on the fence white voters to not think he is racist.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 4, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Detroit was never about  the African American vote. It was about getting on the fence white voters to not think he is racist.


The comments he made on Mexicans, and called it not racist was disgusting and funny because he contradicted himself that day (when he talked about the Mexican judge who was on his fraud case). Those comments are well to be remembered for a while, but some people will get into it; sadly.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 4, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> The comments he made on Mexicans, and called it not racist was disgusting and funny because he contradicted himself that day (when he talked about the Mexican judge who was on his fraud case). Those comments are well to be remembered for a while, but some people will get into it; sadly.


And then the thing about how Ted Cruz's dad helped kill JFK was also largely racist since he would not have said that if he wasn't Cuban (remember the theories that Cuba tried to kill JFK)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 4, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We don't believe something because there's _no reason to doubt_ it. We believe something when there's reason to believe the story is true. Bill Clinton has allegedly been accused of rape, but that doesn't mean the story isn't garbage.


Forgive me if I say I'd rather believe a woman who says she's been raped, especially if there's no outside motivator (revenge, in need of money, etc.) than the person she's accusing saying she's lying. 

Either way, this is off topic now


----------



## Lacius (Sep 4, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Forgive me if I say I'd rather believe a woman who says she's been raped, especially if there's no outside motivator (revenge, in need of money, etc.) than the person she's accusing saying she's lying.
> 
> Either way, this is off topic now


All accusations of rape should be taken seriously, but that doesn't mean they should be believed blindly. There are also potential outside motivators in both cases.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 4, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> And then the thing about how Ted Cruz's dad helped kill JFK was also largely racist since he would not have said that if he wasn't Cuban (remember the theories that Cuba tried to kill JFK)


I'd be glad if there's a change into US history, having a third party candidate in the White House. There's so much corruption in both parties rather than the Green Party or the Libertarian Party


----------



## Lacius (Sep 4, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> I'd be glad if there's a change into US history, having a third party candidate in the White House. There's so much corruption in both parties rather than the Green Party or the Libertarian Party


And you think when a third-party gets major-party status, it won't become corrupt?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> And you think when a third-party gets major-party status, it won't become corrupt?


Depends on a variety of issues such as how its plank but to some point it would make the process better even if only to a small point.

Personally my dream system is absolutely no parties (I.e everyone is independent) but until then, a multiple party system is the best.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Depends on a variety of issues such as how its plank but to some point it would make the process better even if only to a small point.
> 
> Personally my dream system is absolutely no parties (I.e everyone is independent) but until then, a multiple party system is the best.


A country without political parties is a country with elections that are devoid of policy. What you're proposing is highly inefficient.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A country without political parties is a country with elections that are devoid of policy. What you're proposing is highly inefficient.



I am stating that I would like to see a system where everyone is Independent without party affiliation yet they would caucus with groups with certain goals (my much like Ike current caucuses) and also form coalitions with like minded politicians. 

Although I must say I am quite fond of the system in Germany for political parties and think it would work very well here.  I feel that the 2 party system is ultimately very flawed so anything would be an improvement.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I am stating that I would like to see a system where everyone is Independent without party affiliation yet they would caucus with groups with certain goals (my much like Ike current caucuses) and also form coalitions with like minded politicians.


You're describing basically the same system we have but with a different name.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You're describing basically the same system we have but with a different name.


But it gets rid of some of the current flaws such as that nominations do not matter very much (thus alleviating us from the problems with the process), it would bring more political diversity , and stop to an extent certain groups from having too much power


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> But it gets rid of some of the current flaws such as that nominations do not matter very much (thus alleviating us from the problems with the process), it would bring more political diversity , and stop to an extent certain groups from having too much power


I'm not sure how what you described is any different from what we have and would prevent any of the above.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> And you think when a third-party gets major-party status, it won't become corrupt?


Well true, it's surely going to happen, but at least before something actually happens there's a change in history. All I'm saying is that they deserve a voice as much as Hillary Clinton is making use of as well as Donald Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> Well true, it's surely going to happen, but at least before something actually happens there's a change in history. All I'm saying is that they deserve a voice as much as Hillary Clinton is making use of as well as Donald Trump.


Historical change isn't an inherently good thing, and a party's corruption is proportional to its popularity. You can want a Libertarian, for example, in the White House for policy reasons, but to think a Libertarian in the White House would mean less corruption or something else that's better than the major-parties unrelated to policy is idealistic BS.


----------



## angelus kun (Sep 5, 2016)

Its because latín americans?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Historical change isn't an inherently good thing, and a party's corruption is proportional to its popularity. You can want a Libertarian, for example, in the White House for policy reasons, but to think a Libertarian in the White House would mean less corruption or something else that's better than the major-parties unrelated to policy is idealistic BS.


I do not think it is necessarily about a candidate's 3rd party being less  corrupt than it is the fact that a duepoly is a worse option. Although depending on the plank it could be less susceptible to corruption.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I do not think it is necessarily about a candidate's 3rd party being less  corrupt than it is the fact that a duepoly is a worse option.


Without something like preferential voting, a two-party system is arguably the best system. Otherwise, in a three-party system for example, a candidate despised by a majority can win with a plurality.



RevPokemon said:


> Although depending on the plank it could be less susceptible to corruption.


That's laughable and more idealistic BS. For one, corruption can extend to a party's platform. Second, the Democratic Party's platform for example is about as inoculated to corruption as can be, but there's still corruption in the Democratic Party.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 5, 2016)

I'm supporting Hillary Clinton (as much as I don't like her personally, her policies are more in line with my views), so this isn't much use to me, but people who hate both Clinton and Trump, you should definitely check this website out
http://balancedrebellion.com/


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Without something like preferential voting, a two-party system is arguably the best system. Otherwise, in a three-party system for example, a candidate despised by a majority can win with a plurality.



Well Run off voting is something that is good and here in LA we have it although it is sometimes controversial as the candidate who wins in the main election can lose the run off. Plus with the polarization in America then no matter what that will happen but coalitions would help and so would run offs (which I feel would become more popular as they truly help third parties) and fusion voting.



Lacius said:


> That's laughable and more idealistic BS. For one, corruption can extend to a party's platform. Second, the Democratic Party's platform for example is about as inoculated to corruption as can be, but there's still corruption in the Democratic Party.



No, it is true to a point depending on the circumstances. I never said that the could not be corrupt but a good plank and process can prevent that to some degree depending on how it handles certain issues. I mean if you have a party that decides its going to make unbound super delegates have a large amount of power then you have a party which does not have them then guess which one is better and allows for the voters to have more say so? Although I will say that in modern post Citizens United that is almost impossible to have a real grassroots movement but at least with a 3rd party you have a system that is more open to it since they generally as of now are in a better spot then the big 2.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Well Run off voting is something that is good and here in LA we have it although it is sometimes controversial as the candidate who wins in the main election can lose the run off.


This isn't controversial. It's by design.



RevPokemon said:


> No, it is true to a point depending on the circumstances. I never said that the could not be corrupt but a good plank and process can prevent that to some degree depending on how it handles certain issues. I mean if you have a party that decides its going to make unbound super delegates have a large amount of power then you have a party which does not have them then guess which one is better and allows for the voters to have more say so? Although I will say that in modern post Citizens United that is almost impossible to have a real grassroots movement but at least with a 3rd party you have a system that is more open to it since they generally as of now are in a better spot then the big 2.


Touché on the superdelegates point, although superdelegates have actually never had any tangible effect on a presidential nomination process, but I don't accept that a party can insolute itself from corruption, regardless of the party platform.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> This isn't controversial. It's by design.


I know but that is just a flaw in the design although I feel it is better.



Lacius said:


> although superdelegates have actually never had any tangible effect on a presidential nomination process


Although super delegates could hold a large part of power over who chosen for nominations. Theoretically in the Democratic party they control about 30% or so (if I am correctly remembering) but regardless super delegates to take power (even if a small amount) from the party voters. In turn this affects who one of the two major parties select and thus have some effect of the general election. 




Lacius said:


> but I don't accept that a party can insolute itself from corruption, regardless of the party platform.


Neither do I fully but I feel to an extent it can lower it


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I know but that is just a flaw in the design although I feel it is better.


How is it a flaw? We don't want candidates winning with less than majority support. That's why we need either:

A two-party system
Some kind of preferential or runoff voting system
It's irrelevant if someone wins a 6-candidate race with 24% of the vote, for example.



RevPokemon said:


> Although super delegates could hold a large part of power over who chosen for nominations. Theoretically in the Democratic party they control about 30% or so (if I am correctly remembering) but regardless super delegates to take power (even if a small amount) from the party voters. In turn this affects who one of the two major parties select and thus have some effect of the general election.


I agree that, while unlikely, this could possibly happen. I also agree superdelegates are stupid and should go away. However, in practice, it's as though superdelegates have never existed in the Democratic Party.



RevPokemon said:


> Neither do I fully but I feel to an extent it can lower it


I think that's idealistic, and there's no reason to believe that. In fact, there's evidence that the opposite is true.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> How is it a flaw? We don't want candidates winning with less than majority support. That's why we need either:
> 
> A two-party system
> Some kind of preferential or runoff voting system
> It's irrelevant if someone wins a 6-candidate race with 24% of the vote, for example.



I mean how it is such as in Louisiana it was semi controversial in that we had Mary Landrieu win by 2% then lost to Cassidy (who lost by the 2%) and many (manly the Democrats in the area) where upset about it. In a 2 party system like in Louisiana where you will have two candidates get 40+% then It is something that some people dislike but in a multi party system then it is something that works quite well although Canada works decent without run offs.




Lacius said:


> I agree that, while unlikely, this could possibly happen. I also agree superdelegates are stupid and should go away. However, in practice, it's as though superdelegates have never existed in the Democratic Party.


I was speaking theoretically about the concept. Although one day they could see something like a Donald Trump movement in the Democratic Party where it might be decided on the super delegates.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I mean how it is such as in Louisiana it was semi controversial in that we had Mary Landrieu win by 2% then lost to Cassidy (who lost by the 2%) and many (manly the Democrats in the area) where upset about it. In a 2 party system like in Louisiana where you will have two candidates get 40+% then It is something that some people dislike but in a multi party system then it is something that works quite well although Canada works decent without run offs.


I don't care how sad the Democrats were. The runoff system wasn't actually problematic. Landrieu would have only won the election because the Republican vote was split by multiple Republicans, and the Democratic vote was largely consolidated. In reality, there were a lot more Republicans than there were Democrats. The runoff was completely fair, and I can't find a single flaw with it.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't care how sad the Democrats were. The runoff system wasn't actually problematic. Landrieu would have only won the election because the Republican vote was split by multiple Republicans, and the Democratic vote was largely consolidated. In reality, there were a lot more Republicans than there were Democrats. The runoff was completely fair, and I can't find a single flaw with it.


Although I was upset with the results, I think it was fair as well. Likewise on the other side in 2015 it was basically the same only this time the Democrats won governorship even though the Republicans won the general election by %. But the only serious issue I would find is voter turn out although I feel it is superior to winner take all 2 party systems.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 6, 2016)

She is healthy I swear 






nbc tried to cover it up by removing all the coughing parts from air and blaming it high pollen in the area, the pollen % for the area was very low btw


----------



## th3joker (Sep 6, 2016)

Id vote for harambe if clinton didnt have him assasinated. So now I vote for giant meteor, just end it already. But no matter what clinton will win, she is the one that is a easy puppet, trump is too much of as wild card. If trump wins he will be impeched.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 6, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> She is healthy I swear
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So a presidential candidate isn't allowed to be sick now?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 6, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So a presidential candidate isn't allowed to be sick now?


Coughing is also quite common. Under that logic if you cough for more than a day you need to re-work your will.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 6, 2016)

She has been coughing for months now but its getting more frequent and longer now, which explains why she has been avoiding doing public speeches and avoiding press lately.
Personally it seems like she has pneumonia, but even if its something else there is obviously something wrong and she continues to lie about it.
All this stuff going on is having a negative effect on her campaign even forcing cnn to admit trump is leading her in the polls.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 6, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> She has been coughing for months now but its getting more frequent and longer now, which explains why she has been avoiding doing public speeches and avoiding press lately.
> Personally it seems like she has pneumonia, but even if its something else there is obviously something wrong and she continues to lie about it.
> All this stuff going on is having a negative effect on her campaign even forcing cnn to admit trump is leading her in the polls.


Keep in mind the electoral college heavily favors Clinton


----------



## dpad_5678 (Sep 6, 2016)

Monado_III said:


> If I was American (which thankfully I'm not, as much as I dislike Trudeau he's still a far better president/PM than any candidate the USA has)


(* Buzz Hugging Woody "x. x everywhere meme "*)

Let me teach you about Jill Stein.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 6, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> All this stuff going on is having a negative effect on her campaign *even forcing cnn to admit trump is leading her in the polls.*


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
Cherry pick all you want, she's leading in literally every other poll (excluding the Rasmussen Reports), and she's only behind in the CNN polls by two points


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 6, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
> Cherry pick all you want, she's leading in literally every other poll (excluding the Rasmussen Reports), and she's only behind in the CNN polls by two points


Although it is getting close. Come the debates then I predict her pulling away but even if it is this close the electoral college will help her a lot.


----------



## Viri (Sep 6, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> She is healthy I swear
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She thought the "C" on the teleprompter meant cough obv. It's all Russia's fault.


----------



## matthi321 (Sep 6, 2016)

i would vote for my cat


----------



## Lacius (Sep 6, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> She is healthy I swear
> 
> nbc tried to cover it up by removing all the coughing parts from air and blaming it high pollen in the area, the pollen % for the area was very low btw


I was mildly sick two weekends ago, and although I feel completely better, my lingering cough is worse than this, particularly when I'm constantly talking as a part of my job. Am I unhealthy?

The reason why this might not have been thoroughly covered by some media outlets is because it's a non-story. This isn't the place to peddle your conspiracy BS.



Joe88 said:


> Personally it seems like she has pneumonia, but even if its something else there is obviously something wrong and she continues to lie about it.


Are you a doctor?



Joe88 said:


> All this stuff going on is having a negative effect on her campaign even forcing cnn to admit trump is leading her in the polls.


As of today, Clinton is ahead nationally by about +3%, and she's ahead in almost all of the swing states. Don't cherry pick the polls. Focus on the aggregate numbers.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 6, 2016)

Lacius said:


> As of today, Clinton is ahead nationally by about +3%, and she's ahead in almost all of the swing states. Don't cherry pick the polls. Focus on the aggregate numbers.


Plus she could lose the popular vote and only win the states John Kerry won and she still would beat Trump due to the electoral college (which as I said currently helps the democrats).


----------



## Lacius (Sep 6, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Plus she could lose the popular vote and only win the states John Kerry won and she still would beat Trump due to the electoral college (which as I said currently helps the democrats).


The electoral college tends to exaggerate the popular vote, so the electoral college benefits Secretary Clinton right now mostly because of her good polling. If we change the polling to be a tighter race, the electoral college could end up benefitting Trump.

You're right, however, the Clinton is way ahead as far as the electoral college outlook goes.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 6, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The electoral college tends to exaggerate the popular vote, so the electoral college benefits Secretary Clinton right now mostly because of her good polling. If we change the polling to be a tighter race, the electoral college could end up benefitting Trump.


I mean that in the sense that currently in that the value of solid blue states. Plus for a Republican to win he or she would need more of the swing states then the Democrats would currently.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 6, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I mean that in the sense that currently in that the value of solid blue states. Plus for a Republican to win he or she would need more of the swing states then the Democrats would currently.


That and the minority vote, which Trump has almost no way of getting


----------



## Lacius (Sep 6, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I mean that in the sense that currently in that the value of solid blue states. Plus for a Republican to win he or she would need more of the swing states then the Democrats would currently.





TotalInsanity4 said:


> That and the minority vote, which Trump has almost no way of getting


Thank goodness.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 6, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That and the minority vote, which Trump has almost no way of getting


Historically since 68 or so Republicans have never gotten more than 15% of the minority vote (keep in mind the minority vote used to be the black vote but that is not true anymore) yet have won many presidencies. The idea that you can not win without the minority vote really does not hold all the times. Look at the largely Hispanic Arizona for example.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 6, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Historically since 68 or so Republicans have never gotten more than 15% of the minority vote (keep in mind the minority vote used to be the black vote but that is not true anymore) yet have won many presidencies. The idea that you can not win without the minority vote really does not hold all the times. Look at the largely Hispanic Arizona for example.


While this is true, it makes it very, VERY difficult to win. The fact that Trump has alienated so many Hispanic voters and directly contradicts the ideals of many black voters, he would have to win by a much more significant portion of the white vote than any other presidential race in the recent past


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 6, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> While this is true, it makes it very, VERY difficult to win. The fact that Trump has alienated so many Hispanic voters and directly contradicts the ideals of many black voters, he would have to win by a much more significant portion of the white vote than any other presidential race in the recent past


That is true but keep in mind a large part of that is blacks and Hispanics are largely under represented in voting due to a variety of reasons (some legal others not) so in a sense it makes up for this. The white vote however is losing steam simply because they are less important due to their % of the population so it does make it harder to depend on them as reliable (especially when you consider the amount of them who vote liberal). 

Honestly if the GOP wants to attract minority voters than they need to talk about the real issues at hand such as the racial bias with current drug laws for example rather than speaking vaguely or not at all.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 6, 2016)

Here are the basics of our election system. This is basic stuff, presented in a delightful way. If you wonder why there's only a 2 party system, or why your vote doesn't seem to matter much, this definitely is fundamental to you:



Also, your vote is like BMI. Kind of meaningless on an individual scale, but if you take yourself as a part of a whole, it's as important as the current laws allow...which in the USA's case is unnecessarily obtuse.


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 7, 2016)

Jill is love. Jill is life.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 7, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> Jill is love. Jill is life.


Can you explain why you like her? I keep hearing mixed opinions on her from people all over the political spectrum


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Can you explain why you like her? I keep hearing mixed opinions on her from people all over the political spectrum


I agree with every single stance of her's on every single issue, and she actually cares about the everyday people, instead of being fake and just trying to appeal to them for their votes (*cough* Clinton and Trump *cough*).


----------



## Lacius (Sep 7, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> I agree with every single stance of her's on every single issue, and she actually cares about the everyday people, instead of being fake and just trying to appeal to them for their votes (*cough* Clinton and Trump *cough*).


Jill Stein panders to anti-vaxxers despite knowing better. She makes trollbait statements like, "Trump and Clinton are the same candidate." She's just as fake as either of the other candidates.


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Jill Stein panders to anti-vaxxers despite knowing better. She makes trollbait statements like, "Trump and Clinton are the same candidate." She's just as fake as either of the other candidates.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 7, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> I agree with every single stance of her's on every single issue, and she actually cares about the everyday people, instead of being fake and just trying to appeal to them for their votes (*cough* Clinton and Trump *cough*).





Lacius said:


> Jill Stein panders to anti-vaxxers despite knowing better. She makes trollbait statements like, "Trump and Clinton are the same candidate." She's just as fake as either of the other candidates.


And that's exactly what I'm talking about. See, @The Cringe, I agree with you. On paper, I agree with most, if not all, of her policies. But I also hear about stuff like what @Lacius is saying, and not just online, either, from friends of mine that are very "tuned in" to the political world (the son of both a judge and lawyer, for example)


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And that's exactly what I'm talking about. See, @The Cringe, I agree with you. On paper, I agree with most, if not all, of her policies. But I also hear about stuff like what @Lacius is saying, and not just online, either, from friends of mine that are very "tuned in" to the political world (the son of both a judge and lawyer, for example)


Hillary is a master of deception, and she has financial ties with many prominent people and corporations. Because of the large increase in Jill supporters over the past month, Jill has been a target of Hillary and those with strong financial ties to her lately.

One of her goons even went on TV and tried to link Jill (along with Trump and Assange) to Russia for their efforts to expose the dirty truth about Hillary (What is this, the Cold War?).


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And that's exactly what I'm talking about. See, @The Cringe, I agree with you. On paper, I agree with most, if not all, of her policies. But I also hear about stuff like what @Lacius is saying, and not just online, either, from friends of mine that are very "tuned in" to the political world (the son of both a judge and lawyer, for example)


To be honest, I must ask how is your friend politically? Is he heavy into the Clinton campaign? Reason is that many liberals who support Clinton have been attacking Stein and asserting why they feel a vote for her is bad, mainly due to the past experience with the Greens. Although I personally must say consider that personality is also a factor and you also should consider the importance of the issues you disagree and agree between the two.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 7, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> To be honest, I must ask how is your friend politically? Is he heavy into the Clinton campaign? Reason is that many liberals who support Clinton have been attacking Stein and asserting why they feel a vote for her is bad, mainly due to the past experience with the Greens. Although I personally must say consider that personality is also a factor and you also should consider the importance of the issues you disagree and agree between the two.


He supports Clinton, but as far as I'm aware he has no form of "allegiance" to her, it's more of a "I prefer this option to Donald Trump and if there was a better option I'd take it"


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> He supports Clinton, but as far as I'm aware he has no form of "allegiance" to her, it's more of a "I prefer this option to Donald Trump and if there was a better option I'd take it"


Well then I would ask him

1. What policy do you dislike about Stein
2. What is his views on 3rd party voting (which may be a big reason)
3. Why do you think the differences between Jill and Hill lead him to vote for Hillary
4. What is his normal political leanings


----------



## Lacius (Sep 7, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> Hillary is a master of deception


There's no reason to believe that.



The Cringe said:


> and she has financial ties with many prominent people and corporations.


You say that like it disqualifies a candidate.



The Cringe said:


> Because of the large increase in Jill supporters over the past month, Jill has been a target of Hillary and those with strong financial ties to her lately.


On August 6, Stein's aggregate number was 4%. On September 6, her aggregate number is 3%. There is no _large increase in Jill supporters_.



RevPokemon said:


> To be honest, I must ask how is your friend politically? Is he heavy into the Clinton campaign? Reason is that many liberals who support Clinton have been attacking Stein and asserting why they feel a vote for her is bad, mainly due to the past experience with the Greens. Although I personally must say consider that personality is also a factor and you also should consider the importance of the issues you disagree and agree between the two.


This wouldn't the first time that a Green Party candidate stole liberal votes and handed the White House to a Republican. The Green Party's efforts are counterproductive to their own views, and to risk a Republican presidency for something with no chance of success demonstrates self-serving idiocy with no regard for the consequences of one's actions. Trolling every four years as a presidential candidate is also not how one builds up a party.

As I've discussed numerous times, if one cares who wins the election this year, it's a binary choice between Clinton and Trump.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> As I've discussed numerous times, if one cares who wins the election this year, it's a binary choice between Clinton and Trump.


Again I say, www.balancedrebellion.com is a good resource for Johnson voters



RevPokemon said:


> Well then I would ask him
> 
> 1. What policy do you dislike about Stein
> 2. What is his views on 3rd party voting (which may be a big reason)
> ...


I don't think it's a policy issue for him, he said it was something about "Trump-like rhetoric" when she give speeches or something like that

I'll ask him later, I'm curious about it too


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't think it's a policy issue for him, he said it was something about "Trump-like rhetoric" when she give speeches or something like that
> 
> I'll ask him later, I'm curious about it too


Well then it is a personality issue most likely. I personally dislike Hillary and Trump's personality (although I am voting Johnson due to policy) but can say that I do see how personality can be a big deterrent ( think about this, Trump would not have won the GOP nom if not for how he portrayed himself. Hell he was not even the most conservative guy running).


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 7, 2016)

@Everyone

After quickly looking through this thread, my conclusion is that there appears to be no reasoning with Lacius. There seems to be no way for him to recover from the 2-party system brainwashing that he has received.

I wish you the best with continuing to refute Lacius's claims, but I am done with him.

If you ever decide that you are done with him like I now am, then I recommend adding him to your ignore list like I just did.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 7, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> @Everyone
> 
> After quickly looking through this thread, my conclusion is that there appears to be no reasoning with Lacius. There seems to be no way for him to recover from the 2-party system brainwashing that he has received.
> 
> ...


Dude the two of you really did not even debate or anything


----------



## Lacius (Sep 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Again I say, www.balancedrebellion.com is a good resource for Johnson voters


In principle, something like this could work for the Johnson wannabe voter. In practice, it requires a lot of faith, and I imagine there would be a lot problems. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Johnson supporters claim on this site to lean towards one major party candidate or another when he or she was actually never going to vote Democratic nor Republican. I also don't know if the website takes into account one's state when matching him or her with another voter. My guess is that with the Facebook login, it does.



The Cringe said:


> @Everyone
> 
> After quickly looking through this thread, my conclusion is that there appears to be no reasoning with Lacius. There seems to be no way for him to recover from the 2-party system brainwashing that he has received.
> 
> ...


All I did was acknowledge some unfortunate truths about our broken two-party system. Overreact much?


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 7, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Dude the two of you really did not even debate or anything


Yeah, but that was because I saw the fruitless results of others who debated him.


----------



## Jhyrachy (Sep 7, 2016)

Ffs, there are really people who defend Hillary and Trump?

They both sucks, each one in a different way:

Let's start with Hillary: just for how she managed her own email server she should not be qualified to be a president (read as: violating standard security practice to bypass transparency law). Plus, she's paid by saudi and corporation. There is no reason to vote her except to mantein the status quo and felle progressive for "hurr durr first usa female president" (who shitted in her skirt)

Now trump turn: he's not a presidential figure and his politics are not realistic, populistic and cloudy at best, he's here to do noise and poimt a corrupt system (like tax loopholes), not to fix anything. The only "positive" thing is that since he's hated by both party, the congress will try to veto everything he will try to do, !imiting a lot of his power (and possible, his damage)

So, what's the choice?
Third part as a protest vote, do not pick "the less of the two evil", increasimg indipendents votes will let them have more weight in the next elections.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> In principle, something like this could work for the Johnson wannabe voter. In practice, it requires a lot of faith, and I imagine there would be a lot problems. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Johnson supporters claim on this site to lean towards one major party candidate or another when he or she was actually never going to vote Democratic nor Republican. I also don't know if the website takes into account one's state when matching him or her with another voter. My guess is that with the Facebook login, it does.



In current polling, I feel that it more or less is  true in that his support is roughly equal between Clinton and Trump in a 4 way match up (i.e he is balanced to the point he does not take support from either side).


----------



## Lacius (Sep 7, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> Yeah, but that was because I saw the fruitless results of others who debated him.


People are often unconvinced to change their minds after a spirited debate. I think I'm right, and other people think they're right. That's the nature of discourse sometimes. It doesn't necessarily mean that somebody is being stubborn or that anything is fruitless. I would argue that any of my positions that haven't changed throughout the course of this and other political threads are because the arguments to the contrary are weak if not nonexistent. To suggest that people should block/ignore me seems like a petty overreaction to the fact that you disagree with me. Deal with it and grow a thicker skin. I wasn't even mean to you or anything.



Jhyrachy said:


> Ffs, there are really people who defend Hillary and Trump?


Hello.



Jhyrachy said:


> Let's start with Hillary: just for how she managed her own email server she should not be qualified to be a president (read as: violating standard security practice to bypass transparency law).


The way she used email was stupid, but she didn't violate any laws at the time she did it. She didn't send nor receive information properly marked _classified_, and there's no reason to think there were any security breaches. People at State were also aware of what she was doing, and she wasn't told to stop it. Finally, some aspects of what she did have been done by past Secretaries of State.

In summary, there's nothing about the email _scandal_ that disqualifies her from being president.

Edit: There's also no reason to think any of this had to do with bypassing transparency laws. In fact, Clinton has been much more transparent with her emails than past Secretaries of State.



Jhyrachy said:


> Plus, she's paid by saudi and corporation.


You mean the Saudi money the Clinton Foundation, something Hillary was not involved with, got before Hillary Clinton was even Secretary of State?



Jhyrachy said:


> The only "positive" thing is that since he's hated by both party, the congress will try to veto everything he will try to do, !imiting a lot of his power (and possible, his damage)


If you think a Republican Congress would vote down (not veto) Trump's Republican policies, Republican appointments, etc., you're delusional.



Jhyrachy said:


> Third part as a protest vote, do not pick "the less of the two evil", increasimg indipendents votes will let them have more weight in the next elections.


If you care who wins this year, the lesser of two evils is less evil by definition. In addition, increasing third-party votes while they're still very much unpopular doesn't make third parties more popular the following election. The issue that needs to be addressed is popularity, as it's the limiting reagent. Popularity comes before votes, not the other way around.



RevPokemon said:


> In current polling, I feel that it more or less is  true in that his support is roughly equal between Clinton and Trump in a 4 way match up (i.e he is balanced to the point he does not take support from either side).


I don't know if that's true or not. Last I checked a few months ago, third-party candidates were disproportionately taking votes from Clinton. That very well might have changed. I'll look at the numbers later.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't know if that's true or not. Last I checked a few months ago, third-party candidates were disproportionately taking votes from Clinton. That very well might have changed. I'll look at the numbers later.


I stated Johnson was not although 3rd parties could. Support of Johnson _himself  _currently has him being effectively neutral (like Anderson in 80). If you added in Stein in a 4 way race then the 3rd parties (Greens and Libertarians) take a bit more from Clinton (which makes sense as Stein takes more from Clinton) but in that scenario Johnson takes _less by himself _due to the change of Stein (He and Stein take BernieOrBust supporters equally according to a lot of polling).

Also see http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...on-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/ from July which had only a -1% change for Clinton when it went to 3 parties.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 7, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I stated Johnson was not although 3rd parties could. Support of Johnson _himself  _currently has him being effectively neutral (like Anderson in 80). If you added in Stein in a 4 way race then the 3rd parties (Greens and Libertarians) take a bit more from Clinton (which makes sense as Stein takes more from Clinton) but in that scenario Johnson takes _less by himself _due to the change of Stein (He and Stein take BernieOrBust supporters equally according to a lot of polling).


Sorry. I meant to say from Johnson alone.



RevPokemon said:


> Also see http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...on-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/ from July which had only a -1% change for Clinton when it went to 3 parties.


This is probably the article I was referring to when I said Johnson was taking more support from Clinton than Trump a few months ago.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> This is probably the article I was referring to when I said Johnson was taking more support from Clinton than Trump a few months ago.


Still it is very small and is likely to have changed post convention where Sanders has made reconciliation with Clinton. Come election day, as a Johnson supporter I have to say Never Trumpers will be a bigger part than BernieOrBust in the support for Johnson due to 1. policy, 2. Stein taking support from Johnson, and 3. Sanders voters warming up to Hillary.


----------



## Jhyrachy (Sep 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The way she used email was stupid, but she didn't violate any laws at the time she did it. She didn't send nor receive information properly marked _classified_, and there's no reason to think there were any security breaches. People at State were also aware of what she was doing, and she wasn't told to stop it. Finally, some aspects of what she did have been done by past Secretaries of State.
> 
> In summary, there's nothing about the email _scandal_ that disqualifies her from being president.
> 
> ...



Yeah, and she wiped the mail "with a cloth" (have you heard her?)
Plus, yes she received CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET info, that was stated by FBI, sorry (pag 14: https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-01-of-02/view )
Plus, we cannot know if there was a security breach, since she tried to wipe the server WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION, and this is illegal (you know, destruction of evidence)

And this is just the tip of the iceberg, we could go on for hours

(Ps: she lied multiple times about her emails, their content and a lot more.)


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's objectively the smart choice; it's not just my opinion. You've outlined no viable long-term plan.


Well I'm done with you.  You clearly don't understand the concept of objectivity and instead believe your own personal perception to be that of objectivity.  There's nothing more for us to discuss as you have shown the inability to see that there is a world beyond your point of view.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 7, 2016)

Can't believe that Stein got charged for 'vandalism' on a bulldozer. Why not charge a bunch of people destroying innocent people's property?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 7, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> Can't believe that Stein got charged for 'vandalism' on a bulldozer. Why not charge a bunch of people destroying innocent people's property?


_“State of ND may charge me with vandalism. Will they charge the oil company that razed sacred burial grounds?” - Jill Stein_

The crimes Stein and Baraka’s are charged with are class B misdemeanors, which according to the North Dakota criminal code, “are punishable by up to 30 days in jail and fines reaching $1,000.”

Regardless the freedom of protest apparently mean nothing in ND anymore.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 7, 2016)

Jhyrachy said:


> Plus, yes she received CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET info, that was stated by FBI, sorry (pag 14: https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-01-of-02/view )


I suggest you reread what I said and what you just linked to, because she didn't send nor receive anything properly marked _classified_. You're fighting a strawman that doesn't address my comments.



Jhyrachy said:


> Plus, we cannot know if there was a security breach


Reread what I said. There is no reason to believe there were any security breaches. Pretending the claim of a security breach is unfalsifiable, which it's not, doesn't mean there's any reason to believe it's true.



Jhyrachy said:


> And this is just the tip of the iceberg, we could go on for hours


But, you haven't even started.



Jhyrachy said:


> (Ps: she lied multiple times about her emails, their content and a lot more.)


Such as?



grossaffe said:


> Well I'm done with you.  You clearly don't understand the concept of objectivity and instead believe your own personal perception to be that of objectivity.  There's nothing more for us to discuss as you have shown the inability to see that there is a world beyond your point of view.


I outlined a very specific syllogism regarding the binary choice that exists between candidates and whether or not a person cares more about who wins the election as opposed to something else, and it has an objective conclusion. If you think I have an _inability to see that there is a world beyond my point of view_, then you are right that we are done. I don't care to have extended conversations with people who are this disingenuous in an attempt to win a silly argument. Telling someone he or she is objectively wrong doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that person's worldview. It means I disagree.

In addition, most of the opinions I, and everyone else, have expressed here are claims that certain things are objectively true of reality. That's what an opinion often times is. To claim someone is wrong is to claim they are objectively wrong. Perhaps you should look up these words. Also, you don't have to make up a petty excuse to stop talking to me. You have a choice in the matter. You can just walk away from the computer.

Edit: In other words, I do believe that my opinion reflects that which is objectively true of reality. If I didn't believe something reflected what was objectively true of reality, then it wouldn't be my opinion.



ComeTurismO said:


> Can't believe that Stein got charged for 'vandalism' on a bulldozer. Why not charge a bunch of people destroying innocent people's property?


Whether or not what the oil companies did was criminal doesn't make graffiti any less of a crime.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not what the oil companies did was criminal doesn't make graffiti any less of a crime.


The charges are actually criminal trespass and criminal mischief charges but vandalism was planned (IIRC). Either way the charges are absolute bullshit in context.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 7, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The charges are actually criminal trespass and criminal mischief charges but vandalism was planned (IIRC). Either way the charges are absolute bullshit in context.


I read she was accused of spray-painting construction equipment during a protest, but I admittedly didn't do much research into it.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I read she was accused of spray-painting construction equipment during a protest, but I admittedly didn't do much research into it.


Yes but AFAIK the vandalism was changed to mischief. Either way I find the charges are very political motivated in that if it was not a protest against the oil companies then they would not have been brought up.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 8, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> if it was not a protest against the oil companies then they would not have been brought up.


That's not necessarily true.

Edit: And the protest itself was politically motivated.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's not necessarily true.
> 
> Edit: And the protest itself was politically motivated.


I understand the protest was politically motivated but it is safe to say that they would not have  been brought up if it were not for the fact that they were protesting against the oil companies. Plus we have the freedom to protest, which I feel was violated.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 8, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I understand the protest was politically motivated but it is safe to say that they would not have  been brought up if it were not for the fact that they were protesting against the oil companies. Plus we have the freedom to protest, which I feel was violated.


The freedom to protest isn't an unrestricted freedom to protest. She still apparently broke the law.

I'm not saying I disagree with her actions or that they disqualifier her candidacy, but they have consequences.


----------



## vayanui8 (Sep 8, 2016)

I don't see how her freedom to protest was violated. Having the freedom to protest doesn't mean you can vandalize someones property. If she damages someone's property she should face the appropriate charges.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The freedom to protest isn't an unrestricted freedom to protest. She still apparently broke the law.





vayanui8 said:


> I don't see how her freedom to protest was violated. Having the freedom to protest doesn't mean you can vandalize someones property. If she damages someone's property she should face the appropriate charges.


For what it is worth the issue is the way that the protesters (not just Jill) were/are treated. Right now it is abysmal with pepper spray and dogs being sent out by the company working on the project. I believe it is hard to condone that yet condemn people being arrested on charges like that.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 8, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> I don't see how her freedom to protest was violated. Having the freedom to protest doesn't mean you can vandalize someones property. If she damages someone's property she should face the appropriate charges.


If anything, Jill acknowledging and accepting the consequences of her actions makes her seem more admirable. To be clear, I still don't like her. She's just right on this issue.



RevPokemon said:


> For what it is worth the issue is the way that the protesters (not just Jill) were/are treated. Right now it is abysmal with pepper spray and dogs being sent out by the company working on the project. I believe it is hard to condone that yet condemn people being arrested on charges like that.


I condone neither.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 8, 2016)

hilary leaks will start sometime next week and will be released in batches (and evidence that she did know what the "C" meant as a bonus)


----------



## Lacius (Sep 8, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> hilary leaks will start sometime next week and will be released in batches (and evidence that she did know what the "C" meant as a bonus)


Like I've said before, take claims by WikiLeaks with a grain of salt. There are many things since 2007/2008 that they've claimed to have had and were going to leak ASAP that they never did. The time to believe they have any _bombshells_ is when they release them, not before. In addition, whether or not Clinton knew what the [C] meant is irrelevant to whether or not she sent/received information properly marked as _classified_.

Edit: Have I mentioned how tired I am of the fact that we're discussing emails, health, etc. rather than policy?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Edit: Have I mentioned how tired I am of the fact that we're discussing emails, health, etc. rather than policy?


Can I say this?

As a libertarian, I disagree alot with Clinton on policy. I disagree with her on encryption, whistle blowers, health care, the military, term limits, electoral reform, and so on but I have to say I am voting for Johnson based on policy. I know you and me disagree on most things but I agree with you on this. When we decide who to vote for the focus should be on the proposed policy, not on stupid stuff that does not matter. Thats why I am voting Johnson. If you vote Clinton, Castle, Trump or Stein because you agree with their policy then more power to you. I might disagree with their policy (especially with Trump and Clinton) and you may disagree with my view of policy but regardless I support your decision even though I may strongly disagree with it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 8, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> hilary leaks will start sometime next week and will be released in batches (and evidence that she did know what the "C" meant as a bonus)



Do you trust everything that airs on the Sean Hannity show or just the stuff involving Clinton?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 8, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Do you trust everything that airs on the Sean Hannity show or just the stuff involving Clinton?


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/sean-hannity-jonah-goldberg-twitter-war-227819

Hannity vs a Never Trumper. Really again shows how unprofessional he is. I mean dat name calling.

EDIT: From the start Hannity was a huge Trump guy and is probably his biggest media endorser. Look up the stuff with him vs Cruz if you want more proof.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 8, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Do you trust everything that airs on the Sean Hannity show or just the stuff involving Clinton?


While Hannity may have zero journalistic integrity (does that scale include negatives?), the purveyor of information within that video clip is Julian Assange who's got quite the track record of exposing government secrets.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 8, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> While Hannity may have zero journalistic integrity (does that scale include negatives?), the purveyor of information within that video clip is Julian Assange who's got quite the track record of exposing government secrets.


He's also got quite the track record of not releasing things he's claimed to have had and said he was going to release.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 8, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> While Hannity may have zero journalistic integrity (does that scale include negatives?), the purveyor of information within that video clip is Julian Assange who's got quite the track record of exposing government secrets.


The fact alone that he chose(? was asked and accepted?) to be interviewed by Sean Hannity makes the information given questionable at best


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 8, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The fact alone that he chose(? was asked and accepted?) to be interviewed by Sean Hannity makes the information given questionable at best


Depends. Alot of people will take whatever media attention they can get in order to broaden the horizon, although Hannity is a poor you must ask what other news source would like to talk about this other then Democracy Now?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 8, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Depends. Alot of people will take whatever media attention they can get in order to broaden the horizon, although Hannity is a poor you must ask what other news source would like to talk about this other then Democracy Now?


I see your point but I guarantee that if there was really something on the table then at least NBC would take the opportunity to cover it. This is essentially like trusting something the National Inquirer published just because it shines a bad light on the candidate you don't like

Oh, wait...


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 8, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I see your point but I guarantee that if there was really something on the table then at least NBC would take the opportunity to cover it


Depends. If they think it is interesting enough or if they want to do a story on a man like Assange but I agree.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> This is essentially like trusting something the National Inquirer published just because it shines a bad light on the candidate you don't like


Ted Cruz and Adultery anyone?


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 8, 2016)

I'm not sure why nbc would cover as they are going pretty left wing bias now and their sister station msnbc so airing anything negative about clinton is not in their agenda especially giving clintons enemy air time, unless something really big happens where they don't have that option anymore to ignore it or direct attention elsewhere. 
And as already mentioned, assange isnt exactly controversy free, his options for public speaking are slim at best, anything is better than nothing.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 8, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> I'm not sure why nbc would cover as they are going pretty left wing bias now


Really? The Big 3 are pretty moderate in politics


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 8, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Really? The Big 3 are pretty moderate in politics


NBC is pretty non-partisan at least. I don't know about ABC, because I don't watch it very often. However, CNN is VERY left leaning, almost to the extent that Fox is right leaning


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 8, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> NBC is pretty non-partisan at least. I don't know about ABC, because I don't watch it very often. However, CNN is VERY left leaning, almost to the extent that Fox is right leaning



I watch a mix of CBS,ABC, and NBC and when it comes to news coverage, I find that they all are pretty towards the center (they criticize both sides) and feel that their political shows (FTN, This week, and MTP) are all pretty balanced with key people from both sides. As for CNN, I feel they are not that left and by no means would I call them a "liberal" source although they are not as accurate as the Big 3. FNC is huge on the right to the point that it is disgusting.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 8, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> I'm not sure why nbc would cover as they are going pretty left wing bias now and their sister station msnbc so airing anything negative about clinton is not in their agenda especially giving clintons enemy air time, unless something really big happens where they don't have that option anymore to ignore it or direct attention elsewhere.
> And as already mentioned, assange isnt exactly controversy free, his options for public speaking are slim at best, anything is better than nothing.


First, it's not much of a story until Assange releases something. Hannity is so consumed by his propaganda machine that he's preemptively jumping on the chance to report something negative about Clinton.

Second, NBC is pretty neutral as far as news channels go. Overall, MSNBC has a liberal bias, but they're nowhere near the fact-altering, propaganda-ridden, bullshit mountain (credit: Jon Stewart) that is Fox News. If there's a story, MSNBC will report it, and several MSNBC shows have been very critical if not overly critical of the Clinton email situation, for example.

Third, and not to say you did it, but don't call the news organizations _biased _because there are more negative stories to report about Donald Trump.

Fourth, one could argue a conservative bias exists with regard to some news organizations and their attempts to balance negative coverage of the two candidates, exaggerating stories on the left to match what's being genuinely reported on the right.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> NBC is pretty non-partisan at least. I don't know about ABC, because I don't watch it very often. However, CNN is VERY left leaning, almost to the extent that Fox is right leaning


CNN prides itself on trying to be balanced, potentially having an unintentional right-leaning bias in an attempt to do so. I would argue that, on the whole, they're pretty non-partisan, in addition to ABC, NBC, etc.

Regardless of whether or not other news channels like MSNBC have biases, none come close to the blatant right-wing propaganda machine that is Fox News.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Fourth, one could argue a conservative bias exists with regard to some news organizations and their attempts to balance negative coverage of the two candidates, exaggerating stories on the left to match what's being genuinely reported on the right.


It is better to say mainstream media organizations have neither a liberal nor a conservative political bias in my opinion. 



Lacius said:


> Regardless of whether or not other news channels like MSNBC have biases, none come close to the blatant right-wing propaganda machine that is Fox News.


As for "news", I agree. The problem too is that people think the news is liberal or conservative when it is not. To many people confuse commentary, opinion and news nowadays.


----------



## Viri (Sep 10, 2016)

Feels good to be part of the "Basket Of Deplorables".


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 10, 2016)

Viri said:


> Feels good to be part of the "Basket Of Deplorables".


Some people are comparing this to the 47% comment by Romney, any thoughts GBATemp ?


----------



## Viri (Sep 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Some people are comparing this to the 47% comment by Romney, any thoughts GBATemp ?


https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/248112876240379904

Funny, back in 2012, I was an undecided voter. I didn't like Obama and thought of voting for Mitt, and that comment killed his vote from me. I sat out on election day.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Some people are comparing this to the 47% comment by Romney, any thoughts GBATemp ?


It's too bad her comment is going to hurt her. Clinton was specific when she said the deplorables are the supporters who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” I agree with her.



Viri said:


> https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/248112876240379904


In all fairness, she's writing off about 19%, not about 50%.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's too bad her comment is going to hurt her. Clinton was specific when she said the deplorables are the supporters who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” I agree with her.


I really do not think it will hurt her actually. She has already said certain of Trump's supporters are in those camps (The KKK ad for example). Plus the people that she was talking about were not going to vote for her.



Lacius said:


> In all fairness, she's writing off about 19%, not about 50%.


Plus a very large percent of his supporters are conservative who just would rather him then her. Lesser of the 2 evils.


----------



## DarkGabbz (Sep 10, 2016)

John McAfee /s


----------



## Lacius (Sep 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I really do not think it will hurt her actually. She has already said certain of Trump's supporters are in those camps (The KKK ad for example). Plus the people that she was talking about were not going to vote for her.


I'm hoping it doesn't, and the comment does feed into a meme that many people left and center have already bought into (i.e. Trump's a bigot with bigoted supporters). For the reasons you already stated, it's also easy for her to defend her comments, unlike Romney's 47% comment. If she had just said "some" instead of "half," this would be a non-issue.


----------



## Viri (Sep 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I really do not think it will hurt her actually. She has already said certain of Trump's supporters are in those camps (The KKK ad for example). Plus the people that she was talking about were not going to vote for her.


Most will probably forget about it in a week or so, people have short term memory. But ya, you can insult the guy running, but not his supporters. You're trying to sway them. Just ask Mitt Romney, lols.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm hoping it doesn't, and the comment does feed into a meme that many people left and center have already bought into (i.e. Trump's a bigot with bigoted supporters). For the reasons you already stated, it's also easy for her to defend her comments, unlike Romney's 47% comment. If she had just said "some" instead of "half," this would be a non-issue.



Absolutely although it could be a warning of how the debates could be


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> Most will probably forget about it in a week or so, people have short term memory. But ya, you can insult the guy running, but not his supporters. You're trying to sway them. Just ask Mitt Romney, lols.


From what I understand she's not insulting individual supporters so much as the cult following that is the basis of his support in general


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 11, 2016)

So a perfectly healthy woman just passed out in the middle of the 9/11 memorial cermony, video of her then stumbling trying to get into her van and bobbing her head even losing her shoe in the process before passing out and having to be dragged into the van https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200
Media once again circled the wagons to protect her claiming heat exhaustion and it was 107F with humidity (it was 83F with humidity and she was in the shade) or just doing a media blackout


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> So a perfectly healthy woman just passed out in the middle of the 9/11 memorial cermony, video of her then stumbling tring to get into her van and bobbing her head even losing her shoe in the process
> Media once again circled the wagons to protect her claiming heat exhaustion and it was 107F with humidity (it was 83F with humidity and she was in the shade) or just doing a media blackout


As a southerner, I can say 83F is easily enough to make you pass out from heat exhaustion especially depending on your activities


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> So a perfectly healthy woman just passed out in the middle of the 9/11 memorial cermony, video of her then stumbling tring to get into her van and bobbing her head even losing her shoe in the process
> Media once again circled the wagons to protect her claiming heat exhaustion and it was 107F with humidity (it was 83F with humidity and she was in the shade) or just doing a media blackout


Do you have any reason to think this is at all indicative of a larger health issue, or is this conspiracy nonsense?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Do you have any reason to think this is at all indicative of a larger health issue, or is this conspiracy nonsense?


Sure. If elected she could choke on a pretzel.

_sarcasm_


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 11, 2016)

welp, not voting for this to run the country for the next 4-8 yrs. nope.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Hanafuda said:


> welp, not voting for this to run the country for the next 4-8 yrs. nope.



how about not voting for her because you dislike her policy (like me)?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Sure. If elected she could choke on a pretzel.
> 
> _sarcasm_


According to an email she allegedly sent, she once ordered for lunch a "hot dog with no bun." So, it's unlikely she's going to choke on anything with carbs.



Hanafuda said:


> welp, not voting for this to run the country for the next 4-8 yrs. nope.


If you're going to cast your vote because of an isolated incident of physical weakness the likes of which we haven't seen since she got the flu in 2012 and fell down due to dehydration, then you probably weren't going to make an informed decision anyway.

Edit: As @RevPokemon said, vote against her if you disagree with her on policy, but this as an excuse to not vote for Clinton is pretty silly.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> how about not voting for her because you dislike her policy (like me)?



Absolutely. But health is a real issue.




Joe88 said:


> Media once again circled the wagons to protect her claiming heat exhaustion and it was 107F with humidity (it was 83F with humidity and she was in the shade) or just doing a media blackout




It's like 2-3 hours later now and it still isn't even 83 degrees in Manhattan. Weather.com currently reports (at 1:49pm) that it is 82 degrees there. It was probably more like 77 when this happened.




Lacius said:


> If you're going to cast your vote because of an isolated incident of physical weakness the likes of which we haven't seen since she got the flu in 2012 and fell down due to dehydration.....



See but that's it -- it's not isolated. She falls down a lot, needs helped a lot. Gets concussions, has memory lapses, needs special glasses, faints, coughs up huge phlegmballs. She's unfit.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

Hanafuda said:


> Absolutely. But health is a real issue.


Considering there's nothing actually wrong with Clinton, an unsubstantiated health conspiracy theory is not a real issue.

On an unrelated note, she could have terminal cancer, and she's still a better candidate than Trump.



Hanafuda said:


> It's like 2-3 hours later now and it still isn't even 83 degrees in Manhattan. Weather.com currently reports (at 1:49pm) that it is 82 degrees there. It was probably more like 77 when this happened.


It was 82.5 degrees F, the humidity was 46%, she was wearing a formal suit, and other attendees corroborated the story that they too were uncomfortably hot. It's also possible this is all in conjunction with stress, getting over some other minor illness, etc. To claim this is at all indicative of a larger health issue is unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense.



Hanafuda said:


> See but that's it -- it's not isolated. She falls down a lot, needs helped a lot. Gets concussions, has memory lapses, needs special glasses, faints, coughs up huge phlegmballs. She's unfit.


Oh come on.

She doesn't fall down more than anyone else with a camera on them at all times; it's called selection bias. There was one isolated incident in 2012 when she fell down due to the flu and dehydration, hit her head, and got a concussion, and it was well-documented both at the time and in her detailed medical records (I'd like to see Trump's). That was also a long time ago. She also doesn't have memory lapses anymore than the average human (her memory regarding policy is actually very good), you know very well what the special glasses had been for (see 2012 incident), and you're complaining about a freaking cough that nearly half of everyone I personally know has right now.

Don't pretend this is an actual issue.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It was 82.5 degrees F, the humidity was 46%, she was wearing a formal suit, and other attendees corroborated the story that they too were uncomfortably hot. It's also possible this is all in conjunction with stress, getting over some other minor illness, etc. To claim this is at all indicative of a larger health issue is unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense.



Find me a NOAA source (not complicit media) for that, because like I said according to weather.com it still was only 82 in Manhattan just a minute ago. Nobody else had problems. And of course all the people surrounding her backed her up ... they're her people.

See anyone sweating? This is right before she buckled to the ground. See anyone else wearing sunglasses? What's up with that? Heightened sensitivity to light due to some medication she's taking?








Lacius said:


> Considering there's nothing actually wrong with Clinton, an unsubstantiated health conspiracy theory is not a real issue.




You have absolutely no way of knowing that, other than believing what you're told.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> On an unrelated note, she could have terminal cancer, and she's still a better candidate than Trump.


Or in that case Kaine would be.

But seriously I do wish that ALL candidates would release their medical history voluntary. I think it is something that should be known for the voters.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Or in that case Kaine would be.
> 
> But seriously I do wish that ALL candidates would release their medical history voluntary. I think it is something that should be known for the voters.




She'd just release false medical records anyway.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> you're complaining about a freaking cough that nearly half of everyone I personally know has right now.



Nearly half of everyone you know has coughing fits that last 5-10 minutes or more and hocks up phlegmballs the size of peach pits?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Sep 11, 2016)

There's only one choice.



Spoiler



Vermin Supreme


----------



## Futurdreamz (Sep 11, 2016)

Probably Trump. He at least knows what he is doing and may actually have a working plan, while Clinton is nothing more than a figurehead for corruption.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

Hanafuda said:


> Find me a NOAA source (not complicit media) for that, because like I said according to weather.com it still was only 82 in Manhattan just a minute ago.


I think you need to learn how weather works. If you go to Weather Underground or even Weather.com, you would see that it was around 83-84 degrees at around 9:30 AM, dipped down to around 77 degrees at around 12:45, and then came back up to around 81 degrees as of this post.



Hanafuda said:


> (not complicit media)


If you are going to argue that the media is complicit and/or biased because they don't report the narrative you've subscribed to, despite no evidence of a conspiracy, then it's going to be useless of me to use reason.



Hanafuda said:


> Nobody else had problems.


See my post about other people saying it was uncomfortably hot. This kind of thing happens all the time to one individual or another in these conditions. There's also more than one variable than the weather. See my previous posts on her attire, the fact that they're distinct human beings, etc.



Hanafuda said:


> And of course all the people surrounding her backed her up ... they're her people.


It wasn't just _her people_ who backed up the claim that it was uncomfortably warm at the event.



Hanafuda said:


> See anyone sweating?


You know nothing about overheating, because it often times doesn't involve sweat-worthy conditions, and it very often times happens in part because the body isn't sweating. It's counter-intuitive, but sometimes higher temps plus sweat is better than lower temps (but still warm) and no sweat.



Hanafuda said:


> See anyone else wearing sunglasses? What's up with that? Heightened sensitivity to light due to some medication she's taking?


She's wearing sunglasses during a sunny day. I know it was sunny, because this god-forsaken conversation has made me look at Weather Underground for somewhere other than where I live or work. Oh, and if you look closely, you can see some of Hillary's fake human skin peeling off, revealing her lizard skin. And why are all the women in the picture stepping with their right foot, but the men are stepping with their left foot? Wake up, sheeple.

Are we really having this conversation?



Hanafuda said:


> She'd just release false medical records anyway.


I can't argue with this level of stubbornness, unfalsifiability, and unverifiability. You've created a situation in which it's either your narrative or a conspiracy. You obviously care more about believing a particular claim (i.e. that Clinton has a severe health problem) than whether or not it's true. If you care if your belief is true, you require evidence for that belief.



Hanafuda said:


> Nearly half of everyone you know has coughing fits that last 5-10 minutes or more and hocks up phlegmballs the size of peach pits?


For the past two or three weeks? Yeah. I'm one of them.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I think you need to learn how weather works. If you go to Weather Underground or even Weather.com, you would see that it was around 83-84 degrees at around 9:30 AM, dipped down to around 77 degrees at around 12:45, and then came back up to around 81 degrees as of this post.



weather underground daily history for 09/11/2016, Manhattan, NY

It never went above 80 all morning.

https://www.wunderground.com/histor...reqdb.zip=10001&reqdb.magic=2&reqdb.wmo=99999


----------



## Jayro (Sep 11, 2016)

Still writing in Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

Hanafuda said:


> weather underground daily history for 09/11/2016, Manhattan, NY
> 
> It never went above 80 all morning.
> 
> https://www.wunderground.com/histor...reqdb.zip=10001&reqdb.magic=2&reqdb.wmo=99999


First, I have better things to do with my time to thoroughly debate temperature with you; I don't see it as particularly important. Second, their table history contradicts their graphical history, and don't ask me why. Third, 80 degrees is still enough to cause heat fatigue, and you can see my descriptions why above.



Jayro said:


> Still writing in Bernie Sanders.


Then instead of using your vote to increase the likelihood of Bernie Sanders' policies becoming law, him getting an appointment to something noteworthy, etc., you're throwing your vote away and increasing the odds of a Trump presidency.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Jayro said:


> Still writing in Bernie Sanders.


Join the Jill Not Hill side. Really voting Stein is probably the best thing for Sanders supporters upset with the Democratic Party. Regardless the only wasted vote is when you don't vote.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, I have better things to do with my time to thoroughly debate temperature with you; I don't see it as particularly important.


Do you?  Because it seems like you respond to every post that's even slightly critical of Clinton


> Second, their table history contradicts their graphical history, and don't ask me why. Third, 80 degrees is still enough to cause heat fatigue, and you can see my descriptions why above.


Oh, look, you're debating temperature with him anyways.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 11, 2016)

She was standing in the shade, how and what way would that cause fatigue? 
I live 10 miles away so dont tell me what the weather feels like.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 11, 2016)

Trump and if Milo were in the run too, for Milo then.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Join the Jill Not Hill side. Really voting Stein is probably the best thing for Sanders supporters upset with the Democratic Party. Regardless the only wasted vote is when you don't vote.


If the best thing for Sanders supporters is increasing the odds of a Trump presidency, then you're right. However, I don't think a true Sanders supporter wants a Trump presidency, and I think a true Sanders supporter would vote for the person Sanders endorses who is 99% in alignment with him on policy.



grossaffe said:


> Do you?  Because it seems like you respond to every post that's even slightly critical of Clinton


Oh, grossaffe. Why have you taken away from me the joy that was "being done with me"? I would also hope that you're smart enough to know the difference between correcting mistruths about Clinton and policy, and debating what the freaking temperature was.



grossaffe said:


> Oh, look, you're debating temperature with him anyways.


Reiterating points about how heat fatigue works, instead of debating what temperature it was, isn't debating the temperature, by definition. Come on. I acknowledged that WU was reporting both of our stories regarding the temperature and dropped the subject because it's the freaking temperature.

You can go back to being done with me now as an effort to save face. It's highly recommended, because this post of yours was an utter failure.



Joe88 said:


> She was standing in the shade, how and what way would that cause fatigue?
> I live 10 miles away so dont tell me what the weather feels like.


There are plenty of pictures of her in the sun, too.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If the best thing for Sanders supporters is increasing the odds of a Trump presidency, then you're right. However, I don't think a true Sanders supporter wants a Trump presidency, and I think a true Sanders supporter would vote for the person Sanders endorses who is 99% in alignment with him on policy.


I know we disagree on this but if he was seriously considering writing in and has ruled out voting for Clinton (which he seems to have) then voting Stein is a wise thing to consider.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Really? The Big 3 are pretty moderate in politics


This video describes perfectly how mainstream news channels are now.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I know we disagree on this but if he was seriously considering writing in and has ruled out voting for Clinton (which he seems to have) then voting Stein is a wise thing to consider.


As far as choosing the winner of the election goes, a vote for Stein is as useful as a write-in vote for Sanders, LBJ, etc.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> As far as choosing the winner of the election goes, a vote for Stein is as useful as a write-in vote for Sanders, LBJ, etc.


But it can help the Green Party which adds some more value then voting write.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 11, 2016)

Blaire White posted a video a while ago about Hillary's health and it's quite clear that Hillary isn't "fine" as some of her supporters would have others believe. Just hope she gets better regardless of the things she says.



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> I admittedly didn't watch the video, so feel free to articulate its claims here, but there's no reason to think Hillary Clinton's health isn't fine aside from conspiracy nonsense.


It's video evidence of Hillary's being unhealthy.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> But it can help the Green Party which adds some more value then voting write.


I've previously discussed how this has nothing to do with influencing the outcome of the election, which is the point I just made, and how votes don't come before popularity. Likewise, the Green Party is unlikely to come anywhere close to 5%.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Blaire White posted a video a while ago about Hillary's health and it's quite clear that Hillary isn't "fine" as some of her supporters would have others believe. Just hope she gets better regardless of the things she says.


I admittedly didn't watch the video, so feel free to articulate its claims here, but there's no reason to think Hillary Clinton's health isn't fine aside from conspiracy nonsense.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I've previously discussed how this has nothing to do with influencing the outcome of the election, which is the point I just made, and how votes don't come before popularity.


I know. We have talked this over and disagree.



Lacius said:


> I've previously discussed how this has nothing to do with influencing the outcome of the election, which is the point I just made, and how votes don't come before popularity. Likewise, the Green Party is unlikely to come anywhere close to 5%.


She is polling average 3% and 5% max. Depending on what goes on she could be in a place where she could theoretically get that 5%. Sure Johnson is guaranteed to get it but Stein could get it as well theoretically. Eitherway a vote for Stein still accomplishes more things then a write in or possible one of the big 2 depending on your state.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, I have better things to do with my time to thoroughly debate temperature with you; I don't see it as particularly important. Second, their table history contradicts their graphical history, and don't ask me why. Third, 80 degrees is still enough to cause heat fatigue, and you can see my descriptions why above.




I don't care if you can experience 'heat fatigue' in subzero weather. She's the only one who fainted. She was the physically weakest person there.

And, you never provided anything to back up your claim that it was 84 degrees there, then dipped to 77, then came back up to 81. That's some unlikely mid-morning weather on a clear day. Now you don't want to debate temperatures, even though you were the one who was making a case that high temps caused this. You're the one who brought up weather underground, now you want to dismiss them. You say their graphical history disagrees with the table history. Really? Where???


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> She is polling average 3% and 5% max. Depending on what goes on she could be in a place where she could theoretically get that 5%. Sure Johnson is guaranteed to get it but Stein could get it as well theoretically. Eitherway a vote for Stein still accomplishes more things then a write in or possible one of the big 2 depending on your state.


First, her aggregate is around 3.1%. Second, third-party numbers tend to go down during the actual election. People are more likely to respond in a poll that they are voting third party than they are to actually cast their vote for one. It's been that way in every national election I can think of. While this is a weird election cycle and anything could happen, the likeliest outcome is Stein gets below 3.1% in the actual election, even if those poll numbers hold at roughly that number until then.

In addition, the unlikely accomplishments you're mentioning have nothing to do with what I was saying.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> It's video evidence of Hillary's being unhealthy.


Like I said, you're free to articulate those claims here. From what I did see, it looked like a lot of conspiracy photo analysis where people assume things are there that fit a particular narrative. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it that the video actually demonstrates a larger health problem.



Hanafuda said:


> I don't care if you can experience 'heat fatigue' in subzero weather.


That's not what I said.



Hanafuda said:


> She's the only one who fainted. She was the physically weakest person there.


If you're going to correlate an isolated case of heat fatigue with the overly general statement that she is the _physically weakest person there_, then you broadly don't know how health works. I've also numerous times outlined the different factors at play.



Hanafuda said:


> And, you never provided anything to back up your claim that it was 84 degrees there, then dipped to 77, then came back up to 81. That's some unlikely mid-morning weather on a clear day. Now you don't want to debate temperatures, even though you were the one who was making a case that high temps caused this. You're the one who brought up weather underground, now you want to dismiss them. You say their graphical history disagrees with the table history. Really? Where???


That's not the graphical interface I was referring to, but it doesn't matter. If we agree the temperature was roughly 80 degrees, it doesn't change anything I've said. And, unrelated to the risk of bringing about another shitpost from @grossaffe, I'm not going to argue with you about what the temperature was because I don't think it really matters for the reasons I've already stated. For all intents and purposes, let's say it was around 80 degrees (not 85, 77, etc.) when the incident occurred. A lot of reporting says it was specifically around 83-84 in the area, but who cares?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 11, 2016)

You're right, the temperature doesn't matter. She fucking buckled and fainted in public, and the Secret Service dragged her unconscious ass into a van. It may impact her chances, it may not. Deal with it.

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1473612090145.webm


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> And, unrelated to the risk of bringing about another shitpost from @grossaffe


Go fuck yourself.  People like you are the reason people hate discussing politics.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, her aggregate is around 3.1%


That's what I mean't to say. The max she gets is 4% (IIRC) and lowest is 2%



Lacius said:


> Second, third-party numbers tend to go down during the actual election. People are more likely to respond in a poll that they are voting third party than they are to actually cast their vote for one. It's been that way in every national election I can think of. While this is a weird election cycle and anything could happen, the likeliest outcome is Stein gets below 3.1% in the actual election, even if those poll numbers hold at roughly that number until then.



That is true but the really question is to what extent? The biggest difference I can recall other then Perot in 92 (when he dropped out then went back in) was John Anderson went down by 3% when it came to Labor Day era to Voting Day results. If this holds (which for Johnson at least it will) then it is most likely it will for Stein. Likewise with Jill it is semi hard to predict given that those 3rd parties had way more support. Likewise with this cycle and era (where more and more are ready to support a third party) is something both have as an advantage. In addition you have other things regarding Clinton that could cause some to switch sides to Jill potentially (i.e wikileaks). I still feel for Green supporters that 5% is something to fight for.


----------



## DarkShinigami (Sep 11, 2016)

ill vote for vermin supreme.  i want my damn pony


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

Hanafuda said:


> You're right, the temperature doesn't matter. She fucking buckled and fainted in public. Nobody else did. Deal with it.


Any response other than "I hope she's okay" is inappropriate. Any response that attempts to use the incident to feed the baseless conspiracy nonsense that she's somehow largely unwell is idiotic.



grossaffe said:


> Go fuck yourself.  People like you are the reason people hate discussing politics.


No, people like you who take things personally and are so engrossed with being right about politics at all costs that the cognitive dissonance causes an anger so forceful that he or she cannot keep oneself from saying "fuck off" (twice) is why I think a lot of people hate discussing politics. You are the one whose condescending nature led your first post in this thread to be, "Pipe down. The adults are talking." You are the one who cannot stop oneself from arguing against my point that if one cares most about who wins the election between Clinton and Trump, then the choice is a binary one between Clinton and Trump. You are the one who said my mere disagreement about what is and isn't objectively true of reality means I'm dismissive of other people's opinions, when this point seems to be inherently dismissive of my opinions. You are the one who says, "There's nothing more for us to discuss as you have shown the inability to see that there is a world beyond your point of view. I'm done with you," and then specifically addresses me with a shitpost that has no basis in reality regarding anything I said in the post preceding it.



RevPokemon said:


> That is true but the really question is to what extent? The biggest difference I can recall other then Perot in 92 (when he dropped out then went back in) was John Anderson went down by 3% when it came to Labor Day era to Voting Day results. If this holds (which for Johnson at least it will) then it is most likely it will for Stein. Likewise with Jill it is semi hard to predict given that those 3rd parties had way more support. Likewise with this cycle and era (where more and more are ready to support a third party) is something both have as an advantage. In addition you have other things regarding Clinton that could cause some to switch sides to Jill potentially (i.e wikileaks). I still feel for Green supporters that 5% is something to fight for.


In 2012, Jill Stein received 0.36% of the vote. In the polls, she was getting roughly 2.3%.
In 2012, Gary Johnson received 0.99% of the vote. In the polls, he was getting roughly 3.8%.

Perhaps this year will be different, but for the reasons I've already stated, their numbers are likely to be less than their polling numbers.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> In 2012, Jill Stein received 0.36% of the vote. In the polls, she was getting roughly 2.3%.
> In 2012, Gary Johnson received 0.99% of the vote. In the polls, he was getting roughly 3.8%.


One issue with that was simply about how many polls actually included them. The only pollster that contentiously had either one of them was Zogby which is not really accurate (not sure about its 2012 rating but currently it is C- according to FiveThirtyEight). In addition you had one where Johnson got 6% done by the libertarian group Reason (bias) and also 2 CNN polls which is not enough to really calculate. One Gallup poll however put them all around 1% in a 5 way race (Goode of the Constitutional Party). Regardless the polling really was not wide spread enough to get really accurate numbers.



Lacius said:


> Perhaps this year will be different, but for the reasons I've already stated, their numbers are likely to be less than their polling numbers.


As I acknowledge but they still can try to get that 5%. In the case of Johnson however the question is will he go down by 3-5%?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> One issue with that was simply about how many polls actually included them. The only pollster that contentiously had either one of them was Zogby which is not really accurate (not sure about its 2012 rating but currently it is C- according to FiveThirtyEight). In addition you had one where Johnson got 6% done by the libertarian group Reason (bias) and also 2 CNN polls which is not enough to really calculate. One Gallup poll however put them all around 1% in a 5 way race (Goode of the Constitutional Party). Regardless the polling really was not wide spread enough to get really accurate numbers.


The aggregates I used from 2012 were from polls that consistently polled as a four-way race. In fact, funny enough, the argument against those kinds of polls is that they are historically less accurate than two-person polls for the reasons I described. I know this is going to make your heart ache, but when a poll forces people to choose between the two major party candidates, it usually gets results more in line with the election. That's not to say the 2016 two-person polls are going to end up being more accurate than the 2016 three- or four-person polls, of course.



RevPokemon said:


> As I acknowledge but they still can try to get that 5%. In the case of Johnson however the question is will he go down by 3-5%?


According to FiveThirtyEight and the same reasoning from my previous post, Johnson is currently polling at around 9%, but he will likely get about 7.9% in the actual election.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Like I said, you're free to articulate those claims here. From what I did see, it looked like a lot of conspiracy photo analysis where people assume things are there that fit a particular narrative. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it that the video actually demonstrates a larger health problem.


You're basically just trying to pretend there's nothing wrong with her even though the proof is there. If you don't want to admit it, then I can't change your mind for you. Have it your way, I don't care.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> You're basically just trying to pretend there's nothing wrong with her even though the proof is there. If you don't want to admit it, then I can't change your mind for you. Have it your way, I don't care.


What's the proof?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> What's the proof?




I'll side with you on this one. There's no proof. Just many, many accumulated examples of circumstantial evidence.

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1473612090145.webm


----------



## Jayro (Sep 11, 2016)

Killary is dying of health complications anyway, and I hope it's sooner than later.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The aggregates I used from 2012 were from polls that consistently polled as a four-way race. In fact, funny enough, the argument against those kinds of polls is that they are historically less accurate than two-person polls for the reasons I described_. I know this is going to make your heart ache, but when a poll forces people to choose between the two major party candidates, it usually gets results more in line with the election_. That's not to say the 2016 two-person polls are going to end up being more accurate than the 2016 three- or four-person polls, of course.


I do not have the polling knowledge to argue to much but of course polling is rather something that has to be done correctly without biases. I do not have any data to suggest that point (if you do please share as I am interested) 2 way polls are better in terms of accuracy over 3 or 4 way polls IF they are conducted over the methods and with the same circumstances.But (theoretically at least since this has not happened too much) I believe that if the polls are conducted by the same groups with same rigorous requirements and with multiple pollsters then they should be close.



Lacius said:


> According to FiveThirtyEight and the same reasoning from my previous post, Johnson is currently polling at around 9%, but he will likely get about 7.9% in the actual election.


Assuming he gets the lower end of his polling and keeps a large amount of them to vote. If that happened in that situation He would have one of the smallest differences between polling and voting of any 3rd party candidate with more then 3%.  Although theoretically he could barely get 5 or even 4% depending on circumstances.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

Hanafuda said:


> I'll side with you on this one. There's no proof. Just many, many accumulated examples of circumstantial evidence.



A cough --> We already knew about the seasonal alergies from her detailed medical records from before the cough.
Sunglasses --> It was sunny.
An incident of heat fatigue --> An incident of heat fatigue, which she had visibly recovered from not long after.
You have no evidence of a larger health issue, let alone proof. This is conspiracy BS where you're basically connecting photographs on a bulletin board with tacks and string. You obviously care more about believing she has a health problem than whether or not it's true.

I said this once already, but I'm going to say it again. I'm getting really tired of talking about emails and health rather than policy. I knew Republican policy was bad, but is it that bad?



RevPokemon said:


> I do not have the polling knowledge to argue to much but of course polling is rather something that has to be done correctly without biases. I do not have any data to suggest that point (if you do please share as I am interested) 2 way polls are better in terms of accuracy over 3 or 4 way polls IF they are conducted over the methods and with the same circumstances.But (theoretically at least since this has not happened too much) I believe that if the polls are conducted by the same groups with same rigorous requirements and with multiple pollsters then they should be close.


You're right that we don't have as much consistent third-party polling from 2012 as we do this year, but the polling did largely overestimate the share of the vote for third-party candidates in 2012, and it underestimated the share of the vote for major-party candidates when including the third-party candidates.

In FiveThirtyEight's 2012 forecast, it accounted for third-party candidates' numbers likely being inflated and adjusted the aggregate numbers accordingly. This resulted in the popular vote prediction being almost dead-on.



RevPokemon said:


> Assuming he gets the lower end of his polling and keeps a large amount of them to vote. If that happened in that situation He would have one of the smallest differences between polling and voting of any 3rd party candidate with more then 3%.  Although theoretically he could barely get 5 or even 4% depending on circumstances.


If we assume this year is just like 2012, which would be a huge mistake, Johnson's 9% in the polls would translate to about 2.3% in the actual election. However, we know this year isn't like that, and he's likely to keep a lot of his supporters vs. other years, but there is still an inflation of his poll numbers. This is why his 9% will probably translate to something closer to 8% in November, assuming his polling holds.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You're right that we don't have as much consistent third-party polling from 2012 as we do this year, but the polling did largely overestimate the share of the vote for third-party candidates in 2012, and it underestimated the share of the vote for major-party candidates when including the third-party candidates.


Well in hindsight, I feel something that if we want to do comparison is look at Congress races where 3rd parties were included and test that theory since the polling is better. Although granted the two situations are very different but they should hold some value.



Lacius said:


> In FiveThirtyEight's 2012 forecast, it accounted for third-party candidates' numbers likely being inflated and adjusted the aggregate numbers accordingly. This resulted in the popular vote prediction being almost dead-on.


I am not doubting that but out of curiosity what is the link? I am interested and can not seem to find it.



Lacius said:


> If we assume this year is just like 2012, which would be a huge mistake, Johnson's 9% in the polls would translate to about 2.3% in the actual election. However, we know this year isn't like that, and he's likely to keep a lot of his supporters vs. other years, but there is still an inflation of his poll numbers. This is why his 9% will probably translate to something closer to 8% in November.


Very true but still but if I am pessimestic and use his lower numbers of 8% and then assume he has Anderson like retention numbers (3% lost) then he could struggle to get 5%. Personally I agree we will probably get around 7% if the numbers hold up but I could us getting up to 10% depending on what happens in the 58 days.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 11, 2016)

I guess Hillary can't have it both ways, but it should matter to her prioritising her health over politics. This is kind of disturbing:


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I am not doubting that but out of curiosity what is the link? I am interested and can not seem to find it.


I remember reading it, but I can't find the post that goes through all the details of how the model was put together in 2012. The 2016 model, on the other hand, is very clear that they do the same thing and subtract points from third-party candidates. There's another good article on the phenomenon here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gary-johnson-isnt-fading/


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I remember reading it, but I can't find the post that goes through all the details of how the model was put together in 2012. The 2016 model, on the other hand, is very clear that they do the same thing and subtract points from third-party candidates. There's another good article on the phenomenon here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gary-johnson-isnt-fading/


Thank you very much for that link then as I did not see it. I did however see the Fading article and think it is interesting. The thing I wonder about however is how Johnson will do in the polls post Aleppo.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Thank you very much for that link then as I did not see it. I did however see the Fading article and think it is interesting. The thing I wonder about however is how Johnson will do in the polls post Aleppo.


I don't think people will care. Most people don't know what Aleppo is, and I think fewer people know who Johnson is.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't think people will care. Most people don't know what Aleppo is, and I think fewer people know who Johnson is.


Well some have argued it will actually help because it gave him alot of media coverage (albeit negative) while other have stated it will hurt him. Myself I think it will be around the same but it might get a small bump. Although ultimately I do not think it is a big deal.


----------



## Viri (Sep 12, 2016)

I do have some good news about today! Donald Trump left the 9/11 memorial without being carried, and he left with both of his shoes!

https://twitter.com/kevcirilli/status/774982404293427200


----------



## Lacius (Sep 12, 2016)

Viri said:


> I do have some good news about today! Donald Trump left the 9/11 memorial without being carried, and he left with both of his shoes!
> 
> https://twitter.com/kevcirilli/status/774982404293427200


Has our political climate really devolved to this point?


> _"Secretary Clinton has been experiencing a cough related to allergies," said Clinton's physician, Dr. Lisa R. Bardack, in the statement on Sunday afternoon. "On Friday, during follow up evaluation of her prolonged cough, she was diagnosed with pneumonia. She was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule. While at this morning's event, she became overheated and dehydrated. I have just examined her and she is now re-hydrated and recovering nicely."_



So congratulations. Donald Trump does not have pneumonia, although much of his health history is unknown. I think I'd rather have pneumonia and dehydration as opposed to bigotry and other terrible policy positions. Hey, speaking of policy positions, let's talk about those...


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Has our political climate really devolved to this point?


Are you surprised when the GOP candidate has openly been critical of the party's past nom, long time server, and a POW of over 7 years?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 12, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Are you surprised when the GOP candidate has openly been critical of the party's past nom, long time server, and a POW of over 7 years?


I'm not surprised by anything Donald Trump does anymore. I am surprised by the people on this thread.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm not surprised by anything Donald Trump does anymore. I am surprised by the people on this thread.


Yeah same here. I do not like Clinton but it is for policy reasons. If someone here stated _Clinton is a bad pick because of her views of encryption and the economy _then it would have been a solid reason, instead it is _Clinton sucks because she is on life support_.


----------



## Autz (Sep 12, 2016)

What people do not know, is that this election is a hidden advertise to promote the remake of Alien vs Predator.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 12, 2016)

Link to a post from a week ago that I called she had pneumonia
http://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-who...-states-president.439239/page-21#post-6660514

Am I a doctor now Lacius?

Though there is still other issues like the seizures...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 12, 2016)

Futurdreamz said:


> Probably Trump. He at least knows what he is doing and may actually have a working plan, while Clinton is nothing more than a figurehead for corruption.


Erm... what plans are you referring to?


----------



## Futurdreamz (Sep 12, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Erm... what plans are you referring to?


Not a clue. But he's smart enough to game the media like he has so he might have a plan for after.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 12, 2016)

Futurdreamz said:


> Not a clue. But he's smart enough to game the media like he has so he might have a plan for after.


Does that not worry you?


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 12, 2016)

So hilarys body double is now a thing
This is refrence to how she came out of her daughters apartment looking healthy

I'm on the fence about it, the hair color and style changed, ears and nose changed, weight differences also and I feel its like something the clinton campaign would do


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 12, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> So hilarys body double is now a thing
> This is refrence to how she came out of her daughters apartment looking healthy
> 
> I'm on the fence about it, the hair color and style changed, ears and nose changed, weight differences also and I feel its like something the clinton campaign would do


----------



## TheDonald (Sep 12, 2016)

There's no evidence the real Hillary is still alive ...


----------



## Lacius (Sep 12, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> Am I a doctor now Lacius?


One of the counterintuitive things about logic is that an unreasonable belief doesn't retroactively become reasonable at the time of the assertion just because it ended up being true. At the time that you said it, you were talking out of your ass. For all I know, however, you're the best doctor in the world who can a.) diagnose a patient without physically examining her, and b.) diagnose a patient with an illness days before she gets that illness.



Joe88 said:


> Though there is still other issues like the seizures...


Clinton has no history of seizures.



Joe88 said:


> So hilarys body double is now a thing
> This is refrence to how she came out of her daughters apartment looking healthy
> 
> I'm on the fence about it, the hair color and style changed, ears and nose changed, weight differences also and I feel its like something the clinton campaign would do


The event you're referencing involved Clinton talking to reporters, so her double would have to be an identical clone or a twin. I really shouldn't be addressing this kind of nonsense.


----------



## TheDonald (Sep 12, 2016)

different hair color, different ear rings, different nose, and 30 lbs lighter. Any questions?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 12, 2016)

TheDonald said:


> different hair color, different ear rings, different nose, and 30 lbs lighter. Any questions?


Enlighten me, please, with photographic (video, preferably) evidence of what you're claiming


----------



## TheDonald (Sep 12, 2016)

it's all over the place, you must be blind ...


----------



## Lacius (Sep 12, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Enlighten me, please, with photographic (video, preferably) evidence of what you're claiming


He's troll baiting, @TotalInsanity4. He just made his account today, and he has no intention of backing up his outlandish statements.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> He's troll baiting, @TotalInsanity4. He just made his account today, and he has no intention of backing up his outlandish statements.


I know he's trolling, but at the same time I have a hard time reading sarcasm 

I really just kind of want a legitimate response from either him or Joe88 either way


----------



## Lacius (Sep 12, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I know he's trolling, but at the same time I have a hard time reading sarcasm
> 
> I really just kind of want a legitimate response from either him or Joe88 either way


When a person's position is a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact, you're unlikely to get a legitimate response. I guess that doesn't stop either of us from asking for one though.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Sep 13, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Does that not worry you?


The Status quo is bad. Hillary would enforce the status quo and let things get slowly more shitty. 

Trump is a wildcard. and who knows? At this point a civil war may be better in the long run.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 13, 2016)

Futurdreamz said:


> The Status quo is bad. Hillary would enforce the status quo and let things get slowly more shitty.


How would Trump not enforce such quo?



Futurdreamz said:


> Trump is a wildcard. and who knows? At this point a civil war may be better in the long run.


You do know how many Americans died the last time?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 13, 2016)

Futurdreamz said:


> The Status quo is bad. Hillary would enforce the status quo and let things get slowly more shitty.
> 
> Trump is a wildcard. and who knows? At this point a civil war may be better in the long run.


The status quo is preferable to most of what Donald Trump has proposed.

And, potentially putting aside some of her foreign policy for a second, I would argue that Clinton's policy positions reflect either the good status quo or an attempt to do better than the status quo.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 13, 2016)

Lacius said:


> And, potentially putting aside some of her _foreign policy_ for a second, I would argue that Clinton's policy positions reflect either the good status quo or an attempt to do better than the status quo.


What part of her foreign policy do you not like? I am asking this as someone who disagrees very much with her's


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 13, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The status quo is preferable to most of what Donald Trump has proposed.
> 
> And, potentially putting aside some of her foreign policy for a second, I would argue that Clinton's policy positions reflect either the good status quo or an attempt to do better than the status quo.


You are a lot braver than I am. I proudly stand by you and in hoping that the US doesn't do something stupid like put Trump in office. At this point, I am still shocked by how many people actually support him and the vast majority of arguments I've seen you in seem to be just attacking your character and her character, without much in the form of political debates.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 13, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> What part of her foreign policy do you not like? I am asking this as someone who disagrees very much with her's


She's a bit more hawkish and interventionist than I am. I would go into specifics, but I wouldn't want to disappoint everyone and say anything bad about my girl Hill.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 13, 2016)

Lacius said:


> She's a bit more hawkish and interventionist than I am. I would go into specifics, but I wouldn't want to disappoint everyone and say anything bad about my girl Hill.


True enough and that is one of my reasons that I strongly disagree with her on FP. Difference is unlike you, I also disagree with her on most other issues. I am not going into them as I have already.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Sep 13, 2016)

Personally I think they are both very shitty candidates. The only difference is that with Hillary another shitty candidate in 4-8 years is pretty much guaranteed, while with Trump there's a slim chance that may change - either by his hand or people who don't want another election like this one.

That is the only reason I choose Trump. That, and the Libertarian and Green party aren't viable.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2016)

Futurdreamz said:


> Personally I think they are both very shitty candidates. The only difference is that with Hillary another shitty candidate in 4-8 years is pretty much guaranteed, while with Trump there's a slim chance that may change - either by his hand or people who don't want another election like this one.
> 
> That is the only reason I choose Trump. That, and the Libertarian and Green party aren't viable.


www.balancedrebellion.com


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 13, 2016)

So Pepe the Frog is now Pepe the White Supremacist Frog

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> So Pepe the Frog is now Pepe the White Supremacist Frog
> 
> https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/


No Meme Todd(tm)


----------



## Viri (Sep 13, 2016)

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/guccifer-2-0-dnc-docs-228091

Looks like more DNC stuff got leaked today.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2016)

This is relevant to the thread right now


Viri said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/guccifer-2-0-dnc-docs-228091
> 
> Looks like more DNC stuff got leaked today.


I find it hilarious that Trump is still trying to shrug off any responsibility of this, considering it was potentially a comment he made that spurred this off (which, might I mention, is treason?)


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 13, 2016)

Viri said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/guccifer-2-0-dnc-docs-228091
> 
> Looks like more DNC stuff got leaked today.


I am downloading the file right now!


TotalInsanity4 said:


> I find it hilarious that Trump is still trying to shrug off any responsibility of this, considering it was potentially a comment he made that spurred this off (which, might I mention, is treason?)


Keep in mind though, that GUCCIFER 2.0 has been sitting around with these and many other files for months and has intended to release them since before Trump made that statement.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 13, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Keep in mind though, that GUCCIFER 2.0 has been sitting around with these and many other files for months and has intended to release them since before Trump made that statement.


Keep in mind that this doesn't make Trump's statement any less deplorable and/or potentially treasonous.


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Keep in mind that this doesn't make Trump's statement any less deplorable and/or potentially treasonous.


This is one of the very few views of your's that I actually agree with.


----------



## Viri (Sep 14, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I am downloading the file right now!
> 
> Keep in mind though, that GUCCIFER 2.0 has been sitting around with these and many other files for months and has intended to release them since before Trump made that statement.


Blame Russia, of course!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 14, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I am downloading the file right now!
> 
> Keep in mind though, that GUCCIFER 2.0 has been sitting around with these and many other files for months and has intended to release them since before Trump made that statement.


How exactly does one get that information?

And it doesn't change the fact that it has been released post-statement


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 14, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How exactly does one get that information?


By hacking into the servers.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 14, 2016)

I think the candidate choice is a joke, perhaps it would go on a Guinness book of Record for crappiest Election year.
Rosalina has a message for y'all (perhaps cryptic).
Its a sadistic message in a form of a video.
Rosalina's message consist of several messages in this video, "you know the old saying a picture is worth a thousand words and a movie is worth a million."
She thinks this will be the outcome of the election once it is over figuratively:
If you are easily offended, please move on and don't bother clicking on the "Show" button.


Spoiler: Warning: it is offensive



Hint 1: Rosalina Portrays as Hillery or Trump, if he is even smart or devious to do this.
Hint 2: That poor guy represents the citizens.



Rosalina thinks the American are 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





ed.
She does hope she is wrong, and America can prosper.
Who knows perhaps the candidate will actually do something that benefit the American people.



So with that, hopefully the candidate you have chosen and (soon) elected, does benefit the Americans and and won't bite you in the ass later.
Perhaps the tempers will see more messages I never even thought of and could actually fit.
It be interesting to see if anyone figures it out and post their findings.


----------



## Viri (Sep 14, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> This is relevant to the thread right now



He's just so damn unfunny, could they not find someone better? I'm glad The Daily Show's ratings are dropping, Jon Stewart was way better.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 14, 2016)

Viri said:


> He's just so damn unfunny, could they not find someone better? I'm glad The Daily Show's ratings are dropping, Jon Stewart was way better.


Agreed 100%

Anyway tomorrow I will probably read into the new DNC stuff to see if anything interesting is there. There probably is atleast a few interesting things in the leaks, plus I just think it is hilarious that we are saying how Russia is doing this to destroy America rather than directly talking about how true the stuff is.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 14, 2016)

A ton of pay to play evidence, high ranking positions being sold to the highest bidder


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 14, 2016)

Felt great to see the embarrassment on Trump's face during his speech in Flint, when he was reminded his speech isn't supposed to be political (was talking trash about Hillary).


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 14, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> Felt great to see the embarrassment on Trump's face during his speech in Flint, when he was reminded his speech isn't supposed to be political (was talking trash about Hillary).


Well the other issue is he is not in Flint for the people or even for their votes. Like Detroit, he is only there to get undecided white voters who do not know for sure if he is racist.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 14, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Well the other issue is he is not in Flint for the people or even for their votes. Like Detroit, he is only there to get undecided white voters who do not know for sure if he is racist.


Exactly, he knows he needs their votes so he comes to them near the end of the election. Didn't express as much sympathy for several hate crime acts done on the African-American community before.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 14, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> Exactly, he knows he needs their votes so he comes to them near the end of the election. Didn't express as much sympathy for several hate crime acts done on the African-American community before.


Absolutely. If he really wanted to visit a place where the actual voters are unsure he would go to Georgia or North Carolina.


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 15, 2016)

A crosspost for anyone not following the other thread:


The Cringe said:


> Lacius be like...


----------



## kuwanger (Sep 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> This doesn't make any sense. X and Y are each popular enough to win. A vote for one increases the chances of that candidate winning.



If candidate X and candidate Y both get ~50 million votes each and candidate Z gets ~3 million votes, then by probability (1) your 1 vote has a greater effect on Z's chances to win 1:~3 million vs 1:~50 million for either X or Y but (2) it's obviously irrelevant unless candidate X beats candidate Y by exactly one vote (in your area).  Ie, the argument of "chances" for Z are stupid because you don't (likely) have any effect on whether X or Y wins.

Put more simply, the only important vote is the deciding one and unless there's exactly one more vote for candidate X vs candidate Y, one can't say which vote was actually the deciding one and important because effectively no votes are the deciding one*.  Conversely if candidate X does win by one vote, then all votes mattered and all votes for X were the deciding vote.

Of course, this all misses the real point which is at the level of deciding on X, Y, or Z candidate, you're at some level stating that Z is "popular" enough to hold at least some probability of winning vs all candidates being write-ins and hence all legally electable US citizens because equally capable of winning.  So arguing the point about chances and thresholds makes some sense but at the point of an election it really doesn't**.

*One could also argue that all votes pass the threshold were the deciding vote, but because all votes are equal one can just as well argue the first or the last vote were the deciding one and simultaneously not the deciding one.

**Except, of course, that polls are constantly carried out to decide who is most popular and people vote or not vote based on who is ahead in the polls.  So, polls can intentionally or innately be a self-fulfilling prophecy*** which is why this whole argument is rather invalidated on all sides.

***And yes, not an absolute one--a possible Dewey.  Yet this is precisely why most voting is a waste because polls and the whole popularity contest of it so heavily discourages voting outside the predictions (even beyond the feeling of general malaise that are career politicians).  Feeding into it doesn't really do anything to your advantage, so it's overall just stupid.  If you are going to go through the effort to actually vote, being able to say "I voted for the winner" or "my vote didn't matter because I voted for the loser" is all pretty equivalent, so why not just vote for the person you want to win regardless?  Chances in this context make as much as sense as voting on how a coin flip turns out--both results are effectively out of your control unless you're rigging an election/coin flip.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2016)

kuwanger said:


> If candidate X and candidate Y both get ~50 million votes each and candidate Z gets ~3 million votes, then by probability (1) your 1 vote has a greater effect on Z's chances to win 1:~3 million vs 1:~50 million for either X or Y but (2) it's obviously irrelevant unless candidate X beats candidate Y by exactly one vote (in your area).  Ie, the argument of "chances" for Z are stupid because you don't (likely) have any effect on whether X or Y wins.


You made several mistakes in your math, primarily your claim that a vote for Z has a greater effect on Z's chances of winning than a vote for X or Y would on X or Y's chances of winning respectively. To use results of the 2012 election in Missouri as an example, Romney won with 1,482,440 votes against Obama's 1,223,796 votes; that's a difference of 258,644 votes. Johnson got 43,151 votes, which means the difference between him and the winner is 1,439,289 votes. In other words, a Missouri voter was much more likely to sway the election by voting for Romney or Obama than by voting for Johnson; in addition, a Missouri voter was able to more significantly increase the chances of a candidate winning by voting for Obama or Romney than by voting for Johnson. You made the pivotal mistake of focusing on the total votes for each of the two-party candidates rather than the voting difference between them. 1/258,644 is more significant than 1/1,439,289.

To put it yet another way, the likelihood that an individual voter will determine the Electoral College winner is very much dependent upon the state one lives in and who is already likely to win in that state. That's why a state's voter power index is relative. Variables such as one's state and voting for a third-party candidate can cause a voter power index to drop drastically.

Oh, and with regard to your point about how the election isn't going to come down to the difference of exactly one vote, that's irrelevant. First, it could come down to one vote. Second, you're not the only one making this exact kind of decision; your vote doesn't exist in a vacuum. Third, we're talking about increasing and decreasing the *odds* of a particular candidate winning.


----------



## kuwanger (Sep 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You made the pivotal mistake of focusing on the total votes for each of the two-party candidates rather than the voting difference between them. 1/258,644 is more significant than 1/1,439,289.



Granted.  I was thinking of the significance of the vote, not the chances of winning.  Because "chance" isn't really involved.



> To put it yet another way, the likelihood that an individual voter will determine the Electoral College winner is very much dependent upon the state one lives in and who is already likely to win in that state. That's why a state's voter power index is relative. Variables such as one's state and voting for a third-party candidate can cause a voter power index to drop drastically.



Oooh.  "Voter power index".  Obviously, the more candidates that are voted for, the lower the difference between votes between candidates the higher the importance of each vote.



> Oh, and with regard to your point about how the election isn't going to come down to the difference of exactly one vote, that's irrelevant. First, it could come down to one vote.



So irrelevant you feel the need to point it that it COULD could down to one vote.  Yep, very irrelevant.



> Second, you're not the only one making this exact kind of decision; your vote doesn't exist in a vacuum.



Actually, it does.  Now, you persuading others to vote a certain way or not, that actually doesn't exist in a vacuum.  The soap box and persuading the populating to vote a certain way is precisely how candidates get elected.  It's the forest, not the trees, that make the environment.



> Third, we're talking about increasing and decreasing the *odds* of a particular candidate winning.



A coin flips.  It lands on heads.  Vote all you want, you're not changing things.  Up until the coin is flipped, you have a chance to persuade things.  And the breathe of a thousand people can change how the coin lands.  But your voice alone in a vacuum is useless.  That's precisely WHY you keep talking here and not in a vacuum.  It's why your vote doesn't matter but the votes of everyone does.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2016)

kuwanger said:


> Granted.  I was thinking of the significance of the vote, not the chances of winning.  Because "chance" isn't really involved.


Do you know what _significance of the vote_ means? A vote's significance is determined purely on how it changes the odds of an election result.



kuwanger said:


> So irrelevant you feel the need to point it that it COULD could down to one vote.  Yep, very irrelevant.


Can you read? I said your point about it not not mattering unless it comes down to one vote is irrelevant in part because it could come down to one vote. 



kuwanger said:


> Actually, it does.  Now, you persuading others to vote a certain way or not, that actually doesn't exist in a vacuum.  The soap box and persuading the populating to vote a certain way is precisely how candidates get elected.  It's the forest, not the trees, that make the environment.


I'm not referring to your persuasion of others. I'm referring to other people independently making similar decisions and casting their own individual votes. You wouldn't be the only one, for example, to vote for Clinton instead of Johnson because of the above points.



kuwanger said:


> A coin flips.  It lands on heads.  Vote all you want, you're not changing things.  Up until the coin is flipped, you have a chance to persuade things.  And the breathe of a thousand people can change how the coin lands.  But your voice alone in a vacuum is useless.  That's precisely WHY you keep talking here and not in a vacuum.  *It's why your vote doesn't matter but the votes of everyone does.*


I'll let the contradiction of the bolded part sink in for a minute.

All votes matter, and they all alter the odds of how an election will turn out, because no one knows for sure what the outcome is going to be until after it's all said and done with. However, the significance of each vote does vary depending on whom one is voting for, where one lives, etc.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> All votes matter, and they all alter the odds of how an election will turn out, because no one knows for sure what the outcome is going to be until after it's all said and done with. However, the significance of each vote does vary depending on whom one is voting for, where one lives, etc.



The issue is as you stated the value of each vote varies greatly depending on circumstances. In all actuality for the vast majority of the country there vote is not of much value to either of the two candidates. Period. When you have a situation like that then we have to step back and realize that in all actuality that it really will not matter as statistically it will not change the outcome. At least if we use your definition. Sure it might make it closer (Trump loses by 18 instead of 20 in Cali) but since the EC is basically block voting, it has no effect on if you vote Clinton (an excess vote) or Trump (who had no realistic shot). Plus since that is true the effect of voting for either of the two has no real world affect because of the block voting EC on you specifically. In some sense this is even more true with the Democrats having an EC advantage in that the Blue states hold more worth then the Red.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The issue is as you stated the value of each vote varies greatly depending on circumstances. In all actuality for the vast majority of the country there vote is not of much value to either of the two candidates. Period. When you have a situation like that then we have to step back and realize that in all actuality that it really will not matter as statistically it will not change the outcome. At least if we use your definition. Sure it might make it closer (Trump loses by 18 instead of 20 in Cali) but since the EC is basically block voting, it has no effect on if you vote Clinton (an excess vote) or Trump (who had no realistic shot). Plus since that is true the effect of voting for either of the two has no real world affect because of the block voting EC on you specifically. In some sense this is even more true with the Democrats having an EC advantage in that the Blue states hold more worth then the Red.


A vote for Trump in California is still many times more valuable than a vote for Johnson anywhere, assuming we're not talking about potential next-election funding.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A vote for Trump in California is still many times more valuable than a vote for Johnson anywhere, assuming we're not talking about potential next-election funding.


a thousand times zero is still zero.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> a thousand times zero is still zero.


It's non-zero.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's non-zero.


And yet at the same time, it is zero.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A vote for Trump in California is still many times more valuable than a vote for Johnson anywhere, assuming we're not talking about potential next-election funding.


Ok let's throw funding out of this and also let's assume I am a Californian who is undecided but will either vote Trump, Stein , or Johnson.

1. None of the 3 have a shot of winning.
2. A vote for any of the 3 will be a vote for someone who can not win my states EC votes
3. My vote is only for my state. It is not national and can not be used for any of the 3 anywhere else 


Tell me in this why Trump is best to vote for


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 24, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Ok let's throw funding out of this and also let's assume I am a Californian who is undecided but will either vote Trump, Stein , or Johnson.
> 
> 1. None of the 3 have a shot of winning.
> 2. A vote for any of the 3 will be a vote for someone who can not win my states EC votes
> ...


because probability states he has a 0.000000003% chance of winning while Johnson only has a 0.0000000001% chance of winning.  IT MATTERS!


----------



## Jao Chu (Sep 24, 2016)

I don't live in the US, so it doesn't really concern me, but i hate progressive policies, i hate political correctness and I am critical of Islam. So naturally i would vote for the God Emperor.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> And yet at the same time, it is zero.


No, it's not.



RevPokemon said:


> 1. None of the 3 have a shot of winning.


You're right that it is highly unlikely that any one of those three candidates is going to win California. However, the odds aren't 0%, and a vote for Trump is still many times more potentially influential than a vote for Johnson in the same state.



RevPokemon said:


> 2. A vote for any of the 3 will be a vote for someone who can not win my states EC votes


_Unlikely_ isn't the same thing as _cannot_. See above.



RevPokemon said:


> 3. My vote is only for my state. It is not national and can not be used for any of the 3 anywhere else


See above.



grossaffe said:


> because probability states he has a 0.000000003% chance of winning while Johnson only has a 0.0000000001% chance of winning.  IT MATTERS!


According to FiveThirtyEight's polls-only forecast, Trump has a 0.6% chance of winning California, not 0.000000003%. The odds of a Trump win in California is overwhelmingly more likely than a Johnson win. If one would rather Trump win over Clinton, then a vote for Trump is the sound thing to do because it increases the odds of a Trump victory, and the election is a binary choice between those two candidates. In other words, increasing the odds of a Johnson win in California is a lot less meaningful than increasing the much more likely odds (relative to Johnson) of a Trump win in California.

When it comes to states that are very likely going red or blue, I can understand voting third-party. It is very unlikely that one's vote is going to make a difference. I'm not saying, "Don't do it." I am arguing, however, that what was said above about a vote for Johnson being more substantial than a vote for Trump in California, for example, is complete nonsense.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 25, 2016)

The probability of Trump winning is approximately 0.  The probability of Johnson winning is approximately 0.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> The probability of Trump winning is approximately 0.  The probability of Johnson winning is approximately 0.


If you read above, you will see that, rounding up, Trump's probability of winning California is approximately 1%, not 0%. I suggest you read my posts before responding to them. Even if it were approximately 0%, that's not 0%, and it's still irrelevant to what I said.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If you read above, you will see that, rounding up, Trump's probability of winning California is approximately 1%, not 0%. I suggest you read my posts before responding to them. Even if it were approximately 0%, that's not 0%, and it's still irrelevant to what I said.


A one percent chance (which I find dubious at best) is approximately zero.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> A one percent chance (which I find dubious at best) is approximately zero.


You need to learn what _zero_ means. Read my post.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You need to learn what _zero_ means. Read my post.


I did read your post.  It shed no illumination on the topic that was not otherwise present.  Since you're so big on the probabilities here, why don't you walk us through the probabilistic factors that could lead to a Trump victory?

is there perhaps a 0.6% chance a comet collides with California and it manages to kill all of the Democrats while leaving the Republicans unscathed?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> I did read your post.  It shed no illumination on the topic that was not otherwise present.


Then you're being stubborn and refusing to see my point.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Then you're being stubborn and refusing to see my point.


Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> When it comes to states that are very likely going red or blue, I can understand voting third-party. It is very unlikely that one's vote is going to make a difference.


Ok I get your points so now I must ask what is close in terms of polling in your mind?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Pot, meet kettle.


All I am arguing is that a vote for Trump in a state like California is many times more substantive than a vote for Johnson with regard to who wins the state. Are you telling me this isn't true? Trump has a near 1% chance of winning vs. Johnson's near 0% chance of winning, and 1 vote in making up a 20-point difference is certainly more substantive than 1 vote trying to make up a 48.7-point difference.

I already acknowledged that it is highly unlikely that anyone other than Clinton is going to win the state, and I said that I understand someone voting for Johnson in the state while still acknowledging the facts above. This ruse that you're at all interested in having a substantive conversation and/or reading my posts is over.



RevPokemon said:


> Ok I get your points so now I must ask what is close in terms of polling in your mind?


At this stage of the election, September 24, I'm not looking at any states where the candidates aren't at least within 4-5 points of each other in the aggregate polling as _close_. That's my own subjective view of the state of the race, and the debate Monday could throw things into chaos one way or the other.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> All I am arguing is that a vote for Trump in a state like California is many times more substantive than a vote for Johnson with regard to who wins the state. Are you telling me this isn't true? Trump has a near 1% chance of winning vs. Johnson's near 0% chance of winning, and 1 vote in making up a 20-point difference is certainly more substantive than 1 vote trying to make up a 48.7-point difference.
> 
> I already acknowledged that it is highly unlikely that anyone other than Clinton is going to win the state, and I said that I understand someone voting for Johnson in the state while still acknowledging the facts above. This ruse that you're at all interested in having a substantive conversation and/or reading my posts is over.
> 
> ...


They are both near zero.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> They are both near zero.


Had you read my posts, you would have seen that I don't care, and it's irrelevant to my points.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Had you read my posts, you would have seen that I don't care, and it's irrelevant to my points.


I have read your posts and seen that you clearly care and it is relevant.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> I have read your posts and seen that you clearly care and it is relevant.


I think I'm the arbiter of whether or not I care about something, so forgive me if I cannot take you seriously.

@RevPokemon
With regard to whether or not I think one should be compelled to vote for one of the two-parties instead of a third-party, I think if there's a difference of 10 points or less between the two major candidates, that's enough to be compelled to vote for Trump or Hillary as the smart thing to do if one cares who wins between the two. Personally, I would always vote for one of the two major party candidates if I had a preference for one of them over the other, even in a solid blue or red state.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I think I'm the arbiter of whether or not I care about something, so forgive me if I cannot take you seriously.
> 
> @RevPokemon
> With regard to whether or not I think one should be compelled to vote for one of the two-parties instead of a third-party, I think if there's a difference of 10 points or less between the two major candidates, I think that's enough to be compelled to vote for Trump or Hillary as the smart thing to do if one cares who wins between the two. Personally, I would always vote for one of the two major party candidates if I had a preference for one of them over the other, even in a solid blue or red state.


10%? That seems a bit on the high side personally if it is during November. I personally would say it is MOE(maybe plus 1 or 2%)

But hey subjectively I feel 5 aggregate with a decent MOE is pretty solid come November.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> 10%? That seems a bit on the high side personally if it is during November. I personally would say it is MOE(maybe plus 1 or 2%)
> 
> But hey subjectively I feel 5 aggregate with a decent MOE is pretty solid come November.


I think 0-5% is close at this stage, and 5-10% is close-ish. Keep in mind that when we talk about a candidate being ahead by 5% in the polls, that translates to roughly a 25% chance of victory, which is pretty significant.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 25, 2016)

I see the feeling of frustration and subsequent tantrums (AKA butthurt) is strong in this thread... but why? Did something actually happen?


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I think I'm the arbiter of whether or not I care about something, so forgive me if I cannot take you seriously.


I won't be offended if you do not take me seriously.  I certainly don't take you seriously.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I think 0-5% is close at this stage, and 5-10% is close-ish. Keep in mind that when we talk about a candidate being ahead by 5% in the polls, that translates to roughly a 25% chance of victory, which is pretty significant.


At this stage? I am speaking during November for the polls. Plus the electoral college has to be considered in terms of how it is. I think come November it will be clearer.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> At this stage? I am speaking during November for the polls. Plus the electoral college has to be considered in terms of how it is. I think come November it will be clearer.


Oh, I agree that if we're talking about a difference of 5 percentage points in the polls in November, it's probably not that close. I would still argue that it's close enough to not vote third-party, however.

In other news, the first presidential debate of the general election is tomorrow, and people are predicting an audience of around 80 million people. We're just a little over six weeks away from the election, and Clinton is currently ahead of Trump in the national polls by a mere 1.8 percentage points. If the election were held today, she would likely win narrowly with around 272 electoral votes. In other words, this debate is going to be make or break for both candidates. Predictions?


----------



## Viri (Sep 25, 2016)

Debate is tomorrow, get hyped!


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Predictions?


Lots of protesting and demonstrations for open debates, which 76% of the American people support (myself included).


> Hundreds of supporters of *Dr. Jill Stein* will be attending the venue of the first presidential debate at Hofstra. They will seek to escort Stein to the debate venue. If she is prevented from participating in the debate, supporters will hold a "People's Debate" outside of the Hofstra venue. Some have pledged to engage in dignified non-violent civil disobedience as a way to protest the Commission on Presidential Debates.
> 
> During the televised debate, voters will be able to see Stein participate in real time using an unprecedented and innovative social media experience presented in partnership with *Twitter on Periscope*. (http://twitter.com/drjillstein) She will also be livestreaming her responses via Facebook Live on her Facebook page (http://facebook.com/drjillstein). This online initiative will ensure that Stein reaches the largest audience reached by a third party candidate since Ross Perot was included in the debates in 1992. In effect, Jill Stein will use new media and technology to literally "insert" herself into the debate process.
> 
> ...


http://www.jill2016.com/hofstra_debate


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Oh, I agree that if we're talking about a difference of 5 percentage points in the polls in November, it's probably not that close. I would still argue that it's close enough to not vote third-party, however.


OK then. Disagree but hey oh well.




Lacius said:


> In other news, the first presidential debate of the general election is tomorrow, and people are predicting an audience of around 80 million people. We're just a little over six weeks away from the election, and Clinton is currently ahead of Trump in the national polls by a mere 1.8 percentage points. If the election were held today, she would likely win narrowly with around 272 electoral votes.


Really? Where did you get those numbers as for the 272 EC votes? For what it is worth with regard to the EC votes Clinton has an easier time to gain them then Trump does. But oh well.



Lacius said:


> In other words, this debate is going to be make or break for both candidates. Predictions?



It is hard to predict BUT I think the big question is how Trump will do 1v1? In the GOP debates it was very much Trump as the star with others getting much less attention unlike where Clinton will get a large amount of it as well. He might struggle with this format which could help Clinton, but he could very easily win if Clinton is stupid enough to go to his level.

Second is of course is whether the winner is the one who did best the whole time or for a short period? During the GOP debates Trump was clearly not the best at debating compared to Cruz or Rubio but Trump had plenty of good short moments or missteps by the others that ultimately helped him (New York Values anyone?). I could easily see that happening to Clinton if she comes across as arrogant or as an asshole. 

Ultimately I could see either side as the winner with this in mind. For myself and other Johnson supporters we are probably going to start some stuff on twitter to try to get attention for the cause but I would be lying if I said that I won't find the debate interesting myself.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Lots of protesting and demonstrations for open debates, which 76% of the American people support (myself included).


Regardless of whether or not we think Stein and Johnson should be in the debate, the rules to get in were clear. To ignore the rules and arbitrarily let some candidates who didn't meet the criteria into the debate is to play favorites. It would be ridiculous. It would also be silly to let a candidate into the debate because his or her butthurt supporters were kicking and screaming loudly enough.



RevPokemon said:


> Really? Where did you get those numbers as for the 272 EC votes? For what it is worth with regard to the EC votes Clinton has an easier time to gain them then Trump does. But oh well.


If you look at the aggregate poll numbers, Clinton is losing in Nevada, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Iowa. If we put those states into Trump's corner with the solid red states, the remaining states where Clinton is ahead totals 272 electoral votes.


Spoiler











Obviously, this is just a snapshot of the state of the race currently. Things can change wildly one way or the other, particularly after the debate.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Regardless of whether or not we think Stein and Johnson should be in the debate, the rules to get in were clear. To ignore the rules and arbitrarily let some candidates who didn't meet the criteria into the debate is to play favorites. It would be ridiculous. It would also be silly to let a candidate into the debate because his or her butthurt supporters were kicking and screaming loud enough.


I have supported this cause very much and have done what I can to help it. But one aspect is not to get Johnson or Stein in but to protest and discuss the flaws with the rules and the system so that in the future they could get in.



Lacius said:


> If you look at the aggregate poll numbers, Clinton is losing in Nevada, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Iowa. If we put those states into Trump's corner with the solid red states, the remaining states where Clinton is ahead totals 272 electoral votes.


Interesting. Well it looks like then Clinton has a pretty solid path since those are all big states and Trump would have to win in a left tilted state.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I have supported this cause very much and have done what I can to help it. But one aspect is not to get Johnson or Stein in but to protest and discuss the flaws with the rules and the system so that in the future they could get in.


I can sympathize with this in principle, but the part about trying to be escorted into the debate implies of a level of entitlement that Stein certainly does not have, and it's embarrassing. See above about how debate rules can't be bent without arbitrarily playing favorites. I'm perfectly fine with a discussion on whether the 15% criteria is fair for the next election.



RevPokemon said:


> Interesting. Well it looks like then Clinton has a pretty solid path since those are all big states and Trump would have to win in a left tilted state.


Yes, I would much rather be Clinton right now than Trump. If the election were held today, the tipping point state (i.e. the state with the narrowest margin that gives the victor the 270th electoral vote and effectively decides the election) would likely be Colorado, and Clinton is ahead there by 2.1%, even during this time after her weekend of hell when she's polling at her worst. However, that's still a little too close for comfort. If Trump gains ground in Colorado, he wins the electoral college.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I can sympathize with this in principle, but the part about trying to be escorted into the debate implies of a level of entitlement that Stein certainly does not have. I'm perfectly fine with a discussion on whether the 15% criteria is fair for the next election.


Agreed. Hopefully this will come to changes on the CPD rules which in the future will help change the political landscape.



Lacius said:


> Yes, I would much rather be Clinton right now than Trump. If the election were held today, the tipping point state (i.e. the state with the narrowest margin that gives the victor the 270th electoral vote and effectively decides the election) would likely be Colorado, and Clinton is ahead there by 2.1% even during this time after her weekend of hell when she's polling at her worst. However, that's still a little too close for comfort. If Trump gains ground in Colorado, he wins the electoral college.


For what it is worth it still helps Clinton in that alot more has to go wrong for her then it does for trump to lose. Looking at those states the only ones currently Blue that I could see go red are New Hampshire and Colorado although Colorado matters more. Well Clinton could lose Florida, NC, Ohio, Iowa, NH, and Nevada and still win. Wow. Now there are also a bit of red states that could go blue. I mean NC is relatively close so that could happen. As could Nevada which is very likely. Arizona is very red but if you had a high Hispanic showing then she could win although it would be hard. Georgia is the same as if white centrist and ROC republicans (the poster of Never Trumpers) stay home and black turnout is high then that is a shot. Regardless Clinton has an easier path to that 270 since everything would have to go wrong while everything would have to go right for Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> For what it is worth it still helps Clinton in that alot more has to go wrong for her then it does for trump to lose. Looking at those states the only ones currently Blue that I could see go red are New Hampshire and Colorado although Colorado matters more. Well Clinton could lose Florida, NC, Ohio, Iowa, NH, and Nevada and still win. Wow. Now there are also a bit of red states that could go blue. I mean NC is relatively close so that could happen. As could Nevada which is very likely. Arizona is very red but if you had a high Hispanic showing then she could win although it would be hard. Georgia is the same as if white centrist and ROC republicans (the poster of Never Trumpers) stay home and black turnout is high then that is a shot. Regardless Clinton has an easier path to that 270 since everything would have to go wrong while everything would have to go right for Trump.


Right. Clinton has a higher chance of taking Nevada, Iowa, Florida, or North Carolina (especially Nevada) than Trump does of taking Colorado.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Right. Clinton has a higher chance of taking Nevada, Iowa, Florida, or North Carolina (especially Nevada) than Trump does of taking Colorado.


Plus if this map was true then the only one I could see Trump winning is New Hampshire or Maine but to win either one of those and then win all of the others would be very hard which is why Clinton has such an easier time. Hell we could have Trump  win the popular vote  yet lose the EC which I think is semi reasonable.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Plus if this map was true then the only one I could see Trump winning is New Hampshire or Maine but to win either one of those and then win all of the others would be very hard which is why Clinton has such an easier time.


Trump appears much more likely to take Colorado or New Hampshire before taking Maine. In other words, if Trump wins Maine, another state probably put him over the top before that.



RevPokemon said:


> Hell we could have Trump  win the popular vote  yet lose the EC which I think is semi reasonable.


It's more likely that Clinton will win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. She has consistently been ahead in national polls, but the gerrymandering that is individual states could put Trump over the top in the Electoral College without the popular vote shifting too much.

According to FiveThirtyEight, there is a 1.8% chance that Trump wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, but there's a 7.7% chance that Clinton wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Trump appears much more likely to take Colorado or New Hampshire before taking Maine. In other words, if Trump wins Maine, another state probably put him over the top before that.


True enough as Maine is left of NH politically.



Lacius said:


> It's more likely that Clinton will win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. She has consistently been ahead in national polls, but the gerrymandering that is individual states could put Trump over the top in the Electoral College without the popular vote shifting too much.
> 
> According to FiveThirtyEight, there is a 1.8% chance that Trump wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, but there's a 7.7% chance that Clinton wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College.


Well with many of the large blue states that does seem reasonable but I still think regardless the way the EC is in that it is harder for a Republican to win is what I was thinking.
The real question as to what is more likely, excess blue votes in red states or red votes in blue states? Retrospectively it is easier for the democrats to have this happen as most Red states have very Left areas like San Antonio, New Orleans, and Atlanta where a large some of people vote while you do not really have it the other way around.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Well with many of the large blue states that does seem reasonable but I still think regardless the way the EC is in that it is harder for a Republican to win is what I was thinking.
> The real question as to what is more likely, excess blue votes in red states or red votes in blue states? Retrospectively it is easier for the democrats to have this happen as most Red states have very Left areas like San Antonio, New Orleans, and Atlanta where a large some of people vote while you do not really have it the other way around.


I trust FiveThirtyEight's math on which is more likely. Regardless, both are reasonably possible.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I trust FiveThirtyEight's math on which is more likely. Regardless, both are reasonably possible.


Well back to the debate. I gave my opinion out what could happen so what do you personally predict?

Edit: also thoughts on the fact checking durring debates?


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 26, 2016)

And if the poll were held today, trump would win
In any case the debate is less than 6 hours away now.

Another thought, I live in NY which is a pretty heavy blue state, I have not seen one Clinton campaign sign (lawn, fence, windows etc...) and I'm seeing a ton of trump signs, is the campaign not bothering with signs? Other people living in different area's reported the same.
One supporter going as far as to erect a 16ft "T" trump sign on his lawn in the same borough were I live 


Spoiler


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> also thoughts on the fact checking durring debates?


I predict that Clinton generally does well, and I predict that Trump does somewhere between well and bad (I have no idea what he's going to be like). Regardless of which happens though, I predict Clinton moves up in the polls +3%.



Joe88 said:


> And if the poll were held today, trump would win


While the race has tightened considerably, Clinton is still ahead both in the Electoral College (Clinton would likely get 272 Electoral College votes today) and nationally (+1.4%).


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> While the race has tightened considerably, Clinton is still ahead both in the Electoral College (Clinton would likely get 272 Electoral College votes today) and nationally (+1.4%).


Plus as we discussed the 272 is worst case scenario for Clinton and best case for Trump when it is likely to be different


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> While the race has tightened considerably, Clinton is still ahead both in the Electoral College (Clinton would likely get 272 Electoral College votes today) and nationally (+1.4%).


How in the world is trump considered a contender? Do people hate Hillary that much? I mean i certainly don't like many of her positions and i certainly don't believe a word she says, but that's normal for a politician. How is Trump in any way an alternative?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> How in the world is trump considered a contender? Do people hate Hillary that much? I mean i certainly don't like many of her positions and i certainly don't believe a word she says, but that's normal for a politician. How is Trump in any way an alternative?


Half of this country is stupid, and half of those are bigoted deplorables.



RevPokemon said:


> Plus as we discussed the 272 is worst case scenario for Clinton and best case for Trump when it is likely to be different


Clinton could realistically lose the Electoral College. Don't think 272 is a worst case scenario. It's just more likely than not that she will hold on to at least 272.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 26, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> How in the world is trump considered a contender? Do people hate Hillary that much? I mean i certainly don't like many of her positions and i certainly don't believe a word she says, but that's normal for a politician. How is Trump in any way an alternative?


Consider every year 40%-50% more or less support the GOP and since Trump has the nod then it makes sense as people vote for Parties not people but either way if you do vote Republican and only vote BIG 2 then it is pretty true that Clinton is worse if you hold Republican views.



Lacius said:


> Clinton could realistically lose the Electoral College. Don't think 272 is a worst case scenario. It's just more likely than not that she will hold on to at least 272.


Well that 272 is still pretty bad generally speaking as it assumes that Trump does very well in the battle ground states, so much so that he wins most of the big ones (Florida, Nevade, and NC). Regardless due to the EC the Democrats have an easier way to win.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Regardless due to the EC the Democrats have an easier way to win.


I sure hope you're right.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 26, 2016)

Worldwide presidential poll by country https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> Worldwide presidential poll by country https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results


There are numerous problems with this poll. You can't have a meaningful poll where people self-select, for starters.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I sure hope you're right.


For perspective in 2012,  Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada,New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin were all considered the Swing states which Obama won all but NC. Well first lets get rid of Wisconsin as it really is not a historic swing since it leans left and Romney had Ryan who is from the area. As for the rest that 272 EC victory for Hillary has her losing all of the remainder except NH,Va, and Colorado plus the swing states that she lost are worth more votes so regardless she will have lost the swing states but have won the presidency. Ultimately in the current situation you can win the presidency without a Red state but you need at-least a few blue leaning states.


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 26, 2016)

On Twitter today, Jill linked to a good, easy to comprehend documentation on how the debates became the useless, deceptive, and undemocratic events that we see today, and I think that it is worth a read for everyone (especially Lacius, since it is (hopefully) well-made and complete enough for even him to understand it).

http://www.startribune.com/the-secret-history-of-the-commission-on-presidential-debates/394140131/


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> for even him to understand it


Don't be petty.



I pwned U! said:


> On Twitter today, Jill linked to a good, easy to comprehend documentation on how the debates became the useless, deceptive, and undemocratic events that we see today, and I think that it is worth a read for everyone (especially Lacius, since it is (hopefully) well-made and complete enough for even him to understand it).
> 
> http://www.startribune.com/the-secret-history-of-the-commission-on-presidential-debates/394140131/


If you want third-party candidates to share the stage with major-party candidates, then they need to be more popular. That's regardless of whether or not it's by reaching the arbitrary 15% criteria, having enough leverage to force a more inclusive debate, etc. Feel free to blame the arbitrary rules excluding them, but don't pretend the unpopularity of the third-party candidates isn't half the problem. We also need to have some sort of requirement to get into the debate. I don't want Hillary Clinton sharing a stage with Princess Khadijah Jacob-Fambro.

Let the record show that I never argued that it was a good idea to exclude Stein and/or Johnson from the debate. However, I do believe we need to have consistent requirements to get into a debate long before the debates occur, regardless of what those requirements are, and they should not be changed arbitrarily after the fact.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We also need to have some sort of requirement to get into the debate. I don't want Hillary Clinton sharing a stage with Princess Khadijah Jacob-Fambro.


Well then what do you think would be fair requirements?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Well then what do you think would be fair requirements?


I can't think of anything that isn't arbitrary other than access to 270 electoral votes, and I don't think that alone is sufficient. So in short, I don't know.

While in principle I believe third-party candidates should be able to participate in the debates in order to have a fair shot, given the current state of the race and the near impossibility of a third-party victory this year, with or without debate access, I am perfectly fine with tonight's two-person debate in practice since only one of these two candidates can win.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Well then what do you think would be fair requirements?


The way our voting is set-up (first past the post), the only thing that more debaters would do would be to potentially push the conversation. I think with that in mind, finding a way to quantify someone's merit to be on stage is difficult. That's partly why we have parties, so they can internally select the one person they think qualifies under their ideals. It's just we have a two-party system with the token ability to have more.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> The way our voting is set-up (first past the post), the only thing that more debaters would do would be to potentially push the conversation. I think with that in mind, finding a way to quantify someone's merit to be on stage is difficult. That's partly why we have parties, so they can internally select the one person they think qualifies under their ideals. It's just we have a two-party system with the token ability to have more.


Should we have a debate stage with 30 general election candidates? That seems a little unnecessary, particularly when only two of them have a chance. We need some sort of restriction.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 26, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> The way our voting is set-up (first past the post), the only thing that more debaters would do would be to potentially push the conversation. I think with that in mind, finding a way to quantify someone's merit to be on stage is difficult. That's partly why we have parties, so they can internally select the one person they think qualifies under their ideals. It's just we have a two-party system with the token ability to have more.


Well for what it is worth then I would add that there are multiple countries that FPTP voting and strong multi parties like India, UK, Canada and so on .



Lacius said:


> Should we have a debate stage with 30 general election candidates? That seems a little unnecessary, particularly when only two of them have a chance. We need some sort of restriction.


Depends on the criteria. I mean we currently have 3 main 3rd parties and they have that 270 potential. But my criteria would be only to get 5% in polling since to get 5% is to be a major party. Edit: Plus it would open the door for a 3rd party to win the presidency.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 26, 2016)

Maybe we should have a debate stage with everyone who's on the ballet in all 50 states.


----------



## TiM127 (Sep 26, 2016)

Drew That Gamer said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I just wanted to know GBATemp's opinion on the candidates for the United States president!
> 
> ...


No one. I'd rather evacuate the country


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Depends on the criteria. I mean we currently have 3 main 3rd parties and they have that 270 potential.


Plus Evan McMullin.



RevPokemon said:


> But my criteria would be only to get 5% in polling since to get 5% is to be a major party.


5% is still arbitrary. In addition, in a four-way or five-way race, both Johnson and Stein polled below the 5% threshold and wouldn't have been allowed to debate in 2012 by your rules.



RevPokemon said:


> Plus it would open the door for a 3rd party to win the presidency.


If we're talking about 2016, it wouldn't.



grossaffe said:


> Maybe we should have a debate stage with everyone who's on the ballet in all 50 states.


That's arbitrary as well and would exclude everyone but Johnson, Clinton, and Trump.

Edit: In other words, you're clearly picking criteria that specifically favors your candidate.



TiM127 said:


> No one. I'd rather evacuate the country


I hope that's hyperbole.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Plus Evan McMullin.


I was speaking of the Political parties that constantly have access to the 270. 



Lacius said:


> 5% is still arbitrary. In addition, in a four-way or five-way race, both Johnson and Stein polled below the 5% threshold and wouldn't have been allowed to debate in 2012 by your rules.


Yes I do know that. 



Lacius said:


> If we're talking about 2016, it wouldn't.


If it was opened then the max I could see is Johnson at the high teens but I am speaking for the future. Opening the debates to allow third parties would make it easier for in the future for a 3rd party president.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Edit: In other words, you're clearly picking criteria that specifically favors your candidate.


In other words, my criteria is that everyone on the national stage is an option on the ballot nationally.  Oh, how self-serving of me!  And I'm sure every election from now on, "my" candidate will be on all 50 ballots and will be the only third party candidate capable of doing so for arbitrary reasons.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I was speaking of the Political parties that constantly have access to the 270.


The Constitution Party doesn't consistently have ballot access to 270+ electoral votes.



RevPokemon said:


> If it was opened then the max I could see is Johnson at the high teens but I am speaking for the future. Opening the debates to allow third parties would make it easier for in the future for a 3rd party president.


Yes.



grossaffe said:


> In other words, my criteria is that everyone on the national stage is an option on the ballot nationally.  Oh, how self-serving of me!  And I'm sure every election from now on, "my" candidate will be on all 50 ballots and will be the only third party candidate capable of doing so for arbitrary reasons.


Still arbitrary and exclusionary.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Still arbitrary and exclusionary.


How is being on the ballot arbitrary?  It's about as objective of a criterion as you can get.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> How is being on the ballot arbitrary?  It's about as objective of a criterion as you can get.


Being on the ballot in 50 states vs. 49 has no practical bearing on his or her chances of winning the presidency, how popular he or she is, nor how much of a national candidate he or she is. It is indeed an arbitrary qualification.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The Constitution Party doesn't consistently have ballot access to 270+ electoral votes.


If you count write in access.



Lacius said:


> Being on the ballot in 50 states vs. 49 has no practical bearing on his or her chances of winning the presidency nor how much of a national candidate he or she is. It is indeed an arbitrary qualification.


To some point we could argue that in some sense it becomes a cycle in that they never will have a shot of winning if not allowed on stage. Ultimately the system is flawed.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Being on the ballot in 50 states vs. 49 has no practical bearing on his or her chances of winning the presidency, how popular he or she is, nor how much of a national candidate he or she is. It is indeed an arbitrary qualification.


50 is not arbitrary.  It asks the question "Are you on the ballot for everyone?".  1 is not arbitrary.  It asks the question "Are you on the ballot at all?".  2-49 are arbitrary.  They ask the question "Are you on the ballot in the enough* places?"
*arbitrary criterion


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> To some point we could argue that in some sense it becomes a cycle in that they never will have a shot of winning if not allowed on stage. Ultimately the system is flawed.


Without some sort of preferential voting system, it's always going to be flawed. In addition, whether it's debate qualifications or funding, it's a chicken-or-the-egg situation: A candidate needs to be popular to get in a debate, but the candidate needs to debate to get popular.



grossaffe said:


> 50 is not arbitrary.  It asks the question "Are you on the ballot for everyone?".  1 is not arbitrary.  It asks the question "Are you on the ballot at all?".  2-49 are arbitrary.  They ask the question "Are you on the ballot in the enough* places?"
> *arbitrary criterion


As a qualifying question at all, ballot access in how many states is still arbitrary.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> As a qualifying question at all, ballot access in how many states is still arbitrary.


You're arbitrary.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> You're arbitrary.


Good one.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Good one.


"Good" is an arbitrary measure.  Find something more objective.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> "Good" is an arbitrary measure.  Find something more objective.


"Conducive to making me laugh" one.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> "Conducive to making me laugh" one.


Why that and not conducive to making you smile?  Yet another arbitrary measure.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Without some sort of preferential voting system, it's always going to be flawed


Well as I stated 3rd parties have done fairly well in areas that use FPTP voting so it could happen.



Lacius said:


> In addition, whether it's debate qualifications or funding, it's a chicken-or-the-egg situation: A candidate needs to be popular to get in a debate, but the candidate needs to debate to get popular.


Touche


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Why that and not conducive to making you smile?  Yet another arbitrary measure.


Whether or not something caused me to laugh is objective, not arbitrary.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not something caused me to laugh is objective, not arbitrary.


However it is not objective as a criterion for "good".


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> However it is not objective as a criterion for "good".


Of course it isn't.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Of course it isn't.


Therefore it is arbitrary and thus must be thrown out.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Therefore it is arbitrary and thus must be thrown out.


I hope you're smart enough to understand that, while my personal word choice can be arbitrary from time to time, the same standards that apply to my word choice should not be applied to presidential debate qualifications.


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 27, 2016)

@SHILLacius

F••• Hillary and her Orwellian forces!
.@DrJillStein protesters being arrested outside #HofDebate16 #politics pic.twitter.com/V2Cz7G7IBl— Matthew Bernstein (@MBTV_USA) September 26, 2016

These people were peacefully protesting, yet they are being arrested! WTF?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> @SHILLacius
> F••• Hillary and her Orwellian forces!
> https://twitter.com/iNewsReporter/status/780547459881832453


Civil disobedience isn't a protected right.


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Civil disobedience isn't a protected right.


I take it that you have never heard of the First Amendment...


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I take it that you have never heard of the First Amendment...


I suggest you learn the difference between peaceful protest and civil disobedience before posting something that makes you look like an idiot.


----------



## Shining Greninja (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I suggest you learn the difference between peaceful protest and civil disobedience before posting something that makes you look like an idiot.


The only idiot is you, fucking Clinton lover, 1st amendment states "freedom of speech", so I can say whatever the fuck I want


----------



## 0x40 (Sep 27, 2016)

Shining Greninja said:


> The only idiot is you, fucking Clinton lover, 1st amendment states "freedom of speech", so I can say whatever the fuck I want


Can't tell if serious. No, the first amendment does not mean you can "say whatever the fuck you want," it's a lot more complicated than that.


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 27, 2016)

SHILLacius said:


> Not if you are dissing Hillary!


https://www.periscope.tv/w/1DXxyLRNEAgJM

(disses Hillary by linking to the only honest coverage of tonight)


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I hope you're smart enough to understand that, while my personal word choice can be arbitrary from time to time, the same standards that apply to my word choice should not be applied to presidential debate qualifications.


Instead, arbitrary polling percentages from arbitrary polling companies should be used because they make sure only the Democrats and Republicans have access with only a nominal chance of a third party getting in to give the appearance of non-partisanship.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Instead, arbitrary polling percentages from arbitrary polling companies should be used because they make sure only the Democrats and Republicans have access with only a nominal chance of a third party getting in to give the appearance of non-partisanship.


I didn't argue for this.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 28, 2016)

A few months ago I would've said Johnson, but f*ck it. Trump 2016. I just want to see smug witch Hillary lose.

But, I cannot vote, so I shall watch!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 28, 2016)

Iamapirate said:


> A few months ago I would've said Johnson, but f*ck it. Trump 2016. I just want to see smug witch Hillary lose.
> 
> But, I cannot vote, so I shall watch!


What makes her smug?


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 28, 2016)

Watching or listening to her would make that pretty self-evident.

She also seems entitled to the presidenscy, seeing how she screwed Sanders out of the nomination.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 28, 2016)

Iamapirate said:


> Watching or listening to her would make that pretty self-evident.
> 
> She also seems entitled to the presidenscy, seeing how she screwed Sanders out of the nomination.


Examples are cool, as opposed to blanket statements... I'm just tryin'a figure out how she's any more smug than Donald is


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Examples are cool, as opposed to blanket statements... *I'm just tryin'a figure out how she's any more smug than Donald is*



Never said that she is.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 28, 2016)

Man, Hillary really did luck out facing Trump this election.  Seems to be the only person unlikable enough for people to forget just how unlikable she is.  Say something negative about her and people rush in to defend her because she's not Trump.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 28, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Man, Hillary really did luck out facing Trump this election.  Seems to be the only person unlikable enough for people to forget just how unlikable she is.  Say something negative about her and people rush in to defend her because she's not Trump.


Arguably Ted Cruz is just as unlikable however.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 28, 2016)

Iamapirate said:


> Never said that she is.


It was implied when you said "Trump 2016. I just want to see smug witch Hillary lose."


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 28, 2016)

Should've been more clear. Donald has qualities that I like. Particularly, he's funny, strong on immigration, seems sincere (unlike cold robotic Hillary) and his message of "Make America Great Again!" would really resonate with people, and that certainly beats "I'm with Her!"


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 28, 2016)

Iamapirate said:


> Should've been more clear. Donald has qualities that I like. Particularly, he's funny, strong on immigration, seems sincere (unlike cold robotic Hillary) and his message of "Make America Great Again!" would really resonate with people, and that certainly beats "I'm with Her!"


I guess that's fair. I don't like that violence flocks to him wherever he goes, though


----------



## WiiUBricker (Sep 28, 2016)

I'm not american and even I can tell Trump is bad for america.


----------



## Engert (Sep 28, 2016)

I wish Trump wasn't so dumb. He would have won in a landslide.
But even with trump being so dumb, Hillary is having a hard time competing. That's how low the bar is this election.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 29, 2016)

>> Saw the debate. It was a shitstorm. Drank lots of wine. Laughed at the stupidity from both ends. STILL voting for Jill Stein!  <<


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> >> Saw the debate. It was a shitstorm. Drank lots of wine. Laughed at the stupidity from both ends. STILL voting for Jill Stein!  <<


Good for you!
Jill Stein for President of America

And @LightyKD for President of Ouya!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

Iamapirate said:


> Watching or listening to her would make that pretty self-evident.


Again, could you be specific?



Iamapirate said:


> She also seems entitled to the presidenscy, seeing how she screwed Sanders out of the nomination.


She didn't screw over Sanders. She won fair and square.



grossaffe said:


> Man, Hillary really did luck out facing Trump this election.  Seems to be the only person unlikable enough for people to forget just how unlikable she is.  Say something negative about her and people rush in to defend her because she's not Trump.


You're probably right.



Iamapirate said:


> Should've been more clear. Donald has qualities that I like. Particularly, he's funny


In my personal opinion, he's only funny in ways he doesn't mean to be. I don't want a clown as president.



Iamapirate said:


> strong on immigration


His immigration policy is garbage. It's pure political demagoguery that would, among other things, solve nothing. Take the wall, for example. It's impractical and wouldn't actually do anything to help the supposed issue.



Iamapirate said:


> seems sincere


Can blatant lies about his views on the Iraq War, his views on global warming, and his views on birtherism be considered _sincere_, by definition?



Iamapirate said:


> unlike cold robotic Hillary


Oh no, the woman wasn't warm enough.



Iamapirate said:


> and his message of "Make America Great Again!" would really resonate with people, and that certainly beats "I'm with Her!"


_Stronger together_ is a much better slogan than both.



LightyKD said:


> >> Saw the debate. It was a shitstorm. Drank lots of wine. Laughed at the stupidity from both ends. STILL voting for Jill Stein!  <<


If you care who wins between Trump and Clinton, it's a choice between those two. A vote for Jill Stein is a vote in the trash, which increases the likelihood of a Trump win. Please don't be silly.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If you care who wins between Trump and Clinton, it's a choice between those two. A vote for Jill Stein is a vote in the trash, which increases the likelihood of a Trump win. Please don't be silly.


From his profile it says he lives in Cali where Trump has a whooping 1% chance of winning. I think he is safe voting for whoever he wants to.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> 
> If you care who wins between Trump and Clinton, it's a choice between those two. A vote for Jill Stein is a vote in the trash, which increases the likelihood of a Trump win. Please don't be silly.



A vote for Jill isn't a vote in the trash. It's MY vote. That's what you call freedom. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils and would be less of the man I try to be by giving my vote to a bunch of corrupted politicians. You can't bring good into this world by voting for evil. at some point you have to say "NO. I will not vote for what's wrong with humanity. I will use my time to help humanity." BTW voting for Hillary or Trump who are both likely to start WW3 does not help humanity.


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Please don't be silly.





grossaffe said:


> Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> From his profile it says he lives in Cali where Trump has a whooping 1% chance of winning. I think he is safe voting for whoever he wants to.



LMAO, I take it that you never watched a single episode of "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers"?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> LMAO, I take it that you never watched a single episode of "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers"?


No I sadly have not so I do not get the reference of your post


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> No I sadly have not so I do not get the reference of your post



The original Power Rangers lived in the fictional city of Angel Grove, California.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> The original Power Rangers lived in the fictional city of Angel Grove, California.


Ohhhhhhhhh.

OK then. I am sorry but I have only seen a single episode of it about some volcano but that was 5 years ago and I remember almost none of it.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> From his profile it says he lives in Cali where Trump has a whooping 1% chance of winning. I think he is safe voting for whoever he wants to.


First, last I checked and if I remember correctly, he lived in Virginia. Second, it doesn't matter where he lives with regard to my point.



LightyKD said:


> A vote for Jill isn't a vote in the trash. It's MY vote. That's what you call freedom. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils and would be less of the man I try to be by giving my vote to a bunch of corrupted politicians. You can't bring good into this world by voting for evil. at some point you have to say "NO. I will not vote for what's wrong with humanity. I will use my time to help humanity." BTW voting for Hillary or Trump who are both likely to start WW3 does not help humanity.





Lacius said:


> *If you care who wins between Trump and Clinton*, it's a choice between those two. A vote for Jill Stein is a vote in the trash, which increases the likelihood of a Trump win. Please don't be silly.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, last I checked, he lived in Virginia. Second, it doesn't matter where he lives with regard to my point.


If your point is voting x causes y to sin then where one lives matters very much as in certain areas it has no impactful affect.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> If your point is voting x causes y to sin then where one lives matters very much as in certain areas it has no impactful affect.


I'm not going to rehash this conversation. You can check my previous posts on how we're still talking about increasing and decreasing likelihoods regardless of one's state. Yes, we know the Electoral College system is broken, and some people's votes are more important than others'. It's irrelevant to my point. A vote for Trump in California, for example, is more likely to affect the election than a vote for Stein anywhere.

@LightyKD
To be clear, I asked you not to be silly because you once supported Senator Sanders. And yet, you would rather risk a Donald Trump presidency rather than vote for the person who is roughly 98% in alignment with Sanders and is endorsed by Sanders. It is silly.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm not going to rehash this conversation. You can check my previous posts on how we're still talking about increasing and decreasing likelihoods regardless of one's state. Yes, we know the Electoral College system is broken, and some people's votes are more important than others'. It's irrelevant to my point. A vote for Trump in California, for example, is more likely to affect the election than a vote for Stein anywhere.
> 
> @LightyKD
> To be clear, I asked you not to be silly because you once supported Senator Sanders. And yet, you would rather risk a Donald Trump presidency rather than vote for the person who is roughly 98% in alignment with Sanders and is endorsed by Sanders. It is silly.



I supported Sanders because of this equation: "good for humanity + fits my values system = gets my vote." In no way is a Clinton presidency good for Humanity. If you want to bow your head and say: "sure, gimme more oppression" then go ahead and vote for her. I don't vote solely for myself or my family, and definitely NOT for some stupid convoluted idea of what my race needs. Every vote I have made has been determined by one question: "Is this person good for the human species in the grand scheme of things? Hillary is not.

Hell even if we were to use the whole, uplifting women via being a symbol thing, there are TWO women running for president, only one is more popular. I refuse to let my vote contribute to World War 3. You can say I'm being silly but Humanity is the closest to a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Saying this reminds me of the time where a former teacher tried to assure me that we wont destroy ourselves because we were the safest, since that event. Well guess what, we no longer are! Clinton wants more of the same from the Obama regime but what exactly did that muthafucka give us?

Did he help out the banks, keeping the great recession from becoming a depression? Sure but guess what, we are close to ANOTHER financial meltdown. How about we discuss the expansion of the mass spying that the Patriot Act gives us? We shouldn't expect to have privacy in the old school sense in the age of the Internet BUT my thoughts, my searches, the views I share on a forum should NOT be used to make myself or anyone else a enemy of the state. What about out corrupt justice system? Has Hillary said anything about really changing it? Making it so that Police aren't motivated by god damned quotas. Justice is NOT based on how much revenue you can bring in for the state. What about how Judges are trying to pull some Minority Report style bullshit and determining who gets bail or probation based on fucking algorithms?! What type of shit is that?! Oh, that's right, prison isn't used for rehabilitation, it's basically mass slavery because the 13th amendment still allows for the slavery of prisoners.

Until I see Hillary showing us that she actually gives a damn about social issues that affects us all and isn't just handing us bones, then and only then will I consider voting for her. As a father and a husband, I worry about surviving to see the next day because I can't trust law enforcement and the legal system any more than I can trust a mugger, paying my bills, keeping my family secure and hoping that the world isnt highly polluted or nuked so that there is still a livable, green, Earth left for future generations.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> As a father and a husband, I worry about surviving to see the next day because I can't trust law enforcement and the legal system any more than I can trust a mugger, paying my bills, keeping my family secure and hoping that the world isnt highly polluted or nuked so that there is still a livable, green, Earth left for future generations.


As a Johnson supporter who also is a fan of Stein, I must say I quite admire your reasons for voting for her. With the world how it is and the systemic use of force in America, it is really true that voting less evil is inefficient as opposed to voting for more good.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> I supported Sanders because of this equation: "good for humanity + fits my values system = gets my vote."


If by _good for humanity_ and _fits my values system_ you are referring to policy, then there's not much separating Sanders from Clinton.



LightyKD said:


> If you want to bow your head and say: "sure, gimme more oppression" then go ahead and vote for her.


How are Clinton or her policies going to oppress you?



LightyKD said:


> You can say I'm being silly but Humanity is the closest to a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.


I would only agree with this because of the things Donald Trump has said about nuclear weapons. Otherwise, I'm not aware of any metric that suggests we're closest to a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.



LightyKD said:


> Did he help out the banks, keeping the great recession from becoming a depression? Sure but guess what, we are close to ANOTHER financial meltdown.


By what metric?



LightyKD said:


> What about out corrupt justice system? Has Hillary said anything about really changing it?


Yep.



RevPokemon said:


> it is really true that voting less evil is inefficient as opposed to voting for more good.


We've already discussed how, for example, a vote for Clinton in a red state is many times more influential than a vote for a third-party candidate in any state. Your specific claim here seems analogous to voting for FDR in 2016 because no one else is as good on social programs; it's idealistic nonsense.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I would only agree with this because of the things Donald Trump has said about nuclear weapons. Otherwise, I'm not aware of any metric that suggests we're closest to a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.


Sorry to cut in, but I have. With Iran working towards nuclear refinement (although fortunately that has been staved off through the diplomatic efforts of Obama and Clinton) and North Korea reportedly in the testing phase of long-range nuclear missiles, I'd say that it's actually pretty likely that I will live to see a second Cold War


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sorry to cut in, but I have. With Iran working towards nuclear refinement (although fortunately that has been staved off through the diplomatic efforts of Obama and Clinton) and North Korea reportedly in the testing phase of long-range nuclear missiles, I'd say that it's actually pretty likely that I will live to see a second Cold War


We've put a lid on Iran, as you mentioned, and North Korea isn't quite where they need to be in order to be able to say _we're the closest we've been since the Cuban Missile Crisis_. I agree with your point about perhaps living to see it.

Edit: In other words, to say it's worse now than it was in the late 1960s and the 1970s is a little bizarre.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We've already discussed how, for example, a vote for Clinton in a red state is many times more influential than a vote for a third-party candidate in any state.


Or Trump in a blue state. Regardless we have to understand that either way the difference a vote for Trump or Stein makes for the outcome in Cali is both ultimately marginal to the point that it is hard to argue otherwise. I also would add that to other states with smaller margins but I digress.



Lacius said:


> Your specific claim here seems analogous to voting for FDR in 2016 because no one else is as good on social programs; it's idealistic nonsense.


How is it nonsense? If we acknowledge that in x many states your vote for a big 2 will likely be a wasted vote by virtue of it being excess or a losing candidate then I would add a vote for Hillary or Donald is the same thing. Again we can argue over how it would be x amount more influential but when ultimately it is realistically going to have no impact then that point is effectively moot.  Because of that point, I choose to vote for whose ideas are most inline with mine since I acknowledge that.


----------



## Shining Greninja (Sep 29, 2016)

Everyone ignore @Lacius he has no idea what he's talking about


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 29, 2016)

Shining Greninja said:


> Everyone ignore @Lacius he has no idea what he's talking about


Yes, he's biased, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. He does have good points frequently


----------



## Shining Greninja (Sep 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yes, he's biased, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. He does have good points frequently


He hasn't heard of the first amendment


----------



## McWhiters9511 (Sep 29, 2016)

anyone but that Clinton fiend


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

Shining Greninja said:


> Everyone ignore @Lacius he has no idea what he's talking about





Shining Greninja said:


> He hasn't heard of the first amendment


I'm probably feeding the troll with this one, but how do you figure?



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yes, he's biased, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. He does have good points frequently


I'm no more biased than anyone else here, and I try to make my posts as objective as possible. Clinton isn't without criticism, but many of the attacks on her here are nonsense.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 29, 2016)

Shining Greninja said:


> Everyone ignore @Lacius he has no idea what he's talking about



We shouldn't ignore him. He has a right to speak his mind. It's just obvious that he is towing the Democratic party line very hard. I get that he doesn't want Trump to win so, logically for him, Hillary is a best defense. Personally, I don't have time to wait for "hope and change". I needed it like yesterday! I voted for that other muthafucka because I wanted change and he was almost as bad as the big eared fool before him.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 29, 2016)

Shining Greninja said:


> He hasn't heard of the first amendment


He's not preventing anyone here from speaking their opinion. And since this is on the internet and not within the jurisdiction of the United States, you're looking for Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> We shouldn't ignore him. He has a right to speak his mind. It's just obvious that he is towing the Democratic party line very hard. I get that he doesn't want Trump to win so, logically for him, Hillary is a best defense. Personally, I don't have time to wait for "hope and change". I needed it like yesterday! I voted for that other muthafucka because I wanted change and he was almost as bad as the big eared fool before him.


If you think Obama and Bush are comparable, then I don't know where to even begin.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If you think Obama and Bush are comparable, then I don't know where to even begin.


It is perfectly fine to be view both of them as poor presidents or having not fulfilled what you had expected or wanted. That does not mean you view their positions as the same but that you just feel both of them made poor decisions that resulted in outcomes that you did not want.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> It is perfectly fine to be view both of them as poor presidents or having not fulfilled what you had expected or wanted. That does not mean you view their positions as the same but that you just feel both of them made poor decisions that resulted in outcomes that you did not want.


To say a president who wrecked the economy, exploded the deficit, set social issues backwards, started two wars, etc. was nearly as bad as a president who saved the economy, cut the deficit, set social issues forward, etc. is to spew total nonsense, and it demonstrates a fundamental divide between one's view of reality and reality.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> It is perfectly fine to be view both of them as poor presidents or having not fulfilled what you had expected or wanted. That does not mean you view their positions as the same but that you just feel both of them made poor decisions that resulted in outcomes that you did not want.



Exactly! Ironically, away from the Presidency, I think both Bush and Obama are probably genuinely decent people. Bush is actually a fairly funny guy and should have been a comedian. not a President. Obama seems like a kind father and I like that about him. That being said, both men made horrible mistakes as president.

Bush
- Having Dick Cheney by his side
- Iraq War
- Katrina
- Allowing the Patriot Act to go into effect
- No Child Left Behind
- Fucking up the national budget

Obama
- Letting the bankers walk away with a huge payday
- Expanding the Patriot Act
- How he handled Snowden and Manning
- Accepting a fucking Nobel Peace Prize all the while, making nukes "more efficient" instead of getting rid of them fully

We have basically had 16 years of fuck ups. Life is short, another four is just too much.


----------



## Queno138 (Sep 29, 2016)

At least vote for someone who has actual political experience,
Find someone who has had a seat, an actual role.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Exactly! Ironically, away from the Presidency, I think both Bush and Obama are probably genuinely decent people. Bush is actually a fairly funny guy and should have been a comedian. not a President. Obama seems like a kind father and I like that about him. That being said, both men made horrible mistakes as president.
> 
> Bush
> - Having Dick Cheney by his side
> ...


I was going to say some of that but I agree 100% with your points. But regardless just beceause you dislike x does not mean you like y.


----------



## I pwned U! (Sep 29, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Bush is actually a fairly funny guy and should have been a comedian. not a President.


This reminds me of a birthday card that my mom bought for someone many years ago. It had a picture of him on the front, and this was printed inside:


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Again, could you be specific?


Watch any clip of her on YouTube. She's always smug. Did you watch the debate? Smiling like the fucking Joker. Creepy.




> She didn't screw over Sanders. She won fair and square.


"Wrong!" — Donald Trump.



> In my personal opinion, he's only funny in ways he doesn't mean to be. I don't want a clown as president.


Please don't be a clownophobe.



> His immigration policy is garbage. It's pure political demagoguery that would, among other things, solve nothing. Take the wall, for example. It's impractical and wouldn't actually do anything to help the supposed issue.



Anything is better than letting every Tom, Dick and Abdul enter the country. Only need to look at Merkal's Germany to see what can happen.



> Can blatant lies about his views on the Iraq War, his views on global warming, and his views on birtherism be considered _sincere_, by definition?


He seems sincere in the sense that he believes in what he says.



> Oh no, the woman wasn't warm enough.


Implying sexism? Typical regressive.



> _Stronger together_ is a much better slogan than both.


Disagree.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I actually found a video of Hillary talking some sense.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

Disrespectful to a few members for no reason.-Ska


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Yes, both have very real criticisms. I too disagree with Obama letting the bankers walk and expanding the Patriot Act. However, to think he's on the same level of Bush and his fuck-ups is another thing entirely. You're comparing a little dirt on the rug to an entire basement flooded with shit.


I do not know honestly how you can call that a little dirt personally. I mean the increase of military action and force under Obama is something I take seriously.



Lacius said:


> Nobody's perfect. Stein's a troll who doesn't run a serious campaign, panders to anti-vaxxers, is anti-GMO, and is anti-nuclear. She has demonstrated poor judgment by risking a Trump presidency a la 2000 for no practical purpose..


Excusing for the fact of http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/ and that Sander also supported GMO labeling, that is not true. As we have seen the EC has changed from 00 to 16 where it went from favoring the GOP to favoring the Democrats so that is not going to happen. EDIT: her trying to get 5% is a practical purpose



Lacius said:


> . Johnson knows as much about foreign leaders and climate change as he does about Aleppo. Like it or not, and regardless of whom you're voting for, we're all picking lesser evils.


In that case Johnson and Stein are the lesser evil for many of us and better then the other two. Also the whole Aleppo and leader moments where honest mistakes. Hell Clinton made a mistake on her emails which she admitted and we have moved on since it was just that, a mistake.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I do not know honestly how you can call that a little dirt personally. I mean the increase of military action and force under Obama is something I take seriously.


Relative to everything else Bush did, I would call that _a little dirt_. To each his own.



RevPokemon said:


> Excusing for the fact of http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/


As I've pointed out numerous times, she still panders to anti-vaxxers, has brought up nonsense about mercury in vaccines, and has advocated for childhood vaccination choice. I didn't even call her anti-vaccination this time, and yet you're still pretending I said something I didn't and that I haven't said any of the things that I have. Come on.



RevPokemon said:


> and that Sander also supported GMO labeling.


Nobody's perfect.



RevPokemon said:


> As we have seen the EC has changed from 00 to 16 where it went from favoring the GOP to favoring the Democrats so that is not going to happen.


Before the debate, the Electoral College was practically tied with Clinton at 272, and the likely tipping point state of Colorado was only for Clinton by about 2%, maybe less. A repeat of 2000, while probably unlikely, is very reasonable. Don't act like it's not. Before the debate, I would have put the odds of a tipping point state a.) Going Trump, and b.) being well within the margin that is the number of people who voted for Stein being about 10%, maybe more.



RevPokemon said:


> her trying to get 5% is a practical purpose


She's not going to get that, the ends don't justify the means, and it's irrelevant to the topic of who wins the 2016 election. We've addressed this garbage a dozen times.



RevPokemon said:


> In that case Johnson and Stein are the lesser evil for many of us and better then the other two.


Fair enough, although I would argue that in a lot of people's cases, Clinton is metaphorically far less evil Donald Trump, and it's worth considering that it's a binary choice between those two so far as the potential winner of the election goes.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> She's not going to get that, the ends don't justify the means.


There is still time. She is polling what like 2.7% nationally so it could happen if things turn lucky.



Lacius said:


> . A repeat of 2000, while probably unlikely, is very reasonable. Don't act like it's not


Like you said it is unlikely as it had Trump winning 6 out of 8 swing states before the election.



Lacius said:


> Before the debate, I would have put the odds of a tipping point state a.) Going Trump, and b.) being well within the margin that is the number of people who voted for Stein being about 10%, maybe more.


Jill is not getting 10% or more in CO (she is getting 3%). Regardless that had him winning in most of the swing states when in actuality the chances of that outcome is small and now with the debates is smaller since Hillary is doing better in those states. 

Ultimately the EC helps the Democrats this year and because of that and the EC your vote for any of the 6 will not be of significant influence other then those 8 (most likely less come Nov) states.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> There is still time. She is polling what like 2.7% nationally so it could happen if things turn lucky.


She has no upward trendline (in fact, it's downward), and it wouldn't be worth the Trump risk even if she did have momentum.



RevPokemon said:


> Like you said it is unlikely as it had Trump winning 6 out of 8 swing states before the election.


If the election had been held the day before the debate, there would have been a near 48% chance that Trump would have won. That's how close the Electoral College was. All he needed to do was move the needle 2% or less in the tipping point state of Colorado, for example.



RevPokemon said:


> Jill is not getting 10% or more in CO (she is getting 3%). Regardless that had him winning in most of the swing states when in actuality the chances of that outcome is small and now with the debates is smaller since Hillary is doing better in those states.


You misread my post. I didn't say that Stein was going to get 10%. I said that, before the debate, there was a 10% chance that Stein was going to get ≥X, where X is the margin between Trump and Clinton in a tipping point state that goes to Trump.



RevPokemon said:


> Ultimately the EC helps the Democrats this year and because of that and the EC your vote for any of the 6 will not be of significant influence other then those 8 (most likely less come Nov) states.


It's not the Electoral College that helps the Democrats this year; it's the amount Clinton is ahead nationally that then translates to Electoral College victories. When the popular vote is close, the Electoral College benefits Trump.


----------



## Viri (Sep 30, 2016)

https://presidentialopenquestions.com/

Not sure if it was posted yet, but the next debate is gonna use questions most voted on from this site. So, get to voting!


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> She has no upward trendline (in fact, it's downward), and it wouldn't be worth the Trump risk even if she did have momentum.


It still is at the point where she should be fighting for that 5% though.



Lacius said:


> If the election had been held the day before the debate, there would have been a near 48% chance that Trump would have won. That's how close the Electoral College was. All he needed to do was move the needle 2% or less in the tipping point state of Colorado, for example.


Assuming that it was where it was locked and the NC, NV, and FL would have all voted Trump along with the other swing states that where in his favor which is unreasonable to assume.



Lacius said:


> You misread my post. I didn't say that Stein was going to get 10%. I said that, before the debate, there was a 10% chance that Stein was going to get ≥X, where X is the margin between Trump and Clinton in a tipping point state that goes to Trump


Ok sorry about that. Although a 10% chance of getting within the margin of victory is still relatively small



Lacius said:


> It's not the Electoral College that helps the Democrats this year; it's the amount Clinton is ahead nationally that then translates to Electoral College victories. When the popular vote is close, the Electoral College benefits Trump.


But the thing is like I have stated, Clinton can lose 6 out of the 8 widely considered swing states and she still would win with 272. If the 2004 election was held today with all states voting the same then the Democrats would win. Of course the popular vote matters but under the system it still is a benefit to the Democrats because of the value of states.


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Disrespectful to a few members for no reason.-Ska


Great job of describing yourself!  You will probably do it again now after what I will say next...

Voting for third party candidates is a smart thing to do.

Jill is not anti-science.

Jill is my waifu.

Jill's personality *really* turns me on!


----------



## Viri (Sep 30, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> Jill is my waifu.
> 
> Jill's personality *really* turns me on!


I don't mind her, but you gotta admit, saying that kinda lives up to your name.


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 30, 2016)

Viri said:


> I don't mind her, but you gotta admit, saying that kinda lives up to your name.





Spoiler



That's the point!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 30, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Assuming that it was where it was locked and the NC, NV, and FL would have all voted Trump along with the other swing states that where in his favor which is unreasonable to assume.


Trump taking Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida was not merely the worst case scenario a few days ago; it was the likely outcome. Based on the polls, there was nothing unreasonable about this proposition. It was likely.



RevPokemon said:


> Ok sorry about that. Although a 10% chance of getting within the margin of victory is still relatively small


I did a quick calculation of 10% with the assumption that she gets 1% of the vote or less, so no. There is an extremely good chance that Stein will get X% in more than one swing state, with X being the margin of victory. The limiting factor in calculating these odds of a Stein effect is whether those swing states, specifically the tipping point state, are won by Clinton or by Trump.

Edit: Redoing my calculations more extensively, if Trump did win the Electoral College last week, for example, then there was a near 100% chance that the Stein votes would be in part to blame. In Colorado, for example, Stein's votes would have been well over the likely margin of victory. The same goes for any of the other likely tipping point states from a hypothetical election last week. Don't kid yourself into thinking Stein wouldn't cause harm.



RevPokemon said:


> But the thing is like I have stated, Clinton can lose 6 out of the 8 widely considered swing states and she still would win with 272.


You don't seem to understand that, only a few days ago, this was no longer the description of Clinton's Electoral College firewall worst-case scenario; it was the likely outcome if the election were held that day. In other words, she no longer had a firewall, and there was no wiggle room to spare. With polling like it was, a state like Colorado or New Hampshire could *easily *flip to Trump, giving him the electoral college. Given the pre-debate polling, states like Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Iowa were red, not swing states.



The Cringe said:


> Voting for third party candidates is a smart thing to do.


If you care who actually wins this year's election, voting third-party is objectively not the smart thing to do. If you care more about making a statement, funding issues, etc. over who actually wins in 2016, then vote third-party.



The Cringe said:


> Jill is not anti-science.


She's anti-nuclear energy, anti-GMO, and arguably anti-vaccine to an extent. She's clearly anti-science. There's a very fair assessment on candidates and science issues here from Scientific American. No, Clinton doesn't win them all, but she does win overall.


----------



## Katsumi San (Sep 30, 2016)

This woman...


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 30, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Trump taking Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida was not merely the worst case scenario a few days ago; it was the likely outcome. Based on the polls, there was nothing unreasonable about this proposition. It was likel


I am speaking of the notion that he would have to win all of those states plus Colorado or NH while if clinton won any of them it would be game over. The chance of him winning all of those states plus Co or NH was low since Clinton was favored in those states, and was very competitive in Fl and NV, and had a good shot at the rest of them.



Lacius said:


> I did a quick calculation of 10% with the assumption that she gets 1% of the vote or less, so no. There is an extremely good chance that Stein will get X% in more than one swing state, with X being the margin of victory. The limiting factor in calculating these odds of a Stein effect is whether those swing states, specifically the tipping point state, are won by Clinton or by Trump.
> 
> Edit: Redoing my calculations more extensively, if Trump did win the Electoral College last week, for example, then there was a near 100% chance that the Stein votes would be in part to blame. In Colorado, for example, Stein's votes would have been well over the likely margin of victory. The same goes for any of the other likely tipping point states from a hypothetical election last week. Don't kid yourself into thinking Stein wouldn't cause har


First to be honest I must ask did you consider accounting for Castle and McMullins who are to the right and stole votes from Trump? That lowers the amount Stein does a little bit. now lets assume that if Stein gets 2% (she is polling around 2.7-3% which may be on the lower side come November). Know will that affect Co? It depends come November we will know based off of polling how likely it is but there is still a large chance it will not since as stated 1. Castle and McMullins will lower it a tad bit, 2. Many Stein voters would have stayed home, 3. Some would have voted Johnson so it is hard to say all of that would be due to her. But regardless other then Co or Nh which would cause Clinton to lose then all of the other swing states still would not be enough to cause Trump to win.



Lacius said:


> You don't seem to understand that, only a few days ago, this was no longer the description of Clinton's Electoral College firewall worst-case scenario; it was the likely outcome if the election were held that day. In other words, she no longer had a firewall, and there was no wiggle room to spare. With polling like it was, a state like Colorado or New Hampshire could *easily *flip to Trump, giving him the electoral college.


But if She won Florida or Nv then it would have voided that. It is still more likely that Clinton would win one of those 6 states then Trump win Co and/or NH (hell NH in some polls showed it was as safe as AZ was). 



Lacius said:


> Given the pre-debate polling, states like Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Iowa were red, not swing states.


Nevada was a swing and so was Florida. Both were more likely to change then NH was. Regardless for Clinton to lose it would take some loses in all of those states + trump steal Co or Nh which as described was un likely. Plus come November it will be different and most likely to be where it is a much larger margin for Clinton.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I am speaking of the notion that he would have to win all of those states plus Colorado or NH while if clinton won any of them it would be game over. The chance of him winning all of those states plus Co or NH was low since Clinton was favored in those states, and was very competitive in Fl and NV, and had a good shot at the rest of them.


The odds of Trump doing that were nearly 50% only a few days ago.



RevPokemon said:


> First to be honest I must ask did you consider accounting for Castle and McMullins who are to the right and stole votes from Trump? That lowers the amount Stein does a little bit. now lets assume that if Stein gets 2% (she is polling around 2.7-3% which may be on the lower side come November). Know will that affect Co? It depends come November we will know based off of polling how likely it is but there is still a large chance it will not since as stated 1. Castle and McMullins will lower it a tad bit, 2. Many Stein voters would have stayed home, 3. Some would have voted Johnson so it is hard to say all of that would be due to her. But regardless other then Co or Nh which would cause Clinton to lose then all of the other swing states still would not be enough to cause Trump to win.


The existence of Castle and McMullin is irrelevant to whether or not Stein's presence in the race sways the election in a tipping point state.



RevPokemon said:


> But if She won Florida or Nv then it would have voided that. It is still more likely that Clinton would win one of those 6 states then Trump win Co and/or NH (hell NH in some polls showed it was as safe as AZ was).
> 
> 
> Nevada was a swing and so was Florida. Both were more likely to change then NH was. Regardless for Clinton to lose it would take some loses in all of those states + trump steal Co or Nh which as described was un likely. Plus come November it will be different and most likely to be where it is a much larger margin for Clinton.


See above about Trump's odds.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The odds of Trump doing that were nearly 50% only a few days ago.


Currently it is around the mid 30s but a few days ago IIRC it was into the high 30s before the debates



Lacius said:


> The existence of Castle and McMullin is irrelevant to whether or not Stein's presence in the race sways the election in a tipping point state.


It does since it basically balances it out some since you have Jill who (as you have said) steals votes from the Progressive candidate and you have McMullin and Castle who rob votes from the Conservative candidate so the balance each other out to an extent thus changing the amount of impact that she has.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Currently it is around the mid 30s but a few days ago IIRC it was into the high 30s before the debates


According to FiveThirtyEight's now-cast, Trump would have had a 48% chance of winning if the election had been held immediately before the debate. Now I'm just repeating myself.



RevPokemon said:


> It does since it basically balances it out some since you have Jill who (as you have said) steals votes from the Progressive candidate and you have McMullin and Castle who rob votes from the Conservative candidate so the balance each other out to an extent thus changing the amount of impact that she has.


I agree with everything you're saying, except it's irrelevant to the topic. I'm talking about the variable of Jill Stein's run for the presidency. If we removed her candidacy from existence, that has no bearing on Castle nor McMullin. In other words, they're still around siphoning votes as you described.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> According to FiveThirtyEight's now-cast, Trump would have had a 48% chance of winning if the election had been held immediately before the debate. Now I'm just repeating myself.


Well I am sorry. I was using the polls feature of the forecast. Oh well.



Lacius said:


> I agree with everything you're saying, except it's irrelevant to the topic. I'm talking about the variable of Jill Stein's run for the presidency. If we removed her candidacy from existence, that has no bearing on Castle nor McMullin. In other words, they're still around siphoning votes as you described.


Well then agreed, but as you mentioned it does of course affect the spoiler status since the balance each other out. Interestingly switching topics to the idea of them spoiling each other out, I read recently in a few polls where McMullins is included he actually has gotten around the samish amount as Stein has in terms of what she most likely will get come election day although it is not enough polling info to be certain either way.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Well I am sorry. I was using the polls feature of the forecast. Oh well.


Which was still a 45% chance.


----------



## Justin14p (Oct 1, 2016)

Harambe


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Which was still a 45% chance.


https://web.archive.org/web/2016092...s.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

From last Sunday, which had him at 38-40% chance based upon the last major polls before the debate.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> https://web.archive.org/web/2016092...s.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
> 
> From last Sunday, which had him at 38-40% chance based upon the last major polls before the debate.


According to polls-only, which isn't what I said, it was 42% on September 25, and it was 46% on September 26 immediately before the debate.

According to the now-cast, which is what I said, it was 44% on September 25, and it was 49% on September 26 immediately before the debate. That's not _mid-high 30s._


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> According to polls-only, which isn't what I said, it was 42% on September 25, and it was 46% on September 26 immediately before the debate.
> 
> According to the now-cast, which is what I said, it was 44% on September 25, and it was 49% on September 26 immediately before the debate. That's not _mid-high 30s._


But as the link shows on the 25th it was at the levels I described but then changed. I did not see the changes that increased it. My bad.

Regardless it will be better to discuss all of this come November.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

On an unrelated note, Gary Johnson:


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> On an unrelated note, Gary Johnson:



I really have no clue however you could say he is running his campaign into the ground though. I mean sure he has had minor missteps but they have not really hurt him in terms of polling and he handled them very well to be honest.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I really have no clue however you could say he is running his campaign into the ground though. I mean sure he has had minor missteps but they have not really hurt him in terms of polling and he handled them very well to be honest.


His campaign is a joke, he didn't handle is missteps well at all, and the only reason he hasn't been hurt in the polls by his nonsense is because he has only been polling at about 8% since June and thus has no real poll numbers to speak of.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> His campaign is a joke


How is it a joke? Unlike Stein he has experience along with Weld, is taking voters equally between both sides, and unlike the other two is not hated by 50% of America.



Lacius said:


> he didn't handle is missteps well at al


Unlike Trump, he did not slam them as Gotcha questions and acknowledged he was human. Hell Clinton has made a ton of decisions that she has regretted such as war votes and her email usage (not saying it was illegal).



Lacius said:


> and the only reason he hasn't been hurt in the polls by his nonsense is because he has only been polling at about 8% since June and thus has no real poll numbers to speak of.


Sure he has been averaged overall in polls around 8 percent but regardless this was well reported by the media and to say that it would not have affected him because he was at 8% is bs when he is in all the major polls and this had this event in major media attention.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> How is it a joke? Unlike Stein he has experience along with Weld, is taking voters equally between both sides


That's a pretty low bar to compare Johnson to.



RevPokemon said:


> and unlike the other two is not hated by 50% of America.


I'm not hated by 50% of America, but they also don't know who I am.



RevPokemon said:


> Unlike Trump, he did not slam them as Gotcha questions and acknowledged he was human.


That doesn't make his responses any better.



RevPokemon said:


> Hell Clinton has made a ton of decisions that she has regretted such as war votes and her email usage (not saying it was illegal).


But at least she's competent enough to be president and interact with an international world.



RevPokemon said:


> Sure he has been averaged overall in polls around 8 percent but regardless this was well reported by the media and to say that it would not have affected him because he was at 8% is bs when he is in all the major polls and this had this event in major media attention.


His 8% support, give or take, is going to support him roughly no matter what. Look at you.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> His 8% support, give or take, is going to support him roughly no matter what. Look at you.


I doubt it. Likewise it probably will be where a good amount will drop off to support a big two party member come November. Plus I remember reading that only 3/10 or so third party supporters (Johnson, Stein, McMullins and so on) are completely set on their canidate while the rest are open to voting Big 2. I doubt 8% are Johnson till they die.



Lacius said:


> But at least she's competent enough to be president and interact with an international world.


Isolationist Johnson vs. Clinton? I go with Johnson on FP since unlike Clinton he is more of an isolationist while Hilliary is very much open to war historically and is one of the more hawkish democrats. Regardless I do worry about the idea of giving either Nuke em up Trump or 4-wars Hilliary control of the military.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I doubt it. Likewise it probably will be where a good amount will drop off to support a big two party member come November. Plus I remember reading that only 3/10 or so third party supporters (Johnson, Stein, McMullins and so on) are completely set on their canidate while the rest are open to voting Big 2. I doubt 8% are Johnson till they die.





Lacius said:


> His 8% support, *give or take*


You are also an example of a Johnson-supporter unphased by his idiocy.



RevPokemon said:


> Isolationist Johnson vs. Clinton? I go with Johnson on FP since unlike Clinton he is more of an isolationist while Hilliary is very much open to war historically and is one of the more hawkish democrats.


I'm not fan of hawkish attitudes, but isolationism is just as stupid. At least Clinton knows at least one foreign leader by name.



RevPokemon said:


> Regardless I do worry about the idea of giving either Nuke em up Trump or 4-wars Hilliary control of the military.


One of those is infinitely better than the other, and I would trust Clinton over Johnson when it comes to foreign policy and international relations anyday. It's like he knows nothing about the rest of the world.


----------



## Shining Greninja (Oct 1, 2016)

God Lacius, just kill me, I can't stand listening to your non-sense, please end my misery


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

Shining Greninja said:


> God Lacius, just kill me, I can't stand listening to your non-sense, please end my misery


Is somebody forcing you at gunpoint to read this thread and my posts? If not, then give us a break from your shitposts.

Edit: There is an _Ignore _button.


----------



## Shining Greninja (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Is somebody forcing you at gunpoint to read this thread and my posts? If not, then give us a break from your shitposts.


-_- I don't think you get it yet


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

Shining Greninja said:


> -_- I don't think you get it yet


Care to explain?


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You are also an example of a Johnson-supporter unphased by his idiocy.


I could of said the same about you and Hilliary but I didn't  ;O . No truth be told I also really like Stein as well and would have considered Rand Paul or Ted Cruz if they had won.



Lacius said:


> I'm not fan of hawkish attitudes, but isolationism is just as stupid. At least Clinton knows at least one foreign leader by name.


Regardless our millitary presence in the ME in the last 50+ years really have made it worst. Regardless I would rather have someone who made a slip up then who wanted intervention 4 times (if not secretively more).



Lacius said:


> One of those is infinitely better than the other, and I would trust Clinton over Johnson when it comes to foreign policy and international relations anyday. It's like he knows nothing about the rest of the world


 But it seems Clinton does not really know how blow back works


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I could of said the same about you and Hilliary but I didn't


When did Hillary make a fool of herself?



RevPokemon said:


> No truth be told I also really like Stein as well and would have considered Rand Paul or Ted Cruz if they had won.


Then policy is apparently irrelevant to you.



RevPokemon said:


> Regardless our millitary presence in the ME in the last 50+ years really have made it worst. Regardless I would rather have someone who made a slip up then who wanted intervention 4 times (if not secretively more).


While still a little hawkish, Clinton has acknowledged her previous mistakes. Johnson doesn't even know what's going on in the Middle East. They're two different issues. Bringing up another candidate's past and unrelated shortcomings doesn't reduce the other candidate's idiocy.



RevPokemon said:


> But it seems Clinton does not really know how blow back works


What?


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> When did Hillary make a fool of herself


I was referring to the part that you most likely would vote for Hilliary no matter what and that you are by no means on the fence of picling who to vote for. But I would add the whole email situation is embarrassing for what it is worth since as she said it was a mistake on her part which in turn blew up.



Lacius said:


> Then policy is apparently irrelevant to you


I am a Libertarian in terms of my ideas and leanings. Out of Trump, Clinton, Stein and Castle my Isidewith is more with Stein then the other 3 and likewise after looking at their proposed policy, I must say that Stein is more inlined with my Libertarian views then the rest. Rand Paul likewise is very popular woth the libertarians and was the most libertarian of the big two parties and perhaps other then Johnson. Cruz? Well I am not fond of him but if I was in a true swing state sith a small margin I would pick him out of the big two.



Lacius said:


> What


It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's international activities.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I was referring to the part that you most likely would vote for Hilliary no matter what and that you are by no means on the fence of picling who to vote for. But I would add the whole email situation is embarrassing for what it is worth since as she said it was a mistake on her part which in turn blew up.


The email situation was a garbage non-story that was blown out of proportion. However, due to Clinton and Trump being my only actual options, you are right that I would give Clinton a lot of leeway if she were to do something silly.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm not fan of hawkish attitudes, but isolationism is just as stupid. At least Clinton knows at least one foreign leader by name.


Johnson wasn't asked to name a foreign leader, he was asked to name one he looked up to.  Johnson is a libertarian in a world full of socialists.  Who's he supposed to look up to?


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The email situation was a garbage non-story that was blown out of proportion. However, due to Clinton and Trump being my only actual options, you are right that I would give Clinton a lot of leeway if she were to do something silly.


And that is the same thing with the leader story.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Johnson wasn't asked to name a foreign leader, he was asked to name one he looked up to.  Johnson is a libertarian in a world full of socialists.  Who's he supposed to look up to?


First, he wasn't asked to pick a foreign leader he agrees with 100%; he was asked to pick a foreign leader whom he likes. Is he so much of a politician that he can't say a name without fear that he will ruffle some Libertarian feathers? Second, and by Johnson's admission, there are foreign leaders he likes but doesn't know their names, so your defense of him is moot.



RevPokemon said:


> And that is the same thing with the leader story.


The email story was hardly a disqualifying incident. The foreign leader story was, in my opinion. It shows at the very least that he's not at all prepared to be president.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, he wasn't asked to pick a foreign leader he agrees with 100%; he was asked to pick a foreign leader whom he likes. Is he so much of a politician that he can't say a name without fear that he will ruffle some Libertarian feathers? Second, and by Johnson's admission, there are foreign leaders he likes but doesn't know their names, so your defense of him is moot.
> 
> 
> The email story was hardly a disqualifying incident. The foreign leader story was, in my opinion. It shows at the very least that he's not at all prepared to be president.


Of course.  Ignoring the rules and doing whatever the fuck you want is to be encouraged, but not naming a foreign leader you look up to is damning.  Too bad he couldn't tell us how much he loves Putin, then people wouldn't be able to say he doesn't know any foreign leaders!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Of course.  Ignoring the rules and doing whatever the fuck you want is to be encouraged


What she did wasn't unpresented, she didn't break any laws, and it didn't compromise security. So, I'm not sure what you're point is. It wasn't a great idea, but it certainly doesn't disqualify someone to be president.



grossaffe said:


> but not naming a foreign leader you look up to is damning.


It's pretty bad when you cannot name a single foreign leader on the heels of not knowing what Aleppo was.



grossaffe said:


> Too bad he couldn't tell us how much he loves Putin, then people wouldn't be able to say he doesn't know any foreign leaders!


Then he would have a different set of problems.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The email story was hardly a disqualifying incident. The foreign leader story was, in my opinion. It shows at the very least that he's not at all prepared to be president.


The email story along with the other issues we discussed validate solid reason that Clinton to be disqualifying. The leader story? It was a slip up which Clinton has also made many of. I could use those past experiences of Clinton and say they are disqualifying and have no problem. To say you can overlock those faults of hers and then condemn Johnson is absurd.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The email story along with the other issues we discussed validate solid reason that Clinton to be disqualifying.


See above. They don't.



RevPokemon said:


> The leader story? It was a slip up which Clinton has also made many of. I could use those past experiences of Clinton and say they are disqualifying and have no problem. To say you can overlock those faults of hers and then condemn Johnson is absurd.


I would like it very much if you could find something comparable to what Johnson said, preferably something within the last, say, four years.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> When did Hillary make a fool of herself?



All throughout the debate
When she denied calling the TPP "the gold standard of trade agreements," even though she did

When she was caught on camera fainting
When she claimed that she "had allergies" when she actually had pneumonia
When "she" hugged a young girl when she had pneumonia (in quotes because there were many signs that pointed to a body double being used)

When she claimed that she never broke any laws by using a private server, even though she did
When she supported (or at the very least, did not mind) the rigging of the primaries against Bernie (proven by her endorsement of DWS, despite knowing what DWS had done and had thought of doing), then expected and continues to expect Bernie supporters to vote for her, despite stabbing them in the back
When she defended Bill a long time ago on many occasions over the course of several months, saying that he was not having any affairs, only for Bill to start opening up several months later, and making her feel humiliated
When she expects black people to support her after her "superpredators" comment
When she expects people to believe that she will push to appeal Citizens United, as her campaign makes millions from it
And so on, and so forth...

For more examples on how your führer is not all she is cracked up to be, and why Jill is an infinitely better choice for our country, go here:

http://blackagendareport.com/great_debate_that_never_was


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> What she did wasn't unpresented, she didn't break any laws, and it didn't compromise security. So, I'm not sure what you're point is. It wasn't a great idea, but it certainly doesn't disqualify someone to be president.


It was against policy.  Fact.  She did it anyways.  Fact.  Her claim was because she didn't want to carry two devices.  The next week she was on Oprah beaming with joy at all the devices she loves to carry.  Now she's feigning that it happened because she's technologically illiterate.  And also was saying that she had Bill's old email server sitting in the cellar or something along those lines, so just had that hooked up; simple, right?  Wrong, maintaining a private email server is a fucking pain in the ass.  I'd looked into hosting my own private email server and even after all the pains of setting it up, it requires constant maintenance to keep up with security.  It's not something you do on a whim and it's not something that just happens due to technological illiteracy.



> It's pretty bad when you cannot name a single foreign leader on the heels of not knowing what Aleppo was.


Oh, look, the spin doctor's still at it claiming he can't name a foreign leader when that was not the case.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> All throughout the debate
> When she denied calling the TPP "the gold standard of trade agreements," even though she did
> 
> When she was caught on camera fainting
> ...



She called the TPP the gold standard of trade agreements before it was negotiated and controversial.
Fainting isn't disqualifying.
She had both and never claimed that what was pneumonia was actually allergies.
If you did any reading, you would know she was not contagious.

She didn't break any laws using the server. It's why she wasn't indicted.
The primaries weren't rigged, and there's no reason to think she would have even been involved with it if they had been. Liking DWS doesn't demonstrate anything. That's a guilt by association fallacy.
So?
Her _superpredators _comment wasn't good, but it's not disqualifying, it was a long time ago, and it has no bearing on her policy positions. There's a reason why she has overwhelming support from the black community.
Having a super PAC in an election that necessitates it doesn't mean she doesn't want to repeat _Citizens United_. She's been very clear about it. Obama had a super PAC, but he wants _Citizens United_ gone too, and he has nominated justices who would be likely to do just that.
It's like you're not trying.



grossaffe said:


> It was against policy.  Fact.  She did it anyways.  Fact.  Her claim was because she didn't want to carry two devices.  The next week she was on Oprah beaming with joy at all the devices she loves to carry.  Now she's feigning that it happened because she's technologically illiterate.  And also was saying that she had Bill's old email server sitting in the cellar or something along those lines, so just had that hooked up; simple, right?  Wrong, maintaining a private email server is a fucking pain in the ass.  I'd looked into hosting my own private email server and even after all the pains of setting it up, it requires constant maintenance to keep up with security.  It's not something you do on a whim and it's not something that just happens due to technological illiteracy.


You can go back and read my previous posts on the email story, because I'm not going to do it again just because a Johnson-support is sad his candidate makes idiotic mistakes and needs to spin away from that. I've responded to I think each of these points. Some of your points are fair, albeit not disqualifying, and other points are garbage.



grossaffe said:


> Oh, look, the spin doctor's still at it claiming he can't name a foreign leader when that was not the case.


I was very clear what I meant before that.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I was very clear what I meant before that.


It was clear you meant to spin things as you've been doing for 38 pages.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> It was clear you meant to spin things as you've been doing for 38 pages.





Lacius said:


> First, he wasn't asked to pick a foreign leader he agrees with 100%; he was asked to pick a foreign leader whom he likes. Is he so much of a politician that he can't say a name without fear that he will ruffle some Libertarian feathers? Second, and by Johnson's admission, there are foreign leaders he likes but doesn't know their names, so your defense of him is moot.


Nice try.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> She called the TPP the gold standard of trade agreements before it was negotiated and controversial.
> Fainting isn't disqualifying.
> She had both and never claimed that what was pneumonia was actually allergies.
> If you did any reading, you would know she was not contagious.
> ...


I would add the does it matter issue but it is not about if it is illegal but it is about if her actions embarrassed her or potrayed her in negative light and with regards to the secret talks with Goldman Sachs, the reversal of the Tpp supports, her emails, that comment durring benghazi, and the deplorables and now the basement dwellers,the amswer is whether fair or not her statements or actions have done just that.



Lacius said:


> You can go back and read my previous posts on the email story, because I'm not going to do it again just because a Johnson-support is sad his candidate makes idiotic mistakes and needs to spin away from that


 pot meet kettle. Regardles that mentality is what the liberal media has been doing recently to Stein and Johnson and it is BS.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> She called the TPP the gold standard of trade agreements before it was negotiated and controversial.


Yet she made a fool of herself by denying it in the debate.


Lacius said:


> Fainting isn't disqualifying.


Again, you asked when she made a fool of herself, not when she did or did not do anything disqualifying.


Lacius said:


> She had both and never claimed that what was pneumonia was actually allergies.


At first, she implied that it was only allergies.


Lacius said:


> If you did any reading, you would know she was not contagious.


If you did any reading, you would know that she was contagious.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1069.aspx?CategoryID=69


Lacius said:


> She didn't break any laws using the server. It's why she wasn't indicted.


She did break laws, but she is "Too Big to Jail," and the FBI never had any intention of prosecuting her in the first place.


Lacius said:


> The primaries weren't rigged, and there's no reason to think she would have even been involved with it if they had been. Liking DWS doesn't demonstrate anything. That's a guilt by association fallacy.


By thinking Bernie supporters will vote for her, she is making a fool of herself.


Lacius said:


> So?


So, she made a fool of herself.


Lacius said:


> There's a reason why she has overwhelming support from the black community.


Is it comfortable living under your rock?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-florida-black-voters-228822

This also talks about black support as a whole.


Lacius said:


> Having a super PAC in an election that necessitates it doesn't mean she doesn't want to repeat _Citizens United_. She's been very clear about it. Obama had a super PAC, but he wants _Citizens United_ gone too, and he has nominated justices who would be likely to do just that.


She still made a fool of herself.


Lacius said:


> It's like you're not trying.


It's like you're oblivious to reality. (because you are)


----------



## vayanui8 (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, he wasn't asked to pick a foreign leader he agrees with 100%; he was asked to pick a foreign leader whom he likes. Is he so much of a politician that he can't say a name without fear that he will ruffle some Libertarian feathers? Second, and by Johnson's admission, there are foreign leaders he likes but doesn't know their names, so your defense of him is moot.
> .


Or maybe there just aren't any other leaders in the world that represent the same ideals as him, so he doesn't have any he likes. I'm not even a Johnson supporter but I don't see how this would be an issue. Its hard enough to find a politician I like here in the US where we still represent some of the ideals I believe in, much less in other parts of the world that don't represent them at all.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I would add the does it matter issue but it is not about if it is illegal but it is about if her actions embarrassed her or potrayed her in negative light and with regards to the secret talks with Goldman Sachs


Giving paid speeches is neither disqualifying nor embarrassing.



RevPokemon said:


> the reversal of the Tpp supports, her emails


See above about how these are non-issues.



RevPokemon said:


> that comment durring benghazi


What comment?



RevPokemon said:


> and the deplorables


Not a politically savvy comment, but it also wasn't untrue, and it's not disqualifying.



RevPokemon said:


> pot meet kettle. Regardles that mentality is what the liberal media has been doing recently to Stein and Johnson and it is BS.


Nobody asked Johnson and Stein to make idiotic comments.



I pwned U! said:


> Yet she made a fool of herself by denying it in the debate.


She wasn't wrong in the debate. See what I said previously.



I pwned U! said:


> Again, you asked when she made a fool of herself, not when she did or did not do anything disqualifying.


Fainting has no bearing on this election. It's not disqualifying. It's not foolish. It's fainting. This is grasping at straws.



I pwned U! said:


> At first, she implied that it was only allergies.


I'd like a source for this. She never claimed that what was pneumonia was allergies.



I pwned U! said:


> If you did any reading, you would know that she was contagious.
> 
> http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1069.aspx?CategoryID=69


If you had read the doctor's report, you would have seen that it was a _mild non-contagious bacterial pneumonia_.



I pwned U! said:


> She did break laws, but she is "Too Big to Jail," and the FBI never had any intention of prosecuting her in the first place.


Which laws?



I pwned U! said:


> By thinking Bernie supporters will vote for her, she is making a fool of herself.


She has over 91% of the Bernie supporters, according to an August report. So, it looks like she's not the fool here. Good thing you're not running for president.



I pwned U! said:


> So, she made a fool of herself.


She didn't. I suggest you reread the timeline of what happened.



I pwned U! said:


> Is it comfortable living under your rock?
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-florida-black-voters-228822
> 
> This also talks about black support as a whole.


You tell me.



I pwned U! said:


> She still made a fool of herself.


I'm not sure how. Do you know how super PACs work?



vayanui8 said:


> Or maybe there just aren't any other leaders in the world that represent the same ideals as him, so he doesn't have any he likes. I'm not even a Johnson supporter but I don't see how this would be an issue. Its hard enough to find a politician I like here in the US where we still represent some of the ideals I believe in, much less in other parts of the world that don't represent them at all.


This point was already addressed here.


----------



## Engert (Oct 2, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> It was clear you meant to spin things as you've been doing for 38 pages.



Lacius is a professional troll. One of the best in the business I must add and he's very entertaining to watch troll you all. 
He also has trust and secrecy issues which is why he immediately connects to people like Hillary who are professional sociopaths with a rough childhood like hillarys mother.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

Engert said:


> Lacius is a professional troll. One of the best in the business I must add and he's very entertaining to watch troll you all.
> He also has trust and secrecy issues which is why he immediately connects to people like Hillary who are professional sociopaths with a rough childhood like hillarys mother.


Yeah, _I'm_ the troll.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Giving paid speeches is neither disqualifying nor embarrassing


The thing with these points is that it does not matter if it is illegal or disqualifying. The thing we are addressing is she if she has said or acted in a way that brought negative attention to her self. In some of those cases they might have been blown out to an extent BUT regardless they caused negative reaction on her. Plus for what it is worth when we ask what is disqualifying it is much up to your own perspective


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The thing with these points is that it does not matter if it is illegal or disqualifying. The thing we are addressing is she if she has said or acted in a way that brought negative attention to her self. In some of those cases they might have been blown out to an extent BUT regardless they caused negative reaction on her. Plus for what it is worth when we ask what is disqualifying it is much up to your own perspective


Negative attention isn't indicative of whether or not a person is qualified to be president.


----------



## The Cringe (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Yeah, _I'm_ the troll.


Yay, you *finally* get it!!!


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Negative attention isn't indicative of whether or not a person is qualified to be president.


I was reffering to when you stated

"I would like it very much if you could find something comparable to what Johnson said, preferably something within the last, say, four years."

So I did. I did not say those things were disqualifying or not. Regardless what you consider to be  disqualifing is subjective to each persons opinion.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> Yay, you *finally* get it!!!
> View attachment 64570


I suggest you look at the italicized _I'm_ and how it's indicative of sarcasm.

Pointing out the facts as I see them doesn't fit any definition of trolling that I'm aware of. I'm not trying to elicit any sort of negative emotional response from my posts. I'm merely participating in political discourse. Please learn the difference before posting something that makes you look silly.



RevPokemon said:


> I was reffering to when you stated
> 
> "I would like it very much if you could find something comparable to what Johnson said, preferably something within the last, say, four years."
> 
> So I did. I did not say those things were disqualifying or not. Regardless what you consider to be  disqualifing is subjective to each persons opinion.


Here's a reminder of what we were talking about:


RevPokemon said:


> *I could use those past experiences of Clinton and say they are disqualifying and have no problem*. To say you can overlock those faults of hers and then condemn Johnson is absurd.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm not trying to elicit any sort of negative emotional response from my posts.


Then how do you explain this?


Lacius said:


> Disrespectful to a few members for no reason.-Ska


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Then how do you explain this?


I have no idea what that is.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I have no idea what that is.


It is a former staff member editing out your disrespectful post.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> It is a former staff member editing out your disrespectful post.


I cannot verify that it was disrespectful.

Edit: If it was disrespectful, I didn't mean for it to be. If I were a troll, I'm sure a lot more than one post would be disrespectful.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I cannot verify that it was disrespectful.


There is no need to, because someone with authority here already did.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 2, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> It is a former staff member editing out your disrespectful post.





Lacius said:


> I cannot verify that it was disrespectful.


If it was disrespectful then @Lacius then you probably would have been PM'd or have a warning mark


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> There is no need to, because someone with authority here already did.


Forgive me if I don't accept that it was disrespectful without knowing what I said. Disrespectful is not my M.O. Pointing out what I see as the facts is my M.O. Calling out bullshit is my M.O. Being blunt is my M.O. Also, see above. This is all irrelevant even if the one post had accidentally gone too far.



RevPokemon said:


> If it was disrespectful then @Lacius then you probably would have been PM'd or have a warning mark


I received no such PM. I didn't notice it until now.


----------



## The Cringe (Oct 2, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> If it was disrespectful then @Lacius then you probably would have been PM'd or have a warning mark


LOL, he probably did and just does not want to admit it.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> LOL, he probably did and just does not want to admit it.


If you're going to believe that without evidence, then it's clear what your standards for belief are, and it explains your posts.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 2, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> LOL, he probably did and just does not want to admit it.


 
To be clear I never implied that.


----------



## The Cringe (Oct 2, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> To be clear I never implied that.


I know. It's just my guess.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 2, 2016)

@Lacius 

Here is who you will want to PM for more information:

https://gbatemp.net/members/crazyska.237/


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> I know. It's just my guess.


So you're making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about a user, and you're specifically targeting said user with, for example, location statuses such as _"Calling out Lacius for being high on HRC's lies"_ instead of addressing actual posts and content. I do not believe I am the troll here.

Edit: If I were a moderator, this is the point when I would lock this thread.



I pwned U! said:


> @Lacius
> 
> Here is who you will want to PM for more information:
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/members/crazyska.237/


I'm not exactly interested.


----------



## The Cringe (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm not exactly interested.


LOL, and yet you call me out for making guesses...


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> LOL, and yet you call me out for making guesses...


Did I make some sort of unsubstantiated claim?


----------



## The Cringe (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Did I make some sort of unsubstantiated claim?


I'm saying that you called me out for not knowing that for certain, you said that you did not know if someone else's guess was right, and you said that you did not want to know.

If you never want to find out, then all we can do is guess as to why it was removed and the extent to how it was dealt with.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> I'm saying that you called me out for not knowing that for certain, you said that you did not know if someone else's guess was right, and you said that you did not want to know.
> 
> If you never want to find out, then all we can do is guess as to why it was removed and the extent to how it was dealt with.


I don't see any reason to care either way. Regardless, we're derailing the thread. Enough.


----------



## The Cringe (Oct 2, 2016)

Back on topic:

I have a *huge* crush on Jill! 

Listening to her discuss awesome solutions to the problems facing our world is all I need to be satisfied with my life. Not to mention how *hot* she is when she does it!


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Here's a reminder of what we were talking about:



To get us back on topic and because I missed this, I was not stating Hilloary should be disqualified for her Statements. Now constitionally Trump, Clinton, Stein all of the main 6 are qualified in that regard. However her past actions of support of military interaction, views on encryption, views on whistleblowing, views on the death penalty,  and so forth give me reason to believe that she is not qualified for presidency in terms of her policy ideas.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> To get us back on topic and because I missed this, I was not stating Hilloary should be disqualified for her Statements. Now constitionally Trump, Clinton, Stein all of the main 6 are qualified in that regard. However her past actions of support of military interaction, views on encryption, views on whistleblowing, views on the death penalty,  and so forth give me reason to believe that she is not qualified for presidency in terms of her policy ideas.


That's a different story entirely then. However, I don't personally believe her positions disqualify her for the presidency (I'm not going to agree with someone 100% of the time), and I'm actually in alignment with her on several of those positions. The ones I disagree with are also ones I can live with relative to everything else.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's a different story entirely then


And sorry I did not say that clearer



Lacius said:


> However, I don't personally believe her positions disqualify her for the presidency (I'm not going to agree with someone 100% of the time)


Same with every candidate as I feel each informed voter will have certain views which they will judge of someone is qualified to receive their vote. But you are right it really is personal.


----------



## Flame (Oct 2, 2016)

We are doomed i tell you. DOOOOOM!


----------



## RShadowBolt (Oct 2, 2016)

Tbh, whoever wins, America is gonna be pretty fucked.


----------



## Viri (Oct 3, 2016)

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...hers-him-that-she-called-him-a-false-promise/

Huehue, part of me feels bad for Sander's supporters.


----------



## TheDonald (Nov 9, 2016)

I can smell the victory 
Make murica great again !


----------



## Futurdreamz (Nov 9, 2016)

I don't even want to peek at FunnyJunk because it must be going really crazy over there.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

RShadowBolt said:


> Tbh, whoever wins, America is gonna be pretty fucked.



Nothin' like good old fashioned fear-mongering from the lamestream media.


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

Trump is the most trustworthy among all candidates..


----------



## dpad_5678 (Nov 9, 2016)

Arkansaw said:


> Trump is the most trustworthy among all candidates..


*Trump's voice / Ear rape and echo*

"I want to be UNPREDICTABLE"


----------



## Chary (Nov 9, 2016)

Arkansaw said:


> Trump is the most trustworthy among all candidates..


That's...that's not saying much


----------



## dpad_5678 (Nov 9, 2016)

Chary said:


> That's...that's not saying much


Who ISN'T more trustworthy then Clinton? Besides Trump....

*Confeds Triggered*


----------



## Futurdreamz (Nov 9, 2016)

Chary said:


> That's...that's not saying much


The reason it's not saying much is all the more reason to vote him.

Trump is doing a very good job as coming off as an idiot. That means one of two things:

1. He is an idiot, and if he wins once the fallout settles much needed governmental reforms will take place to prevent that from happening again.
2. He is a genius masquerading as an idiot, and once he in power he will catch the corrupt elements off-guard when he starts enacting reforms.

Either was it's a win-win solution in the long term, while Clinton will keep things okay in the short term but then things slowly start going to hell afterwards.


----------



## TheDonald (Nov 9, 2016)

Thanks everyone for your support.
Together we'll make America great again !


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 9, 2016)

I told you @grossaffe, my crystal ball works. I guess the polls were wrong after all, @Lacius. Boy, oh boy - what an interesting time. MAGA, boys and girls!


----------



## Engert (Nov 9, 2016)

Goodbye Hillary. 
America has spoken!


----------



## Mr.ButtButt (Nov 9, 2016)

We're so fucked, aren't we.


----------



## Catastrophic (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr.ButtButt said:


> We're so fucked, aren't we.


No, because people like to exaggerate. I doubt this will change anything significantly.


----------



## Mr.ButtButt (Nov 9, 2016)

Catastrophic said:


> No, because people like to exaggerate. I doubt this will change anything significantly.


#Kanye2020 here we come


----------



## Catastrophic (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr.ButtButt said:


> #Kanye2020 here we come


BRINGIN THE WEST BACK TO THE WEST


----------



## Mr.ButtButt (Nov 9, 2016)

Catastrophic said:


> BRINGIN THE WEST BACK TO THE WEST


You can only find it here, in Kanye Quest


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 9, 2016)

Catastrophic said:


> No, because people like to exaggerate. I doubt this will change anything significantly.


Neo-nationalist President that will likely be able to nominate up to four supreme court justices by the time he's out of office with a majority republican congress to support him?

Naaaaah, nothing significant will change


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 9, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Neo-nationalist President that will likely be able to nominate up to four supreme court justices by the time he's out of office with a majority republican congress to support him?
> 
> Naaaaah, nothing significant will change


Funny how you're still eating up the media's lies. Did you believe the polls too?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 9, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Funny how you're still eating up the media's lies. Did you believe the polls too?


Course not, because I remember Gore vs Bush


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Funny how you're still eating up the media's lies. Did you believe the polls too?



I wouldn't argue with it, you cant make it understand the truth.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Nothin' like good old fashioned fear-mongering from the lamestream media.


well its pretty much a fact that trump will leave you guys with a lot more debt compared to Clinton. Both had their downsides but im confused as to how many Americans looked past his misogyny, racism and xenophobia

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Supster131 said:


>



Wow its funny how most of those points are untrue


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> well its pretty much a fact that trump will leave you guys with a lot more debt compared to Clinton. Both had their downsides but im confused as to how many Americans looked past his misogyny, racism and xenophobia



Clinton supports the TPP, that will ruin a lot of sites like this if it passes, Trump opposes the TPP, so, yeah. I have my reasons for not liking the Clinton's but I won't go into further detail.

Do tell me about the Benghazi story though, oh and double standards, remember those?

According to the internet:


Refuting Trump: Good
Refuting Clinton: Bad


I have my opinions as you have yours, and I expect people to respect each others' views.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> I wouldn't argue with it, you cant make it understand the truth.


How rude, why call a person "it" respect is an important thing in a discussion.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



the_randomizer said:


> Clinton supports the TPP, that will ruin a lot of sites like this if it passes, Trump opposes the TPP, so, yeah. I have my reasons for not liking the Clinton's but I won't go into further detail.
> 
> Do tell me about the Benghazi story though, oh and double standards, remember those?
> 
> ...


Im all for refuting clinton i dislike both seeing as how i hate the idea of a "wing"


----------



## dpad_5678 (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDonald said:


> Thanks everyone for your support.
> Together we'll make America great again !


Double Fist Her In The Ass. 
Before grabbing her by the P***y.

Her as in America.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Clinton supports the TPP, that will ruin a lot of sites like this if it passes, Trump opposes the TPP, so, yeah. I have my reasons for not liking the Clinton's but I won't go into further detail.
> 
> Do tell me about the Benghazi story though, oh and double standards, remember those?
> 
> ...


And yes i respect your view of trump, but I will say this, why? Why support a man who sexually assaults women? Please dont bring up bill, theres no point seeing as how he isnt running for president. Why support a man who calls an ethnicity rapists, murderers and drug dealers.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Nov 9, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Course not, because I remember Gore vs Bush


If it weren't for Broward County, FL (where I fucking live) we wouldn't have had our worst president of all time.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> And yes i respect your view of trump, but I will say this, why? Why support a man who sexually assaults women? Please dont bring up bill, theres no point seeing as how he isnt running for president. Why support a man who calls an ethnicity rapists, murderers and drug dealers.


Defending others? Being completely non-prejudice? Believing the government should not intervene with who you marry, simple because it goes against there Christian beliefs?
Fucking libtards.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> If it weren't for Broward County, FL (where I fucking live) we wouldn't have had our worst president of all time.
> 
> 
> Defending others? Being completely non-prejudice? Believing the government should not intervene with who you marry, simple because it goes against there Christian beliefs?
> Fucking libtards.



What the hell are you talking about? Im not a liberal. Im as unbiased as one could be in terms of politics.


----------



## Chary (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> well its pretty much a fact that trump will leave you guys with a lot more debt compared to Clinton. Both had their downsides but im confused as to how many Americans looked past his misogyny, racism and xenophobia
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...





TheDarkGreninja said:


> well its pretty much a fact that trump will leave you guys with a lot more debt compared to Clinton. Both had their downsides but im confused as to how many Americans looked past his misogyny, racism and xenophobia
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Because Hillary was never
misogynistic
racist
or xenophobic

ever.

Bonus: Her making fun of the way black people talk

I'm a chick, and you know what? I found Hillary's campaign to be more sexist than Trump's ever could be. Both candidates had flaws, it was just a manner of looking past Trump's lesser ones, compared to Hillary's larger problems.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> And yes i respect your view of trump, but I will say this, why? Why support a man who sexually assaults women? Please dont bring up bill, theres no point seeing as how he isnt running for president. Why support a man who calls an ethnicity rapists, murderers and drug dealers.



And yet it is these kinds of questions that make me want to never voice my opinions on politics, like, ever. Clinton isn't exactly either, deleting classified emails form her server, the Benghazi fiasco, the fact that she defended her husband during his little trip with Monica, the fact that her liberal belief conflict with mine.  My opinion is my own, and if people don't want to agree with it, that's fine by me, but when people try to call me out or try to negate what I say, it irks me.  This is why I hate politics.

Both politicians are equally corrupt. I'm done here.

If people think that Clinton is somehow less evil then Trump, well, that's their  thing. Both are idiots.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

@the_randomizer wait a sec how can a trade agreement affect sites like this?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> @the_randomizer wait a sec how can a trade agreement affect sites like this?




I'll place this here

http://www.ibtimes.com/tpp-unlockin...jail-under-treaty-rules-critics-claim-2171644

http://wearechange.org/tpp-will-make-unlocking-jailbreaking-and-rooting-your-phone-illegal/


Changes to copyright laws and patents, among other things, will pretty much criminalize any form of modding to phones, consoles, etc, under the TPP, which Clinton "is against" but will undoubtedly support. Trump opposes the TPP. As such, the GBA Temp may be adversely affected.  This is kind of  deal breaker for me.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

Chary said:


> Because Hillary was never
> misogynistic
> racist
> or xenophobic
> ...


Here ill break things down a bit, that fact you used the daily mail as a source is funny, how about using something that isnt biased against the left?
The next one is very credible and i'll accept it however this was once how many times has trump been racist?
 That isnt xenophobia its her stance on immigration. Try harder. I didnt hear any booing, so i'd say she wasnt being racist.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



the_randomizer said:


> I'll place this here
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.com/tpp-unlockin...jail-under-treaty-rules-critics-claim-2171644
> 
> ...



If she's against it why are you questioning this?


----------



## dpad_5678 (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> What the hell are you talking about? Im not a liberal. Im as unbiased as one could be in terms of politics.


What you were saying was on the liberal side. In a good way.... I was making a joke because conservatives call anyone who doesn't discriminate, hate, etc. a libtard.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

Chary said:


> Because Hillary was never
> misogynistic
> racist
> or xenophobic
> ...


Trumps lesser flaws? Dont make me laugh.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Here ill break things down a bit, that fact you used the daily mail as a source is funny, how about using something that isnt biased against the left?
> The next one is very credible and i'll accept it however this was once how many times has trump been racist?
> That isnt xenophobia its her stance on immigration. Try harder. I didnt hear any booing, so i'd say she wasnt being racist.
> 
> ...



She only says she's against it, but knowing how people like her work, she would enact it should she get into office. Trump is 100% opposed to it. I don't agree with Clinton or her liberal views, there, I said it,  go ahead and despise me for having different views


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> What you were saying was on the liberal side. In a good way.... I was making a joke because conservatives call anyone who doesn't discriminate, hate, etc. a libtard.


Oh sorry man.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Oh sorry man.


No problem. This election is fucking with our heads. We all though it would be better when it was finally over, but now we are more stressed out and paranoid then ever.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> She only says she's against it, but knowing how people like her work, she would enact it should she get into office. Trump is 100% opposed to it. I don't agree with Clinton or her liberal views, there, I said it, hate my guts.


No man, I love you. You have to put trust in a president and remember this, the president serves you not the other way around. Public outcry is a powerful tool.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Just for reference the KKK do support trump.
@Chary  have fun: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83
Edit: Cant lie some of these comments are just hilarious.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> No man, I love you. You have to put trust in a president and remember this, the president serves you not the other way around. Public outcry is a powerful tool.



The other reason, as I saw quoting from someone, Obamacare needs a reform, badly. I can't afford it, I'll get heavily penalized if I make more than the threshold (around 10,000 dollars). Premiums going up don't help my situation any better, this is another reason. Obamacare needs a major overhaul and incentives to get people over, esp. those who have crappy hours at their jobs.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> The other reason, as I saw quoting from someone, Obamacare needs a reform, badly. I can't afford it, I'll get heavily penalized if I make more than the threshold (around 10,000 dollars). Premiums going up don't help my situation any better, this is another reason. Obamacare needs a major overhaul and incentives to get people over, esp. those who have crappy hours at their jobs.


You guys should adopt something like us brits where you pay a tax for free healthcare for all, national insurance is an awesome idea imo.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Nov 9, 2016)

Citing untrustworthy resources (like citing Hillary, kek). It's like saying "well I heard it on FOX News"


----------



## Futurdreamz (Nov 9, 2016)

Apparently one of the big surprises was the massive turnout of Amish that voted for Trump. They never responeded to any of the popularity poll surveys, then suddenly they all mobilized to the voting booths en masse. Seems nobody expects the Amish Expedition.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You guys should adopt something like us brits where you pay a tax for free healthcare for all, national insurance is an awesome idea imo.



Anything would be better than the system we have now. Yes, I agree that healthcare should be available for everyone, but penalizing people, esp. with increasing premiums and with a fee for those who don't enroll, that's not a good motivator. The other problem is my boss just cut my hours, just when I was about to get the minimum coverage plan, but now I can't even afford that, much less paying off my student loans.  It needs a serious overhaul. Clinton would undoubtedly keep Obamacare going and premiums skyrocketing.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Anything would be better than the system we have now. Yes, I agree that healthcare should be available for everyone, but penalizing people, esp. with increasing premiums and with a fee for those who don't enroll, that's not a good motivator. The other problem is my boss just cut my hours, just when I was about to get the minimum coverage plan, but now I can't even afford that, much less paying off my student loans.  It needs a serious overhaul. Clinton would undoubtedly keep Obamacare going and premiums skyrocketing.


Well i dont think so, I believe both obama and clinton want things to change but how fast? i wonder...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also, America really isnt a democracy until you remove your electoral college.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 9, 2016)

It's time people. Anyone who said they're leaving the US, please deliver.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> I wouldn't argue with it, *you cant make it understand the truth.*


The passive aggression is strong with this one


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The passive aggression is strong with this one


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein. One of my favourite quotes.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@TotalInsanity4 Im guessing youre left?


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

I laughed when i saw this:


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

Word of advice: Always look at people with an open mind, the moment you take a side, youre only getting that sides piece of information, once you begin opening up however, you get the bigger picture, and not only that but you can finally make a decision for yourself, dont be the sheep you call others. I totally understand why people vote trump, its the same reason people join ISIS, fear. Fear is the most powerful emotion, it consumes your thoughts, all you can do is fear, Trump capitalised on this, he made Americans fear minorities even though there is no reason for it. The worst kind of fear is that, that is irrational. I can also see the idea of a wall being very appetising, but in all honesty people will find ways, its the true power of humanities relentlesness. Temporarily banning muslims wont help either becuase those muslims could just lie.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> I laughed when i saw this:


Kek. When it was the left who threw the gays under the bus for the radicals.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> I laughed when i saw this:


*this comic was most likely made by a Trump supporter, therefore rendering the point it's trying to make invalid because of bias*

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Kek. When it was the left who threw the gays under the bus for the radicals.


I'm sorry what?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> I laughed when i saw this:


Except, who says this?


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Except, who says this?




You said it about 5 posts up, fearrrrrrrr fearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

Welp, racism and sexism is going to be easier to spot I guess.

my silver lining feels a bit like aluminium foil though.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> You said it about 5 posts up, fearrrrrrrr fearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


Except i provided evidence nor did i ever say he would kill people.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I had no clue the temp was filled with so many ignorant people, you guys know a lot about tech, not so much politics or economics.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Except i provided evidence nor did i ever say he would kill people.



No one voted because of fear, people voted on who they wanted to win and the way the country will be shaped and run. The minority just cant see or understand it, we went through this with brexit.. give it a few weeks and you will accept defeat.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Except i provided evidence nor did i ever say he would kill people.


Look at this @mech don't waste your time. The intellectual doesn't understand how stupid he just made himself look. Says he understands why people voted Trump. Then he compares him to isis. Top fucking kek.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

I'll be honest and I cant lie, I like Trump and as much as I want to hate that guy hes one charismatic son of a bitch. While i definitely cant agree with him...


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Look at this @mech don't waste your time. The intellectual doesn't understand how stupid he just made himself look. Says he understands why people voted Trump. Then he compares him to isis. Top fucking kek.



I know right, id of been really worried if the worst side would of won.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> No one voted because of fear, people voted on who they wanted to win and the way the country will be shaped and run. The minority just cant see or understand it, we went through this with brexit.. give it a few weeks and you will accept defeat.


It was obviously fear. He brought up ideas of walls and banning entire religions how is that not fear? Brexit was a different issue. While i did vote in, I do like the way england is handling this.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> It was obviously fear. He brought up ideas of walls and banning entire religions how is that not fear? Brexit was a different issue. While i did vote in, I do like the way england is handling this.



obviously? LOL obviously not, just admit you cant see why you lost.... i mean how did you lose? you are always right eh?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Look at this @mech don't waste your time. The intellectual doesn't understand how stupid he just made himself look. Says he understands why people voted Trump. Then he compares him to isis. Top fucking kek.


You understand nothing. You and @mech just show me how pathetic you are that you have to use ad hominem to make your own points look good. Here, I'll take part, you obviously have the reading comprehension of a five year old, I said people join ISIS due to fear, in this case fear of the west.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



mech said:


> obviously? LOL obviously not, just admit you cant see why you lost.... i mean how did you lose? you are always right eh?


WTF are you talking about, youre as vague as trump is with his support from the KKK.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> I know right, id of been really worried if the worst side would of won.


Me too. I'm actually happy some of the "minorities" saw what Clinton was really about and voted Trump. I'm glad not all Latinos are as stupid and brainwashed as I thought. This is coming from a "minority".


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

anywayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy when are the retard celebs leaving the US then? like they said they were going too.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


>


Nice. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



mech said:


> anywayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy when are the retard celebs leaving the US then? like they said they were going too.


It was a joke why would they leave?


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

Putting the world to rights, one brexit at a time.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> Putting the world to rights, one brexit at a time.


Ok.

Anyways its funny how many straw men were pulled out of this aregument/discussion


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

Way more fun watching losers flog a dead horse.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> Way more fun watching losers flog a dead horse.


Maybe be a bit more clear? Doesnt help that I or anyone else has no clue what youre talking about. Also seeing as how youre quite evidently right wing, how can you like Trump? He has an economic plan that ends up putting America into more debt and lowering taxes is not an option if he really wants to build that wall.
Edit: Seems youve completely ignored my arguments.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Ok.
> 
> Anyways its funny how many straw men were pulled out of this aregument/discussion


Sure whatever helps you feel better about yourself. Maybe when you mature a little more and look back on this you'll notice you're not as open minded as you think.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Sure whatever helps you feel better about yourself. Maybe when you mature a little more and look back on this you'll notice you're not as open minded as you think.


Except im pretty sure I am. You dont know me at all, so basing my opinions on what I think of Trump is just dumb, maybe once you are truly capable of reading you can finally understand my points hmm?


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Maybe be a bit more clear? Doesnt help that I or anyone else has no clue what youre talking about. Also seeing as how youre quite evidently right wing, how can you like Trump? He has an economic plan that ends up putting America into more debt and lowering taxes is not an option if he really wants to build that wall.
> Edit: Seems youve completely ignored my arguments.




Thats why your type lost.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Word of advice: Always look at people with an open mind, the moment you take a side, youre only getting that sides piece of information, once you begin opening up however, you get the bigger picture, and not only that but you can finally make a decision for yourself, dont be the sheep you call others. I totally understand why people vote trump, its the same reason people join ISIS, fear. Fear is the most powerful emotion, it consumes your thoughts, all you can do is fear, Trump capitalised on this, he made Americans fear minorities even though there is no reason for it. The worst kind of fear is that, that is irrational. I can also see the idea of a wall being very appetising, but in all honesty people will find ways, its the true power of humanities relentlesness. Temporarily banning muslims wont help either becuase those muslims could just lie.





TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'll be honest and I cant lie, I like Trump and as much as I want to hate that guy hes one charismatic son of a bitch. While i definitely cant agree with him...


Yeah, doubt a liberal could even say this without going ape shit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



mech said:


> Thats why your type lost.


My type? Honestly you really need to work on your english.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Except im pretty sure I am. You dont know me at all, so basing my opinions on what I think of Trump is just dumb, maybe once you are truly capable of reading you can finally understand my points hmm?


Ok. Then tell me. Why did Trump win. He was supposed to lose. He was basically Hitler. So why? Please don't say fear tactic because that wasn't it.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Ok. Then tell me. Why did Trump win. He was supposed to lose. He was basically Hitler. So why?



Because @TheDarkGreninja said so, that's how their type thinks. Must take it as gospel.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Ok. Then tell me. Why did Trump win. He was supposed to lose. He was basically Hitler. So why?


He won becuase he tapped into that fear, as well as the fact you should never trust polls. Trump used rhetoric that makes people question things like their security as I had said he capitilised on this. If you cant see this youre as blind as a bat.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



mech said:


> Because @TheDarkGreninja said so, that's how their type thinks. Must take it as gospel.


Im done with your type, disrespectful, immature human beings who hate being wrong or even the idea that not everyone thinks the same way as them, think for a sec, if someone was attacked for being different you think thats helping your cause? hell no.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> He won becuase he tapped into that fear, as well as the fact you should never trust polls. Trump used rhetoric that makes people question things like their security as I had said he capitilised on this. If you cant see this youre as blind as a bat.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...




So i have a type now? Didnt you just try and put me down for saying that? lol.. i think you must be remedial.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 9, 2016)

Engert said:


> Goodbye Hillary.
> America has spoken!


She won the popular vote. So, America has spoken, but not in the way you think.



I pwned U! said:


> Who else is looking forward to reading @Lacius's reaction?


I'm disappointed, but I've accepted the results and moved on. Sorry if that was a let-down.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

Lacius said:


> She won the popular vote. So, America has spoken, but not in the way you think.
> 
> 
> I'm disappointed, but I've accepted the results and moved on. Sorry if that was a let-down.


Forgot you were a liberal.


----------



## raulpica (Nov 9, 2016)

Welp, I think this thread has outlived its purpose.

Locked.


----------

