# [POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2016)

Well, the primary season is over. With the general election season underway, whom will/would you vote for and why?

For the poll, I listed the nominees for the five political parties that have ballot access to 270 or more electoral votes and therefore have a technical chance at winning. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party both have access to all 538 electoral votes, and because it is a two-party system, it is almost certain (>99.9%) that either Secretary Clinton or Donald Trump will win the election. In addition, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Constitution Party, and Evan McMullin all have access to >270 electoral votes each. If any other political parties get ballot access to 270 or more electoral votes, I will add them to the poll.

I highly recommend taking the iSideWith Quiz to see which candidate's policy positions you are most in alignment with. My iSideWith results:


Spoiler










It goes without saying, but remember to keep your discussions civil.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 10, 2016)

I was quite surprised by the dislike Hillary Clinton seems to be garnering. I tried to find out why and most of what came back (the emails, the embassy, being cosy with business and some abysmal PR management of each of those) seemed like the standard doings of a politician, by no means does she seem to be a good one but the more that Mr Trump either speaks or has dealings from the past come to light the bigger detached and clueless wanker he seems to be (though as a mouthpiece he does not have the worst speech writers, even they write some contemptible nonsense). The two party system is probably going to see a bit of a shake up after this (looking at things they seem to mostly be keeping it together for the kids election) but it is still two party enough that I am not expecting the other two to do any real damage. If Mr Trump stood a chance of pulling off even half the bollocks he has been spouting (even if congress, the judiciary and the various other branches were aligned with his party and he could whip them into line he would still seem to have basic economics, physics, the legal system, international pressure and probably some in the general population as well) then I would be pissing myself in terror.

I would be surprised if either gets a second term.

Anyway I don't vote as a rule (too much effort to actually pick someone and think about it all and going with gut might as well be going random which might as well be not at all) and probably will not unless I am legally compelled to.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jun 10, 2016)

Do I really have to make this decision?  I'm not going to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, as neither of them even have a remote chance of winning.  That leaves Trump and Hillary.  The problem is, both of these candidates fucking suck!  Their views align in many ways (not all ways, but quite a few), so I think we'll be in the same position next "voting season" with either candidate.  The only reason I'd vote for Trump is because I'm a strong conservative and simply can't find it in myself to support a liberal candidate.  So, if I vote, I'll be (reluctantly) voting for Trump.


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 10, 2016)

I'm not American but if I where, I'd vote for Trump.
See if he can fuck up the US more then Bush did, just for fun.

In reality, I don't know.
Haven't paid any interest in what they wanted and promised.
All I know is that Trump is a racist cunt and Clinton gets bad PR.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 10, 2016)

I was rooting for Bernie, but it looks like Hillary will have to do.


----------



## mgrev (Jun 10, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I'm not American but if I where, I'd vote for Trump.
> See if he can fuck up the US more then Bush did, just for fun.


just wait for 7/11. "i was there at 7/11" he will fuck murica harder than a titanium ingot up my ass


----------



## petethepug (Jun 10, 2016)

Hillary, won't get into eco politics, but theres more pros with Hillary for fair rights.
It should be interesting seeing Donald debating with her


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 10, 2016)

Jill Stein will always have my vote, but I know she would never win. So I am going to Hillary Clinton, because she's not Trump


----------



## Alex4U (Jun 10, 2016)

Why donald Trump hate me and the others mexicans :´)?
By the way... im not american, so, i cant vote...


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 10, 2016)

I would vote Vermin Supreme. 
Oh, wait he's not there. Clinton would have to be it then. 

PS: actually, this is all a joke, all of them would be easy worst presidents than Obama was, isn't the idea to improve? good luck with your economy and foreign relations with that failure of a politician or that charismatic fascist dictator impersonator. There is no good choice there.


----------



## Supster131 (Jun 10, 2016)

I'm 16, so I still can't vote yet. If I was able to vote though, it would go to Trump. I'm all for Bernie, but the chances of him winning the democratic party is slim, which is pretty disappointing. Shillary is a liar and shouldn't be trusted, but I guess the American people are just too stupid to realize that. I mean, hell, Trump's the only Republican candidate because he was dominating the other candidates. How is that possible? He's a fucking clown.

Oh well, make America great again, I guess.
Not like this country's going to change much, it's already shitty as it is and it's going to stay that way.


----------



## VinsCool (Jun 10, 2016)

Move to Canada while you still can.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 10, 2016)

VinsCool said:


> Move to Canada while you still can.


South Park everyday. That season was good.


----------



## loco365 (Jun 10, 2016)

I would legitimately have a hard time voting in the US election, fortunately I don't live there so I don't have to make that decision. However, if I were, I'd vote for the candidate that was least likely to win so that I wouldn't have to say I supported either Trump or Hillary. I don't like either of them, however, if Sanders was in there I'd gladly vote for him.

Or else just don't vote at all, but then I wouldn't be able to bitch and complain about who won since I didn't participate in the first place.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 10, 2016)

Lets be realistic here, the race ultimately boils down to Trump or Clinton. I don't find either remarkable tbh. Clinton seems like a career politician in bed with big money, and Trump seems like he has no humility in him whatsoever. America has long since seen a remarkable leader imho, and I believe he was killed for those remarkable dreams he planned for this country. We've had a few highs and lows in our leadership since then, but most if not all of our representatives seem out of touch with the people now, and are generally just concerned with pleasing the wealthy and/or high profile.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 10, 2016)

remember that sanders and clinton voted for the same things 93% of the time in, what is it called, the senate? or congress?
and both are a much saner choice than drumpf or not voting (every nonvote is essentially helping to elect donald and you know it)

though, to be quite honest, with your stupid election system with the representatives eventually being able to vote completely against the majority of the people in their districts, there's probably no right choice to make either way, right?


----------



## Supster131 (Jun 10, 2016)

VinsCool said:


> Move to Canada while you still can.


Let me live with you pls.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2016)

Alex4U said:


> Why donald Trump hate me and the others mexicans :´)?
> By the way... im not american, so, i cant vote...


Trump loves hispanics, what are you on about?


----------



## loco365 (Jun 10, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> Let me live with you pls.








But yeah, tbh I'm pretty sure Canada's population will probably spike near the border after the election.


----------



## I pwned U! (Jun 10, 2016)

I #FeelTheBern and will only vote for Bernie Sanders.

If the super delegates are truly serious about wanting to stop Trump, then they will pledge their support to Bernie, because Hillary is continuously losing in recent polls to Trump, whereas Bernie is beating him big time.

Even if Bernie does not win the nomination, he can still run as an independent, or voters could use write-in ballots to vote for him.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2016)

Jesus Christ, people actually support Bernie Sanders? The red menace is still doing well, apparently. None of my business, really, but any pick other than Sanders and Stein would be acceptable for the U.S.


----------



## [^Blark^] (Jun 10, 2016)

Alex4U said:


> Why donald Trump hate me and the others mexicans :´)?
> By the way... im not american, so, i cant vote...


He doesn't just hate mexicans he hates us all. back to burning coal?!?!. fuck trump and his hair and his "Hearing" idea's that new energy like solar is creating less "jobs" so we should go back to burning coal and working in mines. aaaand fuck Hilary and her email scandal with doing things she had no proper authority to do and then when told it was at risk she ignored it multiple times not just once and then got hacked.....

bernie still hasn't backed down from what I read recently if its true. so if I can I still will vote for bern.


edit: let's not forget Trump quoted the National enquirer........


----------



## BLsquared (Jun 10, 2016)

To be honest, none of these candidates I agree with fully, although that is to be expected.
While I do like some of Trump's ideas concerning keeping America, well, America, he is not the most eloquent speaker.
Unfortunately, I can not support Hillary, as she seems determined to tear apart my freedoms. Not a fan of that. I mean, turning us into Australia? Who thinks this is a good idea?
I looked into Johnson, and I can say he's not too bad in my opinion. He seems a bit unsure of himself though, and I don't like his idea for a new drugs policy.
I tend to be more conservative, but really what I look for is not what to support, but what not to. So Trump may have to be my choice. I wish Cruz had stayed in the running...

Really, what we need here, in my opinion of course, is less Federal government control, and more to the States and people themselves.
That, and less of this whole "rights to special people groups" thing; it'll tear this country apart.

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



Foxi4 said:


> Jesus Christ, people actually support Bernie Sanders? The red menace is still doing well, apparently. None of my business, really, but any pick other than Sanders and Stein would be acceptable for the U.S.


Thank you. Someone else who sees this.
The main reason I find that some people I know would want him is the whole "free college" thing. Do people stop to wonder where that money will come from?

I remember a man I worked for during a short period years ago; he was an immigrant from Russia, and one thing he said I found interesting:
"I came to America because I didn't like Russia. Why are people wanting to make America more like Russia?"
EDIT:
Concering the above quote, I was not comparing Sanders to Russia directly per-se, I was just using it as an example for the overall mess we as Americans find ourselves in these days. America is supposed to be America, dangit!


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 10, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I #FeelTheBern and will only vote for Bernie Sanders.
> 
> If the super delegates are truly serious about wanting to stop Trump, then they will pledge their support to Bernie, because Hillary is continuously losing in recent polls to Trump, whereas Bernie is beating him big time.
> 
> Even if Bernie does not win the nomination, he can still run as an independent, or voters could use write-in ballots to vote for him.


sources for continuously losing to trump and why would bernie win elections if he can't win pre-elections?

and you know just as well as i that sanders will throw himself behind clinton the moment his nomination is completely out of the picture.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I #FeelTheBern and will only vote for Bernie Sanders.
> 
> If the super delegates are truly serious about wanting to stop Trump, then they will pledge their support to Bernie, because Hillary is continuously losing in recent polls to Trump, whereas Bernie is beating him big time.
> 
> Even if Bernie does not win the nomination, he can still run as an independent, or voters could use write-in ballots to vote for him.


Superdelegates aren't going to subvert the popular vote and pledged delegate count to pick Bernie Sanders. I voted for Bernie in the primary, but Hillary won fair and square. Bernie will likely drop out and endorse Hillary in the coming days/weeks.

In addition, as already mentioned in this thread, Hillary and Bernie are roughly 95% in alignment when it comes to policy. For people who want to see whom they align with, I highly recommend the iSideWith test.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 10, 2016)

Instead of corporations dumping billions of dollars into SuperPACs and lobbyists, they could dump it into scholarships....


----------



## CeeDee (Jun 10, 2016)

Delete your account.


----------



## CosmoCortney (Jun 10, 2016)

Trump is the best example why people without education in politics should not be allowed to be elected. Clinton has political experience since she was the state's secretary. Trump has nothing.
If he wouldn't be that rich I doubt he'd be a candidate. 
In my point of view, if he wins, the IS also wins, because it's their goal to cleavage the USA. Also, he is just playing with the people's fears. For example he claims that the Afro Americans steal all the jobs (spreading fears). A few minutes later he complains that the Afro Americans are mostly unemployed.. like.. wtf 
Also spreading fear by mentioning the drug smuggle from Mexico to the USA. His solution is a wall. But don't we all know walls only cause damage? Remember the wall of Berlin and the wall between North- and South Korea.
A wall wouldn't reduce the smuggle in any way since a mentionable amount of them passes the border by ship or underground tunnels. If drug smuggle would really be his true reason for the wall, then he would also build one on the Canadian border. But he didn't say a word about it. So my conclusion is that this wall is just the product of racist insanity. I can't understand his hate against Mexico. If you don't think about the crime there, you will see they have a great culture, awesome food, last but not least Mexicans are very kind and hospital people. 
Also his slogan "Make America great again"... Is he saying that the USA isn't great right now? I'd not want a president finding my country shitty.

I am shocked that so many people still vote for him. Even I don't live in the USA, the whole situation upsets me. I'm glad to see that many tempers don't go for Trump. If Clinton will become president, I'll be really relieved. 
But right now... I can't assess myself who will win..


----------



## XavyrrVaati (Jun 10, 2016)

I vote for socialism!<3 you can all bern!


----------



## TheCasketMan (Jun 10, 2016)

I will vote for Trump.  I would state my reasons, but I won't waste my time posting them since they will just get hate.


----------



## endoverend (Jun 10, 2016)

Who in the world is Jill Stein? I've never heard of her.

Anyway, I think that most of the current candidates would be a bad choice. They are mostly old farts (Bernie would likely kick the bucket while in office anyway).

The only reason Hilary has her success is because of the Democratic superdelegate system. The superdelegates committed to Clinton since they're all party insiders and Bernie isn't really a democrat. Hell, half of them committed even before Bernie announced his campaign, so even if he got the actual delegate lead Hilary still has it in the bag. She's also the go-to "not Trump" candidate as most people are too afraid to vote for Bernie due to the US's fear of socialism. I ask you this, when is the last time you have heard a positive thing about Clinton other than "she has political experience"? For me, it's been a while since I've heard anything other than scandals. 

I think people are overreacting about what Trump can do, it's not like the president is some supreme dictator. He physically cannot do most of the things he says. There is a congress to worry about. I'd say his presidency would be the most entertaining of the bunch but ultimately would not get anything more done than the rest of them.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 10, 2016)

TheCasketMan said:


> I will vote for Trump.  I would state my reasons, but I won't waste my time posting them since they will just get hate.


Then don't bait. 
Why stating what you are not going to do?
Baiting behaviour gets you hated.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2016)

endoverend said:


> The only reason Hilary has her success is because of the Democratic superdelegate system. The superdelegates committed to Clinton since they're all party insiders and Bernie isn't really a democrat. Hell, half of them committed even before Bernie announced his campaign, so even if he got the actual delegate lead Hilary still has it in the bag. She's also the go-to "not Trump" candidate as most people are too afraid to vote for Bernie due to the US's fear of socialism.


Hillary won because she earned a majority of the popular vote and a majority of the pledged delegates. The Democratic Primary system is designed so that a candidate must get at least some superdelegates to win the nomination (unless a candidate is somehow pulling in ~75% of the vote in every state). Clinton only needs roughly 25% of the superdelegates to support her. If Bernie had gotten the nomination, it would have been because of the superdelegate system subverting the will of the voters.

Edit: To be clear, if Bernie had won the nomination, it would have been because ~78% (555) superdelegates decided that they didn't care about the result of the primary elections and voted for him anyway, despite the fact that Hillary won.


----------



## endoverend (Jun 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Hillary won because she earned a majority of the popular vote and a majority of the pledged delegates. The Democratic Primary system is designed so that a candidate must get at least some superdelegates to win the nomination (unless a candidate is somehow pulling in ~75% of the vote in every state). Clinton only needs roughly 25% of the superdelegates to support her. If Bernie had gotten the nomination, it would have been because of the superdelegate system subverting the will of the voters.


But it's clear that the popular support between them is equal, since their regular delegates are almost even. The super delegates, being important democratic figures, are obviously more likely to go for the party insider is all I'm saying.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2016)

endoverend said:


> But it's clear that the popular support between them is equal, since their regular delegates are almost even. The super delegates, being important democratic figures, are obviously more likely to go for the party insider is all I'm saying.


Hillary won the pledged delegates, 55% (2,203) to 45% (1,828). It wasn't that close.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2016)

I'm with @endoverend, anyone who thinks Trump will implement any of his so-called "insane" and "racist" ideas bought a publicity stunt hook, line and sinker. The man's a capitalist, he built his empire on international trade. He knows exactly what he's doing and there's no amount of liberal whining that can turn it around. In fact, it's putting more water on his mill - the only winning move would be not to play, but that's not an option. He's like a Wild Card - you don't know what you'll get, but at least it's not some lofty socialist utopia based on "free money" conjured up by fairies and good wishes.


----------



## endoverend (Jun 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Hillary won the pledged delegates, 55% (2,203) to 45% (1,828). It wasn't that close.


That would be considered pretty close if the nomination was run like the Republican system is, based purely on delegates. It doesn't matter since it's just a game of figures.


----------



## MontyQ (Jun 10, 2016)

trump be howls just to wake up and see how much he f'd up the usa


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 10, 2016)

BLsquared said:


> To be honest, none of these candidates I agree with fully,
> 
> Unfortunately, I can not support Hillary, as she seems determined to tear apart my freedoms. Not a fan of that.
> what I look for is not what to support, but what not to. So Trump may have to be my choice. I wish Cruz had stayed in the running...
> ...



not sure if serious or trolling.
everything up until the auto merger seems rather idiotic. trump will absolutely not make america more american and he's sure as hell not going to give you any more freedoms. those'll go to to companies and employers etc. and when they wont have to pay any more taxes and don't have to pay you any more money, where will things go then?

and where might that money come from? maybe from the military budget you actually dont need. because even the biggest military will never prevent those rare terror attacks. sanders ideals and russia are two ridiculously different things. trump and putin have so much in common, among them that both will completely ruin their countries eventually.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 10, 2016)

CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP!


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 10, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> I was quite surprised by the dislike Hillary Clinton seems to be garnering. I tried to find out why and most of what came back (the emails, the embassy, being cosy with business and some abysmal PR management of each of those) seemed like the standard doings of a politician, by no means does she seem to be a good one but the more that Mr Trump either speaks or has dealings from the past come to light the bigger detached and clueless wanker he seems to be (though as a mouthpiece he does not have the worst speech writers, even they write some contemptible nonsense). The two party system is probably going to see a bit of a shake up after this (looking at things they seem to mostly be keeping it together for the kids election) but it is still two party enough that I am not expecting the other two to do any real damage. If Mr Trump stood a chance of pulling off even half the bollocks he has been spouting (even if congress, the judiciary and the various other branches were aligned with his party and he could whip them into line he would still seem to have basic economics, physics, the legal system, international pressure and probably some in the general population as well) then I would be pissing myself in terror.
> 
> I would be surprised if either gets a second term.
> 
> Anyway I don't vote as a rule (too much effort to actually pick someone and think about it all and going with gut might as well be going random which might as well be not at all) and probably will not unless I am legally compelled to.



As far as legit reasons to dislike Hillary: She's against free journalism (viciously and disregarding law, same as obama), against a free internet (threw her weight behind PIPA and all the others), anti-privacy (always votes for increasing and solidifying NSA powers) and is very much a war-hawk (always a pro-military position). There are other reasons, but these are the ones I am opposed to her for.

Mainly because it's a simple matter to check her voting record on such things. You have to ignore what she says, as she's a standard politician that says what people want to hear and seem disconnected with her actions.

That being said, Trump is obviously going to be bad on all those fronts as well, so really, both are going to be terrible for many fundamental rights.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> As far as legit reasons to dislike Hillary: She's against free journalism (super against whistle-blowers), against a free internet (threw her weight behind PIPA and all the others)


Hillary Clinton was against PIPA and has a strong history of advocating for net neutrality.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Hillary Clinton was against PIPA and has a strong history of advocating for net neutrality.


Oh, good, she changed her stance. Hopefully she sticks with it this time. I recall her voting for it first time it came up. I'll go find the actual vote.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Oh, good, she changed her stance. Hopefully she sticks with it this time.


I tried to find an instance when she didn't support net neutrality, but I couldn't.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I tried to find an instance when she didn't support net neutrality, but I couldn't.


Well, she voted for and still supports the patriot act, which isn't very kind to net neutrality mentality. I'm looking for her votes on all the PIPA related stuff.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Well, she voted for and still supports the patriot act, which isn't very kind to net neutrality. I'm looking for her votes on all the PIPA related stuff.


Yeah, the vote for the Patriot Act sucks, but I couldn't find an instance when she was actually against net neutrality, and every quote I've found shows her being for net neutrality.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Oh, good, she changed her stance. Hopefully she sticks with it this time. I recall her voting for it first time it came up. I'll go find the actual vote.



at least she didn't change her stance every other day of the week like the annoying orange


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Yeah, the vote for the Patriot Act vote sucks, but I couldn't find an instance when she was actually against net neutrality, and every quote I've found shows her being for net neutrality.


The thing with her, and with most politicians, is you can safely ignore what they say. Only concern yourself with how they vote, not for who they say they represent. Her voting record makes me suspicious of any desire to protect privacy and free-speech rights. But I still need to find direct evidence, otherwise my point is moot 

I suspect this is why Trump has any support. He doesn't have any voting history, so for a lot of people that's kind of like a blank slate. Maybe if they squint hard enough? I dunno, it's hard to understand why there are Trump supporters.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 10, 2016)

I'm crossing my fingers that Hillary gets indicted and arrested and forces the DNC to run Sanders.

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



Clydefrosch said:


> at least she didn't change her stance every other day of the week like the annoying orange


Only every other week : /


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> The thing with her, and with most politicians, is you can safely ignore what they say. Only concern yourself with how they vote, not for who they say the represent. Her voting record makes me suspicious of any desire to protect privacy and free-speech rights. But I still need to find direct evidence, otherwise my point is moot


As far as I can see, she has been very consistent on the topic of net neutrality, and she has advocated for specific policy classifying the internet as a utility and treating it as such. I would take this one off your list of grievances.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> As far as I can see, she has been very consistent on the topic of net neutrality, and she has advocated for specific policy classifying the internet as a utility and treating it as such. I would take this one off your list of grievances.


It'll depend on when she started advocating for it, and how she voted for it and related items. I don't really care how vocal she is against it if she voted for it.

All I can find is her not supporting or being against it until it was popular to be against it. I suppose that's not a negative, but I suppose as long as it stays within the realm of the popular to be against it, she's going to stay against it.

I'll keep looking though.

Her extreme reaction to Snowden, wikileaks, and her still supporting the patriot act make me suspicious. They're all kind of the same ball of wax, and supporting one but not the others comes across as, at best, missing the point. I'm happy she's vocal about supporting at least some of our privacy concerns, but I'm not sure how much you can rely on them.

She says things like:
"Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House e-mail accounts. We’ve seen U.S. attorneys fired to silence them because they didn’t bring bogus lawsuits against Democrats during election years. We’ve seen information taken off of government websites. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 20, 2007"

But then votes for those very things she says she's against. She says the right things most of the time, but there's no way of knowing if she actually means anything she says.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jun 10, 2016)

Whole lotta love said:


> I'm crossing my fingers that Hillary gets indicted and arrested and forces the DNC to run Sanders.


Honestly, if Hillary were to be indicted, I believe it would have happened already.  Ultimately we'll have to wait and see what the future holds, but mark my words, it's not going to happen (although I wish it would).


----------



## LightyKD (Jun 10, 2016)

Bernie or Bust baby!. I will write him in if I have to. Hell, I even declined my DNC membership this year because of how badly things were handled. Also, I do like Jill Stein stating that she would step aside for Bernie if he joined the Green Party.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 10, 2016)

Team Fail said:


> Or else just don't vote at all, but then I wouldn't be able to bitch and complain about who won since I didn't participate in the first place.



I have really never got that line of logic. If you live under the system you can complain how it is run, you have many other ways of interacting with the politicos beyond a statistically insignificant vote as well.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> I have really never got that line of logic. If you live under the system you can complain how it is run, you have many other ways of interacting with the politicos beyond a statistically insignificant vote as well.


One cannot justifiably complain about politics if he or she has the opportunity to vote but doesn't.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> One cannot justifiably complain about politics if he or she has the opportunity to vote but doesn't.


That would be the summary of the logic but not any kind of justification for it.

You live in the country or are otherwise subject to its laws. Assuming you are not in some flavour of dictatorship you then have the right to complain about said laws and those that make them. That alone is enough for me but even if we took the idea that you need to engage in some way with it then there are plenty of alternatives to voting, many of which would have more impact (voting means you voted, writing letters, going in person, calling, emailing, protesting and other such things arguably have far more impact).

For me the no vote, no voice thing is a cute way to try to increase voter engagement but not much more. Maybe I am wrong but that would be how I view it.


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jun 10, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I'm not American but if I where, I'd vote for Trump.
> See if he can fuck up the US more then Bush did, just for fun.
> 
> In reality, I don't know.
> ...



They're all crap. I'd vote for Trump just to leave the USA as far from the left as possible. 
This is what I'll do in 2018 here in Brazil, I'll vote for Bolsonaro which is our version of Trump, instead of the leftist shit that has been buttfucking our country without consent for 13 years.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> You live in the country or are otherwise subject to its laws. Assuming you are not in some flavour of dictatorship you then have the right to complain about said laws and those that make them.


When you choose to abstain from voting for the people who make said laws, then it's a bit hypocritical to advocate for people to change the system when you did nothing yourself to help change it. You're basically telling other people to do the work you can't be bothered to do, whether it's voters voting or policy-makers changing policy.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jun 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm with @endoverend, anyone who thinks Trump will implement any of his so-called "insane" and "racist" ideas bought a publicity stunt hook, line and sinker. The man's a capitalist, he built his empire on international trade. He knows exactly what he's doing and there's no amount of liberal whining that can turn it around. In fact, it's putting more water on his mill - the only winning move would be not to play, but that's not an option. He's like a Wild Card - you don't know what you'll get, but at least it's not some lofty socialist utopia based on "free money" conjured up by fairies and good wishes.


cut down on military funds and stop sending israel millions of dollars per year, that should be more than enough to cover more students' tuition fees several times over

the UK grants home status fees (i.e. university for practically nothing, say £1,000 a year) to anyone from the EU and/or a taxpayer within the EU. It's not "free money" nor is it magical it's just re-prioritising what a country wants above all else. The pound is a very strong currency, evidence of a good economy. There's a lot wrong with the UK politically but this is one thing they have right. It's not impossible

I'm shocked to see that you find Trump's blatant racism to be an act. Even if that were the case there is no reason on Earth for that to be the case; there's no underlying genius scheme he's unleashing, if anything that's unrealistically hopeful

---

As an outsider and non-american my candidate of choice is of little relevance, I don't 100% agree with any of them namely re: foreign affairs but if I had to take a pick I'd go for Bernie Sanders. Clinton is a military-obsessed mastermind the likes of which I'd only hypothetically vote for to prevent Trump rising to power, assuming Sanders is kicked out of the game.


----------



## orangy57 (Jun 10, 2016)

No offense, but why do people vote for independent parties? They're just wasting a vote, as independent parties have never ever won.


----------



## manots (Jun 10, 2016)

At this point Ms.Clinton for me personally is the best option as much as i hate illegal immigrants, I can't ignore all the shit trump has been saying about my race and for other  reasons  like the fraud that was trump uni. or his stance on unlocking the gunman's phone and internet freedoms. but in the end, that's just like my opinion man lol.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 10, 2016)

There are other ways than simple voting, equally depending upon the voting system (the US is somewhat uncommon in having public voting on individual bills, even if most of the discourse ultimately boils down to vote on number) the vote may lose potency if it is diluted into a whole policy/manifesto (one or two things could sink an otherwise agreeable whole). Also politicians are there to do things I can't be bothered or find myself unable to do (I am not particularly good at economics, healthcare policy, much of law and other than being a pretty good armchair general I am not sure what goes for military, you want to talk tech, aspects of education, non civil engineering and non biological science and I might have more to say). On the matter of creating laws, policy and allocation of funds it would seem to be the job description.

Vote or not, I really don't care what generally harmless thing people do with their time. However I can't get to somewhere where I might want to dismiss the opinions of someone because they did not, not even close.



Pacheko17 said:


> They're all crap. I'd vote for Trump just to leave the USA as far from the left as possible.
> This is what I'll do in 2018 here in Brazil, I'll vote for Bolsonaro which is our version of Trump, instead of the leftist shit that has been buttfucking our country without consent for 13 years.


Can you really compare Brazil to the US in this instance? My knowledge of Brazil is not the greatest (it was helped by watching this video) but from what I do know it does seem to be a rather different system and economic setup.


----------



## Thirty3Three (Jun 10, 2016)

I chose not to vote this year. But Trump. JUST because I want to see what'd happen.


----------



## Luglige (Jun 10, 2016)

None. They're all disgusting and a joke. xD


----------



## tofast4u (Jun 10, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> not sure if serious or trolling.
> everything up until the auto merger seems rather idiotic. trump will absolutely not make america more american and he's sure as hell not going to give you any more freedoms. those'll go to to companies and employers etc. and when they wont have to pay any more taxes and don't have to pay you any more money, where will things go then?
> 
> and where might that money come from? maybe from the military budget you actually dont need. because even the biggest military will never prevent those rare terror attacks. sanders ideals and russia are two ridiculously different things. trump and putin have so much in common, among them that both will completely ruin their countries eventually.


Why is a German getting involved in American politics?  Of course you wouldn't want someone like Trump to win because he is an American patriot that doesn't want America to become a third world country as Germany is becoming slowly but surely.  A vote for Trump is a vote for America First.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 10, 2016)

tofast4u said:


> Why is a German getting involved in American politics?  Of course you wouldn't want someone like Trump to win because he is an American patriot that doesn't want America to become a third world country as Germany is becoming slowly but surely.  A vote for Trump is a vote for America First.


This post sounds like a Trump sound bite... Or ad campaign lol. No offense, but damn bro you actually stand behind that rhetoric?!?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 10, 2016)

Orangy57 said:


> No offense, but why do people vote for independent parties? They're just wasting a vote, as independent parties have never ever won.



For some it could be a protest vote or a kind of spoiler vote (or making it a spoiler effect for certain parties), and yeah in the US with the whole electoral college nonsense it makes no real mathematical sense at any point in prior history (this time probably included). In other parts of the world it then leads to coalition governments or people having seats in government and thus a third or fourth (or in India possibly 80th) voice. You have something kind of like that in the US where you can have a president from one party but congress or the senate could be from another and that makes passing laws a more interesting prospect. Equally if enough people do vote it raises the profiles or the parties and people in question -- maybe not presidents but there are plenty of senators and governors that run or go independent, and a bunch more at state level.
Alternatively you could view the question of the OP as "Which leader of a political party with some clout would you like to see running the country?".


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2016)

@Lucifer666 The military industrial complex cannot be dismantled, it was organized to keep the U.S. industry alive. Even something as simple as a jet has parts manufactured in practically every state, specifically to stimulate the heavy industry sector even in times of recession. The U.S. doesn't have an outrageous military budget for giggles, it has it to provide hundreds of thousands of steady jobs. I *live* in the UK, the student loans here aren't some kind of godsend - you still have to pay them off if you cross the yearly income threshold within 10 years (which is set pretty low as far as I remember). Getting the student loan "pardoned" is almost impossible, and fees for college or university are outrageously high and far beyond the reach of an average bread eater. When it comes to access to higher education, you picked possibly the worst example in the EU. As for where the money comes from, it's really no secret. The government has no money of its own - *you* pay for everyone's education via taxes, so it's not "free" even if what you said was 100% accurate. As for the standing of the pound sterling, it's not evidence of a strong economy, it just happened to retain its value because every other currency went to shit too during the economic crisis, so it all evened out. As for Trump, it's absolutely an act. He's getting the Hillbilly vote by being a jackass and the republican vote for being a capitalist while simultanously pissing off the opposition (which makes them slip). He makes a big show out of it all, swaying the polls in his favour as a result. On top of that, he's also getting the vote of those who are smart enough to see through the ruse, because the way he manipulates everyone is quite a spectacle. He has everyone right where he wants them. He can make a stupid tweet about a taco bowl and it'll be retweeted so many times it breaks the internet, meanwhile the competition's response is like a whimper in the distance in comparison. That's PR right there - it doesn't matter if people have good or bad things to say, they keep talking about *you* at the end of the day. He's likely to win this election because everything he ever says or does is calculated to cause extreme reactions. He has an excellent reason to keep doing what he's doing, too - it's clearly working.


----------



## Chary (Jun 10, 2016)

EDIT: isidewith...



Spoiler: can't stump the trump


----------



## Demifiend (Jun 10, 2016)

> Can you really compare Brazil to the US in this instance? My knowledge of Brazil is not the greatest (it was helped by watching this video) but from what I do know it does seem to be a rather different system and economic setup.



Brazil had two presidents running during the period of 2003 - 2015, respectively, Dilma Rousseff and Lula da Silva, to put in perspective, he and Dilma was one of the results born from the "Socialism of the 21th Century" that occurred in Latin America, this was happening because politicos were rebelling against "Dictators or Right Wing Presidents" at the time, the first case was in Venezuela, where H.Chavez was chosen as the president of Venezuela thanks to the support of the president, Rafael Caldera.

After Chavez, everything had started to build up in SA, starting with Kirchner, then Lula Da Silva and Dilma, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Ollanta Humala, Pepe Mujica, etc. due to this, organizations like UNASUR were created, but this was all thanks to the results provided by "Socialism" and Venezuela's oil, effectively. 

So, in the end, how do you compare Brazil with the US?, well, is kinda like the reverse thing, people got tired of Dilma presidency, and corruption was one of the things that was ruining Brazil and so, once they found evidence about some matters regarding Money, Dilma was put in a Judge, and now Michael Temer, which is Right Wing, plans to convert Brazil in the "Capitalist Way".

This started with Mauricio Macri winning the elections of Argentina last year, the opposition congress in Venezuela, and this year with PPK winning the elections of Peru, the Referendum for Evo Morales, Michael Temer, and so, all presumably backed by the US hand in order to turn Latin America to the "Right wing" again. 

In the US, the reverse is happening, they either want someone whose policies are more akin to giving services and stuff for free by the Government (Like in all Socialismos) or someone who just wants to do whatever the hell they want to, as long as he thinks like the "Typical Murican who hates Latinos and Muslims" (i.e Trump)


----------



## codezer0 (Jun 10, 2016)

I forgot about isidewith.com, and it did help before.



Spoiler: This is what I got for this year's quiz



http://ctrlv.in/769396


----------



## manots (Jun 10, 2016)

Chary said:


> Why should legal immigrants be afraid of Trump? My father is an Iranian immigrant and will be happily voting for Trump. All those extremist views Trump has won't come into power. Congress exists for purely that reason. I'm sure the worst he could do would be better than Hillary's plans anyways.



in my own father's case he isn't afraid of trump he just hates his guts, my father barely managed to legally migrate in the states from Mexico D.F in 1972 actually in this topic i'm much more conservative than he is. But i agree that trump should not be elected.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 10, 2016)

The way I see it, Trump is an egotist who blames his country problems mainly on a social class, an ethnicity, and a religious group. Sound familiar??


----------



## tofast4u (Jun 10, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> This post sounds like a Trump sound bite... Or ad campaign lol. No offense, but damn bro you actually stand behind that rhetoric?!?


Doesn't matter if he could get even half of what he says done to me, because no politician can.  He at least has the courage to not back down and speak highly of the United States and unapologetically.  He is unscripted and speaks his mind, and is for the people and not the globalists, he is against TAFTA, TPP, and isn't beholden to donors. Hillary Clinton is ready to sell this country out for money, and Bernie Sanders is the type of man to be cuckold.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 10, 2016)

tofast4u said:


> Doesn't matter if he could get even half of what he says done to me, because no politician can.  He at least has the courage to not back down and speak highly of the United States and unapologetically.  He is unscripted and speaks his mind, and is for the people and not the globalists, he is against TAFTA, TPP, and isn't beholden to donors. Hillary Clinton is ready to sell this country out for money, and Bernie Sanders is the type of man to be cuckold.


Like I said earlier, I'm not keen on her either. The whole system is broken at this point. The gaps between social classes are getting larger, and it's becoming harder to utilize true capitalism to overcome them. It's geared for the wealthy influences.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 10, 2016)

Logan Pockrus said:


> Do I really have to make this decision?  I'm not going to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, as neither of them even have a remote chance of winning.  That leaves Trump and Hillary.  The problem is, both of these candidates fucking suck!  Their views align in many ways (not all ways, but quite a few), so I think we'll be in the same position next "voting season" with either candidate.  The only reason I'd vote for Trump is because I'm a strong conservative and simply can't find it in myself to support a liberal candidate.  So, if I vote, I'll be (reluctantly) voting for Trump.





BLsquared said:


> To be honest, none of these candidates I agree with fully, although that is to be expected.
> While I do like some of Trump's ideas concerning keeping America, well, America, he is not the most eloquent speaker.
> Unfortunately, I can not support Hillary, as she seems determined to tear apart my freedoms. Not a fan of that. I mean, turning us into Australia? Who thinks this is a good idea?
> I looked into Johnson, and I can say he's not too bad in my opinion. He seems a bit unsure of himself though, and I don't like his idea for a new drugs policy.
> ...


This. I don't like any of the candidates but Trump is really the only choice for me at this point. Third party candidates have no chance at winning, and Hillary would be the world possible candidate for anything I believe in. As much as I may dislike Trump hes the only choice left that I could support in any way. I'm still sad that Cruz dropped from the race because I was a big fan of his.


----------



## SonicCloud (Jun 10, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I'm not American but if I where, I'd vote for Trump.
> See if he can fuck up the US more then Bush did, just for fun.
> 
> In reality, I don't know.
> ...


Dont forget he loves big walls


----------



## TrapperKeeperX (Jun 11, 2016)

I hope Bernie Sanders goes third party or something will expose Hillary Clinton from her getting the nomination! I know people hate Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump! Honestly it's a bunch of Smug Narcissistic Corporate Media Liberal Pussies who are the 1% but they attempt to brainwash the 99%. The rich donors including celebrities are a bunch of Trendy Brainwashed Smug Narcissistic Corporate Media Liberal Pussies I call them Corporate Liberals since they use charity to profit off the stupid and they pretend to care this is why Hillary won California plus I blame Corporate Media for brainwashing & manipulating when she had enough votes for the presumptive nominee doesn't mean that she'll get it! Plus she still under investigation by the FBI so I hope that they will fuck over Hillary. I honestly would like a woman to be president but not Hillary Clinton she is a legacy of lies! Plus they want to glamorize the first woman president in history instead of fixing important issues we face in the United States of America! I hope Hillary Clinton doesn't get in I really want Bernie Sanders if we can't get him. I would like to see Trump win so Obama have to begrudgingly shake his hand on Trump's inauguration.

Also It's extremely disappointing in Barack Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton. It feels like he's threatened by Bernie Sanders because he wants real change! Unlike Obama he only changed a few things & profited off of empty promises and help the 1%. I did vote for Obama in 2008 but I didn't vote in 2012 because it was obvious he'd win anyway. I have to say I couldn't have been more disappointed in Obama. Like I said they glamorize history being the first African American president, now they want to glamorize it once again!

Here is a list of Celebrities that endorsed Hillary Clinton:
Amy Schumer - She is a skank of comedy anyway she isn't funny she just smug!
Julianne Moore - Smug Crooked teeth bitch!
Kerry Washington - African American endorsing a racist Hillary, What the fuck! Well Hillary Clinton got endorsed by a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.
Lena Dunham - Fat Skank! Plus she endorsed an pro-misogynistic enabler Hillary. Due to Bill Clinton sexually assaulting women and Lena she was a sexual assault victim & a child molester how the fuck can she support Hillary?! Who's next Bill Cosby supporting Hillary Clinton?
George Clooney and his wife, attorney Amal Clooney - No surprise here well like I said they're Smug Corporate Liberals. Trendy Brainwashed Smug Narcissistic Corporate Media Liberal Pussies I just had to add it I do hate George & Amal Clooney!
Ja Rule - Another African American endorsing a racist Hillary, What the fuck! Well Hillary Clinton got endorsed by a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.
Robert De Niro - Why? I'm very disappointed by this!
Abby Wambach - Soccer Cunt! Hillary has been against the LGBT for along time plus don't forget about Don't Ask Don't Tell back when Bill Clinton was president?! the only reason she's for the LGBT because it's fucking trending!
Beyonce - do I have to go into discussion?! Look at Kerry Washington & Ja Rule for references.
Kim Kardashian - I hate the fucking Kardashians they're famous for doing nothing! This does sound like Hillary Clinton will do the same!
Abbi Jacobson - Why? I'm so bummed out about this too! Plus she should be for Bernie since she smokes pot plus Bernie wants it legalized this is ironic?!
Katy Perry - Really Katy? Well she is a smug celebrity singer! Especially now and days these slutty female pop stars sing about their stupid relationships & vaginas.
I know there are more celebrities but honestly they're the 1% profiting off the 99% so fuck them all!


----------



## DKB (Jun 11, 2016)

America is fucked.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jun 11, 2016)

VinsCool said:


> Move to Canada while you still can.


My mother hates Canada... I don't know why, she just does...


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jun 11, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Can you really compare Brazil to the US in this instance? My knowledge of Brazil is not the greatest (it was helped by watching this video) but from what I do know it does seem to be a rather different system and economic setup.



You can, many people do. That's a great video, but Brazil really isn't that different. It will be even less different now that the socialist Worker's Party is dying out.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 11, 2016)

I am still wary of making comparisons like that
The economics seem different (different exports, different businesses), and the state of economic and social development is a bit different too (Brazil pulled itself up by its bootstaps within my lifetime, it is still not as first worldy as the US though). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html
The approach to nationalised businesses seems different (I bring it up a fair bit as it seems insane to me but the US government can't provide a simple online service for the taxed to file taxes as it competes with private enterprise, compare that to the state run oil company)
There is something to be said for the social issues vis a vis natives, black people and whatever else but again I would struggle to make a direct comparison and would have to go far more in depth.
The position in the world seems different (the US is a major active military power, Brazil certainly has a military of note but beyond UN operations is there much on the world scale?)
You mentioned leftist policies in an earlier post. Beyond Americans tending to define such things a bit differently (see some of the healthcare debate rhetoric and how socialism is viewed) they are as a general concept still suffering the hangover of the cold war stuff and will oppose quite a lot there.

There are many things to be learned from each and comparing them is something you could happily do, doing it directly without serious consideration on how you set about it though is not something I can get behind. Equally in about 20 or 30 years I would not be too surprised to be able to do a France-Germany, Denmark-Sweden, South Korea-Japan.... style direct comparison. That said you might be able to break down the US a bit further and compare a group of states to Brazil.


----------



## I pwned U! (Jun 11, 2016)

TrapperKeeperX said:


> I hope Bernie Sanders goes third party or something will expose Hillary Clinton from her getting the nomination! I know people hate Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump! Honestly it's a bunch of Smug Narcissistic Corporate Media Liberal Pussies who are the 1% but they attempt to brainwash the 99%. The rich donors including celebrities are a bunch of Trendy Brainwashed Smug Narcissistic Corporate Media Liberal Pussies I call them Corporate Liberals since they use charity to profit off the stupid and they pretend to care this is why Hillary won California plus I blame Corporate Media for brainwashing & manipulating when she had enough votes for the presumptive nominee doesn't mean that she'll get it! Plus she still under investigation by the FBI so I hope that they will fuck over Hillary. I honestly would like a woman to be president but not Hillary Clinton she is a legacy of lies! Plus they want to glamorize the first woman president in history instead of fixing important issues we face in the United States of America! I hope Hillary Clinton doesn't get in I really want Bernie Sanders if we can't get him. I would like to see Trump win so Obama have to begrudgingly shake his hand on Trump's inauguration.
> 
> Also It's extremely disappointing in Barack Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton. It feels like he's threatened by Bernie Sanders because he wants real change! Unlike Obama he only changed a few things & profited off of empty promises and help the 1%. I did vote for Obama in 2008 but I didn't vote in 2012 because it was obvious he'd win anyway. I have to say I couldn't have been more disappointed in Obama. Like I said they glamorize history being the first African American president, now they want to glamorize it once again!


I could not have said it better myself!


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 11, 2016)

So many Trump supporters ;-;


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

Cherry Pie said:


> So many Trump supporters ;-;


Surprising things I've seen so far:

The relatively high number of votes for Trump (I thought this was GBATemp, not GBATrump)
Only a single vote for Gary Johnson (I expected him to be more popular on the internet)
The very high number of votes for Other
The only thing I find more troubling than the number of votes for Trump is the number of votes for Other. Based on people's comments, I figure many, if not most, of the votes for Other are from Bernie Sanders supporters. Hopefully the holdouts make the switch to Hillary Clinton by November.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 11, 2016)

Cherry Pie said:


> So many Trump supporters ;-;


Anger is an easy emotion to take advantage of, and gain favor with. We all look for places and people to blame when circumstances become frightening.


----------



## I pwned U! (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Surprising things I've seen so far:
> 
> The relatively high number of votes for Trump (I thought this was GBATemp, not GBATrump)
> Only a single vote for Gary Johnson (I expected him to be more popular on the internet)
> ...


I will *never* make the switch to Hillary.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I will *never* make the switch to Hillary.


If the goal of a Sanders supporter is to make sure a.) Trump doesn't become president, and b.) A candidate who embraces roughly 95% of Sanders' policy positions becomes president when Sanders cannot become president, then a switch to Hillary is the smart thing to do. This is coming from someone who voted for Sanders in the primary.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If the goal of a Sanders supporter is to make sure a.) Trump doesn't become president, and b.) A candidate who embraces roughly 95% of Sanders' policy positions becomes president when Sanders cannot become president, then a switch to Hillary is the smart thing to do. This is coming from someone who voted for Sanders in the primary.


The problem is, I feel a stark contrast in their ideology, right down to their campaign fundraising. Sanders had a lot of grassroots funding, meaning the people were behind him. He spoke of how the nation has fallen victim to oligarchy. Clinton still has SuperPACs, and seems to be attached to lobbyists. Makes it hard for a Sanders supporter to take her seriously.


----------



## [^Blark^] (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If the goal of a Sanders supporter is to make sure a.) Trump doesn't become president, and b.) A candidate who embraces roughly 95% of Sanders' policy positions becomes president when Sanders cannot become president, then a switch to Hillary is the smart thing to do. This is coming from someone who voted for Sanders in the primary.



I want to vote for sanders because

A.) he doesn't want to build a wall. Regardless of whether or not it passes congress why should we have someone as a president who would even think of such a thing...

B.) sanders is not being investigated by the FBI ( and he agrees most with hilary but again he's not being investigated and might have to be dropped out of the race because of it) so someone to think like hilary but not be under investigation is better in my book also he just had better views IMO


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 11, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> The problem is, I feel a stark contrast in their ideology, right down to their campaign fundraising. Sanders had a lot of grassroots funding, meaning the people were behind him. He spoke of how the nation has fallen victim to oligarchy. Clinton still has SuperPACs, and seems to be attached to lobbyists. Makes it hard for a Sanders supporter to take her seriously.


Dude, what you're saying is true, but it's over for Bernie. He can not win. If you're trying to make a statement then that's one thing, but know that you aren't doing anything to stop Trump.


This is coming from someone that REALLY wanted Bernie to win. I don't trust Hillary, but at least her policies sort of coincide with Bernie's policies. It's anything, but Trump at this point.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 11, 2016)

Both Trump and Clinton scare the hell out of me, if either one of them wins, I'm so defecting to Japan. Why? I lived there before, I have connections/friends, so I'd be able to hang out over there, oh yes and they have the fox village. It's a huge sanctuary with 200 foxes, I can become one with them.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> The problem is, I feel a stark contrast in their ideology, right down to their campaign fundraising. Sanders had a lot of grassroots funding, meaning the people were behind him. He spoke of how the nation has fallen victim to oligarchy. Clinton still has SuperPACs, and seems to be attached to lobbyists. Makes it hard for a Sanders supporter to take her seriously.


I think Hillary is a fantastic candidate, regardless of how she fundraises. And, regardless of how she and her super PAC fundraise, she can at the very least be viewed by the common Sanders supporter as far less evil than Trump. The lesser of two evils is, by definition, less evil. She also has, among other things, progressive views on campaign finance and overturning _Citizens United_.

You're free to throw your vote away on someone who is neither Trump nor Hillary, but that might have the consequence of allowing the more evil candidate to win.



[^Blark^] said:


> I want to vote for sanders because
> 
> A.) he doesn't want to build a wall. Regardless of whether or not it passes congress why should we have someone as a president who would even think of such a thing...
> 
> B.) sanders is not being investigated by the FBI ( and he agrees most with hilary but again he's not being investigated and might have to be dropped out of the race because of it) so someone to think like hilary but not be under investigation is better in my book also he just had better views IMO


Sanders isn't going to get the nomination. Hillary is the smart choice now.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 11, 2016)

Logan Pockrus said:


> Honestly, if Hillary were to be indicted, I believe it would have happened already.  Ultimately we'll have to wait and see what the future holds, but mark my words, it's not going to happen (although I wish it would).



The investigation isn't over yet though. The FBI isn't going indict someone without finishing their investigation.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 11, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP!


He's been stumped so many times though


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jun 11, 2016)

Whole lotta love said:


> The investigation isn't over yet though. The FBI isn't going indict someone without finishing their investigation.


I hope you're right.  But as it stands, I have my reasons as to why I hold this particular stance (that I won't be divulging on a gaming forum of all places).


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 11, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Dude, what you're saying is true, but it's over for Bernie. He can not win. If you're trying to make a statement then that's one thing, but know that you aren't doing anything to stop Trump.
> 
> 
> This is coming from someone that REALLY wanted Bernie to win. I don't trust Hillary, but at least her policies sort of coincide with Bernie's policies. It's anything, but Trump at this point.


It's nothing more than a statement, you are correct. On the federal level though, we see more of our leaders align with the prosperous minority every year. Sanders didn't seem like that and tbh, neither did/does Trump. If it wasn't for all the childish insulting, and finger pointing on his part he would have my vote. I mentioned earlier my admiration for JFK, so here's my litmus test for a presidential hopeful...
"Based on what I know of this person, what do I feel they would've done with the Cuban Missile Crisis?"
Trump would press the red button and hide in his bunker. Clinton would pursue whatever course her advisors deemed the popular response. Sanders would do what JFK did and dialogue it out. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

Whole lotta love said:


> The investigation isn't over yet though. The FBI isn't going indict someone without finishing their investigation.





Logan Pockrus said:


> I hope you're right.  But as it stands, I have my reasons as to why I hold this particular stance (that I won't be divulging on a gaming forum of all places).


Plenty of people *want* Hillary to be indicted (Trump supporters and Bernie holdouts), but I have not come across any objective analysis that shows any reason to think she would be. Honestly, it's a fantasy perpetuated by the above groups and some media outlets. There is a good explanation why here.


----------



## Supster131 (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I figure many, if not most, of the votes for Other are from Bernie Sanders supporters. Hopefully the holdouts make the switch to Hillary Clinton by November.


There's the issue. At least, the ones I know (and from the polls I've seen), a lot of Bernie supporters will move to Trump if Bernie loses. Hillary just isn't an option.

As I've told a few people, it's actually Trump vs Bernie. Bernie wins the democratic party? He becomes president. Hillary wins the democratic party? Trump becomes president.
No matter what happens, the odds of Hillary becoming president seem quite slim.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Jun 11, 2016)

VinsCool said:


> Move to Canada while you still can.


Canada is full of sjw's no?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 11, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Canada is full of sjw's no?


Not any more than here, supposedly


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Jun 11, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Not any more than here, supposedly


I hear there are a lot of them there. On another note why would people vote for Hillary the woman is horrible.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> There's the issue. At least, the ones I know (and from the polls I've seen), a lot of Bernie supporters will move to Trump if Bernie loses. Hillary just isn't an option.
> 
> As I've told a few people, it's actually Trump vs Bernie. Bernie wins the democratic party? He becomes president. Hillary wins the democratic party? Trump becomes president.
> No matter what happens, the odds of Hillary becoming president seem quite slim.


First, polling shows that Hillary is in a far more favorable position among Bernie supporters than Obama was among Hillary supporters at this time in 2008, but they ended up coming around.

Second, the best predictor five months out of how a presidential election will go is national polling, and Hillary consistently beats Trump. The current polling aggregate is 45% to 39% with Hillary leading. Current betting markets put Hillary's odds of victory at roughly 75%.

I could discuss other factors in Hillary's favor, such as support from specific demographics, the party chaos surrounding Trump endorsements, etc., but it should be obvious that a lot can happen between now and November. Nobidy can say what's going to happen. My point is that Hillary has the current advantage.


----------



## keven3477 (Jun 11, 2016)

I would have probably voted for Bernie, I honestly don't know much on what he offers but he sounds better than the 2 other top candidates. I didn't vote either way since I wasn't well informed.


----------



## driverdis (Jun 11, 2016)

80% Hillary, 77% Trump according to Isidewith

And I do not plan to vote Hillary
Unless


Spoiler



it is for Hillary for prison 2016


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 11, 2016)

Voted Gary last election and will be doing so again this election.  He's just about the perfect candidate for me.


----------



## Emenaria (Jun 11, 2016)

I'm not American but I just tried isidewith.com. 73% Trump, 73% Clinton.


Spoiler











So I'm okay if either of them becomes president.


----------



## TrapperKeeperX (Jun 11, 2016)

Emenaria said:


> I'm not American but I just tried isideiwith.com. 73% Trump, 73% Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Umm.. Do you really think a political revolution is becoming a thing now? I'm surprised how my previous comment is really liked upon.

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

I say this just to joke on the issues but I honestly think Hillary Clinton is just a queef joke!


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 11, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> He's been stumped so many times though


By the 16 other candidates, right? Or do you mean the media? Or the regressive left? Or the Pope? All of which have been repeatedly BTFO and many have issued endorsements or apologies.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

I love how anti-Trump bias has now entered the thread for no reason, as if he's the devil incarnate. Mind you, I'm not American and I personally don't like any of the candidates, there really is no good choice, but out of the three options that matter Trump would probably do the least harm, all things considered. I find Hillary to be morally ambiguous and two-faced. Defending peadophiles in court despite DNA evidence on both the victim and the perpetrator is a bit much - she should've declined to participate in the case. I guess her attorney skills are pretty good, considering she got the guy off the hook as far as I remember. Then there's the whole affair with Benghazi, plus the current FBI investigation. Too many stains on the record for my liking. Bernie on the other hand is a blatant socialist with a poor understanding of the economy and an imaginary budget most economists scratch their heads at. Like it or not, politics are a pendulum - when the economy is on the rise and wealth is abundant, you can afford a day dreamer like Bernie who'll hide healthcare, welfare and education under everyone's pillow like a Marxist tooth fairy, when it's in recession, you need a ruthless capitalist to clean the mess up and earn some cash for the future socialists. He's the closest to a libertarian dream, except he's less embarrasing than the actual libertarian party, so he gets points for that.


----------



## Flame (Jun 11, 2016)

@Haloman800 & @Foxi4 


Jesus bloody fucking christ.

1st they think a invisible man is in the sky. Now they want to vote for a Hitler MK II.


have some self respect.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

@Flame I can't vote for a commie on principle and I can't vote for a pseudo-commie either, so what can you do? When you have to pick between Hitler, Lenin and Stalin, does it really matter who you choose? ;O;


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 11, 2016)

tofast4u said:


> doesn't want America to become a third world country as Germany is becoming slowly but surely.


I hope America became more of a "third world country"_(really? man, get you act straight!)_, like Germany,that way it could even turn into a place where people can live safe and enjoy life.
Meanwhile, I will keep enjoying this "third world country" I live in.


----------



## Flame (Jun 11, 2016)

@Foxi4 commie ? Expect the thing Trump says.. Against Muslims, Mexicans and so and so forth. And the fact that he really could really be Hitler.


----------



## TVL (Jun 11, 2016)

Seems like terrible choices, worst ever IMO. The only time I was really excited about the US Presidential elections were in 2008. And still a little in 2012. Ron Paul is the soundest politician I've ever seen/heard that got mainstream traction.

If I had to vote I'd vote for Gary Johnson.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 11, 2016)

tofast4u said:


> Why is a German getting involved in American politics?  Of course you wouldn't want someone like Trump to win because he is an American patriot that doesn't want America to become a third world country as Germany is becoming slowly but surely.  A vote for Trump is a vote for America First.



dummy, how is writing on a random forum getting involved in any politics?
and dummy, all western economies are slowly failing. 
the only way we're creating jobs at the moment is through government subsidies and through low wages in general. both cause damage to the economy in the long run, because economy needs constant money flow. what we have is a flow thats dwingling because more nad more money gets aggregated and taken out of the flow and what little flow there is left is shrinking over and over.

the system we have is essentially cyclic. you get highs and lows, and occassionally external shocks, whenever we manage to burst a bubble. the west had its high. now its time for the low, while other countries experience extreme growth. like china. and probably parts of africa. and in about 50-60 years, its probably time for us to shine again.

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



Foxi4 said:


> @Lucifer666 The military industrial complex cannot be dismantled, it was organized to keep the U.S. industry alive. Even something as simple as a jet has parts manufactured in practically every state, specifically to stimulate the heavy industry sector even in times of recession. The U.S. doesn't have an outrageous military budget for giggles, it has it to provide hundreds of thousands of steady jobs.



and while thats true, they could fund thousands of steady jobs in sectors that are actually relevant to the world we live in today.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

Flame said:


> @Foxi4 commie ? Expect the thing Trump says.. Against Muslims, Mexicans and so and so forth. And the fact that he really could really be Hitler.


Yeah, you bought his publicity stunt. A tad naive.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Both Trump and Clinton scare the hell out of me, if either one of them wins, I'm so defecting to Japan. Why? I lived there before, I have connections/friends, so I'd be able to hang out over there, oh yes and they have the fox village. It's a huge sanctuary with 200 foxes, I can become one with them.



so politics is the reason you'd want to leave the us? have you ever even looked at japanese politics then?


----------



## Supster131 (Jun 11, 2016)

Flame said:


> @Foxi4 commie ? Expect the thing Trump says.. Against Muslims, Mexicans and so and so forth. And the fact that he really could really be Hitler.


I'm Mexican, and I would still vote Trump over Hillary any day ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jun 11, 2016)

I would vote for Trump, but only to see the self-destruction of america. Yes I'm kidding.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> and while thats true, they could fund thousands of steady jobs in sectors that are actually relevant to the world we live in today.


The weapons industry is a lot like air travel or telecommunications - they're all technically on the free market and are subject to supply and demand, but only on the surface. Air travel is subsidized because not having planes around would paralyze the country. Telecom companies "compete" with eachother, but only on paper. In reality they've sliced the country into sectors and do not encroach on eachother's territory to maximize profit and minimize competition. They too are getting "free money" to "expand the service area" or "upgrade networks" because you can't have a country without phone lines or the Internet. Telecoms are 95% above the line, their revenue is almost all profit and you *still* can't touch them, you still have to prop them up with tax money because they have you by the balls. Guess what, you also can't have a country that can't defend itself, and defunding the complex would break the clay legs under the colossus - it'd all tumble down. You can't shut down any plant because they're all made to produce specific parts - it's all planned and incredibly difficult to alter, it'd take decades. You think military spending is the problem? Farm subsidies created a massive surplus of food, half of which is waste, how much does that cost? You're paying for it twice - to produce it and to burn it, and that's not even accounting for the environmental damage, for example creating nutrient-sapped soil. Corn subsidies directly lead to the creation of high fructose corn syrup, a far less healthy sugar alternative - you have to do something with all that corn, right? Just get the subsidy, grow corn which doesn't sell, turn it into syrup and sell that - now you're ahead of the game twice, and everybody else gets fat with your shitty product that'll always be picked over normal sugar because it costs next to nothing. You're growing crops nobody wants because if you don't, your farmers will go bust and nobody will feel like farming. Great solution. You're talking about a difficult problem of government funding in simple terms, as if you can wave a wand to defund one thing and fund another - that's not how it works, such moves have severe implications and send ripples across the rest of the economy. Military spending is not the only industry that's all sorts of f*cked, they all are, because politicians forgot how laissez-faire is supposed to work. You need to break all this crap up and get back to basics before any of the problems you're talking about can be addressed.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 11, 2016)

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/2366266289
Other than that, Trump has too many similarities with a certain man who ruined our country in the 20 years he has been our prime minister... https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...1/donald-trump-is-americas-silvio-berlusconi/


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 11, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> I would vote for Trump, but only to see the self-destruction of america. Yes I'm kidding.


Well, we have survived self destructions so many times. It would probably look like the average ten years cyclic meltdown in Argentina.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Voted Gary last election and will be doing so again this election.  He's just about the perfect candidate for me.


Boy, oh boy - if only actual libertarians had a chance in the election things would be pretty sweet. Keep the dream alive, maybe they'll climb to the top one day, when everybody's sick with the elephants and the donkeys.


----------



## Viri (Jun 11, 2016)

God emperor Trump!


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 11, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> so politics is the reason you'd want to leave the us? have you ever even looked at japanese politics then?



No, just those two politicians alone. No country is perfect, I'm just saying I want to avoid another Clinton and Trump is just an arrogant punk and has no tact. Clinton is just...she scares me, her face could melt eyes. Trump's hair should run for president.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jun 11, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well, we have survived self destructions so many times. It would probably look like the average ten years cyclic meltdown in Argentina.


Well too bad I'm not from Argentina


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 11, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> Well too bad I'm not from Argentina


Well, now you know what it would be like.
But if you haven't developed the antigens perhaps you will not be able to survive.
I got an allergic reaction so I don't live in Argentina anymore either.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Jun 11, 2016)

Democracy is bullshit, it's always a choice between multiple idiots, and in the end one is voting for the least idiotic, or most, depending on whether that person who's voting is ignorant or not.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Jun 11, 2016)

I can't stand Trump at all; he's disgusting. He doesn't know what he's saying most of the time.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 11, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> I can't stand Trump at all; he's disgusting. He doesn't know what he's saying most of the time.


But he has a sexy hairdo.
He must turn into a good president.
All that bullshit fascist thing he says must be a cover to bring the American psychos to vote him.
Yes, because he knows there are many American psychos.
With that sexy hairdo he can't be a despotic fascist himself. Nope. Not a chance...................


----------



## BurningDesire (Jun 11, 2016)

WHY IS SANDERS NOT ON THERE. WHY IS THE ONLY HOPE FOR AMERICA NOT ON THERE.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 11, 2016)

I'd vote for Trump if I was in US and an American (he wants control of foreigners that enter the country and that's a good thing!) but I'm neither. US will definitely become an even more 'progressive' country if Hillary becomes the president.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I find Hillary to be morally ambiguous and two-faced. Defending peadophiles in court despite DNA evidence on both the victim and the perpetrator is a bit much - she should've declined to participate in the case. I guess her attorney skills are pretty good, considering she got the guy off the hook as far as I remember.


Having a right to legal representation is one of our bedrock principles in the United States. We don't blame lawyers for the crimes committed by their clients. After expressing concern about the client in question, she finished her job before declining to do future cases like it. Regarding this specific criticism, it would be unfair to draw any conclusions other than a.) She finishes the job, and b.) She is a good lawyer.

There are plenty of fair criticisms of Hillary Clinton in this thread. This is not one of them.



Jiehfeng said:


> Democracy is bullshit, it's always a choice between multiple idiots, and in the end one is voting for the least idiotic, or most, depending on whether that person who's voting is ignorant or not.


The less idiotic choice is still *less idiotic*.



BurningDesire said:


> WHY IS SANDERS NOT ON THERE. WHY IS THE ONLY HOPE FOR AMERICA NOT ON THERE.


Because he lost the Democratic Primary to Hillary Clinton. He will likely endorse her in the coming days/weeks.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The less idiotic choice is still *less idiotic*.



Never said there's anything wrong with it, if you really want to vote, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that choice. But that will never fix problems, the word "idiotic" lies in both the less and more, hence the subtle similarities between the candidates.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

Jiehfeng said:


> Never said there's anything wrong with it, if you really want to vote, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that choice. But that will never fix problems


Voting for the less problematic candidate will, however, minimize problems.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Voting for the less problematic candidate will, however, minimize problems.



Let's see it in action shall we?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

@Lacius I don't question her dedication to finishing a job she started and performing to the best of her abilities in the court of law, I question as to why she would choose to defend the man if she knew that the evidence speaks against him. There was no way he was innocent, she knew that. This was a choice between people and money, duty and principle, and I don't think she chose well.

If you don't like this criticism, how's evidence of nepotism?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._got_a_job_as_a_nuclear_expert_he_wasn_t.html

A little shady, if you ask me. You probably don't want a president who does favours to her donors and buddies.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 11, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> By the 16 other candidates, right? Or do you mean the media? Or the regressive left? Or the Pope? All of which have been repeatedly BTFO and many have issued endorsements or apologies.









Mainly just people in his audience


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jun 11, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Mainly just people in his audience


Politicians are the best about giving straight answers.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius I don't question her dedication to finishing a job she started and performing to the best of her abilities in the court of law, I question as to why she would choose to defend the man if she knew that the evidence speaks against him. There was no way he was innocent, she knew that. This was a choice between people and money, duty and principle, and I don't think she chose well.


Everyone has a right to legal representation, including those who are likely guilty. Defense lawyers oftentimes take clients who are likely guilty. If they didn't, these people wouldn't get the legal representation they're entitled to. If lawyers drew these kinds of arbitrary lines, whether it's probable guilt and/or being accused of unsavory crimes, our justice system wouldn't work.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 11, 2016)

Out of the two candidates, none of them are ideal and are equally stuck-up wannabe celebrity politicians, they were born to read, not lead. The only reason why people want to vote Clinton is primarily because of her gender, not for who she is on the inside and believe me, she ain't pretty either way. Trump isn't much better, maybe I just won't vote at all.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 11, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Boy, oh boy - if only actual libertarians had a chance in the election things would be pretty sweet. Keep the dream alive, maybe they'll climb to the top one day, when everybody's sick with the elephants and the donkeys.


Perhaps.  I won't count on it, but I won't let my ideals be defeated, either.  Looks like things are starting to swing in his favor a bit as he's now polling at 11%.  If he can get it up to 15%, they'll have to let him into the national debates where he'd crush Hillary and Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Out of the two candidates, none of them are ideal and are equally stuck-up wannabe celebrity politicians, they were born to read, not lead. The only reason why people want to vote Clinton is primarily because of her gender, not for who she is on the inside and believe me, she ain't pretty either way. Trump isn't much better, maybe I just won't vote at all.


Forgive my candor, but it's pretty sexist to say the only reason why people want to vote for Clinton is primarily because of her gender.

My main reason for my November vote for Clinton is policy. I also believe Trump is a racist demagogue with bad policy regardless of his opponent's gender.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Forgive my candor, but it's pretty sexist to say the only reason why people want to vote for Clinton is primary because of her gender.
> 
> My main reason for my November vote for Clinton is policy. I also believe Trump is a racist demagogue with bad policy regardless of his opponent's gender.



It's just my opinion, a lot of people do want a female president, I'm not trying to be sexist, but people seem to forget that she isn't exactly an honest person either. Take it or leave it, it's just my opinion, and both candidates are equally foolish. People seem to forget the whole Benghazi fiasco and suspicious email deletion and FBI investigation with Clinton's involvement. I sure as hell don't want someone like Clinton or Trump in power. No matter who wins, we all lose.

Politics piss me off, plain and simple.  These are my opinions and my stances on it, both candidates suck. Plain and simple, I don't like Clinton, not because of her gender at all, but for who she is, her past, her involvement with Benghazi, etc. I refuse to stand behind her and her policies.

Edit: Again, I reiterate, I don't hate Clinton because of her being a woman, that couldn't be farther from the truth, but as a person, as a politician, I don't agree with her, I don't like her policies, same goes with Trump, they're equally bad and would screw us over in the long run. I can't emphasize that enough, and it wasn't my intent to upset you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Everyone has a right to legal representation, including those who are likely guilty. Defense lawyers oftentimes take clients who are likely guilty. If they didn't, these people wouldn't get the legal representation they're entitled to. If lawyers drew these kinds of arbitrary lines, whether it's probable guilt and/or being accused of unsavory crimes, our justice system wouldn't work.


I'm not saying that those who are obviously guilty do not deserve representation, I'm saying that I would decline representing someone who I know is guilty of a heineous crime, simply because it wouldn't sit well with my conscience, thus I probably wouldn't make a good lawyer. If I were to do so, I would at least have a hard time sleeping at night. Lawyers often defend the guilty, but she's not running for "lawyer", she's running for "president", the two require different kinds of a moral backbone. I'm free to criticize her for bending the truth on behalf of a peadophile if that's what she did.

Now, if this was Trump vs. Bill Clinton, I'd give Bill my vote without a second thought - the man did wonders to the country. Hillary? I have a hard time standing behind her.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> It's just my opinion, a lot of people do want a female president, I'm not trying to be sexist, but people seem to forget that she isn't exactly an honest person either. Take it or leave it, it's just my opinion, and both candidates are equally foolish. People seem to forget the whole Benghazi fiasco and suspicious email deletion and FBI investigation with Clinton's involvement. I sure as hell don't want someone like Clinton or Trump in power. No matter who wins, we all lose.
> 
> Politics piss me off, plain and simple.  These are my opinions and my stances on it, both candidates suck. Plain and simple, I don't like Clinton, not because of her gender at all, but for who she is, her past, her involvement with Benghazi, etc. I refuse to stand behind her and her policies.


To discredit a person's accomplishments and support on the basis of that person's sex is the definition of sexism.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm not saying that those who are obviously guilty do not deserve representation


Then I'm unsure why you're arguing that a competent lawyer from 40+ years ago should have refused to represent a client, unless you're arguing that people with law backgrounds are not qualified to be president.

Our criminal law justice system works because two sides argue to the best of their abilities. It's what is most conducive to justice, even when one of the sides is obviously guilty. If people refused to do this, we would have a justice system far more broken than it already is.

In addition, this was as far as I know Clinton's first case like this during her legal formative years. It bothered her enough that she chose not to do anything like it ever again. It sounds to me like she was able to stay true to both herself and the legal system, so I'm also not sure what you want from her aside from building a time machine.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> To discredit a person's accomplishments and support on the basis of that person's sex is the definition of sexism.
> 
> 
> Then I'm unsure why you're arguing that a competent lawyer from 40+ years ago should have refused to represent a client, unless you're arguing that people with law backgrounds are not qualified to be president.
> ...



Did you not see my addendum and correction to my above statement? Clearly you skimmed over it it seems, what a shame. Next time, read my edits and corrections before trying to label it, I reiterated many times throughout my post on why I said what I said, and you chose to flat out ignore it.  That hurts, man.

Since you missed it

"Edit: Again, I reiterate, I don't hate Clinton because of her being a woman, that couldn't be farther from the truth, but as a person, as a politician, I don't agree with her, I don't like her policies, same goes with Trump, they're equally bad and would screw us over in the long run. I can't emphasize that enough, and it wasn't my intent to upset you."

Please don't call me out on being sexist, just....please.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 11, 2016)

Bernie forever. He is not corrupt like the others. But Clinton wouldn't be a terrible president. #NeverTrump


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

You're putting a spin on what I'm saying for the third time. I'm not questioning the justice system, I find her moral compass questionable. It's commendable that she did her duty as a lawyer, I'm just not sure I would be comfortable with a president who is willing to ignore their moral compass for the sake of their career. I don't see how that's ambiguous. To be fair though, at the time she wasn't a lawyer with 40+ years of experience, I believe she was a greenhorn. Don't mistake this for endorsing Trump, either - there are no good choices in this election, only lesser evils, and that concept in and out of itself is nebulous.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 11, 2016)

Logan Pockrus said:


> Do I really have to make this decision?  I'm not going to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, as neither of them even have a remote chance of winning.  That leaves Trump and Hillary.  The problem is, both of these candidates fucking suck!  Their views align in many ways (not all ways, but quite a few), so I think we'll be in the same position next "voting season" with either candidate.  The only reason I'd vote for Trump is because I'm a strong conservative and simply can't find it in myself to support a liberal candidate.  So, if I vote, I'll be (reluctantly) voting for Trump.


Not to be rude but Trump will say so much shit to other countries he will get us BOMBED! 

So you can't find it in your heart to vote for a LIBERAL? Meaning that you agree with racism, anti LGBT, and bigotry? .....yeah


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> Bernie forever. He is not corrupt like the others. But Clinton wouldn't be a terrible president. #NeverTrump


Wasn't he caught red-handed defrauding money from his non-profit a few years back?


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 11, 2016)

Bernie is our ideal candidate. Hillary is to the right of the centrist Obama. Trump plays by his own rules, which tend to be intensely selfish and self-centered. Not a good combination for a boss or a leader. 

Bernie would bring the USA up to speed with the rest of the world. Hillary will keep the snail's pace progression of one step forward 15/16ths a step back. Trump will shake things up so much we'll have to hold on for dear life and hope there's something to recover in his wake.

Hillary is the better choice than trump, but she ain't a good choice.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> Not to be rude but Trump will say so much shit to other countries he will get us BOMBED!
> 
> So you can't find it in your heart to vote for a LIBERAL? Meaning that you agree with racism, anti LGBT, and bigotry? .....yeah


Ah, so if you're not a liberal then you're automatically a bigot, a racist and a sexist? Painting with broad strokes there.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 11, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Ah, so if you're not a liberal then you're automatically a bigot, a racist and a sexist? Painting with broad strokes there.



So it seems, if I don't vote Clinton, I'm both a sexist and a bigot, don't you just *love *politics?


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 11, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Ah, so if you're not a liberal then you're automatically a bigot, a racist and a sexist? Painting with broad strokes there.


The definition of liberal means accepting all Races and religions. The definition of conservative is basically the opposite. I might be a dick on gbatemp sometimes, but I am the least racist person there is and no one is going to change my liberal attitude.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Did you not see my addendum and correction to my above statement? Clearly you skimmed over it it seems, what a shame. Next time, read my edits and corrections before trying to label it, I reiterated many times throughout my post on why I said what I said, and you chose to flat out ignore it.  That hurts, man.


I can't be blamed for not seeing your edit when I loaded the page and began a response before your edit took place. However, your post and its edits provided new details without addressing your original point. Have you changed your mind? Do you agree that many people like Clinton for reasons unrelated to her gender? If so, great. Consider the matter dropped. I just wanted to acknowledge what you did so you wouldn't make the same mistake in the future. No hard feelings, man.



Foxi4 said:


> You're putting a spin on what I'm saying for the third time. I'm not questioning the justice system, I find her moral compass questionable. It's commendable that she did her duty as a lawyer, I'm just not sure I would be comfortable with a president who is willing to ignore their moral compass for the sake of their career. I don't see how that's ambiguous. To be fair though, at the time she wasn't a lawyer with 40+ years of experience, I believe she was a greenhorn.


I'm willing to drop this soon; don't worry. But to be clear, is it or isn't it morally justified for a lawyer to defend his or her client, even when the client is obviously guilty of a heinous crime? You seem to be condoning the act while simultaneously condemning Clinton for it, which is probably why I'm confused.



Foxi4 said:


> Don't mistake this for endorsing Trump, either - there are no good choices in this election, only lesser evils, and that concept in and out of itself is nebulous.


The lesser of two evils is still less evil by definition. If one's goal is to minimize the evil, then one should vote for the candidate who is less evil.


----------



## Deboog (Jun 11, 2016)

Every single election people say that both candidates are crap. These people obviously don't know jack about politics. Unfortunately these are also the people who's vote is up for grabs. Oh well. I guess we'll just see more attack ads and bullshit emotional appeals and no talk of policy for the next 50 years.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> So it seems, if I don't vote Clinton, I'm both a sexist and a bigot, don't you just *love *politics?



I never said that. I said your statement was sexist, not whether or not you intend to vote for someone. If I recall, I never told you whom to vote for.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> To discredit a person's accomplishments and support on the basis of that person's sex is the definition of sexism.
> 
> 
> Then I'm unsure why you're arguing that a competent lawyer from 40+ years ago should have refused to represent a client, unless you're arguing that people with law backgrounds are not qualified to be president.
> ...



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

Just a good read, and also one of the reasons I've lost faith in US integrity. We lost in International Court, and ignored the repercussions. Legislative law is a practice that is philosophical and interpretive, yet still subject to the laws of nature. Only the strong survive. You can cast a judgment, but without the power to enforce it, it's just words. Food for thought I suppose.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> So it seems, if I don't vote Clinton, I'm both a sexist and a bigot, don't you just *love *politics?


This is exactly the failing of the two-party system, or any party system for that matter. It creates "baskets" you can put people into. If you want less government intervention, less regulation and more free market competition, that's too bad for you because the basket with those labels also has the words "bigot", "sexist", "racist" and "homophobe" on it. I'm right-leaning, have been for all my life, and I don't give a shit what colour people are or what they do in their bedrooms for as long as I'm not taxed too highly.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I never said that. I said your statement was sexist, not whether or not you intend to vote for someone. If I recall, I never told you whom to vote for.



Er, wasn't a quote from ya, no, but some people do have that mentality, if you don't support X person or Y thing, you're labeled as being Z. A generality more than a specific thing someone said


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Er, wasn't a quote from ya, no, but some people do have that mentality, if you don't support X person or Y thing, you're labeled as being Z. A generality more than a specific thing someone said


You and I are in agreement that that's a stupid mentality to have.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm willing to drop this soon; don't worry. But to be clear, is it or isn't it morally justified for a lawyer to defend his or her client, even when the client is obviously guilty of a heinous crime? You seem to be condoning the act while simultaneously condemning Clinton for it, which is probably why I'm confused.


I realize that the point is very esotheric and it's actually hard to elaborate upon it as the judgement here is very subjective. You're basically asking me if it's morally justifiable for a soldier to kill when we know that killing another human being classifies as murder. She was doing her job and fulfilled her duty, good on her, that makes her a good *attorney* and a dutiful individual. That being said, sometimes a soldier can ignore an order if said order is not justifiable. The justice system isn't perfect and in this instance a guilty man slipped through the cracks. Hillary was "just doing her job", but that's the Nuremberg defense - the function of the justice system is to put criminals behind bars, not to "always win". Again, this would make me a terrible attorney, but you have to wonder what goes through the mind of a person who has to defend a man who raped a child. I find that very troubling and I'd be interested to hear her take on this, with a fresh perspective.


> The lesser of two evils is still less evil by definition. If one's goal is to minimize the evil, then one should vote for the candidate who is less evil.


Allow me:


> "Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all." - Andrzej Sapkowski, The Last Wish


In the gross estimate of all pros and cons, each issue is valued differently. Some find some values or freedoms more important than others, and none of those judgements are "invalid". If you're asking people to choose the lesser evil then they will do just that, just don't expect their thinking to align with yours - they may have a different concept of evil.


dpad_5678 said:


> The definition of liberal means accepting all Races and religions. The definition of conservative is basically the opposite. I might be a dick on gbatemp sometimes, but I am the least racist person there is and no one is going to change my liberal attitude.


"Conservative" and "liberal" are umbrella terms, they are associated with a multitude of values. Economic conservatives don't give a f*ck about sex or race, they just want a fair marketplace. To say that "conservative" means "evil, backwards religious nutjob bigot" and "liberal" means "all-embracing, enlightened atheist lover of peace" is painting the political scene as if it was a cartoon. This isn't Star Wars, conservatives are not the evil Empire and liberals aren't the Rebels. Your approach is immature and narrow-minded, you're stereotyping. Whether you believe it or not, both camps are interested in one thing - the good of the country. They just have a different opinion on what'd be good for it.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jun 11, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> Not to be rude but Trump will say so much shit to other countries he will get us BOMBED!
> 
> So you can't find it in your heart to vote for a LIBERAL? Meaning that you agree with racism, anti LGBT, and bigotry? .....yeah


I can't vote for a liar.  (I.E., Hillary)


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 11, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> The definition of liberal means accepting all Races and religions. The definition of conservative is basically the opposite. I might be a dick on gbatemp sometimes, but I am the least racist person there is and no one is going to change my liberal attitude.



I feel I should point out that it was actually the newly formed Republican Party that ended slavery.


----------



## Zerousen (Jun 11, 2016)

I'm not a politician or an expert or anything, but it sounds like there are people in this thread that have no idea what they're talking about, and probably need to have another go in a high school government class.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> I feel I should point out that it was actually the newly formed Republican Party that ended slavery.


Don't let history and fact muddle your feelings and emotions! Liberals can do no wrong!


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I realize that the point is very esotheric and it's actually hard to elaborate upon it as the judgement here is very subjective. You're basically asking me if it's morally justifiable for a soldier to kill when we know that killing another human being classifies as murder. She was doing her job and fulfilled her duty, good on her, that makes her a good *attorney* and a dutiful individual. That being said, sometimes a soldier can ignore an order if said order is not justifiable. The justice system isn't perfect and in this instance a guilty man slipped through the cracks. Hillary was "just doing her job", but that's the Nuremberg defense - the function of the justice system is to put criminals behind bars, not to "always win". Again, this would make me a terrible attorney, but you have to wonder what goes through the mind of a person who has to defend a man who raped a child. I find that very troubling and I'd be interested to hear her take on this, with a fresh perspective.


We can make moral assessments on whether or not, for example, it is morally justified for a soldier to carry out orders in a specific circumstance. Is it morally justified for a lawyer to defend his or her client when that client is likely guilty? Is said "order" (in this case, it was a request by a judge and attorney) justified? You haven't answered that question except to acknowledge some pros and cons.



Foxi4 said:


> In the gross estimate of all pros and cons, each issue is valued differently. Some find some values or freedoms more important than others, and none of those judgements are "invalid". If you're asking people to choose the lesser evil then they will do just that, just don't expect their thinking to align with yours - they may have a different concept of evil.


If someone expresses a dissatisfaction with both Trump and Hillary, and I acknowledge the quantifiable importance of picking the lesser of two evils, my statement is not contingent upon aligning one's views with my own. However, I would argue that Hillary Clinton is, if not a fantastic candidate, the lesser of two evils.



brickmii82 said:


> I feel I should point out that it was actually the newly formed Republican Party that ended slavery.





Foxi4 said:


> Don't let history and fact muddle your feelings and emotions! Liberals can do no wrong!


There are a lot of similarities between the Republican Party of the nineteenth century and the Republican Party of today. However, on the matter of civil rights and the rights of African Americans, the two couldn't be much different. Among other things, JFK's embracement of civil rights caused the anti-civil rights Democrats of his time to switch over to the Republican Party in a process called _realignment_, and vice versa. In fact, JFK was warned that embracing civil rights would cost the Democratic Party the American South for a generation, but civil rights were just too important. As warned, the racist Southern Democrats (descended from the nineteenth century Democrats) became today's Southern Republicans, the modern Democratic Party indeed lost the American South, and it's still out of reach to this day.

The nineteenth century Republican Party gets a lot of credit, but the Republican Party of 2016 does not.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 11, 2016)

Zerousen said:


> I'm not a politician or an expert or anything, but it sounds like there are people in this thread that have no idea what they're talking about, and probably need to have another go in a high school government class.


You know high schools are just places to train people to love servitude?[1]

[1] Aldous Huxley, Prologue of "A brave new world", Reprint, 1946.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We can make moral assessments on whether or not, for example, it is morally justified for a soldier to carry out orders in a specific circumstance. Is it morally justified for a lawyer to defend his or her client when that client is likely guilty? Is said "order" (in this case, it was a request by a judge and attorney) justified? You haven't answered that question except to acknowledge some pros and cons.


Of course I did - it's justifiable for an attorney, that's the attorney's function. One would hope that the attorney would present the truth in an attempt to defend the client - judgement is reserved for the jury. The problem here is that what is justifiable for an attorney is not necessarily justifiable for an ordinary person, or a president, who by the virtue of that function is held to a higher moral standard. That, and just because something is justifiable does not necessarily mean that it's good. I would definitely have a hard time "working" with such a client, she did not, so either she treated the ideals behind the system as of higher value than what she herself believed to be the truth, or she is cynical and would defend whoever as long as it allows her to progress in her career. We don't know which version of events is true, we're not Hillary and cannot quantum leap into her, which is why it's troubling. I called her morally ambiguous, not a peadophilia enabler - there's a difference. Besides, can't a quality that makes for a good attorney be problematic for a presidential candidate? Are the two mutually exclusive or not? What I'm basically saying is that she has the capability to suspend her own moral compass in order to achieve her goals (in this case to defend a hineous crime, in the hands of a ruler it could be to perpetrate one or be an accomplice in one), be it in servitude of a greater ideal or for her own self-interest, as we can't establish her motives, and that quality is dangerous in the hands of a potential ruler as it can be very quickly turned against me, the voter, if the circumstances necessitate it from her point of view. That's about as clear as I can make this argument in context.


> If someone expresses a dissatisfaction with both Trump and Hillary, and I acknowledge the quantifiable importance of picking the lesser of two evils, my statement is not contingent upon aligning one's views with my own. However, I would argue that Hillary Clinton is, if not a fantastic candidate, the lesser of two evils.


When choosing between two evils, making the choice of the lesser evil has to entail that you accept partial responsibility over the results of that choice. If you vote for Hillary and she destroys the Internet as we know it, you are partially responsible for it as you took part in the process of making that legislature a reality. Conversely, if you vote for Trump and he does "build a wall", you laid the first bricks. Now, the choice depends on what you feel more comfortable with.

We're slowly drifting off the topic of politics and well into the realm of philosophy and ethics. As fascinating as it is, it's probably not conducive to keeping this thread on-point.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We can make moral assessments on whether or not, for example, it is morally justified for a soldier to carry out orders in a specific circumstance. Is it morally justified for a lawyer to defend his or her client when that client is likely guilty? Is said "order" (in this case, it was a request by a judge and attorney) justified? You haven't answered that question except to acknowledge some pros and cons.
> 
> 
> If someone expresses a dissatisfaction with both Trump and Hillary, and I acknowledge the quantifiable importance of picking the lesser of two evils, my statement is not contingent upon aligning one's views with my own. However, I would argue that Hillary Clinton is, if not a fantastic candidate, the lesser of two evils.
> ...



Very nice. One of the reasons I consider JFK to be our last "great" leader. This though, is why even though I don't particularly like Trumps candidacy, I acknowledge that he will likely bring about a change in the GOP and hopefully it will be back to true conservative roots. Both liberal and conservative ideals have their place in achieving a prosperous, fair leadership. However, both parties have sacrificed their respective ideologies in ways to appease their financiers, and voting base. As I said earlier, it's becoming more and more difficult to achieve the "dream", and neither party is truly working towards American prosperity anymore. They seem more preoccupied with simply beating each other in some form or another. Hilary Clinton is no exception, and is a slave to her parties financial backers. She may not do much damage, but I hardly believe she'll bring about the desired change this country needs. I, personally, are so disillusioned with President Obama and the Democratic Party, that I find it very difficult to mark that ballot in favor of that party. They promised change, and didn't deliver anything of meaningful value to my daily life. I voted for him. Twice. And nothing was achieved. The truth is, both parties need to be blown the fuck up, and be taken out of the pockets of Banks, Corporations, Industries, and the like. This has become social engineering at its finest, and we accept this garbage like pigs led to slop. The aristocracies couldn't rule through monarchy and Empire, because outright rebellion and unruliness was inevitable. Now they've resorted to a Matrix-like philosophy where we appear to have choice and freer will, but upon closer inspection we realize that it's nothing more than illusion. The aristocracy once again controls the majority, and they use misdirection to control the emotional response to the iniquities.


----------



## VashTS (Jun 11, 2016)

if its Donald Vs Hillary, you have your next president country. Trump will not be elected.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

VashTS said:


> if its Donald Vs Hillary, you have your next president country. Trump will not be elected.


I don't see why you're so sure of it. I don't see any evidence of a Hillary landslide coming, the polls seem to be inconclusive.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 11, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> I feel I should point out that it was actually the newly formed Republican Party that ended slavery.


Yes, but a Republican THEN is basically a Democrat now. I mean, you can't tell me that Lincoln would be a in the same party as Trump, right?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course I did - it's justifiable for an attorney, that's the attorney's function. One would hope that the attorney would present the truth in an attempt to defend the client - judgement is reserved for the jury. The problem here is that what is justifiable for an attorney is not necessarily justifiable for an ordinary person, or a president, who by the virtue of that function is held to a higher moral standard. That, and just because something is justifiable does not necessarily mean that it's good. I would definitely have a hard time "working" with such a client, she did not, so either she treated the ideals behind the system as of higher value than what she herself believed to be the truth, or she is cynical and would defend whoever as long as it allows her to progress in her career. We don't know which version of events is true, we're not Hillary and cannot quantum leap into her, which is why it's troubling. I called her morally ambiguous, not a peadophilia enabler - there's a difference. Besides, can't a quality that makes for a good attorney be problematic for a presidential candidate? Are the two mutually exclusive or not? What I'm basically saying is that she has the capability to suspend her own moral compass in order to achieve her goals (in this case to defend a hineous crime, in the hands of a ruler it could be to perpetrate one or be an accomplice in one), be it in servitude of a greater ideal or for her own self-interest, as we can't establish her motives, and that quality is dangerous in the hands of a potential ruler as it can be very quickly turned against me, the voter, if the circumstances necessitate it from her point of view. That's about as clear as I can make this argument in context.


Unless your argument is that it is immoral to be a defense attorney, I can't make sense of the contradictions in your argument.



Foxi4 said:


> When choosing between two evils, making the choice of the lesser evil has to entail that you accept partial responsibility over the results of that choice. If you vote for Hillary and she destroys the Internet as we know it, you are partially responsible for it as you took part in the process of making that legislature a reality. Conversely, if you vote for Trump and he does "build a wall", you laid the first bricks. Now, the choice depends on what you feel more comfortable with.


One is far more culpable if a more evil politician does something evil and one did nothing to vote against him or her. I would rather take my chances with the less evil candidate. Also, this is the second time I've seen the meme regarding Hillary Clinton destroying the internet. She has consistently been in favor of net neutrality, so I don't know where that's coming from.



Foxi4 said:


> I don't see why you're so sure of it. I don't see any evidence of a Hillary landslide coming, the polls seem to be inconclusive.


You're right that polling so far doesn't show any reason to think there will be any sort of Hillary landslide. Only time will tell. However, polling and other factors do currently show Hillary with an edge against Trump.


----------



## emigre (Jun 11, 2016)

Logan Pockrus said:


> I can't vote for a liar.  (I.E., Hillary)



I guess you don't vote in any elections at all.

Hilary is totally the least worst choice.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 11, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> Yes, but a Republican THEN is basically a Democrat now. I mean, you can't tell me that Lincoln would be a in the same party as Trump, right?



Lincoln, Kennedy, Teddy, FDR, basically all of the leaders I consider great would likely be severely disillusioned at the state of our countries politics and parties. IMHO. I agree with Bill Clinton though, "There's nothing wrong with America,that cannot be fixed with what is right with America."


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jun 11, 2016)

emigre said:


> I guess you don't vote in any elections at all.
> 
> Hilary is totally the least worst choice.


At least we can agree on everyone being a liar (at one point or another).  We'll have to agree to disagree on who is the "least worst choice", however.

NOTE:  To put it bluntly, I don't care what anyone's political stance is.  Your opinion is your opinion, and I'm willing to look past it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

It is by no means immoral to be an attorney, as long as you are a truthful and principled one. What I'm saying is that there is no gold standard of morality - theft is by default immoral, however a hungry mother stealing a loaf of bread to feed her children is not equivalent to a CEO committing wage theft in order to buy a new yacht. I don't see any contradictions in my argument at all - the concepts of good and evil are not static, the world is not black and white. I outlined the problem - she demonstrated that she can cast aside morality and truth in order to achieve her goals, and I find that to be a dangerous quality for a leader of the world's largest superpower. It's great for an attorney, but it speaks to a lack of transparency for a presidential candidate. An attorney must necessarily suspend moral judgement in order to work effectively, a president capable of suspending moral judgement is potentially dangerous and unpredictible, perhaps ruthless, whichever wording you find more descriptive or accurate.


----------



## emigre (Jun 11, 2016)

Logan Pockrus said:


> At least we can agree on everyone being a liar (at one point or another).  We'll have to agree to disagree on who is the "least worst choice", however.
> 
> NOTE:  To put it bluntly, I don't care what anyone's political stance is.  Your opinion is your opinion, and I'm willing to look past it.



I find it hard to believe Trump, someone is supportive of policies of outright discrimination and borderline fascism, can be seen cannot be seen as anything other than the worst choice. Particularly for one of the few racial and cultural melting point nations in the world.


----------



## nooby89 (Jun 11, 2016)

I'm live in Canad, so luck.


----------



## smileyhead (Jun 11, 2016)

I'm not American...

*TRUMP ALL THE WAY!!*


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jun 11, 2016)

emigre said:


> I find it hard to believe Trump, someone is supportive of policies of outright discrimination and borderline fascism, can be seen cannot be seen as anything other than the worst choice. Particularly for one of the few racial and cultural melting point nations in the world.


I would be hard pressed to believe he could accomplish half of what his loud mouth promises.  I think he has some justification for some of his beliefs about foreign policy and the like, but at the end of the day, I'll cast my vote knowing I'm loyal to the party I belong to.  (Also, let's not forget Trump isn't the most conservative guy out there.  I'd say he and Hillary's views clash so frequently it's disconcerting.)


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 11, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Don't let history and fact muddle your feelings and emotions! Liberals can do no wrong!


http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html


They didn't exactly switch platforms, the platforms evolved over time due to a change of global circumstances, which plays into my previous argument that words like "liberal" mean nothing out of context. If we treated them literally, we'd have liberals petitioning to eliminate market regulation, which is a conservative, not a progressive idea. They're just terms floating in the aether of politics - not all republicans are racists, not all rectangles are squares.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 12, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> I, personally, ar so disillusioned with President Obama and the Democratic Party, that I find it very difficult to mark that ballot in favor of that party. They promised change, and didn't deliver anything of meaningful value to my daily life. I voted for him. Twice. And nothing was achieved.


A quick Google search yielded these 358 Obama accomplishments.



Foxi4 said:


> It is by no means immoral to be an attorney, as long as you are a truthful and principled one. What I'm saying is that there is no gold standard of morality - theft is by default immoral, however a hungry mother stealing a loaf of bread to feed her children is not equivalent to a CEO committing wage theft in order to buy a new yacht. I don't see any contradictions in my argument at all - the concepts of good and evil are not static, the world is not black and white. I outlined the problem - she demonstrated that she can cast aside morality and truth in order to achieve her goals, and I find that to be a dangerous quality for a leader of the world's largest superpower. It's great for an attorney, but it speaks to a lack of transparency for a presidential candidate. An attorney must necessarily suspend moral judgement in order to work effectively, a president capable of suspending moral judgement is potentially dangerous and unpredictible, perhaps ruthless, whichever wording you find more descriptive or accurate.


_>it is morally okay to be an attorney who defends a client who is likely guilty
>it is not morally okay for Hillary Clinton to have defended a client who was likely guilty
_
^This is the contradiction. You cannot simultaneously hold both of these positions. It sounds to me like you're saying the former is not something you agree with, which flies in the face of how the American justice system works. The fact that you think it's the attorney's place to be the _judge _of his or her client shows a lack of understanding of our justice system. There is nothing about legally defending the guilty that involves _casting aside one's own morality and truth_. A defense attorney cannot and should not be held accountable for the actions of his or her client. _Blind justice_ is likely a concept you are unfamiliar with.

It is my opinion that in order to be a truthful and principled defense attorney, one must defend his or her client to the fullest extent, regardless of the client's likelihood of guilt. In addition, the ability to defend an undesirable client demonstrates a level of objectivity desirable of a president.



Foxi4 said:


> They're just terms floating in the aether of politics - not all republicans are racists, not all rectangles are squares.


Not all Republicans are racist, but most racists are Republican.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A quick Google search yielded these 358 Obama accomplishments.
> 
> 
> _>it is morally okay to be an attorney who defends a client who is likely guilty
> ...


This site you've linked to is obviously partisan, and many of its claims are ambiguous and debatable at the very least. Furthermore, my main point was bluntly addressed in the rest of the post. Care to drum up a defense with actual, agreed upon statistics and occurrences that dictate our politicians aren't "bought out"??


----------



## Lacius (Jun 12, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> This site you've linked to is obviously partisan, and many of its claims are ambiguous and debatable at the very least. Furthermore, my main point was bluntly addressed in the rest of the post. Care to drum up a defense with actual, agreed upon statistics and occurrences that dictate our politicians aren't "bought out"??


My qualm was with your bold statement about Obama accomplishing nothing. Dealing with the Recession alone likely affected your life. There are also numerous other people who have had their lives changed for the better, whether it's because they can get health insurance, they can get married, etc.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> My qualm was with your bold statement about Obama accomplishing nothing. Dealing with the Recession alone likely affected your life. There are also numerous other people who have had their lives changed for the better, whether it's because they can get health insurance, they can get married, etc.



So you're essentially presuming to know more about what's affected my daily life more than I do? Who is being bold, sir??


----------



## TrapperKeeperX (Jun 12, 2016)

There are a bunch of issues that should be reasoned with. People can agree or disagree or agree to disagree it's your right to do so.

Gun Issues:
I do defend the Second Amendment Right to bear arms. I know guns are a touchy subject but people need to be more responsible with guns and don't use them for irrational purposes. The only way you should use a gun if someone went and broke in your own house I would fire a warning shot to scare the person off but if they try to harm you for irrational reasons then yes defend yourself. People should have self control with guns that's how should someone own a gun if they want to. I understand people abuse and missuse guns and use them for irrational purposes.

Ethical & Social Issues Issues: I'm not a SJW or a PC type of person I just see both sides and I try to understand but I do defend for what's right. It's all about what's ethically right & wrong.
I do defend the LGBT it does make you feel it's like a modern day segregation watching history repeat itself. Plus having some religious groups & churches with these religious people easily using freedom of religion to easily discriminate people is purely wrong and abusing the system and it's sad. Kinda makes me think about the struggles with African Americans with the Ku Klux Klan they used freedom of religion for hate here is an example cross burning that is true and the Ku Klux Klan were pretty religious. I actually do compare these religious politicians to the Ku Klux Klan but using discriminating policies against the LGBT. Honestly it should be nobody's business who they love if you really care for the person you love then you should be with that person no matter who it is. People make it their business because they complain about stupid shit that they have no business, I am talking about people who just don't approve of it it's none of your damn business. They should stop the hate, people want to live decent lives stop making us live miserable. Me on the transgender bathroom issue there should be a third bathroom for those who are gendered confused restroom and just fill it with stalls no urinals. But if you have a sex change to become either a man or woman they should use their gender if men transitioning to becoming a woman then they have a right to use the women's bathroom same with women transitioning becoming a man then they have a right to use the men's bathroom. I also defend African Americans I understand that people do want to live without discrimination we should reason and understand one another same applies to LGBT,African Americans, Illegal Undocumented Immigrants, etc. 

My View on Illegal Undocumented Immigrants yes I will say that they just don't want to use the word Illegal. I will define it Illegal yes they're here illegally let's be honest. Undocumented they have no documents to identify them. Immigrants who came from another country. I do defend those who want to stay in United States of America because they do want to make their lives better it's the land of the free but they should pay their dues tho this country like every other American. I know learning another language is really hard if you really want to go to another country you should learn that native language for example okay if you speak in English and want to move to Japan learn Japanese first and learn about the country first then make your move if your 100% Ready. People should tutor others on different languages it would be helpful and you can learn and understand the language better. But the drug cartels that profit off of crime they should be deported and prosecuted in their current residence in that country. There are differences but as an American people have the right people I wish people came here legally but I can understand who want to be here Illegally that got denied. 

My take on the First Amendment right to freedom speech I do defend it no one should be afraid to speak up. I see people abusing it for discrimination just like those who use freedom of religion to discriminate for example Westboro Baptist Church, Corrupted Politicians, etc. but people need to realize they're just hateful people they do make up a small part of the world. I do understand Politics make up a big part of our country but it should be for the people not the greedy wealthy they chose to live beyond their need because they expect a return of their own investment and we suffer from them being selfish it this has to stop. 
Separation of Church & State Religion & Politics is just the worst look a the Salem Witch Trials perfect example of why Church & State are separate. Now people want to use religion to inspire politics and brainwashed views this is why I don't go to church & I'm not religious. 

Freedom of Religion I'm not religious I was Catholic/Jewish but became agnostic for awhile then I just stopped believing but that is my right. I also know it shouldn't be abuse for hate but unfortunately people use if for hate & abuse political power. I understand that there are people that use religion for kindness, acceptance, and understanding those are good beliefs I see some churches that do good fro the community and I know there are some that just profit off of greed and it's unethical and they should know they're sinning ironically and they think they could be saved they don't see it that way. Isn't Greed one of the Seven Deadly Sins? It looks like they're going to their imaginative hell. 

Law Enforcers Issues I have Family & Family Friends that are in the Police Force they're ethical Law Enforcers they do what's right and protect and serve the innocent. I know that just abuse the power of the law those kind of Law Enforcers shouldn't be Cops sadly these cops exist and harm the innocent and serve the criminals that they protect. 

Protesting I defend protesting 100% but people use it for hate, but it should be used for reasoning and understanding one another it shows that we do have the right to unite and work on these issues. I'm not for rioting due to destroying it's not right to do no matter how frustrating it is. Protesting should be peaceful and fighting for freedom but people should have self control and protest reasonably. People should use Social Media to protest it's free to do so it's also another form of protesting for those who want to vent.

Legalization of Cannabis it should be legal due to it's medical benefits it has Nixon made it a Controlled Substance because he hated hippies and people profit off crime and there are states that do legalize Cannabis and in research it does make people healthier and it's a organic and natural herb plus it would be good for those who are suffering from Mental Illness, Seizures, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Sleep Disorders, HIV/AIDS, Chronic Pain, Anorexia, etc. plus these days they just want to give pills that do damage to your system and they're slowly killing people plus some people use pills for suicide and it's sad they want to pump us up full of chemicals and encouraging pill popping same with the alcohol industry there are more pill & alcohol related deaths than Cannabis the corporate media just want to glamorize and hate Cannabis and push us into pill popping and alcohol and there are alcoholics that are just awful look at Mel Gibson for example. 

I also have a issue with preservatives in food since they're silently killing everyone and causing health problems plus it would be good for people to start growing food and having animals I would take care of a Cow and keep it healthy for it's Milk same thing with Hens for it's Eggs I wouldn't use it for it's Meat at all I would got to a store to get Chicken & Beef. I would take care of my own animals I would never kill it for its meat. I would let them live even if they passed away I would never use the meat I would give it a proper burial. Okay Preservatives have becoming an issue with obesity and health problems adding chemicals to food is a bad thing people should really look at the label before buying food Healthy Foods should be cheap and easy to buy with no preservatives because that's how people ate back then. I eat very little junk food every now and then. I do binge on healthy snacks Like Watermelon, Grapes, Bananas, Sunflower Kernels, Pineapples, Apples, Salads, Strawberries, Vegetables, etc. I do eat meat & fish I keep everything balanced and healthy if you want to be healthy people should eat right they should tax and raise it prices on corporate chemically diabetic shock induced foods make them pay the price and make organic healthy stuff cheap. I know people have a right to eat whatever they want My Body My Right.

Abortion Issues women have a right to have an abortion it's their body a woman has a right to choose if women feel that they're not ready to raise a child or women who just don't want to have kids at all. I do encourage safe sex Men should use Condoms & Spermicidal Lube just incase if the condom breaks during sexual intercourse and women should use birth control or a diaphragm just incase they don't want sperm going in duting sexual intercourse. I'm however against Pro-Lifers honestly they go against women's rights and it causes mentality issues like rape or incest they have no right. Quoting Jay from Dogma "A woman's body is her own fucking business." Pro-Life is just ridiculous using and inspiring religious faith to control is just purely messed up. Abortion isn't murder, killing people is murder there is a huge difference. I know some Pro-Lifers killing people over abortions and they claim to be Pro-Life it just hypocritical. Plus I defend stem cell research is a great thing plus it does show some kind of selflessness in this overpopulated world we live in plus we can find cures from diseases from fetal tissue it real progress and religious people shame it they rather pray it away than actually fix disease. 

Women's Rights I'm a Male Feminist I am all for equality no matter what Gender you are. I don't like corporate feminism who profit off of struggling issues it's not right it's wrong and it's smug for example Anita Sarkeesian she profited off of corporate feminism she could of just done it for free not asking for a corporate handout just like Hillary Clinton. There is a difference between real feminism and corporate feminism I hope you do agree. Women should be treated as equal don't glamorize and profit off of feminism that make feminist look bad and not taken seriously, It just enable men to be sexist and pay off like it's political stripping not the removal of clothing but your control of free speech just like Hillary Clinton's paid speeches it feels like she prostituted her speech and not defend it's very smug.

I do defend and they should legalizing Prostitution whether your Male or Female selling your body for sex if people want to pay for it they'll do it. Plus the corporations want to force you to have family's and go out on dates just for sex and this is why I'm still a virgin sex does make things complicated in a relationship. However it should be safe with blood testing to check for diseases so no one would catch a Sexually Transmitted Disease but the sex should be safe instead of making reckless decisions. I can go on more I'll just post this up and one more thing.

I strongly defend individual freedom it's a right some people just want to live freely and live quiet lives.


----------



## nooby89 (Jun 12, 2016)

This paragraph ^^
IS SO BIGGGGG


----------



## Smiths (Jun 12, 2016)

I VOTE FOR GATEWAY AS BEST PRODUCT OF THE YEAR #GATEWAY2016


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 12, 2016)

The GOP (Begrudgingly Gets Behind Donald Trump starting at 2:28 mark really seems to encapsulate the absurdity of the situation.  To say lesser of two evils.  To speak of liars or whether duty of a lawyer might make someone bad as duty of a President.  Or even the high moral standard to hold a President.  What rock are you living under to believe any President in the last 100 years would qualify?  Carter, perhaps?  And how good of a President was he?

And to those wishing for a disfunctional government?  Or hedging it all upon an inability to carry out the claims--ie, the outright lies--as a basis to vote FOR someone?  That too is absurd.  I don't say this thinking that we honestly have much chance of improving the circumstance in the US until the people want positive change, not a call for gridlock based upon disillusionment of a system from people who seek that gridlock or worse.

In the end, the real need for change is not in the US Presidential Election but the many Congressional races.  When voters see the world as zero sum and choose a representative based on getting a larger share of the pie, we see precisely the sort of lobbying and deficit spending and wars that have been the mainstay of modern politics.  It is only through a vote for unity of the whole nation and a better of all the people that we stand any chance of an improvement upon everyone's lives in a very manifest way.

The day we see true progress and improvement is the day poverty is of the mind and not of the belly.  We should seek that day and the ability to sustain it.

PS - Yea, I know, idealistic rubbish, right?  Yet look at where we stand today compared to 30 years ago.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jun 12, 2016)

I noticed that the ad at the bottom of this page is somewhat relevant:


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

There's ideological differences
There's value differences
there's long-game vs short-game differences
and then there's party affiliation which plays lip service to the three listed reasons above.

Who do you serve and who do you trust? 
I trust bernie to stick to his personal ideals regardless of political pressures
I trust hillary to do the popular choice if she can't get away with whatever unknown ideals or political pressures she follows
I trust trump to do whatever is best for himself
And I serve only my own ambition.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jun 12, 2016)

Thank God most of you people are either too young to vote or not American citizens.
This whole thread is a mess of bad ideologies and general ignorance.


----------



## TrapperKeeperX (Jun 12, 2016)

nooby89 said:


> This paragraph ^^
> IS SO BIGGGGG



My previous post I cut them down into paragraphs for better to understand the issues and make it better to see.



osaka35 said:


> Who do you serve and who do you trust?
> I trust bernie to stick to his personal ideals regardless of political pressures



He is the true path. I do see it in a Fire Emblem Fates way
Birthright - Donald Trump - Birthright Citizens
Conquest - Hillary Clinton - Azura's Dark Song "A Legacy of Lies" It's just a Political Conquest but we'll see her true intentions just like King Garon.
Revelation - Bernie Sanders - I choose neither Trump or Clinton there is another way it might be a longshot we must not give up what you really fight for! The Political Revolution is a great Revelation to see the truth.


----------



## Ericzander (Jun 12, 2016)

u r all stupid.

all republicans r rasist and hate mexicans an only feelthebern berny is good because he is basically jesus look it up n do some research.

dass y i think the superdeligates are juss joking n will pick berny and thats why i donate all my $$$ to his campaine. 

hillary!?!  more like SUCKSillary!  trump?  more like SUCKSump!

do research
---

Honestly though, that's what a ton of you sound like right now.


----------



## LoganK93 (Jun 12, 2016)

I haven't read most of this, but I just want to say that Donald Trump is the biggest joke ever. I mean, I have watched his campaign speeches and his entire thing is based on racism and bigotry. I mean for fucks sake he refers to people in the most non-PC way I have ever heard. Not to mention he is against anyone who isn't a straight rich white man. He wants to overturn gay marriage as well, which would make things slightly problematic for my husband and I. Overall Trump is shit. He is nothing more than exactly what America needs less of: RICH WHITE MEN. He knows how to make money, and even that isn't exactly true since he has been very, VERY far in debt in the past. He treats minority citizens like slaves, all while keeping that same smug shit-eating grin. "I love the mexicans, I'm even eating a taco bowl!" I mean for fucks sake the guy seems like something you'd see as a joke on Futurama. I have received death threats from Trump supporters simply because I'm a homosexual and we are one of the reasons they need to do an overhaul and "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN". That is all. Though to be fair, politics are always rigged and all of the candidates are shit. If Trump wins I'm moving to Canada.


----------



## Shining Greninja (Jun 12, 2016)

TRUMP ALL THE WAY


Thirty3Three said:


> I chose not to vote this year. But Trump. JUST because I want to see what'd happen.


Why does everyone think getting rid of the illegal immigrants a bad thing?

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



Ericzander said:


> u r all stupid.
> 
> all republicans r rasist and hate mexicans an only feelthebern berny is good because he is basically jesus look it up n do some research.
> 
> ...


You're autism may be contagious, everyone look out!  Literally why go and call Republicans dumb when you can't even spell 'You' correctly?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 12, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> So you're essentially presuming to know more about what's affected my daily life more than I do? Who is being bold, sir??


Do you or don't you participate in the economy?


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 12, 2016)

It's because illegal immigrants are nothing more than a distraction from the truth. A place to point the finger. No one seems to accept the fact that we made a mistake by replacing manufacturing and production, with speculative financing as our primary economics engine. I live in Arizona, a hotbed for immigration issues. The primary line of thinking, is "dey stole ma jobz!" But the work they accept is typically undesirable blue collar work with low pay anyways.


----------



## supergamer368 (Jun 12, 2016)

Trump? Hillary? Rather move to Canada.

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

Politics..... designed not to make sense.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Do you or don't you participate in the economy?


I debated for a few minutes whether to engage you on this, but f it, I'll bite. Sure I do. I buy milk. I pay taxes. Blah blah blah, what's your point? That President Obama(and please refer to our sitting President with proper connotation) had an effect. Of course he did. However the change of "Wall St vs Main St" was never truly addressed in my eyes. Do I think he was the Antichrist Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like claim? Of course not. But he was ultimately the same "go with the flow" leader we've seen in the past. Anyways, by all means, please continue your debate with me!!


----------



## Lacius (Jun 12, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> I debated for a few minutes whether to engage you on this, but f it, I'll bite. Sure I do. I buy milk. I pay taxes. Blah blah blah, what's your point? That President Obama(and please refer to our sitting President with proper connotation) had an effect. Of course he did. However the change of "Wall St vs Main St" was never truly addressed in my eyes. Do I think he was the Antichrist Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like claim? Of course not. But he was ultimately the same "go with the flow" leader we've seen in the past. Anyways, by all means, please continue your debate with me!!


My qualm was with your hyperbole, saying Obama _didn't deliver anything of meaningful value to daily life_ and _nothing was achieved_. You've corrected your mistake, so there's nothing left to debate.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 12, 2016)

Donald Trump. I don't support Bernie and never in my right mind would I support Hillary. Bernie most likely isn't going to win.


----------



## Jao Chu (Jun 12, 2016)

If I was living in America and able to vote, I would be voting for Trump.

The democrats are too focused on social justice, gender and race politics, not adhering to the first and 5th amendments and other useless shit that is undoing the development of the human race.

Look at what Justin Trudeau is doing to Canada. Yuck. He got sworn in as prime minister by primarily women-voters because he is "hot" and was a male model. What are even his credentials that qualify him to lead a country?

At least entrepreneurs such as Trump have a sense of leadership more than a male model......


----------



## XDel (Jun 12, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Jesus Christ, people actually support Bernie Sanders? The red menace is still doing well, apparently. None of my business, really, but any pick other than Sanders and Stein would be acceptable for the U.S.



People don't understand how Socialism always ends up in State Forced programs from a soul-less bureaucratic level, ala Communism all over again. 
We've got a technopoly we need to curve, but Socialism isn't the way...
...nor are any of our candidates, that is from those who have the Willy Wonka ticket. The likes of Ron Paul are not invited apparently, and sadly, the mentality that made this country so great in the 19th century, has long since been forgotten.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> My qualm was with your hyperbole, saying Obama _didn't deliver anything of meaningful value to daily life_ and _nothing was achieved_. You've corrected your mistake, so there's nothing left to debate.



I said he didn't deliver anything of value to MY daily life. That's my view and I hardly see a mistake in it. I could go into a much further detailed explanation how I came to that view, but ultimately it's mine, and mine alone. No one else has to share it, or agree with it. And again, stop calling him Obama. It's President Obama. Much in the same way you refer to a PH.D. As Doctor. Ijs


----------



## Lacius (Jun 12, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> I said he didn't deliver anything of value to MY daily life. That's my view and I hardly see a mistake in it. I could go into a much further detailed explanation how I came to that view, but ultimately it's mine, and mine alone. No one else has to share it, or agree with it. And again, stop calling him Obama. It's President Obama. Much in the same way you refer to a PH.D. As Doctor. Ijs


You acknowledged that Barack affected the economy that you participate in.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

XDel said:


> People don't understand how Socialism always ends up in State Forced programs from a soul-less bureaucratic level, ala Communism all over again.
> We've got a technopoly we need to curve, but Socialism isn't the way...
> ...nor are any of our candidates, that is from those who have the Willy Wonka ticket. The likes of Ron Paul are not invited apparently, and sadly, the mentality that made this country so great in the 19th century, has long since been forgotten.


he's a democratic socialist. Very very different than socialist. Democratic socialist basically means he supports communal needs, like police departments and fire departments and schools, but that industry of business should be promoted and helped to ensure a healthy middle class.


----------



## Thirty3Three (Jun 12, 2016)

Shining Greninja said:


> TRUMP ALL THE WAY
> 
> Why does everyone think getting rid of the illegal immigrants a bad thing?
> 
> ...


To the illegal immigrant comment. 

Our country was _made _from immigrants, and they just come here to have a good life. 

I'm all for them.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You acknowledged that Barack affected the economy that you participate in.


Rofl, you sir, are incorrigible!!


----------



## iAqua (Jun 12, 2016)

Trump is the biggest joke ever it's ridiculas that a single person even voted for him. Sure he says what he means, but ugh he's racist and just plain rude. WAKE UP AMERICA! #CanadaFTW.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 12, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Rofl, you sir, are incorrigible!!


On principle, I usually type out _President Obama_. However, your insistence was just too much to pass up.


----------



## Karuta (Jun 12, 2016)




----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> brickmii82 said:
> 
> 
> > I feel I should point out that it was actually the newly formed Republican Party that ended slavery.
> ...







Shining Greninja said:


> You're autism may be contagious, everyone look out!  Literally why go and call Republicans dumb when you can't even spell 'You' correctly?


*Sees text*
*Doesn't read to the bottom*
"AUTISM"

But seriously, even if @Ericzander was legit writing that way, autism isn't an insult. It just shows the world that you're a douchebag who thinks you're better than disabled people


----------



## XDel (Jun 12, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> he's a democratic socialist. Very very different than socialist. Democratic socialist basically means he supports communal needs, like police departments and fire departments and schools, but that industry of business should be promoted and helped to ensure a healthy middle class.



I am aware that he makes use of this term "Democratic Socialism", but what he has failed time and time again to do is explain exactly how what he is talking about is any different than Socialism, or how it will not ultimately lead to Communism because not everyone is going to just put in their fair share of work, in which case in the end, the Government steps in and forces people to do things and at gun point if they must, just like if you refuse to pay your taxes. 

This mentality has been running rampant in America as of late, take the infamous gay marriage cake as an example. A couple who had made the personal choice to be with one another on a homosexual level,  hunted down a bakery that refused to bake a cake on the grounds that it went against the owner of the bakery's personal religion. This somehow became national if not international news (we're all about priorities in this Huxlian Brave New World), and people everywhere took to social media to voice their outrage against the bigot, hateful, homophobic, bastard Christian, bakers. 

Sander's Socialism desires the rights of business owners to go into the hands of "the people" (who ever the hell they are as they don't seem so united to me), but as a small time business owner, I kind of like my person sovereignty and the ability to make my own decisions, and take my own risks. And since I am not an old school and established mega player on the block such as the industrialist, ancient banking clans, and media owners; well then I end up before a judge should I do something to violate someone's rights. 

Like I said, everyone is looking in the wrong places.


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 12, 2016)

XDel said:


> People don't understand how Socialism always ends up in State Forced programs from a soul-less bureaucratic level, ala Communism all over again.



Like police and fire and the highway department.  Soul-less communism.  See, that's just hyperbole.



XDel said:


> We've got a technopoly we need to curve, but Socialism isn't the way...



The absurdity of your statement is that said technopoly (whatever that is) can't be curved except by government (or restriction of government where it's the cause).  Unless you believe that any sort of -poly can magically change through social justice from individual action.  Hint, that alone is not enough but is but the beginning of change through government.  But then we have people, like you, who see any government action as Socialism even though that's not even what Socialism means.  Let alone you clearly not knowing what Communism is.



XDel said:


> ...nor are any of our candidates, that is from those who have the Willy Wonka ticket. The likes of Ron Paul are not invited apparently,



The one part I'd agree with.  The Two Party system is rigged to only allow for one of two candidates and each Party vets their candidates to the extent of not allowing anyone enter.  So, at some level, Trump is a Republican.  He's just a very right-wing Republican in some ways that many Republican politicans are only in rhetoric and very left-wing Democrat in a variety of ways that many Republicans outright don't support.  Which sort of shows how that left/right is more of a wrap around.  Like Ron Paul.  Oh, and trying to actual map all ideology as "left" or "right" or "up" or "down" or whatever is absurd.



XDel said:


> and sadly, the mentality that made this country so great in the 19th century, has long since been forgotten.



You mean the part where we stole vast amounts of land; were on the cusp of a large amount of fundamentally vast technological improvements based open the utilization of cheap energy; and had basically zero regard for worker safety, ecological consideration, or the oligarchical control of most resources under the scope of businessmen who had no qualms about the execution of workers by rental armies who dared to unionize to not work 16-hour days (supported, of course, by bought politicians)?  You know, like China.

Let's just ignore that the process of moving from Undeveloped to Developed contains a massive growth spurt as a Developing country and the only true way to achieve that greatness again would be to set a new standard of Developed as highly above what we view the level of Undeveloped to Developed.  And would, unless done carefully, result in yet more genocide by Americans in the name of greatness.


----------



## XDel (Jun 12, 2016)

Help your self. If you don't want to spend, I'd personally mail you a copy.

This should be required reading in schools. Freshman college at the very least. 

https://www.amazon.com/Technopoly-Surrender-Technology-Neil-Postman/dp/0679745408







kuwanger said:


> Like police and fire and the highway department.  Soul-less communism.  See, that's just hyperbole.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 12, 2016)

Id just like to interject something. We here at the Temp are a collection of diverse individuals in all aspects, yet this thread which contains a normally touchy topic, has been decently respectful and quite enjoyable to participate in. My hats off to you ladies/gentlemen. We've actually had a civilized debate here!!


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 12, 2016)

XDel said:


> Help your self. If you don't want to spend, I'd personally mail you a copy.
> 
> This should be required reading in schools. Freshman college at the very least.
> 
> ...



From the excerpt, I disagree.  We're moving to a state of Infornography much more than Technopoly.  People with an agenda, especially politicians, use Social Darwinism, Technopoly, etc to further that agenda.  It's not dieification.  If it were, we wouldn't have the NSA or FBI arguing you can make an encryption that can be backdoored for government but not for criminals.  They'd actually listen to Computer Scientists.  Although you could quibble we deify the technology and not the engineers, but then that's more about general delusion of people with an agenda and the words use don't change the underlying meaning.  It's no more Socialism than it's Fascism or Anarchy.


----------



## XDel (Jun 12, 2016)

kuwanger said:


> From the excerpt, I disagree.




Sigh


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

XDel said:


> I am aware that he makes use of this term "Democratic Socialism", but what he has failed time and time again to do is explain exactly how what he is talking about is any different than Socialism, or how it will not ultimately lead to Communism because not everyone is going to just put in their fair share of work, in which case in the end, the Government steps in and forces people to do things and at gun point if they must, just like if you refuse to pay your taxes.
> 
> This mentality has been running rampant in America as of late, take the infamous gay marriage cake as an example. A couple who had made the personal choice to be with one another on a homosexual level,  hunted down a bakery that refused to bake a cake on the grounds that it went against the owner of the bakery's personal religion. This somehow became national if not international news (we're all about priorities in this Huxlian Brave New World), and people everywhere took to social media to voice their outrage against the bigot, hateful, homophobic, bastard Christian, bakers.
> 
> ...



It's not like he made up the term. You can google the term if you really wanted answers.

And yes, regulations. Some are insane, but the goal of regulations is to ensure that a company doesn't have to poison you before they're stopped. Do things in such a way that people aren't put in danger due to an ignorance of the potential dangers, that's the point of regulations. How well that's accomplished is another story, but that is the intent. If you feel your sovereignty is more important than the well-being of those around you, then maybe running a business isn't for you. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize  that was what it sounded like from you wrote.

If you mean social issues, well, equal rights are only equal if they're observed by all. Deciding what that means is a discussion far beyond this one.


----------



## Viri (Jun 12, 2016)

Let's hope the next president doesn't turn into a mess without a teleprompter.


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 12, 2016)

XDel said:


> Sigh



Sorry if that statement disatisfies you but, again, the idea as described doesn't seem particularly new or necessarily worth of a new word even if Technopoly sounds merely like the nuanced adaptation of rigid 50s societal structure incorporating technology as a panacea to bias which itself is infested with the bias of reliance upon technology as a panacea*.  Meanwhile, it perplexes me that you seem so confused on a discussion of the nuance of Democratic Socialism (as seen in Western Europe) vs Socialism and feel that the US will apparently follow in the footsteps of the Swedes who, at gun point apparently, are forced to work the menial jobs and take their daily rations of Soma.

*Hint - All of this leads to the point that agenda driven Authoritarians, in their own intention of social good, can come up with new buzzwords and a new set of paint for very old ideas.  The 50s aren't the start of this.  The Romans had similar things (as Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" would attest) and they weren't actually the rise nor the fall of that Empire any more than the US "Empire" has any real stake in the day-to-day actions of the peons (and I state this as a peon myself).  But, you know, feel free to enlighten me if I'm grossly off base on the subject as a whole.  By no means am I resounding scholar of history.  I just see a lot of doom and gloom hyperbole absurd having read and watch plenty of 50s sci-fi which was so totally off base.  And so was "A Brave New World".


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2016)

Viri said:


> Let's hope the next president doesn't turn into a mess without a teleprompter.



To be fair, I'd rather have a president that sounds like a human being than have a president that shouts at the entire population whenever they give a speech


----------



## Ericzander (Jun 12, 2016)

Shining Greninja said:


> You're autism may be contagious, everyone look out!  Literally why go and call Republicans dumb when you can't even spell 'You' correctly?


I made it _extreeeeemly _obvious that I was joking.  I even mentioned that I was mocking how others were acting in this thread.  Could you not pick up on that?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2016)

Ericzander said:


> I made it _extreeeeemly _obvious that I was joking.  I even mentioned that I was mocking how others were acting in this thread.  Could you not pick up on that?


I also just realized the irony of the fact that he used "you're" instead of "your"


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 12, 2016)

kuwanger said:


> Sorry if that statement disatisfies you but, again, the idea as described doesn't seem particularly new or necessarily worth of a new word even if Technopoly sounds merely like the nuanced adaptation of rigid 50s societal structure incorporating technology as a panacea to bias which itself is infested with the bias of reliance upon technology as a panacea*.  Meanwhile, it perplexes me that you seem so confused on a discussion of the nuance of Democratic Socialism (as seen in Western Europe) vs Socialism and feel that the US will apparently follow in the footsteps of the Swedes who, at gun point apparently, are forced to work the menial jobs and take their daily rations of Soma.
> 
> *Hint - All of this leads to the point that agenda driven Authoritarians, in their own intention of social good, can come up with new buzzwords and a new set of paint for very old ideas.  The 50s aren't the start of this.  The Romans had similar things (as Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" would attest) and they weren't actually the rise nor the fall of that Empire any more than the US "Empire" has any real stake in the day-to-day actions of the peons (and I state this as a peon myself).  But, you know, feel free to enlighten me if I'm grossly off base on the subject as a whole.  By no means am I resounding scholar of history.  I just see a lot of doom and gloom hyperbole absurd having read and watch plenty of 50s sci-fi which was so totally off base.  And so was "A Brave New World".


Can you possibly give a "dumbed-down" summary of what you're getting at here? Because I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure lol.


----------



## Ericzander (Jun 12, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I also just realized the irony of the fact that he used "you're" instead of "your"


And that I apparently just couldn't spell 'you.'

I also misspelled 'are, 'racist,' 'Bernie,' 'and,' 'that's,' 'why,' 'Super Delegates,' 'just,' and 'campaign.'

Guess we need a sarcasm tag.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2016)

Ericzander said:


> And that I apparently just couldn't spell 'you.'
> 
> I also misspelled 'are, 'racist,' 'Bernie,' 'and,' 'that's,' 'why,' 'Super Delegates,' 'just,' and 'campaign.'
> 
> Guess we need a sarcasm tag.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 12, 2016)

TrapperKeeperX said:


> I do see it in a Fire Emblem Fates way
> Birthright - Donald Trump - Birthright Citizens
> Conquest - Hillary Clinton - Azura's Dark Song "A Legacy of Lies" It's just a Political Conquest but we'll see her true intentions just like King Garon.
> Revelation - Bernie Sanders - I choose neither Trump or Clinton there is another way it might be a longshot we must not give up what you really fight for! The Political Revolution is a great Revelation to see the truth.


Well done! Well done!! 
I suppose I will have to get Presidential Elections Special Edition.

PS: tying it back somehow to video games and nintendo, like it should be on gbatemp ftw!

EDIT: actually this looks like a great idea for a FE mod patch.

_*Fire Emblem PE 2016 Special Edition*_

Perhaps if the planets align, I get some free time and the world doesn't end during the next year I will embark on this endeavour.  I wonder if the 3DS low resolution could do Donald's hairdo justice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 12, 2016)

@Lacius You really do have a hard time holding both of those ideas in your head at the same time, huh? You're an intelligent fellow, we've talked politics before, so there's a fair chance that I'm at least partially culpable. Perhaps I'm not doing them justice or I'm not conveying the point eloquently enough to get it across to you. That said, surely understand that my level of engagement in an election that doesn't concern me and has only three real choices, each as bad as the next, each for different reasons, is low.

Let me put it this way. Actions that are justifiable and advantageous in one profession can be the opposite for another. An attorney needs to have the capability of emotionally and morally recluse themselves in order to effectively defend a client that is guilty, even if it goes against their own feelings or perception of justice, or even the truth for that matter - are you still with me? This is a quality that Hillary has which allowed her to be a clearly very effective attorney. Unfortunately, it is also a quality that makes her a dangerous and unpredictible presidential candidate. My reasoning here is very simple, let me elaborate.

She didn't decline despite overwhelming, to me irrefutable evidence (I mean, the guy had the girl's blood on his privates IIRC, it doesn't get much worse than that and I can't quite imagine it as an accident. He didn't trip over and accidentally thrusted his penis into a kid, so I'm going to treat him as guilty, no matter what the verdict was). This can mean a few things - Hillary is either dutiful and performed to the best of her abilities because she believed in the system, which would make her naive, she was cynical about the whole affair, wanted to just do her job and wanted to win, which would make her ruthless and strongly career-oriented, or even selfish. The third option is that she's stupid - we know that she's not stupid, so that leaves is with naivete and ruthlessness. You can grow out of being naive, ruthlessness is another story, but that in and out of itself is not a problem, the problem is the assessment of her character.

All this is problematic to a potential voter. If she is capable to suspend her moral compass or her perception of justice to such a degree in order to achieve a goal or to follow principle, I can imagine a scenario where *my* freedoms, my rights or my justice could be considered of secondary importance in the face of a different principle, in her eyes, would be more important for whatever reason. If she is focused solely on her career, that disqualifies her as a public servant right out of the gate. Whatever the case may be, it could mean that she has the capacity to put her own ideals or gain above people - that's a liability, a potential threat that I recognize. Hillary's past actions can and will be used in the assessment of her chatacter, and although an action is justified in certain circumstances or for certain professions does not make them good in the grand scheme of things.

In all fairness, this was just a minor point until you glommed onto it. I don't really care for Hillary or assessing her character, nor do I care for the other cabdidates. I was merely pointing out that some of her past decisions make her moral standing ambiguous. To be the devil's advocate though, none of the big three are saints.

I hope this clarifies what I meant. If it doesn't, I've exhausted my means of further qualifying that statement. There is no contradiction in saying that a good attorney, by the virtue of their profession, needs to defend their client to the best of their abilities and that defending someone who is clearly guilty is morally ambiguous - both of those statements are true and having a justification based on one's career does not make the action morally righteous - that'd be the Nuremberg Defense. Everyone can judge her choices individually.

As for your statement on how most bigots are republicans, I recognize that as a possible attempt at humour, but I sure do hope you have something other than your gut feeling to back that up because last I checked, bigotry, racism and sexism do not have a political affiliation. Liberals can be quick to discriminate too, stereotyping either group is counterproductive intellectual infidelity, unless we treat it strictly as a matter of statistics.


----------



## XDel (Jun 12, 2016)

Sorry, I am feeling lazy so I am going to quote mostly rather than use my own words. I am tired of people looking into America's past and only finding fault after fault after fault... as if we are so perfect, evolved, and drastically more intelligent and reasonable than ever before since the history of man. Rather we are the bi-product of our mistakes and our steps to correct those mistakes, nothing more and nothing less. And as anyone who has any passion for history, that is history in trying to understand, as opposed to simplifying history for propaganda purposes will know; the 20th century did not bring much new to the table, but rather served to mostly undermine what had been began and established in the centuries before.

"The day before I began writing this book, I heard on the radio that somewhere between thirty-five percent and sixty-two percent of Americans believe that aliens have landed on Earth. Surveys vary about the exact percentages, as does the look of the aliens. Some are green, some gray. Some have ears, some do not. All have large heads. The report reminded me of a survey I saw some years ago about the number of people who believe in the Devil. Not the devil as metaphor and not a generalized concept of evil; the Devil, one might say, as a creature of flesh and blood, someone who walks the earth, looks like us, and is inclined to offer sly temptations and unholy propositions. Believers have in mind, I think, something on the order of Stephen Vincent Benét’s creation in The Devil and Daniel Webster. I can’t remember the percentages the survey uncovered, but they were high. I can’t remember because I have repressed the figure or, as the psychologists now say, gone into denial. Conventional wisdom tells us that going into denial is not healthful, even though it is obvious that doing so has many advantages. Ernest Becker explains some of them in his famous book The Denial of Death. But one does not have to go as deeply as Becker to make good use of denial. If you are an American writer who fancies himself an heir of the Enlightenment, it is hard to write three pages unless you emphatically deny that many of your potential readers believe in deal-making devils.
Denial is also helpful when one begins to contemplate the mental condition of some important members of our intellectual elite. I refer to those who have fallen under the devilish spell of what is vaguely called “postmodernism,” and in particular a subdivision of it sometimes called “deconstructionism.” Academic responsibility requires me to give some detail about this world-view, and I will do so in a later chapter. Here, I need only remark that in this way of understanding things, language is under deep suspicion and is even thought to be delusional. Jean Baudrillard, a Frenchman, of all things, tells us that not only does language falsely represent reality, but there is no reality to represent. (Perhaps this explains, at long last, the indifferent French resistance to the German invasion of their country in World War II: They didn’t believe it was real.) In an earlier time, the idea that language is incapable of mapping reality would have been considered nonsense, if not a form of mental illness. In fact, it is a form of mental illness. Nonetheless, in our own time the idea has become an organizing principle of prestigious academic departments. You can get a Ph.D. in this sort of thing.
There is, of course, a connection between alien- and devil-believers and a certain variety of deconstructionists. They are people in the thrall of a serious depression, and, in truth, it is unseemly to make fun of them, especially since most of us are suffering in varying degrees from the same malady. If I knew more about psychology, I might be able to give the sickness a name. Instead, I turn to poets—not for a name but for a confirmation and a cause. Yeats, for example, gives us a precise description of our wayward academics and our overcommitted alienites: The former lack all conviction, while the latter are full of passionate intensity. T. S. Eliot, you will remember, wrote of the hollow men occupying a wasteland. Auden wrote of the age of anxiety. Vachel Lindsay wrote of leaden-eyed people who have no gods to serve. Edna St. Vincent Millay, in her book Huntsman, What Quarry?, wrote a poem which goes to the root of the problem. Here is an excerpt:

Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour,
Rains from the sky a meteoric shower
Of facts … they lie unquestioned, uncombined.
Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill
Is daily spun; but there exists no loom
To weave it into fabric.
No loom to weave facts into fabric, people with no gods to serve, hollow and anxious, distrusting language, uncertain about even the most obvious features of reality, lacking conviction, suspicious of truth.


What are we to make of this? There are many possibilities. Among them are the strange and fanciful dreams that seem always to accompany the onset of a new millennium. Some believe a new age signals the Second Coming of Christ, some believe it signals the end of everything, and in between the varieties of delusion are legion. The possibility that strikes me as most plausible is more mundane. And it has happened before, with or without the coming of a new millennium. I refer to the confusion that accompanies the absence of a narrative to give organization and meaning to our world—a story of transcendence and mythic power. Nothing can be clearer than that we require a story to explain to ourselves why we are here and what our future is to be, and many other things, including where authority resides. I am not writing this book to document the loss of narrative. I have done that already, as have others in books better than mine. Besides, I have no intention of writing still another depressing book about the breakdown of the human spirit. But it may be said here that when people do not have a satisfactory narrative to generate a sense of purpose and continuity, a kind of psychic disorientation takes hold, followed by a frantic search for something to believe in or, probably worse, a resigned conclusion that there is nothing to find. The devil-believers reclaim a fragment of the great narrative of Genesis. The alien-believers ask for deliverance from green-gray creatures whose physics has overcome the speed of light. The deconstructionists keep confusion at bay by writing books in which they tell us that there is nothing to write books about. There is even one group who seeks meaning in the ingenuity of technological innovation. I refer to those who, looking ahead, see a field of wonders encapsulated in the phrase “the information superhighway.” They are information junkies, have no interest in narratives of the past, give little thought to the question of purpose. To the poet who asks, “Where is the loom to weave it all into fabric?,” they reply that none is needed. To the poet who asks, “What gods do you serve?,” they reply, “Those which make information accessible in great volume, at instantaneous speed, and in diverse forms.” Such people have no hesitation in speaking of building a bridge to the new century. But to the question “What will we carry across the bridge?” they answer, “What else but high-definition TV, virtual reality, e-mail, the Internet, cellular phones, and all the rest that digital technology has produced?”
These, then, are the hollow men Eliot spoke of. They are, in a sense, no different from the alien- and devil-believers in that they have found a story that will keep them going for a while, but not for long. And, in a way, they are no different from those academics who find temporary amusement and professional advancement in having no story at all. I am not writing my book for these people. I write for those who are still searching for a way to confront the future, a way that faces reality as it is, that is connected to a humane tradition, that provides sane authority and meaningful purpose. I include myself among such people.
Where shall we look for such a way? Well, of course, one turns first to the wisdom of the sages, both near and far. Marcus Aurelius said, “At every action, no matter by whom preferred, make it a practice to ask yourself, ‘What is his object in doing this?’ But begin with yourself; put this question to yourself first of all.” Goethe told us, “One should, each day, try to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if possible, speak a few reasonable words.” Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Rabbi Hillel said, “What is hateful to thee, do not do to another.” The prophet Micah: “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with Thy God.” And our own Henry David Thoreau said, “All our inventions are but improved means to an unimproved end.”
I could go on nearly endlessly with these quotations, since the wisdom of the ages and the sages is not bound by time and space. We may add to the list Confucius, Isaiah, Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, Shakespeare, Spinoza, and many more. What they tell us is all the same: There is no escaping from ourselves. The human dilemma is as it always has been, and it is a delusion to believe that the future will render irrelevant what we know and have long known about ourselves but find it convenient to forget.
How useful is it to be reminded? The words of the sages can calm and comfort us. They offer perspective and a release from the frenzy of speed and ambition. Very useful, I would say. But, of course, they are very far away from us in time and cultural conditions, and their advice is so abstract that it is difficult to see how we can turn much of it into practical and coherent instruction. In some parts of the Islamic world the commandments of Muhammad are, in fact, taken as imperatives of everyday life. And there are Christians and Jews who follow the Law down to the last detail. But for many of us, unsettled by the realities of vast change, especially technological change, fundamentalism of any kind rings hollow. We have problems and questions that Muhammad, Jesus, Hillel, Socrates, and Micah did not and could not speak of.
Let us take a small but clear example. Not long ago (as these things are measured) scientists in Scotland successfully cloned a sheep. Another group of scientists in America cloned a monkey and a cow. And apparently, an American high school student, in order to gain some extra credit, has claimed to have cloned a frog. We can expect, if not this year or the next, that the cloning of human beings will become a reality. I think we can say that we have here a genuine twenty-first-century problem. It would be interesting—wouldn’t it?—to speculate on what Jesus or the Buddha would say about this development in human reproduction. But we will have to address the matter without them. How will we do that? Where will we go for guidance? What use shall we make of this technology? Who has an answer we will find acceptable?
Here is an answer I imagine all but a deconstructionist will find clearly unacceptable: Cloning humans opens up a whole new field of “human spare parts.” The way it would work is that every time someone is born, a clone of this person would be made. The clone would be kept in a special, confined, and well-guarded place so that it can provide spare parts for the original person as needed throughout life. If the original person loses a kidney or lung at some time in his or her life, we would simply take it from the clone. Is there a problem with this? Well, of course, you will protest that the clone is, after all, a real human being. But that would only be the case if we define the clone as a human being. There is nothing new in human beings’ defining other human beings as non-human things. In all cases of genocide, that is exactly the procedure. Joseph Goebbels explained how to do such things. In our own times, Marvin Minsky and others working in the field of artificial intelligence have prophesied enthusiastically that humans will become merely pets of their computers, so that the definition of the worth and capacity of humans will change. We have never had clones before. Who is to say we cannot use them in the way I have suggested?
I hope you are thinking that my proposal is simply a bad joke and that any such proposal, seriously made, is a product of a depraved mind. I agree with you. But here is a question: Where did you get the idea that this proposal would be the product of a depraved mind? I imagine you believe that infanticide is also a depraved idea, in spite of the fact that it has been practiced for many more years in human history than it has been forbidden. Where did you get the idea that infanticide is horrible? Or that slavery is a bad idea? Or that the divine right of kings is a bad idea?
What I am driving at is that in order to have an agreeable encounter with the twenty-first century, we will have to take into it some good ideas. And in order to do that, we need to look back to take stock of the good ideas available to us. I am suspicious of people who want us to be forward-looking. I literally do not know what they mean when they say, “We must look ahead to see where we are going.” What is it that they wish us to look at? There is nothing yet to see in the future. If looking ahead means anything, it must mean finding in our past useful and humane ideas with which to fill the future.
I do not mean—mind you—technological ideas, like going to the moon, airplanes, and antibiotics. We have no shortage of those ideas. I am referring to ideas of which we can say they have advanced our understanding of ourselves, enlarged our definitions of humanness. Shall we look for some in the century that is ending? What is there to find—the principle of indeterminacy? Nietzsche’s arguments for the death of God? Freud’s insistence that reason is merely a servant of the genitalia? The idea that language is utterly incapable of providing accurate maps of reality? You may think that I am loading the case against the twentieth century. Surely, you will call to mind (let us say, in America) the rejection of the segregation of races, the rejection of the inferiority of women, the increased access to higher education, and a few other advances. But these were not truly twentieth-century ideas, but rather extensions of ideas that arose at an earlier time. If you put your mind to it, I suppose you can recall several ideas that originated in our own century, and that will be useful in the next. But if you think too long, you are on a road to despair. Is it not obvious that our century has been an almost unrelieved horror? Who would have thought, in 1900—the year, by the way, of Nietzsche’s death and the publication of Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams—that the twentieth century would feature continuous mass murder, far exceeding anything humanity had witnessed in the previous two millennia? Who would have thought that the three great transcendent narratives of this century would be fascism, nazism, and communism? Who would have thought weapons would be invented that, in a flash, could end all human life? Who would have thought that the theme of this century would be “Technology Über Alles”? I am sorry to say it, but I don’t think we will get much help from our own century. As you can tell, I speak as an enemy of this century. But even if you are not, you must admit it is hard to be its friend.
If we are looking for good ideas that may be revived, enhanced, appropriately modified, we could do worse than cast our eye on the fifth century B.C.—the time of the great Athenians. I know that they are the classic example of Dead White Males, but we probably should pay them some attention anyway. These are the people who invented the idea of political democracy. They invented what we call Western philosophy and what we call logic and rhetoric. They came very close to inventing what we call science, and one of them—Epicurus, by name—conceived of the atomic theory of matter 2,300 years before it occurred to any modern scientist. They wrote and performed plays that, almost three millennia later, still have the power to make audiences laugh and weep. They even invented what today we call the Olympics, and among their values none stood higher than that in all things one should strive for excellence.
But for all of this, their most luminous intellect, Plato, was the world’s first systematic fascist. The Greeks saw nothing wrong in having slaves or in killing infants (although Aristotle opposed the latter). Their conception of democracy relegated women to silence and anonymity. And they despised foreigners. Their word for those who could not speak Greek was “barbarian.” They were also technological innocents, a serious limitation if technological people wish to learn from them. The Athenians produced no important technical inventions, and they could not even devise ways of using horsepower efficiently.
In sum, while it is not possible to ignore completely the contribution Athens made to our journey toward humanity, the Athenians are too far from us and too strange and too insular and too unacquainted with the power of technology for us to use their ideas as a social or intellectual paradigm. In the third century, Tertullian, one of the Church Fathers, asked a famous question: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” It was rhetorical; he meant Athens had nothing to do with Jerusalem. In the twenty-first century, we may vary the question and modify the answer: What has Athens to do with New York (or London or Paris)? The answer: Much less than we would wish. The same may be said for the Middle Ages—in my opinion a much-maligned era. We ought to remember that Robert Maynard Hutchins used the medieval period and its ideas as a guide for education when he reformed the University of Chicago in the nineteen-thirties and -forties. He did so because he found a very high degree of integration in the world-view of the Middle Ages. Medieval theologians developed an elaborate and systematic description of our relationship to God, to nature, to each other, and to our tools. Their theology took as a first and last principle that all knowledge and goodness come from God and that, therefore, all human enterprise must be directed toward the service of God. Theology, not technology, provided people with authorization for what to do and think. That is why Leonardo kept his design of a submarine secret, believing, as he did, that it would not gain favor in God’s eyes. It is why Pope Innocent II prohibited the use of the crossbow, claiming it was “hateful to God” and could not be used against Christians. Of course, he saw no problem in using it against infidels. But the point is that in the theocratic world-view, technology was not autonomous but was subject to the jurisdiction of a binding religious system. Can you imagine anyone saying today that cloning humans should be prohibited because it would not find favor in God’s eyes? Well, of course, some people do say that, but we are inclined to discredit them as naive fundamentalists or fanatics. Which is why I think the medieval way can offer us only minimal guidance. In a theocratic world, everyone is a fundamentalist. In a technological world, and in a multicultural world, fundamentalism is a side issue, confined to those places that are still theocratic and are therefore regarded as a danger to world harmony.
This question—Where shall we look for guidance about what to do and think in the twenty-first century, especially guidance about our relationship to technology?—is as significant as it is daunting, especially hard for those who are strangers to history. “Every culture,” Lewis Mumford once wrote, “lives within its dream.” But we often lose our dream, as I believe happened to us in the twentieth century. And we are in danger if we cannot reclaim one that will help us go forward. What else is history for if not to remind us about our better dreams?
With this in mind, I suggest that we turn our attention to the eighteenth century. It is there, I think, that we may find ideas that offer a humane direction to the future, ideas that we can carry with confidence and dignity across the bridge to the twenty-first century. They are not strange ideas. They are still close to us. They are not all that difficult to remember. I suggest we try to reclaim some of them, with this provision: I am not suggesting that we become the eighteenth century, only that we use it for what it is worth and for all it is worth. In the preface to one of the many editions of Democracy in America, Tocqueville urged his fellow countrymen and -women to pay attention to America the way I would urge we pay attention to the eighteenth century. If I may adapt his thought and almost all of his words, I would put it this way: Let us not turn to the eighteenth century in order to copy the institutions she fashioned for herself but in order that we may better understand what suits us. Let us look there for instruction rather than models. Let us adopt the principles rather than the details.
Who and what will we find there? The eighteenth century is the century of Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Kant, Hume, Gibbon, Pestalozzi, and Adam Smith. It is the century of Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. In the eighteenth century we developed our ideas about inductive science, about religious and political freedom, about popular education, about rational commerce, and about the nation-state. In the eighteenth century, we also invented the idea of progress, and, you may be surprised to know, our modern idea of happiness. It was in the eighteenth century that reason began its triumph over superstition. And, inspired by Newton, who was elected president of the Royal Society at the beginning of the century, writers, musicians, and artists conceived of the universe as orderly, rational, and comprehensible. Beethoven composed his First Symphony in the eighteenth century, and we should not be surprised that Bach, Handel, Mozart, and Haydn composed their music in the eighteenth century. Or that Schiller, Swift, Defoe, Fielding, Samuel Johnson, Voltaire, and William Blake were among its major writers. Or that Gainsborough, Hogarth, David, and Reynolds were its best-known painters.
We are talking about the time referred to as our period of Enlightenment. In truth, it may be said to begin toward the middle of the seventeenth century with the ideas of John Locke and Newton, and extend into the nineteenth if we wish to include—as I think we ought to—the ideas of John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville and the great Romantic poets. And so the eighteenth century is a kind of metaphor referring to the time, as Kant put it, when we achieved our release from our self-imposed tutelage. It is the time of which historians have said that the battle for free thought was begun and won. By the end of that time, the modern world had been created. This is the century which Isaiah Berlin summed up in these words: “The intellectual power, honesty, lucidity, courage and disinterested love of the truth of the most gifted thinkers of the eighteenth century remain to this day without parallel. Their age is one of the best and most hopeful episodes in the life of mankind.”1
If this is so, we can hardly afford to neglect it, which is why I recommend it to your notice, your study, and your advocacy. In chapters that follow, I will try to show how some of the ideas of the eighteenth century may be useful to us. But I must say, here, especially because the thought has probably occurred to you, that I am well aware that there existed inhumane beliefs and institutions in that century. The burning of witches was still taking place. France burned its last witch in 1746, Germany in 1775, and Poland in 1793. In Italy, the tortures of the Inquisition continued until the end of the century. Slavery still existed, at least in America. The oppression of women was standard practice, as was child labor. And, of course, most nations were still ruled by despots. But it was in the eighteenth century that the arguments were generated that made these inhumanities both visible and, in the end, insupportable. Yes, Jefferson had slaves. But he knew that he shouldn’t have slaves. He proposed, unsuccessfully, a denunciation of the African slave trade in the Declaration of Independence, urged that it be prohibited in Virginia, and was well aware that one of his predecessors as President had freed his slaves, and that the other would have found it unthinkable to have slaves. Yes, Frederick the Great ruled Prussia with an iron hand. But he employed the greatest enemy of despotism, Voltaire, as his court philosopher. If you can imagine it, this would be analogous to Lenin’s employing John D. Rockefeller to teach him economic theory. Yes, women were considered second-class citizens, but it was in the eighteenth century that Mary Wollstonecraft wrote a Vindication of the Rights of Women, perhaps, even today, the best-known feminist tract. Yes, children as young as seven or eight worked from sunup to sundown in factories and mines. But the idea that child labor is inhumane came from the eighteenth century, in particular from Rousseau, who gave us the idea that children must have a childhood. And yes, Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason, which was an uncompromising attack on the Bible and churches of all kinds, led to his being vilified and denied his rightful place among America’s Founding Fathers. But the First Amendment to the American Constitution nonetheless forbade any interference with people’s religious beliefs.
You can take any century you please and make a list of its inhumanities. The eighteenth is no exception. But it is there, and in no other, that we have the beginnings of much that is worthwhile about the modern world." - Neil Postman (from his book: Building a Bridge to the 18th Century - How the Past Can Help Improve the Future).


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

XDel said:


> Sorry, I am feeling lazy



I do worry that you've gone from quoting to piracy with that amount of text 

For those too lazy to read, it basically boils down to: Don't be quick to dismiss the past because of the dumb stuff that happened, there's a lot of good stuff there.

My counter to that is: We take from the past what we need to build a better future. We do not take from the past to recreate it. Knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the past is what helps - not imitation.


----------



## XDel (Jun 12, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I do worry that you've gone from quoting to piracy with that amount of text
> 
> For those too lazy to read, it basically boils down to: Don't be quick to dismiss the past because of the dumb stuff that happened, there's a lot of good stuff there.
> 
> My counter to that is: We take from the past what we need to build a better future. We do not take from the past to recreate it. Knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the past is what helps - not imitation.




Ha ha, ya I did pretty much go full on pirate there. And you summed my post up pretty well, except...
...except that we should understand the depth of our collective human history, and from as many points of perspective as possible as cliff notes only serve to generalize where as deep study broadens understanding and in turn serves to fill one (at least in my own personal case) with more hope that I can do something (at least in my own life and those I touch) as opposed to cynically believe I can do nothing and can never understand the chaos before me.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 12, 2016)

This is why we should not have brought politics to just such an immature community.



Spoiler: #NoRacism



Bernie Sanders 2k16 LOL


----------



## Lacius (Jun 12, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius You really do have a hard time holding both of those ideas in your head at the same time, huh? You're an intelligent fellow, we've talked politics before, so there's a fair chance that I'm at least partially culpable. Perhaps I'm not doing them justice or I'm not conveying the point eloquently enough to get it across to you. That said, surely understand that my level of engagement in an election that doesn't concern me and has only three real choices, each as bad as the next, each for different reasons, is low.
> 
> Let me put it this way. Actions that are justifiable and advantageous in one profession can be the opposite for another. An attorney needs to have the capability of emotionally and morally recluse themselves in order to effectively defend a client that is guilty, even if it goes against their own feelings or perception of justice, or even the truth for that matter - are you still with me? This is a quality that Hillary has which allowed her to be a clearly very effective attorney. Unfortunately, it is also a quality that makes her a dangerous and unpredictible presidential candidate. My reasoning here is very simple, let me elaborate.
> 
> ...


You've adequately clarified what you meant, but without addressing the contradiction. Your argument can be summarized by saying it's okay for an attorney to defend a client who is likely guilty, but it is not okay for an attorney who defended a client who was likely guilty to become president. It appeared you were applying different standards of morality to the two professions, which is why I repeatedly asked if _the profession_ of defense attorney was moral. If your answer is _yes_, then you can't draw the distinction without contradicting yourself.



Foxi4 said:


> @LaciusAs for your statement on how most bigots are republicans, I recognize that as a possible attempt at humour, but I sure do hope you have something other than your gut feeling to back that up because last I checked, bigotry, racism and sexism do not have a political affiliation. Liberals can be quick to discriminate too, stereotyping either group is counterproductive intellectual infidelity, unless we treat it strictly as a matter of statistics.


I never said all liberals are intelligent, race-conscious, beautiful, etc. Bigotry exists on both sides of the aisle. However, if you look at the polling (e.g. _Is reverse-racism a bigger problem than racism? Are whites the superior race?_ _Are interracial relationships okay?_ etc.), discriminatory policy positions, endorsements from racist groups (not just this election cycle), voting records, etc., it is clear that much of the racism in the United States is concentrated on the Republican side of things, and it is true that Republican Party voters on average have become increasingly xenophobic over the years. To be clear, I'm not saying all or even most of Republican Party voters are racist. I am saying, however, that many if not most of the racists likely vote Republican.

To use an analogy so my words aren't misconstrued by anybody, most bad wizards are Slytherins. However, that is not to say all or even most Slytherins are bad wizards; there are good wizards from Slytherin. That is also not to say all bad wizards come from Slytherin; bad wizards have come out of Gryffindor.


----------



## Shining Greninja (Jun 12, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I also just realized the irony of the fact that he used "you're" instead of "your"


Oops, typo. If you really were being sarcastic then I apologize


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 12, 2016)

@Lacius The profession isn't immoral, however it exposed a certain character trait that I find dangerous in a presidential candidate. That's as clear as this gets.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2016)

Shining Greninja said:


> Oops, typo. If you really were being sarcastic then I apologize


No ur fein


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> This is why we should not have brought politics to just such an immature community.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only way to get more mature is through the fire of experience. You either come out the wiser or come out butt-hurt.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jun 12, 2016)

I'm English and therefore this vote doesn;t concern me. But I'd like Hillary to win simply so the feminists can shut up about patriarchy for five fucking minutes.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

Blaze163 said:


> I'm English and therefore this vote doesn;t concern me. But I'd like Hillary to win simply so the feminists can shut up about patriarchy for five fucking minutes.


Unfortunately, any disagreement with Hillary will result in those who disagree being sexist. If Hillary is elected, expect the patriarchy exclamations to increase 50 fold.

I don't let silly people influence me one way or the other, but I do try and anticipate their reactions.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jun 12, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Unfortunately, any disagreement with Hillary will result in those who disagree being sexist. If Hillary is elected, expect the patriarchy exclamations to increase 50 fold.
> 
> I don't let silly people influence me one way or the other, but I do try and anticipate their reactions.



That's the thing with modern feminism. If you disagree with a woman at any point, you're sexist. If you agree with everything a woman says, she's a Mary Sue and doesn't represent anyone. It's a Kobayashi Maru scenario, only with psychotic attention-seeking whiners instead of Klingons. Personally I'd rather deal with Klingons. At least when push comes to shove you can Bat'leth them in the head.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

Blaze163 said:


> That's the thing with modern feminism. If you disagree with a woman at any point, you're sexist. If you agree with everything a woman says, she's a Mary Sue and doesn't represent anyone. It's a Kobayashi Maru scenario, only with psychotic attention-seeking whiners instead of Klingons. Personally I'd rather deal with Klingons. At least when push comes to shove you can Bat'leth them in the head.


Indeed. Klingons have a code of ethics and morals. Even more solid than humans. It's just theirs is a bit more...violent. You can trust a klingon to act a certain way and trust they do it based on their morals for the most part. They at least have respect.

I'd say they're more like the cardassians. Their code of ethics and morals basically boils down to "we protect our own through any means we have available to us, screw those who don't protect our own, and screw everyone else".

To bring it back to the conversation, this election cycle feels like a kobayashi maru scenario. Also, I hope any new star trek games aren't as terrible as the last one I played (that one tie-in of the first reboot).


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 12, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Can you possibly give a "dumbed-down" summary of what you're getting at here? Because I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure lol.



The old new thing with "internet" instead of "computer" instead of "atomic" instead of "steam engine" instead of "horses" etc.  Same with Technopoly (which sounds like a variation of Technological Determinism (some googling finally let me found an [old] term for it)).  The criticism part of that is a much more thorough discussion of long-term analysis of such predictions.  Of course, I'll grant that part of the reason we don't see a horrible state of affairs is precisely that people were making dire predictions and people, often through government, instituted rules or processes to avoid them.  *shrug*

@XDel - Perhaps you take it the wrong way in which I (or others) speak of the past, but it is a healthy reflection of undue projection of the future through examples in the past which demonstrate that the present isn't as all bad as one would take it.  Certainly, there's room for improvement but the compare and constrast of it just tends to point out the negatives because positives are a pretty prevalent thing throughout time and we hope to be the norm, not the exception.  So just as history focuses on the non-ordinary, so news focuses on the new.

@osaka35 - Vote for Hillary or not based on what you believe.  To be swayed by feminists, feminism, anti-feminism, anti-feminists, or unicorns really misses the boat and I personally won't hold it against you.  Which, honestly, shouldn't matter to you any more than what anyone else thinks. 

PS - Klingons in theory have a strict code of ethics and honor but their leaders, of a society where might makes right, doesn't follow through--nor do most of their underlings, it seems.  Cardassians are quite similar in practice (honor family and state/empire), except more prone to act through plots than direct conflict.  Both are heavily driven by personal ambition and warp their perception of their actions as if it follows their underlying code, just like all people.  That's my general take of it, anyways.


----------



## dauphin327 (Jun 12, 2016)

I still don't know why Americans think the poll's aren't being manipulated. The votes are being done electronically and can be modified as they see fit.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 12, 2016)

Whenever


dauphin327 said:


> I still don't know why Americans think the poll's aren't being manipulated. The votes are being done electronically and can be modified as they see fit.


There are many cryptographic measures for this not to happen. You buy with your credit card using electronic systems and (unless you're very careless) you don't end up paying for things you didn't buy.
Anyway...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 12, 2016)

dauphin327 said:


> I still don't know why Americans think the poll's aren't being manipulated. The votes are being done electronically and can be modified as they see fit.


>Implying that paper voting is free from fraud

At least electronic votes are protected with digital signatures, are unique and can be easily checked against databases - it takes seconds. Meanwhile, paper polling cards can be easily printed and forged, and double-checking a pile of them takes hundreds of man-hours. It's funny how every voting season The Walking Dead rise from their graves to do their civic duty and vote on paper polling cards despite being dead for a decade or two.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

kuwanger said:


> Vote for Hillary or not based on what you believe.  To be swayed by feminists, feminism, anti-feminism, anti-feminists, or unicorns really misses the boat and I personally won't hold it against you.


Luckily, I've said that I'm not swayed by silly people, I just try and stay aware of their probable actions. I'll vote for her or not vote for her depending on how I feel she'll be as president. 

I'm just not looking forward to all the silly people if she is elected.




kuwanger said:


> PS - Klingons in theory have a strict code of ethics and honor but their leaders, of a society where might makes right, doesn't follow through--nor do most of their underlings, it seems.  Cardassians are quite similar in practice (honor family and state/empire), except more prone to act through plots than direct conflict.  Both are heavily driven by personal ambition and warp their perception of their actions as if it follows their underlying code, just like all people.  That's my general take of it, anyways.



I suppose it depends on which part of star trek you're pulling from. I tend to pull from the later star trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Their klingons, at least the ones that aren't gawron or impertinent youths, seem to hold honor above all else and that dictates their morals and actions. This extends to other species as much as their own. Though it's not easy to earn their respect, once you have it you have it. 

Cardassians seem to place loyalty to their in-group as most important, no matter who they have to betray, manipulate, or betray to get it done. There are a few friendly cardassians that have extended their in-group to include other species, but these appear to be rare. Similar to the romulans, perhaps.

But yeah  there are people like all of this, which is what's great about scifi. You can create an alien species out any way of thinking, and critique it without stepping on people's toes. I love it.


----------



## dauphin327 (Jun 12, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> >Implying that paper voting is free from fraud
> 
> At least electronic votes are protected with electronic signatures and can be easily checked against databases - it takes seconds. Meanwhile, paper polling cards can be easily printed and forged, and double-checking a pile of them takes hundreds of man-hours. It's funny how every voting season The Walking Dead rise from their graves to do their civic duty and vote on paper polling cards despite being dead for a decade or two.



But in real life, in the us government nothing is secure. See OPM. Anyways pointless talk, I don't want to spend more time talking about us politics.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 12, 2016)

dauphin327 said:


> But in real life, in the us government nothing is secure. See OPM.


Conspiracy theory. If you actually believe that's the case, you have no reason to trust one method more than the other. Paper polling cards can be altered with nothing more than a pencil, or can "go missing" in a shredder, it takes zero effort, digital votes at least leave a trail.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 12, 2016)

IDK who I'd vote for; the site says I'd vote for Hillary but her flip-flop attitude could be used to protect my feet from sand at the beach..

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



Foxi4 said:


> Conspiracy theory. You have no reason to trust one method more than the other in that case. Paper polling cards can be altered with nothing more than a pencil, or can "go missing" in a shredder, it takes zero effort, digital votes at least leave a trail.


Packet manipulation from an ISP, MITMing, TCP resets; the vote could never occur.


----------



## dauphin327 (Jun 12, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Conspiracy theory. You have no reason to trust one method more than the other in that case. Paper polling cards can be altered with nothing more than a pencil, or can "go missing" in a shredder, it takes zero effort, digital votes at least leave a trail.


Yes, you are right about the paper cards.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 12, 2016)

Oh, I even forgot to mention that a BIG company with scary money could get a CA to sign a cert, get the ISPs to swap DNS to them, MITM traffic, and then vote for whoever using the data they collected.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 12, 2016)

The vote literally requires a handshake from both sides and has a unique signature, it can be tracked from the polling station to the main server and its delivery is confirmed on the spot. If you think it's any less secure than shitty pieces of paper that I can sign with a name of whatever dead relative I want and just shove into the box when nobody's looking, you're being ridiculous.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 12, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The vote literally requires a handshake from both sides and has a unique signature, it can be tracked from the polling station to the main server and its delivery is confirmed on the spot. If you think it's any less secure than shitty pieces of paper that I can sign with a name of whatever dead relative I want and just shove into the box when nobody's looking, you're being ridiculous.


This reminded me of the movie Black Sheep with Chris Farley and David Spade.. "KILL WHITEY!!!" Lol


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The vote literally requires a handshake from both sides and has a unique signature, it can be tracked from the polling station to the main server and its delivery is confirmed on the spot. If you think it's any less secure than shitty pieces of paper that I can sign with a name of whatever dead relative I want and just shove into the box when nobody's looking, you're being ridiculous.


As I understand it, there are a variety of different tech being used, dependent on the individual polling station, and what you're describing is probably the latest tech which isn't implemented as widespread as we'd hope. My expertise isn't very strong in this area, I'm just aware that the old tech is apparently vulnerable and there's a loooooooooot of old tech out there.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 12, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> As I understand it, there are a variety of different tech being used, dependent on the individual polling station, and what you're describing is probably the latest tech which isn't implemented as widespread as we'd hope. My expertise isn't very strong in this area, I'm just aware that the old tech is apparently vulnerable and there's a loooooooooot of old tech out there.


More vulnerable than *paper* that you sign in a booth where *nobody* can see what you're doing? Is this pod planet? Am I surrounded by pod people? Should I just grab a gun and off myself while I still can, because I'm the only human left? I do my banking online, I do my shopping online, I book my plane tickets online, I pay my taxes online or over the phone, and yet *just* for voting I have to use a method that'd be considered unreliable and archaic in *any other case*? Okay. The fates of the world are decided on Wall Street, do you think brokers use paper to do their business? No, they do it online and it works just fine.


----------



## filfat (Jun 12, 2016)

Wait, People would honestly vote for Bernie?
Have you learnt nothing from the socialism-hell Sweden that I'm currently living in?

America needs someone with as much passion and the same views as Reagan, there is were Trump comes in. He plays the game perfectly, says exactly the right things to steer up the pot just enough to get people to speak of him (all publicity is good publicity).
Even if he were racist (which he's not) that would be a 1000x better president than one who would want to ruin the economy by not letting the open market have it's course.
I'm not going to go into a full on debate why the liberal views are so horrible, especially when it comes to economics unless really necessary.

Just use common sense and go republic, America don't need another Obama to crash the economics even more. I'd like if America stayed a functioning country so I can move to it


----------



## dimmidice (Jun 12, 2016)

please, just stay in sweden.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 12, 2016)

None. they are all corrupt and always will. Don't trust them all.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2016)

filfat said:


> Even if he were racist (which he's not) that would be a 1000x better president than one who would want to ruin the economy by not letting the open market have it's course.


Something tells me you're not "in the loop" on American politics, Trump is literally borderline fascist


----------



## filfat (Jun 12, 2016)

dimmidice said:


> please, just stay in sweden.


You really missed the point?

Socialism have never and never will work, Sweden is just one of many examples why
Just look at how we don't even age test illegal immigrants (here is a supposedly 12 year old immigrant: http://i.imgur.com/Qf19lOB.jpg yeah; right).
Or how people who actually accomplish something have to pay for those who do nothing with sky-high taxes.
Or how we let the liberal fucked up feminist movement play a part of making real decisions.
Or how they choose to spend over 2x as much on beds for immigrants than on our own bloody army.
That's just the beginning of the bullshit this liberal socialism-loaded government pulls on us.

But if that doesn't convince you the son of communism aka socialism sucks, just look at when Hitler ruled Germany, or Soviet Union, Venezuela or about any other country which is ruled or has been ruled under socialistic "views".



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Something tells me you're not "in the loop" on American politics, Trump is literally borderline facist


Oh, i'm probably one of the people most up to speed about US politics outside the US (Maybe even a bit too much, I should go outside more often...). If anything he's an opportunist not a "facist".


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> More vulnerable than *paper* that you sign in a booth where *nobody* can see what you're doing? Is this pod planet? Am I surrounded by pod people? Should I just grab a gun and off myself while I still can, because I'm the only human left? I do my banking online, I do my shopping online, I book my plane tickets online, I pay my taxes online or over the phone, and yet *just* for voting I have to use a method that'd be considered unreliable and archaic in *any other case*? Okay. The fates of the world are decided on Wall Street, do you think brokers use paper to do their business? No, they do it online and it works just fine.



I'd prefer tech, myself. Super secure tech that creates some sort of physical print out as backup. I'm not a fan of paper ballots either, but not a fan of insecure tech either.

As far as wall street goes, they also have tricks to be quicker on the draw than other folks (and thus greater chance for profit). There's more than one way to skin a cat


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 12, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I'd prefer tech, myself. Super secure tech that creates some sort of physical print out as backup. I'm not a fan of paper ballots either, but not a fan of insecure tech either.


At least we can agree there - secure tech would be the best solution. Can you imagine how much bigger the turnout would be if you could vote from your smartphone? There's a fair chance that polling stations still exist because most people can't be arsed to stop watching Netflix to go and vote. If they could vote from their home, I feel we'd hear the voice of tge people louder.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 12, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> At least we can agree there - secure tech would be the best solution. Can you imagine how much bigger the turnout would be if you could vote from your smartphone? There's a fair chance that polling stations still exist because most people can't be arsed to stop watching Netflix to go and vote. If they could vote from their home, I feel we'd hear the voice of tge people louder.


I think the first step to that end is that people are registered to vote as soon as they turn of age. We have to register for the draft, so why not be registered to vote in the same step?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 12, 2016)

If Hillary won then America is going to have an illegal immigration PROBLEM to the United States.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 12, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I think the first step to that end is that people are registered to vote as soon as they turn of age. We have to register for the draft, so why not be registered to vote in the same step?


Now you're talking my language. Encrypted voting "cards" for all citizens, they could also work as driving licenses, insurance cards, ID's, debit/credit cards, whatever shit you can cram into them before we can just shove chips under our skin. Make America Electronic Again! ;O;


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2016)

filfat said:


> Oh, i'm probably one of the people most up to speed about US politics outside the US (Maybe even a bit too much, I should go outside more often...). If anything he's an opportunist not a "facist".




And besides, "opportunist" doesn't make it ANY better. That just means that he would/does say and pass anything he could just to get more power, whether or not it actually is in the best interest of the position he is serving


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 12, 2016)

I'm still confused here as to why everyone can't understand the complications of immigration reform. I personally know people on both sides, both legal and illegal, and it's not as simple as building a wall to get change instituted. We certainly have a right to know who is entering and leaving the country, they also have a right to be treated fairly and humanely. It's a very complicated process that takes years to complete to be here legally. While I don't agree with "amnesty", I don't believe we can simply round up and deport them either. Most of them are here because survivability is greater in the US, than their native country. They aren't the "rapists, drug dealers, scum" that are being portrayed by the right at this point. They're mostly humble blue collar folks who work for low pay and make the most out of it. Many of the most dependable employees I've seen were immigrants. Hell, some of the most moral people I've seen were here illegally.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 13, 2016)

Trump's wall is what in the Polish political scene we call the "Voter's Sausage" - it's an outrageous claim that's supposed to fix a problem which you have no intention to actually execute that exists solely to gin up votes. The Times recently interviewed Trump and even he says that he mentions the wall when the listeners are getting bored during debates or public speeches because it gets their motors going. There isn't going to be any wall, and if there will be, it'll be a 50-feet tall, 20-feet long brick banner with Trump's face on it - that'll scare Mexicans from miles away. Seriously, anyone who believes this sort of crap is a dullard - Trump is just using hot button issues like Islam and illegal immigration to get the popular vote, and you all got fooled by his show.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 13, 2016)

The issue with Trump is less the man, but more his supporters. He has amassed a huge following of extremely racist, xenophobic, anti-LGBT+, Islamophobic, hateful people. Most of his supporters are showing extremely dangerous tendencies that honestly will drive us either into another World War or a Civil War. Their attitudes towards Islam is rather frightening because it's actually going to make matters worse in the long run.
To me, I am supporting Clinton, not because I want to, but because Trump's supporters honestly scare me. If Trump wins, I fear two things will happen, either he continues his shenanigans, which causes WW3 or he turns back on his words and causes a Civil War.


----------



## TrapperKeeperX (Jun 13, 2016)

@Lacius I would consider adding Bernie Sanders to the polls since he still has a shot! Also those who back and side with Bernie Sanders. We have a vote and a voice too!


----------



## Monado_III (Jun 13, 2016)

VinsCool said:


> Move to Canada while you still can.


->implying our government is better (like WTF, why was this even a thing)


----------



## Lacius (Jun 13, 2016)

TrapperKeeperX said:


> @Lacius I would consider adding Bernie Sanders to the polls since he still has a shot! Also those who back and side with Bernie Sanders. We have a vote and a voice too!


Senator Sanders doesn't still have a shot. Secretary Clinton is the presumptive nominee.


----------



## Raylight (Jun 13, 2016)

VinsCool said:


> Move to Canada while you still can.


My folks are highly considering it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 13, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Senator Sanders doesn't still have a shot. Secretary Clinton is the presumptive nominee.


Thank God. We're all safe from the scourge of socialism for another 4 years. Good luck next time, Comrade Sanders.




You have no idea how long I've waited for the thread to return to Sanders for a moment just to post this. My life is complete now. ;O;


----------



## XDel (Jun 13, 2016)

kuwanger said:


> @XDel - Perhaps you take it the wrong way in which I (or others) speak of the past, but it is a healthy reflection of undue projection of the future through examples in the past which demonstrate that the present isn't as all bad as one would take it.  Certainly, there's room for improvement but the compare and constrast of it just tends to point out the negatives because positives are a pretty prevalent thing throughout time and we hope to be the norm, not the exception.  So just as history focuses on the non-ordinary, so news focuses on the new.




That's all one hears about today are the evils in America's past...
...the rest of the world on the other hand is squeaky clean and free of vice. 

Mind you, I am part native American, I grew up as a young child heavily critiquing the hypocrisy I read in our shitty school text books, saw on the TV, within the people around me, etc. But as I got older and matured, I saw how that was not an American issue, but a people issue in general, and then I saw how anti-American sentiment went on to be often slanted and one sided, and used for the sake of propaganda or in trying to demonstrate how the Forefathers didn't know crap and how we all just need to update to Socialism, Communism, Marxism, or some other failed system as opposed to looking at the real problems.

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

"Like its wartime prototype, the post-war propaganda drive was an immense success, as it persuaded not just businessmen but journalists and politicians that “the manufacture of consent,” in Walter Lippmann’s famous phrase, was a necessity throughout the public sphere.”
― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda (1928)


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 13, 2016)

VinsCool said:


> Move to Canada while you still can.


Canada is pretty hard to get into. You either have to be super rich, have family, or be super skilled in a profession and a company is willing to file loads of paperwork. And even then it takes months to years to happen. Student visas only last for about 6 months.


----------



## VinsCool (Jun 13, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Canada is pretty hard to get into. You either have to be super rich, have family, or be super skilled in a profession and a company is willing to file loads of paperwork. And even then it takes months to years to happen. Student visas only last for about 6 months.


Ouch that's worse than what I thought. Now just hope a miracle happens.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 13, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump's wall is what in the Polish political scene we call the "Voter's Sausage" - it's an outrageous claim that's supposed to fix a problem which you have no intention to actually execute that exists solely to gin up votes. The Times recently interviewed Trump and even he says that he mentions the wall when the listeners are getting bored during debates or public speeches because it gets their motors going. There isn't going to be any wall, and if there will be, it'll be a 50-feet tall, 20-feet long brick banner with Trump's face on it - that'll scare Mexicans from miles away. Seriously, anyone who believes this sort of crap is a dullard - Trump is just using hot button issues like Islam and illegal immigration to get the popular vote, and you all got fooled by his show.



And this is exactly the reason I can't stand behind the man. Using anger as a motivator in the political arena generally turns out poorly. Especially when it's done the way Trump has, pointing at ethnicities and religions. In a way, you're right. But nobody has been "fooled" the way you claim. If anything, we've only proven the point that despite having elected a Black leader, we're still as bigoted and stereotyped as before. "Make America Great Again"?!? Fuck that. It should be "Make America Hate Again"


----------



## Feeling it! (Jun 13, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I'm not American but if I where, I'd vote for Trump.
> See if he can fuck up the US more then Bush did, just for fun.
> 
> In reality, I don't know.
> ...


 What most people don't tell you is that clinton and trump are the same.
 I am going to grab some coffee and see my boat sink over here XD


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jun 13, 2016)

Feeling it! said:


> What most people don't tell you is that clinton and trump are the same.


They're both as useful as the Green Party.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 13, 2016)

XDel said:


> That's all one hears about today are the evils in America's past...
> ...the rest of the world on the other hand is squeaky clean and free of vice.
> 
> Mind you, I am part native American, I grew up as a young child heavily critiquing the hypocrisy I read in our shitty school text books, saw on the TV, within the people around me, etc. But as I got older and matured, I saw how that was not an American issue, but a people issue in general, and then I saw how anti-American sentiment went on to be often slanted and one sided, and used for the sake of propaganda or in trying to demonstrate how the Forefathers didn't know crap and how we all just need to update to Socialism, Communism, Marxism, or some other failed system as opposed to looking at the real problems.
> ...



Communism, Democracy, Monarchy, all of it can work in theory tbh. The fact is, we're all servants to a master in some form or another. That's life and the natural world as we know it. The question becomes, is it a fair master? Mankind tends to get pretty pissy when it's not. To me, it's less of a case of the systems failing the leader(s), but more the leader(s) failing the system.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 13, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Communism, Democracy, Monarchy, all of it can work in theory tbh. The fact is, we're all servants to a master in some form or another. That's life and the natural world as we know it. The question becomes, is it a fair master? Mankind tends to get pretty pissy when it's not. To me, it's less of a case of the systems failing the leader(s), but more the leader(s) failing the system.


Technically in Perfect Communism no one is anyone's servant, it's just kind of one big happy orgy of survival

But otherwise, I agree


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 13, 2016)

Feeling it! said:


> What most people don't tell you is that clinton and trump are the same.
> I am going to grab some coffee and see my boat sink over here XD


Why the eyecancer?
Was it really needed?
Goes off looking for eye drops.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jun 13, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> Why the eyecancer?
> Was it really needed?
> Goes off looking for eye drops.


Stop over-reacting about non-political issues.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 13, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I suppose it depends on which part of star trek you're pulling from. I tend to pull from the later star trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Their klingons, at least the ones that aren't gawron or impertinent youths, seem to hold honor above all else and that dictates their morals and actions. This extends to other species as much as their own. Though it's not easy to earn their respect, once you have it you have it.


Woah, don't go dragging Gawron's name through the mud.  Sure, he's got those crazy eyes, but he's honorable.  It's Duras and family that would have me looking over my shoulder.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 13, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Woah, don't go dragging Gawron's name through the mud.  Sure, he's got those crazy eyes, but he's honorable.  It's Duras and family that would have me looking over my shoulder.



And the crazy Klingon Shakespeare dude from ST6: Undiscovered Country!!


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 13, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> And the crazy Klingon Shakespeare dude from ST6: Undiscovered Country!!


well that's TOS era, so it doesn't quite apply to the post I responded to.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 13, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> well that's TOS era, so it doesn't quite apply to the post I responded to.


Awe c'mon!! It applies!! He was scary!! 

Right?!? Lol


----------



## XDel (Jun 13, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Communism, Democracy, Monarchy, all of it can work in theory tbh. The fact is, we're all servants to a master in some form or another. That's life and the natural world as we know it. The question becomes, is it a fair master? Mankind tends to get pretty pissy when it's not. To me, it's less of a case of the systems failing the leader(s), but more the leader(s) failing the system.



Well no actually, experiments as well as seeing them in action proves that some form of governments work better than others, hence the reason for so many varieties... well since the decline of Monarchies which followed the decline of Wise Men, Judges, Shamens, Chiefs, and the like.

And now that I am getting closer to tribalism... in a tribe, in a small community, there is a lot more flexibility in regards as to what can work and can not, but when you are dealing with massive governments, which are now turning into a global effort, things are always going to be Chaotic and will eventually lead to collapse. Either they will eat them selves, or else we are going to burn up the resources needed to sustain the technologies that such large governments (and their neo-propaganda) could not possible exist without. 

I.E. without morse code, the telegraph, and so on, Federal Government would never have been possible, the Union would not be possible, and the rule of the states would still be in the hands of the states, counties, towns, families, and individuals, but now...
...well now we are too busy following international tabloids and patting our selves on the back for constantly sticking our fingers in each other's pie, insisting that they guy 800 miles away should live exactly like, and have the concerns of the guy living in a high rent sky scraper in New York, and so on.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 13, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> And this is exactly the reason I can't stand behind the man. Using anger as a motivator in the political arena generally turns out poorly. Especially when it's done the way Trump has, pointing at ethnicities and religions. In a way, you're right. But nobody has been "fooled" the way you claim. If anything, we've only proven the point that despite having elected a Black leader, we're still as bigoted and stereotyped as before. "Make America Great Again"?!? Fuck that. It should be "Make America Hate Again"


Oh? Nobody bought it, huh? Is that why people consistently call him the second Hitler and a racist? Okay then.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 13, 2016)

there's no need to hurry to decide it yet, otherwise u will be trumped XD


----------



## Pikm (Jun 14, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Thank God. We're all safe from the scourge of socialism for another 4 years. Good luck next time, Comrade Sanders.
> 
> View attachment 52742
> 
> You have no idea how long I've waited for the thread to return to Sanders for a moment just to post this. My life is complete now. ;O;


Ignoring the fact that Donald Trump is a fascist.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Ignoring the fact that Donald Trump is a fascist.


As much as I see Trump as a joke, I really doubt he's a fascist.  He's a narcisist; of that, I have no doubt.  For the most part, though, I'm not so sure he believes even a tenth of what he says.


----------



## DJPlace (Jun 14, 2016)

i sided with trump go me...


----------



## Lacius (Jun 14, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> As much as I see Trump as a joke, I really doubt he's a fascist.  He's a narcisist; of that, I have no doubt.  For the most part, though, I'm not so sure he believes even a tenth of what he says.


I think that's called _demagoguery_.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Ignoring the fact that Donald Trump is a fascist.


Please, do tell when exactly did Trump endorse a one-party system of government with militarized citizens under total authoritarian rule. As far as I can see, he's taking part in a democratic election, not staging a coup d'etat. "Fascist" has a very specific definition - if you throw the term around, first make sure to know what it actually means.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Please, do tell when exactly did Trump endorse a one-party system of government with militarized citizens under total authoritarian rule. As far as I can see, he's taking part in a democratic election, not staging a coup d'etat. "Fascist" has a very specific definition - if you throw the term around, first make sure to know what it actually means.


Did you see the Trevor Noah piece I linked earlier? (I agree, and it's mostly humor, but it IS thought provoking)


----------



## MsMidnight (Jun 14, 2016)

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/2370284729

My candidate


----------



## TrapperKeeperX (Jun 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Senator Sanders doesn't still have a shot. Secretary Clinton is the presumptive nominee.


It looks like Bernie Sanders still has a shot never underestimate Bernie Sanders despite what the corrupted controlled media says about Bernie. Look at California over 2 million uncounted votes I would still consider adding Bernie Sanders. If not I will post another 2016 Thread and please add Bernie Sanders to the polls. Your call @Lacius please add Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 14, 2016)

TrapperKeeperX said:


> It looks like Bernie Sanders still has a shot never underestimate Bernie Sanders despite what the corrupted controlled media says about Bernie. Look at California over 2 million uncounted votes I would still consider adding Bernie Sanders. If not I will post another 2016 Thread and please add Bernie Sanders to the polls. Your call @Lacius please add Bernie Sanders.



Uncounted votes in California are very unlikely to change the result of the race in California.
Even if Senator Sanders had won California by a landslide, Secretary Clinton would still be the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee. Senator Sanders is likely to drop out of the race and endorse Secretary Clinton within the next few days or weeks. Ignoring the delegate math for a second, Senator Sanders' campaign is showing all of the signs of shutting down.
There is no need to post an unnecessary duplicate thread. If you refuse to vote for anyone other than Senator Sanders, despite him not being a candidate in the general election, you can vote _Other_ in the poll. If by some miracle Senator Sanders becomes the Democratic Party's nominee for president, I will add him to the poll. If other political parties get ballot access to 270 electoral votes or more, I will add them to the poll, too.
I understand your frustration. I voted for Senator Sanders in the primary. However, Secretary Clinton won a majority of the popular vote (56%), she won a majority of the pledged delegates (54%), and she won a majority of the total delegates (58%). By every measure, she won fair and square. In order for Senator Sanders to get the nomination, he would have to convince 71% of the total unpledged superdelegates to subvert the will of the voters and switch to him, and that's both unprecedented and not going to happen. Secretary Clinton is the presumptive nominee.

If one likes Senator Sanders because of his policy positions, it is important to keep in mind that he and Secretary Clinton are in alignment roughly 95% of the time. In a general election race between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump, the choice should be obvious for a Senator Sanders supporter.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Uncounted votes in California are very unlikely to change the result of the race in California.
> Even if Senator Sanders had won California by a landslide, Secretary Clinton would still be the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee. Senator Sanders is likely to drop out of the race and endorse Secretary Clinton within the next few days or weeks. Ignoring the delegate math for a second, Senator Sanders' campaign is showing all of the signs of shutting down.
> There is no need to post an unnecessary duplicate thread. If you refuse to vote for anyone other than Senator Sanders, despite him not being a candidate in the general election, you can vote _Other_ in the poll. If by some miracle Senator Sanders becomes the Democratic Party's nominee for president, I will add him to the poll. If other political parties get ballot access to 270 electoral votes or more, I will add them to the poll, too.
> I understand your frustration. I voted for Senator Sanders in the primary. However, Secretary Clinton won a majority of the popular vote (56%), she won a majority of the pledged delegates (54%), and she won a majority of the total delegates (58%). By every measure, she won fair and square. In order for Senator Sanders to get the nomination, he would have to convince 71% of the total unpledged superdelegates to subvert the will of the voters and switch to him, and that's both unprecedented and not going to happen. Secretary Clinton is the presumptive nominee.
> ...


He could still go third party


----------



## Lacius (Jun 14, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> He could still go third party


Senator Sanders has expressed no interest in running as a third party candidate, and he has also said in the past that he would endorse the Secretary Clinton if she won the primary. In addition, running as a third party candidate and splitting the Democratic vote is contrary to what Senator Sanders has said very recently on the subject:
_
"I look forward to meeting with (Secretary Clinton) in the near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent."
_
If Senator Sanders does run as a third party candidate, I will add him to the poll. It's not going to happen, however.


----------



## YamiHoshi.nl (Jun 14, 2016)

Also, I won't vote for anyone, since I'm not an American, and have no rights to vote for an American President.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 14, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Did you see the Trevor Noah piece I linked earlier? (I agree, and it's mostly humor, but it IS thought provoking)


The only thing that's thought provoking is that the regressive left will readily call just about any conservative a fascist, but they'll baaawww their eyes out and call the whhaaambulance if you call them commies, all the while asking whether you know the difference between social democrats and socialists when functionally there is none. ;O;


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 14, 2016)

YamiHoshi.nl said:


> Also, I won't vote for anyone, since I'm not an American, and have no rights to vote for an American President.


Great analogy. 
No matter which one you buy, in the end it will be the same shit.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 14, 2016)

On electronic voting the following says most of what I would

Generally I would agree it would be nice if a button popped up wherever I might be and I could vote once anonymously (or not as I probably still would not vote more than randomly, which is to say not at all). However it seems to suffer major faults in implementation and I am not seeing the road to the land of milk and honey there.

Most fraud seems to be proxy/postal, when various ID checks were being considered/pushed it came up for anybody that looked at stats


On being a lawyer and doing the abstract lawyer thing of defend your client to the best of your abilities and without regard for their guilt or innocence then I have no problem whatsoever; it is the logic behind would rather have 1000 guilty people go free than a single innocent. The extent of what was found coming up in evidence rules (if a case was not dismissed with prejudice there are all sorts of rules about what evidence can come back up in appeals, retrials, further cases and such), background checks, continued surveillance and such is very much up for debate. Being able to divorce yourself from visceral feelings is a stunningly good thing in a leader from where I sit -- visceral reactions are an awful thing to use outside of small tribes in an African savannah 10000 years ago. I reckon you could probably make a similar case for any profession worthy of being called such.
If nothing else because that would mean you have to kick all the lawyers out of politics and at least law is a partway logical exercise as opposed to straight politics training which is the other main avenue into high level politics in much of the world.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 14, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> On being a lawyer and doing the abstract lawyer thing of defend your client to the best of your abilities and without regard for their guilt or innocence then I have no problem whatsoever; it is the logic behind would rather have 1000 guilty people go free than a single innocent. The extent of what was found coming up in evidence rules (if a case was not dismissed with prejudice there are all sorts of rules about what evidence can come back up in appeals, retrials, further cases and such), background checks, continued surveillance and such is very much up for debate. Being able to divorce yourself from visceral feelings is a stunningly good thing in a leader from where I sit -- visceral reactions are an awful thing to use outside of small tribes in an African savannah 10000 years ago. I reckon you could probably make a similar case for any profession worthy of being called such. If nothing else because that would mean you have to kick all the lawyers out of politics and at least law is a partway logical exercise as opposed to straight politics training which is the other main avenue into high level politics in much of the world.


There's a difference between "divorcing visceral feelings to focus on the evidence and draw a logical conclusion from it" and "bending the truth despite the evidence in order to prove that a guilty man is in fact innocent or, conversely, that an innocent man is guilty", but to be fair, the lawyer in this scenario is just a cog in a system that was designed poorly from the start. The problem here is the human element, the jury, which can be sweet-talked and swayed by both the defense and the prosecution when properly approached. If anything, that's the "visceral emotion" element that you despise so much, as no matter what evidence you present, the jury is capable of so-called "nullification" and can in fact come to a verdict that goes against everything the law says on a whim. It's the jury that has the power to make a guilty man go free or an innocent man go to jail, and that's textbook tribalism. If you asked a computer whether a man is guilty or not based on the fact that he's covered in the victim's blood, I feel that you'd have a wholely different result, but alas, we cannot remove the human element from the equation, thus there is an emotion-based loophole that we cannot avoid. At present the jury is not obligated to follow the letter of the law in any way and there are no legal provisions to punish jurors who ignore it, so in essence you have a bunch of jurors deciding which laws we abide by, which laws we ignore, who is "equal" and who is "equaler" based entirely on their gut feeling and whatever story they're sold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

On the subject of electronic voting, I feel that the people who worry about it are misinformed. Like you say, it is the infrastructure of the system that's faulty, and it could be made more secure. Military orders aren't sent by pidgeon post, they're sent electronically. Political correspondence is sent this way also. The whole banking system and the stockmarket rely on electronic communication as well. Only voting is stuck in the past, and I have a problem with that.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 14, 2016)

On voting is seems like a rather different problem -- one party going to many/a chain, none of which are especially anonymous at the levels which are necessary for voting (the stock market theoretically is but the broker to the client does not need to be)

I am familiar with jury nullification, and continuing the theme of videos rather than reading I will go with the following for the others in the crowd.

A judge can overturn a jury verdict, though it is a fairly major thing to have happen, and you can also do a bench trial (not that it is often advised) with the deciders being a judge or a group thereof. Also how big a problem is it and was it a factor in this case? I almost want to look up the case in question but I still not sure it is relevant here.
"If I asked a computer" then that computer ought to be about 20 steps closer to AI than anything that exists today. Equally I would still want rules of evidence in play.
Otherwise I think I will still go with "don't hate the player", granted that would probably come back to trouble me when profit is something you are duty bound to get for your shareholders comes up. Maybe I will have a kind of double standard.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 14, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> On voting is seems like a rather different problem -- one party going to many/a chain, none of which are especially anonymous at the levels which are necessary for voting (the stock market theoretically is but the broker to the client does not need to be)
> 
> I am familiar with jury nullification, and continuing the theme of videos rather than reading I will go with the following for the others in the crowd.
> 
> ...


My point was not to say that jury nullification is a bad thing - it's important for a jury to be able to nullify unjust law if the defendant caught him or herself in a loophole that was not considered when the legislation was written. Me "asking a computer" for an opinion was a figure of speech, what I meant to say is that a cold machine would be 100% logical wheras a human can be swayed because being emotional is in our nature. Jury nullification has nothing to do with the case, however, misleading the jury or playing on their heartstrings to minimize the value of the evidence or overblow it out of proportion often times is a major factor in court, and it shouldn't be. Think back to the OJ Simpson trial - he got off the hook because the jury bought a ridiculous story, the presented evidence was at that point irrelevant, only the gut feelings mattered - that's tribalism. There's a reason why, say, black people from the ghetto go straight to jail for posession of illicit substances while white kids from private schools get community service. The law should be identical to all individuals, but with the human element in place you cannot eliminate bias - that was my issue.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 15, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> My point was not to say that jury nullification is a bad thing - it's important for a jury to be able to nullify unjust law if the defendant caught him or herself in a loophole that was not considered when the legislation was written. Me "asking a computer" for an opinion was a figure of speech, what I meant to say is that a cold machine would be 100% logical wheras a human can be swayed because being emotional is in our nature. Jury nullification has nothing to do with the case, however, misleading the jury or playing on their heartstrings to minimize the value of the evidence or overblow it out of proportion often times is a major factor in court, and it shouldn't be. Think back to the OJ Simpson trial - he got off the hook because the jury bought a ridiculous story, the presented evidence was at that point irrelevant, only the gut feelings mattered - that's tribalism. There's a reason why, say, black people from the ghetto go straight to jail for posession of illicit substances while white kids from private schools get community service. The law should be identical to all individuals, but with the human element in place you cannot eliminate bias - that was my issue.


I agree with your point, but I think using the OJ trial is a bad example. His defense team did their job by providing reasonable doubt. It may have been outlandish, but it was still somewhat logical/feasible. Rodney King would be a better example imho, because bias played a much larger role in that trial for sure.


----------



## XDel (Jun 16, 2016)

Bill Lind appearing on C-SPAN in 1998, discussing the spread of Political Correctness in America during it's infancy. (30 min)


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

Considering the high number of votes for _Other_, I think this poll is a good lesson on what could possibly happen if the #BernieOrBust people don't vote for Secretary Clinton (i.e. Donald Trump wins).


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 16, 2016)

XDel said:


> Bill Lind appearing on C-SPAN in 1998, discussing the spread of Political Correctness in America during it's infancy. (30 min)



Good lord I couldn't even get through 3 minutes of that without cringing. I don't even care about "Political Correctness," just be polite to people and respect them as human beings. "Anti-political correctness" is a term that a lot of people hide behind as an excuse to be rude to others


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 16, 2016)

Did you guys hear about the "Guccifer 2.0" thing? Clinton is making it really hard for us Bernie supporters to switch. I know Bernie can't win at this point, but Jesus Christ. Clinton is just so untrustworthy.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 16, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Did you guys hear about the "Guccifer 2.0" thing? Clinton is making it really hard for us Bernie supporters to switch. I know Bernie can't win at this point, but Jesus Christ. Clinton is just so untrustworthy.


I at least feel like I could trust her with nuclear codes if I needed to, though.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Did you guys hear about the "Guccifer 2.0" thing? Clinton is making it really hard for us Bernie supporters to switch. I know Bernie can't win at this point, but Jesus Christ. Clinton is just so untrustworthy.


How is Secretary Clinton making it hard to support her? There's no reason to think the Guccifer thing is going to turn out to be anything of substance (people make bold unsubstantiated claims all the time without them ever turning into anything), she supports 95% of Senator Sanders' policies (including but not limited to a higher minimum wage, affordable health care for all, affordable college, LGBT rights, etc.), and *she's not Donald Trump*.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> How is Secretary Clinton making it hard to support her? There's no reason to think the Guccifer thing is going to turn out to be anything of substance (people make bold unsubstantiated claims all the time without them ever turning into anything), she supports 95% of Senator Sanders' policies (including but not limited to a higher minimum wage, affordable health care for all, affordable college, LGBT rights, etc.), and *she's not Donald Trump*.


To be fair Sanders kind of forced her to move her policies a little further left. Although, if anything, that will be one positive of him running this election cycle, even though it certainly looks as though he's not going to win it


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> This is exactly the failing of the two-party system, or any party system for that matter. It creates "baskets" you can put people into. If you want less government intervention, less regulation and more free market competition, that's too bad for you because the basket with those labels also has the words "bigot", "sexist", "racist" and "homophobe" on it. I'm right-leaning, have been for all my life, and I don't give a shit what colour people are or what they do in their bedrooms for as long as I'm not taxed too highly.



Welcome to the Libertarian party!



Spoiler



I'm still voting for Trump


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> To be fair Sanders kind of forced her to move her policies a little further left. Although, if anything, that will be one positive of him running this election cycle, even though it certainly looks as though he's not going to win it


True, but Secretary Clinton started off the election pretty far to the left before Senator Sanders entered the scene.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> How is Secretary Clinton making it hard to support her? There's no reason to think the Guccifer thing is going to turn out to be anything of substance (people make bold unsubstantiated claims all the time without them ever turning into anything), she supports 95% of Senator Sanders' policies (including but not limited to a higher minimum wage, affordable health care for all, affordable college, LGBT rights, etc.), and *she's not Donald Trump*.




Well, the guy released a few of the documents. He claims to have given the rest to wikileaks.

It looks like the DNC sided with Clinton from the very beginning instead of remaining impartial, but I guess we already knew that. We'll see what happens. Probably nothing.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Well, the guy released a few of the documents. He claims to have given the rest to wikileaks.
> 
> It looks like the DNC sided with Clinton from the very beginning instead of remaining impartial, but I guess we already new that. We'll see what happens. Probably nothing.


Like the opposition research on Donald Trump, I didn't see anything in the released documents that wasn't already common knowledge. Perhaps I missed something. Regardless, while it's no secret that many Democrats were/are Secretary Clinton supporters, everything the DNC did that actually mattered appears to have been impartial.

As for what WikiLeaks allegedly has, this wouldn't be the first time WikiLeaks claimed to have something that was actually embellished or not even there. I would remain skeptical of any claims until something is actually released.


----------



## CeeDee (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> and *she's not Donald Trump*.


That isn't an argument. Donald Trump isn't literally Hitler. 

Sure, you may not agree with his views or opinions, but I don't say "I like Crash Bandicoot because he isn't Mario"


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

Sonic_Cee_Dee said:


> That isn't an argument. Donald Trump isn't literally Hitler.
> 
> Sure, you may not agree with his views or opinions, but I don't say "I like Crash Bandicoot because he isn't Mario"


If a Senator Sanders supporter likes him because of his policy positions, then it is quite a good argument to say Secretary Clinton is the only viable alternative to Donald Trump, a man whose policy positions and worldview differ dramatically from Senator Sanders'.

Please don't strawman my argument. I haven't compared anyone to Hitler. Donald Trump is, however, a racist demagogue with bad policy positions whom no Senator Sanders supporter should want to be President.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If a Senator Sanders supporter likes him because of his policy positions, then it is quite a good argument to say Secretary Clinton is the only viable alternative to Donald Trump, a man whose policy positions and worldview differ dramatically from Senator Sanders'.
> 
> Please don't strawman my argument. I haven't compared anyone to Hitler. Donald Trump is, however, a racist demagogue with bad policy positions whom no Senator Sanders supporter should want to be President.


I don't have a problem with Clinton's policy positions and I'd choose her over Trump any day of the week. 

I just don't think she's trustworthy. She flip flops. She switched her positions on gay marriage. It bothers me that she just straight up lied about running for cover after getting off that helicopter. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

We don't know any of the candidates personally so we just have to go off of what we've seen and heard about them.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> She flip flops. She switched her positions on gay marriage.


So did practically every other American in favor of LGBT rights (politician or not) who isn't a millennial, including Senator Sanders, who advocated against same-sex marriage in Vermont as late as 2006.


----------



## Mr.ButtButt (Jun 16, 2016)

OBAMA FOR A 3RD TERM, HERE WE GO BABY, WE'LL BE THE FIRST!


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> So did practically every other American in favor of LGBT rights (politician or not) who isn't a millennial, including Senator Sanders, who advocated against same-sex marriage in Vermont as late as 2006.


You're right about that, Sanders isn't free of faults, but the thing about the helicopter was just a bald-faced lie. It wasn't just mistake. She completely made something up just to make herself look cooler. That type of stuff scares me.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> You're right about that, Sanders isn't free of faults, but the thing about the helicopter was just a bald-faced lie. It wasn't just mistake. She completely made something up just to make herself look cooler. That type of stuff scares me.


I don't know what was going through then-Senator Clinton's head at the time, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend to defend it, but I really don't care about mistakes, inconsistencies, and/or embellishments in an unimportant story from 2008 about something that happened 12 years before she told it. It alone doesn't make me distrust Secretary Clinton, and it definitely doesn't make me trust Donald Trump more than I trust Secretary Clinton.

I'd be inconsistent if I forgave Brian Williams but not Secretary Clinton.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't know what was going through then-Senator Clinton's head at the time, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend to defend it, but I really don't care about mistakes, inconsistencies, and/or embellishments in an unimportant story from 2008 about something that happened 12 years before she told it. It alone doesn't make me distrust Secretary Clinton, and it definitely doesn't make me trust Donald Trump more than I trust Secretary Clinton.
> 
> I'd be inconsistent if I forgave Brian Williams but not Secretary Clinton.


Well, I disagree. I don't see it as a mistake, inconsistency or embellishment. I see as a straight up lie. And it isn't just that.

She says the emails contained personal communications from her and her husband. Obviously, she only meant some of them, not all. Her husband says the only two emails he's ever sent were for Christmas reservations.

She blames homebuyers for the housing crash and then claims she blamed wall street.

Did you see her testifying about Benghazi? There are bits where she's just sitting there getting roasted.

There's more stuff and it's on film.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> She says the emails contained personal communications from her and her husband. Obviously, she only meant some of them, not all. Her husband says the only two emails he's ever sent were for Christmas reservations.


Where's the contradiction?



invaderyoyo said:


> She blames homebuyers for the housing crash and then claims she blamed wall street.


It was both.



invaderyoyo said:


> Did you see her testifying about Benghazi? There are bits where she's just sitting there getting roasted.


I didn't see her get _roasted_. I saw a grossly unprepared Republican congress on an _admittedly_ political witch hunt, and I saw a well-articulate former Secretary of State.



invaderyoyo said:


> There's more stuff and it's on film.


I'm sure there is. Republicans have been constructing this false meme for over twenty years. I'm not saying Secretary Clinton is perfect, but come on.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 16, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> Welcome to the Libertarian party!


The Libertarian party has excellent principles, but terrible execution - they're like a real-life political circus. When one of your candidates strips to his briefs and does the truffle shuffle, jiggling his fat flabs on live TV, he's doing a disservice to himself, his party, everything it stands for and the country which is in desperate need of an "everybody stick to their own lawn" kind of reform. That guy should've been shunned immediately and kicked from the party for life, you don't do that shit during the presidential race.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The Libertarian party has excellent principles, but terrible execution - they're like a real-life political circus. When one of your candidates strips to his briefs and does the truffle shuffle, jiggling his fat flabs on live TV, he's doing a disservice to himself, his party, everything it stands for and the country which is in desperate need of an "everybody stick to their own lawn" kind of reform. That guy should've been shunned immediately and kicked from the party for life, you don't do that shit during the presidential race.



Let's not forget Gary "bake the cake" Johnson who said a Jewish baker should be forced to make a cake for a Nazi. So much for freedom of association.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 16, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> Let's not forget Gary "bake the cake" Johnson who said a Jewish baker should be forced to make a cake for a Nazi. So much for freedom of association.


Isn't that the anti-thesis of the libertarian mindset, meaning private business owners having full control over their businesses with little government intervention, having the agency to choose whether they want to do business with customers or not? I was under the impression that that was the whole bloody point. The government forcing you to do business with whoever walks through the door sounds intrusive to me.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Where's the contradiction?
> 
> 
> It was both.
> ...


Dude, come on. Bill Clinton states that the only two emails he's ever sent were to make Christmas reservation. Hillary Clinton says there's correspondence between him and her in the emails. Idk what to say to you.

It was both homebuyers and wall street, but she changed posittion on the amount of blame to go around afterwards.

As for the Benghazi thing, the part that comes to mind is when they show her the stack of Libya emails for 2011 and it's huge. It contains hundreds of emails. Then they show her the stack from 2012 up to the attack and it's less than 100. I mean, please.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Dude, come on. Bill Clinton states that the only two emails he's ever sent were to make Christmas reservation. Hillary Clinton says there's correspondence between him and her in the emails. Idk what to say to you.


That's correspondence, regardless, and there could be some other unmemorable things.



invaderyoyo said:


> It was both homebuyers and wall street, but she changed posittion on the amount of blame to go around afterwards.


I don't see the problem with acknowledging different causes of a problem at different times while also disproportionately focusing on one of those causes when it was arguably criminal.



invaderyoyo said:


> As for the Benghazi thing, the part that comes to mind is when they show her the stack of Libya emails for 2011 and it's huge. It contains hundreds of emails. Then they show her the stack from 2012 up to the attack and it's less than 100. I mean, please.


One's frequency of emails varies depending on what's going on at the time, and how one communicates with others varies. As Secretary Clinton stated, most of her communications weren’t conducted over email. I can't believe we're talking about the quantity of sent _and received_ emails as if it's scandalous, the latter being largely uncontrollable from Secretary Clinton's point of view. When one buys into a false meme, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's correspondence, regardless, and there could be some other unmemorable things.
> 
> 
> I don't see the problem with acknowledging different causes of a problem at different times while also disproportionately focusing on one of those causes when it was arguably criminal.
> ...


Yeah, but that isn't correspondence between her and her husband like she's claiming. Dude, really? This is another straight up lie.

Edit: I watched the Bill Clinton clip again a few times. He says he ordered christmas presents from a reservation. I misheard. This clearly doesn't change anything, though.

Anyway, Hillary over Trump 100%. I guess that's all that matters at this point.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Yeah, but that isn't correspondence between her and her husband like she's claiming. Dude, really? This is another straight up lie.


You're describing correspondence between Secretary Clinton and President Clinton.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You're describing correspondence between Secretary Clinton and President Clinton.


I am absolutely NOT. I watched the clip again. Bill Clinton says he ordered Christmas presents from a reservation.

My point stands. The only emails he ever wrote, according to him, were between him and a reservation. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> I am absolutely NOT. I watched the clip again. Bill Clinton says he ordered Christmas presents from a reservation.
> 
> My point stands. The only emails he ever wrote, according to him, were between him and a reservation. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.


I misunderstood your description of President Clinton's email habits. Regardless, they should like hyperbole and a description of his time as President in the 1990s to me. Who knows?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 16, 2016)

Mr.ButtButt said:


> OBAMA FOR A 3RD TERM, HERE WE GO BABY, WE'LL BE THE FIRST!


I take it you never heard of Franklin D. Roosevelt


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I misunderstood your description of President Clinton's email habits. Regardless, they should like hyperbole and a description of his time as President in the 1990s to me. Who knows?



Idk about that. I'm just gonna write the quote to avoid any misunderstandings.This is the exact Bill Clinton quote:

"I, only time I got on the internet, I did two emails and I ordered Christmas presents from a reservation"

It was at a panel discussion at a Clinton Global Initiative event in Denver.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Idk about that. I'm just gonna write the quote to avoid any misunderstandings.This is the exact Bill Clinton quote:
> 
> "I, only time I got on the internet, I did two emails and I ordered Christmas presents from a reservation"
> 
> It was at a panel discussion at a Clinton Global Initiative event in Denver.


Did you not check for context before making sweeping judgments about Secretary Clinton?


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Did you not check for context before making sweeping judgments about Secretary Clinton?


Yeah. He's at panel talking about emails. He then talks about weed and philanthropy and other stuff. 

I'm not making sweeping judgements. She straight up lied. She's done it multiple times. That much is a fact.


----------



## Mr.ButtButt (Jun 16, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I take it you never heard of Franklin D. Roosevelt


i did an assignment on him the other week. fuck him. Mostly, jsut because i had to do an assignmnet on him. that's the only reason really..


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Yeah. He's at panel talking about emails. He then talks about weed and philanthropy and other stuff.


What was said directly before his statement about emails? If you don't know the answer to that question, then you can't know if what you're doing is taking his words out of context. It wouldn't be the first time an online news article did something like this. Keep in mind that, as I've already mentioned, we could be talking about hyperbole. If I said I never use landlines but someone found a time when I did, that doesn't mean I lied. You've also apparently excluded the possibilities that President Clinton was mistaken, that Secretary Clinton was mistaken, etc.

I should also point out that President Clinton has said on other occasions that he does in fact use email more frequently than what we're talking about.



invaderyoyo said:


> I'm not making sweeping judgements. She straight up lied. She's done it multiple times. That much is a fact.


I'm not saying Secretary Clinton hasn't lied, but you haven't provided an example of one, with the possible exception of an unimportant helicopter embellishment. And before you say anything, for all you know, it was in fact a mistake or embellishment. Or it was a lie. Who knows? I don't. You don't. It's not enough to make sweeping judgments.

When a person forms a belief about something or someone, regardless of whether or not the belief was formed from reason or from confirmation bias, it's difficult to shake off that belief. Much of what you've posted about Secretary Clinton read like an attempt to confirm a previously held bias regardless of the actual facts. At best, they read like surface understandings of the actual stories. For example, the discussion about Secretary Clinton's quantity of emails was a desperate _grasping at straws_ attempt to attack Secretary Clinton politically, which some Republicans admitted was the point of the hearing. However, many people fell for it because it conformed with their previously held belief in the meme that Secretary Clinton is somehow _crooked_.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> What was said directly before his statement about emails? If you don't know the answer to that question, then you can't know if what you're doing is taking his words out of context. It wouldn't be the first time an online news article did something like this. Keep in mind that, as I've already mentioned, we could be talking about hyperbole. If I said I never use landlines but someone found a time when I did, that doesn't mean I lied. You've also apparently excluded the possibilities that President Clinton was mistaken, that Secretary Clinton was mistaken, etc.
> 
> I should also point out that President Clinton has said on other occasions that he does in fact use email more frequently than what we're talking about.
> 
> ...



Whoa whoa whoa, fine, the other stuff I can see someone explaining away, I don't buy it, but I understand the reasoning. Bill Clinton could have been using a hyperbole, Hillary could have had less emails about Libya as the attack drew near, gay marriage is a controversial subject, and forget about healthcare andthe goldman sachs speeches, which I didn't mention. With that stuff I can understand what you're saying and how someone could defend that.

However when you tell me that I don't know whether the "helicopter embellishment" was a mistake or embellishment it really makes me doubt your judgement. Idk if you've seen the clip. I've seen her account of the incident and I've seen the actual thing. If that really was a mistake then she had a disconnect with reality and that might be more worrisome. There was no "embellishment", she was describing something completely different. I also disagree with with you about it being unimportant. I feel that it actually is important since this person is likely going to be president and she's perfectly comfortable with making stuff up or she's crazy.

As for the stuff about the quantity of emails, maybe a lot of people did "fall for it" because of confirmation bias, but there were nearly 800 Libya emails in 2011 and less than 100 emails in 2012 leading up to the attack. That seems strange to me. If it doesn't seem strange at all to other people then I guess it is confirmation bias on my part.

Anyway, like I mentioned before, I would vastly prefer Clinton over Trump. It's not even close. I don't agree with Trump on the most basic stuff. Like taxes, immigration, gay rights, abortion, healthcare, environmental, and foreign policy, although, I'm not sure I agree with Clinton either on foreign policy.

Edit: Here's my isidewith results.


Spoiler


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> and forget about healthcare and the goldman sachs speeches, which I didn't mention.


I don't see anything controversial about these issues.



invaderyoyo said:


> However when you tell me that I don't know whether the "helicopter embellishment" was a mistake or embellishment it really makes me doubt your judgement. Idk if you've seen the clip. I've seen her account of the incident and I've seen the actual thing. If that really was a mistake then she had a disconnect with reality and that might be more worrisome. There was no "embellishment", she was describing something completely different. I also disagree with with you about it being unimportant. I feel that it actually is important since this person is likely going to be president and she's perfectly comfortable with making stuff up or she's crazy.


Like I said, I'm not defending it as _definitely not a lie_. I have seen the video. Something like she described might have happened off camera at an earlier or later point. She might be thinking of a different trip altogether. I don't know if you heard, but the First Lady did a lot of traveling during that presidency. She might have retroactively been informed of an incident, and over the years she came to believe it as something she experienced. Maybe it was an amalgamation of different experiences in different places. Twelve years is a long time, and she had more experiences than either of us likely had in twelve years. There is some interesting scholarship on the topic of human memory, specifically with regard to how much of what we think we know isn't actually true. Any one of the above things would potentially excuse her without challenging her sanity.



invaderyoyo said:


> but there were nearly 800 Libya emails in 2011 and less than 100 emails in 2012 leading up to the attack.


So what? There isn't a single conclusion to be drawn from this. It should also be noted that the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi actually happened in 2011.



invaderyoyo said:


> although, I'm not sure I agree with Clinton either on foreign policy.


I'm not sure I do either.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't see anything controversial about these issues.
> 
> 
> Like I said, I'm not defending it as _definitely not a lie_. I have seen the video. Something like she described might have happened off camera at an earlier or later point. She might be thinking of a different trip altogether. I don't know if you heard, but the First Lady did a lot of traveling during that presidency. She might have retroactively been informed of an incident, and over the years she came to believe it as something she experienced. Maybe it was an amalgamation of different experiences in different places. Twelve years is a long time, and she had more experiences than either of us likely had in twelve years. There is some interesting scholarship on the topic of human memory, specifically with regard to how much of what we think we know isn't actually true. Any one of the above things would potentially excuse her without challenging her sanity.
> ...


Honestly, the fact that you insist on the helicopter thing makes me feel like you're making fun of me.

Edit: We'll just have to disagree.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Honestly, the fact that you insist on the helicopter thing makes me feel like you're making fun of me.
> 
> Edit: We'll just have to disagree.


You have to admit that it's an odd thing to focus on. It's arguably such a non-story that people didn't even pay attention to it during the 2008 Presidential Election, let alone the 2016 Presidential Election.


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Good lord I couldn't even get through 3 minutes of that without cringing. I don't even care about "Political Correctness," just be polite to people and respect them as human beings. "Anti-political correctness" is a term that a lot of people hide behind as an excuse to be rude to others



At what point is he being rude?!?!?! He's making points... in the late 90's no less before all this had escalated as bad as it got today. 
He's describing the social conditioning that created a society of people who will not listen, who will turn off, who will take every offence, who re-write history, and who preach tolerance in the name of intolerance. 

He's given everyone a terrific place to start doing some serious research. I mean everyone should question everything, including their own convictions in this media age.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

XDel said:


> At what point is he being rude?!?!?! He's making points... in the late 90's no less before all this had escalated as bad as it got today.
> He's describing the social conditioning that created a society of people who will not listen, who will turn off, who will take every offence, who re-write history, and who preach tolerance in the name of intolerance.
> 
> He's given everyone a terrific place to start doing some serious research. I mean everyone should question everything, including their own convictions in this media age.


Ok, then tell me this: what kind of things do you feel like you're not able to talk about because of political correctness?


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You have to admit that it's an odd thing to focus on. It's arguably such a non-story that people didn't even pay attention to it during the 2008 Presidential Election, let alone the 2016 Presidential Election.


It is odd, but I don't think it's a non-story. Still, it's really interesting to read what other people's thoughts are on stuff like this.


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ok, then tell me this: what kind of things do you feel like you're not able to talk about because of political correctness?



Everything is fair game when searching for truth, censorship it a means to cut us off from discovery. The Catholic Church used to do this to people, and now the progressive liberals. Again no different than when Bush used to prevent certain journalists from asking questions at his speeches, etc. 

Also I'm a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos... a gay against the gay and feminist movement, and he's not alone in that.


----------



## WolfSaviorZX (Jun 17, 2016)

I'll be voting for Trump but honestly I don't think it matters much. If Hillary becomes president it will just speed up when the collapse will happen. With Trump I say about 10% chance of avoiding it but at least he will put in some policies that will help us after the collapse like controlling our immigration, he could end up being Fake on his positions but everyone else is for open borders so idk.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 17, 2016)

Hahaha, this is what I get for rewatching those clips and finding few quotes. 


Spoiler


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

XDel said:


> Again no different than when Bush used to prevent certain journalists from asking questions at his speeches, etc.


Erm, who are you supporting again?


XDel said:


> Also I'm a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos... a gay against the gay and feminist movement, and he's not alone in that.


I actually have a huge problem with stuff like that, because that tends to indicate self-loathing that has roots in being told that homosexuality is unnatural and perverted

Edit: Never mind that last point, @XDel seems to be idolizing a man that was posing as gay just for attention:


			
				Milo Yiannopoulos said:
			
		

> I’ll never forget the precise moment I chose to be gay. It was the endpoint in a process of rebellion against my white middle-class parents...Today, thanks to society’s endless mollycoddling and celebration of “alternative” lifestyles, the joy of rebellion is drying up for me. You see, I only plumped for homosexuality to irritate my parents. But now even they are fine with it. A few years ago, my mum said, perhaps cannily, “All I want is for you to be happy." That came as devastating news... Now my gayness was not only roundly applauded by wider society but even my own parents, what was the point? [...] Since gay people have been so endlessly praised, flattered and catered to by the media and politicians, I’ve lost interest in sleeping with men. I want to feel oppressed again! That’s why, from today, I’m going to make a go of being straight. Wish me luck!


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 17, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Erm, who are you supporting again?
> I actually have a huge problem with stuff like that, because that tends to indicate self-loathing that has roots in being told that homosexuality is unnatural and perverted
> 
> Edit: Never mind that last point, @XDel seems to be idolizing a man that was posing as gay just for attention:


Don't bother, debating with @XDel goes like


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Erm, who are you supporting again?
> I actually have a huge problem with stuff like that, because that tends to indicate self-loathing that has roots in being told that homosexuality is unnatural and perverted
> 
> 
> Edit: Never mind that last point, @XDel seems to be idolizing a man that was posing as gay just for attention:



1. He don't hate himself. People who don't understand gays and feminists who don't take to their radical ideologies always fall upon the theory of self loathing as a last resort excuse. Get familiar with the guy and you'll quickly see that you are wrong. As for who am I supporting...

NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!


2. Don't worry, he's full on still sucking lots of black cock. He's not starved by any means, though yes he does deny that people are born gay, and he does call bull shit on the so called scientific tests that prove otherwise. If there were such a means to predict the sexual outcome of an infant, then I'm sure they could use that research to predict more important things about that child, such as whether or not it might grow up to be a serial killer, or worse yet... political.


----------



## Temarile (Jun 17, 2016)

If I could vote (which I can not because I'm not American), according to your test I'd side with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (both 92%). I just think that Donald Trump is the worst that could happen to the United States


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jun 17, 2016)

@Foxi4 Do you not think that, even if this indeed *were* a publicity stunt and that his true policies aren't that harmful, the guise itself would have done a lot of damage? Trump has caused an uprising of ruthless, right-wing nutters with no regard for human life outside their borders, whether or not it was his intention.


----------



## WolfSaviorZX (Jun 17, 2016)

Lucifer666 said:


> @Foxi4 Do you not think that, even if this indeed *were* a publicity stunt and that his true policies aren't that harmful, the guise itself would have done a lot of damage? Trump has caused an uprising of ruthless, right-wing nutters with no regard for human life outside their borders, whether or not it was his intention.


Nah that was Ted Cruz. Trump is much more moderate, a lot of Trump support is actually older Democrats that think Hillary/Sanders were too far left.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

XDel said:


> gays and feminists who don't take to their radical ideologies


What does that even mean? Last time I checked, _equality_ wasn't a radical ideology.



XDel said:


> though yes he does deny that people are born gay, and he does call bull shit on the so called scientific tests that prove otherwise.


It's pretty foolish, by definition, to deny the scientific evidence and embrace willful ignorance.



WolfSaviorZX said:


> Trump is much more moderate, a lot of Trump support is actually older Democrats that think Hillary/Sanders were too far left.


Donald Trump's ideology is very far to the right, and his supporters are predominantly white Republicans. Trump is very unpopular among Democrats and Independents. It would be a mistake to say _a lot_ of Trump's supporters are Democrats of any stride.


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> What does that even mean? Last time I checked, _equality_ wasn't a radical ideology.



You are correct, equality is not radical, it's an old and familiar concept actually. Now how people use and abuse the term, and use and abuse history in it's name is another thing, for in such cases, they generally have equality and entitlement confused.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

XDel said:


> You are correct, equality is not radical, it's an old and familiar concept actually. Now how people use and abuse the term, and use and abuse history in it's name is another thing, for in such cases, they generally have equality and entitlement confused.


You still have not explained what you're referring to when you say _radical ideology_.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You still have not explained what you're referring to when you say _radical ideology_.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to the social justice extremists who think African Americans are "entitled" to reparations for slavery. Or the fraction of the lgbt community that forces businesses/churches to support their "equality" by legal proceedings i.e. The bakery thing. Etc... Anyways, carry on !


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to the social justice extremists who think African Americans are "entitled" to reparations for slavery. Or the fraction of the lgbt community that forces businesses/churches to support their "equality" by legal proceedings i.e. The bakery thing. Etc... Anyways, carry on !



Yes, he's right.

I posted this 30 Minute video in an earlier post that goes into detail about the origins of this movement. I am currently building a "from the horses mouth" appendix for it on Youtube as I type.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 17, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to the social justice extremists who think African Americans are "entitled" to reparations for slavery. Or the fraction of the lgbt community that forces businesses/churches to support their "equality" by legal proceedings i.e. The bakery thing. Etc... Anyways, carry on !


Quoting myself from another topic:


> If you support "conscientious objection" for one reason, you have to support it for ALL reasons (or else, it's called a "privilege"). So let's see, I can refuse service to you because you're black, or because you have a different political orientation, or just because I find you unpleasant. And I think you realize that this would have our whole society go downhill...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lucifer666 said:


> @Foxi4 Do you not think that, even if this indeed *were* a publicity stunt and that his true policies aren't that harmful, the guise itself would have done a lot of damage? Trump has caused an uprising of ruthless, right-wing nutters with no regard for human life outside their borders, whether or not it was his intention.


No, I wouldn't, because I live in the real world and I know that the man is not a magician. Those people were already in the voting pool, nothing has changed - he didn't conjure up additional "meanie racists" with his bag of fairy dust and his book of magic spells. You have no evidence that Trump supporters have "no regard for life", by the way - that's a complete fabrication on your part. Last I checked, it was Trump supporters that got eggs and stones thrown at them, not the other way around.


----------



## chaosrunner (Jun 17, 2016)

trump cuz i wanna see the us burn and no Americans in Canada


----------



## Pikm (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> No, I wouldn't, because I live in the real world and I know that the man is not a magician. Those people were already in the voting pool, nothing has changed - he didn't conjure up additional "meanie racists" with his bag of fairy dust and his book of magic spells. You have no evidence that Trump supporters have "no regard for life", by the way - that's a complete fabrication on your part. Last I checked, it was Trump supporters that got eggs and stones thrown at them, not the other way around.


Well it seems to be a pretty standard fact that all trump supporters at least fit one (or more) of these categories (to varying degrees);


Misogynistic
Homophobic
Racist
KKK Member
Redneck
White
Completely uninformed and/or brainwashed by republican propaganda
So I don't think you should be praising or protecting these people.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Well it seems to be a pretty standard fact that all trump supporters at least fit one (or more) of these categories (to varying degrees);
> 
> 
> Misogynistic
> ...


See, this is what the regressive left does - they stick a label on you, a label they made up by the way, and decide whether you're *worth* protecting or not. You're not allowed to have a dissenting opinion in a free country in the 21st century, you're only allowed to think in one very specific way. If you don't, it probably means that you're a backwards religious idiot and you need to be destroyed - you're too stupid to see things their way. That judgement is made with no evidence or stats, it just "has to be true". Where's your evidence? Or are you just throwing accusations in the wind? Are you suggesting that Trump supporters *deserve* to have stones thrown at them? Who's the facist here?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

XDel said:


> As for who am I supporting...
> 
> NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!


Glad to hear you aren't supporting anyone, otherwise I might have been forced to show you this


> 1. He don't hate himself. People who don't understand gays and feminists who don't take to their radical ideologies always fall upon the theory of self loathing as a last resort excuse. Get familiar with the guy and you'll quickly see that you are wrong.


I will admit that I fell into the trap of assumption, but before I actually did some reading on the guy, you have to admit that it's not a difficult conclusion to jump to


> 2. Don't worry, he's full on still sucking lots of black cock. He's not starved by any means, though yes he does deny that people are born gay, and he does call bull shit on the so called scientific tests that prove otherwise. If there were such a means to predict the sexual outcome of an infant, then I'm sure they could use that research to predict more important things about that child, such as whether or not it might grow up to be a serial killer, or worse yet... political.


So you don't think that all this evidence is even worth considering?


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 17, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> Quoting myself from another topic:


I respectfully disagree. We live in an Econonomical Darwinism called capitalism. If you deny me service for being "group a", I'll simply take myself to a business that doesn't. Then I'll be sure to mention this prejudice to all my associates and colleagues. In capitalism, at the end of the day, the only color that counts is green. If you deny a group service, then your market becomes smaller, and you will likely suffer for that choice.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Well it seems to be a pretty standard fact that all trump supporters at least fit one (or more) of these categories (to varying degrees);
> 
> 
> Misogynistic
> ...


I find it incredibly ironic that you are accusing all Trump supporters of being rascists and then you decide to claim the fact that they are white as a negative trait


----------



## Pikm (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> See, this is what the regressive left does - they stick a label on you and decide whether you're worth protecting or not. You're not allowed to have a dissenting opinion in a free country in the 21st century, you're only allowed to think in one very specific way. If you don't, it probably means that you're a backwards religious idiot and you need to be distroyed. Are you suggesting that Trump supporters *deserve* to have stones thrown at them? Who's the facist here?


Yes, Trump supporters *deserve* to have stones thrown at them. Because they are ALL either uninformed people, or AWFUL people. It's not about "dissenting opinion", it's about having basic human decency toward groups of people. It's not a differing opinion when you attack things like gay marriage and abortion, it's hateful, and also NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMNED BUSINESS!


----------



## Jayro (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump loves hispanics, what are you on about?
> 
> View attachment 52464


I'm willing to bet those rolled up tubes of paper in the corner are construction blueprints for his "Great Wall of Mexico".


----------



## Pikm (Jun 17, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> I find it incredibly ironic that you are accusing all Trump supporters of being rascists and then you decide to claim the fact that they are white as a negative trait


White is a negative trait, especially considering things on the white people resume, which includes;

Fucking up Africa
Fucking up the Americas
Fucking up India
Fucking up pretty much the entire world
Enslaving black people for a few centuries
Taking over countries to steal their resources
And the list goes on and on...
Now, because of these things, white people can't ACTUALLY experience racism. Because we fucked up the world.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Yes, Trump supporters *deserve* to have stones thrown at them. Because they are ALL either uninformed people, or AWFUL people. It's not about "dissenting opinion", it's about having basic human decency toward groups of people. It's not a differing opinion when you attack things like gay marriage and abortion, and hateful, and also NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMNED BUSINESS!


See? If you're not like me, you should be killed. Textbook Nazi. Well done, great way to achieve equality - just kill everyone who you feel isn't your equal. I mean, it worked for Hitler, so it's tried and true.


----------



## Selim873 (Jun 17, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I #FeelTheBern and will only vote for Bernie Sanders.
> 
> If the super delegates are truly serious about wanting to stop Trump, then they will pledge their support to Bernie, because Hillary is continuously losing in recent polls to Trump, whereas Bernie is beating him big time.
> 
> Even if Bernie does not win the nomination, he can still run as an independent, or voters could use write-in ballots to vote for him.



If people write-in Bernie with the nominees being Hillary or Trump, Trump wins, because writing him in will completely split the democratic vote, giving ALL of the republican votes to Trump.  Either way, we're screwed.

EDIT: Because personally, we don't think we need a chubby racist cheeto with a toupee in office, nor a corrupt politician who's under FBI investigation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> White is a negative trait, especially considering things on the white people resume, which includes;
> 
> Fucking up Africa
> Fucking up the Americas
> ...


Thank you for attributing all these things that I had no part in to the colour of my skin which I didn't choose. Good show.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Yes, Trump supporters *deserve* to have stones thrown at them. Because they are ALL either uninformed people, or AWFUL people. It's not about "dissenting opinion", it's about having basic human decency toward groups of people. It's not a differing opinion when you attack things like gay marriage and abortion, and hateful, and also NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMNED BUSINESS!


Yikes, you might want to look at what you're writing before you post... You're beginning to sound a bit like the people you're condemning...

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



Selim873 said:


> If people write-in Bernie with the nominees being Hillary or Trump, Trump wins, because writing him in will completely split the democratic vote, giving ALL of the republican votes to Trump.  Either way, we're screwed.


I do know a few Republicans who either won't be voting or will write in Marco Rubio, so that's not entirely true, but yeah it's basically guaranteed that if Hillary doesn't win, Trump will


----------



## Pikm (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Thank you for attributing all these things that I had no part in to the colour of my skin which I didn't choose. Good game.


Ooh, but you inherited the world that white people fucked up, and as a white person, the problems your predecessors' created become your own.


----------



## gbaboy123 (Jun 17, 2016)

America doesn't have any leaders, so I would chose trump, imagine the world with that evil socialist bitch named Hillary


----------



## Pikm (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Those people were already in the voting pool, nothing has changed - he didn't conjure up additional "meanie racists" with his bag of fairy dust and his book of magic spells.


Ever head of a thing called latent racism?


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> White is a negative trait, especially considering things on the white people resume, which includes;
> 
> Fucking up Africa
> Fucking up the Americas
> ...


What you said is by definition rascist. Rascism isn't isn't exclusive to one group or another. Nobody living today took part in any of those things. in what way are they responsible


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

gbaboy123 said:


> America doesn't have any leaders, so I would chose trump, imagine the world with that evil socialist bitch named Hillary


Pray tell, why is socialism evil?


----------



## Pikm (Jun 17, 2016)

gbaboy123 said:


> America doesn't have any leaders, so I would chose trump, imagine the world with that evil socialist bitch named Hillary


Lol, I love how you got all your facts mixed around and fucked up. In case you didn't notice, Trump is the one with the fascist and authoritarian ideas.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Ooh, but you inherited the world that white people fucked up, and as a white person, the problems your predecessors' created become your own.


No, I'm not responsible for the actions of my predecessors, or all white people as a race. Collective responsibility is something straight up from the totalitarian mindset - very conducive to freedom and democracy, right? I'm an individual and I'm only accountable for what I do. Thank you for exposing yourself as a racist in your anti-racist tirade though.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Or the fraction of the lgbt community that forces businesses/churches to support their "equality" by legal proceedings i.e. The bakery thing. Etc...


It's not radical to expect businesses providing public goods and services to provide goods and services to the public. History shows us what happens when businesses are allowed to arbitrarily discriminate. The right of the consumer to be able to get the same goods and services as the rest of the public outweighs the right of the business owner to arbitrarily withhold goods and services from specific groups of people.


----------



## Pikm (Jun 17, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> What you said is by definition rascist. Rascism isn't isn't exclusive to one group or another. Nobody living today took part in any of those things. in what way are they responsible


Racism is actually exclusive to any group but white people in this world. It's really not about white people can't experience racism, it's more accurate to say white people WILL NEVER experience racism.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Ever head of a thing called latent racism?


I've had enough. I find it particularly ignorant that you would EVEN ATTEMPT to pull the racism card after you essentially blamed the entirety of the worlds problems on "whitey"... I mean come the fuck on bro. What kind of shit is it you're smoking. I want in.


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2016)

Aghh, the great god of "experts say", "polls suggest", and "computer simulations state"...

As I stated before, if such information could be predicted they could use it for more useful thing, like extending and saving lives, preparing a child to deal with tendencies of hostility and what not, and so on. Assuming there was such a science that could gauge one's tastes, habits, and the like, which manifest as we grow and interact with our environment through the 5 senses, and thus interpret the world as such, unless we've some how grown up devoid of any external conditioning or at the very least, minimal, which is near impossible in this media age, and thus making it near impossible to conduct such a study, as the purity needed in conditions would be boarder line illegal if not illegal by today's standards, and certainly would not please the humanists.  

This brings to mind another aspect of all of this business, and that is the technologies (and their histories) of polls, and statistics, and how they have been applied, especially through out the 20th century and beyond. 

Unless one was well on this origin story in the 19th century on into the early 20th century, one might find it ludicrous to suggest that the modern humanist movement has a common history of the theory of black inferiority and of black extermination. Perhaps you have heard of Eugenics? Perhaps you have heard of Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton? Or how about his friend who first developed the idea of an "IQ" test; Lewis Terman? 

How about the fact that everything we know about one another is generally reduced to mere yes or no questions?

Mr. Neil Postman can probably explain this better than I...


Typically, pollsters ask questions that will elicit yes or no answers. Is it necessary to point out that such answers do not give a robust meaning to the phrase “public opinion”? Were you, for example, to answer “No” to the question “Do you think the drug problem can be reduced by government programs?” one would hardly know much of interest or value about your opinion. But allowing you to speak or write at length on the matter would, of course, rule out using statistics. The point is that the use of statistics in polling changes the meaning of “public opinion” as dramatically as television changes the meaning of “political debate.” In the American Technopoly, public opinion is a yes or no answer to an unexamined question.

"Generally, polling ignores what people know about the subjects they are queried on. In a culture that is not obsessed with measuring and ranking things, this omission would probably be regarded as bizarre. But let us imagine what we would think of opinion polls if the questions came in pairs, indicating what people “believe” and what they “know” about the subject. If I may make up some figures, let us suppose we read the following: “The latest poll indicates that 72 percent of the American public believes we should withdraw economic aid from Nicaragua. Of those who expressed this opinion, 28 percent thought Nicaragua was in central Asia, 18 percent thought it was an island near New Zealand, and 27.4 percent believed that ‘Africans should help themselves,’ obviously confusing Nicaragua with Nigeria. Moreover, of those polled, 61.8 percent did not know that we give economic aid to Nicaragua, and 23 percent did not know what ‘economic aid’ means.” Were pollsters inclined to provide such information, the prestige and power of polling would be considerably reduced. Perhaps even congressmen, confronted by massive ignorance, would invest their own understandings with greater trust."
- Neil Postman ( Technopoly 1992)

He goes on elsewhere in his book to note this observation:

I have been in the presence of a group of United States congressmen who were gathered to discuss, over a period of two days, what might be done to make the future of America more survivable and, if possible, more humane. Ten consultants were called upon to offer perspectives and advice. Eight of them were pollsters. They spoke of the “trends” their polling uncovered; for example, that people were no longer interested in the women’s movement, did not regard environmental issues as of paramount importance, did not think the “drug problem” was getting worse, and so on. It was apparent, at once, that these polling results would become the basis of how the congressmen thought the future should be managed. The ideas the congressmen had (all men, by the way) receded to the background. Their own perceptions, instincts, insights, and experience paled into irrelevance. Confronted by “social scientists,” they were inclined to do what the “trends” suggested would satisfy the populace.


----------



## Pikm (Jun 17, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> I've had enough. I find it particularly ignorant that you would EVEN ATTEMPT to pull the racism card after you essentially blamed the entirety of the worlds problems on "whitey"... I mean come the fuck on bro. What kind of shit is it you're smoking. I want in.


White people fucked up the world. Explain why they didn't if you want to actually contribute to the discussion.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Ever head of a thing called latent racism?





Pikm said:


> Lol, I love how you got all your facts mixed around and fucked up. In case you didn't notice, Trump is the one with the fascist and authoritarian ideas.


Hey guys, I'm a racist apparently. On account of being white. This is great, we're all learning new things! Can we also establish if I'm a homophobe because I'm straight and a sexist because I'm a man? Please, continue - I'm on a journey of self-discovery here.


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2016)

In regards to these people who say they want to kill them selves because people don't accept their Madonna collection, and that people who have had sex with the same sex are more prone to suicide really need to get out more; that or be more honest. 

I live in a quiet, quaint, half progressive, half conservative, college town in "Middle America", and no one gives shit to the local gays, and the two (friends of mine) who run the local salon are making a killing!!! Very nice guys too.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

XDel said:


> Aghh, the great god of "experts say", "polls suggest", and "computer simulations state"...
> 
> As I stated before, if such information could be predicted they could use it for more useful thing, like extending and saving lives, preparing a child to deal with tendencies of hostility and what not, and so on. Assuming there was such a science that could gauge one's tastes, habits, and the like, which manifest as we grow and interact with our environment through the 5 senses, and thus interpret the world as such, unless we've some how grown up devoid of any external conditioning or at the very least, minimal, which is near impossible in this media age, and thus making it near impossible to conduct such a study, as the purity needed in conditions would be boarder line illegal if not illegal by today's standards, and certainly would not please the humanists.
> 
> ...


That's a Glorious Wall you got there. I might actually get around to reading it when I have time later today. Although I should warn you, more text doesn't necessarily equal a better argument


----------



## Pikm (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Hey guys, I'm a racist apparently. On account of being white. This is great, we're all learning new things! Can we also establish if I'm a homophobe because I'm straight and a sexist because I'm a man? Please, continue - I'm on a journey of self-discovery here.


Honestly I don't even know why you care about American politics because according to your user card you live in POLAND.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Racism is actually exclusive to any group but white people in this world. It's really not about white people can't experience racism, it's more accurate to say white people WILL NEVER experience racism.


If you're white, you can't be discriminated against, noted. Genius troll or idiot? I'll let everyone decide for themselves.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> I respectfully disagree. We live in an Econonomical Darwinism called capitalism. If you deny me service for being "group a", I'll simply take myself to a business that doesn't. Then I'll be sure to mention this prejudice to all my associates and colleagues. In capitalism, at the end of the day, the only color that counts is green. If you deny a group service, then your market becomes smaller, and you will likely suffer for that choice.


You're selectively ignoring the times discrimination doesn't cause a business to suffer. You're also ignoring the times discrimination helps a business.



gbaboy123 said:


> America doesn't have any leaders, so I would chose trump, imagine the world with that evil socialist bitch named Hillary





TotalInsanity4 said:


> Pray tell, why is socialism evil?


Regardless, Secretary Clinton is not a socialist.


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's a Glorious Wall you got there. I might actually get around to reading it when I have time later today. Although I should warn you, more text doesn't necessarily equal a better argument




I agree, less is better, but in this case, no. I must elaborate.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pikm said:


> White people fucked up the world. Explain why they didn't if you want to actually contribute to the discussion.


Well, let's see...
Einstein, Aristotle, Socrates, Curie, Da Vinci, John Nash, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, "the list goes on"
And Asians had a slave trade too douchebag.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> If you're white, you can't be discriminated against, noted. Genius troll or idiot? I'll let everyone decide for themselves.


Isolationism - more totalitarian ideology. I'm not allowed to be interested in the affairs of the world based on my nationality. Good background check, thanks for the ad hominen, I'll start sewing a star onto my clothing right away, mein Fuhrer. Which way to the camp, dear sir? I need to attone for the sins of my race, specifically some dudes from X-hundred years ago that I've never met. I brought my own gas, so no further expense is needed.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's not radical to expect businesses providing public goods and services to provide goods and services to the public. History shows us what happens when businesses are allowed to arbitrarily discriminate. The right of the consumer to be able to get the same goods and services as the rest of the public outweighs the right of the business owner to arbitrarily withhold goods and services from specific groups of people.


Equality at the cost of freedom is not a form of equality I want to live under


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 17, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> I respectfully disagree. We live in an Econonomical Darwinism called capitalism. If you deny me service for being "group a", I'll simply take myself to a business that doesn't. Then I'll be sure to mention this prejudice to all my associates and colleagues. In capitalism, at the end of the day, the only color that counts is green. If you deny a group service, then your market becomes smaller, and you will likely suffer for that choice.


So, assume I go to a party to some place, but I get denied service (it might be eating, or even entering) because the owners don't like me. Or assume during a trip I need to stop somewhere to sleep but I get denied service and this greatly inconveniences me because I'll have to go looking for some other place (and I'll probably pay more).
There are also even more serious examples: should a vegan surgeon be allowed to refuse a surgery because it involves swine heart valves? Or should a Jehovah's Witness surgeon be allowed to refuse all surgeries that involve transfusions? The list is infinite. If businesses and people were allowed to interrupt service at will, things would just not work (not counting the fact that the examples I mentioned above are the very definition of discrimination). It's impossible.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> So, assume I go to a party to some place, but I get denied service (it might be eating, or even entering) because the owners don't like me. Or assume during a trip I need to stop somewhere to sleep but I get denied service and this greatly inconveniences me because I'll have to go looking for some other place (and I'll probably pay more).
> There are also even more serious examples: should a vegan surgeon be allowed to refuse a surgery because it involves swine heart valves? Or should a Jehovah's Witness surgeon be allowed to refuse all surgeries that involve transfusions? The list is infinite. If businesses and people were allowed to interrupt service at will, things would just not work (not counting the fact that the examples I mentioned above are the very definition of discrimination). It's impossible.


You can do business with whoever you like because it's your money on the line - the last thing you need is someone telling you how to run your own affairs. This might be mindblowing, but if a business owner is a racist asshole, now, this will be shocking so hold onto your seat, *take your business elsewhere* and do business with owners that support you - this will stimulate the market in and out of itself. Before long the racist will either be forced to serve customers or s/he'll be out of business. If you are a patient and you don't want a pig's valve in your heart, or a transfusion, for whatever goofy reason, you should be allowed to decline and wait for a human transplant or cross your fingers and hope for the best because any other solution interferes with the autonomy of your body. The only instances where the doctors should intervene is when the patient is in critical condition and cannot voice an opinion, at which point the doctors should do whatever it takes to save their life, according to the oath they took, or when it concerns a child, since a child should also be autonomous and the parents should not decide whether it lives or dies because they don't own it.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> Equality at the cost of freedom is not a form of equality I want to live under


If you think a free society is one where specific groups of people are not free to get the same goods and services as the rest of the public, then I don't think you know at all what _freedom_ is, and I wouldn't want to live in your society. A society isn't free if there's a single group of second-class citizens.

We know what happens when businesses are allowed to discriminate against a specific group. This country has a long history of, for example, black people being unable to move up in society because they were turned down for loans and other services. When a group of people can't pursue the American dream because they can't buy a home nor start a business, that's not freedom. And, addressing a previous comment about capitalism, market factors often didn't affect discrimination during the era of civil rights, hence the need for the Civil Rights Act. Sometimes boycotts worked, but depending on the area, the time period, and the group being discriminated against, boycotts and other market factors don't dissuade discrimination.

Edit: This whole "at the cost of freedom" argument has been used many times throughout history. Getting rid of slavery, for example, hindered the freedom of slave owners to own slaves. Many laws that benefit society hinder some freedoms. Anti-homicide laws hinder the freedom of someone to kill another human being. One has to weigh the freedoms and figure out whose freedoms are more important. The freedom of someone to live outweighs the freedom of someone to kill. The literal freedom of a person outweighs the freedom of a slave owner to own slaves. The freedom of someone to have access to the same goods and services as the rest of the public outweighs the freedom of the butthurt business owner to arbitrary discriminate for no reason other than hate.



Foxi4 said:


> You can do business with whoever you like because it's your money on the line - the last thing you need is someone telling you how to run your own affairs. This might be mindblowing, but if a business owner is a racist asshole, now, this will be shocking so hold onto your seat, *take your business elsewhere* and do business with owners that support you. If you are a patient and you don't want a pig's valve in your heart, you should be allowed to decline and wait for a human transplant because any other solution interferes with the autonomy of your body. The only instances where the doctors should intervenes is when the patient is in critical condition and cannot voice an opinion, at which point the doctors should do whatever it takes to save the life of their patient, or when it concerns a child, since a child should also be autonomous and the parents should not decide whether it lives or dies because they don't own it.


I guess we just have to hope that a specific good or service of comparable price isn't monopolized by assholes. That never happens. Oh wait.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You can do business with whoever you like because it's your money on the line - the last thing you need is someone telling you how to run your own affairs. This might be mindblowing, but if a business owner is a racist asshole, now, this will be shocking so hold onto your seat, *take your business elsewhere* and do business with owners that support you - this will stimulate the market in and out of itself. Before long the racist will either be forced to serve customers or s/he'll be out of business. If you are a patient and you don't want a pig's valve in your heart, or a transfusion, for whatever goofy reason, you should be allowed to decline and wait for a human transplant or cross your fingers and hope for the best because any other solution interferes with the autonomy of your body. The only instances where the doctors should intervenes is when the patient is in critical condition and cannot voice an opinion, at which point the doctors should do whatever it takes to save their life, according to the oath they took, or when it concerns a child, since a child should also be autonomous and the parents should not decide whether it lives or dies because they don't own it.


I think you misinterpreted. We were talking about the business owner denying people services at will.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I guess we just have to hope that a specific good or service of comparable price isn't monopolized by assholes. That never happens. Oh wait.


That's a nice ideal, but you cannot force business owners to do business with customers they don't want to do business with without encroaching on *their* rights. You're comparing institutionalized racism to private business owners - hardly the same. You're not bringing in any more freedom into the equation, you're just taking it from one group for the benefit of another. It is not the government's job to choose who I trade with and why.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 17, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> So, assume I go to a party to some place, but I get denied service (it might be eating, or even entering) because the owners don't like me. Or assume during a trip I need to stop somewhere to sleep but I get denied service and this greatly inconveniences me because I'll have to go looking for some other place (and I'll probably pay more).
> There are also even more serious examples: should a vegan surgeon be allowed to refuse a surgery because it involves swine heart valves? Or should a Jehovah's Witness surgeon be allowed to refuse all surgeries that involve transfusions? The list is infinite. If businesses and people were allowed to interrupt service at will, things would just not work (not counting the fact that the examples I mentioned above are the very definition of discrimination). It's impossible.


Every example you've brought would still have repercussions for that discrimination. A surgeon who had that mindset would have a small list of places he/she could perform/be employed by. The hotel would receive bad reviews for that mindset. I believe that America has changed(although this whole Trump thing has me a bit skeptical) but I'd still be willing to bet most of us won't stomach outright discrimination anymore. Look at what happened with chic-fil-et. They changed their attitude because of the repercussions of discriminatory ethics.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> I think you misinterpreted. We were talking about the business owner denying people services at will.


They are allowed to do so because it's their businesses, not yours. There is no public claim on privately owned businesses, you should have no say in how their owners operate them.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a nice ideal, but you cannot force business owners to do business with customers they don't want to do business with without encroaching on *their* rights. You're comparing institutionalized racism to private business owners. You're not bringing in any more freedom into the equation, you're just taking it from one group for the benefit of another. It is not the government's job to choose who I trade with and why.


First, you're potentially creating an undue burden on those who are being discriminated against to find a comparable good or service that doesn't discriminate. This happened in history all the time, and a comparable good or service was often out of reach.

Second, see my quoted post below:


> This whole "at the cost of freedom" argument has been used many times throughout history. Getting rid of slavery, for example, hindered the freedom of slave owners to own slaves. Many laws that benefit society hinder some freedoms. Anti-homicide laws hinder the freedom of someone to kill another human being. One has to weigh the freedoms and figure out whose freedoms are more important. The freedom of someone to live outweighs the freedom of someone to kill. The literal freedom of a person outweighs the freedom of a slave owner to own slaves. The freedom of someone to have access to the same goods and services as the rest of the public outweighs the freedom of the butthurt business owner to arbitrary discriminate for no reason other than hate.



Edit:


Foxi4 said:


> There is no public claim on privately owned businesses, you should have no say in how their owners operate them.


If a business operates in the public and serves the public, there are certain public laws they have to follow for the good of the public. That's the cost of being able to do business with the public while also reaping the benefits of doing business in a society with governmental services provided to it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, you're potentially creating an undue burden on those who are being discriminated against to find a comparable good or service that doesn't discriminate. This happened in history all the time, and a comparable good or service was often out of reach.


That's not a burden, that's a choice. They can choose businesses based on what they stand behind. I find it hard to believe that in the age of the Internet you cannot find an alternative. In this day and age you can do business with someone on the other side of the planet, doing so within one country is a non-issue. Fringe sexist/racist elements don't deserve any money, so don't give it to them - go elsewhere. If you know a shop discriminates gays, don't go to that shop - go elsewhere. Institutionalized racism was killed by social change, not government regulation. The government didn't wave a magic wand and made it disappear.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not a burden, that's a choice. They can choose businesses based on what they stand behind. I find it hard to believe that in the age of the Internet you cannot find an alternative. In this day and age you can do business with someone on the other side of the planet, doing so within one country is a non-issue. Fringe sexist/racist elements don't deserve any money, so don't give it to them - go elsewhere. If you know a shop discriminates gays, don't go to that shop - go elsewhere. Institutionalized racism was killed by social change, not government regulation. The government didn't wave a magic wand and made it disappear.


You're forgetting that there are areas in the world that either have very limited or no internet access, and the residents all rely on local shops for any goods


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You're forgetting that there are areas in the world that either have very limited or no internet access, and the residents all rely on local shops for any goods


You're forgetting that we're talking about the U.S.A here, so your remark is out of context, non-applicable and moot. It's just not your call to make, you cannot appropriate other people's wealth, that's some Marxist level bullshit. If you don't like racists, let them go bankrupt - I would rather do business with someone openly fair than with a closet racist because as a customer I have a choice and I should be informed. I'd rather know who I'm giving my money to.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> They are allowed to do so because it's their businesses, not yours. There is no public claim on privately owned businesses, you should have no say in how their owners operate them.


This goes against people's rights to be treated equally though. If I have to go somewhere else it's possible I'll be paying more than everyone else, not taking into account the inconveniences involved with finding an alternative (if it even exists, I earlier mentioned one example of a case where I would have no alternatives).
And this would happen very frequently to people who are part of discriminated groups.
I think people's quality of life comes before a supposed "right to discriminate".


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 17, 2016)

I'll put it this way, before I bow out of this part of our debate because it's frustrating me. If I have a burger shop, and a person whom I highly feel I have an issue with(we'll just suppose he/she abused my children in some way)comes in to eat lunch. I'd quite certainly like the right to say "you're not welcome here"


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not a burden, that's a choice.


If the cheapest flower shop in the county refuses to do service with Adam because he's gay, Adam hasn't _chosen_ to do business elsewhere; he was forced to. That's the definition of _burdensome_.



Foxi4 said:


> I find it hard to believe that in the age of the Internet you cannot find an alternative. In this day and age you can do business with someone on the other side of the planet, doing so within one country is a non-issue.


Are you saying that because alternative businesses _might_ be easier to find in some cases on the internet and in other places, it does not create an undue burden on someone discriminated against? Can you speak for all goods and services in all places? In small towns, like during the era of Civil Rights, will Adam not have to drive 50-100 miles for a comparable business or service? What if it's something Adam needs right away that his straight counterparts could get but he couldn't?

Regardless of alternative availability, do you know what _undue burden_ means? An embarrassing discriminatory event followed by a ten-minute drive to an alternative business is legally an undue burden.



Foxi4 said:


> Fringe sexist/racist elements don't deserve any money, so don't give it to them - go elsewhere. If you know a shop discriminates gays, don't go to that shop - go elsewhere.


Discrimination shouldn't exist for obvious reasons, including the ones I've listed.



Foxi4 said:


> Institutionalized racism was killed by social change, not government regulation. The government didn't wave a magic wand and made it disappear.


Actually, many of the practical effects of institutionalized racism were killed by policy, which eventually led to social change. Large-scale social change didn't occur until after businesses were forced to accommodate all groups equally, schools were forced to accommodate all groups equally, etc.

Foxi4, we've respectfully disagreed in the past. I've even empathized with some of your positions. But in this case, respectfully, your reasoning is idealistic cherry-picking that doesn't make sense.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You're forgetting that we're talking about the U.S.A here, so your remark is out of context and moot. It's just not your call to make, you cannot appropriate other people's wealth, that's some Marxist level bullshit. If you don't like racist, let them go bankrupt - I would rather do business with someone openly fair than with a closet racist because as a customer I have a choice and I should be informed. I'd rather know who I'm giving my money to.


I lived here, once. It's literally middle-of-nowhere, ranchville USA. To get most ranching supplies, you actually literally have to cross the border and drive... I believe 20? 30 minutes? Into Nebraska to get to Sidney, or a little bit more south to get to Sterling. That may not sound like much, but when there's work to be done you definitely don't want to have to put up with discriminatory bullshit in one city and then have to quadruple the time to drive to the other and get back to the ranch.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> This goes against people's rights to be treated equally though. If I have to go somewhere else it's possible I'll be paying more than everyone else, not taking into account the inconveniences involved with finding an alternative (if it even exists, I earlier mentioned one example of a case where I would have no alternatives).
> And this would happen very frequently to people who are part of discriminated groups.
> I think people's quality of life comes before a supposed "right to discriminate".


People have a right to equal treatment by the *state*, not by individuals. We are equal in the eyes of the law, but that's it. As a private school owner, I should have the right not to hire a previously convicted sex offender because based on prior history of that individual I find them to be a potential risk or liability - that's discrimination too. They can have all the credentials in the world or superior experience, they could be better-trained or more effective teachers, but I refuse to do business with them on the grounds of them diddling kids - that's all I need to make a decision, don't even bring a CV in. If I have a pub and an individual consistently stirrs trouble at the bar, I should have a right to ban them because having them there hurts my bottom line - it's my bar and I can exclude any patron I want. Businesses should have a right to choose how to operate and if someone goes against the owner's views, the owner should not be forced to do business with them with a rod.


Lacius said:


> If the cheapest flower shop in the county refuses to do service with Adam because he's gay, Adam hasn't _chosen_ to do business elsewhere; he was forced to. That's the definition of _burdensome_.
> 
> Are you saying that because alternative businesses _might_ be easier to find in some cases on the internet and in other places, it does not create an undue burden on someone discriminated against? Can you speak for all goods and services in all places? In small towns, like during the era of Civil Rights, will Adam not have to drive 50-100 miles for a comparable business or service? What if it's something Adam needs right away that his straight counterparts could get but he couldn't?
> 
> ...


We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I do feel that freedom is a two-way street. Maybe it's idealistic, but I'm fine with that.


TotalInsanity4 said:


> I lived here, once. It's literally middle-of-nowhere, ranchville USA. To get most ranching supplies, you actually literally have to cross the border and drive... I believe 20? 30 minutes? Into Nebraska to get to Sidney, or a little bit more south to get to Sterling. That may not sound like much, but when there's work to be done you definitely don't want to have to put up with discriminatory bullshit in one city and then have to quadruple the time to drive to the other and get back to the ranch.


Hey, did you ever consider the fact that this is a market niche? You can open a competing store that's closer, has better prices and, say, doesn't discriminate? Capitalize on the situation.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Hey, did you ever consider the fact that this is a market niche? You can open a competing store that's closer, has better prices and, say, doesn't discriminate? Capitalize on the situation.


Except when, for instance, the people of the area typically support the original shop owners views and will refuse to go to another one that is more supportive because of "morals." Business owners won't choose to capitalize on a situation where there is less capital to be made in the first place


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> People have a right to equal treatment by the *state*, not by individuals. We are equal in the eyes of the law, but that's it. As a private school owner, I should have the right not to hire a previously convicted sex offender because based on prior history of that individual I find them to be a potential risk or liability - that's discrimination too. They can have all the credentials in the world or superior experience, they could be better-trained or more effective teachers, but I refuse to do business with them diddling kids. If I have a pub and an individual consistently stirrs trouble at the bar, I should have a right to ban them because having them there hurts my bottom line - it's my bar and I can exclude any patron I want. Business should have a right to choose how to operate and if someone goes against the owner's views, the owner should not be forced to do business with them with a rod.


There is a difference between not hiring someone because of a criminal record directly incompatible with the job and arbitrarily not doing business with a specific class of citizen. Please don't indirectly compare the LGBT community to sex offenders like so many people do, intentionally or unintentionally. I don't believe that was your intention.



Foxi4 said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I do feel that freedom is a two-way street. Maybe it's idealistic, but I'm fine with that.


I've already discussed how people's freedoms are almost always being hindered by policy. It's up to the society to decide which freedoms are more important. To quote myself again:


> _This whole "at the cost of freedom" argument has been used many times throughout history. Getting rid of slavery, for example, hindered the freedom of slave owners to own slaves. Many laws that benefit society hinder some freedoms. Anti-homicide laws hinder the freedom of someone to kill another human being. One has to weigh the freedoms and figure out whose freedoms are more important. The freedom of someone to live outweighs the freedom of someone to kill. The literal freedom of a person outweighs the freedom of a slave owner to own slaves. The freedom of someone to have access to the same goods and services as the rest of the public outweighs the freedom of the butthurt business owner to arbitrary discriminate for no reason other than hate._





Foxi4 said:


> Hey, did you ever consider the fact that this is a market niche? You can open a competing store that's closer, has better prices and, say, doesn't discriminate? Capitalize on the situation.


A person shouldn't be required to drop everything and take the risk of starting a business in order to hinder discrimination, particularly when it might not work. I know that's not what you were arguing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Except when, for instance, the people of the area typically support the original shop owners views and will refuse to go to another one that is more supportive because of "morals." Business owners won't choose to capitalize on a situation where there is less capital to be made in the first place


That's asinine and counter-intuitive for a business owner. If the local supply sucks dick and a new, better store at a more favourable location opens, people will switch - that's a guarantee. If you offer better goods or services and don't require people to drive across state lines to do business with you, they will do business with you over the alternative. Build it and they will come - good businesses should push bad businesses off the market, that's just how the market rolls.


Lacius said:


> There is a difference between not hiring someone because of a criminal record directly incompatible with the job and arbitrarily not doing business with a specific class of citizen. Please don't indirectly compare the LGBT community to sex offenders like so many people do, intentionally or unintentionally. I don't believe that was your intention.


No, there isn't. In both instances it's a business owner making a choice based on their sensibilities, it's just that one example is more close to your own than the other. What you're saying hinges on the fact that you find sex offenders repugnant - that's you and your opinion. You're discriminating against them. Others find different groups or lifestyles unacceptable, why should they have less rights than you? Because you disagree? Sex offenders have a right to work too - are they supposed to starve because they did something in the past? What if they regret it? What if the "sex offense" was just peeing behind a bush in a drunken stupor, because that's a sexual offense in some states? It's the right of a business owner to weigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves who they want to work with, not yours.


> I've already discussed how people's freedoms are almost always being hindered by policy. It's up to the society to decide which freedoms are more important.


So, going by your logic, if a society chooses to discriminate against blacks and the government intervenes, that is unjust? Because you're breaking your own argument here. Either the society decides or the government does, pick one or the other.


> A person shouldn't be required to drop everything and take the risk of starting a business in order to hinder discrimination, particularly when it might not work. I know that's not what you were arguing.


They have the option to start a competing business if they believe that the local one does not supply goods or services in a way that's suitable, and they can make a lot of money by doing that if they know that the locals will support such a business.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> No, there isn't. In both instances it's a business owner making a choice based on their sensibilities, it's just that one example is more close to your own than the other. Sex offenders have a right to work too - are they supposed to starve because they did something in the past? What if they regret it? What if the "sex offense" was just peeing behind a bush in a drunken stupor, because that's a sexual offense in some states? It's the right of a business owner to weigh the pros and cons and decide themselves who they want to work with, not yours.


The reason the choice vs. not choice debate was/is so important during the fight for LGBT equality is because the answer to that question determines whether or not LGBT status can be considered a _protected class_ in anti-discrimination law. To be a protected class, the characteristic must be considered an _immutable characteristic_, which essentially means it's innate and not a choice. One's criminal history is not and will not be a protected class because it is not an immutable characteristic. We are free in this country to make choices and accept the consequences, but no one choses to be gay, and one should not face the undue burden of discrimination because of it. Your analogy is a completely false one. Whether or not someone is hired for a position should be based _entirely_ on his or her experiences.



Foxi4 said:


> So, going by your logic, if a society chooses to discriminate against blacks and the government intervenes, that is unjust? Because you're breaking your own argument here. Either the society decides or the government does, pick one or the other.


Last time I checked, our government was by the people. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive groups. If there is unjust discrimination occurring within the society where a group's fundamental rights are being violated, it is the duty of the government to snuff out that discrimination. I'm not sure how you got from what I typed to saying government intervention against discrimination is unjust. That's more than a bit of a non sequitur. When I say "a society," I mean "the people and their government."



Foxi4 said:


> They have the option to start a competing business if they believe that the local one does not supply goods or services in a way that's suitable, and they can make a lot of money by doing that if they know that the locals will support such a business.


It is not the responsibility of the private citizen to start a competing business in order to minimize discrimination in the world. That's just absurd. Your "well they can do this" attitude is just another example of your cherry-picking idealism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The reason the choice vs. not choice debate was/is so important during the fight for LGBT equality is because the answer to that question determines whether or not LGBT status can be considered a _protected class_ in anti-discrimination law. To be a protected class, the characteristic must be considered an _immutable characteristic_, which essentially means it's innate and not a choice. One's criminal history is not and will not be a protected class because it is not an immutable characteristic. We are free in this country to make choices and accept the consequences, but no one choses to be gay, and one should not face the undue burden of discrimination because of it. Your analogy is a completely false one. Whether or not someone is hired for a position should be based _entirely_ on his or her experiences.


There's a wealth of scientific evidence that suggests peadophiles are "born that way", too. They have a different brain composition to non-peadophiles, the ratio between grey and white matter is skewed, and they're normally a few IQ points lower than average. In other words, there is biological evidence that the tendency to find children attractive is within the sphere of nature, not nurture. If being a peadophile is not a choice, does that mean that we shouldn't discriminate against them in certain situations?


> Last time I checked, our government was by the people. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive groups. If there is unjust discrimination occurring within the society where a group's fundamental rights are being violated, it is the duty of the government to snuff out that discrimination. I'm not sure how you got from what I typed to saying government intervention against discrimination is unjust. That's more than a bit of a non sequitur. When I say "a society," I mean "the people and their government."


That's a fair clarification.


> It is not the responsibility of the private citizen to start a competing business in order to minimize discrimination in the world. That's just absurd. Your "well they can do this" attitude is just another example of your cherry-picking idealism.


But they *can*. They have the *option* to do that, not a responsibility. They don't *need* to be beholden to a bigot. Your argument was that we cannot allow for owners to decide who to do business with because it hinders the society, my argument is that the society is self-regulating and when it encounters an obstacle in its path, it will think of an alternative.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> There's a wealth of scientific evidence that suggests peadophiles are "born that way", too. They have a different brain composition to non-peadophiles, the ratio between grey and white matter is skewed, and they're normally a few IQ points lower than average. In other words, there is biological evidence that the tendency to find children attractive is within the sphere of nature, not nurture. If being a peadophile is not a choice, does that mean that we shouldn't discriminate against them in certain situations?


I like how you switched from the generic sex offender, a term that references an act/crime, and your original point to a point about something that might be an immutable characteristic and abandons your original point entirely. That wasn't shameless at all. The mental gymnastics are strong with this one.

Regardless of whether or not an attraction to minors is an immutable characteristic (it probably is), the act of pedophilia is still an immoral crime and not immutable. Your new analogy is a false one, too.

I should also point out that this is the second time you've brought up pedophiles and/or sex offenders in the context of LGBT rights, which is an antiquated tactic.



Foxi4 said:


> But they *can*. Your argument was that we cannot allow for owners to decide who to do business with because it hinders the society, my argument is that the society is self-regulating and when it encounters an obstacle in its path, it will think of an alternative.


The historical evidence, as well as common sense, are very much against you on this one. Please see my other posts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I like how you switched from the generic sex offender, a term that references an act/crime, and your original point to a point about something that might be an immutable characteristic and abandons your original point entirely. That wasn't shameless at all. The mental gymnastics are strong with this one.
> 
> Regardless of whether or not an attraction to minors is an immutable characteristic (it probably is), the act of pedophilia is still an immoral crime and not immutable. Your new analogy is a false one, too.
> 
> I should also point out that this is the second time you've brought up pedophiles and/or sex offenders in the context of LGBT rights, which is an antiquated tactic.


This is a whole different argument springing from the immutable charactristics you mention. If 10-20 years from now the evidence that peadophiles don't choose to be peadophiles becomes overwhelming and that it is, in fact, a "sexual orientation" of sorts, should we or should we not discriminate against them on the grounds of their sexual preferences? There are plenty of non-offending peadophiles, y'know. Some just hook up with youthful-looking partners or role-play, not every peadophile is a molester. The discrimination against homosexuals was validated by the fact that homosexuality was considered deviant,  immoral, it was classified as a mental illness, but evidence suggested that it is in fact a biological trait, so it has been redefined as a sexual orientation. If peadophilia is a sexual orientation too, then your whole premise is faulty. If you discriminate or legislate against a non-offending peadophile and find them repugnant, you are no different than those who find gays repugnant, and for the same reasons, too. In that case, you'd be the bigot.


> The historical evidence, as well as common sense, is very much against you on this one. Please see my other posts.


America exists because puritans were persecuted against on the old continent, the United States exist because people revolted against the crown, the fact that we're having this conversation de facto proves my point.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> This is a whole different argument springing from the immutable charactristics you mention. If 10-20 years from now the evidence that peadophiles don't choose to be peadophiles and it is, in fact, a "sexuality", should we or should we not discriminate against then on the grounds of their sexual preferences? There are plenty of non-offending peadophiles, y'know.


Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against groups of people based on immutable characteristics. That would include non-offending pedophiles. Do you have a point? My hunch is you don't, and you merely got backed into this line of reasoning because you didn't want to concede your original non-point about sex offenders.



Foxi4 said:


> The discrimination against homosexuals was validated by the fact that homosexuality was considered deviant, it was classified as a mental illness, but evidence suggested that it is in fact a biological trait, so it has been redefined as a sexual orientation. If peadophilia is a sexual orientation too, then your whole premise is faulty. If you discriminate or legislate against a non-offending peadophile and find them repugnant, you are no different than those who find gays repugnant, and for the same reasons, too. In that case, you'd be the bigot.


I'm getting a bit sick of your strawman arguments. I've made no points about discrimination against non-offending pedophiles, and yet you're using it as your entire basis for saying my premise is faulty. If you're going to be comically disingenuous, we can drop this conversation.

Your history on why homosexuality was removed from the DSM's list of mental illnesses is also a bit off, but that's irrelevant.



Foxi4 said:


> America exists because puritans were persecuted against on the old continent, the United States exists because people revolted against the crown, the fact that we're having this conversation de facto proves my point.


If you're going to say the discrimination against the puritans and the discrimination by businesses against groups of people in the United States are comparable, then I believe I've succeeded in my goal.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against groups of people based on immutable characteristics. That would include non-offending pedophiles. Do you have a point? My hunch is you don't, and you merely got backed into this line of reasoning because you didn't want to concede your original non-point about sex offenders.


I was interested in your position on this. This isn't a debate, rather an exchange of opinions. I too believe that they shouldn't discriminate, however I also believe that they shouldn't be forced by the state not to - those are two separate beliefs.


> I'm getting a bit sick of your strawman arguments. I've made no points about discrimination against non-offending pedophiles, and yet you're using it as your entire basis for saying my premise is faulty. If you're going to be comically disingenuous, we can drop this conversation.


See above. I was testing the waters to see who you would and wouldn't discriminate against and why.


> Your history on why homosexuality was removed from the DSM's list of mental illnesses is also a bit off, but that's irrelevant.


There was sufficient evidence to believe that it comes naturally, so it was accepted as such, there's not much more to it.


> If you're going to say the discrimination against the puritans and the discrimination by businesses against groups of people in the United States are comparable, then I believe I've succeeded in my goal.


Discrimination is discrimination. Puritans felt that they were treated unfairly so they moved, then American business owners felt that they were taxed unfairly, so they revolted against the crown. The blacks, gays, lesbians and other marginalized groups did the same thing - they utilized their agency to alter their environment, all in different, more or less effective ways. Power to the people, right?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I also believe that they should't discriminate, however I also believe that they shouldn't be forced by the state not to - those are two separate beliefs.


They're also two contradictory beliefs. The cognitive dissonance explains the mental gymnastics. You need to ask yourself whose rights are more important. I posed the question earlier.



Foxi4 said:


> There was sufficient evidence to believe that it comes naturally, so it was accepted as such, there's not much more to it.


Plenty of mental illnesses come naturally. What primarily got homosexuality removed from the DSM was the fact that it didn't fit the criteria of having a negative effect on one's life. This is just me being nitpicky, however.



Foxi4 said:


> The blacks, gays, lesbians and other marginalized groups did the same thing - they utilized their agency to alter their environment, all in different, more or less effective ways. Power to the people, right?


If a problem like discrimination is bad enough that a group sees the need for change, the only proactive thing to do is advocate for policy change. A discriminatory business owner who isn't affected by market factors isn't going to say, "Oh, well they're organized and saying 'please' now. Better change my ways."


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> They're also two contradictory beliefs. The cognitive dissonance explains the mental gymnastics. You need to ask yourself whose rights are more important. I posed the question earlier.


They are not, there's no dissonance, just very specific wording. "Shouldn't" doesn't equate to "can't". I think it's an unfair and poor way to do business, that is *my opinion*. I don't like when emotions or beliefs enter the sphere of the free market, but the market should be free nonetheless. If an owner wants to hurt their bottom line due to personal beliefs, I can't fault them for that, even if I disagree with those beliefs. Stupidity isn't illegal, nor it should be. As owners they should do whatever they think is right, on principle, even if I find what they do unfair, because the principle holds more value.


> Plenty of mental illnesses come naturally. What primarily got homosexuality removed from the DSM was the fact that it didn't fit the criteria of having a negative effect on one's life. This is just me being nitpicky, however.


Correct, for instance schizofrenia. Peadophilia doesn't have a negative effect on one's life either if we apply those criteria.


> If a problem like discrimination is bad enough that a group sees the need for change, the only proactive thing to do is advocate for policy change. A discriminatory business owner who isn't affected by market factors isn't going to say, "Oh, well they're organized and saying 'please' now. Better change my ways."


Advocate? Yes. Legislate? No. You're saying that vinegar is attracts more bees than honey, you won't garner support or change anyone's mind by using the rod. I'd be happier with incentives rather than penalties, if you're adamant that intervention is necessary.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Correct, for instance schizofrenia. Peadophilia doesn't have a negative effect on one's life either if we apply those criteria.


The difference between pedophilia and homosexuality is that when a pedophile acts on his or her impulses, statutory rape occurs, which will invariably psychologically harm any child regardless of whether or not physical harm takes place (although physical vs. psychological could even be debated at this point, given that people with PTSD have actually been proven via brain scans to have had their brain structure altered), while when a homosexual acts on his or her impulses (with another consenting adult/teen of the same age), there is no psychological or physical harm being done to either of the two people


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> They are not, there's no dissonance, just very specific wording. "Shouldn't" doesn't equate to "can't". I think it's an unfair and poor way to do business, that is *my opinion*.


_>groups shouldn't be discriminated against
>groups should be allowed to be discriminated against_

Those are two contradictory positions. It's up to you to figure out which one is more important than the other.



Foxi4 said:


> I don't like when emotions or beliefs enter the sphere of the free market, but the market should be free nonetheless.


I don't think you know what a _free_ market is when you believe groups of people can be excluded from it. A free market doesn't mean people get to do whatever they want. Companies can't poison people or be otherwise negligent.

As I've said more times than I care to remember, there's a price to being allowed to participate in a business that caters to the public. If you're going to run a business that caters to the public, then one of the requirements is that you cater to the public. A business also benefits from government-provided services, such as roads and asset-protection. If the price of admission (freedom, for example) is too high, then one shouldn't be running a business.



Foxi4 said:


> If an owner wants to hurt their bottom line due to personal beliefs, I can't fault them for that, even if I disagree with those beliefs. They should do whatever they think is right on principle, even if I find it unfair.


What about when it doesn't hurt their bottom line, which it usually doesn't? You don't appear to have thought this part through.



Foxi4 said:


> Correct, for instance schizofrenia. Peadophilia doesn't have a negative effect on one's life either if we apply those criteria.


A predisposition for child-rape and/or being sexually unfulfilled and celibate for the entirety of one's life are pretty negative.



Foxi4 said:


> Advocate? Yes. Legislate? No. You're saying that vinegar is attracts more bees than honey, you won't garner support or change anyone's mind by using the rod. I'd be happier with incentives rather than penalties, if you're adamant that intervention is necessary.


Can you give me an example of incentives that would work? Because if these incentives don't work nearly 100% of the time, then people are still being excluded from participating in the public goods and services system.

I also want to quickly note that what you're describing sounds a lot like the criticisms of the feminist movement back in the day. "If only you ladies stopped being such cunts and asked nicely."



TotalInsanity4 said:


> The difference between pedophilia and homosexuality is that when a pedophile acts on his or her impulses, statutory rape occurs, which will invariably psychologically harm any child regardless of whether or not physical harm takes place (although physical vs. psychological could even be debated at this point, given that people with PTSD have actually been proven via brain scans to have had their brain structure altered), while when a homosexual acts on his or her impulses (with another consenting adult/teen of the same age), there is no psychological or physical harm being done to either of the two people


Thank you, Captain Obvious. 

A victimless crime isn't a crime. Go figure. This isn't even something that should be a part of this discussion.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 17, 2016)

To follow up with Foxi4, check this out. This is advocacy without legislation that ended in policy change. 
https://futureworldblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/chick-fil-a-the-aftermath/


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> _>groups shouldn't be discriminated against
> >groups should be allowed to be discriminated against_
> 
> Those are two contradictory positions. It's up to you to figure out which one is more important than the other.


This is not contradictory. He is stating that he personally does not believe it is the morally right decision. That doesn't mean that the government should enforce that belief on everyone.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> This is not contradictory. He is stating that he personally does not believe it is the morally right decision. That doesn't mean that the government should enforce that belief on everyone.


Then he apparently values B over A.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 17, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> To follow up with Foxi4, check this out. This is advocacy without legislation that ended in policy change.
> https://futureworldblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/chick-fil-a-the-aftermath/


That just made me remember a very laughable president of a South American country that was convinced eating chicken made you gay.
Seriously, he was THE PRESIDENT.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> To follow up with Foxi4, check this out. This is advocacy without legislation that ended in policy change.
> https://futureworldblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/chick-fil-a-the-aftermath/


While Chick fil A was never discriminatory as far as I'm aware, it is a good example of how homophobia does not necessarily lead to a hurt bottom line.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> While Chick fil A was never discriminatory as far as I'm aware, it is a good example of how homophobia does not necessarily lead to a hurt bottom line.


Um...ok.. I guess they just changed policy because they felt like it?!?



Did you read it through? Seriously? Ijs.

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



sarkwalvein said:


> That just made me remember a very laughable president of a South American country that was convinced eating chicken made you gay.
> Seriously, he was THE PRESIDENT.


Gonna look this up, never heard of this guy, and good laughs are soul food!! Lol


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Um...ok.. I guess they just changed policy because they felt like it?!?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read it through? Seriously? Ijs.


Yes, I read it. The information is ancient. Their policy on discrimination was just them saving face; that was never the problem. The homophobia came specifically from donations to anti-gay groups and anti-gay causes, and those donations have not stopped.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 17, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Gonna look this up, never heard of this guy, and good laughs are soul food!! Lol


Gonna make it easy for you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> _>groups shouldn't be discriminated against
> >groups should be allowed to be discriminated against_
> 
> Those are two contradictory positions. It's up to you to figure out which one is more important than the other.


Only if you live in the world of absolutes. I believe that they shouldn't discriminate, as a business owner I wouldn't, but I'm not willing to prohibit them from doing so because it's their business, not mine. "Shouldn't" doesn't mean "should be prohibited from" - it's their business, they choose who to trade with.


> I don't think you know what a _free_ market is when you believe groups of people can be excluded from it. A free market doesn't mean people get to do whatever they want. Companies can't poison people or be otherwise negligent.


A free market also isn't free if you tell businesses who to do business with - that's a controlled economy. Consumer protection has nothing to do with this, products shouldn't be sold under false premises or falsely labelled. There's a huge difference between the two concepts.


> As I've said more times than I care to remember, there's a price to being allowed to participate in a business that caters to the public. If you're going to run a business that caters to the public, then one of the requirements is that you cater to the public. A business also benefits from government-provided services, such as roads and asset-protection. If the price of admission (freedom, for example) is too high, then one shouldn't be running a business.


Completely false. Running a public business does not mean that you have to sell goods and services to the entirety of the public - take OEM manufacturers for example. Some companies only do business with certain kinds of customers, in this case, other companies.


> What about when it doesn't hurt their bottom line, which it usually doesn't? You don't appear to have thought this part through.


It does a 100% of the time, because you have a customer who is willing to give you money and you refuse to take it - that's hurting your bottom line, it has no financial benefit.


> A predisposition for child-rape and/or being sexually unfulfilled and celibate for the entirety of one's life are pretty negative.


Or you can role-play with a youthful-looking partner and lead a healthy sex life. Y'know, the option's there.


> Can you give me an example of incentives that would work? Because if these incentives don't work nearly 100% of the time, then people are still being excluded from participating in the public goods and services system.


Tax cuts. If you don't exclude anyone, you pay less because your goods or services are more accessible. I'm against affirmative action, but that's basically the exact same thing you're praising the government for in terms of handling black's, women's and homosexual's issues.


> I also want to quickly note that what you're describing sounds a lot like the criticisms of the feminist movement back in the day. "If only you ladies stopped being such cunts and asked nicely."


I only said that people have agency and should rely on it - feminists did and it worked.


----------



## gbaboy123 (Jun 17, 2016)

you know talking about politics should be consider a disrespect to anyone so why don't we all move on and forget the hell out of this worthless shit


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Yes, I read it. The information is ancient. Their policy on discrimination was just them saving face; that was never the problem. The homophobia came specifically from donations to anti-gay groups and anti-gay causes, and those donations have not stopped.


You're tip toeing around my point by dismissing an obvious response to what would be devastating PR, in favor of your cause. But it's cool. We just disagree here. While I agree with the morality of your cause, I disagree with your proposed solution.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Chick fil-a was ran by a homophobe, it did not discriminate against customers, the point is null and void either way since that's not what we're talking about. Homophobes can run businesses too, who knew, right?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Only if you live in the world of absolutes. I believe that they shouldn't discriminate, as a business owner I wouldn't, but I'm not willing to prohibit them from doing so because it's their business, not mine.


Then you can't claim to care much about discrimination.



Foxi4 said:


> A free market also isn't free if you tell businesses who to do business with - that's a controlled economy.





Foxi4 said:


> Completely false. Running a public business does not mean that you have to sell goods and services to the entirety of the public - take OEM manufacturers for example. Some companies only do business with certain kinds of customers, in this case, other companies.


If a business explicitly caters to the public, which is the qualifier I've used _this entire time_, that business should not be able to decide which groups of people based on immutable characteristics it discriminates against. If you care about discrimination, then you should advocate for policy against it. If you don't, then you don't actually care that much. Policy is objectively the only effective way to curb discrimination of this kind.



Foxi4 said:


> Consumer protection has nothing to do with this


This entire discussion is about consumer protection.



Foxi4 said:


> It does a 100% of the time, because you have a customer who is willing to give you money and you refuse to take it - that's hurting your bottom line, it has no financial benefit.


I assumed you were again referring to the potential backlash and/or boycotts against a business. For many businesses, the few instances of discrimination is a small price to pay to screw the gay customers, and that's unacceptable. Your point that economic backlash is a disincentive only works if businesses are not willing to pay the price. If we're talking about just the money they lose when they turn specific customers away, that's usually not a hinderance to those likely to discriminate.



Foxi4 said:


> Or you can role-play with a youthful-looking partner and lead a healthy sex life. Y'know, the option's there.


Ignoring that you didn't address the aforementioned predispositions and urges, what you mentioned is uncommon and unrealistic. Granted, it's been about a year or two since I listened to a podcast on the subject, but voluntary chemical castration appears to be the coping mechanism of choice, and it usually doesn't even work. It's a pretty difficult life for a lot of these people because they're predisposed to inherently harmful behavior.

For the nth time, I don't know why we're talking about this, and it's offensive to groups who are actually the targets of discrimination.



Foxi4 said:


> Tax cuts. If you don't exclude anyone, you pay less because your goods or services are more accessible. I'm against affirmative action, but that's basically the exact same thing you're praising the government for in terms of handling black's and homosexual's issues.


When I originally asked the question, I knew you were going to propose something along the lines of a _You're Not a Dick_ taxcut. Given the number of businesses that don't discriminate, that's a lot of lost revenue. It's also convoluted as fuck compared to a law that says _no discrimination_. Finally, if a business decides it's willing to forego a taxcut it never had in the name of discrimination, your plan has failed.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> If you're white, you can't be discriminated against, noted. Genius troll or idiot? I'll let everyone decide for themselves.


If you're white you can be discriminated against, just not on the basis of your skin colour. In the nigh on impossible chance that that does occur, it's bullying more than it is _racism_ in that sense of the word; racism is systematic and backed up by historical oppression, not one outlier's unusual view of white people.


vayanui8 said:


> I find it incredibly ironic that you are accusing all Trump supporters of being rascists and then you decide to claim the fact that they are white as a negative trait


It's not a negative trait on its own, but it speaks volumes when you appeal only to a group that happens to be a dominant one/non-minority. Begs the question of why you are unpopular to other groups.


Foxi4 said:


> No, I wouldn't, because I live in the real world and I know that the man is not a magician. Those people were already in the voting pool, nothing has changed - he didn't conjure up additional "meanie racists" with his bag of fairy dust and his book of magic spells. You have no evidence that Trump supporters have "no regard for life", by the way - that's a complete fabrication on your part. Last I checked, it was Trump supporters that got eggs and stones thrown at them, not the other way around.


The very policies suggested point to a lack of regard for life. Banning Muslims from entering the country on account of a fear of terrorism, being 'pro-life' AKA anti-choice (notice how the care is only for the foetus before it is born and does not extend to its inevitably shitty life conditions when born to a parent that does not want a child), building a wall to keep out immigrants, etc. It's not fabrication. You're a smart man Foxi4 and I frequent your postings because of that; I shouldn't have to explain how Donald Trumps' policies (whether 'an act' or not) are harmful.


Foxi4 said:


> See, this is what the regressive left does - they stick a label on you, a label they made up by the way, and decide whether you're *worth* protecting or not. You're not allowed to have a dissenting opinion in a free country in the 21st century, you're only allowed to think in one very specific way. If you don't, it probably means that you're a backwards religious idiot and you need to be distroyed - you're too stupid to see things their way. That judgement is made with no evidence or stats, it just "has to be true". Where's your evidence? Or are you just throwing accusations in the wind? Are you suggesting that Trump supporters *deserve* to have stones thrown at them? Who's the facist here?


 That's not really a valid argument. I could turn the tables and say "the regressive right oppose being placed under categories of hateful groups rather than actually rebut against the arguments of the left." Right-wingers (at least the sort that Trump appeals to, can't think of a more accurate term atm) are referred to by such terms because that's what their political stances correspond to. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is an act of homophobia; it goes beyond just an opinion. When Trump describes Obama's housing of Syrian refugees as a "tremendous flow" that needs to be stopped because "we don't know what they're planning", he fails to see them as civilians who've been wronged by a corrupt, self-destructive government and instead perceives them as a unanimous body conspiring against the country; an unrealistic image formed by his preconceptions of people from the Middle East. It's racism in a nutshell. (Mind you, I'm not saying that refusing to take refugees in is racist in and of itself; I am commenting on his rationale for not wishing to do so.)


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Then you can't claim to care much about discrimination.


Because I value freedom? Or because I want to achieve equality without sacrificing freedom in the process? Or because I think that the ends don't justify the means? Okay. Don't guilt trip me into fighting other people's battles - I have my own methods, like not doing business with people I find morally bankrupt. I fight with my wallet, not with hot air. I don't need nor want the government to strong-arm people who disagree with me into submission. You should never load a gun that one day can be aimed at you.


> If a business explicitly caters to the public, which is the qualifier I've used _this entire time_, that business should not be able to decide which groups of people based on immutable characteristics it discriminates against. If you care about discrimination, then you should advocate for policy against it. If you don't, then you don't actually care that much. Policy is objectively the only effective way to curb discrimination of this kind.


Opinion, not fact. Telling people not to hate each other achieves nothing in my book, they need to come to that conclusion themselves.


> This entire discussion is about consumer protection.


Of course it's not. Your rights as a consumer are not violated if someone doesn't want to do business with you - they would be violated if someone took advantage of you or exposed you to harm in the process of doing business with you or sold you a product or service that is not as described in the agreement. You cannot claim that your rights as a consumer were violated if you didn't consume any product or service in the first place.


> I assumed you were again referring to the potential backlash and/or boycotts against a business. For many businesses, the few instances of discrimination is a small price to pay to screw the gay customers, and that's unacceptable. Your point that economic backlash is a disincentive only works if businesses are not willing to pay the price. If we're talking about just the money they lose when they turn specific customers away, that's usually not a hinderance to those likely to discriminate.


You're not saying anything here. Like I said, there is a potential customer that you refuse to serve, thus you earn less. Social backlash against a business only makes it worse, but is not necessary in the equation.


> Ignoring that you didn't address the aforementioned predispositions and urges, what you mentioned is uncommon and unrealistic. Granted, it's been about a year or two since I listened to a podcast on the subject, but voluntary chemical castration appears to be the coping mechanism of choice, and it usually doesn't even work. It's a pretty difficult life for a lot of these people because they're predisposed to inherently harmful behavior.


There are potentially thousands of closet peadophiles who cannot seek therapy because sexologists under the current letter of law are obligated to inform the authorities of anyone who is potentially a peadophile, regardless of whether they offended or not. By seeking help and seeing a specialist they expose themselves to criminal investigation and becoming social pariahs, losing their jobs and jeopordizing their well-being even if they've never broken the law. These people are actively persecuted against and live in the shadows with noone to turn to. Your sweet chit-chat about urges is the real cognitive dissonance here - everyone has urges, but not everyone's a rapist. We're not slaves to our urges - as reasonable creatures we can control them to a large extent. In fact, there are people who choose a life of celibacy, for instance for the sake of spiritual enlightenment, in spite of their urges. It's hard not to see parallels here to how homosexuals were treated in the past - as immoral, disgusting outcasts. They need help, therapy, often times they realize it, but they can't get any because society stereotypes them as monsters. Surely you can see that it's a problem, not much unlike the treatment of homosexuals.


> For the nth time, I don't know why we're talking about this, and it's offensive to groups who are actually the targets of discrimination.


Hits too close to home, huh?


> When I originally asked the question, I knew you were going to propose something along the lines of a _You're Not a Dick_ taxcut. Given the number of businesses that don't discriminate, that's a lot of lost revenue. It's also convoluted as fuck compared to a law that says _no discrimination_. Finally, if a business decides it's willing to forego a taxcut it never had in the name of discrimination, your plan has failed.


Of course it didn't - everyone else gets ahead of the game. Businesses are already unfairly taxed, time to tax them less. You asked for one example, here it is. The sole purpose of a business is to make money - if they can make more money, it would be unreasonable to not adjust to the new policy.


Lucifer666 said:


> If you're white you can be discriminated against, just not on the basis of your skin colour. In the nigh on impossible chance that that does occur, it's bullying more than it is _racism_ in that sense of the word; racism is systematic and backed up by historical oppression, not one outlier's unusual view of white people.


Racism is the discrimination of an individual or group based on their race. That's it. Your definition reeks of tumblr. You need to qualify your statements, for instance say "institutionalized racism" and you'll make more sense. White people can and are discriminated against - not as much as minority groups, but it happens and it's not "just bullying".


> The very policies suggested point to a lack of regard for life. Banning Muslims from entering the country on account of a fear of terrorism, being 'pro-life' AKA anti-choice (notice how the care is only for the foetus before it is born and does not extend to its inevitably shitty life conditions when born to a parent that does not want a child), building a wall to keep out immigrants, etc. It's not fabrication. You're a smart man Foxi4 and I frequent your postings because of that; I shouldn't have to explain how Donald Trumps' policies (whether 'an act' or not) are harmful.


None of what you mentioned is harmful to *life*, he's not advocating for gas chambers.


> That's not really a valid argument. I could turn the tables and say "the regressive right oppose being placed under categories of hateful groups rather than actually rebut against the arguments of the left." Right-wingers (at least the sort that Trump appeals to, can't think of a more accurate term atm) are referred to by such terms because that's what their political stances correspond to. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is an act of homophobia; it goes beyond just an opinion. When Trump describes Obama's housing of Syrian refugees as a "tremendous flow" that needs to be stopped because "we don't know what they're planning", he fails to see them as civilians who've been wronged by a corrupt, self-destructive government and instead perceives them as a unanimous body conspiring against the country; an unrealistic image formed by his preconceptions of people from the Middle East. It's racism in a nutshell. (Mind you, I'm not saying that refusing to take refugees in is racist in and of itself; I am commenting on his rationale for not wishing to do so.)


I never said that's not the case, extremism is harmful and present on both sides of the debate. Just a few hours ago we had a guy advocating throwing stones at people who disagree with him, specifically Trump supporters - that's harmful to life.


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2016)

As promised. Challenge me, I dare you! 

"Make Love Not War" - Herbert Marcuse

Herbert Marcuse Discussing Marxism, Frankfurt, His Role behind the Hippie Revolution.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

XDel said:


> As promised. Challenge me, I dare you!
> 
> "Make Love Not War" - Herbert Marcuse
> 
> Herbert Marcuse Discussing Marxism, Frankfurt, His Role behind the Hippie Revolution.


Oh God, it's like kryptonite to my libertarian sensibilities! I'm getting intellectual blue balls just thinking about this, should I press the Play button? M-marxism? H-hippies? I can already feel my d*ck shrivel, can someone please break my back so that I could chew my balls off? Or just shoot me while guns are still legal, I beg for the sweet release of death. ;O;


TotalInsanity4 said:


> The difference between pedophilia and homosexuality is that when a pedophile acts on his or her impulses, statutory rape occurs, which will invariably psychologically harm any child regardless of whether or not physical harm takes place (although physical vs. psychological could even be debated at this point, given that people with PTSD have actually been proven via brain scans to have had their brain structure altered), while when a homosexual acts on his or her impulses (with another consenting adult/teen of the same age), there is no psychological or physical harm being done to either of the two people


Not all peadophiles are offenders, just like not all straight people are rapists. You bought a story a news agency sold you, the reality is quite different. By demonizing these people, who clearly have a problem and often times realize that, you're sentencing them before they've committed any crime. You're turning them into monsters, just like homophobes turned gays into monsters and how bigots turn transsexuals into monsters today. "Don't let trans people into the bathroom, they'll rape you!" - eerily similar, isn't it?

Anywho, I've said enough on the matter. I was drawing a simple parallel, but I was told that "it's offensive", so I'll let it go.

EDIT: Herp-a-derp, see below.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Not all peadophiles are offenders, just like not all straight people are rapists. You bought a story a news agency sold you, the reality is quite different. By demonizing these people, who clearly have a problem and often times realize that, you're sentencing them before they've committed any crime. You're turning them into monsters, just like homophobes turned gays into monsters and how bigots turn transsexuals into monsters today. "Don't let trans people into the bathroom, they'll rape you!" - eerily similar, isn't it?.


You seem to have missed the part where I said "when they act on their impulses." I said nowhere in there that all pedophiles are offenders, I in fact implied the exact opposite


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You seem to have missed the part where I said "when they act on their impulses." I said nowhere in there that all pedophiles are offenders, I in fact implied the exact opposite


If they "act upon their impulses" then they molest. If you meant that they have impulses, then we all do. I find many women attractive all the time, but I don't drag them into dark alleys to molest them - that means that I'm *not* acting on an impulse. If I did, I would attempt to bed everyone I find attractive, but I don't. The problem here is that we only hear about pedo's who do offend, those who don't are invisible.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> If they "act upon their impulses" then they molest. If you meant that they have impulses, then we all do. I find women attractive all the time, but I don't drag them into dark alleys to molest them - that means that I'm *not* acting on an impulse. If I did, I would attempt to bed everyone I find attractive, but I don't.


And that was exactly what I was implying. We all have a predisposition to various impulses, but only the worst of us will give into them in a way that will harm others. It is those people that the "mental illness" label is catered for


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2016)

Why is it globally in style now to be philosophising over pedophiles already? I thought that wasn't going to rear it's ugly head again (in America, Canada has had NAMBLA for a while now) for at least another 10 years. Yet just one year after Gay Marriage was illegal forced upon Churches, Transgender issues and yes, Pedophilia have already made their way into public discousre, this bringing the public gutter even closer to the rim and closer to spilling over.

You know back in the day, mid 19th century back, people used to philosophize and debate over more practical matters, when they were not side tracked by human error, and the elitist non-sense that anyone who desires to be in control, has. Regardless, they focussed more on the practical, on how to keep shelter, how to keep food, how to keep health, how to keep warm, and how to improve one's lot, preferably as peacefully and respectfully as possible. Then comes the 20th century, and as many many many people had predicted, we all went bat shit mad, lost in a Minotaur's labyrinth of meaningless trivia.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 17, 2016)

XDel said:


> Why is it globally in style now to be philosophising over pedophiles already? I thought that wasn't going to rear it's ugly head again (in America, Canada has had NAMBLA for a while now) for at least another 10 years. Yet just one year after Gay Marriage was illegal forced upon Churches, Transgender issues and yes, Pedophilia have already made their way into public discousre, this bringing the public gutter even closer to the rim and closer to spilling over.
> 
> You know back in the day, mid 19th century back, people used to philosophize and debate over more practical matters, when they were not side tracked by human error, and the elitist non-sense that anyone who desires to be in control, has. Regardless, they focussed more on the practical, on how to keep shelter, how to keep food, how to keep health, how to keep warm, and how to improve one's lot, preferably as peacefully and respectfully as possible. Then comes the 20th century, and as many many many people had predicted, we all went bat shit mad.


I wasn't, I was merely responding to an earlier post

By the way, I love this discussion about presidential candidates we're having, guys


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 17, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And that was exactly what I was implying. We all have a predisposition to various impulses, but only the worst of us will give into them in a way that will harm others. It is those people that the "mental illness" label is catered for


Okay, I re-read your post for the third time and I get your point now lol, yes, you're correct, at least to some extent. Do excuse me, today's talk was mentally exhausting for me. If the definition of "mental illness" includes the pain or discomfort of the patient, then I have a problem with that definition since not all people affected by mental disorders actually suffer, or even percieve their condition negatively. The impact on the environment, as you suggest, is a better way to define it, but has its own slew of problems, like defining what classifies as "harm". That's neither here nor there though, I don't want to depart too far from politics, I suggest that we leave economy and psychology behind, unless someone wants to add something.


XDel said:


> Why is it globally in style now to be philosophising over pedophiles already? I thought that wasn't going to rear it's ugly head again (in America, Canada has had NAMBLA for a while now) for at least another 10 years. Yet just one year after Gay Marriage was illegal forced upon Churches, Transgender issues and yes, Pedophilia have already made their way into public discousre, this bringing the public gutter even closer to the rim and closer to spilling over.
> 
> You know back in the day, mid 19th century back, people used to philosophize and debate over more practical matters, when they were not side tracked by human error, and the elitist non-sense that anyone who desires to be in control, has. Regardless, they focussed more on the practical, on how to keep shelter, how to keep food, how to keep health, how to keep warm, and how to improve one's lot, preferably as peacefully and respectfully as possible. Then comes the 20th century, and as many many many people had predicted, we all went bat shit mad, lost in a Minotaur's labyrinth of meaningless trivia.


It will always come back to us like a boomerang because the problem has been around since the beginning of time and we still don't know what to do with it. Peadophiles were around in ancient Rome, they're around now, and 20 centuries later there is still no solution in sight. I too believe that the government should focus on creating fertile ground upon which a society can grow and function whilst leaving complex quandries over morality and social issues to society itself, but that's not the case in political discourse today, so we can't ignore it.


----------



## XDel (Jun 18, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I wasn't, I was merely responding to an earlier post
> 
> By the way, I love this discussion about presidential candidates we're having, guys




It's fun. 

And, I can't find the news clip atm, but I had seen this news coverage of this male baby sitter who was confessing that he would take trips to the bathroom and master bait while thinking of the little girl he was baby sitting. They praised him because he didn't touch her. And when he was telling his story about fantasizing about her, they actually showed images of the girl dancing in a skirt, like it was what he was thinking about while master baiting. It was pretty fuckin' surreal. 

Of course there is also the 5th Edition (V Day Edtion) of the Vagina Monologues which has two chapters casually discussing paedophilia in un excessively neutral manner. Needless to say later revisions of the text had these two chapters removed, yet women at universities everywhere, even small Menonite founded towns like the one I live in, has girls at their university reading and doing the Vagina Monologues play at the school.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 18, 2016)

Pikm said:


> White is a negative trait


You are a racist.  Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Because I value freedom? Or because I want to achieve equality without sacrificing freedom in the process? Or because I think that the ends don't justify the means? Okay. Don't guilt trip me into fighting other people's battles - I have my own methods, like not doing business with people I find morally bankrupt. I fight with my wallet, not with hot air. I don't need nor want the government to strong-arm people who disagree with me into submission. You should never load a gun that one day can be aimed at you.
> Opinion, not fact. Telling people not to hate each other achieves nothing in my book, they need to come to that conclusion themselves.
> Of course it's not. Your rights as a consumer are not violated if someone doesn't want to do business with you - they would be violated if someone took advantage of you or exposed you to harm in the process of doing business with you or sold you a product or service that is not as described in the agreement. You cannot claim that your rights as a consumer were violated if you didn't consume any product or service in the first place.
> You're not saying anything here. Like I said, there is a potential customer that you refuse to serve, thus you earn less. Social backlash against a business only makes it worse, but is not necessary in the equation.
> ...


I've responded to (and successfully countered, in my opinion) nearly 99% of what you've said here already, so for me to address each point again would be pointless.

I also find your petty grasping for straws and technicalities (e.g. "They're not really a consumer if they haven't bought anything from that business yet," even though the person being discriminated against is a consumer, unless they've been discriminated out of the realm of doing business with anyone altogether) and disingenuous quips (e.g. "hits too close to home?") to be indicative of someone who cares more about holding on to a position rather than actually having a constructive conversation. You've already taken a scatter-shot approach to the topic (e.g. hitting with as many points as possible and moving on to more instead of conceding anything when a point is demonstrated to be poor logic), so I'm ending the conversation. It's obvious you are not getting anything out of it, nor do you care to.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 18, 2016)

Lacius, may I suggest that you not attack someone for holding an opinion that differs from your own?  He's spelled out quite clearly the reason for his opinion being an emphasis personal freedom, yet you push right past that and instead ascribe him the position of apathy to equality.  If you want to make the argument that placing a high value on one thing means you don't care for equality, then one could say that valuing capitalism means you do not value equality because capitalism will tend to result in socioeconomic classes that separate people.  So if you don't support Communism, then you do not value equality.
Instead, accept that other people will have opinions that differ from your own, and have different priorities from your own, but that does not mean that they do not care about something.

As for my opinions on the topic, I agree with Foxi in theory; a person should have the right to choose who they do (not do) business with.  However I'm not sure we're quite there yet where we can give free reign to discriminate without causing undue burden on certain segments of society.  I expect there will be areas where the size of the population discriminated against could be small enough that the loss of their business is not too painful to business owners, and cornering the market on their business is not lucrative enough to spawn a non-discriminatory competitor.  At this juncture, I think there's too much that could go wrong to risk changing the law, but it is something I'd like to see us be able to do down the line.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 18, 2016)

Like I said @Lacius, you have a different opinion and a different outlook on the matter. To me, you've demonstrated nothing, you just repeated yourself a bunch of times. You're not entitled to do business with everyone on the planet. In fact, you're not even entitled to enter the premises of a store if the owner doesn't want you there because it's private property. People are free to decline doing any sort of business with you for any reason, it's their resources and they can spend them however they want. Forcing them into some bizarre form of servitude just because their target market is "the public" is asinine, they're private business owners, not public servants. They're not elected by the government and they're not paid in tax money to be impartial, like a police officer or a fire fighter, so they're not. A world where a bunch of Laciuses tell people how to spend their money and who to trade with, a world where nobody really "owns" anything because at any moment the Lacius think tank can decide who gets to trade it, for what and when, is the definition of a fucking hellscape in my mind's eye, it's everything I find nightmarish and more, so no, we'll never be able to find common ground here because I see your proposition as a violation of everything I believe in. You cannot enact social change by forcing everyone to act a certain way - all you're doing is creating resentment towards the government. That's not how social change works. You can stimulate it, but proclaiming it from the podium does absolutely squat in my opinion.

@grossaffe I am liking you more and more these days, good post, you understood a 100% of what I was talking about. This is good to know, as I was beginning to worry that I was abducted by aliens from pod planet who speak sort of the same language, but not really, and placed on Pretend-Earth where personal freedoms come second to the so-called "greater good" which should be achieved by any means necessary, including oppressive ones. Let's call it "Communearth", because "Earth-2" sound pretentious. I'm not an absolutist and if holding both freedom and equality in one's head is impossible, I must have a giant head because I do just that. Concerning the critical junction, I think that the time will never "seem right" to take the shackles of controlled economy off. Objectively speaking, social attitudes have never been more conducive - even hot button issues like gay marriage are supported by the majority. I think we're mentally there as people, and I too would like the process of running a business to become more lax in my lifetime. I think it would fuel enterpreneurship, and we really need that these days. People often talk about "creating jobs", well, behind every job sits a businessman. Make it hard on them to run businesses and there will be no new jobs because just enacting the effort to create them would be too bothersome to even try, it's that simple.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Lacius, may I suggest that you not attack someone for holding an opinion that differs from your own?  He's spelled out quite clearly the reason for his opinion being an emphasis personal freedom, yet you push right past that and instead ascribe him the grossaffe. of apathy to equality.  If you want to make the argument that placing a high value on one thing means you don't care for equality, then one could say that valuing capitalism means you do not value equality because capitalism will tend to result in socioeconomic classes that separate people.  So if you don't support Communism, then you do not value equality.
> Instead, accept that other people will have opinions that differ from your own, and have different priorities from your own, but that does not mean that they do not care about something.
> 
> As for my opinions on the topic, I agree with Foxi in theory; a person should have the right to choose who they do (not do) business with.  However I'm not sure we're quite there yet where we can give free reign to discriminate without causing undue burden on certain segments of society.  I expect there will be areas where the size of the population discriminated against could be small enough that the loss of their business is not too painful to business owners, and cornering the market on their business is not lucrative enough to spawn a non-discriminatory competitor.  At this juncture, I think there's too much that could go wrong to risk changing the law, but it is something I'd like to see us be able to do down the line.


There's a difference between attacking a person and attacking a position. There's also a difference between having a constructive respectful conversation, and being disingenuous and misrepresenting the other side.

I've addressed the points about personal freedom more times than I can count. I also framed the conversation in a way that is not unfair; one either values more the right to discriminate or the right not to be discriminated against. I am not the one pushing past what the other has to say, as evidenced below. I have not belittled the fact the people have different opinions than me. In fact, I haven't even belittled those opinions. I have, however, belittled faulty reasoning. I suggest you reread my posts before again making me out to be some sort of intolerant monster.

I also know people have priorities that differ from my own. In fact, that's the entire thesis of how I framed the argument. It's frustrating when people don't read what I typed, which is why I bowed out of the conversation.



Foxi4 said:


> Like I said @Lacius, you have a different opinion and a different outlook on the matter. To me, you've demonstrated nothing, you just repeated yourself a bunch of times. You're not entitled to do business with everyone on the planet. In fact, you're not even entitled to enter the premises of a store if the owner doesn't want you there because it's private property. People are free to decline doing any sort of business with you for any reason, it's their resources and they can spend them however they want. Forcing them into some bizarre form of servitude just because their target market is "the public" is asinine, they're private business owners, not public servants. They're not elected by the government and they're not paid in tax money to be impartial, like a police officer or a fire fighter, so they're not. A world where a bunch of Laciuses tell people how to spend their money and who to trade with, a world where nobody really "owns" anything because at any moment the Lacius think tank can decide who gets to trade it, for what and when, is the definition of a fucking hellscape in my mind's eye, it's everything I find nightmarish and more, so no, we'll never be able to find common ground here because I see your proposition as a violation of everything I believe in. You cannot enact social change by forcing everyone to act a certain way - all you're doing is creating resentment towards the government. That's not how social change works. You can stimulate it, but proclaiming it from the podium does absolutely squat in my opinion.
> 
> @grossaffe I am liking you more and more these days, good post, you understood a 100% of what I was talking about. This is good to know, as I was beginning to worry that I was abducted by aliens from pod planet who speak sort of the same language, but not really, and placed on Pretend-Earth where personal freedoms come second to the so-called "greater good" which should be achieved by any means necessary, including oppressive ones. Let's call it "Communearth", because "Earth-2" sound pretentious. I'm not an absolutist and if holding both freedom and equality in one's head is impossible, I must have a giant head because I do just that. Concerning the critical junction, I think that the time will never "seem right" to take the shackles of controlled economy off. Objectively speaking, social attitudes have never been more conducive - even hot button issues like gay marriage are supported by the majority. I think we're mentally there as people, and I too would like the process of running a business to become more lax in my lifetime. I think it would fuel enterpreneurship, and we really need that these days. People often talk about "creating jobs", well, behind every job sits a businessman. Make it hard on them to run businesses and there will be no new jobs because just enacting the effort to create them would be too bothersome to even try, it's that simple.


Respectfully, you appear to be blind to everything other than shouting your point out into the ethos. I dropped the conversation. Minus the numerous times I've addressed your points and concerns, I've hopefully addressed some of your concerns in my response to grossaffe.


----------



## WolfSaviorZX (Jun 18, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Donald Trump's ideology is very far to the right, and his supporters are predominantly white Republicans. Trump is very unpopular among Democrats and Independents. It would be a mistake to say _a lot_ of Trump's supporters are Democrats of any stride.


Trump doesn't have an ideology if you watched even a few speeches. Like 10% of Democrats say they want to vote for Trump in polls compared to like 5% of Republicans for Hillary, so to say NO Democrats like him is a lie. Also he is much more popular with independents than Hillary in most polls. I'm an Independent that prefers Trump over the immigration issue. Now if Hillary had the same positions she had in 2006 regarding Immigration I might support her but right now she is worthless to working class people.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2016)

WolfSaviorZX said:


> Trump doesn't have an ideology if you watched even a few speeches. Like 10% of Democrats say they want to vote for Trump in polls compared to like 5% of Republicans for Hillary, so to say NO Democrats like him is a lie. Also he is much more popular with independents than Hillary in most polls. I'm an Independent that prefers Trump over the immigration issue. Now if Hillary had the same positions she had in 2006 regarding Immigration I might support her but right now she is worthless to working class people.


I didn't say no Democrats like him. However, Democratic voters disproportionately dislike Donald Trump compared to previous Republican candidates for president. The net favorability rating (favorable score minus unfavorable score) among likely Democratic voters for most of the Republican candidates for president hovered around -25 or -30 on average, which was to be expected. Donald Trump's net favorability rating among likely Democratic voters consistently hovers around -70 or -80.

The net favorability rating among independents for most of the Republican candidates for president hovered around 0 or -5 on average, which was to be expected. Donald Trump's net favorability rating among independent voters consistently hovers around -25 or -30 on average.

In addition, Donald Trump's numbers among all general election voters are toxic. His aggregate unfavorable rating is currently 61% (with some as high as 70%), compared to Secretary Clinton's unfavorable rating of 54% (with none reaching 60%).

Note: My net favorability scores come from Gallup, and my aggregate scores come from HuffPost Pollster. I'm also not claiming that Donald Trump can't win. A lot can change between now and November. I'm just acknowledging some of the reasons why Donald Trump is currently at a disadvantage and trailing Secretary Clinton.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 18, 2016)

I'm really conflicted as to who I'm going to vote for, as either candidate has their pluses and minuses, none of them are perfect or really truly any better than one another. That being said, I may have come down with the dreaded "electile" dysfunction, as it were. I'm honestly at a standstill, on the fence, as I fear what either candidate will do to this nation.


----------



## WolfSaviorZX (Jun 18, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I didn't say no Democrats like him. However, Democratic voters disproportionately dislike Donald Trump compared to previous Republican candidates for president.


There might be a lot of Democrats who really really hate him but he's doing around 3% better than Romney with Democrats who say they will vote for him. Remember Democrat Politicians/Pundits have been calling every Republican Racist/sexist so it has No effect anymore. Hell Democrat Politicians/Pundits are calling other democrats racist for not defending Islam. Everyone is tired of this political correctness crap and the people who scream "YOUR A WHITE MALE, CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE" are being marginalized more every day. I never liked any of the previous Republican Candidates, I thought Obama was a better choice than Romney/McCain but Trump is saying all the right things and I honestly don't know which "Hillary" we would end up with in the White House. Is it the Hillary that thinks Radical Islam is an issue or the Hillary who doesn't want to offend anyone? Is it the Hillary who wants to secure the border or the Hillary who wants an open border? Is it the Hillary who loves the 2nd Amendment or the Hillary or hates the 2nd Amendment? Hillary wants to be the politician for everyone, but really she is for NO ONE. At least Trump is sticking up for the Middle Class through controlling the border and fixing our horrible trade deals.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2016)

WolfSaviorZX said:


> There might be a lot of Democrats who really really hate him but he's doing around 3% better than Romney with Democrats who say they will vote for him.


This contradicts nearly every number I've seen on the subject.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 18, 2016)

@Lacius You haven't "addressed" anything, you just stated what you believe in and proclaimed that it's better. I'm not interested in continuing this exchange either because you're failing to understand the fundamentals. The cost of "legislating social justice" is too great to me, and you can't change that because our values differ. You didn't make a strong argument, or any argument in fact, you just keep repeating yourself.


----------



## WolfSaviorZX (Jun 18, 2016)

Lacius said:


> This contradicts nearly every number I've seen on the subject.


Only 7% of Democrats ended up voting for Romney in 2012 http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/ . The last Poll in Virginia (swing state) Shows from 8% to 10% of those who call themself a Democrat would support Trump http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_VA_61616.pdf . Poll taken in Florida (Another important Swing State) Shows a Whopping 14% of people who call themself Democrat will be voting for Trump http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_FL_607161.pdf


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 18, 2016)

Trump has appeal to some older Democrats. Trump has a handful of fairly liberal policies that appeal to them, it's just often drowned out by his emphasis on border security. The Democrats who hate him hate him more than they've ever hated a candidate before, but he has appeal to the ones who dont


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius You haven't "addressed" anything


Against my better judgment, let's have one last quick look.



Foxi4 said:


> Because I value freedom? Or because I want to achieve equality without sacrificing freedom in the process? Or because I think that the ends don't justify the means?


I've already addressed how freedom works with regard to policy. See my points about laws against slavery, homicide, any just about anything else. One typically cannot give someone 100% of their freedoms without taking away freedoms from someone else, so it is up to the society to figure out whose freedoms are more important. It is perfectly fine for us to have a disagreement about whose freedoms are more important, but don't reframe the topic as something else.



Foxi4 said:


> Don't guilt trip me into fighting other people's battles - I have my own methods, like not doing business with people I find morally bankrupt. I fight with my wallet, not with hot air. I don't need nor want the government to strong-arm people who disagree with me into submission. You should never load a gun that one day can be aimed at you.


I've already addressed how your proposed solutions to the problem of discrimination don't actually work. If you want to argue that we shouldn't do anything that actually works, that's your prerogative, but don't argue that the ability of people to boycott businesses, etc. solves the larger problem of discrimination for certain groups of people.



Foxi4 said:


> Opinion, not fact. Telling people not to hate each other achieves nothing in my book, they need to come to that conclusion themselves.


Another straw man that I've already addressed. Making discrimination illegal serves the practical purpose of ending discrimination. It says nothing about whom one can hate, and I never claimed to want to tell people whom not to hate (hence the straw man label). A thought "crime" cannot be legislated against. I've also addressed numerous times how history shows us that allowing people to come to antidiscrimination conclusions themselves often doesn't work, especially not in a timely fashion.



Foxi4 said:


> Of course it's not. Your rights as a consumer are not violated if someone doesn't want to do business with you - they would be violated if someone took advantage of you or exposed you to harm in the process of doing business with you or sold you a product or service that is not as described in the agreement. You cannot claim that your rights as a consumer were violated if you didn't consume any product or service in the first place.


Not something I addressed until after you posted this. Again, whether or not someone is a consumer is not contingent upon whether or not they can and do buy things from a particular business.



Foxi4 said:


> There are potentially thousands of closet peadophiles who cannot seek therapy because sexologists under the current letter of law are obligated to inform the authorities of anyone who is potentially a peadophile, regardless of whether they offended or not. By seeking help and seeing a specialist they expose themselves to criminal investigation and becoming social pariahs, losing their jobs and jeopordizing their well-being even if they've never broken the law. These people are actively persecuted against and live in the shadows with noone to turn to. Your sweet chit-chat about urges is the real cognitive dissonance here - everyone has urges, but not everyone's a rapist. We're not slaves to our urges - as reasonable creatures we can control them to a large extent. In fact, there are people who choose a life of celibacy, for instance for the sake of spiritual enlightenment, in spite of their urges. It's hard not to see parallels here to how homosexuals were treated in the past - as immoral, disgusting outcasts. They need help, therapy, often times they realize it, but they can't get any because society stereotypes them as monsters. Surely you can see that it's a problem, not much unlike the treatment of homosexuals.


I've already responded to and knocked down this particular strawman. I don't believe we have any disagreements about pedophiles, with the possible exception of whether or not sexual attraction to children is a mental disorder. When I argue that pedophilia might be able to be categorized as a mental disorder under the current criteria for what is a mental disorder, that is not me arguing that pedophilia isn't an immutable characteristic or that they don't deserve rights. The criteria that would potentially categorize it as a mental disorder is whether or not it has a negative effect on their lives, and what you've described about the life of a pedophile seems to suggest that it affects one's life negatively.

If you want to argue that pedophilia is not a mental illness, I don't care. I might be able to be convinced that it's not, but the negative consequences of being compelled to rape children and/or the consequences of living a sexually unfilled life, in addition to all the things you listed above, make me think otherwise. Regardless, it's irrelevant to the conversation.



Foxi4 said:


> Hits too close to home, huh?


As I've already addressed, I bring up the very legitimate concern about the historical vilification and slippery slope arguments about homosexuals by comparing them to pedophiles. I'm not saying that's what you did, but I thought it was important to acknowledge both it and the irrelevance of the topic.



Foxi4 said:


> Of course it didn't - everyone else gets ahead of the game. Businesses are already unfairly taxed, time to tax them less. You asked for one example, here it is. The sole purpose of a business is to make money - if they can make more money, it would be unreasonable to not adjust to the new policy.


Again, I've addressed this point already. Whether or not businesses are taxed unfairly has no relevance to this argument and can as much be used as a justification for any kind of tax break as this one: the _You're a Convicted Child-Molester_ taxcut, for example. You're essentially using the conversation we're having to argue for another point, not vice versa. To demonstrate, if we lowered taxes to what you think would be fair, would the additional _You're Not a Dick_ taxcut be a justified loss of revenue? Are the tax breaks likely to curb discrimination, particularly with the taxes hypothetically at historic lows? When looked at objectively, it's a very costly solution with minimal to no return.

Now, it's obvious to me that I've addressed all your points more than once. It's also obvious to me that we've reached an impasse, the conversation is snowballing, and I see no need in furthering this conversation topic. If, however, you think we can have a constructive conversation about this some more, I will respond to you as long as you're a.) constructive, b.) not unfairly reframing the topic as something else, and c.) not being disingenuous and building straw men around my arguments.

I typically enjoy our conversations; I really do. However, the misrepresentations of my arguments alone are enough to disincentivize me from continuing. I also understand your point of view, truly. You're trying to remain consistent to your axiomatic belief in minimal government intervention, which you see as synonymous with freedom. I can empathize with this. However, in order to remain consistent with this belief, there are some evils that have to be taken with it, such as being essentially powerless to stop a lot of bad things, like discrimination, environmental destruction, etc. I believe, based in large part on historical evidence, that the government has a role in making sure the aforementioned evils are minimized without hindering any freedoms that people are logically entitled to. You likely believe the government should have as little a role as possible. You also seem to believe that there are things like market factors that naturally minimize the aforementioned evils. This is why I think you're idealistic, because history shows that's rarely the case. If we agree that discrimination is a problem and that your solutions don't work (by any measure, they don't), then you're either choosing the rights of the discriminatory business over the discriminated, or you believe the government should intervene.

Phew..



WolfSaviorZX said:


> Only 7% of Democrats ended up voting for Romney in 2012 http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/ . The last Poll in Virginia (swing state) Shows from 8% to 10% of those who call themself a Democrat would support Trump http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_VA_61616.pdf . Poll taken in Florida (Another important Swing State) Shows a Whopping 14% of people who call themself Democrat will be voting for Trump http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_FL_607161.pdf


Historically, state polls are essentially useless before the party conventions, particularly when we have a large group of the Democratic party still holding out for a specific candidate who isn't the presumptive nominee. Arguably, Secretary Clinton is only just starting to get her post-primary bump. What's most indicative of the November election results this far out (and it's minimal) are aggregate national polls. After the party conventions, it's worth looking at the aggregate state polls more closely, in conjunction with aggregate national polls for the swing states and/or tipping point states.

It is also a bad idea to compare the results of a November election with polling from June. It's also, quite obviously, a bad idea to compare national data with state data. What were Romney's numbers among likely Democratic voters in June, 2012 nationally? By state? I know it also is not a fair comparison since there wasn't a contentious Democratic primary in 2012, but it would be a fairer comparison than what you're doing. A great comparison would be the June, 2008 numbers. I'll see if I can find these.



vayanui8 said:


> Trump has a handful of fairly liberal policies that appeal to them


I'm not saying you're wrong, but what are you referring to here?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 18, 2016)

@Lacius That was a far more civil representation of your point of view, much appreciated. What I'm getting at is that we're ideologically on opposite poles. I don't want to put words in your mouth, "misrepresenting" your position was never my aim, this is just my perception of the matter that you can confirm or deny later. To you, equality and fairness supercede personal freedom, in the sense that personal freedoms can and should be curbed in order to achieve them. To me, personal freedom is paramount while equality and fairness are ideas that we can only get asympthotically close to, but never achieve. I am unwilling to sacrifice freedoms as I know that while they can be used for evil (denying service to someone based on race, sexuality etc., often under the guise of religious devotion or while hiding behind the shield of morality), they can also be used for good (denying service to a troublemaker or a hate mongerer). You would rather enact mandatory equality just to be on the safe side, I would rather wait for equality to achieve itself by implementing mechanism in society that would advocate it. Those are polar opposites and our difference of opinion springs from the fact that you think that government policy can change people's hearts while I think that people need to change their own hearts in the natural process of social development that you can accelerate with the right policies. What you call the defense of minorities I call oppressive government telling its citizens what they can and can't do. I would rather defend the right of a shopkeep to decline service than force the shopkeep to serve those whom the shopkeep doesn't want anything to do with, because I believe that the latter creates tension and resentment. I put more trust in the mechanisms of the free market putting that shopkeep out of business than in government policy making him a better human being all of a sudden. Is all this correct so far?


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 18, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Against my better judgment, let's have one last quick look.
> 
> 
> I've already addressed how freedom works with regard to policy. See my points about laws against slavery, homicide, any just about anything else. One typically cannot give someone 100% of their freedoms without taking away freedoms from someone else, so it is up to the society to figure out whose freedoms are more important. It is perfectly fine for us to have a disagreement about whose freedoms are more important, but don't reframe the topic as something else.
> ...


Trump supports policies such as universal healthcare and preventing companies from outsourcing to China. It's not much, but it can sway some people who are in the middle and chose the Democratic party for specific reasons


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2016)

I'll point out where I think you are and are not correct.



Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius That was a far more civil representation of your point of view, much appreciated.


I just want to note that my points and level of civility have been largely consistent throughout the thread. My last post was essentially an abstract of what's already been said.



Foxi4 said:


> To you, equality and fairness supercede personal freedom, in the sense that personal freedoms can and should be curbed in order to achieve them.


With regard to some freedoms, yes. I don't think a business owner should have the freedom to discriminate against a group of people when it has real-world consequences for a group of people that creates an undue burden and violates their freedoms as consumers and members of the public. I believe the government has a role to play in regulating how businesses conduct themselves in order to preserve the well-being of the public. Similar reasoning can be applied to environmental regulation: taking a business' freedom away in order to preserve aspects of the environment and minimize real-world consequences for members of the public.

And, as I've discussed before, nearly all laws take freedoms from somebody, and I'm sure there are freedom-removing laws that you agree with.



Foxi4 said:


> I am unwilling to sacrifice freedoms as I know that while they can be used for evil (denying service to someone based on race, sexuality etc., often under the guise of religious devotion or while hiding behind the shield of morality), they can also be used for good (denying service to a troublemaker or a hate mongerer).


Troublemakers and hate mongers (depending on your definition of hate monger) are not and should not be protected classes. I'm all for denying business to those who disrupt one's business. I'm not sure at all how equal protection for immutable characteristics can lead to the above, and I'm unable to distinguish this argument from a slippery slope fallacy.



Foxi4 said:


> You would rather enact mandatory equality just to be on the safe side


Absolutely. The practical implications of allowing discrimination are too great and are more contrary to the idea of a free society than the idea of criminalizing discrimination. Discrimination is something I don't believe a person actually has a right to do if they're choosing to serve the public. We already discussed undue burden. In addition, all of the citizens are paying taxes that directly and indirectly benefit that business, contributing to the rights of the citizens to not be discriminated against.



Foxi4 said:


> I would rather wait for equality to achieve itself by implementing mechanism in society that would advocate it.


I agree that would be nice, but it's idealistic and doesn't work from the point of view of real-world implications. People get discriminated against, and it causes undue burden.



Foxi4 said:


> Those are polar opposites and our difference of opinion springs from the fact that you think that government policy can change people's hearts while I think that people need to change their own hearts in the natural process of social development that you can accelerate with the right policies.


What I'm arguing for, again, has nothing to do with changing hearts and minds. My argument is purely about equal treatment under the law and minimizing undue burden.



Foxi4 said:


> What you call the defense of minorities I call oppressive government telling its citizens what they can and can't do. I would rather defend the right of a shopkeep to decline service than force the shopkeep to serve those whom the shopkeep doesn't want anything to do with, because I believe that the latter creates tension and resentment. I put more trust in the mechanisms of the free market putting that shopkeep out of business than in government policy making him a better human being all of a sudden. Is all this correct so far?


We already tell business owners and other citizens what they can and can't do.



Foxi4 said:


> I would rather defend the right of a shopkeep to decline service than force the shopkeep to serve those whom the shopkeep doesn't want anything to do with


This is where we fundamentally disagree, I believe. In fact, I believe I framed the argument this way a while back and got criticized for it by someone.



Foxi4 said:


> because I believe that the latter creates tension and resentment. I put more trust in the mechanisms of the free market putting that shopkeep out of business than in government policy making him a better human being all of a sudden. Is all this correct so far?


I consider the possible tension and resentment a necessary evil to getting over it. We saw tension and resentment when we desegregated schools, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. We saw tension and resentment when same-sex marriage was legalized, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.



Foxi4 said:


> I put more trust in the mechanisms of the free market putting that shopkeep out of business than in government policy making him a better human being all of a sudden.


Again, the goal of antidiscrimination laws isn't to make people better people; it has the practical purpose of minimizing undue burden and discrimination. If you said, "I put more trust in the mechanisms of the free market putting that shopkeep out of business than in government policy minimizing undue burden and discrimination," I would say history disagrees with you. It's not a practical expectation.



vayanui8 said:


> Trump supports policies such as universal healthcare


Donald Trump has the habit of saying he supports things when he backs policy to the contrary. For example, Trump says in one speech that he supports higher taxes on higher earners, but his tax policy drastically cuts taxes for higher earners. Specific to your point, Trump does not support policies such as universal healthcare. He wants to repeal everything about the Affordable Care Act but offers nothing to replace it with other than ancient rehashed garbage about allowing the sale of health insurance accross state lines, as if it will solve all of our problems when it will likely do nothing. He also uses his health care "policy" to somehow demonize immigrants for much the problem with health care.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 18, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Donald Trump has the habit of saying he supports things when he backs policy to the contrary. For example, Trump says in one speech that he supports higher taxes on higher earners, but his tax policy drastically cuts taxes for higher earners. Specific to your point, Trump does not support policies such as universal healthcare. He wants to repeal everything about the Affordable Care Act but offers nothing to replace it with other than ancient rehashed garbage about allowing the sale of health insurance accross state lines, as if it will solve all of our problems when it will likely do nothing. He also uses his health care "policy" to somehow demonize immigrants for much the problem with health care.


Sometimes all it takes is saying you agree with something to get people's votes. Many people don't look at a practical means of achieving a goal, but rather the intentions. Donald Trump may not actually back up what he said, but because he said it people believe that he will somehow do it.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> Sometimes all it takes is saying you agree with something to get people's votes. Many people don't look at a practical means of achieving a goal, but rather the intentions. Donald Trump may not actually back up what he said, but because he said it people believe that he will somehow do it.


I believe Donald Trump's willingness to say whatever will get him elected, as well as his demagoguery, are nearly his entire appeal.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 18, 2016)

@Lacius That's fair. I don't like the fact that you divide society into "classes" and choose which are worthy of additional protections and which are not, all based exclusively on your own perception of right and wrong, but that's your prerogative. It seems counter-productive and counter-intuitive in a struggle for equality from where I'm sitting. All your previous examples, like black slavery for instance, were predicated on one group of people having more/different rights than the other. Slaves were treated as sub-humans, thus it was "okay" to "own them". To me, everyone regardless of race or creed should be treated equally by the law, and this includes both in priviledges and in duties. The "freedom" I stand behind is not the "freedom to own slaves", it's the freedom to be at the helm of your own life. Not all regulation is bad - some laws need to be enacted in order to protect said freedom from those who may want to encroach on it. The whole point of creating laws is to make sure that the freedom of the citizens is not violated, the problem here is that we have mechanisms to protect citizens from other citizens, but no mechanisms to protect them from potentially oppressive legislature. The difference between just law and unjust law is in its intrusiveness in the lives of the citizens. Intrusive law will always be met with opposition, that's just how humans operate - they like to be in control of their lives. Take prohibition for example - it was an intrusive ban enacted under false moral pretenses that spawned nothing but underground cartels led by mobsters. That's why I have a problem with affirmative action - it divides societies into "them" and "us", it creates boundries and makes some people "equaller" than others - that's not progressive, that's regressive. I think that your proposition is unjust for the same reasons - at no point is the shopkeep's opinion acknowledged, you're just forcing him to do what you think is right. Even if your proposition had the expected effect, it would not make it just - the effects of an action do not make it justifiable. It's just an overall authoritarian approach to the issue and that's what I have a problem with. You may very well have noble intentions, but I don't agree with your methods. I see your position as trying to manufacture a society, meanwhile I believe that society naturally tends to reach equilibrium over time and the less you screw with it the better.


----------



## XDel (Jun 18, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh God, it's like kryptonite to my libertarian sensibilities! I'm getting intellectual blue balls just thinking about this, should I press the Play button? M-marxism? H-hippies? I can already feel my d*ck shrivel, can someone please break my back so that I could chew my balls off? Or just shoot me while guns are still legal, I beg for the sweet release of death. .



Sorry, didn't mean to trigger you into pulling out your effigy and stabbing it with needles. That's the problem today with American discourse or lack there of, is you bring up certain words or symbols and people will default to certain clichés and stereotypes and never hear the other person out. Sports statistics, recipes, video games, and other forms of meaningless trivia are fare game to discuss at no end, but as soon as someone proposes the idea that we collectively arrived where we are at today, by the foot steps we took yesterday...

...bam, shut down as if a mad man talking non-sense.

Well I am sorry, but in order for a building to be built the first brick must be laid. I have offered plenty of information for one to take into consideration and research on their own time. If at the end of that process the still feel to be in a position to mock me, then I would hope that they could do it in a scientific and rational manner.


Take back America, take back the world, SLAY ALL  SOCIAL SCIENTISTS!!!!


----------



## WolfSaviorZX (Jun 18, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I believe Donald Trump's willingness to say whatever will get him elected, as well as his demagoguery, are nearly his entire appeal.


Trump flipped on a few issues Abortion and Assault Rifle ban, but Hillary has Flipped on Nearly Every issue (except abortion and assault rifle ban ironically enough). Honestly I might have been behind Bernie as long as he stuck to his guns on being anti-TPP/anti-Nafta etc. but I just can't vote for Hillary I'd much rather have Trump.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 18, 2016)

XDel said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to trigger you into pulling out your effigy and stabbing it with needles. That's the problem today with American discourse or lack there of, is you bring up certain words or symbols and people will default to certain clichés and stereotypes and never hear the other person out. Sports statistics, recipes, video games, and other forms of meaningless trivia are fare game to discuss at no end, but as soon as someone proposes the idea that we collectively arrived where we are at today, by the foot steps we took yesterday...
> 
> ...bam, shut down as if a mad man talking non-sense.
> 
> ...


As someone who grew up in a post-socialist, post-communist environment I have a very visceral reaction to all things Marx. His ideas are all nice on paper, but the premise of living in a constant war of the classes doesn't appeal to me. It's such an outdated concept, these days you can ascend beyond those artificial divisions. I'd rather live in a world where I can pave my way up, one in which having a good idea and capitalizing on it is a mark of success. I feel comfortable dismissing Marx because every attempt at putting his ideas into reality has either crashed and burned or became a totalitarian nightmare. Every fan of Marx should take a hard look at themselves, then Cuba or North Korea, then at themselves again and see if they're still smiling. I'm not even adding China into the mix since it's currently more capitalist than many western countries, however it never quite got rid of the "totalitarian fuckery" bit of the equation. I also can't side with hippies because I don't care for the environment all that much and I value money, so we have no common ground whatsoever.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 23, 2016)

Senator Sanders endorses Secretary Clinton for president:


----------



## Viri (Jul 16, 2016)

You know, as a kid/teen, when I watched a lot of TV, I would get flooded with TV commercials about politicians. It was pretty funny sometimes, because some would be back to back. Like for example "x is bad, vote for y" and the very next commercial would be "y is bad, vote for x" which made me laugh and say "WHAT THE FUCK?!". After getting flooded with those commercials, it made me look forward to election years ending.

Why am I bringing this up you might ask, well, I cannot wait for this election year to be over, as I'm kinda tired of hearing about it. Both choices are bad, and I highly highly doubt a 3rd party will stand a chance, as sad as that is.


----------



## Engert (Jul 17, 2016)

I am voting for Tump.

Obama shouldn't have made fun of him in the correspondents dinner, now trump is like "I'm coming for your job you good for nothing smooth talker piece of shit"
You think only you can smooth talk people into electing you?
Wait till I run for president and I'll show you how it's done!

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


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 17, 2016)

Just because I can, here's what I got


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 17, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Just because I can, here's what I got
> View attachment 56387


R.I.P Bernie he sold out. May his promises rest in peace


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 17, 2016)

VinLark said:


> R.I.P Bernie he sold out. May his promises rest in peace


Actually, he still stayed true to his promises. He said he would support Hillary if he didn't win and he supports her. 
I personally support her because I'd rather vote Hillary than Trump. And now that Trump has picked Mike Pence as his VP, I am definitely supporting anyone, but him.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2016)

VinLark said:


> R.I.P Bernie he sold out. May his promises rest in peace





Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Actually, he still stayed true to his promises. He said he would support Hillary if he didn't win and he supports her.
> I personally support her because I'd rather vote Hillary than Trump. And now that Trump has picked Mike Pence as his VP, I am definitely supporting anyone, but him.


Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders are also in alignment on policy 95℅ of the time, while Sanders and Trump are total opposites on policy. Why a Sanders supporter wouldn't vote for Clinton in November is beyond me.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders are also in alignment on policy 95℅ of the time, while Sanders and Trump are total opposites on policy. Why a Sanders supporter wouldn't vote for Clinton in November is beyond me.


I would personally vote for Jill Stein, but sadly I know that would end up being a wasted vote.
Still, I have minor issues with Clinton, but nothing big enough to stop be from voting for her.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I would personally vote for Jill Stein, but sadly I know that would end up being a wasted vote.
> Still, I have minor issues with Clinton, but nothing big enough to stop be from voting for her.


Who knows how many people are in the same boat as you and aren't voting for Jill Stein nor Gary Johnson, keeping them around 4% and 8% respectively in a four-way race, when they actually have more support that that? This is why we need something like instant-runoff voting, not to mention the elimination of the Electoral College.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a big fan of Jill Stein. In a preferential voting system, I would choose:

Hillary Clinton
Jill Stein
Gary Johnson
Donald Trump


----------



## Phantom64 (Jul 17, 2016)

Fascism will rise again!


----------



## I pwned U! (Jul 17, 2016)

VinLark said:


> R.I.P Bernie he sold out. May his promises rest in peace


Not necessarily...
https://medium.com/@Starkweather/by...to-win-the-presidency-e4ed85dffdf1#.pw0jp05y8
I don't feel betrayed at all. Bernie has a plan& it's just all coming together. polls released where Hillarys # fell pic.twitter.com/ycDeWUNSYU— Sara Cohen (@saracohennyc) July 16, 2016


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Not necessarily...
> https://medium.com/@Starkweather/by...to-win-the-presidency-e4ed85dffdf1#.pw0jp05y8
> https://twitter.com/saracohennyc/status/754299897562750978


Secretary Clinton is the nominee. She has a majority of the popular vote (55%), a majority of pledged delegates (54%), a majority of superdelegates (78%), and a majority of total delegates (58%). In order for Senator Sanders to overturn the will of the people and get the Democratic nomination, he would have to convince 489 (73%) of the 667 superdelegates who either support Secretary Clinton or haven't supported anybody yet to support him. Even if he got all of the undecided superdelegates, Senator Sanders would still have to convince 68% of Secretary Clinton's 560 superdelegates to switch to him. Most of her superdelegates are establishment Democrats who would never switch to Senator Sanders, and a large number of superdelegates aren't going to be persuaded to go against the winner of the popular vote. Secretary Clinton is also the only Democratic candidate with the money and general election campaign ready to take on Donald Trump.

Senator Sanders usurping the nomination was an absurd idea even before he endorsed Secretary Clinton.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 18, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Who knows how many people are in the same boat as you and aren't voting for Jill Stein nor Gary Johnson, keeping them around 4% and 8% respectively in a four-way race, when they actually have more support that that? This is why we need something like instant-runoff voting, not to mention the elimination of the Electoral College.
> 
> Don't get me wrong; I'm not a big fan of Jill Stein. In a preferential voting system, I would choose:
> 
> ...


It's one of those things, where we all know we just need more of us to vote, but they don't make enough to get out there. In fact, I actually learned about Jill Stein back in the 2012 election when I took the same test and got 98% agreeing with her platform.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 18, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> It's one of those things, where we all know we just need more of us to vote, but they don't make enough to get out there. In fact, I actually learned about Jill Stein back in the 2012 election when I took the same test and got 98% agreeing with her platform.


I'm not sure, however, how I feel about someone who is willing to unnecessarily split the Democratic vote for no discernible gain.


----------



## Engert (Jul 21, 2016)

basically trump is beating obama at his own game but in a way which obama totally despises.

by the way here's what Cornel West a princeton professor has to say about obama http://www.salon.com/2014/08/24/cor..._a_wall_street_presidency_a_drone_presidency/


----------



## Lacius (Jul 21, 2016)

Engert said:


> basically trump is beating obama at his own game but in a way which obama totally despises.


How is Donald Trump "beating Obama at his own game"? Last time I checked, President Obama's aggregate net favorable rating was +6, and Donald Trump's aggregate net favorable rating was -27.


----------



## Engert (Jul 21, 2016)

Lacius said:


> How is Donald Trump "beating Obama at his own game"? Last time I checked, President Obama's aggregate net favorable rating was +6, and Donald Trump's aggregate net favorable rating was -27.



obama got elected by being a smooth talker and trump might get elected by being a harsh talker. This infuriates obama and also keep in mind that everyone has dismissed trump since he announced his candidacy ... but look at him now.

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

if trump wins i cant wait for him to make fun of obama in the correspondents dinner.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 21, 2016)

Engert said:


> obama got elected by being a smooth talker and trump might get elected by being a harsh talker. This infuriates obama


When has President Obama been in any way infuriated by Donald Trump?





Engert said:


> and also keep in mind that everyone has dismissed trump since he announced his candidacy ... but look at him now.


Consistently behind by about 3 points in the polls? Donald Trump could definitely win, but it doesn't appear likely. He's currently the weaker candidate.


----------



## Engert (Jul 22, 2016)

Obama's "jokes" about trump by the way are his way of expressing himself in a positive way  (meaning trump doesn't bother me) since he cannot cry but if you look at the Obama's statements in news channels not talk shows you see that he's seriously troubled by trump and trump has gotten under his skin. 

Also note that elections in USA are not about logic or common sense but pure raw feelings which makes it for a good show.
One time the American people vote for Obama who's nothing but a smooth talker piece of shit and the other time they might vote for trump who's a hardline retarded moron. 

These are the choices we always have But, people always defend their gun rights because one day they might need them to "rebel" against a tyrannical  government. Don't make me laugh! That's a bullshit line. People don't want to change anything because this country is not about what's right or about common sense but it's one giant business transaction from east coast to west coast.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 23, 2016)

dude Hillary may be a criminal but at least shes not Trump!!! lol dude so what about benghazi attack bro trumps a racist my high school teacher told me so 

tl;dr Hillary voters


----------



## cracker (Jul 23, 2016)

I don't get the huge "scandal" with Benghazi. From what has been said the supposed Intel to act on was hours old and resulted in 4 dead and 11 injured. There was much less political demonizing over 9/11 where (at best) months-old credible briefings were ignored and nearly 3000 died and 6000+ were injured. Are, we, Americans this bad at math?

Also, I have to add, many officials from foreign relations to financial overseers have painted a very bleak future for an America (and even world) if there is a Trump presidency. The guy makes his money off the backs of others and tax payers have to bail him out — so far six times. He is a very irresponsible person with the money of others and his speech.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 23, 2016)

I am what you would call a Libertarian (partyist yet largely  sympathetic to agorist ideology) and huge Mises and Rothbard fan so obviously I am voting Johnson because I want my vote to go for a person who ideological is what I feel is ideal for my country (although I will add I really do like Stein). Likewise my state is solid red to the point where Clinton has no shot and I want Johnson to get the 15 % which would really help the party next election cycle. Will he win? Realistically no but he might surprise a few if he does good in the debates.

As for trump he is an idiot and a true disgrace. As Berry Goldwater said "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have." Which I feel is the modern GOP.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jul 24, 2016)

I don't live in the country, and so I cannot vote, but if I could I'd probably vote for Johnson. Clinton will be more of the same, just more corrupt, and Trump is a clown with no real substance.

Out of Trump or Hillary, I'd definitely prefer Trump. He at least seems to care about America, whereas Clinton seems to be just another cold, money-hungry, power-hungry politician.


----------



## Abcdfv (Jul 24, 2016)

Alex4U said:


> Why donald Trump hate me and the others mexicans :´)?
> By the way... im not american, so, i cant vote...


Haven't you heard? Mexicans are all thieves rapists and murderers. And some I assume are good people. 


It's just standard racism appealing to people who won't look for a job, and then blame illegal immigrants for not having one.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 24, 2016)

Abcdfv said:


> Haven't you heard? Mexicans are all thieves rapists and murderers. And some I assume are good people.
> 
> 
> It's just standard racism appealing to people who won't look for a job, and then blame illegal immigrants for not having one.


This 100%.

Although this appeal has-been done several times before Trump started using it.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 24, 2016)

Opposing infinity illegal immigrants in any way is pure racism.

Going to immediate war with Russia for the sake of international banking is also a very important trait in any electable candidate. Supporting the establishment is the hip, happening thing to do these days. Well worth rioting over, in fact!


----------



## Lacius (Jul 24, 2016)

king_leo said:


> dude Hillary may be a criminal but at least shes not Trump!!! lol dude so what about benghazi attack bro trumps a racist my high school teacher told me so
> 
> tl;dr Hillary voters


Secretary Clinton is not by any definition a criminal.



cracker said:


> I don't get the huge "scandal" with Benghazi. From what has been said the supposed Intel to act on was hours old and resulted in 4 dead and 11 injured. There was much less political demonizing over 9/11 where (at best) months-old credible briefings were ignored and nearly 3000 died and 6000+ were injured. Are, we, Americans this bad at math?
> 
> Also, I have to add, many officials from foreign relations to financial overseers have painted a very bleak future for an America (and even world) if there is a Trump presidency. The guy makes his money off the backs of others and tax payers have to bail him out — so far six times. He is a very irresponsible person with the money of others and his speech.


There have been eight Republican investigations on the topic of Benghazi, and each one has shown that there is no scandal. Some Republicans have even admitted publicly that the purpose of the investigation is to specifically hurt Secretary Clinton politically.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Secretary Clinton is not by any definition a criminal.
> 
> 
> There have been eight Republican investigations on the topic of Benghazi, and each one has shown that there is no scandal. Some Republicans have even admitted publicly that the purpose of the investigation is to specifically hurt Secretary Clinton politically.



If Hillary is a criminal then so are McCain, Rice, Bush,Obama,Bernake, Greenspan, Cheney and many more


----------



## KingpinSlim (Jul 25, 2016)

I am german, so i personally believe that the goverment should exist for the benefit of the people they serve.
This means that everything important to the development of the people should be absolutely free.
This means education, medical treatment and yes... even supporting people financially who can not support themselves.
In germany that has been the case for ages and it saddens me that this shouldn't be the standard in any western nation.
This is nothing new, nothing revolutionary. This should be the absolute bare-minimum.
If someone needs help, you help them.
If someone wants to learn, you teach them.
If someone has nothing to eat, you feed them,
and if someone doesn't have a home, then you give him one.


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 25, 2016)

There's no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## Meteor7 (Jul 25, 2016)

KingpinSlim said:


> I am german, so i personally believe that the goverment should exist for the benefit of the people they serve.
> This means that everything important to the development of the people should be absolutely free.
> This means education, medical treatment and yes... even supporting people financially who can not support themselves.
> In germany that has been the case for ages and it saddens me that this shouldn't be the standard in any western nation.
> ...


Our government knows the "right" things to do, but they find manipulating and exploiting us much more fun (Profitable).


----------



## KingpinSlim (Jul 25, 2016)

Meteor7 said:


> Our government knows the "right" things to do, but they find manipulating and exploiting us much more fun (Profitable).


Yeah, i know.
Politicians say that such social reforms would hurt the economy, but that is most certainly a lie.
Germany is doing great and our economy is rock-solid and only the nordic nations are more social than we are.
If you invest in the well-being of a society, the stronger your nation gets as a whole, but that's not what a lot of the politicians in America are interested in.
They don't want the wealth to be shared.
Trump is not like them, however. He is not lying. He actually believes in what he says.
Which makes sense, considering that he is a textbook narcissistic sociopath.

We had a ruler once that was like that. We Germans know exactly what kind of a creature trump is.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

KingpinSlim said:


> Yeah, i know.
> Politicians say that such social reforms would hurt the economy, but that is most certainly a lie.
> Germany is doing great and our economy is rock-solid and only the nordic nations are more social than we are.
> If you invest in the well-being of a society, the stronger your nation gets as a whole, but that's not what a lot of the politicians in America are interested in.
> ...


although  I think the issue is also the question of how should such models be adopted here in America so that the transition is smooth? 
Granted with the Democratic and Republican parties I doubt such change will happen (atleast  under the current type of leadership).


----------



## KingpinSlim (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> although  I think the issue is also the question of how should such models be adopted here in America so that the transition is smooth?
> Granted with the Democratic and Republican parties I doubt such change will happen (atleast  under the current type of leadership).


Of course that wouldn't be possible right now.
For something like that you would need a democracy.
America doesn't have a proper democracy.
In a democracy you would have two things: A) The ability to directly vote for any candidate of your choice and B) Enough legitimate choices.

If you have the choice between a Maniacal Sociopath and Hillary Clinton, of course your only sensible choice is Hillary Clinton. That does not however mean that you had a legitimate choice in the first place.
Choosing between death and torture might be a choice, but not one that actually reflects your wishes.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

KingpinSlim said:


> Of course that wouldn't be possible right now.
> For something like that you would need a democracy.
> America doesn't have a proper democracy.
> In a democracy you would have two things: A) The ability to directly vote for any candidate of your choice and B) Enough legitimate choices.
> ...


A) This is prevented by voting restriction laws and the amount of work to get on ballot in most areas
B) we do have alot of legit choice but it is just that the system is rigged ( how many 3rd parties get over 10%?)


I would add however that I still do believe in the whole "lesser evil is evil" philosophy which leads my to take either the partyist view (voting 3rd party like Pirate, Justice, Libertarian, or Green) or the Agorist view (don't vote but replace the system from the outside) rather than vote for a candidate that I do not like.


----------



## KingpinSlim (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> A) This is prevented by voting restriction laws and the amount of work to get on ballot in most areas
> B) we do have alot of legit choice but it is just that the system is rigged ( how many 3rd parties get over 10%?)
> 
> 
> I would add however that I still do believe in the whole "lesser evil is evil" philosophy which leads my to take either the partyist view (voting 3rd party like Pirate, Justice, Libertarian, or Green) or the Agorist view (don't vote but replace the system from the outside) rather than vote for a candidate that I do not like.


I believe Bernie Sanders would have been the correct choice this time around.
Not the popular choice apparently, but definitely the right one.

EDIT: A) Is prevented by America not having a direct Democracy. You simply can't directly vote for what you want. We don't have that in Germany, either. Mostly because it would be very dangerous for everyone involved to let Germans do exactly what they want.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

KingpinSlim said:


> I believe Bernie Sanders would have been the correct choice this time around.
> Not the popular choice apparently, but definitely the right one.


But the issue was that he had to fight all those people in the DNC who were against his ideas of how the Democratic party should be. I have to say Jill Stein is probably the only one who actually would carry out those ideas of Bernie. Likewise He could of ran as an independent or support Stein but he chose to help Hillary for the Party and because she is better then Trump in his view since he takes voting as a binary choice (which is probably why he didn't run 3rd party or independently).


----------



## Lacius (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> But the issue was that he had to fight all those people in the DNC who were against his ideas of how the Democratic party should be. I have to say Jill Stein is probably the only one who actually would carry out those ideas of Bernie. Likewise He could of ran as an independent or support Stein but he chose to help Hillary for the Party and because she is better then Trump in his view since he takes voting as a binary choice (which is probably why he didn't run 3rd party or independently).


If one cares who wins the election, it is a binary choice. If Senator Sanders had run as an independent or endorsed Jill Stein, he would have unnecessarily split the Democratic vote and increased the odds of a Donald Trump win. Clinton is the only candidate who can beat Trump at this point. In addition, Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton are in alignment 95% of the time with regard to policy, particularly with regard to issues like income inequality that Sanders supporters care about most. Why a Sanders supporter wouldn't vote for Clinton is beyond understanding.


----------



## KingpinSlim (Jul 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If one cares who wins the election, it is a binary choice. If Senator Sanders had run as an independent or endorsed Jill Stein, he would have unnecessarily split the Democratic vote and increased the odds of a Donald Trump win. Clinton is the only candidate who can beat Trump at this point. In addition, Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton are in alignment 95% of the time with regard to policy, particularly with regard to issues like income inequality that Sanders supporters care about most. Why a Sanders supporter wouldn't vote for Clinton is beyond understanding.


Because it's a trust issue. Anyone can promise anything.
The candidates could be exactly equal in the things they promise, but you might believe that one of them is capable of doing it and the other isn't.

When Hillary Clinton commented on the incident where our Chancellors phone was bugged by the NSA she said "Germany should remember who saved them from Hitler and they should show some gratitude" and that's basically all you need to know about the kind of person she is.

She is less garbage than Trump, but she is still garbage. Her garbage might be less rancid than his, but that doesn't mean i wouldn't take her out to the curb as well i given the chance.

That one comment alone made the strongest European nation already turn against her. Brilliantly done Ms. Clinton. Brilliantly done.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 25, 2016)

KingpinSlim said:


> Because it's a trust issue. Anyone can promise anything.
> The candidates could be exactly equal in the things they promise, but you might believe that one of them is capable of doing it and the other isn't.
> 
> When Hillary Clinton commented on the incident where our Chancellors phone was bugged by the NSA she said "Germany should remember who saved them from Hitler and they should show some gratitude" and that's basically all you need to know about the kind of person she is.
> ...


Secretary Clinton condemned the wiretapping, and I couldn't find any reporting for that "saved them from Hitler" quote.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If one cares who wins the election, it is a binary choice. If Senator Sanders had run as an independent or endorsed Jill Stein, he would have unnecessarily split the Democratic vote and increased the odds of a Donald Trump win. Clinton is the only candidate who can beat Trump at this point. In addition, Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton are in alignment 95% of the time with regard to policy, particularly with regard to issues like income inequality that Sanders supporters care about most. Why a Sanders supporter wouldn't vote for Clinton is beyond understanding.


Hear me out

They feel that the DNC screwd Bernie  and did not give him a fair chance
She is relatively hawkish when it comes to the military (The war in Iraq thing is an issue)
She is not nearly as much as an "Activist" type as Bernie or Jill

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



KingpinSlim said:


> Because it's a trust issue. Anyone can promise anything.
> The candidates could be exactly equal in the things they promise, but you might believe that one of them is capable of doing it and the other isn't.
> 
> When Hillary Clinton commented on the incident where our Chancellors phone was bugged by the NSA she said "Germany should remember who saved them from Hitler and they should show some gratitude" and that's basically all you need to know about the kind of person she is.
> ...


I didn't see this post but I agree with what you say here



Lacius said:


> Secretary Clinton condemned the wiretapping, and I couldn't find any reporting for that "saved them from Hitler" quote.


Although I would still say her views towards encryption, Snowden, and privacy still leave alot to be desired.


----------



## Engert (Jul 25, 2016)

KingpinSlim said:


> I am german, so i personally believe that the goverment should exist for the benefit of the people they serve.
> This means that everything important to the development of the people should be absolutely free.
> This means education, medical treatment and yes... even supporting people financially who can not support themselves.
> In germany that has been the case for ages and it saddens me that this shouldn't be the standard in any western nation.
> ...



America is not a country. It's a business.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 25, 2016)

F- the election I'm getting married and moving to vancover a month before election day (yes _my fiance is canadian and I'm muslim so idgaf if i cannot return for a max of 8 years assuming his damn ban passes congress i give trump 3 months (or less) before he's impeached his racist and xenophobic ways will not be allowed by congress_


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

chrisrlink said:


> F- the election I'm getting married and moving to vancover a month before election day (yes _my fiance is canadian and I'm muslim so idgaf if i cannot return for a max of 8 years assuming his damn ban passes congress i give trump 3 months (or less) before he's impeached his racist and xenophobic ways will not be allowed by congress_


The GOP (unless the lose alot of seats) has majority so I doubt they will impeach the president of their own party.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> They feel that the DNC screwd Bernie  and did not give him a fair chance


Despite the personal views of many at the DNC, he was treated impartially and wasn't screwed by them.



RevPokemon said:


> She is relatively hawkish when it comes to the military (The war in Iraq thing is an issue)


This is a fair criticism.



RevPokemon said:


> She is not nearly as much as an "Activist" type as Bernie or Jill


I don't know what this is even supposed to mean.



RevPokemon said:


> Although I would still say her views towards encryption, Snowden, and privacy still leave alot to be desired.


Another fair criticism.



Engert said:


> America is not a country. It's a business.


No, it's definitely a country.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

Since you agreed with part of what i said i will leave that alone but as for 



Lacius said:


> Despite the personal views of many at the DNC, he was treated impartially and wasn't screwed by them.


I must say i have not read the DNC leaks nor can i consider them 100% true at this point. Nevertheless you could argue that Sanders (and to a point O'Malley) did not receive the full support that Clinton had when it came to the run for the nomination. Partially it is because the Clintons are simply more influential in the party and just plain more well known (how many people knew who bernie was in 14?). I am not saying it was totally rigid but i will say i do however feel that it was stackted in her favor to an extent (how large is debatable). Likewise if the voters do feel it was rigid then that causes distrust of the party shich is only natural.

The activist comment is that to a large degree Clinton did not have the same type of activists suppprt her that Bernie had and likewise mamy activist (3rd party progressives for example) liked him for being a progressive outsider who was willing to disagree with the party if it was to support american progressive causes.

Likewise i have to say whether fair or not Clinton is getting some flak for support of things like Doma, the tpp, 3 strike policies and other things of the past which scare some progressives even if she has supposedly changed views (whether you believe that is personal opinion).


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I must say i have not read the DNC leaks nor can i consider them 100% true at this point. Nevertheless you could argue that Sanders (and to a point O'Malley) did not receive the full support that Clinton had when it came to the run for the nomination. Partially it is because the Clintons are simply more influential in the party and just plain more well known (how many people knew who bernie was in 14?). I am not saying it was totally rigid but i will say i do however feel that it was stackted in her favor to an extent (how large is debatable). Likewise if the voters do feel it was rigid then that causes distrust of the party shich is only natural.


The Democratic Party didn't do anything to hurt Senator Sanders' campaign, and it didn't do anything to give an advantage to Secretary Clinton. One might argue about debate scheduling, but that's both circumstantial, a matter of opinion, and hardly out of the ordinary.



RevPokemon said:


> The activist comment is that to a large degree Clinton did not have the same type of activists suppprt her that Bernie had and likewise mamy activist (3rd party progressives for example) liked him for being a progressive outsider who was willing to disagree with the party if it was to support american progressive causes.


By any definition, Secretary Clinton is as much an activist for social change as any other candidate. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you criticizing her because she's not an activist (she is), or are you criticizing her because she's not progressive enough? They're two separate issues.



RevPokemon said:


> Likewise i have to say whether fair or not Clinton is getting some flak for support of things like Doma, the tpp, 3 strike policies and other things of the past which scare some progressives even if she has supposedly changed views (whether you believe that is personal opinion).


Hillary Clinton wasn't in a position to vote on DOMA at the time of its passage, but regardless, some would argue it was better than the alternative of a constitutional amendment. In addition, Bernie Sanders was on record against same-sex marriage nearly ten year after DOMA's passage. You'd be hard-pressed finding an American politician who has been consistently in favor of gay rights. The vast majority of Americans have switched from one position to the other. One shouldn't be punished for his or her history on the issue after coming around on gay rights like we asked. With regard to just this issue, what more do people want?

With regard to the TPP in its current form, Secretary Clinton was never on record in favor of it; the controversy was she didn't want to undermine President Obama while it was being negotiated and wouldn't take a position. She did come out against it after being pressed on the issue. For as long as she's had a public opinion on it, she's been relatively consistent in being against the TPP. One might point to positive things she said about it during her time as Secretary of State, but much of what you find will reference what she said she hoped it would be and was before or in the middle of its synthesis.

I'm not saying there aren't things to give liberals some pause, but these aren't them, and they're hardly relevant anymore in a general election against Donald Trump.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

1. I agree what you say but i feel that not having a debate in California would count as not being fair sonce it is/was something that had happened for awhile.

2. She is not an activist in the terms of what most "activists" want for president in that they want a complete overhaul of the system . Likewise the being progressive comment was because in turn you could argue that she would not fight for the most progressive causes and would take agreement with more conservative hawkosh democrats and republicans that she would not bring the progressive change wanted by so many "activists".

3. My bad here as i did not mean to suggest Bernie was against doma but the fact that the Clinton administration did support it still is something that bothers some people ( although as you said few big party politicans where vocal supporters of lgbtqi rights then). As for the position changing in general i agree but i think it is hard to convince people at times of the change is genuine or for political advamtage.

4. As for the TPP it still could bother some in that the Clinton Administration had before supported trade agreements (although this goes back to the whole position swapping issie) and also if she was strongly against it then she could have been more openly critical (something many activists would like). Also unrelated the pick of Kaine and his previous support of the TPP again could re ignite fears (although that may not happen but could be a key issue if it came down to it).


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> 1. I agree what you say but i feel that not having a debate in California would count as not being fair sonce it is/was something that had happened for awhile.


To talk about the debate schedule is silly when Clinton, Sanders, and the other candidates agreed to the official debate schedule well ahead of time. Just because Sanders thought late in the campaign that he could win in California and considered himself narrowly behind doesn't mean he gets to retroactively schedule a debate that would specifically benefit him just because he wants it. Not to say he did this, but he doesn't get to say it's unfair when the aforementioned debate doesn't happen. I like Sanders and I even voted for him, but he had the habit throughout the campaign of condemning things when they were detrimental to his campaign before embracing them when he thought they worked in his favor (e.g. superdelegates).



RevPokemon said:


> 2. She is not an activist in the terms of what most "activists" want for president in that they want a complete overhaul of the system . Likewise the being progressive comment was because in turn you could argue that she would not fight for the most progressive causes and would take agreement with more conservative hawkosh democrats and republicans that she would not bring the progressive change wanted by so many "activists".


Then as I've said before, you have a problem with what she isn't an activist for, not that she isn't an activist.



RevPokemon said:


> 3. My bad here as i did not mean to suggest Bernie was against doma but the fact that the Clinton administration did support it still is something that bothers some people ( although as you said few big party politicans where vocal supporters of lgbtqi rights then). As for the position changing in general i agree but i think it is hard to convince people at times of the change is genuine or for political advamtage.


Sanders was actually against DOMA, but he wrote in an op-ed that he was against it on a purely states' rights argument. He was against marriage equality for many years after that. It doesn't excuse it, but it was a different time twenty and even ten years ago. As I also mentioned earlier, some would argue that at the time, the alternative to a simple anti-marriage equality law like DOMA was an Amendments Convention.



RevPokemon said:


> 4. As for the TPP it still could bother some in that the Clinton Administration had before supported trade agreements (although this goes back to the whole position swapping issie) and also if she was strongly against it then she could have been more openly critical (something many activists would like). Also unrelated the pick of Kaine and his previous support of the TPP again could re ignite fears (although that may not happen but could be a key issue if it came down to it).


Kaine never supported the TPP and has actually come out against it. He did say in the past, however, that there were things that he liked about it while acknowledging concerns.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

1.to some point i agree but i feel that no matter what that the super delegates system is bad but atleast afaik the new platform fixes certain problems of that.


2. I am speaking of progressive causes which to a point she has not always been 100% for when ot went against the mainstream Democratic views of the time (war in iraq for example).

3. I do agree that the world was very different in the past but the matter of the fact is that some people still have problems with such positions even if they have some understanding that times have chamged. Although i do agree that doma was better than a constitutional amendment but it still was horrible.

4. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-kaine-changes-course-on-tpp-after-vp-nod/

I take it as he supported the TPP (even if parts where bad in his view) but then came out against it. However it is open for interpretation i guess.


----------



## Costello (Jul 26, 2016)

GBAtemp is not representative of the US population at all, but I think the current poll results pretty much depict what could actually happen at the election: people turning their back on Hillary and voting for third parties, whereas Trump and republicans unite...
I am scared for real.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

Costello said:


> GBAtemp is not representative of the US population at all, but I think the current poll results pretty much depict what could actually happen at the election: people turning their back on Hillary and voting for third parties, whereas Trump and republicans unite...
> I am scared for real.


The current electoral college system currently looks good for the Democrats in that (correct me if i am wrong) she could win the presidency with all the states Kerry won plus new Hampshire (and lose florida). The third parties will not really change the election since historically they draw equalish amounts from both sides (Johnson is actually more likely to hurt trump due to support from Never Trump people like Glenn Beck and has decent conservative support). Plus currently Clinton has a much much better chamce of beating Trump then Obama did of Romney at the time.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> 1.to some point i agree but i feel that no matter what that the super delegates system is bad but atleast afaik the new platform fixes certain problems of that.


The role of Democratic superdelegates in the next election is ambiguous. We'll see. I agree that superdelegates need to go away, but my point was Senator Sanders was not consistent on that. He openly embraced them when they became his only way to win.



RevPokemon said:


> 2. I am speaking of progressive causes which to a point she has not always been 100% for when ot went against the mainstream Democratic views of the time (war in iraq for example).


I agree, but 95% is better than the alternative.



RevPokemon said:


> 4. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-kaine-changes-course-on-tpp-after-vp-nod/
> 
> I take it as he supported the TPP (even if parts where bad in his view) but then came out against it. However it is open for interpretation i guess.


I think one could argue that Kaine was open to the TPP, but he and Secretary Clinton are against it now, and they've been against it for as long as they've had a clear position on the topic. That's all that really matters.



Costello said:


> GBAtemp is not representative of the US population at all, but I think the current poll results pretty much depict what could actually happen at the election: people turning their back on Hillary and voting for third parties, whereas Trump and republicans unite...
> I am scared for real.


This is a real possibility. Ignoring Jill Stein for a moment, Governor Johnson is right now taking more support from Secretary Clinton than Donald Trump, but this could change between now and the election, particularly after the DNC.

Also, didn't you vote for Jill Stein? If so, you're about as much to blame as anyone for the poll results:


Spoiler














RevPokemon said:


> The current electoral college system currently looks good for the Democrats in that (correct me if i am wrong) she could win the presidency with all the states Kerry won plus new Hampshire (and lose florida). The third parties will not really change the election since historically they draw equalish amounts from both sides (Johnson is actually more likely to hurt trump due to support from Never Trump people like Glenn Beck and has decent conservative support). Plus currently Clinton has a much much better chamce of beating Trump then Obama did of Romney at the time.


While Secretary Clinton is narrowly ahead, the electoral map is a little too close for comfort. While the state of the race now is comparable to this date in 2012, it's simultaneously comparable to this date in 2004. Things could go either way. As of today, Nate Silver puts Donald Trump's odds of winning at around 40% in his polls-plus model.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

1.In a large sense they were always the only way to win but lets move on this point as I think we have come to an agreement.

2. Depends for many people the alternatives are
Jill Stein a progressive who deeply cares and fights for progressive causes or Dont vote which has appeals (especially if you live in a state where the electoral vote is almost gaurented to go one way. But again this is a point we dis agree on since I do not believe in the "lesser of evil"/binary ideologue. Oh well

3. Again that is open to interpertation but I under stand your point of view

4.  I strongly disagree here. Sure Johnson will probably get some sanders supporters but overall he is getting way more support from conservatives then he is progressives. Look at his endorsements they all are from people who indentify as conservative or who generally support 3rd parties, practically no well known progressives or progressive groups are giving him favor. Ultiamatly I feel he is going to end up with more Never Trump people then people who support Sanders.I still Highly doubt that voting Stein or Johnson will cause Trump to win much like how Nader did not cause Gore to lose or Perot did not cause Bush to lose.That type of Perot support is what I expect to be what happens for Johnson.

5. Either way I still believe that unless the DNC leaks she will probably win. The way the electoral college is still favors the Democrats currently (what polling for the electoral college you prefer to use is up to you) and it would be hard for trump to win in all the battle ground areas needed. The best thing for Trump I honestly could see would be winning the popular vote thanks to a surplus of votes in the deep red south but I still highly doubt that would happen.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> 2. Depends for many people the alternatives are
> Jill Stein a progressive who deeply cares and fights for progressive causes or Dont vote which has appeals (especially if you live in a state where the electoral vote is almost gaurented to go one way. But again this is a point we dis agree on since I do not believe in the "lesser of evil"/binary ideologue. Oh well


Except it's a fact that either Secretary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to win the election. To vote for someone other than these two candidates is to care more about making a statement than who actually wins, which is definitely one's prerogative. I care who wins the election, so I would vote for Secretary Clinton even if I were a fan of Jill Stein (I'm not). A person cannot vote for Jill Stein while also claiming to care who actually wins the election.



RevPokemon said:


> 4.  I strongly disagree here. Sure Johnson will probably get some sanders supporters but overall he is getting way more support from conservatives then he is progressives. Look at his endorsements they all are from people who indentify as conservative or who generally support 3rd parties, practically no well known progressives or progressive groups are giving him favor. Ultiamatly I feel he is going to end up with more Never Trump people then people who support Sanders.I still Highly doubt that voting Stein or Johnson will cause Trump to win much like how Nader did not cause Gore to lose or Perot did not cause Bush to lose.That type of Perot support is what I expect to be what happens for Johnson.


First, you're right that by election day, it is very possible if not likely that Governor Johnson will take more votes from Donald Trump than Secretary Clinton. However, I was citing the inarguable truth about the current state of the polls, which show Governor Johnson taking more votes from likely Clinton voters than likely Trump voters. Consistently, Clinton's numbers are the ones that fall when a two-candidate race is turned into a three-candidate race, not Trump's. However, I think this is very likely to change as we move past the conventions and towards the general election. Everyday, Clinton is consolidating more and more Bernie supporters. Only time will tell.

Second, you're correct that Perot did nothing to substantively affect the election because he took votes equally from the major party candidates. However, Nader took votes disproportionately from Gore, and Gore would have won the election if only a fraction of Nader supporters had voted for Gore in Florida alone. The 2000 election is a great example of a third party candidate unnecessarily splitting the Democratic vote and handing the election to the Republican Party. Hopefully history does not repeat itself.

On a slightly unrelated note, it is my opinion that the Green Party, in addition to the Constitution Party and its offshoots, are pointless. They're trolls who come out of the woodwork every four years to "run" for president without doing the work it takes to become reputable political parties (e.g. running for and winning lower elections first). There's also no real niche to fill for these parties, as they're essentially Democrats and Republicans that are further to the left and right respectively. They would be more likely to succeed if they re-assimilated into the Democratic and Republican parties and advocated for their policies there (a la Senator Sanders). The Green Party, for example, would move the Democratic Party to the left, and they would win more elections. Unnecessarily splitting the Democratic vote with no potential for gain is just silly.

Please note that my above criticisms of third party candidates don't extend to the Libertarian Party. While I disagree with the Libertarian Party, they definitely have their own niche to fill. They also regularly pursue lower elections in an effort to assert themselves as a legitimate political party.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

I agree that caring for who wins the White House and voting for who you belief and agree with are two different things and generally are different. But for me, I agree with the latter just due to personal reasons.

To be honest you could also very easily claim that Gore lost due to all of the Democrats who voted for Bush (11% of Democrats voted Bush) or blame the Democrats who did not vote in the first place.Then there was the fact the physical florida ballot was confusing and many people confused Buchanan with Gore. I myself do not view that Nader cost Gore the election.

On the Green and Constitution they both fill the needs in the political country as many people are not satisfied with the big two parties. For example for a long while when Giulini was ahead in the polls there were talks the Constitution could find favor with social conservatives since he was pro choice on abortion. Likewise the Greens have meet the wants of those who are more progressive then the democratic party. Both major two parties are in a sense rigid and really would not allow such groups to affect their parties since it is not what the democratic and GOP leaders desire. Likewise your somewhat wrong as 3rd parties have constantly ran for lower seats and have actually done much better than they have on higher levels (many senate and representative races have had 3rd parties get into the teens which is something that has not happened in the presidential elections in over 25 years). Plus you could argue that it is in a sense it is a better move to go top down then a grass roots change the bottom up. 

As for the Libertarians why don't you hold them like the Constitution? I mean you could argue that they should just join the GOP and help libertarian type people have more control of the party (much like you said the Greens could do). I just do not see how the Libertarians have a niche but the Greens do not.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I agree that caring for who wins the White House and voting for who you belief and agree with are two different things and generally are different. But for me, I agree with the latter just due to personal reasons.
> 
> To be honest you could also very easily claim that Gore lost due to all of the Democrats who voted for Bush (11% of Democrats voted Bush) or blame the Democrats who did not vote in the first place.Then there was the fact the physical florida ballot was confusing and many people confused Buchanan with Gore. I myself do not view that Nader cost Gore the election.
> 
> ...


We can also blame other factors for Gore's loss, but that doesn't change the fact that the Green Party splitting the Democratic vote alone was a variable that would have otherwise changed the outcome of the election.

As for the third parties, I've already explained how the Green Party and the Constitution Party would have a more substantive effect if they moved the Democratic Party and Republican Party further to the left and right respectively. In fact, they're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by not doing so. For example, if the most liberal and progressive of Democrats instead join the Green Party, they aren't in a position to the complain that the Democratic Party is too center-left when they've self-selectively removed the liberals from the Democratic Party and brought down the average. Regarding lower elections, despite the existence of candidates, the Green Party and parties like it hardly put any time or resources into lower elections; it's all about the quadrennial trollfest for them.

If you don't see how the Libertarians have a niche but the Greens do not, you need to do some more research on political parties and the political spectrum. The Green Party, like the Democratic Party, is left-wing. They agree on the fundamentals but usually differ on degree. The Constitution Party and its offshoots, like the Republican Party, are right-wing. They also agree on the fundamentals but usually differ on degree. The Libertarian Party, however, is a different animal that is neither left-wing nor right-wing as they're conventionally defined, occupying its own space on the two-axis political model. To answer your question of why the Libertarian Party should not assimilate with the Republican Party, they disagree on nearly half of their fundamentals. There's no more reason for the Libertarian Party to assimilate with the Republican Party than there is for the Libertarian Party to assimilate with the Democratic Party.


----------



## Bug_Checker_ (Jul 26, 2016)

This poll shows great news for Donald J Trump. 
A spliting of opposition votes never hurt anyone. 
Just ask President Al Gore.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We can also blame other factors for Gore's loss, but that doesn't change the fact that the Green Party splitting the Democratic vote alone was a variable that would have otherwise changed the outcome of the election.
> 
> As for the third parties, I've already explained how the Green Party and the Constitution Party would have a more substantive effect if they moved the Democratic Party and Republican Party further to the left and right respectively. In fact, they're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by not doing so. For example, if the most liberal and progressive of Democrats instead join the Green Party, they aren't in a position to the complain that the Democratic Party is too center-left when they've self-selectively removed the liberals from the Democratic Party and brought down the average. Regarding lower elections, despite the existence of candidates, the Green Party and parties like it hardly put any time or resources into lower elections; it's all about the quadrennial trollfest for them.
> 
> If you don't see how the Libertarians have a niche but the Greens do not, you need to do some more research on political parties and the political spectrum. The Green Party, like the Democratic Party, is left-wing. They agree on the fundamentals but usually differ on degree. The Constitution Party and its offshoots, like the Republican Party, are right-wing. They also agree on the fundamentals but usually differ on degree. The Libertarian Party, however, is a different animal that is neither left-wing nor right-wing as they're conventionally defined, occupying its own space on the two-axis political model. To answer your question of why the Libertarian Party should not assimilate with the Republican Party, they disagree on nearly half of their fundamentals. There's no more reason for the Libertarian Party to assimilate with the Republican Party than there is for the Libertarian Party to assimilate with the Democratic Party.




I do think that Nader had some role in the outcome BUT he was not the sole reason as to why Gore lost. It is foolish to automatically assumed that if it had not been for Nader that Gore would have won the election. My point is Nader was A reason not THE reason. Although I think you understand my point.

The issue with that assessment of the Greens is that the Democratic officials would not have much interest in allowing the party to slip from their control. By leaving the large two parties they are in a position to remove themselves from the problem and work on a solution rather than remain and be a part of the current problem with the political landscape of America. As for lower elections they all put a good deal in effort for local elections and the results have been quite good when you consider how they can reach out.

This is one area where I feel you kind of mess up. You state that the Greens would be better off just joining the Democrats and pushing for a more progressive platform rather than separating and going alone. The Libertarians could easily do that to the GOP (even easier since Weld, Johnson, and a few other libertarians have had experience in the GOP before) and just put their efforts into pushing for more libertarian elements in the Republican party. That could happen (well at least as much as your idea about the greens) if they put the time into it but they have decided not to. It is just retarded to think that the Greens have no niche yet the Libertarians do when they both have niches and can perform best independently.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I do think that Nader had some role in the outcome BUT he was not the sole reason as to why Gore lost. It is foolish to automatically assumed that if it had not been for Nader that Gore would have won the election. My point is Nader was A reason not THE reason. Although I think you understand my point.


I am not saying that Nader was the only reason Gore lost; it was a combination of variables. However, it is true to say that if we focus on this one variable, Gore would have very likely won the election had it not been for Nader splitting the Democratic vote. In hindsight, we could ask a lot of questions: What if Gore did X? What if Bush did Y? But Nader is definitely one thing that could have been changed in order for Gore to win.



RevPokemon said:


> The issue with that assessment of the Greens is that the Democratic officials would not have much interest in allowing the party to slip from their control. By leaving the large two parties they are in a position to remove themselves from the problem and work on a solution rather than remain and be a part of the current problem with the political landscape of America. As for lower elections they all put a good deal in effort for local elections and the results have been quite good when you consider how they can reach out.


Democratic officials are a reflection of the Democratic Party as a whole; they don't just pop out of nowhere. If more Greens instead joined the Democratic Party and advocated for change from within, the Democratic officials would likely be proportionally more liberal. If progressives unite as a contiguous Democratic Party, then a strong Democratic Party can have intra-party fights about how far left we should go when the Republican Party cannot even compete against a hypothetical united Democratic Party. In other words, the political landscape becomes an election between different factions of the Democratic Party rather than Democrat vs. Republican. You can see this in play in deeply red or deeply blue places where the real election is the primary, not the general.

Instead, the Green Party will continue to appeal to people and unnecessarily split the Democratic vote with no substantive gain, resulting in the undermining of the Green Party's own goals.

With regard to smaller elections, the Green Party cannot expect to compete in presidential politics when it holds zero federal and zero state offices. However, this doesn't stop the Green Party from siphoning the vast majority of its resources on a presidential election every four years it's destined to lose. And, as I already talked about in length, there's no niche for the left-wing Green Party when the left-wing Democratic Party already exists.



RevPokemon said:


> This is one area where I feel you kind of mess up. You state that the Greens would be better off just joining the Democrats and pushing for a more progressive platform rather than separating and going alone. The Libertarians could easily do that to the GOP (even easier since Weld, Johnson, and a few other libertarians have had experience in the GOP before) and just put their efforts into pushing for more libertarian elements in the Republican party. That could happen (well at least as much as your idea about the greens) if they put the time into it but they have decided not to. It is just retarded to think that the Greens have no niche yet the Libertarians do when they both have niches and can perform best independently.


Again, the Green Party and the Democratic Party occupy the same space on a two-axis political compass. Their differences are merely a matter of degree, not position. This is evidenced by the fact that I could find members of each party, and one might not be able to tell which of the two parties they belong to.

The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, occupies a space on the two-axis political compass all by itself. Its differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not a matter of degree; they have fundamental worldview differences. We can break down political ideology into two matters: personal freedom and economic freedom. In general, the Democratic Party and the Green Party both place an emphasis on personal freedom at the expense of economic freedom. The Republican Party and the Constitution Party (et al.) place an emphasis on economic freedom at the expense of personal freedom. The Libertarian Party, however, places an emphasis on both personal freedom and economic freedom. A political ideology that neither cares about personal freedom nor economic freedom would be totalitarian in nature. Those are the four niches, and anything else is just a matter of degree.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I am not saying that Nader was the only reason Gore lost; it was a combination of variables. However, it is true to say that if we focus on this one variable, Gore would have very likely won the election had it not been for Nader splitting the Democratic vote.


Again I said we both agree that Nader was not the only reason as to why Gore lost. Although I feel the 11% of Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush was a bigger deal but we can disagree here.



Lacius said:


> With regard to smaller elections, the Green Party cannot expect to compete in presidential politics when it holds zero federal and zero state offices. However, this doesn't stop the Green Party from siphoning the vast majority of its resources on a presidential election every four years it's destined to lose. And, as I already talked about in length, there's no niche for the left-wing Green Party when the left-wing Democratic Party already exists.



The issue is that when it comes to the 3rd parties it is relatively safe to say that it is perhaps better to run on a larger scale and then affect the smaller scale since 1. People are more likely to learn about said party from larger elections and 2. It helps spread the message to a nation wide grassroots level in a way that focusing on concentrated areas could not accomplish.



Lacius said:


> Again, the Green Party and the Democratic Party occupy the same space on a two-axis political compass. Their differences are merely a matter of degree, not position. This is evidenced by the fact that I could find members of each party, and one might not be able to tell which of the two parties they belong to.


Under that logic then one could make the case why even vote in the primaries? in the GOP primaries for example Trump, Bush, Cruz,Rubio and so on all (at least to some extent) agreed on the key issues such as reducing immigration, cutting taxes, appointing a conservative supreme court judge and so on. All of those candidates again more or less were the same on the positions widely varied on the extent that they were to be carried out. Likewise when choosing a party in addition to the actual issues there are other things of importance such as how you feel of the leadership and so on which does have some importance.



Lacius said:


> The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, occupies a space on the two-axis political compass all by itself. Its differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not a matter of degree; they have fundamental worldview differences. We can break down political ideology into two matters: personal freedom and economic freedom. In general, the Democratic Party and the Green Party both place an emphasis on personal freedom at the expense of economic freedom. The Republican Party and the Constitution Party (et al.) all place an emphasis on economic freedom at the expense of personal freedom. The Libertarian Party, however, places an emphasis on both personal freedom and economic freedom. A political ideology that neither cared about personal freedom nor economic freedom would be totalitarian in nature. Those are the four niches, and anything else is just a matter of degree.




The issue is that previously you had argued that it would be best for Constitutionals and Greens to join the GOP and Democrats as bit would be better for the cause. Yet since you feel that the Libertarians are in a world of their own they would do best as their own party since the ideologue is different from traditional Left-Right politics. Partyist Libertarians generally have been more supportive of the GOP (perhaps due to its earlier classical liberal roots) and to a large degree was shaped by it (considering that many influential people in the libertarian movement had ties to it originally like Rothbard, Friedman, and Ron Paul). So it is only natural to assume that like the Greens they could take over the party by appointing more Libertarians in the GOP (Which there are a few in the LP that could get said GOP positions due to past affiliation). It is relatively simple when you consider that they could move the party more towards personal freedom (pro choice, pro lgbtqi, and so on) to achieve a truly partyist Libertarian party while still being the republican party. The GOP has had this happen more or less when it went from the Old Isolationist Right to the New Right. Either way to say that the Greens could do that in the Democratic party but the Libertarians could not do it in the GOP is simple a stupid thing to assume.  

However either ways there are needs for 3rd parties in America, I mean we are the only country pretty much that does not give other parties a chance to even have a fair fight all because of the fact the Democrats and republicans  are against it as it would hurt their monopoly on American Politics. What a shame.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The issue is that when it comes to the 3rd parties it is relatively safe to say that it is perhaps better to run on a larger scale and then affect the smaller scale since 1. People are more likely to learn about said party from larger elections and 2. It helps spread the message to a nation wide grassroots level in a way that focusing on concentrated areas could not accomplish.


Starting large doesn't work, grassroots-style campaigning works better on smaller scales first, and there isn't a niche for the Green Party. What you're describing is an idealistic defense of a system that historically doesn't work in reality.



RevPokemon said:


> Under that logic then one could make the case why even vote in the primaries? in the GOP primaries for example Trump, Bush, Cruz,Rubio and so on all (at least to some extent) agreed on the key issues such as reducing immigration, cutting taxes, appointing a conservative supreme court judge and so on. All of those candidates again more or less were the same on the positions widely varied on the extent that they were to be carried out. Likewise when choosing a party in addition to the actual issues there are other things of importance such as how you feel of the leadership and so on which does have some importance.


In a general election, you're right that those candidates are roughly the same when contrasted with candidates from other paties. That's why we group candidates into political parities, have a primary contest that zooms in on the intra-party differences between the candidates that allows party members to select who's best, and then allow each party to put forward one candidate. My description of how one groups candidates into political parties a.) Makes the case that there's no real reason for the Green Party to exist, and b.) Also makes the case for political primaries. It's quite a non sequitur and/or misunderstanding of my argument to think my argument can be used against primaries.



RevPokemon said:


> The issue is that previously you had argued that it would be best for Constitutionals and Greens to join the GOP and Democrats as bit would be better for the cause. Yet since you feel that the Libertarians are in a world of their own they would do best as their own party since the ideologue is different from traditional Left-Right politics. Partyist Libertarians generally have been more supportive of the GOP (perhaps due to its earlier classical liberal roots) and to a large degree was shaped by it (considering that many influential people in the libertarian movement had ties to it originally like Rothbard, Friedman, and Ron Paul). So it is only natural to assume that like the Greens they could take over the party by appointing more Libertarians in the GOP (Which there are a few in the LP that could get said GOP positions due to past affiliation). It is relatively simple when you consider that they could move the party more towards personal freedom (pro choice, pro lgbtqi, and so on) to achieve a truly partyist Libertarian party while still being the republican party. The GOP has had this happen more or less when it went from the Old Isolationist Right to the New Right. Either way to say that the Greens could do that in the Democratic party but the Libertarians could not do it in the GOP is simple a stupid thing to assume.


Libertarians fundamentally disagree with Republicans on roughly half of issues. In general, Greens and Democrats disagree on few if any issues and only disagree on how far to go. To say a Democratic assimilation of the Green Party is perfectly analogous to a Republican assimilation of the Libertarian Party demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues. I'm not sure how to continue to try to frame this in a way you can understand.

One could argue that before the social conservatives hijacked the Republican Party, it was very similar to the Libertarian Party of today, hence the crossover. However, as I've outlined numerous times, they have fundamental differences that aren't analogous to the differences between the Green Party and the Democratic Party. Plenty of Libertarians and even Republicans advocate for specific personal freedom changes in the Republican Party today, and that is to be commended, but that doesn't mean the Libertarian Party doesn't have a niche of its own in politics, and they're not arguing about mere degrees.



RevPokemon said:


> However either ways there are needs for 3rd parties in America, I mean we are the only country pretty much that does not give other parties a chance to even have a fair fight all because of the fact the Democrats and republicans  are against it as it would hurt their monopoly on American Politics. What a shame.


Some political parties, like the Green Party, are useless.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Libertarians fundamentally disagree with Republicans on roughly half of issues. In general, Greens and Democrats disagree on few if any issues and only disagree on how far to go. To say a Democratic assimilation of the Green Party is perfectly analogous to a Republican assimilation of the Libertarian Party demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues. I'm not sure how to continue to try to frame this in a way you can understand.



I do not understand how you can not see the critical error in your thinking of that there are no fundamental issues that separate the democratic party and the greens. This could not be further from the actual truth as they are divided in the fact that ultimately have different goals in how to achieve a progressive government (although the few remaining conservative democrats are against that as well) which in turn is a fundamental issue. 

 Yes there are fundamental differences between the Libertarians and the GOP but there are also key fundamental issues that separate the Greens and the Democrats from each other whether you want to realize it or not (which you seemingly don't).


----------



## Engert (Jul 26, 2016)

[QUOTE="Lacius, post: 6555789, member: 1249]

No, it's definitely a country.[/QUOTE]

Yes the definition in the dictionary says that it's a country but the practices are like a business because we don't give a shit about our citizens here like other countries do. Like Germany or Canada for example.

By the way did u notice Michelle dress in the democratic convention? Oh. My. Gawd! That's' all the media is talking about.
Hey Obamas what about our surveillance program in USA where u did jack shot about it for 8 years?
Look! Look at my dress! It's fucking awesome!

United States of Amnesia!


----------



## k3rizz3k (Jul 26, 2016)

I'm a believer that not many actually support Hillary, but are too afraid of putting Trump in power, so will vote for her.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

k3rizz3k said:


> I'm a believer that not many actually support Hillary, but are too afraid of putting Trump in power, so will vote for her.


Again its the part of the misconception that voting is a binary choice.



Engert said:


> [QUOTE="Lacius, post: 6555789, member: 1249]
> 
> No, it's definitely a country.



Yes the definition in the dictionary says that it's a country but the practices are like a business because we don't give a shit about our citizens here like other countries do. Like Germany or Canada for example.

By the way did u notice Michelle dress in the democratic convention? Oh. My. Gawd! That's' all the media is talking about.
Hey Obamas what about our surveillance program in USA where u did jack shot about it for 8 years?
Look! Look at my dress! It's fucking awesome!

United States of Amnesia![/QUOTE]

Yup no wonder we are one of the richest nations yet last compared to other industrial developed countries in positive things like health care and education


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I do not understand how you can not see the critical error in your thinking of that there are no fundamental issues that separate the democratic party and the greens. This could not be further from the actual truth as they are divided in the fact that ultimately have different goals in how to achieve a progressive government (although the few remaining conservative democrats are against that as well) which in turn is a fundamental issue.
> 
> Yes there are fundamental differences between the Libertarians and the GOP but there are also key fundamental issues that separate the Greens and the Democrats from each other whether you want to realize it or not (which you seemingly don't).


Can you give me an example of a Green policy position that is contrary to the Democratic Party and isn't just a difference of degree?



RevPokemon said:


> Again its the part of the misconception that voting is a binary choice.


As I've already said, if a person cares about who wins, it is a binary choice between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump. To vote for someone else is to put making a statement before caring who wins. If one cares more about merely making statement, then you're right that it's not a binary choice.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Can you give me an example of a Green policy position that is contrary to the Democratic Party and isn't just a difference of degree? .


Legal protections for sex workers
BDS sanctions against Israel 
Was against Iraq from day 1 and is not hawkish
Liberalization of drugs
Fair ballot access
Free university education 
Disband Nato
Abolisgment of the NSA and CIA
Withdraw from existing free trade agreements


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Legal protections for sex workers
> BDS sanctions against Israel
> Was against Iraq from day 1 and is not hawkish
> Liberalization of drugs
> ...


Many of these policy positions are actively held by politicians in the Democratic Party, and many if not all that aren't are a matter of degree. Senator Sanders alone holds numerous positions on your list, and some of these are even in the official Democratic Party platform. I feel like you're being disingenuous in an attempt to win an argument. The Green Party and the Democratic Party both have a left-wing worldview, and their differing policy positions are typically a matter of degree.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Many of these policy positions are actively held by politicians in the Democratic Party, and many if not all that aren't are a matter of degree. Senator Sanders alone holds numerous positions on your list, and some of these are even in the official Democratic Party platform. I feel like you're being disingenuous in an attempt to win an argument. The Green Party and the Democratic Party both have a left-wing worldview, and their differing policy positions are typically a matter of degree.


I feel that you have multiple times have tried to move the goal post per sey when ever you felt as if you could for the sake of being right. To my knowledge none of those thngs were officially in the Democratic platform which is what i went by. Granted i understand that there are some individual democratic politicans who hold those views that that point is ultimately moot in tbat we are discussing the actual parties and not individual politicans. Likewise i do not see how you veiw some of them as a matter of degree when they clearly are more than that to many people, they are completely different.i feel you are being very disingenuous in that you (for whatever reason) do not want to own up to the fact there are fundamental differences between the two parties ( Greens and democrats), fundamental issues that matter to certain groups of voters.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 27, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Jesus Christ, people actually support Bernie Sanders? The red menace is still doing well, apparently. None of my business, really, but any pick other than Sanders and Stein would be acceptable for the U.S.



Why? Because they are liberals?


----------



## Viri (Jul 27, 2016)

Step aside boys!

http://webmshare.com/6wYon


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I feel that you have multiple times have tried to move the goal post per sey when ever you felt as if you could for the sake of being right. To my knowledge none of those thngs were officially in the Democratic platform which is what i went by. Granted i understand that there are some individual democratic politicans who hold those views that that point is ultimately moot in tbat we are discussing the actual parties and not individual politicans. Likewise i do not see how you veiw some of them as a matter of degree when they clearly are more than that to many people, they are completely different.i feel you are being very disingenuous in that you (for whatever reason) do not want to own up to the fact there are fundamental differences between the two parties ( Greens and democrats), fundamental issues that matter to certain groups of voters.


There is always going to be variation within a party, let alone outside of it. The platform of a party is more of a guideline, and it doesn't mean much more than that. In fact, a party platform has historically been used by candidates to save face after a loss. I personally don't consider it to be too relevant (although university education, drug liberalization, ballot access, etc. are in there). Many Democrats hold views that differ from the platform. Many Republicans hold views that differ from the platform. Many Libertarians hold views that differ from the platform. Many Greens, presumably, hold views that differ from the platform.

In general, Greens and Democrats have similar, often identical, policy positions based on a similar, often identical, worldview with regard to personal and economic freedom. Degree generally accounts for most if not all differences, including the items on your list. For example, Greens and Democrats agree that the government has a role to play in providing universal health care, but there is debate about the degree. Democrats even debate with themselves about the degree of health care reform, and the Green Party would do better to join the adult conversation, where they already agree 90% with some Democrats and 100% with others, instead of irrationally abstaining from it and shouting from the sidelines where they're unlikely to be heard.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Jill Stein is a useless candidate with regard to policy. She and Secretary Clinton have real disagreements, just as Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton have real disagreements. I'm arguing that the existence of the Green Party is useless. The Democratic Party and Green Party are roughly 99% in alignment on policy, and much if not all of that remaining 1% is a matter of degree, not differing worldview.

I'd also like to know how I've "moved goalposts."


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'd also like to know how I've "moved goalposts."


Because at first your argument was that there was/is not valid reasons as to why the greens could have a niche with progressive voters but when i stated the valid reasos as to why they do have a niche you state "well they are just matters of extent". I am sorry but that in my opinion is "moving the goal posts" as you turn the argument from it being about key positions to it being about how said posistions are theoretically the same in principle but are different in actual execution. To a point you acknowledge that there ARE fundamental differences but you recategorize them. 



Lacius said:


> There is always going to be variation within a party, let alone outside of it. The platform of a party is more of a guideline, and it doesn't mean much more than that. In fact, a party platform has historically been used by candidates to save face after a loss.


Very true but ultimately fair or not offical party guidelines are still the best way to compare how parties compare in regards to policy.




Lacius said:


> although university education, drug liberalization, ballot access, etc. are in there).



No not really as the Democrats view the drug issues as part of criminal reform rather than legalizing them on the basis of free choice that consenting adults can make. Likewise the Democrats have opposed multiple times for 3rd parties to have the rights to be on ballot and treated as a legitimate option. Finality only the greens truly on a party platform want free university on the basis of education while the demorats would rather tackle the issues of loans which are ultimately different issues.



Lacius said:


> To be clear, I'm not arguing that Jill Stein is a useless candidate with regard to policy.





Lacius said:


> *Green Party would do better to join the adult conversation, where they already agree 90% with some Democrats and 100% with others, instead of irrationally abstaining from it and shouting from the sidelines where they're unlikely to be heard.*



You just did.


----------



## Mr.ButtButt (Jul 27, 2016)

can we just pick the person who'll fuck us up the least?


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 27, 2016)

South Park explained this election wonderfully 12 years ago. The candidates may be terrible every election, but I feel like this one is even worse than usual.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> Why? Because they are liberals?


There's nothing wrong with being a liberal, naivety and daydreaming are not sins. Problems arise when we reach socialist territory, that's a big no-no.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> There's nothing wrong with being a liberal, naivety and daydreaming are not sins. Problems arise when we reach socialist territory, that's a big no-no.


Well what about Nordic Social Democratic style of policies? Does that count in your mind?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Because at first your argument was that there was/is not valid reasons as to why the greens could have a niche with progressive voters but when i stated the valid reasos as to why they do have a niche you state "well they are just matters of extent". I am sorry but that in my opinion is "moving the goal posts" as you turn the argument from it being about key positions to it being about how said posistions are theoretically the same in principle but are different in actual execution. To a point you acknowledge that there ARE fundamental differences but you recategorize them.


It's inarguable that the Green Party is occupying the same niche as the Democratic Party. You have not stated valid reasons to think Greens have a niche of their own. There are not fundamental differences between the two political parties. Politicians from each party are often indistinguishable from each other. More on this in my response below.



RevPokemon said:


> Very true but ultimately fair or not offical party guidelines are still the best way to compare how parties compare in regards to policy.


I'll admit the platform is not entirely irrelevant and is a good starting place when comparing party politics. But as I mentioned earlier, much of what you cited as unique to the Green Party is in the Democratic Party platform, and more than that is supported by mainstream Democrats. More on this in my response below.



RevPokemon said:


> No not really as the Democrats view the drug issues as part of criminal reform rather than legalizing them on the basis of free choice that consenting adults can make. Likewise the Democrats have opposed multiple times for 3rd parties to have the rights to be on ballot and treated as a legitimate option. Finality only the greens truly on a party platform want free university on the basis of education while the demorats would rather tackle the issues of loans which are ultimately different issues.


Let's ignore for a moment that you're literally describing only differences in degree, which is what I said would happen and was my point in my very first post on the topic of third parties (i.e. I'm not moving goalposts).

The Democratic Party's official platform includes language to legalize marijuana on the basis of both free choice and criminal reform, and many Democrats including Senator Sanders go further with regard to drug liberalization. The Democratic Party's official platform also includes language on free university education sans loans, and Senator Sanders and other notable Democrats have talked about this at length. I'm not saying you're doing it intentionally, but you can see why I would think you're being disingenuous when, in an effort to paint a divided picture of the two parties, you're citing specific differences between the Democratic Party and Green Party that don't actually exist. You also seem to be in some cases misrepresenting positions generally held by Democrats.

We can agree the two parties occupy the same political niche; this is not controversial, and it's covered in a Political Science 101 course. We can agree that differences between the two parties are generally just a matter of degree. You can argue that the difference in degree is enough to warrant the existence of the Green Party as an entity separate from the Democratic Party, and that's fine. I disagree and think the Green Party would do better by acting as a part of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. This conversation topic is more than beginning to snowball, and I think we should wind it down.

Regarding third-party ballot access, Democrats aren't going to go around being activists on the topic for obvious reasons. However, plenty of Democratically-controlled legislatures and committees give third-party ballot access. If you want to argue that Democrats don't go far enough and should endorse some sort of preferential voting system, I would agree with you.



RevPokemon said:


> You just did.


You misunderstood. I'm not arguing that Jill Stein is a useless candidate with regard to policy because I don't think any candidate is useless. It's the Party's existence I have a problem with. I think Jill Stein should change the Democratic Party from within and/or run in a Democratic Primary election of some sort. I thought I explained this already.



Mr.ButtButt said:


> can we just pick the person who'll fuck us up the least?


In a situation where one dislikes both major party candidates, I think picking the lesser of two evils is the only logically sound thing to do if one cares who is going to be the next president.

To vote for a third-party candidate or not vote at all is to care about making a statement more than who is going to be the next president.



Foxi4 said:


> There's nothing wrong with being a liberal, naivety and daydreaming are not sins. Problems arise when we reach socialist territory, that's a big no-no.


I can't speak for everyone, but my liberalism does not come from naivety and daydreaming. It comes from logical reasoning when trying to figure out what is most conducive to people's well-being and the well-being of the country as a whole. As I think we established a month or so ago, it's the libertarian mindset that is often idealistic.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 27, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> I would vote Vermin Supreme.
> Oh, wait he's not there. Clinton would have to be it then.
> 
> PS: actually, this is all a joke, all of them would be easy worst presidents than Obama was, isn't the idea to improve? good luck with your economy and foreign relations with that failure of a politician or that charismatic fascist dictator impersonator. There is no good choice there.


Any besides Trump or Clinton, but people are too fucking stupid to vote for anything else. Not that the general election has any bearing at all.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

Subtle Demise said:


> Any besides Trump or Clinton, but people are too fucking stupid to vote for anything else.


If a person cares who wins in a general election between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump, then it would be stupid to vote for anyone else.



Subtle Demise said:


> Not that the general election has any bearing at all.


What do you mean?


----------



## Phantom64 (Jul 27, 2016)

Go fascism go!


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2016)

I don't like either candidate, there I said it.


----------



## MAXLEMPIRA (Jul 27, 2016)

Really?  Welp, I think I'll have to forgot about NX for me D:


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> I don't like either candidate, there I said it.


With Secretary Clinton's aggregate net favorable rating at -16 and Donald Trump's at -19, you're hardly alone in disliking both candidates. However, if you have any preference between the two, the logically sound thing to do is to vote for the lesser of two evils.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> t's inarguable that the G
> reen Party is occupying the same niche as the Democratic Party. You have not stated valid reasons to think Greens have a niche of their own. There are not fundamental differences between the two political parties. Politicians from each party are often indistinguishable from each other. More on this in my response below.


I have multiple times stated as to why the Greens do have their own niche which is that they have clear fundamental differences between the actual parties you have just been too ignorant to recognize them. Anyone should be able to realize those issues count as fundamental differences.



Lacius said:


> Let's ignore for a moment that you're literally describing only differences in degree, which is what I said would happen and was my point in my very first post on the topic of third parties (i.e. I'm not moving goalposts).


Again I must state that they are actually fundamental differences. BDS, ending Nato, ending the NSA, are all much more than slight differences. Likewise the same is true for university education and the other things that i have mentioned.




Lacius said:


> The Democratic Party's official platform includes language to legalize marijuana on the basis of both free choice and criminal reform, and *many Democrats including Senator Sanders go further with regard to drug liberalization.*[/QUOTE
> Again there you go with ignoring that we are talking about actually party guidelines. Anyway the differences between the two parties is as I have said before a big difference to the point of where it matters.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> With Secretary Clinton's aggregate net favorable rating at -16 and Donald Trump's at -19, you're hardly alone in disliking both candidates. However, if you have any preference between the two, the logically sound thing to do is to vote for the lesser of two evils.



I'd rather not go into which I like more and which I like less, it just asks for trouble, but those scores are just pathetic.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Again we are talking about party platforms not individuals. The fundamental differences are still there (i.e. loans for education vs. free 4 year public university is a significant difference.). The greens actually believe in a true right to higher 4 year education while the democrats view it as a benefit of society that should be encouraged but not as a right.


From the Democratic Party platform:


> Democrats believe that in America, if you want a higher education, you should always be able to get one: money should never stand in the way. Cost should not be a barrier to getting a degree or credential, and debt should not hold you back after you graduate. Bold new investments by the federal government, coupled with states reinvesting in higher education and colleges holding the line on costs, will ensure that Americans of all backgrounds will be prepared for the jobs and economy of the future. *Democrats are unified in their strong belief that every student should be able to go to college debt-free, and working families should not have to pay any tuition to go to public colleges and universities.*


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> From the Democratic Party platform:


That is different from free college as it asserts that students should not have to pay for tuition rather than universities should tuition free. They are fundamentally different perspectives. Likewise "having the right" and "should be able to" are also very different fundamentally speaking.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> That is different from free college as it asserts that students should not have to pay for tuition rather than universities should tuition free. They are fundamentally different perspectives.


What's the difference between not paying tuition and being tuition-free?


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> What's the difference between not paying tuition and being tuition-free?


As I said (which I added in after an edit)  _*They are fundamentally different perspectives. Likewise "having the right" and "should be able to" are also very different fundamentally speaking.
*_
The Green plan views free higher education as a right for students while the Democratic plan views university as a privilege that brings upon benefits to society and thus should be encouraged.

Likewise the issues of something being important enough to be a free right vs. a privilege that should be promoted via government assistance are in my book different.

To a point it is like Private school that is free (which can happen via government vouchers or private scholarships based off of need or academic ability) and public school. One is a privilege the other is a right.

Although if we wanted to get down to the nitty gritty this is a whole another topic to be discuss that could take pages


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> As I said (which I added in after an edit)  _*They are fundamentally different perspectives. Likewise "having the right" and "should be able to" are also very different fundamentally speaking.
> *_
> The Green plan views free higher education as a right for students while the Democratic plan views university as a privilege that brings upon benefits to society and thus should be encouraged.
> 
> ...


To say one should be able to do something is to describe a right, not a privilege. I think you're nitpicking word choice here, and regardless, I don't think the term "fundamentally different" applies here. A fundamentally different worldview would be to say university education is a privilege that has to be earned, whether it's through scholarship and/or tuition (e.g. the right-wing worldview).


----------



## McWhiters9511 (Jul 27, 2016)

anyone but hillary..


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I can't speak for everyone, but my liberalism does not come from naivety and daydreaming. It comes from logical reasoning when trying to figure out what is most conducive to people's well-being and the well-being of the country as a whole. As I think we established a month or so ago, it's the libertarian mindset that is often idealistic.


Liberalism in the social-democrat flavour is taking money from the rich in order to give hand-outs to the poor rather than creating an environment where they can earn it themselves, which is political Robin Hoodism in my opinion. Too many safety nets out there to take advantage of. Liberals lack the capacity to see beyond Step #1, the consequences of their choices escape them. For instance, they fail to see or neglect to mention the fact that it's the rich who create jobs for the poor, not the other way around. By cutting into the profits of the rich you're not making them "less rich", nor are you "redistributing wealth", you're just killing jobs since there's a reason why the rich are rich, and it goes beyond the obvious inheritence of wealth - they're rich because they understand how a cost-benefit analysis works. The rich aren't paying the extra tax - you are, by buying dearer goods, paying more for services or by losing your job. That's not logical - it'd be logical to allow industrious people to multiply their wealth as much as possible so that it redistributes itself. That's neither here nor there though, the truth is somewhere in-between of those two polar opposite political stances, which is where I sit most times.

By the way, we haven't established squat - you just said that it's idealistic based on no evidence whatsoever - not that you could have used evidence anyways since there has never been a libertarian government - it's untested as of yet, so I can't place the blame on you in this case. We did have plenty of socialist and social-democrat governments though, and we know how that works out.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> To say one should be able to do something is to describe a right, not a privilege. I think you're nitpicking word choice here, and regardless, I don't think the term "fundamentally different" applies here. A fundamentally different worldview would be to say university education is a privilege that has to be earned, whether it's through scholarship and/or tuition (e.g. the right-wing worldview).



I feel that in a large sense you do not understand rights vs privileges. To state that "should be able to do something" is a right is not really true. For example I think most people would agree that people "should be able to" have a car (due to the positives that it brings) yet would also agree that it is not a right in a legal sense. The same could go for many other things that current society views as items/services that are crucial but are not required inherent rights in their eyes. The Democrats (at least via the platform) view university in the same way in that it should be something that should be promoted due in largely for the benefits it brings to society but it is not as a right that every single person has as citizens of this Nation. 




Foxi4 said:


> That's neither here nor there though, the truth is somewhere in-between of those two polar opposite political stances, which is where I sit most times.


Same Here.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Liberalism in the social-democrat flavour is taking money from the rich in order to give hand-outs to the poor rather than creating an environment where they can earn it themselves, which is political Robin Hoodism in my opinion. Too many safety nets out there to take advantage of. Liberals like the capacity to see beyond Step #1, the consequences of their choices escape them. For instance, they fail to see or neglect to mention the fact that it's the rich who create jobs for the poor, not the other way around. By cutting into the profits of the rich you're not making them "less rich", nor are you "redistributing wealth", you're just killing jobs since there's a reason why the rich are rich, and it goes beyond the obvious inheritence of wealth - they're rich because they understand how a cost-benefit analysis works. The rich aren't paying the extra tax - you are, by buying dearer goods, paying more for services or by losing your job. That's not logical - it'd be logical to allow industrious people to multiply their wealth as much as possible so that it redistributes itself. That's neither here nor there though, the truth is somewhere in-between of those two polar opposite political stances, which is where I sit most times.


I'm not surprised that you seem to be leaving out an important, uh, half of economic theory when you say the poor don't create jobs for the rich.

History shows us time and again that when the rich pay their fair share in taxes while they're still profitable, or the minimum wage is increased, jobs are not negatively affected. What does affect jobs is when low-income people are able to spend more money because they have more of it. It's like you don't understand basic supply-demand economics, because regardless of the taxes or minimum wage, a business is going to do whatever is most profitable for it, period. More often than not, a business is not going to fire people due to minimum wage and/or increased taxes when demand for a product or service is consistent, if not growing. That wouldn't be profitable, and what would be profitable would be to hire just enough employees to meet demand. More often than not, a business has already figured the maximally profitable price of a product or service using a price vs. demand chart, and increased taxes or minimum wage isn't going to change that equation much, if at all. What's going to change a business' hiring practices and/or prices is when demand increases and a willingness to pay higher prices increases, which are all effects of certain social programs and a higher minimum wage.

Up until now, I've been talking about a healthy economy. What about an unhealthy one? During the Recession, there was a compounding effect to job losses because the more people who lost their jobs, the lower demand went, and the lower the prices people were willing to pay went. Because of the drop in demand, businesses fired people because it was no longer profitable to keep them around, creating a positive feedback loop where the economy was hemorrhaging jobs. Two competing worldviews emerged to address the problem. The right-wing view was tax cuts on the rich, but if demand isn't addressed when the economy's problem is a demand problem, giving the rich tax cuts isn't going to do anything to change what is or isn't profitable for businesses, and they're going to sit on those tax cuts (which history has shown them doing). Why would a business take its tax cuts to hire more workers when the demand for a product is unchanged? The increased workforce does nothing to increase profits, causing the business to lose money paying that worker.

The left-wing view was to give tax breaks to low earners, social programs like food stamps for low earners, unemployment benefits, etc. In addition to it being moral to help those who are without work often at no fault of their own during the Recession, this also put money in the pockets of people who had no choice but to spend it. The metaphorical gears of the economy start turning again as demand increases, it becomes profitable for businesses to start hiring again, and the problem begins to fix itself.

There's nothing morally wrong with being libertarian; naivety and daydreaming are not sins, and I can empathize with small-government principles. But right-wing economic theory doesn't comport with how things work in reality.



Foxi4 said:


> By the way, we haven't established squat - you just said that it's idealistic based on no evidence whatsoever - not that you could have used evidence anyways since there has never been a libertarian government - it's untested as of yet, so I can't place the blame on you in this case. We did have plenty of socialist and social-democrat governments though, and we know how that works out.


Then you apparently didn't read the numerous posts where I explained in detail how and why your proposed economic solutions to real social problems don't work, and for many of your solutions, I even cited specific historical evidence.



RevPokemon said:


> I feel that in a large sense you do not understand rights vs privileges. To state that "should be able to do something" is a right is not really true. For example I think most people would agree that people "should be able to" have a car (due to the positives that it brings) yet would also agree that it is not a right in a legal sense. The same could go for many other things that current society views as items/services that are crucial but are not required inherent rights in their eyes. The Democrats (at least via the platform) view university in the same way in that it should be something that should be promoted due in largely for the benefits it brings to society but it is not as a right that every single person has as citizens of this Nation.


What makes your analogy a false one is no one is saying people should be able to get _free_ cars. Saying someone should be able to get a car for a price isn't a description of a right. Saying someone should be able to go to college without anything in return is a description of a right.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> What makes your analogy a false one is no one is saying people should be able to get _free_ cars. Saying someone should be able to get a car for a price isn't a description of a right.


Read carefully. First I never said that cars should necessarily be free. The point is that people still would mostly argue that people should be able to have a car. There are many cases where it can be made so that people (especially with lack of opportunities due to economic reasons) can get cars such as tax breaks, loans, private charity and etc. 




Lacius said:


> Saying someone _*should be able to get a car for a price*_ *isn't a description of a right.*


You provided my point as I had stated that "should be able to have" and rights are different.



Lacius said:


> It's like you don't understand basic supply-demand economics, because regardless of the taxes or minimum wage, a business is going to do whatever is most profitable for it, period. More often than not, *a business is not going to fire people due to minimum wage and/or increased taxes when demand for a product or service is consistent*, if not growing.



The higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller are the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them. That is basic economics. Furthermore, the higher the minimum wage is raised, the worse are the effects on poor people. This is because, on the one hand, the resulting overall unemployment is greater, while, on the other hand, the protection a lower wage provides against competition from higher-paid workers is more and more eroded. At today’s minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, workers earning that wage are secure against the competition of workers able to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour. If the minimum wage is increased, and the jobs that presently pay $7.25 had to pay $10.10, then workers who previously would not have considered those jobs because of their ability to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour will now consider them; many of them will have to consider them, because they will be unemployed. 



Lacius said:


> Because of the drop in demand, businesses fired people because it was no longer profitable to keep them around, creating a positive feedback loop where the economy was hemorrhaging jobs.


Again it is simple to say that price drives demand and it goes back to the higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller are the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them.




Lacius said:


> There's nothing morally wrong with being libertarian; naivety and daydreaming are not sins, and I can empathize with small-government principles. But right-wing economic theory doesn't comport with how things work in reality.


To deny the fact that higher wages can lead to unemployment and higher costs is to be day dreaming. Give one example where a company decided to higher more people due to higher wages and i will give you multiple examples of the opposite.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm not surprised that you seem to be leaving out an important, uh, half of economic theory when you say the poor don't create jobs for the rich.
> 
> History shows us time and again that when the rich pay their fair share in taxes while they're still profitable, or the minimum wage is increased, jobs are not negatively affected. What does affect jobs is when low-income people are able to spend more money because they have more of it. It's like you don't understand basic supply-demand economics, because regardless of the taxes or minimum wage, a business is going to do whatever is most profitable for it, period. More often than not, a business is not going to fire people due to minimum wage and/or increased taxes when demand for a product or service is consistent, if not growing. That wouldn't be profitable, and what would be profitable would be to hire just enough employees to meet demand. More often than not, a business has already figured the maximally profitable price of a product or service using a price vs. demand chart, and increased taxes or minimum wage isn't going to change that equation much, if at all. What's going to change a business' hiring practices and/or prices is when demand increases and a willingness to pay higher prices increases, which are all effects of certain social programs and a higher minimum wage.
> 
> ...


Lacius, Lacius, Lacius... Consider this - if I give you $20 to eat shit, then you turn around and give me $20 to eat shit too, did the economy grow by $40 or did we both eat shit for nothing? If you tax the wealthy in order to give the poor money that they can spend on goods and services provided by the wealthy, you're not creating anything - you're just moving money around. This is not "profitable" for either party. If anyone's not understanding economic theory, it's you buddy, but that's not something I'm willing to delve into for the sake of your thread since this is all off-topic.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Lacius, Lacius, Lacius... Consider this - if I give you $20 to eat shit, then you turn around and give me $20 to eat shit, did the economy grow by $40 or did we both eat shit for nothing? *If you tax the wealthy in order to give the poor money that they can spend on goods provided by the wealthy, you're not creating anything - you're just moving money around.*



In a large sense that is basically what Kenyes teaches. That is why his school of thought promotes inflation since it is a way to make money flow which in theory helps as it prevents people from hoarding money and economic disaster. Although I feel such logic is absurd.




Foxi4 said:


> Lacius, Lacius, Lacius... Consider this - if I give you $20 to eat shit, then you turn around and give me $20 to eat shit, did the economy grow by $40 or did we both eat shit for nothing?


That is a great example.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> In a large sense that is basically what Kenyes teaches. That is why his school of thought promotes inflation since it is a way to make money flow which in theory helps as it prevents people from hoarding money and economic disaster. Although I feel such logic is absurd.
> 
> That is a great example.


Of course it's absurd - the most basic way to create value in economy is to take basic goods and improve upon them. You take a pile of clay, turn it into plates and sell the plates for more than the value of the clay - in this scenario, it's your labour that you've put into changing object A into object B that has a price, that's the increase in value. Moving money around doesn't create shit in and out of itself, it's the labour that has value. Hand-outs do not necessitate labour, thus they do not spur economic activity, they're just a safety net.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> the most basic way to create value in economy is to take basic goods and improve upon them. You take a pile of clay, turn it into plates and sell the plates for more than the value of the clay - in this scenario, it's your labour that you've put into changing object A into object B that has a price, that's the increase in value.


Quite like the classic essay I, Pencil by Read.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Read carefully. First I never said that cars should necessarily be free. The point is that people still would mostly argue that people should be able to have a car. There are many cases where it can be made so that people (especially with lack of opportunities due to economic reasons) can get cars such as tax breaks, loans, private charity and etc.
> 
> You provided my point as I had stated that "should be able to have" and rights are different.


I didn't say that you said cars should be free. I was commenting on your false analogy.



RevPokemon said:


> The higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller are the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them. That is basic economics. Furthermore, the higher the minimum wage is raised, the worse are the effects on poor people. This is because, on the one hand, the resulting overall unemployment is greater, while, on the other hand, the protection a lower wage provides against competition from higher-paid workers is more and more eroded. At today’s minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, workers earning that wage are secure against the competition of workers able to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour. If the minimum wage is increased, and the jobs that presently pay $7.25 had to pay $10.10, then workers who previously would not have considered those jobs because of their ability to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour will now consider them; many of them will have to consider them, because they will be unemployed.
> 
> Again it is simple to say that price drives demand and it goes back to the higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller are the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them.
> 
> To deny the fact that higher wages can lead to unemployment and higher costs is to be day dreaming. Give one example where a company decided to higher more people due to higher wages and i will give you multiple examples of the opposite.


If a product is still profitable after an increased tax or minimum wage, its price rarely increases since the demand vs. price a consumer is willing to pay chart is largely unchanged. If a business increases the price, it will likely lose even more money since the previous price was already maximally profitable given the two variables above. In addition, for the product that's still profitable, having an employee with a higher wage to meet current demand is typically more profitable than firing the employee. This is all without factoring in the increase in demand and price consumers are willing to pay.

Much of the wealth in the United States is now heavily concentrated at the top, and this much excess wealth and profits don't help the job market when the quantity of jobs is limited by the amount of demand.

The Economic Policy Institute put out a letter from 600 leading economists and Nobel laureates regarding the minimum wage. The overwhelming amount of data on the topic of minimum wage and increased taxes on the rich consistently shows a range of minimal job losses to job gains: http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

President Bill Clinton substantially raised taxes, and jobs soared. Am I arguing that there was a causal effect? No. Am I arguing that raising taxes on the rich has a minimal effect on jobs? Yes. Can taxes and minimum wage be overly burdensome and have a detrimental effect? Yes, depending on how high the taxes are and how good the economy is. To say, however, that increased taxes and minimum wage generally cause a loss in jobs flies in the face of the facts.



Foxi4 said:


> Lacius, Lacius, Lacius... Consider this - if I give you $20 to eat shit, then you turn around and give me $20 to eat shit too, did the economy grow by $40 or did we both eat shit for nothing? If you tax the wealthy in order to give the poor money that they can spend on goods and services provided by the wealthy, you're not creating anything - you're just moving money around. This is not "profitable" for either party. If anyone's not understanding economic theory, it's you buddy, but that's not something I'm willing to delve into for the sake of your thread since this is all off-topic.


Once again, I think you've demonstrated a misunderstanding of economics. Moving money around is almost the definition of an economy, and now the low earners get to better participate in the economy with more goods and services, a higher quality of life, and social mobility. The cost of this is minimal to no job losses, and the rich are relatively unaffected (i.e. they're still rich).


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I didn't say that you said cars should be free. I was commenting on your false analogy.


Nope my analogue was correct but you are not in your taking off it.




Lacius said:


> Once again, I think you've demonstrated a misunderstanding of economics. Moving money around is almost the definition of an economy, and now the low earners get to better participate in the economy with more goods and services, a higher quality of life, and social mobility. The cost of this is minimal to no job losses, and the rich are relatively unaffected (i.e. they're still rich).


There is a difference between the natural moving of money and artificial attempts at trying to create the flow (i.e. forced inflation). Basically you are advocating against the theoretical deflationary spiral and arguing that artificial movement of money is a way prevent the cycle. The issue is that inflation (which comes from said things you are advocating) results in hurts lower and middle class people by diluting their money and forcing them to pay more. 



Lacius said:


> If a product is still profitable after an increased tax or minimum wage, its price rarely increases
> since the demand vs. price a consumer is willing to pay chart is largely unchanged.


The issue is that almost never happens as increasing the wages always do affect the profitability which in turns affects the cost of said products which leads to inflation which can hurt people by diluting their money.



Lacius said:


> Much of the wealth in the United States is now heavily concentrated at the top, and this much excess wealth and profits don't help the job market when the quantity of jobs is limited by the amount of demand.


Again this is classic Keynes economics as he argued that this would lead to hoarding which is bad. The problem with that is even with that at least people are protected to a larger extent as their savings do not lose value due to the forced inflation that you speak off. 



Lacius said:


> The Economic Policy Institute put out a letter from 600 leading economists and Nobel laureates regarding the minimum wage. The overwhelming amount of data on the topic of minimum wage and increased taxes on the rich consistently shows a range of minimal job losses to job gains: http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/


The EPI receives money from labor unions and generally supports  progressive economic ideals so thus it would make sense to advocate for such policies. If you want to go there then i could cite many articles from the Mises Institute or CATO which contradict them.




Lacius said:


> To say, however, that increased taxes and minimum wage generally cause a loss in jobs flies in the face of the facts, however.


If a position brings to an organization $7.25/hour of benefit, raising the minimum to $10.10 will cause that position to vanish. Some of it can be counteracted by price increases, but elasticity rules will dictate that jobs will be lost and the positions replaced with individuals previously able to produce at the new dictated minimum. Unemployment at workers with marginal benefit of $7.25/hour will rise and those at $10.10/hour will fall. It's not terribly difficult to grasp.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> There is a difference between the natural moving of money and artificial attempts at trying to create the flow (i.e. forced inflation). Basically you are advocating against the theoretical deflationary spiral and arguing that artificial movement of money is a way prevent the cycle. The issue is that inflation (which comes from said things you are advocating) results in hurts lower and middle class people by diluting their money and forcing them to pay more.


There's nothing artificial about the movement of money with regard to a living wage. As for inflation, I'm not sure how it relates to what I'm advocating.



RevPokemon said:


> The issue is that almost never happens as increasing the wages always do affect the profitability which in turns affects the cost of said products which leads to inflation which can hurt people by diluting their money.


There's typically little to no price increase for the reasons I already stated. To claim what I said "almost never happens" demonstrates an ignorance of historical examples.



RevPokemon said:


> Again this is classic Keynes economics as he argued that this would lead to hoarding which is bad. The problem with that is even with that at least people are protected to a larger extent as their savings do not lose value due to the forced inflation that you speak off.


When lower income people get more money, they literally cannot afford to hoard it, which is why it is unarguably such an effective economic stimulus. When higher income people get unnecessary tax breaks, they very often hoard it because they can afford to do so.

And again, I'm not sure what inflation has to do with anything I've brought up. It's an entirely separate issue.



RevPokemon said:


> The EPI receives money from labor unions and generally supports  progressive economic ideals so thus it would make sense to advocate for such policies. If you want to go there then i could cite many articles from the Mises Institute or CATO which contradict them.


I misspoke when I said the letter was from the EPI; the EPI was merely reporting on the existence of the letter. Also, there are numerous other studies that show the minimal effects of a minimum wage on job loss, and it appears to be a consensus among scholarly sources.



RevPokemon said:


> If a position brings to an organization $7.25/hour of benefit, raising the minimum to $10.10 will cause that position to vanish. Some of it can be counteracted by price increases, but elasticity rules will dictate that jobs will be lost and the positions replaced with individuals previously able to produce at the new dictated minimum. Unemployment at workers with marginal benefit of $7.25/hour will rise and those at $10.10/hour will fall. It's not terribly difficult to grasp.


We can ignore for now that the minimum wage is much lower now than it's historically been as a percentage of GDP, so we know how things will go if/when we raise it.

To quote the Center for Economic and Policy Research in _Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?_ (2013), "The minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers... But, probably the most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers." To quote Integrity Florida and their assessments of modern minimum wage hikes in cities in _Minimum Wage Policy and the Resulting Effect on Employment _(2015), and to reiterate points I've already made, "Economists cite several reasons why increases in the minimum wage, which raise employers’ cost, generally do not cost jobs. Increased pay adds money to workers’ pocketbooks and allows them to buy more goods and services, creating higher demand, which in turn requires hiring more workers. The higher wage may make it easier to attract applicants and results in less turnover of workers, lowering costs of employers. Our examination of employment statistics in states found no evidence of employment loss in states that have increased the minimum wage and more evidence that suggests employment increases faster when there is an increase in the minimum wage."

To say a higher salary costs a business more and therefore they have to fire some people reflects a very surface understanding of economics. I've numerous times explained how that's not the case. It's not terribly difficult to grasp.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> *There's nothing artificial about the movement of money with regard to a living wage.* As for inflation, I'm not sure how it relates to what I'm advocating.


Because of the fact that the rising of wages is often a key way in which purposeful inflation can araise.




Lacius said:


> There's typically little to no price increase for the reasons I already stated. To claim what I said "almost never happens" demonstrates an ignorance of historical examples.


Your ignorance here is almost laughable if it were not for the fact you actually mean it. To suggest that a company could increase the wages by 12% and not have any impact upon the total profitability upon the revenue and profit of any company is quite absurd especially when you consider that the profit margin for many companies is quite small.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Because of the fact that the rising of wages is often a key way in which purposeful inflation can araise.


Could you describe for me the mechanisms behind this inflation?



RevPokemon said:


> Your ignorance here is almost laughable if it were not for the fact you actually mean it. To suggest that a company could increase the wages by 12% and not have any impact upon the total profitability upon the revenue and profit of any company is quite absurd especially when you consider that the profit margin for many companies is quite small.


I never said anything about whether or not the total profit margin for a company would go down, and it doesn't look like you read my post.

Could you please, in a sentence or two, summarize what my argument was?


----------



## Lord M (Jul 27, 2016)

Useless topic; also, usuless election. Americans assert that the italians don't have anymore the power of vote... Mmm, easy to see only the other's things. Unfortunately, even the americans don't have the faculty to decide their 'ruler' with the vote (see Bush). Everything has already been decided: will be Trump the next president, as in The Simpsons, he was quoted many times as a "President Trump" (even in an old episode of 2001). Now, since Groening is a masons, 31th grade, as he himself established, and the USA is the most-controlled nation in the world by hebrews (CIA, FBI). I would say that the picture of the situation is now complete


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Could you describe for me the mechanisms behind this inflation?


If wages are higher than before then it affects profitability which leads to paying higher amounts for the same products (i.e. inflation). Such Inflation is considered good as it prevents the hoarding of money (I.e. an deflationary cycle). At Least according to the Keynes way of thought.





Lacius said:


> Could you please, in a sentence or two, summarize what my argument was?


That even with higher wages that companies can still employ people at roughly the same rate since the workers (who are also the consumers) have the money and thus are able afford such goods.






Lacius said:


> Center for Economic and Policy Research


Is also described as progressive and his intentions in its findings.


Also from before I forgot to respond.




Lacius said:


> When lower income people get more money, they literally cannot afford to hoard it, which is why it is unarguably such an effective economic stimulus. When higher income people get unnecessary tax breaks, they very often hoard it because they can afford to do so.


The issue is that no matter what the value of their limited funds becomes diluted. Likewise if you stop and think for two second you would realize that higher wages do cause inflation.



Lacius said:


> *To say a higher salary costs a business more and therefore they have to fire some people reflects a very surface understanding of economics.* I've numerous times explained how that's not the case. It's not terribly difficult to grasp.


I am quite astonished in your lacking to understand even the simplest of thoughts regarding economics. The false idea that you can raise what is one of the largest costs that businesses have and not let it affect end profits is again absurd and easy to understand (i question your entire competence or lack of).


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> If wages are higher than before then it affects profitability which leads to paying higher amounts for the same products (i.e. inflation). Such Inflation is considered good as it prevents the hoarding of money (I.e. an deflationary cycle). At Least according to the Keynes way of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The inflation you described rarely occurs for the reasons I've stated numerous times.

You've also attacked a straw man argument twice now, even after I corrected you the first time. I'm not arguing that businesses' profits are unaffected. Read my posts.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Jul 27, 2016)

I'm picking the best person available..



Spoiler



Vermin Supreme


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The inflation you described rarely occurs for the reasons I've stated numerous times.
> 
> You've also attacked a straw man argument twice now, even after I corrected you the first time. I'm not arguing that businesses' profits are unaffected. Read my posts.


Your weak arguments are to simply put it are false. Likewise I did not assert that you believed that profits were affected, I am attacking you on your false principle of that they are not affected to the point that they caused job loss when in fact they do. The minimum-wage increases of the late 2000s lowered employment by about 14% and they will likely do it again. You need to stop it with this BS that you keep pulling out of nowhere and realize that you quite simply have a flawed view upon modern economics. For you to deny the commonly held basic 101s of economics is quite sad to be honest.


----------



## I pwned U! (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> From the Democratic Party platform:


You mean the platform that they were more than willing to violate to do their best to rig the election for Hillary?

After they betrayed the American people by undermining our democracy like that, I would not be quick to believe any so-called "platform" that they have.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Your weak arguments are to simply put it are false.


Agree with them or not, they are the consensus among economists and aren't weak. To claim they are weak is to try a little too hard. The historical data also backs up my arguments.



RevPokemon said:


> Likewise I did not assert that you believed that profits were affected


Ahem,


RevPokemon said:


> Your ignorance here is almost laughable if it were not for the fact you actually mean it. *To suggest that a company could increase the wages by 12% and not have any impact upon the total profitability* upon the revenue and profit of any company is quite absurd especially when you consider that the profit margin for many companies is quite small.





RevPokemon said:


> I am quite astonished in your lacking to understand even the simplest of thoughts regarding economics. *The false idea that you can raise what is one of the largest costs that businesses have and not let it affect end profits is again absurd* and easy to understand (i question your entire competence or lack of).





RevPokemon said:


> I am attacking you on your false principle of that they are not affected to the point that they caused job loss when in fact they do.


They don't. I've explained numerous reasons why, and I've cited evidence.



RevPokemon said:


> The minimum-wage increases of the late 2000s lowered employment by about 14% and they will likely do it again.


Are you trying to suggest that minimum wage increases caused and/or had any part to play in the Great Recession? They didn't.



RevPokemon said:


> You need to stop it with this BS that you keep pulling out of nowhere and realize that you quite simply have a flawed view upon modern economics. For you to deny the commonly held basic 101s of economics is quite sad to be honest.


I'm not the one denying basic economic data and concepts. If you want to continue this conversation, I suggest you get a little less personal. I don't want this thread to get shut down. Stick to the impartial facts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2016)

"Minimum Wage" or "Living Wage" did not help the poor - it helped the ultra-rich. The government stepped in and said "this is the lowest amount of money you can legally pay an employee", and what did companies do? They paid everyone the lowest amount, wheras before the wage depended on supply, demand and negotiations between the employer and the employee. Before an employee could just say "your contract sucks, I'll go to a different company that'll value me more", there was a market for labourers. Now there isn't one because everyone's using minimum wage as a crutch. That, and it doesn't help anyways - rising the minimum wage will just inevitably rise living costs since companies will have to make up for the difference, thus you return to the point you started from. If increasing wages was the solution, why stop at all? Let's just rise the wages to $100 per hour, that'll make everyone rich as fuck, right? Wrong - companies will just move to China and India, like they have been for the past two decades because liberals crippled the market and made development unsustainable in the western hemisphere. There's a reason why the economy is stagnant in the west and booming in the east. Wages are not the issue here, the system is fundamentally flawed at the core.

By the way @Lacius, the economy is not "moving money around", that's banking. Money isn't even a necessary requisite for an economy - trading goods is also a form of economic structure. An economy is a complex system of exchanging goods and services, we just happen to use legal tender because it makes things much easier. The purpose of an economy isn't just to be "there", an economy is supposed to grow alongside the population. If your economy is stagnant, you're already in the red because your consumption isn't. If your economy is shrinking, you're in trouble.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Agree with them or not, they are the consensus among economists and aren't weak. To claim they are weak is to try a little too hard. The historical data also backs up my arguments.


Many economics professors disagree with those assertions and they key arguements of them. Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and so on (such as the ones at CATO or Mises or Reason).



Lacius said:


> They don't. I've explained numerous reasons why, and I've cited evidence.


That was BEFORE the other parts when you finally stated that you did infact not deny that they affected profits.



Lacius said:


> Are you trying to suggest that minimum wage increases caused and/or had any part to play in the Great Recession?


I could joke at you for quoting wikipedia but I am not. I did not imply anything about the recession although they did further more to hurt employment in that time.



Lacius said:


> I'm not the one denying basic economic data and concepts. If you want to continue this conversation, I suggest you get a little less personal. I don't want this thread to get shut down. Stick to the impartial facts.


You are the one who has repeatedly denied the simple basic principles regarding inflation, wage-employment relations, and so on. Do not come to me b##ching about the discussion when you are the one who has repeatedly denied the simple principles while also playing dumb.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2016)

I don't even know how this is a point of contention - if the costs of running a business increase, the budget of that business decreases. A smaller budget means less money for development and upkeep, this includes current wages and the prospects of future positions. You can't pour yourself a glass of milk and claim that the carton is still full, that's ridiculous - a company's budget is finite.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't even know how this is a point of contention - if the costs of running a business increase, the budget of that business decreases. A smaller budget means less money for development and upkeep, this includes current wages and the prospects of future positions. You can't pour yourself a glass of milk and claim that the carton is still full, that's ridiculous - a company's budget is finite.


Absolutely. That is a concept that even a small child could understand.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> You mean the platform that they were more than lling to violate to do their best to rig the election for Hillary?
> 
> After they betrayed the American people by undermining our democracy like that, I would not be quick to believe any so-called "platform" that they have.


Other than some people expressing their subjective desire for Secretary Clinton to win, what tangible thing(s) did the Democratic Party do that disadvantaged Senator Sanders in the primary? The debate schedule is the only thing I can think of, and that's circumstantial. The Sanders campaign also agreed to most of it ahead of time. He mostly complained after he was the one who wanted to retroactively change the debate schedule after he realized the possible advantage of, for example, a debate in California.



Foxi4 said:


> "Minimum Wage" or "Living Wage" did not help the poor - it helped the ultra-rich. The government stepped in and said "this is the lowest amount of money you can legally pay an employee", and what did companies do? They paid everyone the lowest amount, wheras before the wage depended on supply, demand and negotiations between the employer and the employee. Before an employee could just say "your contract sucks, I'll go to a different company that'll value me more", there was a market for labourers. Now there isn't one because everyone's using minimum wage as a crutch. That, and it doesn't help anyways - rising the minimum wage will just inevitably rise living costs since companies will have to make up for the difference, thus you return to the point you started from. If increasing wages was the solution, why stop at all? Let's just rise the wages to $100 per hour, that'll make everyone rich as fuck, right? Wrong - companies will just move to China and India, like they have been for the past two decades because liberals crippled the market and made development unsustainable in the western hemisphere. There's a reason why the economy is stagnant in the west and booming in the east. Wages are not the issue here, the system is fundamentally flawed at the core.


Are you arguing that wages will increase if we abolish the minimum wage? History shows that the minimum wage has increased wages, not decreased them. A minimum wage also does not inflate the prices of goods and services for reasons I've explained above.

Without the minimum wage, businesses are likely to pay as little as they can get away with to their lower employees. And, before you say it, history shows the free market system is not going to allow for competition between businesses that raises their minimum wages. Businesses don't feel the need to, for example, attract the very best for menial jobs. There was (and is) a legitimate problem that led to the creation of the minimum wage in the first place. Don't get swept away with libertarian idealism.



RevPokemon said:


> That was BEFORE the other parts when you finally stated that you did infact not deny that they affected profits.





Foxi4 said:


> I don't even know how this is a point of contention - if the costs of running a business increase, the budget of that business decreases. A smaller budget means less money for development and upkeep, this includes current wages and the prospects of future positions. You can't pour yourself a glass of milk and claim that the carton is still full, that's ridiculous - a company's budget is finite.


You don't seem to understand the difference between affecting profits and affecting jobs. Affecting profits does not necessarily affect jobs as long as businesses are still in the business of being maximally profitable. A minimum wage might increase, but even so, it might still be profitable for me to have all of my employees due to the demand for my product. And, again, higher wages can equal higher demand for my product, and it can mean consumers are on average more willing spend more for my product, affecting my price vs. demand intersection.

I really do understand that what you're saying seems simple, but as I mentioned earlier, your point of view demonstrates a surface understanding of economics, when in fact there are a lot more variables to consider. It's like saying, "Of course the world's flat. A child could see that." Sometimes, reality is more complicated than what's intuitively obvious on the surface. Instead of going with your gut or what seems obvious, look at the data.



RevPokemon said:


> I did not imply anything about the recession although they did further more to hurt employment in that time.


Then as far as I'm aware, the history you're referring to doesn't exist.



RevPokemon said:


> You are the one who has repeatedly denied the simple basic principles regarding inflation, wage-employment relations, and so on. Do not come to me b##ching about the discussion when you are the one who has repeatedly denied the simple principles while also playing dumb.


Again, I'm not the one who has denied basic economic principles and data, but I'm not going to make snide remarks about it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2016)

I don't really feel like arguing economics in a thread about a presidential poll, so I'll merely quote one of my favourite politicians, who admittedly might be insane, but at least he's been consistent with his stance for over two decades - "The American population of the industrial era is considered to be the most opressed and exploited, and yet it's the first that had a working class driving cars". I also sincerely doubt your statistics regarding wages, at least once you adjust them for inflation and unemployment. Just because the dollars fit the narrative doesn't mean that the value does. Your great grandparents had a household running on one wage, car included - today you need two working parents and you're still struggling to make ends meet because all that's available are minimum wage, part-time contracts. Many people are forced to work two jobs just to be able to function, and that was unheard of just a century ago. I would sooner credit the increase in overall economic activity throughout the last few decades with the emergence of new industries, just the invention and proliferation of the Internet created new, previously unheard of trades.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Other than some people expressing their subjective desire for Secretary Clinton to win, what tangible thing(s) did the Democratic Party do that disadvantaged Senator Sanders in the primary? The debate schedule is the only thing I can think of, and that's circumstantial. The Sanders campaign also agreed to most of it ahead of time. He mostly complained after he was the one who wanted to retroactively change the debate schedule after he realized the possible advantage of, for example, a debate in California.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...were-Literally-bought-by-the-Clinton-Campaign



Lacius said:


> *You don't seem to understand the difference between affecting profits and affecting jobs. *Affecting profits does not necessarily affect jobs as long as businesses are still in the business of being maximally profitable. *A minimum wage might increase, but even so, it might still be profitable for me to have all of my employees due to the demand for my product. *And, again, higher wages can equal higher demand for my product, and it can mean consumers are on average more willing spend more for my product, affecting my price vs. demand intersection.


The problem again is that increasing the wages of workers (which is the largest cost of almost any business) does affects profits and in order to regain it they have to make monetary cuts and the first place they often go is towards the employees. Likewise under the supply and demand higher prices (another option due to wage hikes) leads to lower demand (as people do not view the products as worth the money).




Lacius said:


> I really do understand that what you're saying seems simple, but as I mentioned earlier, your point of view demonstrates a surface understanding of economics, when in fact there are a lot more variables to consider. It's like saying, "Of course the world's flat. A child could see that." Sometimes, reality is more complicated than what's intuitively obvious on the surface. Instead of going with your gut or what seems obvious, look at the data.


The part of that logic you have is that you yourself does not use it. It is like your argument that charging more for goods due to said wage hikes are ok since the demand is high. That logic is the logic that is surface level when it does not address the fact that even still with high demand the prices ultimately affect the demand and the higher the price the lower the demand as its beneficial-ness per dollar goes down. That is how you screw a company or any business.

as @Foxi4 said I am done with this conversation in regards to economics but I have to say that while i find your views of economics to be ultimately flawed I wish you a good day.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The problem again is that increasing the wages of workers (which is the largest cost of almost any business) does affects profits and in order to regain it they have to make monetary cuts and the first place they often go is towards the employees. Likewise under the supply and demand higher prices (another option due to wage hikes) leads to lower demand (as people do not view the products as worth the money).
> 
> 
> 
> The part of that logic you have is that you yourself does not use it. It is like your argument that charging more for goods due to said wage hikes are ok since the demand is high. That logic is the logic that is surface level when it does not address the fact that even still with high demand the prices ultimately affect the demand and the higher the price the lower the demand as its beneficial-ness per dollar goes down. That is how you screw a company or any business.


I'll just mention that this kind of legislature is specifically bad for small businesses as they don't sit on a lot of money - most of their money is in their assets. A hike in wages can mean closure to a small business, or at least scaling back. Corporations have far more money and pull to deal with such fuckery, Joe's Liquor doesn't because its budget is on the store shelves, not in a bank.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 27, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I'll just mention that this kind of legislature is specifically bad for small businesses as they don't sit on a lot of money - most of their value is in goods. A hike in wages can mean closure to a small business, or at least scaling back. Corporations are far more assets and pull to deal with such fuckery, Joe's Liquor doesn't because its budget is on the store shelves, not in a bank.


Absolutely, wage increases (along with most business based legislation) is often based upon large (100+) companies not the little guys which results in a horrible mess for them.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 27, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I also sincerely doubt your statistics regarding wages, at least once you adjust them for inflation and unemployment. Just because the dollars fit the narrative doesn't mean that the value does. Your great grandparents had a household running on one wage, car included - today you need two working parents and you're still struggling to make ends meet because all that's available are minimum wage, part-time contracts. Many people are forced to work two jobs just to be able to function, and that was unheard of just a century ago.


I agree with you that low wages and underemployment are a huge problem today. Turning the minimum wage into a living wage is one solution to the problem.



RevPokemon said:


> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...were-Literally-bought-by-the-Clinton-Campaign


Superdelegates were not "literally bought" by the Clinton Campaign, and the votes of superdelegates were not contingent upon anything or vice versa. This is and was a non-story.



RevPokemon said:


> The problem again is that increasing the wages of workers (which is the largest cost of almost any business) does affects profits and in order to regain it they have to make monetary cuts and the first place they often go is towards the employees. Likewise under the supply and demand higher prices (another option due to wage hikes) leads to lower demand (as people do not view the products as worth the money).


If a business fires an employee and does not replace him or her when there's no change in demand for the product, and the product is still profitable, there will be a net loss compared to keeping that employee around.

In addition, raising the price of a good or service when nothing has changed about the price vs. demand calculation will result in a net loss compared to keeping the price of the good the same.

As I'm sure you're aware, regardless of the cost to make a product, one can only raise a price of a good so high before consumers stop buying it because it's too high. In addition, a business can get a lot of consumers to buy their products if they lower the price, but if the price is too low, the business won't make any profit. If one graphs these two factors (price vs. demand), the intersection between these two variables is the optimum price for maximum profit. Increased taxes and wages don't normally affect this calculation. It might seem common sense that a business would raise their prices when confronted with higher wages or taxes, but that would screw them even more. It's a difficult concept to grasp, and I'm not being snarky.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If a business fires an employee and does not replace him or her when there's no change in demand for the product, and the product is still profitable, there will be a net loss compared to keeping that employee around.


Depends. Think of it as if employee x can help said company produce y amount dollars subrtacted by his cost of z many dollars. That will show if he is valuable to said company and the logic applies to multiple layers of the company. IF the z amount of dollars are larger then the y amount of value then he no longer beneficial and the company could replace him. The issue with higher wages (like $10.10 vs $7.25) is that it can affect workers as although they were profitable to the company at 9 or 8 dollars but are not profitable at 10 so they cause a deficet. The cure to this is to fire them as they no longer can bring in the needed value. Now when they re-hire the people whose value were at 8 or so dollars are no longer competitive as thier skills are not at $10 level so they face more employment issues even though it will provide employment for the other $10 workers.



Lacius said:


> As I'm sure you're aware, regardless of the cost to make a product, one can only raise a price of a good so high before consumers stop buying it because it's too high. In addition, a business can get a lot of consumers to buy their products if they lower the price, but if the price is too low, the business won't make any profit. If one graphs these two factors (price vs. demand), the intersection between these two variables is the optimum price for maximum profit. Increased taxes and wages don't normally affect this calculation. It might seem common sense that a business would raise their prices when confronted with higher wages or taxes, but that would screw them even more. It's a difficult concept to grasp, and I'm not being snarky.


The issue with that model (which is mostly true) is that taxes and higher wages can increase the price. Why? Because lets say that in this graph there is the graph that consists of price and demand.  The business (especially small ones) will have to let the price be high enough yet also where demand will be good (i.e. that key price). The issue with the taxes and higher wages is that desired price will be affect since it now costs more to sell it for the desired profit.Since demand is still the same the price is what will have to be cut. Now this leads to multiple bad options 1. raise the cost and hope that the demand will still be there for the needed profit, 2. Fire employees who do not meet the above equation of productivity to regain money or replace them with workers who meet the $10 per hour value better then the guys who only could be valuable at $8 dollars, or 3. Take less of a profit which can work for some cmpanies but not for those with tight profit margins who dont have millions of dollars in the bank. All three are crappy options but would be forced in that scenario.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 28, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Depends. Think of it as if employee x can help said company produce y amount dollars subrtacted by his cost of z many dollars. That will show if he is valuable to said company and the logic applies to multiple layers of the company. IF the z amount of dollars are larger then the y amount of value then he no longer beneficial and the company could replace him. The issue with higher wages (like $10.10 vs $7.25) is that it can affect workers as although they were profitable to the company at 9 or 8 dollars but are not profitable at 10 so they cause a deficet. The cure to this is to fire them as they no longer can bring in the needed value. Now when they re-hire the people whose value were at 8 or so dollars are no longer competitive as thier skills are not at $10 level so they face more employment issues even though it will provide employment for the other $10 workers.


If there's still a demand for a product, it wouldn't be profitable to fire someone because of higher wages. Otherwise, the business would have fired the person long before the wage increase. Your reasoning doesn't apply unless the minimum wage is obscenely high. Otherwise, the wage increase potentially eats into profits but not enough to offset the profit of the product and the need for the employee. And, again, this doesn't take into account the economic benefits of a higher minimum wage and an increase in demand.



RevPokemon said:


> The issue with that model (which is mostly true) is that taxes and higher wages can increase the price. Why? Because lets say that in this graph there is the graph that consists of price and demand.  The business (especially small ones) will have to let the price be high enough yet also where demand will be good (i.e. that key price). The issue with the taxes and higher wages is that desired price will be affect since it now costs more to sell it for the desired profit.*Since demand is still the same* the price is what will have to be cut. Now this leads to multiple bad options 1. raise the cost and hope that the demand will still be there for the needed profit, 2. Fire employees who do not meet the above equation of productivity to regain money or replace them with workers who meet the $10 per hour value better then the guys who only could be valuable at $8 dollars, or 3. Take less of a profit which can work for some cmpanies but not for those with tight profit margins who dont have millions of dollars in the bank. All three are crappy options but would be forced in that scenario.


The key price is the same as before the wage increase and/or tax increase. If an increase in the price of a product is profitable, the business would have done it long before. The cost of doing business is irrelevant when calculating this. I also don't acknowledge the bolded part of your post as necessarily true.

However, let's say I agree with your three options. Numbers and 1 and 2 are likely to be less profitable than without them, so it's going to be #3. The business is still making a profit, and the wages are fair. The data also seems to show that even smaller businesses are fine, particular with benefits of the economic stimulus.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If there's still a demand for a product, it wouldn't be profitable to fire someone because of higher wages. Otherwise, the business would have fired the person long before the wage increase. Your reasoning doesn't apply unless the minimum wage is obscenely high. Otherwise, the wage increase potentially eats into profits but not enough to offset the profit of the product and the need for the employee. And, again, this doesn't take into account the economic benefits of a higher minimum wage and an increase in demand.


It would be profitable to fire the person if it is as i stated before. The thing is the amount of value compared to the cost is something that each company decides. Before the wage hike it might would have been profitable since the margin was ideal but due to the wage hike from 7.5 to 10.10 the employee is still producing more than his cost but at a lower margin. Likewise the margn could vary for each company  and can be very low or very high so even a small hike (although 7.5 to 10 is relatively large) could hurt the business . The increase of demand does not increase due to workers making more since as stated the companies will have to try to keep the margin by increasing prices which in turn offsets that.




Lacius said:


> The key price is the same as before the wage increase and/or tax increase. If an increase in the price of a product is profitable, the business would have done it long before. The cost of doing business is irrelevant when calculating this. I also don't acknowledge the bolded part of your post as necessarily true.


The thing is again each company has a key margin. One issue is that the cost of business regardless obviously affects the cost as it affects the profitability if they have to pay more so in turn the price will be affected by this. One part we disagree is that increase of wages correlates with growing demand since people can now afford those goods. The problem with that is that as I stated before the cost of higher wages will correlate with the price of the product and thus nullify the positive of the higher paod worker.




Lacius said:


> However, let's say I agree with your three options. Numbers and 1 and 2 are likely to be less profitable than without them, so it's going to be #3. The business is still making a profit, and the wages are fair. The data also seems to show that even smaller businesses are fine, particular with benefits of the economic stimulus.


Here is a problem with that interpretation. Lets assume we go with 3 as you chose. The business could still make a profit but the margin would be less then it want/needs so in turn they would be operating with less then they need/want.Since these companies would try to do things to regain that margin they would result to doing things such as cutting jobs or higher prices.

Likewise in some businesses the change would be to large and they would have to either close or find more affordable ways to do business (i.e. autonation or going overseas) which would harm the workers. Many small businesses do struggle under the wage hikes since the profit margin is smaller, they lack the reserve funds, and lack many other cost reducing options.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 28, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> It would be profitable to fire the person if it is as i stated before. The thing is the amount of value compared to the cost is something that each company decides. Before the wage hike it might would have been profitable since the margin was ideal but due to the wage hike from 7.5 to 10.10 the employee is still producing more than his cost but at a lower margin. Likewise the margn could vary for each company  and can be very low or very high so even a small hike (although 7.5 to 10 is relatively large) could hurt the business . The increase of demand does not increase due to workers making more since as stated the companies will have to try to keep the margin by increasing prices which in turn offsets that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're going round and round. I refer you to my previous posts. Agree to disagree.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We're going round and round. I refer you to my previous posts. Agree to disagree.


Same here. Although in spite of our disagreement on these issues i must say that i enjoyed this conversation very much as i always love a good discussion over politics and economics. To that i say thank you and have a good day.


----------



## Inukami (Jul 28, 2016)

can't tell if the poll result is a joke or not... the next 4 years sure are going to be interesting if this is anything to go by.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2016)

Inukami said:


> can't tell if the poll result is a joke or not... the next 4 years sure are going to be interesting if this is anything to go by.


We're a community that has a majority population of straight white males, of course the poll at the top is serious


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> We're a community that has a majority population of straight white males, of course the poll at the top is serious


Most of whom are 12-15 years old and think weiner jokes are funny still and have zits.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Most of whom are 12-15 years old and think weiner jokes are funny still and have zits.


My point still stands, there are a lot of people on this site who don't understand that the world is bigger than them


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> My point still stands, there are a lot of people on this site who don't understand that the world is bigger than them


Absolutely and have yet to grasp basic concepts or are not aware of what is happening.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 28, 2016)

Inukami said:


> can't tell if the poll result is a joke or not... the next 4 years sure are going to be interesting if this is anything to go by.


While the results are not representative of the United States, they're no joke. This election could be close.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> While the results are not representative of the United States, they're no joke. This election could be close.


Actually it's pretty dang close to the national average


----------



## Lacius (Jul 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually it's pretty dang close to the national average


As of this post, according to aggregate poll numbers that weigh polls based on historical accuracy and methodology, Secretary Clinton is ahead by about 1.8 points nationally. While she's narrowly winning at a time when she's likely to be doing her worst (post-RNC but pre-DNC), too many liberals are in denial and think she's got it in the bag. There is a very real chance (as of now, 40% according to Nate Silver's polls-plus model) that Donald Trump will win.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually it's pretty dang close to the national average


Not really. In the really national average it is close (with 3 or 4 candidates) or about 5% for Hillary with 2. Trump is not leading a single national poll by 10 points and Johnson is at about half his number


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2016)

Oh dang, I thought that Trump's percentage was lower on this one when I glanced at it XD now that I'm looking at it properly, yes, GBAtemp does appear to be more conservative than the national average


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oh dang, I thought that Trump's percentage was lower on this one when I glanced at it XD now that I'm looking at it properly, yes, GBAtemp does appear to be more conservative than the national average


Or that there are kids/people who vote for lulz (which we know some do on the temp). If gbatemp was so conservative it would stand for George Bush America Temp


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Or that there are kids/people who vote for lulz (which we know some do on the temp). If gbatemp was so conservative it would stand for George Bush America Temp


God Bless America Trump


----------



## Lacius (Jul 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oh dang, I thought that Trump's percentage was lower on this one when I glanced at it XD now that I'm looking at it properly, yes, GBAtemp does appear to be more conservative than the national average


It's interesting to look at how the poll results compare to 2012 here and here.


----------



## Inukami (Jul 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually it's pretty dang close to the national average


wow that is close


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's interesting to look at how the poll results compare to 2012 here and here.


Myself I wonder too but to me the biggest questions are
1. if there was a no vote/both are bad/doesn't matter/ or 3rd party vote how would the 2012 poll be
2. How much of Trump's votes on this poll are for lulz?


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oh dang, I thought that Trump's percentage was lower on this one when I glanced at it XD now that I'm looking at it properly, yes, GBAtemp does appear to be more conservative than the national average


You're forgetting that half the Bernie Sanders supporters voted other. That's what changed the poll for the most part


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> You're forgetting that half the Bernie Sanders supporters voted other. That's what changed the poll for the most part


Ahhhhh, true. I only just changed that vote myself. I'm guessing that it would probably about even out again if that weren't the case


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 28, 2016)

I gotta say, I do love opinion polls. After the BREXIT vote, polling lost all credibility to me when it comes to large swathes of people, like an entire country for instance. Polls say someone's ahead by 1.8%? The same polls that said UK citizens aren't completely bonkers and there's a 90% chance they'll vote Remain? Okay. Thanks, Clairvoyant Consortium - I wish I had a crystal ball too.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 28, 2016)

I find that polls tend to be very inaccurate. There's just too many factors that can lead to inaccurate results. Hell, I'm sure there's even a trend between people who are willing to participate in a poll and their preference that differs from the actual vote. While a poll can be useful to try and get an idea, the results certainly aren't set in stone. That said, I think polls are pretty interesting because they can give you a general consensus among the group being questioned that oftentimes defies expectations


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 28, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> I find that polls tend to be very inaccurate. There's just too many factors that can lead to inaccurate results. Hell, I'm sure there's even a trend between people who are willing to participate in a poll and their preference that differs from the actual vote. While a poll can be useful to try and get an idea, the results certainly aren't set in stone. That said, I think polls are pretty interesting because they can give you a general consensus among the group being questioned that oftentimes defies expectations


They can't possibly be accurate - the average poll uses data from what, 1000 participants? The U.S. has a population of 318.9 million as of 2014, you're polling 0.000319% of the population, your chances of being accurate are statistically 0%. It's logistically impossible to make an accurate prediction based on so little data. With two candidates a coin toss is more accurate than a poll - at least you have a 50/50 chance of being right. Even if you polled a million people, that's still 1/319th of the population, less than 1%, you're wasting time.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 28, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> You're forgetting that half the Bernie Sanders supporters voted other. That's what changed the poll for the most part


This is the only thing about the poll that made me nervous back in June. GBATemp's liberals are disproportionately #BernieOrBust compared to the general public, but still.



vayanui8 said:


> I find that polls tend to be very inaccurate. There's just too many factors that can lead to inaccurate results. Hell, I'm sure there's even a trend between people who are willing to participate in a poll and their preference that differs from the actual vote. While a poll can be useful to try and get an idea, the results certainly aren't set in stone. That said, I think polls are pretty interesting because they can give you a general consensus among the group being questioned that oftentimes defies expectations


Not all polls are created equal. This poll, for example, is comically flawed. It's not representative of the United States, it allows people to selectively participate in the poll, and it has a low participant size. It also doesn't screen for age, citizenship, voter registration, likelihood to vote, etc. It's just for fun. It highlights, however, the dangers of focusing on individual polls that may or may not commit some of the aforementioned mistakes. Aggregate polls tend to be pretty accurate, and aggregate polls that weigh individual polls based on participant size, methodology, date, and historical accuracy tend to be even more accurate.



Foxi4 said:


> They can't possibly be accurate - the average poll uses data from what, 1000 participants? The U.S. has a population of 318.9 million as of 2014, you're polling 0.000319% of the population, your chances of being accurate are statistically 0%. It's logistically impossible to make an accurate prediction based on so little data. With two candidates a coin toss is more accurate than a poll - at least you have a 50/50 chance of being right. Even if you polled a million people, that's still 1/319th of the population, less than 1%, you're wasting time.


With the proper methodology, 1,000 individuals is more than enough to have a good representative sample of the country or a state, with the results typically having a >95% chance of falling somewhere within the margin of error. The higher the participant size, the lower the margin of error. The margin of error is calculated with the goal of getting to that >95% number.

Edit: With regard to aggregate polls, that margin of error drops drastically when we start adding those participant sizes together and averaging the results.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Not all polls are created equal. This poll, for example, is comically flawed. It's not representative of the United States, it allows people to selectively participate in the poll, and it has a low participant size. It also doesn't screen for age, citizenship, voter registration, likelihood to vote, etc. It's just for fun. It highlights, however, the dangers of focusing on individual polls that may or may not commit some of the aforementioned mistakes. Aggregate polls tend to be pretty accurate, and aggregate polls that weigh individual polls based on participant size, methodology, date, and historical accuracy tend to be even more accurate.



Reminds me of my freshman year of HS, we all had to do a mock election and see how it would work out (It was all of the High school too). The results were that Ron Paul carried ten states (The options where Obama, Romney, and a write in but it had to be of a real person), Rocky Anderson won New Hampshire, Obama won 20 states and Romney won the rest. 




Lacius said:


> With the proper methodology, 1,000 individuals is more than enough to have a good representative sample of the country or a state with the results typically having a >95% chance of falling somewhere within the margin of error. The higher the participant size, the lower the margin of error.



Exactly the only issues are if the methodology is flawed but most major polling groups are good at it since that is what those organizations/companies do for a living so there results are relatively accurate.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 28, 2016)

Unless your methodology involves magical fairy dust and unicorns, a group of 1000 individuals is not representative of 318 million. It just isn't, I'm sorry. I treat polls as jerk-off material for people with confirmation bias, I'm only interested in the real deal now.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 28, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Unless your methodology involves magical fairy dust and unicorns, a group of 1000 individuals is not representative of 318 million. It just isn't, I'm sorry. I treat polls as jerk-off material for people with confirmation bias, I'm only interested in the real deal now.


The data is pretty clear that a truly random sample can indeed be representative of a larger population if the sample size is large enough. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the results (i.e. the smaller the margin of error). Any objective test for statistical significance shows that a sample size of 1,000 or 2,000 can be representative of 319 million with a reasonable margin of error. I would expect that virtually every statistician agrees on the power of random sampling. Aggregate polling has a great track record in predicting the results of elections, particularly when they're just before an election.

You can do a test yourself to gauge the power of random sampling. Let's say I am about to flip a coin 319 million times. Pretending we don't know the ratio of heads to tails in a coin flip, how many coin flips would you have to do in order to have a satisfactory random sample to figure out the likely result of my 319 million coin flips? The answer isn't even close to 319 million.

However, you do bring up a great point about how polls are very often treated as jerk-off material. A poll is only a snapshot in time (i.e. results may change wildly just as public opinion may change), and not all polls are created equal for the reasons I explained above. Therefore, it's easy for someone on one side of the political isle to engage in confirmation bias and only look at the polls that tell the story he or she wants to hear. If one cares more about what's true and less about what helps him or her sleep at night, it's important to look at careful aggregates and not focus too much on any single poll. Outliers will always exist in one direction or another for many reasons I've already outlined.

For example, an Ipsos poll came out recently showing Secretary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump by three points. The poll's methodology was good, and it had a sample size of a whopping 2,434 *likely* voters. In summary, the poll did just about everything right. However, to say this means Clinton is ahead by 3 would be to ignore all the other polls before it. In a good aggregate that gives more weight to polls that were done recently, polls with higher samples sizes, and polls with good methodology, Clinton is actually ahead by about 1.9, not 3. What would be significant is if polls consistently started showing Clinton ahead by 3 again, and the aggregate number would reflect that. With an aggregate number, we're also dealing with many more thousands of people in the sample size.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm having a hard time believing that less than 1% of the population can be representative of the entirety of the population on a decision as divisive as a presidential election. There are 50 states, so if we need to ask 1000 participants for an opinion, we're talking to 20 people per state. Since we want to ask an equal amount of republicans and democrats, that's 10 people each. If you think 10 people are representative of your entire group, that's plain silly. If I took 10 random Tempers and asked them about their opinions on divisive issues, I'd conclude that we all have autism. Naturally it's not that simple - we'd want to tip the scales depending on whether the state is right-leaning or left-leaning, adjust for population and ask people who are definitely going to vote, but it's still a long shot anyways. There are plenty of republicans that are vocally anti-Trump, there are also plenty of democrats that are anti-Hillary. Not only that, you'd probably want to ask different age groups too, so that's a further sub-division. The margin of error is huge and I don't need to see any stats to sway me either way - common sense and simple math tell me that the whole premise is stupid. It's glorified clairvoyance, that's all there is to it. I don't need jerk-off material pre-voting anyways, and I wish people didn't either. I feel that polls are damaging to democracy - people should vote for who they believe in, not whoever has a better chance of winning according to a jerk-off think tank, which by the way isn't bias-free, because nothing is. If polling agencies were truly neutral, we wouldn't have such a huge variety of results - a consensus in polls is rarely the case, everyone just looks at polls that fit their narrative.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 28, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't need jerk-off material pre-voting anyways, and I wish people didn't either. I feel that polls are damaging to democracy - people should vote for who they believe in, not whoever has a better chance of winning according to a jerk-off think tank, which by the way isn't bias-free, because nothing is. *If polling agencies were truly neutral, we wouldn't have such a huge variety of results - a consensus in polls is rarely the case, everyone just looks at polls that fit their narrative.*


A good point when you consider many of the polls are from media groups which of course have their own political bias.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 29, 2016)

what the fuck os wrong with America? letting a damn racist into the office and who knows if he's unstable (starts WW3 total nuclear holocost) I just pray to Allah that Trump gets arrested for child rape what should've happened 2X over but throw a judge 1 mil and he will be aquitted the judicial system fuck the entire us governent is corrupt

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

I'd say move to canada while you can guys if trump gets elected he'll probably shut down the US/Canadian border to prevent people from fleeing


----------



## Engert (Jul 29, 2016)

chrisrlink said:


> what the fuck os wrong with America? letting a damn racist into the office and who knows if he's unstable (starts WW3 total nuclear holocost) I just pray to Allah that Trump gets arrested for child rape what should've happened 2X over but throw a judge 1 mil and he will be aquitted the judicial system fuck the entire us governent is corrupt



Americans is what's wrong with America. Americans with guns.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 29, 2016)

no wonder why I shut up on fb it would hurt my case for immigrating


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

chrisrlink said:


> what the fuck os wrong with America? letting a damn racist into the office and who knows if he's unstable (starts WW3 total nuclear holocost) I just pray to Allah that Trump gets arrested for child rape what should've happened 2X over but throw a judge 1 mil and he will be aquitted the judicial system fuck the entire us governent is corrupt
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> I'd say move to canada while you can guys if trump gets elected he'll probably shut down the US/Canadian border to prevent people from fleeing


Do you have any clue how much it would cost to move to Canada? Very few people could ever do that.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 29, 2016)

I have a future wife willing to fight for me one woman i know for 11 years since she was 15 ik its hard but it's worth it


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

chrisrlink said:


> I have a future wife willing to fight for me one woman i know for 11 years since she was 15 ik its hard but it's worth it


Really? Up rooting your family and basically changing your whole life all due to a president you dont like ? Its better to vote that person out.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 29, 2016)

let me add something to that comment she IS Canadian and LIVES IN Canada


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

chrisrlink said:


> let me add something to that comment she IS Canadian and LIVES IN Canada


Oh well that is different then.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 29, 2016)

Forgetting the fact that Hillary is the pro-war candidate this time around? And what, no one wants to move to Mexico instead of Canada?


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

clownb said:


> Forgetting the fact that Hillary is the pro-war candidate this time around? And what, no one wants to move to Mexico instead of Canada?


Canada is the America of the North


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 29, 2016)

clownb said:


> Forgetting the fact that Hillary is the pro-war candidate this time around? And what, no one wants to move to Mexico instead of Canada?


I'd be going to Germany if that were the case. And let's not forget that Mike Pence, the guy who would _actually _be running the country, also voted to go to war with Iraq


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'd be going to Germany if that were the case. And let's not forget that Mike Pence, the guy who would _actually _be running the country, also voted to go to war with Iraq


Both supported Iraq. Only Johnson and Stein were against it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Both supported Iraq. Only Johnson and Stein were against it.


Yep


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yep


And they probably will be the only ones not in the debate (although i think Johnson could get the 15%).


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> And they probably will be the only ones not in the debate (although i think Johnson could get the 15%).


Yeah, he's the only independent party in a LONG while who's actually had a shot of even being on the ballot


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yeah, he's the only independent party in a LONG while who's actually had a shot of even being on the ballot


Actually last time he was in the ballot in  47 or 48 states i believe. The Libertarians normally get on the ballot pretty well but they do not qualify for the funding or major party status in most areas.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Actually last time he was in the ballot in  47 or 48 states i believe. The Libertarians normally get on the ballot pretty well but they do not qualify for the funding or major party status in most areas.


Oh? I thought you actually had to hit the 15% polling status to be officially on the ballot?


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oh? I thought you actually had to hit the 15% polling status to be officially on the ballot?


Nope that is for debates. Normally the process to get on ballot depends on the state but normally it is getting a certain amount of signatures.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The data is pretty clear that a truly random sample can indeed be representative of a larger population if the sample size is large enough. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the results (i.e. the smaller the margin of error). Any objective test for statistical significance shows that a sample size of 1,000 or 2,000 can be representative of 319 million with a reasonable margin of error. I would expect that virtually every statistician agrees on the power of random sampling. Aggregate polling has a great track record in predicting the results of elections, particularly when they're just before an election.
> 
> You can do a test yourself to gauge the power of random sampling. Let's say I am about to flip a coin 319 million times. Pretending we don't know the ratio of heads to tails in a coin flip, how many coin flips would you have to do in order to have a satisfactory random sample to figure out the likely result of my 319 million coin flips? The answer isn't even close to 319 million.
> 
> ...


I think one of the issue with polls is that while they can give you a decent general idea, things are often too close to give a definitive consensus. Even if the poll is taken from a truly random sample, there is still plenty of chances for a random error to occur. This wouldn't be an issue with a poll where a drastic difference is present, but with hoe close the top 2 candidates often are it's really not an effective way to predict who will win. That's not to say I dislike polls, they're very interesting, but there's always a handful of people who take them as the word of God and overestimate their accuracy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 29, 2016)

Boy, oh boy - everyone's on the PC train and I'm just sitting here and waiting for Trump to actually say something racist. His platform so far refers to illegal immigrants and muslims, neither of which is a race. To be fair though, his plan to temporarily ban muslim immigration does go against freedom of religion which is a U.S. staple and pretty much the whole point the country was established for in the first place, but I'm afraid that's a bed radical muslims made themselves. They need to sort out their internal problems, and although I'm against the ban, I can understand the sentiment. inb4 #NotAllMuslims, we all know that, however Trump's mindset is "it only takes one", which is fair enough, he has the right to hold that opinion, even if it's discriminatory.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 29, 2016)

Accusing Trump of being racist drives me crazy because the people who say it can't actually back it up. It's nothing but people parroting each other without actually looking up the facts themselves. The worst part is that Trump's plans aren't even hard to find problems with. How is Trump actually going to build his wall? How can he guarantee it will even work when people could still get in via air and sea travel. He claims he will let people in who have converted from Islam, but how can he actually check this? These are all huge issues with Trump's plans, but people are too busy circlejerk and accusing him of being racist instead of pointing out his glaring flaws.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 29, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> Accusing Trump of being racist drives me crazy because the people who say it can't actually back it up. It's nothing but people parroting each other without actually looking up the facts themselves. The worst part is that Trump's plans aren't even hard to find problems with. How is Trump actually going to build his wall? How can he guarantee it will even work when people could still get in via air and sea travel. He claims he will let people in who have converted from Islam, but how can he actually check this? These are all huge issues with Trump's plans, but people are too busy circlejerk and accusing him of being racist instead of pointing out his glaring flaws.


There isn't going to be a wall - I said it before and I'll say it again, it's political bait that's supposed to get numbnuts to vote for him. As for air and sea travel, it's practically impossible to be an illegal immigrant and enter the country by air - not with the TSA around. As for sea, it'd be easier, but the coast is more closely monitored than land - even a shitty raft pops up on a radar like a big glaring christmas light.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 29, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> A good point when you consider many of the polls are from media groups which of course have their own political bias.


Biases and leanings definitely exist. A good aggregate number factors in historical biases compared to historical results when weighing polls.



RevPokemon said:


> And they probably will be the only ones not in the debate (although i think Johnson could get the 15%).


I'd like to see him in the debate, but that doesn't look likely. I haven't seen Governor Johnson top 13% in the polls, and that's an outlier. His aggregate number is closer to 8.3%, and it was roughly the same number in early June (i.e. there's no upward trend). One might also argue that we're entering a stage in the general election after the conventions when hesitant voters begin to gravitate towards one of the major party candidates or the other. Johnson's numbers could be likely to go down as people who generally vote Democratic or Republican stop using him as a protest vote. I read an article not long ago that described a significant number of #BernieOrBust people using Johnson as a protest vote in three-person and sometimes four-person match-ups rather than saying they're voting for Clinton, and that's arguably likely to change as we see Clinton's support among Bernie supporters trend upwards.

Of course, a million things could happen between now and the debates that cause Johnson's numbers to go up, so who knows?



vayanui8 said:


> I think one of the issue with polls is that while they can give you a decent general idea, things are often too close to give a definitive consensus. Even if the poll is taken from a truly random sample, there is still plenty of chances for a random error to occur. This wouldn't be an issue with a poll where a drastic difference is present, but with hoe close the top 2 candidates often are it's really not an effective way to predict who will win. That's not to say I dislike polls, they're very interesting, but there's always a handful of people who take them as the word of God and overestimate their accuracy.


Polls acknowledge the chance for random error by giving the margin of error (typically the range that's >95% likely to be true), but the odds of random error become vanishingly small with increased sample sizes and better methodology.



Foxi4 said:


> Boy, oh boy - everyone's on the PC train and I'm just sitting here and waiting for Trump to actually say something racist. His platform so far refers to illegal immigrants and muslims, neither of which is a race. To be fair though, his plan to temporarily ban muslim immigration does go against freedom of religion which is a U.S. staple and pretty much the whole point the country was established for in the first place, but I'm afraid that's a bed radical muslims made themselves. They need to sort out their internal problems, and although I'm against the ban, I can understand the sentiment. inb4 #NotAllMuslims, we all know that, however Trump's mindset is "it only takes one", which is fair enough, he has the right to hold that opinion, even if it's discriminatory.


It's not hopping aboard the PC train to acknowledge Donald Trump's blatant bigotry and, yes, racism. From a Washington Post article:


> _The things Trump is doing now — disparaging the “Mexican” judge, disqualifying Muslim judges, calling somebody claiming Native American blood “Pocahontas” and singling out “my African American” — is very much in line with what he has been doing for the past year, and before.
> 
> More than six months ago, I began a column by proposing, “Let’s not mince words: Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist.” His bigotry went back decades, to the Central Park jogger case, and came to include: his leadership of the “birther” movement suggesting President Obama was a foreign-born Muslim, his vulgar expressions for women, his talk of Mexico sending rapists into America, his call for mass deportation, his spats with Latino news outlets, his mocking Asian accent, his tacit acceptance of the claim that Muslims are a “problem” in America, his agreement that American Muslims should be forced to register themselves, his call to ban Muslim immigration, his false claim about American Muslims celebrating 9/11, his tweeting of statistics from white supremacists, his condoning of violence against black demonstrators, and his mocking of a journalist with a physical disability._



To say Donald Trump isn't racist because _Mexican_ and _Muslim_ aren't races is to engage in mental gymnastics with a flawed understanding of the word _racism_ in an attempt to defend bigotry and prejudice as not racist. In reality, the word _racism_ has been used to refer to bigotry and prejudice against people who look or act differently from you, and in the English language, the word in our lexicon for _prejudice against an ethnicity_ is the word _racism_. The Wikipedia page on racism does a good job explaining how the word is used:


> While race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior).
> 
> Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.



If you want to argue that Donald Trump is not technically racist, and he's just a bigot with prejudices, I guess that's fine, but that also means you're not using the word _racism_ like the rest of us. If you want to narrowly define _racism_ as only applying to a sanctioned list of five groups of people, I'm not going to stop you. I'm not sure what it says about a person's alleged racism if, in order to show he's not racist, you have to narrowly define _racism_ to do it; it's probably not good.

Edit: There are arguably instances described above that fit your definition of _racism_ too, but that probably doesn't matter.



vayanui8 said:


> Accusing Trump of being racist drives me crazy because the people who say it can't actually back it up. It's nothing but people parroting each other without actually looking up the facts themselves. The worst part is that Trump's plans aren't even hard to find problems with. How is Trump actually going to build his wall? How can he guarantee it will even work when people could still get in via air and sea travel. He claims he will let people in who have converted from Islam, but how can he actually check this? These are all huge issues with Trump's plans, but people are too busy circlejerk and accusing him of being racist instead of pointing out his glaring flaws.


Once we define _racism_, it's easy to see if someone is objectively racist or not. For the reasons described above, Donald Trump is a racist. At the very least, the things he says and proposes are racist. One could argue it's all an act, but I typically assume that if someone walks like a racist and talks like a racist, then that person is probably a racist.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's not hopping aboard the PC train to acknowledge Donald Trump's blatant bigotry and, yes, racism. From a Washington Post article:
> 
> To say Donald Trump isn't racist because _Mexican_ and _Muslim_ aren't races is to engage in mental gymnastics with a flawed understanding of the word _racism_ in an attempt to defend bigotry and prejudice as not racist. In reality, the word _racism_ has been used to refer to bigotry and prejudice against people who look or act differently from you, and in the English language, the word in our lexicon for _prejudice against an ethnicity_ is the word _racism_. The Wikipedia page on racism does a good job explaining how the word is used:
> 
> ...


He's never said anything specifically against "Mexicans", he always refers to "illegal immigrants", which is a whole different matter. A mexican (or if you prefer more ethnic terms a hispanic and/or latin american) can legally enter the U.S. after going through all the hoops, he's never opposed that.

"Muslim" is factually not a race - muslims come from all over the world. There are middle eastern muslims, african muslims, muslims of arabic decent etc. - muslims vary greatly due to the religion's large sphere of influence, it's not an ethnicity for the same reasons why "christian" isn't. Believing in the Islamic god doesn't mean that you've entered some special racial club, it's a religion, not a race. As such, you can't reasonably call him a racist.

The word "racist" explicitly refers to race or ethnicity, much like "sexist" refers to sex. Call him a xenophobe if you must, but calling him a racist is a stretch. You're the one using the word "racist" improperly, namely too broadly, not me. Once again, "illegal immigrant" and "muslim" are neither an ethnicity nor a race, thus the term "racist" doesn't apply to them. You can juggle articles on Wikipedia written by random anons or tired Washington Post blog posts all you want, we still don't need to "define" the word "racist", that's what dictionaries are for:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist

Trump doesn't state that one race is inherently better than another nor does he mistreat people based on race, ergo he's not a racist.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

@Lacius 
Currently regarding Johnson I believe he has roughly a 33% chance of making it to the debates. One question that also has to be ask is if Romney or Jen Bush endorse him would that help his numbers with the Never Trump crowd? Personally I feel he probably has more to appeal to them then too the Bernie or Bust people.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 29, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> He's never said anything specifically against "Mexicans", he always refers to "illegal immigrants", which is a whole different matter. A mexican can legally enter the states after going through all the hoops, he's never opposed that.


You should reread my post. He's disparaged more than just illegal immigrants. And regardless, vilifying illegal immigrants from Mexico is itself racist demagoguery by definition. He's exhibiting demagoguery against a very specific ethnicity of illegal immigrant but not others.



Foxi4 said:


> Muslim is factually not a race - muslims come from all over the world. There are middle eastern muslims, african muslims, muslims of arabic decent etc. - believing in the Islamic god doesn't mean that you've entered some special racial club, it's a religion, not a race.


Ignoring the inherent immorality of Islamophobia, regardless of what word we call it, the vilifying of foreign Muslims is a prejudice against ethnicity as well as against religion.



Foxi4 said:


> The word "racist" explicitly refers to race or ethnicity, much like "sexist" refers to sex. Call him a xenophobe if you must, but calling him a racist is a stretch. You're the one using the word "racist" improperly, namely too broadly, not me. Once again, "illegal immigrant" and "muslim" are neither an ethnicity nor a race, thus the term "racist" doesn't apply to them.


If we agree that _racism_ refers to prejudice against ethnicity as well as against race, then he's objectively a racist when he vilifies the above ethnicities. Even if I were to concede that he gets a pass on vilifying Muslims and Mexicans, which I don't, there's still plenty more listed above that makes him a racist.



RevPokemon said:


> @Lacius
> Currently regarding Johnson I believe he has roughly a 33% chance of making it to the debates. One question that also has to be ask is if Romney or Jen Bush endorse him would that help his numbers with the Never Trump crowd? Personally I feel he probably has more to appeal to them then too the Bernie or Bust people.


I think as purely subjective odds, 33% sounds about right. I also think, in principle, Gary Johnson should have an easier time appealing to the Never Trump crowd rather than the Bernie or Bust group. However, in some polling, Bernie supporters are picking Johnson because a.) They see him as a more viable protest candidate, and/or b.) Some polling only asks about a three-way race, excluding Jill Stein.

I also really doubt that Bush and/or Romney will endorse Johnson. Merely neglecting to endorse Trump will be seen by many Republicans as a lot less of a betrayal than endorsing Johnson or Clinton.



Foxi4 said:


> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist
> 
> Trump doesn't state that one race is inherently better than another nor does he mistreat people based on race, ergo he's not a racist.


Even your source defines _racism_ as _racial prejudice or discrimination_, and even you agree that racism can include prejudice against one's ethnicity.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I also really doubt that Bush and/or Romney will endorse Johnson. Merely neglecting to endorse Trump will be seen by many Republicans as a lot less of a betrayal than endorsing Johnson or Clinton.



Romney I think it is still pretty decent chances of an endorsement as he and Weld are close friends (I believe he said if Weld was the top ticket then he would have already endorsed him). But oh well.

But at least he is polling pretty well and is either at 10% or around it. So hopefully at least he can be Anderson's amount he got back in 80. But who knows what will happen until October as there is alot more to come.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 29, 2016)

What you're saying is ridiculous. He's refering to mexican illegal immigrants because they're your only neighbor besides Canada - it's a matter of geography, not ethnicity. Being islamophobic, by definition, refers to vilifying and/or fearing muslims, not a specific race, as we've already established that "muslim" isn't a race. I understand that you like painting with broad strokes, but the terms you're using have very specific meanings - they're "exactly what it says on the tin", so to speak. That's neither here nor there though, it's not like either of us is changing our minds, so what's the point in the exchange? I'm merely pointing out what's wrong with your statement, you can take it or leave it.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 29, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> What you're saying is ridiculous. He's refering to mexican illegal immigrants because they're your only neighbor besides Canada - it's a matter of geography, not ethnicity.


It's arbitrary demagoguery based on ethnicity when illegal immigration from Mexico is about as big a problem as illegal immigration from other countries. He's also a.) Disparaging a specific ethnicity of illegal immigrant by, among other things, stating falsehoods that vilify those immigrants, and b.) He's disparaging Mexican immigrants broadly when he vilifies illegal immigration without advocating for reform to legal immigration.

Let's be clear: Donald Trump has exhibited an anti-Mexican immigrant sentiment, with or without the _illegal_ part. You should reread my post on Trump's disparagement of judges on the sole basis of their Mexican heritage, and I haven't even mentioned his comments at CPAC where he condemned a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants from Mexico while advocating in nearly the same sentence for more legal immigration from Europe because they're "tremendous... hard-working people."

Edit: "Trump's a racist" may be a meme, but it's not a false one.



Foxi4 said:


> Being islamophobic, by definition, refers to vilifying and/or fearing muslims, not a specific race, as we've already established that "muslim" isn't a race. I understand that you like painting with broad strokes, but the terms you're using have very specific meanings - they're "exactly what it says on the tin", so to speak. That's neither here nor there though, it's not like either of us is changing our minds, so what's the point in the exchange? I'm merely pointing out what's wrong with your statement, you can take it or leave it.


As I previously stated, to vilify foreign Muslims is to vilify ethnicity as well as a religion.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I haven't even mentioned his comments at CPAC where he condemned a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants from Mexico while advocating in nearly the same sentence for more legal immigration from Europe because they're "tremendous... hard-working people


And that is also pretty much all of the other Republican candidates from 2016.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 29, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> There isn't going to be a wall - I said it before and I'll say it again, it's political bait that's supposed to get numbnuts to vote for him. As for air and sea travel, it's practically impossible to be an illegal immigrant and enter the country by air - not with the TSA around. As for sea, it'd be easier, but the coast is more closely monitored than land - even a shitty raft pops up on a radar like a big glaring christmas light.


While the wall may not actually happen, a lot of people seem to think it actually will. Besides, if Trump is going to try and argue for it, I think it's perfectly fair for people to argue against it. He is saying he will do it whether that's true or not


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's arbitrary demagoguery based on ethnicity when illegal immigration from Mexico is about as big a problem as illegal immigration from other countries. He's also a.) Disparaging a specific ethnicity of illegal immigrant by, among other things, stating falsehoods that vilify those immigrants, and b.) He's disparaging Mexican immigrants broadly when he vilifies illegal immigration without advocating for reform to legal immigration.
> 
> Let's be clear: Donald Trump has exhibited an anti-Mexican immigrant sentiment, with or without the _illegal_ part. You should reread my post on Trump's disparagement of judges on the sole basis of their Mexican heritage, and I haven't even mentioned his comments at CPAC where he condemned a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants from Mexico while advocating in nearly the same sentence for more legal immigration from Europe because they're "tremendous... hard-working people."
> 
> ...


Well, what can I say - it's okay to be wrong. Richard Dawkins seems to be on board with what I'm saying as he too doesn't treat "muslim" as a race or as an ethnicity since it encompasses far too many ethnic groups from all across the world, from Africa to East Asia, which includes many races of many colours and even more ethnicities - you could stand on your head and do a twirl and you still won't prove that there's an ethnic component to being a muslim since even muslims disagree with that notion. I won't even get back to the Mexican point since once again, I'm yet to see a statement that can be considered racist, meaning "person or group X is worse than people Y specifically because they're X". Just because race can be used as a descriptor, i.e. "we have a problem with mexican immigrants" doesn't mean that the context or intent are racist, far from in. Unfortunately, in today's pussified PC world you can no longer make such statements without being called a bigot immediately, it's the race and religion baiting olympics. It's shutting down conversations just because they're problematic by putting someone in a neat little drawer with a dismissive label to pretend that a given problem doesn't exist.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jul 30, 2016)

Honestly? I'd vote Trump. Both your options are horrible, but all Trump has done is talk while Clinton is involved with scandal after scandal.

Everyone hates Trump because what he _claims_ he will do, but everyone hates Clinton for what she _did_.

I sincerely believe that Trump genuinely has a somewhat intelligent plan to Make America Great Again, but he realizes he has to exploit the loopholes in your broken system to do so. What he is doing pretty much cannot be done in any other country. With the things he said, elsewhere he'd be laughed out of the election and asked to step down from even the smallest role in the government. But here the news and people eat it all up, and he knows it.


I think that if anyone wanted to get enough clout to make positive changes in the country, they would either have to take the Bernie route or the Trump route. And the Bernie route lost.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, what can I say - it's okay to be wrong. Richard Dawkins seems to be on board with what I'm saying as he too doesn't treat "muslim" as a race or as an ethnicity since it encompasses far too many ethnic groups from all across the world, from Africa to East Asia, which includes many races of many colours and even more ethnicities


Who says Trump is only offending one ethnicity? History's disparaging of _the other_ often extends to a broad range of ethnicities under a single umbrella term.



Foxi4 said:


> I won't even get back to the Mexican point since once again, I'm yet to see a statement that can be considered racist, meaning "person or group X is worse than people Y specifically because they're X".


To keep with your equation, "Person of group _Mexican_ are worse than people _White_ at being a judge specifically because they are _Mexican_." There are numerous more examples, and I suggest you reread my previous posts on his history of _racist_ comments, by your definition.



Foxi4 said:


> Just because race can be used as a descriptor, i.e. "we have a problem with mexican immigrants" doesn't mean that the context or intent are racist, far from in. Unfortunately, in today's pussified PC world you can no longer make such statements without being called a bigot immediately, it's the race and religion baiting olympics. It's shutting down conversations just because they're problematic by putting someone in a neat little drawer with a dismissive label to pretend that a given problem doesn't exist.


No, but it doesn't mean it's not racist, and there has been a lot more to it than that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Who says Trump is only offending one ethnicity? History's disparaging of _the other_ often extends to a broad range of ethnicities under a single umbrella term.


That's circumstancial - you're adding this to the narrative yourself. The core of the issue here is an anti-muslim, or rather an anti-radical muslim stance, not an anti-race stance - he's proposing a temporary ban on muslim immigration _regardless_ of the skin colour of the muslim in question. The entire argument is religion-based, you're the one adding race into the equation. QED, argument made.


> To keep with your equation, "Person of group _Mexican_ are worse than people _White_ at being a judge specifically because they are _Mexican_." There are numerous more examples, and I suggest you reread my previous posts on his history of _racist_ comments, by your definition.


Do you even know what he actually said? He wasn't criticizing the judge because he's of Mexican descent, he was criticizing him because he found his decisions so-far unfair and he suspects that his Mexican herritage and pro-Mexican stance might be a source of bias and a conflict of interest. He wasn't claiming racial superiority or inferiority of either party, he was questioning whether the judge was impartial. Moreover, he was purposefuly baited into this "trap" throughout the interview.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/


> No, but it doesn't mean it's not racist, and there has been a lot more to it than that.


The opposite is true. The fact that we don't have evidence to prove that there isn't a giant space hampster orbiting our galaxy doesn't mean that one exists. You're making the claim that he's a racist, so the burden if proof is on you, you have to prove your allegation, not me his innocence, buddy.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's circumstancial - you're adding this to the narrative yourself. The core of the issue here is an anti-muslim, or rather an anti-radical muslim stance, not an anti-race stance - he's proposing a temporary ban on muslim immigration regardless of the skin colour of the muslim in question. The entire argument is religion-based, you're the one adding race into the equation. QED, argument made.


Donald Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric goes far beyond merely wanting to place a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. I've also already explained how Islamophobia alone can be racist. It's disingenuous to frame the argument this way when I've given other examples of his Islamophobia other than the Muslim ban, regardless of whether or not you think it should be called a form of racism.



Foxi4 said:


> Do you even know what he actually said? He wasn't criticizing the judge *because he's of Mexican descent*, he was criticizing him because he found his decisions so-far unfair and he suspects that *his Mexican herritage* and pro-Mexican stance might be a source of bias and a conflict of interest. He wasn't claiming racial superiority or inferiority of either party, he was questioning whether the judge was impartial.


I'll let the contradiction of the bold parts speak for itself. Also, saying one kind of judge is fine but the other is disqualified because of an immutable characteristic meets the definition of _superior_. As for his claim of bias, I'm well aware of it. I don't care _why_ he's racist.



Foxi4 said:


> The opposite is true. The fact that we don't have evidence to prove that there isn't a giant space hampster orbiting our galaxy doesn't mean that one exists. You're making the claim that he's a racist, so the burden if proof is on you, you have to prove your allegation, not me his innocence, buddy.


You seem to misunderstand my argument if you think I'm committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. I'm not saying Trump is racist because it hasn't been demonstrated that he's not. I'm saying that he's a racist because he has been demonstrated to be one. What you responded to was a direct criticism of something specific you said, not my argument.

This conversation is getting circular, so it might be fair to end it. I understand your point of view that, regardless of how bad Trump's bigotry is, it may or may not be fair to technically call it _racist_. I disagree for the reasons I've given above, including how _racism_ is defined in part by the UN's International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (see my post on how Wikipedia describes the word _racism_'s popular usage). At the very least, you can acknowledge that he's _arguably_ racist, whether or not you exclude some of the things I've listed, and people can come to the conclusion that he's racist through critical assessment of the facts and not just jumping onto some thoughtless PC bandwagon.

I also think a lot of our disagreement is just a matter of semantics. I said long ago that it was fine if you wanted to use the word _racism_ the way you're using it. You also seem to be selectively picking apart the examples of Trump's racism you consider arguable while ignoring other things on that list.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Donald Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric goes far beyond merely wanting to place a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. I've also already explained how Islamophobia alone can be racist. It's disingenuous to frame the argument this way when I've given other examples of his Islamophobia other than the Muslim ban, regardless of whether or not you think it should be called a form of racism.
> 
> I'll let the contradiction of the bold parts speak for itself. Also, saying one kind of judge is fine but the other is disqualified because of an immutable characteristic meets the definition of _superior_. As for his claim of bias, I'm well aware of it. I don't care _why_ he's racist.
> 
> ...


You haven't demonstrated how Islamophobia can be racist because it's impossible to do so, reason being that Islam is a religion, not a race, and you consistently try to equate the term with some form of ethnic background when in reality it's just a system of beliefs. Similarly you cannot prove thst the sun orbits the Earth - that's because it doesn't, even though it might seem like it does for an observer on Earth.

The bolded parts of my statement are not contradictory, you're just having a hard time reading in context - Trump claims that the judge is incompetent not specifically because he's a Mexican and thus his racial and ethnic background somehow disqualify him as a judge, making him an "inferior human". The reason is that being Mexican presiding over this one particular case pertaining Trump who is vocal about his policy regarding sanctions against Mexico introduces reasonable doubt concerning the judge's ability to accurately assess the case and arrive at a fair an unbiased verdict, at least according to Trump. This isn't about the judge's race or ethnic background, it's about the judge possibly having a horse in the race, however unlikely it may be. One is a matter of race, the other is a matter of association - two completely different matters. You're conflating this with racism when it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a very particular set of circumstances. You don't want a judge or jury composed of people against whom you're supposedly committing a perceived wrong - that's not how an unbiased court works. In fact, both are supposed to be unaffiliated and in no way connected to the subject matter at hand.

You haven't "demonstrated" that Trump is a racist - you're just saying that he is, and you probably honestly do believe that he is, but there's a difference between the two which often escapes you. I also think it's fair to end the conversation since we're both just repeating ourselves without getting through to one another. All I'm going to say is that I am diametrically opposed to everything you've said so far, but I'd gladly defend your right to make a complete ass out of yourself on the Internet to the death because it's incredibly entertaining to talk to you - each time I just feel like I'm talking to an alien.


----------



## mashers (Jul 31, 2016)

Although the members of this site are clearly not a representative sample of the US population, is still scares me that Trump is in the lead here. I have never cared who wins the US presidential election, but I genuinely fear what could happen if an extremist like Trump becomes president. It will affect not just the US but the whole world, and I can honestly see Trump dragging us all into another major conflict.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Ignoring the inherent immorality of Islamophobia



Hahahaha.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

mashers said:


> Although the members of this site are clearly not a representative sample of the US population, is still scares me that Trump is in the lead here. I have never cared who wins the US presidential election, but I genuinely fear what could happen if an extremist like Trump becomes president. It will affect not just the US but the whole world, and I can honestly see Trump dragging us all into another major conflict.


I like how myopic comments like this are. Trump, a businessman who has no reason to wage wars, will drag you into a major conflict, not Hillary who proposes attacking Assad's government in Syria as one of her first tasks should she become president.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...l-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/

The first item on her list of agendas is to oust a foreign government. Sounds peaceful and non-intrusive.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jul 31, 2016)

The fact of the matter is that the US government is really not in great shape. Electing Trump would force major changes, but Clinton would just enforce the status quo. As an external observer I honestly believe the states are heading down the path to a messy revolution. Trump could direct the revolution so it happens more graceful, but Clinton will let the problems and resentment build up until the call for blood rings loud and clear.


----------



## Viri (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I like how myopic comments like this are. Trump, a businessman who has no reason to wage wars, will drag you into a major conflict, not Hillary who proposes attacking Assad's government in Syria as one of her first tasks should she become president.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...l-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/
> 
> The first item on her list of agendas is to oust a foreign government. Sounds peaceful and non-intrusive.


Don't worry, she'll be sure to be peaceful with one of her biggest donors.

http://i.imgur.com/3RJGIQs.jpg


----------



## shadoom (Jul 31, 2016)

Viri said:


> Don't worry, she'll be sure to be peaceful with one of her biggest donors.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/3RJGIQs.jpg


#notallClintons


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 31, 2016)

Donald Trump got more votes in the primary than any GOP candidate in history.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 31, 2016)

clownb said:


> Donald Trump got more votes in the primary than any GOP candidate in history.


How is this relevant?


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 31, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> How is this relevant?


Gee, maybe I misread the subject of this topic?

At this point, even the liberal extremists themselves are coming out and admitting that Hillary has virtually no chance of winning.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You haven't demonstrated how Islamophobia can be racist because it's impossible to do so, reason being that Islam is a religion, not a race, and you consistently try to equate the term with some form of ethnic background when in reality it's just a system of beliefs. Similarly you cannot prove thst the sun orbits the Earth - that's because it doesn't, even though it might seem like it does for an observer on Earth.


Islamophobia is as much a form of ethnic or cultural racism as antisemitism. If you want to ignore this in favor of a strict definition of _biological_ racism, be my guest. I don't want to argue semantics. If you want to ignore how some words are used colloquially, that's your prerogative. However, it's likely to cause snowballed arguments like this when you do so.



Foxi4 said:


> The bolded parts of my statement are not contradictory, you're just having a hard time reading in context - Trump claims that the judge is incompetent not specifically because he's a Mexican and thus his racial and ethnic background somehow disqualify him as a judge, making him an "inferior human". The reason is that being Mexican presiding over this one particular case pertaining Trump who is vocal about his policy regarding sanctions against Mexico introduces reasonable doubt concerning the judge's ability to accurately assess the case and arrive at a fair an unbiased verdict, at least according to Trump. This isn't about the judge's race or ethnic background, it's about the judge possibly having a horse in the race, however unlikely it may be. One is a matter of race, the other is a matter of association - two completely different matters. You're conflating this with racism when it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a very particular set of circumstances. You don't want a judge or jury composed of people against whom you're supposedly committing a perceived wrong - that's not how an unbiased court works. In fact, both are supposed to be unaffiliated and in no way connected to the subject matter at hand.


To say a judge's heritage will lead to bias and/or incompetence, so he or she shouldn't be allowed to do one's job, is racist. Trump's rational is irrelevant to whether or not it's racist.



Foxi4 said:


> You haven't "demonstrated" that Trump is a racist - you're just saying that he is, and you probably honestly do believe that he is, but there's a difference between the two which often escapes you.


Yes, I have: with definitions and examples. You just disagree with my use of the word _racism_.



Foxi4 said:


> All I'm going to say is that I am diametrically opposed to everything you've said so far, but I'd gladly defend *your right to make a complete ass out of yourself on the Internet to the death because it's incredibly entertaining to talk to you - each time I just feel like I'm talking to an alien.*


Snide remarks like these are why we can't have nice things. Don't take this conversation so personally, particularly when it's one about semantics. I know you think you need to defend your original points and be right, but it's okay to concede things every once in awhile if one's goal is to come away from a conversation with more truth and knowledge than before. It's okay to admit, for example, that a libertarian solution to discrimination in the marketplace doesn't exist, regardless of whether or not you think there should be a solution, and it's okay to admit that Trump has said racist things depending on one's usage of the word _racist_.



Foxi4 said:


> I like how myopic comments like this are. Trump, a businessman who has no reason to wage wars, will drag you into a major conflict, not Hillary who proposes attacking Assad's government in Syria as one of her first tasks should she become president.


There's a lot left to be desired regarding Secretary Clinton's foreign policy, but Donald Trump has advocated for going into Syria with "tremendous force," "bombing the shit" out of the middle east, allowing more countries to have nuclear weapons, "taking out" family members of ISIS, expanding torture, and more.

I think it's fair to characterize Clinton as hawkish, but the lesser of two evils is obvious here.



Futurdreamz said:


> The fact of the matter is that the US government is really not in great shape. Electing Trump would force major changes, but Clinton would just enforce the status quo.


I agree with this characterization. I think Secretary Clinton would largely enforce the status quo, which I believe is very preferable to the negative change Donald Trump would bring.



clownb said:


> Donald Trump got more votes in the primary than any GOP candidate in history.


And Secretary Clinton received more primary votes than Donald Trump.



clownb said:


> At this point, even the liberal extremists themselves are coming out and admitting that Hillary has virtually no chance of winning.


Some liberals like to argue that Senator Sanders had a better chance of winning against Donald Trump (the evidence for this isn't conclusive), and they're trying to frame the election as an "I told you so" moment if Trump wins. However, aggregate polling shows Secretary Clinton with a narrow lead against Trump. Nationally and in many swing states, she's currently ahead by about two or three points, and in almost the rest of the swing states that most models say she doesn't need to win if everything else stays where it's at, it's virtually tied.

In other words, both candidates have a very real chance of winning, so it's unfair to say either has "virtually no chance of winning," and neither side should get complacent. However, I would much rather be Clinton right now. Nate Silver's polls-plus model puts Clinton's chances of winning at around 61% and Trump's at around 39%.


----------



## Lord M (Jul 31, 2016)

clownb said:


> Donald Trump got more votes in the primary than any GOP candidate in history.


maybe because he is a masons puppets like everyone in politic?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Islamophobia is as much a form of ethnic or cultural racism as antisemitism. If you want to ignore this in favor of a strict definition of _biological_ racism, be my guest. I don't want to argue semantics. If you want to ignore how some words are used colloquially, that's your prerogative. However, it's likely to cause snowballed arguments like this when you do so.


If you want to claim "culture racism" then A) say so in the first place, as there's a difference between it and strictly race-oriented "racism" and B) we'd have to establish whether or not "Muslim" is a culture, and I don't think it is, more on that later. The term is stupid and unnecessary, "xenophobia" is perfectly servicable in this instance. I don't see why organizations such as the UN would use a phrase like "cultural racism", it comes across like "oven fridge" or "flying car". It's what it says on the tin, the word doesn't seem applicable from a linguistic point of view.


> To say a judge's heritage will lead to bias and/or incompetence, so he or she shouldn't be allowed to do one's job, is racist. Trump's rational is irrelevant to whether or not it's racist.


Absolutely false. You don't want the judge presiding over a case to belong to a group affected by the defendant in order to avoid a conflict of interest, no matter what that group might be. This has nothing to do with superiority and/or inferiority, it's supposed to eliminate conscious and subconscious bias. To think of a random example, you wouldn't want a jewish judge presiding over a case concerning a vocal anti-semite, specifically because the anti-semitic angle. Even a slim possibility that a judge might rule based on personal feeling casts a shadow of doubt on the proceedings, and you definitely don't want that.


> Yes, I have: with definitions and examples. You just disagree with my use of the word _racism_.


As does Merriam-Webster.


> Snide remarks like these are why we can't have nice things. Don't take this conversation so personally, particularly when it's one about semantics. I know you think you need to defend your original points and be right, but it's okay to concede things every once in awhile if one's goal is to come away from a conversation with more truth and knowledge than before. It's okay to admit, for example, that a libertarian solution to discrimination in the marketplace doesn't exist, regardless of whether or not you think there should be a solution, and it's okay to admit that Trump has said racist things depending on one's usage of the word _racist_.


It's not snide, it's honest - I do feel like I'm talking to an alien. I'm not taking the conversation personally, this is just the way I speak nornally - I'm a part of the Hateocracy, I suppose. No harm, no foul.

We've already discussed how the "libertarian marketplace" regulates itself, you just didn't accept that it does which is fine - there's no need to go back to that.

I'm not going to "admit" that Trump has "said racist things" because I'm yet to hear him say them - in all previous cases I could find a logical explanation based on the situational context, and I'm not even trying that hard. Your "depending on your usage of the word racism" clause basically comes down to "using it correctly" versus "using some weird extended definition vomited out by a liberal hugbox think tank" - as a linguist by trade I stick to the dictionary definition. If I were on the side of the road with a flat tire, I need a spare wheel, but not a spare bicycle wheel. I concede that the phrase exists, but I don't find the definitions interchangeable.

Speaking of definitions and "cultural racism", let's bit for a moment. You compare muslims to jews - this comparison is thoroughly unfair. Unlike muslims, Jews are widely accepted as an ethnoreligious group. The religion isn't really expanding by much and as a group the Jewish population has remained relatively isolationist since Hebrew times. The Jewish people are connected to one another not just by religion but also by common ancestry, customs, language etc. - all the necessary building blocks of a culture. As such, "Jewish" is an accepted ethnicity, muslim or christian is not. The muslim religion encompasses a vast number of different ethnicities, different cultures following different customs, so I would probably draw a more sharp distinction there.

In the spirit of "conceding", I can tell you that I don't agree with Trump in this particular instance - I don't think the background of the judge is relevant, but that doesn't mean that I'm unable to understand his position. To quote Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - this is one such case. As I've mentioned before, I would defend your right to say things I find nonsensical in the same way if the situation was reversed.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> If you want to claim "culture racism" then A) say so in the first place, as there's a difference between it and strictly race-oriented "racism"


I did, from the beginning.



Foxi4 said:


> The term is stupid and unnecessary, "xenophobia" is perfectly servicable in this instance. I don't see why organizations such as the UN would use a phrase like "cultural racism", it comes across like "oven fridge" or "flying car". It's what it says on the tin, the word doesn't seem applicable from a linguistic point of view.


You have a right to your point of view, I suppose. I don't really care if you think it's necessary or not though.



Foxi4 said:


> Absolutely false. You don't want the judge presiding over a case to belong to a group affected by the defendant in order to avoid a conflict of interest, no matter what that group might be. This has nothing to do with superiority and/or inferiority, it's supposed to eliminate conscious and subconscious bias. To think of a random example, you wouldn't want a jewish judge presiding over a case concerning a vocal anti-semite, specifically because the anti-semitic angle. Even a slim possibility that a judge might rule based on personal feeling casts a shadow of doubt on the proceedings, and you definitely don't want that.


The case has nothing to do with race, and Trump's the one making it about race. Learn what conflict of interest is, because to say a judge cannot meet the job description of impartiality as evidenced solely by race/ethnicity is racism. If there's a court case involving the prosecution of an alleged Nazi who killed the judge's family during the holocaust, that's conflict of interest. If there's a neo Nazi who allegedly did an unrelated crime, the Jewish judge is presumed impartial until shown otherwise. I refer you to your own comments on how burden of proof works.



Foxi4 said:


> As does Merriam-Webster.


You should read your own sources. What I've said about how the word _racism_ is popularly used stands.


> Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.





Foxi4 said:


> It's not snyde, it's honest


In what world does saying I'm making an ass out of myself contribute anything substantive to this conversation? As for whether or not it's snide, I refer you to Merriam-Webster. It's probably in your bookmarks.



Foxi4 said:


> We've already discussed how the "libertarian marketplace" regulates itself, you just didn't accept that it does which is fine - there's no need to go back to that.


If it worked, we wouldn't have a problem.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm not going to "admit" that Trump has "said racist things" because I'm yet to hear him say them - in all previous cases I could find a logical explanation based on the situational context, and I'm not even trying that hard. Your "depending on your usage of the word racism" clause basically comes down to "using it correctly" versus "using some weird extended definition vomited out by a liberal hugbox think tank" - as a linguist by trade I stick to the dictionary definition. If I were on the side of the road with a flat tire, I need a spare wheel, but not a spare bicycle wheel. I concede that the phrase exists, but I don't find the definitions interchangeable.


Having a degree in linguistics, I can tell you that no real linguist takes such a prescriptivist approach to language. This is going to have to be one of those agree to disagree issues. Like I've said a hundred times, I don't care about having an extended argument about semantics.



Foxi4 said:


> Speaking of definitions and "cultural racism", let's bit for a moment. You compare muslims to jews - this comparison is thoroughly unfair. Unlike muslims, Jews are widely accepted as an ethnoreligious group. The religion isn't really expanding by much and as a group the Jewish population has remained relatively isolationist since Hebrew times. The Jewish people are connected to one another not just by religion but also by common ancestry, customs, language etc. - all the necessary building blocks of a culture. As such, "Jewish" is an accepted ethnicity, muslim or christian is not. The muslim religion encompasses a vast number of different ethnicities, different cultures following different customs, so I would probably draw a more sharp distinction there.


I thought about the fairness of this comparison when I made it, but cultural Islam exists. Cultural Christianity exists. And many in the United States take an _us vs. them_ approach that fits a very real definition of racism, regardless of whether or not you're offended by it.



Foxi4 said:


> In the spirit of "conceding", I can tell you that I don't agree with Trump in this particular instance - I don't think the background of the judge is relevant, but that doesn't mean that I'm unable to understand his position. To quote Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - this is one such case. As I've mentioned before, I would defend your right to say things I find nonsensical in the same way if the situation was reversed.


This is why I don't think our conversation is useful, because it's just a matter of semantics.


----------



## DustingtonZDX (Jul 31, 2016)

Bernie Sanders


----------



## Lacius (Jul 31, 2016)

DustingtonZDX said:


> Bernie Sanders


He's not the Democratic nominee, and he has endorsed Secretary Clinton.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I did, from the beginning.
> 
> You have a right to your point of view, I suppose. I don't really care if you think it's necessary or not though.
> 
> ...


You were claimimg racism from the get-go, not the bizarre "cultural racism" you pulled out of a hat now.

It's fair for you to not care - in fact, I prefer that, I'm libertarian-leaning after all. Let's not dwell into that though, that's not the subject.

Believing in the notion that a jewish judge would be appropriate to judge a Nazi is exactly why you come across like an alien - you refuse to aknowledge any form of racial kinship where it's obvious and push it strongly where it doesn't exist. An average human would expect another human to hold a grudge against someone who's wronged the group they belong to - not you, you expect humans to have the capacity to completely suspend their bias. I don't because I don't expect humans to work like machines. Take 9/11 for an extreme example - it is fair to assume that Americans hated Bin Laden because he committed an atrocity against Americans, whether or not you were directly affected, meaning members of your family died in the attack, is irrelevant.

Speaking of MW:

Racism (Full Definition)

2: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race


2:  racial prejudice or discrimination
Am I missing something? Are we seeing a different dictionary?

As for linguists being prescriptivists, I'm not one - I realize that definitions are fluid and the most paramount aspect of meaning is active use. Where we differ is that my social circles use the word according to its etymological roots wheras yours are more liberal - surprise, I guess. As a side note I'll add that I too have a degree in linguistics, so the appeal to authority won't work, we're on equal footing.

It might be an argument over semantics for you, but if the semantics change the whole subject matter then they're relevant. It's a lot like the case of "manslaughter" versus "murder" - the end result is the same, a dead body, but how we got to it is relevant. I don't question the fact that Trump is often times a huge asshole, I question whether it has anything to do with race and claim that it doesn't.

As for being "snide", I'm not "unkind or insulting indirectly" - I don't hide my Hateocracy. To the contrary, I put it on a pedestal for everyone to see. In fact, I hold the belief that everyone should point out everything that's wrong at all times - that's love to me. If I call someone "a stupid idiot", it means that I took the time out of my busy schedule to think about them. That's more care than I give to most people, an honourable position to be in. Perhaps there's a grain of being a psycho/sociopath in there, but how would I know? I'm not an expert.

What makes this conversation extremely entertaining to me is the fact that Trump's approach towards muslims and immigrants, meaning "it only takes one bad egg, thus we should stop them all", is the exact same narrative pushed by the liberal circles when it comes to gun control. "It only takes one shooter to kill dozens of people, thus we must ban guns altogether" is the kind of absolutism that reminds me of the grey reality - we're all afraid of each other at all times, we're all xenophobes in some way. Trump's fear of muslims is no different than the average democrat's fear of an NRA member, they just "logic their way" into those positions in different ways. And here I am, sitting and scratching my head, wishing that everyone just minded their own business and stuck to their own lawn without worrying too much about what others are doing on theirs, the libertarian way.


----------



## DustingtonZDX (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> He's not the Democratic nominee, and he has endorsed Secretary Clinton.


Whelp time to move to Canada


----------



## Lacius (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You were claimimg racism from the get-go, not the bizarre "cultural racism" you pulled out of a hat now.
> 
> It's fair for you to not care - in fact, I prefer that, I'm libertarian-leaning after all. Let's not dwell into that though, that's not the subject.
> 
> ...


We're going round and round, so I'm done. Thanks for the conversation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We're going round and round, so I'm done. Thanks for the conversation.


Likewise, it was entertaining enough. I love the smell of an ideological battle in the morning.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Likewise, it was entertaining enough. I love the smell of an ideological battle in the morning.


Same here as it is healthy for the mind. Thanks @Lacius for that discussion a few days back as i enjoyed it.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> What makes this conversation extremely entertaining to me is the fact that Trump's approach towards muslims and immigrants, meaning "it only takes one bad egg, thus we should stop them all", is the exact same narrative pushed by the liberal circles when it comes to gun control. "It only takes one shooter to kill dozens of people, thus we must ban guns altogether" is the kind of absolutism that reminds me of the grey reality - we're all afraid of each other at all times, we're all xenophobes in some way. Trump's fear of muslims is no different than the average democrat's fear of an NRA member, they just "logic their way" into those positions in different ways. And here I am, sitting here, wishing that everyone just minded their own business and stuch to their own lawn without worrying too much about what others are doing on theirs, the libertarian way.


A majority of liberals don't take such an absolutest point of view, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. There's a difference between banning guns altogether and common sense gun regulation that minimizes gun violence without being too burdensome to responsible gun owners.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A majority of liberals don't take such an absolutest point of view, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. There's a difference between banning guns altogether and common sense gun regulation that minimizes gun violence without being too burdensome to responsible gun owners.


Yes, that is what they say, but they rarely elaborate on what the "responsible regulation" is. When pressed, at least in my experience, they just tend to be afraid of guns even existing. They're against open carry because the sight of a gun scares them, they're afraid of closed carry because they can't see who's armed and who isn't and thus they feel threatened. Nothing seems to be "reasonable", at least nothing short of just removing guns from the equation altogether.

If you can't carry openly or secretly, how can you carry? What kind of additional "checks" should be implemented? Is this a case of bad PR caused by NRA members ready to reenact Die Hard at all times or is it just a matter of being afraid of guns? What should be pulled back? According to a quick Google search, 41% of American households have at least one gun and the average gun owner owns 8 guns, twice as many as two decades ago. A 2007 survey shows that there are 112.6 guns per 100 citizens out there, that's 1.126 guns per capita. There are literally more guns in America than people, and that's strictly legally owned, registered guns. How do you responsibly control that? An interesting subject that I'd love to talk about, now that we're finally done with (perceived?) racism.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, that is what they say, but they rarely elaborate on what the "responsible regulation" is. When pressed, at least in my experience, they just tend to be afraid of guns even existing. They're against open carry because the sight of a gun scares them, they're afraid of closed carry because they can't see who's armed and who isn't and thus they feel threatened. Nothing seems to be "reasonable", at least nothing short of just removing guns from the equation altogether.
> 
> If you can't carry openly or secretly, how can you carry? What kind of additional "checks" should be implemented? Is this a case of bad PR caused by NRA members ready to reenact Die Hard at all times or is it just a matter of being afraid of guns? What should be pulled back? According to a quick Google search, 41% of American households have at least one gun and the average gun owner owns 8 guns, twice as many as two decades ago. According to a 2007 survey there are 112.6 guns per 100 citizens out there, that's 1.126 guns per capita. There are literally more guns in America than people, and that's strictly legally owned, registered guns. How do you responsibly control that? An interesting subject that I'd love to talk about, now that we're finally done with (perceived?) racism.


I doubt all pf them are legally owned however. Plus what is considered "legally owned" varies by state.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I doubt all pf them are legally owned however. Plus what is considered "legally owned" varies by state.


That's fair, but you wouldn't admit to owning an "illegal gun", whatever that might mean, in a survey - it's illegal. There's no reason for you to admit to owning something that can get you thrown into the slammer.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, that is what they say, but they rarely elaborate on what the "responsible regulation" is. When pressed, at least in my experience, they just tend to be afraid of guns even existing. They're against open carry because the sight of a gun scares them, they're afraid of closed carry because they can't see who's armed and who isn't and thus they feel threatened. Nothing seems to be "reasonable", at least nothing short of just removing guns from the equation altogether.
> 
> If you can't carry openly or secretly, how can you carry? What kind of additional "checks" should be implemented? Is this a case of bad PR caused by NRA members ready to reenact Die Hard at all times or is it just a matter of being afraid of guns? What should be pulled back? According to a quick Google search, 41% of American households have at least one gun and the average gun owner owns 8 guns, twice as many as two decades ago. A 2007 survey shows that there are 112.6 guns per 100 citizens out there, that's 1.126 guns per capita. There are literally more guns in America than people, and that's strictly legally owned, registered guns. How do you responsibly control that? An interesting subject that I'd love to talk about, now that we're finally done with (perceived?) racism.


Increased background checks, elimination of background check loopholes, banning guns if one is on the terror watch list, banning particular kinds of guns that are more likely to cause mass damage, etc. are examples of arguably reasonable gun regulations liberals want.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's fair, but you wouldn't admit to owning an "illegal gun", whatever that might mean, in a survey - it's illegal. There's no reason for you to admit to owning something that can get you thrown into the slammer.


To be honest i see it alot with people talking about thier guns even when they are not supposed to have them


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Increased background checks, elimination of background check loopholes, banning guns if one is on the terror watch list, banning particular kinds of guns that are more likely to cause mass damage, etc. are examples of arguably reasonable gun regulations liberals want.


I'm okay with background checks, however those only bind legal gun owners - illegal guns are still an issue. Moreover, background checks are already incredibly stringent as it is, although it does depend heavily on the state. The problem here is that "getting a gun" is not the hard part of the equation - the hard part is to get someone to kill a bunch of people, to quote one of my favourite podcasters. If you want to commit an atrocity, you can just as easily plow a truck through a crowd, the death toll will be the same if not higher, we've seen that happen recently. People on a terror watchlist should fail the background check anyways, so that's just reiterating the same point. People with the mindset of a mass murderer and the intention to cause damage can build a bomb with nothing more than off-the-shelf detergents or fertilizer, where there's a will there's a way. Guns are just tools, it's people who do tge killings.

You lose me when you say that certain guns should be banned as I don't quite grasp the point. A bullet is a bullet, they're more or less equally effective against a skull. The problem isn't the type of gun, the problem is mental health which is at an all-time low. That, and education.

I don't think any of those means would lower the instances of gun violence, or gun deaths for that matter. Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are instances of suicide. The problem that should be addressed is the overall approach towards guns, or gun mentality, to use a populist term. How to do that? Beats me - it's hard to steer cultural development, it sort of develops on its own.


----------



## endoverend (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm okay with background checks, however those only bind legal gun owners - illegal guns are still an issue. Moreover, background checks are already incredibly stringent as it is, although it does depend heavily on the state. The problem here is that "getting a gun" is not the hard part if the equation - the hard part is to get someone to kill a bunch of people. In the event of a terrorist attack, you can just as easily plow a truck through a crowd, the death toll will be the same, we've seen that happen recently. People on a terror watchlist should fail the background check anyways, so that's just reiterating the same point. People with the mindset of a mass murderer and the intention to cause damage can build a bomb with nothing more than off-the-shelf detergents or fertilizer, where there's a will there's a way. Guns are just tools, it's people who do tge killings.
> 
> You lose me when you say that certain guns should be banned as I don't quite grasp the point. A bullet is a bullet, they're more or less equally effective against a skull. The problem isn't the type of gun, the problem is mental health which is at an all-time low. That, and education.
> 
> I don't think any of those means would lower the instances of gun violence, or gun deaths for that matter. Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are instances of suicide. The problem that should be addressed is the overall approach towards guns, or gun mentality, to use a populist term. How to do that? Beats me - it's hard to steer cultural development, it sort of develops on its own.


It's really a tough and ultimately not very productive discussion when there's no reasonable solution to "fix" gun-related violence. I think the measures to prevent those mentally unstable from acquiring guns are already in place, but the bottom line is that they aren't working and no one really knows why or how to solve it.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 31, 2016)

endoverend said:


> It's really a tough and ultimately not very productive discussion when there's no reasonable solution to "fix" gun-related violence. I think the measures to prevent those mentally unstable from acquiring guns are already in place, but the bottom line is that they aren't working and no one really knows why or how to solve it.


But one issue is they THINK they know how to fix it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

endoverend said:


> It's really a tough and ultimately not very productive discussion when there's no reasonable solution to "fix" gun-related violence. I think the measures to prevent those mentally unstable from acquiring guns are already in place, but the bottom line is that they aren't working and no one really knows why or how to solve it.


The way I see it, the final line of defense against "bad guys with guns" are the gun store owners. They should be thoroughly trained and able to distinguish between normal customers and potentially dangerous individuals. Take the Orlando shooter as an example - he couldn't buy body armor specifically because the gun store owner found him suspicious. Denial of sale can be a great asset in gun violence prevention.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The way I see it, the final line of defense against "bad guys with guns" are the gun store owners. They should be thoroughly trained and able to distinguish between normal customers and potentially dangerous individuals. Take the Orlando shooter as an example - he couldn't buy body armor specifically because the gun store owner found him suspicious. Denial of sale can be a great asset in gun violence prevention.


In a sense background checks do this very much tho.


----------



## endoverend (Jul 31, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The way I see it, the final line of defense against "bad guys with guns" are the gun store owners. They should be thoroughly trained and able to distinguish between normal customers and potentially dangerous individuals. Take the Orlando shooter as an example - he couldn't buy body armor specifically because the gun store owner found him suspicious. Denial of sale can be a great asset in gun violence prevention.


Good on the Orlando guy, but I think as a whole, gun store owners wouldn't be eager to halt a purchase of one of their expensive weapons because someone "looks suspicious"-- especially since the accusations of racism and a million other isms would pour in based on denied sales. It's an ideal solution, but IMO not likely to happen.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2016)

endoverend said:


> Good on the Orlando guy, but I think as a whole, gun store owners wouldn't be eager to halt a purchase of one of their expensive weapons because someone "looks suspicious"-- especially since the accusations of racism and a million other isms would pour in based on denied sales. It's an ideal solution, but IMO not likely to happen.


We can't pretend that they aren't humans. Would you sell a gun to someone if your gut feeling told you that the customer might be a mass shooter? No, I doubt that you would. There's no shortage of gun sales anyways, they wouldn't lose much revenue. As for the -isms, they're in a particular trade that does require profiling, whether we like it or not.

In the UK we have a "Think 25" rule. Essentially, adult merchandise cannot be sold to people who *look* under 25 even though the legal age is 18. The 7 year gap is supposed to allow the store staff to profile the customer by visually assessing their age with some margin of error - that's "ageism", however nobody's complaining because there's no fair way to do this short of checking everyone's ID's which would paralyze retail, especially since in the UK there is no legal requirement of owning an ID. The same can and should apply to guns - use your gut. If your logic applied, UK stores would not ID people who look under 25 because it'd lower their profits - that's not the case, partially thanks to Mystery Shoppers making sure that the mechanism is functioning.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> terror watch list


I feel like pointing out that a big issue here is that the terror watch list has no standards for who is put on it. It has numerous errors on it including people who clearly shouldn't be there. A US Senator was once put on the terror watch list. If we were to ban every single person on the terror watch list from owning a gun, we would need to seriously need to reevaluate how it is put together because as it stands people are put on there too easily


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jul 31, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I agree with this characterization. I think Secretary Clinton would largely enforce the status quo, which I believe is very preferable to the negative change Donald Trump would bring.


Please don't selectively pick what to quote from me. I also said: "As an external observer I honestly believe the states are heading down the path to a messy revolution. Trump could direct the revolution so it happens more graceful, but Clinton will let the problems and resentment build up until the call for blood rings loud and clear."

The American status quo is not a good status quo, and it is deteriorating quite badly. I'd rather not have to post yet another detailed and comprehensive wall of anti-American rant, but if you take a moment to compare your media and politics to other countries it can become quite clear that things aren't looking good; and seem to be getting worse at a steady pace. The whole constitution was formed around the idea of taking power away from a government that abuses it, but it had the effect of giving the power to corporations and individuals that abuse it even more.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Futurdreamz said:


> Please don't selectively pick what to quote from me. I also said: "As an external observer I honestly believe the states are heading down the path to a messy revolution. Trump could direct the revolution so it happens more graceful, but Clinton will let the problems and resentment build up until the call for blood rings loud and clear."
> 
> The American status quo is not a good status quo, and it is deteriorating quite badly. I'd rather not have to post yet another detailed and comprehensive wall of anti-American rant, but if you take a moment to compare your media and politics to other countries it can become quite clear that things aren't looking good; and seem to be getting worse at a steady pace. The whole constitution was formed around the idea of taking power away from a government that abuses it, but it had the effect of giving the power to corporations and individuals that abuse it even more.


Boy, oh boy - if only individuals and corporations had as much power as people give them credit for, we wouldn't have half the problems we're dealing with everyday, and not just in the U.S. but globally as well.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

@Foxi4
I understand your point, but evidence shows that increased gun regulation does result in fewer instances of gun violence, particularly with regard to mass shootings. When it's more difficult to get a gun, particularly for people who arguably shouldn't have one, it's more difficult to get a gun for everybody, not just legal gun owners. I'm in no way arguing that gun regulation will entirely eliminate gun violence or illegal gun sales.

As for types of guns, I don't believe there's any reason for citizens to have military-style assault weapons or high capacity magazines that have the only useful effect of mass death.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> @Foxi4
> I understand your point, but evidence shows that increased gun regulation does result in fewer instances of gun violence, particularly with regard to mass shootings. When it's more difficult to get a gun, particularly for people who arguably shouldn't have one, it's more difficult to get a gun for everybody, not just legal gun owners. I'm in no way arguing that gun regulation will entirely eliminate gun violence or illegal gun sales.


What evidence? You could lower gun violence to close to zero percent by outright banning guns altogether, but what would that achieve? People would still kill each other, just with knives, cars or guns they made themselves. The gun is not the issue, killers are the issue, so it's the mentality that needs to be addressed.


> As for types of guns, I don't believe there's any reason for citizens to have military-style assault weapons or high capacity magazines that have the only useful effect of mass death.


That's subjective trite. I can own a high-cap automatic rifle because I just like to shoot recreationally, what gives you the authority to tell me what I can and can't own? The usefulness of a gun is up to the end user, not you. Besides, both issues have been addressed with little to no effect - for instance AR-15's are now semi-automatic with magazines of up to 10 rounds and a shorter, covered up clip release mechanism which makes quick reloading impossible - what did that solve? Nothing, it's only inconvenient for legitimate users.

You know what would actually help? If each and every citizen was familiarized with guns, so that they don't fear them. Everyone should go on at least one trip to a range in later high school years. That'd deflate a lot of the unreasonable fear of guns, because it is unreasonable.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> @Foxi4
> I understand your point, but evidence shows that increased gun regulation does result in fewer instances of gun violence, particularly with regard to mass shootings. When it's more difficult to get a gun, particularly for people who arguably shouldn't have one, it's more difficult to get a gun for everybody, not just legal gun owners. I'm in no way arguing that gun regulation will entirely eliminate gun violence or illegal gun sales.
> 
> As for types of guns, I don't believe there's any reason for citizens to have military-style assault weapons or high capacity magazines that have the only useful effect of mass death.[/QUOTE


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> What evidence?


Australia is a go-to case when mass shootings were common, gun regulation was enacted, and they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. There are other examples around the world.



Foxi4 said:


> You could lower gun violence to close to zero percent by outright banning guns altogether


I agree, but that's not something that's going to happen. Gun regulation can happen.



Foxi4 said:


> People would still kill each other, just with knives, cars or guns they made themselves. The gun is not the issue, killers are the issue, so it's the mentality that needs to be addressed.


Yes, but mass death will be minimized with gun regulation. A knife doesn't typically account for 50 deaths at a time. Guns are definitely an issue, but I'm not saying they're the only issue. It's also an easy issue and the bare minimum we can do.



Foxi4 said:


> That's subjective trite. I can own a high-cap automatic rifle because I just like to shoot recreationally, what gives you the authority to tell me what I can and can't own? The usefulness of a gun is up to the end user, not you.


As we've gone over before, someone's freedoms are going to be violated regardless of what we choose to do. I value the freedom to not die in a mass shooting over the freedom of some people to have automatic rifles for recreation. Some people are going to want to have their automatic rifles, but I don't personally care. I don't have any authority except logic behind me. With regard to the usefulness of a gun, someone once said that a person who uses an automatic rifle to hunt, for example, probably isn't a very good hunter. We regulate weapons of mass destruction all the time. I don't believe certain types of guns are any exception just because more people want them for recreational reasons.



Foxi4 said:


> Besides, both issues have been addressed with little to no effect - for instance AR-15's are now semi-automatic with magazines of up to 10 rounds and a shorter clip release mechanism which makes quick reloading impossible - what did that solve? Nothing, it's only inconvenient for legitimate users.


We've had AR bans in the United States that reduced mass shootings for a time, and other countries have had similar bans with success. As for high-capacity magazines, there is a strong correlation between fewer rounds and fewer deaths in a shooting. The 2011 Tucson shooting, for example, was as deadly as it was because the high capacity of the rounds (33, if I remember correctly), and it only wasn't worse because of the shooter had to stop to reload. The more a shooter has to stop to reload in a shooting, the statistically fewer deaths.



Foxi4 said:


> You know what would actually help? If each and every citizen was familiarized with guns, so that they don't fear them. Everyone should go on at least one trip to a range in later high school years. That'd deflate a lot of the unreasonable fear of guns, because it is unreasonable.


I'm not saying this wouldn't help in any way, but for most of the victims of mass shootings, I don't think familiarization with guns would have saved them. The issue isn't fear of guns; it's wanting practical reform that minimizes mass shootings.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We've had AR bans in the United States that reduced mass shootings for a time, and other countries have had similar bans with success. As for high-capacity magazines, there is a strong correlation between fewer rounds and fewer deaths in a shooting. The 2011 Tucson shooting, for example, was as deadly as it was because the high capacity of the rounds (33, if I remember correctly), and it only wasn't worse because of the shooter had to stop to reload. The more a shooter has to stop to reload in a shooting, the statistically fewer deaths.


Remember the ban was supported by Ford and Reagan so its not like you can say it is liberal. It is an American safety issue.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Remember the ban was supported by Ford and Reagan so its not like you can say it is liberal. It is an American safety issue.


I agree with everything you just said, particularly when one looks at the current polling on gun regulation, but unfortunately, it has become a Democrat vs. Republican issue as far as elected officials are concerned. In addition to being an American safety issue, it's a liberal issue now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> View attachment 57828


Ah, Ronald, the conservative superhero. He's right, an AK-47 isn't a sporting gun and there are probably thousands of better guns for home defense. Thing is, I still want one, so don't tell me that I can't have one - it's none of your business.


Lacius said:


> Australia is a go-to case when mass shootings were common, gun regulation was enacted, and they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. There are other examples around the world.
> 
> I agree, but that's not something that's going to happen. Gun regulation can happen.
> 
> ...


What did I tell you? The conversation always devolves into irrational fear of guns. You talk big about the "freedom to not be killed in a mass shooting", but instead of addressing the issue of why mass shootings take place, you want to address guns, as if the guns are the problem and not the mass shooters. Like I said earlier, it's no different to me than saying that "I know not all muslims are terrorists, but a lot of them are, so we need to impose control over them in some way". It's the same thing, you're just dressing it up nicely. They're both generalizations, surely that's evident. I prefer to assume that people are innocent rather than guilty, at least when it comes to the government.

Getting accustomed with guns would do several things, but in context it would minimize the paralyzing fear that people experience when facing them. A gun can have 10 or 300 bullets, it still only has one barrel shooting at a time (with the one notable exception being MetalStorm-based guns which are stupid). There's no shortage of cases where groups or even single individuals disarmed an assailant simply because they weren't paralyzed by fear. I would love to see you trying to "disarm" a man driving a truck straight into a gay parade.

As for the whole capacity argument, I take issue with it, but I'd have to look into the stats to have an educated opinion. As for Australia, you're not accounting for a number of variables here besides gun control - there's no telling what impact simple social change had over the years. The U.S. is still relatively lax and it's safer than it's ever been, crime rates are at an all-time low yet the media consistently present news as if you were in a state of civil war. That contributes to violence too - the media constantly keeping the nation fearful is stressful and ultimately damaging to mental health, I'm not surprised so many Americans snap.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I agree with everything you just said, particularly when one looks at the current polling on gun regulation, but unfortunately, it has become a Democrat vs. Republican issue as far as elected officials are concerned. In addition to being an American safety issue, it's a liberal issue now.


It depends ultimately it regards America therefore it is an American safety issue 
On the other hand it is only being supported by the left so in that sense it is a liberal issue. Only elected Republican who supports common sense gun control that i know of is Mark Kirk (who probably will lose the election which is sad) and Susan Collins.

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



Foxi4 said:


> Ah, Ronald, the conservative superhero. He's right, an AK-47 isn't a sporting gun and there are probably thousands of better guns for home defense. Thing is, I still want one, so don't tell me that I can't have one - it's none of your business.


Easy to say when someone hasn't tried to assianate you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Easy to say when someone hasn't tried to assianate you.


It's easy to say in general. Even if someone did try to shoot me, my anecdotal evidence still wouldn't be representative of the whole nation. I can't tell, say, a thousand people that their AK-47's are now illegal and they need to hand them over because *1* of them attacked me - that's hardly fair. Now, instead of a thousand say 54.5 million, since we know that 41% of households own guns (there are around 133 million households in the U.S. each hosehold naturally consists of more than one person, but that's besides the point), and you get a better picture. You can't possibly push for legislature that limits the freedom of a 54.5 million people because *1* attacked you, that's asinine.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Thing is, I still want one, so don't tell me that I can't have one - it's none of your business.


I don't care what you want. I don't think you have a right to a weapon that can cause massive loss of life.

If a specific kind of weapon is being used to kill lots of people again and again, restrictions are needed. This isn't an irrational fear of guns. Half my family is from rural Missouri, and I grew up around responsible gun owners. I'm not afraid of guns. I'm acknowledging a systemic problem that data shows should be easy to fix.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Boy, oh boy - if only individuals and corporations had as much power as people give them credit for, we wouldn't have half the problems we're dealing with everyday, and not just in the U.S. but globally as well.


Really? Try getting a decent Internet plan. Comcast is so horrible that municipalities have attempted to roll out their own Internet providers only for Comcast to force them to kill the service off.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Futurdreamz said:


> Please don't selectively pick what to quote from me. I also said: "As an external observer I honestly believe the states are heading down the path to a messy revolution. Trump could direct the revolution so it happens more graceful, but Clinton will let the problems and resentment build up until the call for blood rings loud and clear."
> 
> The American status quo is not a good status quo, and it is deteriorating quite badly. I'd rather not have to post yet another detailed and comprehensive wall of anti-American rant, but if you take a moment to compare your media and politics to other countries it can become quite clear that things aren't looking good; and seem to be getting worse at a steady pace. The whole constitution was formed around the idea of taking power away from a government that abuses it, but it had the effect of giving the power to corporations and individuals that abuse it even more.


I agreed with the first part of your post, not the second part. In my opinion, Secretary Clinton's policy positions are much better than Donald Trump's.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't care what you want. I don't think you have a right to a weapon that can cause massive loss of life.
> 
> If a specific kind of weapon is being used to kill lots of people again and again, restrictions are needed. This isn't an irrational fear of guns. Half my family is from rural Missouri, and I grew up around responsible gun owners. I'm not afraid of guns. I'm acknowledging a systemic problem that data shows should be easy to fix.


"I'm not racist, I have lots of friends who are muslims*." One person used a gun X during a mass shooting, thus let's regulate gun X. Makes sense.

Just to be clear, I'm all for *responsible* gun control. Background checks? Sure! Bans? Nah.

*Provided we pretend that muslims are a race, like you treat them.


Futurdreamz said:


> Really? Try getting a decent Internet plan. Comcast is so horrible that municipalities have attempted to roll out their own Internet providers only for Comcast to force them to kill the service off.


Who's fault is it, Comcast's, or the corrupt government's which allowed this to happen despite billions of tax dollars in subsidies that were supposed to prevent this?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> "I'm not racist, I have lots of friends who are muslims." One person used a gun X during a mass shooting, thus let's regulate gun X. Makes sense.


Makes sense to me. Regulating guns doesn't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, not that I would care if it did, and I also don't believe the right to own guns without restrictions is an actual right people should have. I think minimizing mass shootings outweighs unrestricted gun access.

Edit: Also, your comparison is flawed when comparing gun access to immutable characteristics.

Edit x2: I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-mass shooting.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Makes sense to me. Regulating guns doesn't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, not that I would care if it did, and I also don't believe the right to own guns without restrictions is an actual right people should have. I think minimizing mass shootings outweighs unrestricted gun access.
> 
> Edit: Also, your comparison is flawed when comparing gun access to immutable characteristics.


The mechanism is identical. You claim you're not afraid of something because you've been exposed to it - that's fallacious in nature. By the way, "muslim" is not an immutable characteristic, religion is a choice. I was in two minds whether to use "black" or "muslim" due to our previous conversation, but ended up with "muslim" since it resonates with you despite it not being a race or ethnicity.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Regulating guns doesn't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, not that I would care if it did,


Although to be honest I do not know of any law proposal that hurt responsible gun owners as that would make no sense. A responsible gun owner follows the laws no matter what they are (checks, waiting periods, and so on) since they are the laws and going against them is illegal (the opposite of responsibility).


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The mechanism is identical. You claim you're not afraid of something because you've been exposed to it - that's fallacious in nature. By the way, "muslim" is not an immutable characteristic, religion is a choice.


I didn't say I'm not afraid of guns because I was exposed to them. I stated I was exposed to guns, and I stated I'm not afraid of them. There's no fallacy, even if I had stated a causal relationship. Had I said guns are safe because I grew up around them, that would have been fallacious.

Also, a person's sincerely held religious beliefs may or may not be a matter of choice. I'm an atheist, but choice has nothing to do with it. I cannot choose to believe something or not believe something. There's a difference between being convinced of something and choosing to believe something. That's why religion is on the list of protected classes.



RevPokemon said:


> Although to be honest I do not know of any law proposal that hurt responsible gun owners as that would make no sense. A responsible gun owner follows the laws no matter what they are (checks, waiting periods, and so on) since they are the laws and going against them is illegal (the opposite of responsibility).


One might argue that responsible gun owners are overly burdened by gun laws, but they're not. I don't acknowledge unrestricted gun access as a right they should have.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> One might argue that responsible gun owners are overly burdened by gun laws, but they're not. I don't acknowledge unrestricted gun access as a right they should have.


Well consider also consider that by and large we could always argue what is a "burden". But until they ban hunting rifles then i am personally ok with gun regulations as that is tge only time i think you would be going to far (although no one has suggested this).


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-mass shooting.


If that's the case, why not stress the root cause of mass shootings, which is a poor state if mental healthcare, rather than guns? If you want to restrict access to guns for healthy, legitimate gun owners, you're coming across as anti-gun because your actions and statements are anti-gun, plain and simple. You have zero authority regarding which guns are "okay to own" and which aren't. Most liberals are deathly afraid of guns like the AR-15 because it looks a certain way - it has a modular design popular in military applications. I'm sure they'd be more comfortable with only muskets that take 10 minutes to reload - that's irrational.


Lacius said:


> I didn't say I'm not afraid of guns because I was exposed to them. I stated I was exposed to guns, and I stated I'm not afraid of them. There's no fallacy, even if I had stated a causal relationship. Had I said guns are safe because I grew up around them, that would have been fallacious.
> 
> Also, a person's sincerely held religious beliefs may or may not be a matter of choice. I'm an atheist, but choice has nothing to do with it. I cannot choose to believe something or not believe something. There's a difference between being convinced of something and choosing to believe something.


Immutable means innate and unchangable. You're born black and that's your luck of the draw - technically you could bleach yourself somehow, but that's pushing the envelope, even in just the medical sense. You're not born religious - you become religious through exposure and you can lose faith at any time. Conversely, you can be an atheist and become religious through a process of spiritual development and soul searching - if it makes you happy, that's fine too. As such, religion is not an immutable characteristic, just like being a gun nut isn't.


> One might argue that responsible gun owners are overly burdened by gun laws, but they're not. I don't acknowledge unrestricted gun access as a right they should have.


Define "unrestricted". Background checks are already a restriction. You're putting so much emphasis on mass shootings when drunk driving is killing thousands of people every year. Are you in a temperance league too? Access to alcohol is more or less unrestricted except Bumf*ck Nowhere states like Utah, what should we do about that?

Edit: As for "what rights you think people should have", let me quote someone...


Lacius said:


> I don't care what you want.


I don't care what you want either. The world doesn't revolve around you and nobody has any obligation to make you feel comfortable. If you're worried about people owning something, you're the problem, not them - you're the one with a mental block. Since neither of us cares about what the other wants, fair legislature should be based on whatever's left between our two viewpoints, something we can both agree on.

Edit 2: This keyboard makes me come across as a moron - I'm typing all this on a small touchscreen, so forgive the typos. I'm making a continuous effort to correct them.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> If that's the case, why not stress the root cause of mass shootings, which is a poor state if mental healthcare, rather than guns? If you want to restrict access to guns for healthy, legitimate gun owners, you're coming across as anti-gun because your actions and statements are anti-gun, plain and simple.


I can advocate for better mental health while also advocating for gun reform. In addition, we currently live in a time when ISIS explicitly advocates for domestic terrorists to take advantage of the lax gun laws of the United States to commit mass murder, so I'm not sure if mental health goes far enough. If our goal is to minimize mass shootings, gun restriction is a required part. If you care more about the freedom of unrestricted gun access than whether or not mass shootings occur, then fine.

I don't want to restrict access to reasonable gun ownership. I just don't care if legitimate gun owners have to jump through some extra hoops to get a gun, and I don't think mass shootings are worth people having certain types of guns that are only good for mass killing or being able to get guns without a background check.



Foxi4 said:


> You have zero authority regarding which guns are "okay to own" and which aren't. Most liberals are deathly afraid of guns like the AR-15 because it looks a certain way - it has a modular design popular in military applications. I'm sure they'd be more comfortable with only muskets that take 10 minutes to reload - that's irrational.


I can logically assess from the data what is conducive to mass shootings and whether or not it's worth citizens having certain types of guns. It's not that hard, and fear and looks have nothing to do with it.



Foxi4 said:


> Immutable means innatr and unchangable. You're born black and that's your luck of the draw - technically you could bleach yourself somehow, but that's pushing the envelope, even in just the medical sense. You're not born religious - you become religious through exposure and you can lose faith at any time. Conversely, you can be an atheist and become religious through a process of spiritual development and soul searching - if it makes you happy, that's fine too. As such, religion is not an immutable characteristic, just like being a gun nut isn't.


To avoid another conversation on semantics, let's say _immutable_ means _physically unchangeable_. I'm not advocating that all guns be indiscriminately banned, so I'm not sure how your previous analogy works.



Foxi4 said:


> Define "unrestricted". Background checks are already a restriction. You're putting so much emphasis on mass shootings when drunk driving is killing thousands of people every year. Are you in a temperance league too? Access to alcohol is more or less unrestricted except Bumf*ck Nowhere states like Utah, what should we do about that?


I like your analogy here. We should put the same restrictions on guns that we have for automobiles. Licenses, proof of competence, registries, etc.



Foxi4 said:


> Edit: As for "what rights you think people should have", let me quote someone...
> 
> I don't care what you want either. The world doesn't revolve around you and nobody has any obligation to make you feel comfortable. If you're worried about people owning something, you're the problem, not them - you're the one with a mental block. Since neither of us cares about what the other wants, fair legislature should be based on whatever's left between our two viewpoints, something we can both agree on.


Unrestricted access to a weapon that can cause massive amounts of damage and loss of life is a legitimate concern. As I said before, if you don't care about minimizing mass shootings, or you just care more about unrestricted gun access, that's your prerogative I guess.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't want to restrict access to reasonable gun ownership. I just don't care if legitimate gun owners have to jump through some extra hoops to get a gun, and I don't think mass shootings are worth people having certain types of guns that are only good for mass killing or being able to get guns without a background check.


A question what would your ideal system be?
Mine would be required classes, registration, background checks, a waiting period, and banning of non hunting/recreational guns.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> A question what would your ideal system be?
> Mine would be required classes, registration, background checks, a waiting period, and banning of non hunting/recreational guns.


I like everything on that list. I'm not sure what my _ideal system_ would be. Banning high-capacity magazines, etc. I would add to the list.


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 1, 2016)

Nice to see Trump winning, despite being on a more liberal forum such as GBAtemp


Spoiler











:^)


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> Nice to see Trump winning, despite being on a more liberal forum such as GBAtemp
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Gbatemp really isn't a liberal website.


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Gbatemp really isn't a liberal website.


Websites can't be liberal, but those who frequent them can be. Most members here are left leaning; based on the opinions (and backlash) I've seen over the past 7 years of frequenting here.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> Websites can't be liberal, but those who frequent them can be. Most members here are left leaning; based on the opinions (and backlash) I've seen over the past 7 years of frequenting here.


I was referring to the user group. Granted i have not been here that long but it seems pretty mixed (also consider it is international).


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I was referring to the user group. Granted i have not been here that long but it seems pretty mixed (also consider it is international).


From past discussions, nearly 100% of the members support homosexual marriage, and a majority supports abortions. I also was banned temporarily for posting a thread in off topic about Muhammad. And I got a warning for making a German joke after someone posted about the "A9LH Master Race" (but the person who made the original post wasn't warned).

Maybe my perception is skewed by the fact that most of the mods I've encountered are themselves liberal, but the user base as a whole still seems to be left leaning.



Spoiler



I'm not going to discuss any of the above further as it's getting off-topic and I don't need another warning


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> From past discussions, nearly 100% of the members support homosexual marriage,


There are notable conservative/Libertarians/limited gov people who support same sex marriage (Rob Portman, Mark Kirk, GOProud, Berry Goldwater, and so on)




Haloman800 said:


> majority supports abortions


I am an adoptee and a bit unsure on abortion but again many Libertarians/Limited gov people support the right to abortion.



Haloman800 said:


> I also was banned temporarily for posting a thread in off topic about Muhammad


There are rules regarding how to talk about religion, maybe you broke one?



Haloman800 said:


> Maybe my perception is skewed by the fact that most of the mods I've encountered are themselves liberal


They Might be (i have no clue) but if they were it is not affecting there job or duty (which they are doing a great job at).


----------



## barronwaffles (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm sure they'd be more comfortable with only muskets that take 10 minutes to reload - that's irrational.



To be fair I do find black powder muzzleloaders to be an incredibly involving hobby + some of the most fun you can have involving firearms.

Not really much preventing someone from killing/maiming large numbers with one either.

BAN EVERYTHING EXCEPT NON-FIRING HANDGONNES


----------



## Futurdreamz (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Who's fault is it, Comcast's, or the corrupt government's which allowed this to happen despite billions of tax dollars in subsidies that were supposed to prevent this?


Comcast. It spent billions lobbying for the regulations it wants. The government does not have the authority to resist lobbying. And even if it did, you have just admitted the government is corrupt. That circles back to my point that your government is not functioning properly.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Futurdreamz said:


> Comcast. It spent billions lobbying for the regulations it wants. The government does not have the authority to resist lobbying. And even if it did, you have just admitted the government is corrupt. That circles back to my point that your government is not functioning properly.


Excuse me? The government doesn't have the power to resist lobbying? Who votes those regulations in again? Oh, right, the government. What they should do is start hanging people who try to bribe them, alongside government officials who take bribes, which should be considered the worst crime a government official can commit (choosing money over the good of the electorate is pretty offensive), but unfortunately they like money more than they like order. Whenever someone starts talking about how evil corporations are taking over, I smell the smell of patchouli and hear the sound of shitty acoustic guitars and drums - filthy hippies. Corporations aren't evil - they're a legal entity. They're neither good nor bad, they have no moral compass. They're not "people", and only people have the capacity to wrong you in some way or do you harm. Corporations are made out of people - people are to blame. It's not the corporations that are the problem - corporations provide us with every single convenience in life, including the ability to have this conversation. The problem are crooked people who will sacrifice your freedom for personal gain, chiefly government officials who will sign any bill in as long as their campaign gets a hefty "donation". Prisons should be bursting with those guys, and it's a shame that they aren't.


Lacius said:


> I can advocate for better mental health while also advocating for gun reform. In addition, we currently live in a time when ISIS explicitly advocates for domestic terrorists to take advantage of the lax gun laws of the United States to commit mass murder, so I'm not sure if mental health goes far enough. If our goal is to minimize mass shootings, gun restriction is a required part. If you care more about the freedom of unrestricted gun access than whether or not mass shootings occur, then fine.


The right to own whatever you want as long as you're not causing anyone any harm is more important to me, yes. We could minimize violence to zero percent by just shackling our wrists behind our backs, but freedom is more important than that.


> I don't want to restrict access to reasonable gun ownership. I just don't care if legitimate gun owners have to jump through some extra hoops to get a gun, and I don't think mass shootings are worth people having certain types of guns that are only good for mass killing or being able to get guns without a background check.


I'm okay with reasonable hoops, sure. I'm not okay with dividing guns into "better" and "worse" ones.

Like I said earlier, just because you can't think of a good use for a certain gun besides a mass shooting doesn't mean that I can't. Maybe I like diving into the air while holding two Uzi's and yelling "Aaahhh!" like I'm Antonio Sabato Junior in my backyard, it's none of your business.

To find a middle ground, we could divide guns into groups with different requirements. Say, you start with a handgun, after a few years of responsible ownership you can apply for a rifle, after a couple more years you can apply for a higher caliber allowance etc. - it can be a gradual process as long as nothing is outright banned. I'm not okay with the government assuming the citizens will start killing each other all of a sudden just because their magazines have 15 bullets instead of 10 - that's not how it works.


> I can logically assess from the data what is conducive to mass shootings and whether or not it's worth citizens having certain types of guns. It's not that hard, and fear and looks have nothing to do with it.


There's nothing logical about it as you're dealing with things that have no set value, like life, freedom etc. - if you can't put a price on something, your assesment is subjective.


> To avoid another conversation on semantics, let's say _immutable_ means _physically unchangeable_. I'm not advocating that all guns be indiscriminately banned, so I'm not sure how your previous analogy works.


Fair enough, some common ground.


> I like your analogy here. We should put the same restrictions on guns that we have for automobiles. Licenses, proof of competence, registries, etc.


I'm okay with all those systems, most of which are already implemented. They're not necessarily effective since we still have to deal with shitty drivers getting in wrecks all the time, but I'm fine with that kind of regulation. What I'm not okay with is you suggesting that some kinds of cars are innately more dangerous than others and thus should be banned. That, to me, is a leap in logic - you're just glossing over the actual relevant issue, the issue being shitty drivers.

Let's say that statistically sports cars get wrecked more often than any other car type - should we ban them? What about maximum speed? Should we speed-lock cars so that they cannot go faster than 40mph, just to be on the safe side, like we've done with automatic guns? Or maybe we should make the tanks smaller so that you need to stop at gas stations more often and thus get off the road, like we have with guns by limiting magazine capacity?

Can you see how regulating the cars is not a fair solution when the shitty drivers are the problem, not the cars? You're imposing completely arbitrary limitations rather than addressing the root of the problem - the shooters.


> Unrestricted access to a weapon that can cause massive amounts of damage and loss of life is a legitimate concern. As I said before, if you don't care about minimizing mass shootings, or you just care more about unrestricted gun access, that's your prerogative I guess.


It's a phobia, not a concern. I'm no more or less likely to shoot you depending on whether I own a handgun or a rifle - I'm only likely to shoot you if I'm screwed in the head. I don't want to be preemptively punished for a crime I might commit - I haven't done anything wrong. I'm not for unrestricted access, I just have a different definition of what "reasonable gun control" means.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The right to own whatever you want as long as you're not causing anyone any harm is more important to me, yes. We could minimize violence to zero percent by just shackling our wrists behind our backs, but freedom is more important than that.


Then we're at an impasse, because I think it's worth creating what in most cases would be minor inconveniences for responsible gun owners in order to minimize gun violence.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Then we're at an impasse, because I think it's worth creating what in most cases would be minor inconveniences for responsible gun owners in order to minimize gun violence.


Banning something outright is not a "minor inconvenience", a minor inconvenience is an obstacle you can get around with a small investment of time and dedication. I've proposed a system in which getting your hands on progressively "lethal" weapons would require progressively higher qualifications, but you refuse to even consider that as an option. I said it at the beginning of this conversation and I'll repeat it now - every single liberal I've ever talked about this with, including yourself, resorts to using vague terminology with no real solution in mind and when the time comes to discuss the specifics, we reach an "impasse", the "impasse" being "I don't think you need guns like that, you can only have the guns that I think are okay", and the brakes are being pulled sharper and sharper with each passing year. You don't even want to consider the fact that someone might just like collecting guns - there's no shortage of people who do so as a hobby and have multiple firearms in their possession, including ones that you arbitrarily consider too dangerous for civilian use. Here comes Lacius on an ideological horse, ramming his ideas down people's throats for the nebulous "greater good", keeping everyone safe from themselves for no reason, telling everyone which guns are okay and which aren't, as if you're qualified to make that assessment for anyone but yourself. Nobody's saying that buying a gun should be equivalent to buying a carton of milk, but to say that some guns shouldn't be on the market at all regardless of the level of experience of the potential buyer is asinine to me. It's selective attention - you're basically saying that it's okay for me to own a private jet if I'm rich, but I can't own a machine gun, even though ramming my jet into a skyscraper would kill thousands of people compared to the handful I'd kill with a gun. I could buy a bunch of poison and throw it into a small town's water supply, but god forbid that my rifle has more than 10 bullets in it. I could ram a truck into a parade and kill or injure dozens of people, but guns are the issue. I could think of so many ways to use off-the-shelf items to cause mass damage, but we're focusing on guns, not the mentality of a psychopath who would do any of those things - that's crazy to me. My expectations are not unreasonable - I want sensible regulation. I would like the system to be able to provide whatever people want it to provide via legal means as long as they meet a set number of requirements - there's no talk of that though. The talk we're having is "guns are bad, m'kay?" - that's why we're not on the same page.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Banning something outright is not a "minor inconvenience", a minor inconvenience is an obstacle you can get around with a small investment of time and dedication. I've proposed a system in which getting your hands on progressively "lethal" weapons would require progressively higher qualifications, but you refuse to even consider that as an option. I said it at the beginning of this conversation and I'll repeat it now - every single liberal I've ever talked about this with, including yourself, resorts to using vague terminology with no real solution in mind and when the time comes to discuss the specifics, we reach an "impasse", the "impasse" being "I don't think you need guns like that, you can only have the guns that I think are okay", and the brakes are being pulled sharper and sharper with each passing year. You don't even want to consider the fact that someone might just like collecting guns - there's no shortage of people who do so as a hobby and have multiple firearms in their possession, including ones that you arbitrarily consider too dangerous for civilian use. Here comes Lacius on an ideological horse telling everyone which guns are okay and which aren't, as if you're qualified to make that assessment for anyone but yourself. Nobody's saying that buying a gun should be equivalent to buying a carton of milk, but to say that some guns shouldn't be on the market at all regardless of the level of experience of the potential buyer is asinine to me. It's selective attention - you're basically saying that it's okay for me to own a private jet if I'm rich, but I can't own a machine gun even though ramming my jet into a sky scrapper would kill thousands of people compared to the handful I'd kill with a gun. I could buy a bunch of poison and throw it into the town's water supply, but god forbid that my rifle has more than 10 bullets in it. I could ram a truck into a parade and kill or injure dozens of people, but guns are the issue, not the mentality of a psychopath who would do any of those things.


We know the repercussions of allowing citizens to have certain types of guns, so I'm perfectly fine with making assessments about which guns are or are not okay. You keep mentioning that it's my opinion like that somehow invalidates my argument. My opinion isn't arbitrary. You also keep making comparisons to other potential instruments of death, but most of them are not consistent nor systemic problems. They're irrelevant to the conversation.

I don't care about a person's gun hobby when compared to problem of gun violence in this country. I like Pokémon. If Pokémon suddenly became real creatures that could effect our shared environment, and a few people regularly used Pokémon to cause massive amounts of death on a regular basis, I would favor restricted access to Pokémon. If a Pokémon hobbyist valued his or her unrestricted access to Pokémon over minimizing death, I would call that person's views infantile.

The government has a vested interest in restricting access to particular kinds of weapons, and it already does this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We know the repercussions of allowing citizens to have certain types of guns, so I'm perfectly fine with making assessments about which guns are or are not okay. You keep mentioning that it's my opinion like that somehow invalidates my argument. My opinion isn't arbitrary. You also keep making comparisons to other potential instruments of death, but most of them are not consistent nor systemic problems. They're irrelevant to the conversation.
> 
> I don't care about a person's gun hobby when compared to problem of gun violence in this country. I like Pokémon. If Pokémon suddenly became real creatures that could effect our shared environment, and a few people regularly used Pokémon to cause massive amounts of death on a regular basis, I would favor restricted access to Pokémon. If a Pokémon hobbyist valued his or her unrestricted access to Pokémon over minimizing death, I would call that person's views infantile.
> 
> The government has a vested interest in restricting access to particular kinds of weapons, and it already does this.


Oh yeah - here we can agree. The government *definitely* has a vested interest in restricting access to guns - that's precisely why the 2nd ammendment exists and that's the exact reason why everyone should either own them or be familiar with them.

Your point of view is arbitrary and I've already explained why - you have "potential casualties" on one side and "liberty" on the other. The outcome of the assessment thus depends on how highly you value those things - that's what makes it arbitrary and specific to you.

I mention different instruments of causing mass damage in society because our initial conversation pertained to mass shootings - those are perpetrated by people with mental issues who just want to kill a bunch of people for whatever reason. If they won't be able to shoot them, they'll bomb them like the Boston bomber. An unstable killer will find a way, thus you're not penalizing the guilty party. If you want to extend this to gun violence as a whole, you've moved the goal posts on me.

You don't need to use an example as infantile as Pokemon - you can just say "dogs". You can legally own a dog and train it if you feel like it. Hundreds of people are injured and some maimed to death by dogs every year, but I don't see anyone calling for dog ownership licenses to become a thing. At present there is no federal law banning any breed. There are some restrictions, but no bans, even concerning breeds explicitly bred for combat - killer dogs that are banned in many other countries.

The difference between you and me and the point of contention is that you're willing to sacrifice the rights of an individual in order to provide some greater good to the country at large. I'm not - I treat the freedom of an individual to be absolutely paramount, and while I'm okay with minor inconvenience, I'm not okay with limiting personal freedoms outright. You can extend the road until you find the level of dedication sufficient to grant something, but you can't put up a road block on a path someone feels like taking.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> At present there is no federal law banning any breed. There are some restrictions, but no bans, even concerning breeds explicitly bred for combat - killer dogs that are banned in many other countries.


Although in America many areas do ban certain breeds of dogs deemed as fighting dogs and generally do not have much controversy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Although in America many areas do ban certain breeds of dogs deemed as fighting dogs and generally do not have much controversy.


That's a local government issue, it's not regulated by federal government, so it's irrelevant. Utah regulates alcohol consumption locally with their "zion curtain" nonsense (look it up, it's ridiculous), but legislation like that is not imposed on the whole nation.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a local government issue, it's not regulated by federal government, so it's irrelevant. Utah regulates alcohol consumption locally with their "zion curtain" nonsense (look it up, it's ridiculous), but legislation like that is not imposed on the whole nation.


I do know about the Zion curtain.
But it does not matter if it is state or local laws really sense the issue is about the measures and regulations not who implemented them.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh yeah - here we can agree. The government *definitely* has a vested interest in restricting access to guns - that's precisely why the 2nd ammendment exists and that's the exact reason why everyone should either own them or be familiar with them.


The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee unrestricted access to all forms of guns.



Foxi4 said:


> Your point of view is arbitrary and I've already explained why - you have "potential casualties" on one side and "liberty" on the other. The outcome of the assessment thus depends on how highly you value those things - that's what makes it arbitrary and specific to you.


We're not dealing with potentials. Mass shootings are regularly happening.



Foxi4 said:


> I mention different instruments of causing mass damage in society because our initial conversation pertains to mass shootings - those are perpetrated by people with mental issues who just want to kill a bunch of people for whatever reason. If they won't be able to shoot them, they'll bomb them like the Boston bomber. An unstable killer will find a way, thus you're not penalizing the guilty party. If you want to extend this to gun violence as a whole, you've moved the goal posts on me.


We can limit this conversation to mass shootings. Everything I've said still applies. It's also just as inaccurate to paint this as a purely mental health issue as it is to paint this as a solely guns issue. Focusing on mental health reduces mass shootings, but it doesn't minimize it. Not all mass shootings are committed by people with mental health issues, and people with mental health issues are likely to fall through the cracks. When the aforementioned people try to get a gun, I want it to be difficult if not impossible to get a gun, especially one that can cause mass death.



Foxi4 said:


> You don't need to use an example as infantile as Pokemon - you can just say "dogs". You can legally own a dog and train it if you feel like it. Hundreds of people are injured and some maimed to death by dogs every year, but I don't see anyone calling for dog ownership licenses to become a thing. At present there is no federal law banning any breed. There are some restrictions, but no bans, even concerning breeds explicitly bred for combat - killer dogs that are banned in many other countries.


Dogs aren't typically weapons of mass destruction wielded by people with an intent to do harm. I picked Pokemon because of their phenomenal cosmic powers and their use as tools, as well as to compare the infantile nature of putting narrow aspects of a hobby before people's lives.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I do know about the Zion curtain.
> But it does not matter if it is state or local laws really sense the issue is about the measures and regulations not who implemented them.


It absolutely does. On a city or state level the input of constituents is felt strongly, that is not the case on a national level. In Utah, legislating alcohol consumption is relatively easy because the population is mostly stringent Christians of the LDS variety - you wouldn't be able to get that consensus nationally. A local government adjusts the law specifically for their local constituents, law nationally is supposed to be more broad. I also never said that I agree with those bans.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> It absolutely does. On a city or state level the input of constituents is felt strongly, that is not the case on a national level. In Utah, legislating alcohol consumption is relatively easy because the population is mostly stringent Christians of the LDS variety - you wouldn't be able to get that consensus nationally. A local government adjusts the law specifically for their local constituents, law nationally is supposed to be more broad. I also never said that I agree with those bans.


What i meant was arguably implementation of laws,standards, and regulations are different from the laws themselves in terms of effectiveness.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

@Lacius, I have to disagree with you on a very fundamental thing you've said. To me, all mass shooters have mental health issues, and the only evidence I need to make that assessment is the fact that they've committed a mass shooting. I don't need any experts to weigh in on this - if you've gotten yourself into the mental state in which you consider killing a bunch of completely random, innocent people, for whatever cause, as acceptable, you have mentally snapped. Continuing this conversation from this point would be completely fruitless to either of us as we disagree on the fundamentals. If you're trying to say that guns make unstable people more dangerous, I'll gladly agree - guns are dangerous, I just think that there are more important things at stake here and I would rather make sure that we reduce the number of psychopaths out there by promoting better awareness of mental health issues than protect people from themselves.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius, I have to disagree with you on a very fundamental thing you've said. To me, all mass shooters have mental health issues, and the only evidence I need to make that assessment is the fact that they've committed a mass shooting.


I agree with you, but when we talk about mental health issues that are clinically symptomatic before a mass shooting, that's not going to apply to every mass shooter.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I agree with you, but when we talk about mental health issues that are clinically symptomatic before a mass shooting, that's not going to apply to every mass shooter.


Such as Omar Mateen did


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I agree with you, but when we talk about mental health issues that are clinically symptomatic before a mass shooting, that's not going to apply to every mass shooter.


Explain to me one thing - what do you think is the root cause of, say, school shootings? What's at fault more, the ubiquitous nature of guns in the U.S. or the overall American lifestyle? Clinically observable or not, don't you think that what's pushing people to commit these atrocities is not so much the presence of guns, rather the way in which your society functions? Because this is almost uniquely an American problem. Japan has a whole different problem with adolescents - suicide pacts. When Japanese children snap, they don't shoot, they convince each other to jump on railroad tracks. They have whole clubs dedicated to just ending lives, mass suicide is a huge issue, and it has everything to do with the pressure to perform. Don't you think that this is a desprate cry for help more than anything else? That school shootings occur because the life pressures on teens regarding education and social status are too much for many to handle, and guns are just a mechanism of release, not the root cause? Because I do think so - I think the problem is running deeper than just access to guns, and without addressing that, no restrictions will ever resolve the problem. I think that whether people realize that they're on the way to snapping or not, a better approach to mental health would aleviate a lot of the stress, and thus reduce mass shootings by extention.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Explain to me one thing - what do you think is the root cause of, say, school shootings? What's at fault more, the ubiquitous nature of guns in the U.S. or the overall American lifestyle? Clinically observable or not, don't you think that what's pushing people to commit these atrocities is not so much the presence of guns, rather the way in which your society functions? Because this is almost uniquely an American problem. Japan has a whole different problem with adolescents - suicide pacts. When Japanese children snap, they don't shoot, they convince each other to jump on railroad tracks. They have whole clubs dedicated to just ending lives, mass suicide is a huge issue, and it has everything to do with the pressure to perform. Don't you think that this is a desprate cry for help more than anything else? That school shootings occur because the life pressures on teens regarding education and social status are too much for many to handle, and guns are just a mechanism of release, not the root cause? Because I do think so - I think the problem is running deeper than just access to guns, and without addressing that, no restrictions will ever resolve the problem. I think that whether people realize that they're on the way to snapping or not, a better approach to mental health would aleviate a lot of the stress, and thus reduce mass shootings by extention.


There are a lot of societal factors, including mental health, bullying, and other causes of adolescent stress. Access to guns is a also significant factor.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Such as Omar Mateen did


Omar Mateen is exactly the case I'm talking about - a likely homosexual man in internal conflict over his sexuality due to societal pressure and his islamic upbringing. He snapped and blamed all homosexuals for his own mental state, he was venting. Access to guns wasn't what caused him to shoot - he snapped because of internal struggle to conform, or at least that's the prevailing theory. He fashioned himself into a martyr because he desperately wanted attention, he was seeking acceptance.


Lacius said:


> There are a lot of societal factors, including mental health, bullying, and other causes of adolescent stress. Access to guns is a also significant factor.


I disagree. Guns are just tools, not the root cause. Gun mentality, perhaps, but not guns themselves. I can see some common ground though, so that's good enough for me.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> a likely homosexual man in internal conflict over his sexuality due to societal pressure and his islamic upbringing


From what I have read the idea that he was gay has been discredited. As for his TRUE reason we will probably never be surely certain but no matter what it does not mean that this was an awful event that better screening could have prevented.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Omar Mateen is exactly the case I'm talking about - a likely homosexual man in internal conflict over his sexuality due to societal pressure and his islamic upbringing. He snapped and blamed all homosexuals for his own mental state, he was venting. Access to guns wasn't what caused him to shoot - he snapped because of internal struggle to conform, or at least that's the prevailing theory. He fashioned himself into a martyr because he desperately wanted attention, he was seeking acceptance.
> I disagree. Guns are just tools, not the root cause. Gun mentality, perhaps, but not guns themselves. I can see some common ground though, so that's good enough for me.


We know objectively that the gun restrictions we've listed result in significantly fewer mass shooting deaths, root cause or not.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> From what I have read the idea that he was gay has been discredited. As for his TRUE reason we will probably never be surely certain but no matter what it does not mean that this was an awful event that better screening could have prevented.


Even if he wasn't closeted, he had a history of unstable, bipolar behaviour which is well-documented. He was especially violent against his ex-wife whom he's beaten numerous times and isolated from her family. He was also beaten by his father as a child, which may have contributed to his unstable mental state. Not only that, he spoke of wanting to kill people prior to the shooting, so it's not one of those "who would've thunk" cases - the man should've never been given a gun, he was unstable long before he pulled the trigger. We'll never know for sure what pushed him over the edge, but the pattern of unstable, violent behaviour was there and it was pretty clear.


Lacius said:


> We know objectively that the gun restrictions we've listed result in significantly fewer mass shooting deaths, root cause or not.


The cost is too great.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The cost is too great.


I don't think so, but that's where we disagree.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't think so, but that's where we disagree.


That's a fair stance to take - I understand where you're coming from at least, I hope it's mutual.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a fair stance to take - I understand where you're coming from at least, I hope it's mutual.


The feeling's mutual. You take a hard-lined stance against taking away people's freedoms. I acknowledge that someone's freedoms are going to be hindered regardless of which choice we make, so I pick what I view as the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Aether Lion (Aug 1, 2016)

Logan Pockrus said:


> Do I really have to make this decision?  I'm not going to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, as neither of them even have a remote chance of winning.  That leaves Trump and Hillary.  The problem is, both of these candidates fucking suck!  Their views align in many ways (not all ways, but quite a few), so I think we'll be in the same position next "voting season" with either candidate.  The only reason I'd vote for Trump is because I'm a strong conservative and simply can't find it in myself to support a liberal candidate.  So, if I vote, I'll be (reluctantly) voting for Trump.


*You know, EVERYONE I've talked to says they'd vote for Jill if she had a chance of winning and it genuinely pisses me off because she does and the only reason she doesn't is because everyone is brainwashed into saying she doesn't...* $Hillary and Drumpf are literal pigs of their own parties. I have gone full #DemExit and you should leave the 2 party system as well.



I pwned U! said:


> I #FeelTheBern and will only vote for Bernie Sanders.
> 
> If the super delegates are truly serious about wanting to stop Trump, then they will pledge their support to Bernie, because Hillary is continuously losing in recent polls to Trump, whereas Bernie is beating him big time.
> 
> Even if Bernie does not win the nomination, he can still run as an independent, or voters could use write-in ballots to vote for him.



I was a BIG Bernie Bro...I have all kinds of memorabilia and everything but...Bernie obviously gave up this election. So I switched because I'm not voting for someone who doesn't want to be President anymore. You should seriously invest some interest in Jill Stein, my dude.  A lot of her views are the same if not better than Bernie's.  So vote for someone still in the run, y'know? Trust me, I'd vote for Bernie if he ran again.


By the way I have a PSA...
SOCIALISM is NOT COMMUNISM.
It actually sickens me how many people are voting for Trump (or Hillary).


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Aether Lion said:


> SOCIALISM is NOT COMMUNISM.


Couldn't agree more but sadly most people almost always lump ideological systems more liberal them the democratic party as Socialist 



Aether Lion said:


> It actually sickens me how many people are voting for Trump (or Hillary).


Same here which is why i am voting Johnson.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Aether Lion said:


> *You know, EVERYONE I've talked to says they'd vote for Jill if she had a chance of winning and it genuinely pisses me off because she does and the only reason she doesn't is because everyone is brainwashed into saying she doesn't...* $Hillary and Drumpf are literal pigs of their own parties. I have gone full #DemExit and you leave the 2 party system as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I was a BIG Bernie Bro...I have all kinds of memorabilia and everything but...Bernie obviously gave up this election. So I switched because I'm not voting for someone who doesn't want to be President anymore. You should seriously invest some interest in Jill Stein, my dude.  A lot of her views are the same if not better than Bernie's.  So vote for someone still in the run, y'know? Trust me, I'd vote for Bernie if he ran again.


If you care about the more progressive candidate becoming president, you should vote for Secretary Clinton. She, Sanders, and Stein are in alignment on policy 90-95% of the time. If you care more about making a statement rather than whether or not Donald Trump becomes president, then you should vote for Jill Stein.


----------



## Aether Lion (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Couldn't agree more but sadly most people almost always lump ideological systems more liberal them the democratic party as Socialist
> 
> 
> Same here which is why i am voting Johnson.


But Jill tho. ;-; 
If you were a Bernie Bro, please understand that Johnson is more similar to Trump than Bernie lmao

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



Lacius said:


> If you care about the more progressive candidate becoming president, you should vote for Secretary Clinton. She, Sanders, and Stein are in alignment on policy 90-95% of the time. If you care more about making a statement rather than whether or not Donald Trump becomes president, then you should vote for Jill Stein.



I'm getting Jill Stein's vote up enough that she can get Federal Funding next election. Also, Hillary is an actual scumbag.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Aether Lion said:


> But Jill tho. ;-;
> If you were a Bernie Bro, please understand that Johnson is more similar to Trump than Bernie lmao


I supported Bernie but I am not #BernieOrBust.
I am a libertarian and Johnson reflects my ideas of how a government should be the most although we have disagreements. But i havd considered voting for Stein as I like her and think she has alot of good ideas and also I respect her supporters as well (especially all the crap the Greens are putting up with the Clinton crowd ). I supported Anderson in 12 also for the record.


----------



## Aether Lion (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I supported Bernie but I am not #BernieOrBust.
> I am a libertarian and Johnson reflects my ideas of how a government should be the most although we have disagreements. But i havd considered voting for Stein as I like her and think she has alot of good ideas and also I respect her supporters as well (especially all the crap the Greens are putting up with the Clinton crowd ). I supported Anderson in 12 also for the record.


I mean I could give you a hell of an argument to vote for Stein, but the end decision is up to you. I just recommend doing some more heavy reading into your choices before you make it.  
BTW, here are some dank hashtags:
#JillNotHill
#GreenTeaAnyone?
#JillKillsHill
#SteindTogether (Get it? )


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Aether Lion said:


> I mean I could give you a hell of an argument to vote for Stein, but the end decision is up to you. I just recommend doing some more heavy reading into your choices before you make it.


Yeah i am although i will probably vote Johnson, I might vote Stein if there is a major change or something that makes me re think my vote.



Aether Lion said:


> BTW, here are some dank hashtags:
> #JillNotHill
> #GreenTeaAnyone?
> #JillKillsHill
> #SteindTogether


I have seen most of them on Twitter but i wonder why no one has done one like for example #MakeAmericaGreen


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I supported Bernie but I am not #BernieOrBust.
> I am a libertarian (...)


Wait, what? You're a libertarian and you supported Bernie of all people? That's... Shocking, to say the least.

As for Jill Stein, have we really sunk so low as to support a party openly advertising itself as "eco-socialist"? They should rename themselves to "The Red Party", at least everyone would immediately know what they stand for.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Wait, what? You're a libertarian and you supported Bernie of all people? That's... Shocking, to say the least.


Mainly since he was against the war in Iraq, supported auditing the Fed, was critical of Greenspan and Bernake, is against the TPP,guns, supported needed changes to the millitary, and is against private prisons.

 Granted i disagree strongly on unions,welfare, taxes, and many economic issues but no one is perfect and he was ths best of the two party lot (Rand was not a true libertarian by any means).


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Mainly since he was against the war in Iraq, supported auditing the Fed, was critical of Greenspan and Bernake, is against the TPP,guns, supported needed changes to the millitary, and is against private prisons.
> 
> Granted i disagree strongly on unions,welfare, taxes, and many economic issues but no one is perfect and he was ths best of the two party lot (Rand was not a true libertarian by any means).


B-but Greenspan is a libertarian superhero when it comes to economics, the only reason to criticize him is his latest claims that "he was wrong" - he's gotten soft over the years. I get that nobody's perfect, but Bernie is the polar opposite of a libertarian candidate.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> B-but Greenspan is a libertarian superhero when it comes to economics, the only reason to criticize him is his latest claims that "he was wrong" - he's gotten soft over the years.


Greenspan was an idiot who harmed the economy in so many ways and then got off the hook. Plus most Libertarians hold negative views of him and his hypocritical nature (claims to be a Mises follower but his actions go against every thing Mises believed in).


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Greenspan was an idiot who harmed the economy in so many ways and then got off the hook. Plus most Libertarians hold negative views of him and his hypocritical nature (claims to be a Mises follower but his actions go against every thing Mises believed in).


That's interesting. I've never heard of libertarians taking that position, must be a different circle I suppose.


----------



## scrangos (Aug 1, 2016)

Hillary has adopted better positions, but you can expect her to turn her back on them the second shes in office.  That woman is trying to challenge Trump in untrustworthiness


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's interesting. I've never heard of libertarians taking that position, must be a different circle I suppose.


Ron Paul, Mark Thorton, anti fiat/gold standard Libertarians, and many other Libertarians dislike him very much die to his policies. Check the articles on Mises,Cato, or Lew Rockwell to see what i mean


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Ron Paul, Mark Thorton, anti fiat/gold standard Libertarians, and many other Libertarians dislike him very much die to his policies. Check the articles on Mises,Cato, or Lew Rockwell to see what i mean


Ah, the gold standard is a pretty divisibe issue, I can see how it'd cause an ideological rift - fair enough.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Aether Lion said:


> I'm getting Jill Stein's vote up enough that she can get Federal Funding next election.


If increasing the likelihood of a Donald Trump presidency is worth giving Jill Stein funding that won't produce anything tangible and she's unlikely to get anyway, that's your prerogative.



Aether Lion said:


> Also, Hillary is an actual scumbag.


Why do you think Hillary is "an actual scumbag"?


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Aug 1, 2016)

Aether Lion said:


> *You know, EVERYONE I've talked to says they'd vote for Jill if she had a chance of winning and it genuinely pisses me off because she does and the only reason she doesn't is because everyone is brainwashed into saying she doesn't...* $Hillary and Drumpf are literal pigs of their own parties. I have gone full #DemExit and you should leave the 2 party system as well.


I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the odds of a candidate wining who doesn't align with the democrat or republican party are very slim.  It's sad, but I firmly believe it.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

Logan Pockrus said:


> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the odds of a candidate wining who doesn't align with the democrat or republican party are very slim.  It's sad, but I firmly believe it.


Both Governor Johnson and Jill Stein each have <0.1% chance of winning the election. To vote for a third-party candidate is to care more about making a statement than who actually wins the presidency. This election is a binary choice between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump if one cares who wins.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Both Governor Johnson and Jill Stein each have <0.1% chance of winning the election. To vote for a third-party candidate is to care more about making a statement than who actually wins the presidency. This election is a binary choice between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump if one cares who wins.


Well then i must ask what if you live in a state that is practically guaranteed to vote one way or the other like Vermont,California, or Texas?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Well then i must ask what if you live in a state that is practically guaranteed to vote one way or the other like Vermont,California, or Texas?


There are, unfortunately, merits to the argument that votes for third-party candidates in certain states don't really matter because those states are almost certain to go a particular way. However, my argument still stands.

Edit: In the event of a close election or an Electoral College tie, the popular vote might be relevant to how Congress, the Supreme Court, or at least history views the election.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> In the event of a close election or an Electoral College tie, the popular vote might be relevant to how Congress, Supreme Court


Very true but then again times like that are unlikely and in either way if that happened this year the GOP would win no matter due to SC and Congress being Republican . If a certain situation like that was very likely to happen I doubt a  3rd party would get significant support (>8%).



Lacius said:


> at least history views this election


I personally fail to see how that could be a valid point in directing your vote.




Lacius said:


> There are, unfortunately, merits to the argument that votes for third-party candidates in certain states don't really matter because those states are almost certain to go a particular way


Why is it uncertain? We disagree on how you should vote but I don't see how it is a bad thing that it has merits. Either way i would hope one day elections would be decided by popular vote and not the outdated electoral college.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Why do you think Hillary is "an actual scumbag"?


Several things come to mind, like the time her charity was accepting donations from foreign governments while she served as Secretary of State:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

Or the time when she "misremembered" her landing in Bosnia as First Lady:

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/hillary-clinton-ally-shes-no-brian-williams-exclusive-1201426160/

Or when she claimed she was dead broke when Bill left the White House when in fact she had a bunch of properties and equity:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ry-clinton-says-she-and-bill-were-dead-broke/

Or when she claimed she was rejected from the Marines:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ons-claim-that-she-tried-to-join-the-marines/

Or when she sent a bunch of e-mails from an insecure private e-mail server, in direct violation of federal law, and swore up and down that she didn't:

https://news.vice.com/article/exclu...ied-emails-on-private-server-with-three-aides

Not to mention the whole Benghazi affair:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lease-scathing-report-2012-terror-attack.html

She either has memory retention problems or she's a regular Pinocchio - there are plenty of reasons to dislike her.


Lacius said:


> To vote for a third-party candidate is to care more about making a statement than who actually wins the presidency.


Or, y'know, a matter of having principles.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Very true but then again times like that are unlikely and in either way if that happened this year the GOP would win no matter due to SC and Congress being Republican . If a certain situation like that was very likely to happen I doubt a  3rd party would get significant support (>8%).


I agree.



RevPokemon said:


> I personally fail to see how that could be a valid point in directing your vote.


I agree. It was just a side-note.



RevPokemon said:


> Why is it uncertain? We disagree on how you should vote but I don't see how it is a bad thing that it has merits. Either way i would hope one day elections would be decided by popular vote and not the outdated electoral college.


Why is what uncertain?



Foxi4 said:


> Several things come to mind, like the time her charity was accepting donations from foreign governments while she served as Secretary of State:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html
> 
> ...


I'm not going to defend Hillary Clinton as perfect or having never lied. However, the Bosnia thing is a non-story; she was remembering something from a decade before, and it's perfectly reasonable that her memories might have been embellished and/or combined from separate events. The _dead broke_ comment was unfortunate, and Secretary Clinton describes it as _inartful_ and _inaccurate_. The story about the Marines, according to your own source, hasn't been disproved, and numerous other people have corroborated it.

Regarding the emails, what she did was stupid but not illegal according to the FBI investigation.

Regarding the Benghazi situation, Secretary Clinton didn't say anything that contradicted the intelligence that existed the time she said it, according to the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee, among others.



Foxi4 said:


> Or, y'know, a matter of having principles.


A protest vote and a principled vote are not mutually exclusive. My argument still stands.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2016)

Embellished? How do you _misremember_ being under sniper fire? And why would she possibly want to join the Marines at that stage of her life? I get that you can't conclusively prove that she's full of it in either case, but there's no evidence that she's saying the truth either, so having her record of being a bullshitter in consideration, I'm going to assume that it's populist bullshit.

Principles are sometimes the only thing we have - everyone should vote for what they believe in, not for who's likely to win, because if the candidate that wins pushes unfair legislature, you are partially responsible as you were a part of the machine that put them in office in the first place. I'd rather waste a vote or not vote at all than vote for someone or something I don't truly believe in.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Why is what uncertain


I meant "unfortunate" I just made an error on that part. Sorry


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Embellished? How do you _misremember_ being under sniper fire? And why would she possibly want to join the Marines at that stage of her life? I get that you can't conclusively prove that she's full of it in either case, *but there's no evidence that she's saying the truth either*, so having her record of being a bullshitter in consideration, I'm going to assume that it's populist bullshit.


First, that's not how burden of proof works. Second, there is corroboration of her story. I'm not saying it happened exactly as she described it, if it happened at all, but it's bullshit to call it bullshit.



Foxi4 said:


> Principles are sometimes the only thing we have - everyone should vote for what they believe in, not for who's likely to win, because if the candidate that wins pushes unfair legislature, you are partially responsible as you were a part of the machine that put them in office in the first place. I'd rather waste a vote or not vote at all than vote for someone or something I don't truly believe in.


It's your prerogative to vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you want, regardless of who's likely to win. While what I said still applies to everyone, I was specifically addressing a Stein supporter. Considering the progressive overlap between Stein and Clinton, the choice should be obvious in a world where either Clinton or Trump is going to win.



RevPokemon said:


> I meant "unfortunate" I just made an error on that part. Sorry


What I meant was unfortunate was the fact that one person's vote is more important than another's just because of the state one lives in.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> What I meant was unfortunate was the fact that one person's vote is more important than another's just because of the state one lives in


Ok well on that point i agree 100%. I honestly wonder why we don't implement a national popular vote rather than the electoral college. I mean a popular vote would solve most of the problems and fix the fact that in like 35+ it doesn't matter where you vote. Plus the idea that millions of Republican votes in California matter less then 100k Gop votes from Alaska under the current system is a freaking joke.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, that's not how burden of proof works. Second, there is corroboration of her story. I'm not saying it happened exactly as she described it, if it happened at all, but it's bullshit to call it bullshit.


I have absolutely no reason to trust her. In fact, I have all the reasons not to trust her based on her track record of spouting either complete nonsense or blatant lies - whether she does so knowingly or not is not my concern. Her truthfulness and credibility is questionable, thus my expectation of evidence is justified. Unless there's a written record of her showing up at the recruitment center I don't care what she or her buddies have to say, specifically due to her tendency to "embellish". A court witness lying or misremembering facts under oath isn't considered credible either, regardless of whether the testimony is intentionally fabricated or just a result of a vivid imagination cranking out nonsense that never happened.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I have absolutely no reason to trust her. In fact, I have all the reasons not to trust her based on her track record of spouting either complete nonsense or blatant lies - whether she does so knowingly or not is not my concern.


Listing a reason to not trust Clinton and then saying it's a reason to not trust her because you have reason to not trust her is a bit circular.



Foxi4 said:


> Her truthfulness and credibility is questionable, thus my expectation of evidence is justified. Unless there's a written record of her showing up at the recruitment center I don't care what she or her buddies have to say, specifically due to her tendency to "embellish".


Once again, that's not how burden of proof works. We don't assume guilt until innocence is proven.



Foxi4 said:


> A court witness lying or misremembering facts under oath isn't considered credible either, regardless of whether the testimony is intentionally fabricated or just a result of a vivid imagination cranking out nonsense that never happened.


We don't have any reason to believe Clinton is lying or misremembering facts.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Once again, that's not how burden of proof works. *We don't assume guilt until innocence is proven.*


That is one issue however, in this country people will often do just that without a thought. That can be seen in our corrupt criminal justice system and the fact that there a ton of times when the media portrays people who have not been convicted of wrong doings as criminals and also can do the opposite by  portraying guilty people as innocent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Listing a reason to not trust Clinton and then saying it's a reason to not trust her because you have reason to not trust her is a bit circular.
> 
> Once again, that's not how burden of proof works. We don't assume guilt until innocence is proven.
> 
> We don't have any reason to believe Clinton is lying or misremembering facts.


We just discussed several instances of her either lying to save face or misremembering facts and now we have "no reason to believe that she does"? Okay dude.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> We just discussed several instances of her either lying to save face or misremembering facts and now we have "no reason to believe that she does"? Okay dude.


With regard to the Marines story, correct. I've also explained how most of the instances on your list don't mean much.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> With regard to the Marines story, correct. I've also explained how most of the instances on your list don't mean much.


We're talking about a track record of goofy Mr.Magoo-style faux pas reflecting poorly on her credibility, so don't limit this to one issue. Besides, those are just a few instances of her acting or saying something shady - there's more. Think Whitewater, a case where *curiously* everyone involved was jailed for fraud besides Bill and Hillary. I wonder how that happened. Or the time when she took White House furniture with her as Bill left office because it was "donated them" and, naturally, had to send it back once government officials realized what's going on. Whoops. This is happening time after time, her history is a huge red question mark.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> We're talking about a track record of goofy Mr.Magoo-style faux pas reflecting poorly on her credibility, so don't limit this to one issue. Besides, those are just a few instances of her acting or saying something shady - there's more. Think Whitewater, a case where *curiously* everyone involved was jailed for fraud besides Bill and Hillary. I wonder how that happened. Or this one time when she took White House furniture with her as they left because it was "donated" and, naturally, had to send it back. Whoops. This is happening time after time, her history is a huge red question mark.


Whitewater was a political witch-hunt like Benghazi, and the furniture thing is a non-story.

Edit: What I think Clinton's history shows is 24+ years of right-wing attacks against her in an attempt to make her seem corrupt or scandal-prone, escalating, fabricating, and embellishing non-stories. No wonder she wanted to use a private email server.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Whitewater was a political witch-hunt like Benghazi, and the furniture thing is a non-story.
> 
> Edit: What I think Clinton's history shows is 24+ years of right-wing attacks against her in an attempt to make her seem corrupt or scandal-prone, escalating, fabricating, and embellishing non-stories. No wonder she wanted to use a private email server.


So the universe is scheming against Hillary, that's your explanation? All the suspicious donations to her various causes are the work of the GOP too? C'mon man. I'm a relatively trusting guy, but some things she's involved in rise questions. Whenever I see a politician running a charity it's already a red flag for me.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> So the universe is scheming against Hillary, that's your explanation?


Regardless of how scandalous you think Secretary Clinton actually is, it's inarguable that the Republican Party has engaged in political witch-hunts against her again and again. Numerous Republicans have even admitted that specific investigations had the goal of hurting her politically.



Foxi4 said:


> All the suspicious donations to her various causes are the work of the GOP too? C'mon man. I'm a relatively trusting guy, but some things she's involved in rise questions. Whenever I see a politician running a charity it's already a red flag for me.



Secretary Clinton doesn't control who donates to the Clinton Foundation, and you can't hold it against her unless you can conclusively demonstrate quid pro quo. That is, unless you're going to presume guilt again. 
The Clintons are hardly the first first-family to create a charitable foundation. Look at the Carter Center, for example. Charitable work is very common for a former president.
Hillary Clinton wasn't even involved with the Clinton Foundation until 2013, after her time as Secretary of State, and she stopped being involved in 2015, before her second run for the presidency.
This is such a non-story, it's embarrassing.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> you can't hold it against her unless you can conclusively demonstrate quid pro quo.


To a large degree whenever certain people or organizations donate large sums to a person one could argue that indeed they (the donator) are doing it with intentions for political favors. Not that this is necessarily unique but it is something that happens but if Clinton is elected as president then we will see how they will be treated. Granted there were a few donator who  were politically sensitive like Saudi Arabia but then again they also gave Bush money as well.



Lacius said:


> The Clintons are hardly the first first-family to create a charitable foundation. Look at the Carter Center, for example. Charitable work is very common for a former president.


 This ^^^^



Lacius said:


> Hillary Clinton wasn't even involved with the Clinton Foundation until 2013, after her time as Secretary of State, and she stopped being involved in 2015, before her second run for the presidency.


Granted you could still argue if the Foundation receives money from politically motivated people that it could affect her policy decisions. But then again so would her Super PACs and the groups that donate to the DNC as well probably will affect her political decisions.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> To a large degree whenever certain people or organizations donate large sums to a person one could argue that indeed they (the donator) are doing it with intentions for political favors. Not that this is necessarily unique but it is something that happens but if Clinton is elected as president then we will see how they will be treated. Granted there were a few donator who  were politically sensitive like Saudi Arabia but then again they also gave Bush money as well.
> 
> Granted you could still argue if the Foundation receives money from politically motivated people that it could affect her policy decisions. But then again so would her Super PACs and the groups that donate to the DNC as well probably will affect her political decisions.


As I said before, quid pro quo needs to be demonstrated, particularly when Secretary Clinton didn't control who could and could not donate to the Clinton Foundation. A _maybe_ argument isn't much of an argument at all. In addition, President Obama received Wall Street campaign money, but that didn't change his policy positions, and he still signed into law Dodd-Frank. As Donald Trump once said in an interview in an attempt to explain his previous political donations to the Clintons and other Democrats, donors tend to cover their bases and donate to a wide range of candidates.

In summary, a candidate cannot be blamed for the donations he or she receives, whether the donations are political or to a charity one has no control over.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> As I said before, quid pro quo needs to be demonstrated, particularly when Secretary Clinton didn't control who could and could not donate to the Clinton Foundation. A _maybe_ argument isn't much of an argument at all. In addition, President Obama received Wall Street campaign money, but that didn't change his policy positions, and he still signed into law Dodd-Frank. As Donald Trump once said in an interview in an attempt to explain his previous political donations to the Clintons and other Democrats, donors tend to cover their bases and donate to a wide range of candidates.
> 
> In summary, a candidate cannot be blamed for the donations he or she receives, whether the donations are political or to a charity one has no control over.


I agree. I am talking hypothetically but regardless of the candidate they could easily let them affect their judgement which is why you need to vote for someone with good judgement and who will not let outside interests affect them.

( Note I am not stating she has poor judgement just)


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I agree. I am talking hypothetically but regardless of the candidate they could easily let them affect their judgement which is why you need to vote for someone with good judgement and who will not let outside interests affect them.
> 
> ( Note I am not stating she has poor judgement just)


I agree that it can and does happen. I just think it needs to be demonstrated before we condemn someone for it.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I agree that it can and does happen. I just think it needs to be demonstrated before we condemn someone for it.


Again I agree. But at the same time I did not mean for that statement as a condemning but rather to assert a need for caution.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Regardless of how scandalous you think Secretary Clinton actually is, it's inarguable that the Republican Party has engaged in political witch-hunts against her again and again. Numerous Republicans have even admitted that specific investigations had the goal of hurting her politically.


A politician was hold under a magnifying glass by their opposition? Oh no! Hateocracy - point out everything at all times.


> Secretary Clinton doesn't control who donates to the Clinton Foundation, and you can't hold it against her unless you can conclusively demonstrate quid pro quo. That is, unless you're going to presume guilt again.
> The Clintons are hardly the first first-family to create a charitable foundation. Look at the Carter Center, for example. Charitable work is very common for a former president.
> Hillary Clinton wasn't even involved with the Clinton Foundation until 2013, after her time as Secretary of State, and she stopped being involved in 2015, before her second run for the presidency.


1. Yes, she does - she can refuse donations from sources that put her credibility and impartiality at risk.
2. I don't support those either. I don't think politicians should be in charge of large sums of money from random sources, and that's essentially what a charity is. Donations are always suspect to me - the current money-oriented style of politics is offensive to me, it's a string of conflicts of interests. If it was up to me, all the donation nonsense, both to campaigns and to charities ran by politicians would have the brakes pumped on. Maybe campaigns would be smaller and less glamorous, but at least they'd be transparent.
3. Oh? She was not involved in a charity created in her husband's name? Okay. Does that work the same as any other wife not being involved in her husband's business? Cool.


> This is such a non-story, it's embarrassing.


I'm not even trying hard, there are so many more examples of dubious activity to choose from, but I'm not here to change minds, I'm here to explain why someone might consider her intentions questionable, which was the impetus of this conversation.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> 1. Yes, she does - she can refuse donations from sources that put her credibility and impartiality at risk.


She literally could not. As I already mentioned, she was not in a position to do so with the Clinton Foundation until 2013-2015.



Foxi4 said:


> 2. I don't support those either. I don't think politicians should be in charge of large sums of money from random sources, and that's essentially what a charity is. Donations are always suspect to me - the current money-oriented style of politics is offensive to me, it's a string of conflicts of interests. If it was up to me, all the donation nonsense, both to campaigns and to charities ran by politicians would have the brakes pumped on. Maybe campaigns would be smaller and less glamorous, but at least they'd be transparent.


I'm not arguing with you on this, but isn't the libertarian point of view generally to allow people to give as much of their money to whomever they want for whatever reason they want?



Foxi4 said:


> 3. Oh? She was not involved in a charity created in her husband's name? Okay. Does that work the same as any other wife not being involved in her husband's business? Cool.


That's an association fallacy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> She literally could not. As I already mentioned, she was not in a position to do so with the Clinton Foundation until 2013-2015.


She should in that period of time then, and to my knowledge did not.


> I'm not arguing with you on this, but isn't the libertarian point of view generally to allow people to give as much of their money to whomever they want for whatever reason they want?


In business, yes. In public service, no.


> That's an association fallacy.


Or just healthy knowledge of the female psyche. I believe the saying goes "behind every great man stands a woman", the source of the quote escapes me though.


----------



## gbaboy123 (Aug 2, 2016)

so trump is like Hitler he wants to build a wall and close the boarders and make America great again vs Hilary who wants to take money from the rich to give it to the poor and remember the us ambassador in Egypt who got killed because she told her to got to a secret dirty place and in that place he got killed. my Americans we are fucked


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> She should in that period of time then, and to my knowledge did not.


I don't know if she did or not in that period of time. If you're going to say she did, you need to show me. She also wasn't in any position of power during that time, so I'm not sure where the quid pro quo would come from.



Foxi4 said:


> In business, yes. In public service, no.


Playing devil's advocate here, a libertarian candidate like Governor Johnson would probably call that distinction arbitrary. A person has every right to give as much money as he or she wants to a political candidate. It's his or her money, afterall. It's a form of free speech.



Foxi4 said:


> Or just healthy knowledge of the female psyche. I believe the saying goes "behind every great man stands a woman", the source of the quote escapes me though.


Now it's a sexist association fallacy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't know if she did or not in that period of time. If you're going to say she did, you need to show me. She also wasn't in any position of power during that time, so I'm not sure where the quid pro quo would come from.


I would have to care enough to go through the records, which I don't, to be perfectly honest.


> Playing devil's advocate here, a libertarian candidate like Governor Johnson would probably call that distinction arbitrary. A person has every right to give as much money as he or she wants to a political candidate. It's his or her money, afterall. It's a form of free speech.


That doesn't mean that the candidate should accept the money, especially if its source is an obvious special interest group.


> Now it's a sexist association fallacy.


I'm okay with that. I acknowledge differences between sexes, this includes their mentalities. Besides, there's scientific evidence to support this, it's a mechanism of self-preservation. Men are more concerned and thus quicker to notice physical infidelity due to a subconscious desire to propagate their genes, meanwhile women are more concerned about emotional infidelity as it can jeopardise the future upkeep of themselves and their offspring - none are aware of these tendencies, they're all subconscious. This could be the source of the stereotypical "snooping" - a running gag with a grain of truth, or so I infer from the results. I don't have the study handy, but it's pretty recent and very interesting.


----------



## Viri (Aug 2, 2016)

gbaboy123 said:


> so trump is like Hitler he wants to build a wall and close the boarders and make America great again vs Hilary who wants to take money from the rich to give it to the poor and remember the us ambassador in Egypt who got killed because she told her to got to a secret dirty place and in that place he got killed. my Americans we are fucked


Yup, the day Trump gets elected is the day Mexican are ripped out of their houses, and shoved into gas chambers. Blacks will be lynched, and the US is going to nuke Russia, Syria, and other countries we do not like.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Playing devil's advocate here, a libertarian candidate like Governor Johnson would probably call that distinction arbitrary. A person has every right to give as much money as he or she wants to a political candidate. It's his or her money, afterall. It's a form of free speech.


The issue of campaign financing is somewhat debated upon libertarians. Some like the Libertarian Party's plank and Ron Paul argue just that the current laws which restrict campaign finance are bad since they effectively impose more government regulation which is a bad thing. Likewise some as criticize these laws since they violate the first amendment and that it goes against the right to petition in their eyes as you have stated.

On the other hand some libertarians have argued that unregulated campaign spending is a bad thing as it can very easily lead to crony capitalism and in turn to government since such politicians we enact legislation to rewards said companies with unfair benefits. Now that is bad since it basically makes the amount of success you could have based upon your relationship with the government bureaucrats which harms the belief that the government should not regulate the market. Basically it could be said libertarians in this camp argue that it is bad since it leads to crony capitalism which is in a libertarian view hurts free markets.

One issue is libertarians are often disagreeing in how big the government should be and what are its roles which can be confusing.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

gbaboy123 said:


> vs Hilary who wants to take money from the rich to give it to the poor and remember the us ambassador in Egypt who got killed because she told her to got to a secret dirty place and in that place he got killed. my Americans we are fucked


Do you mean Libya? One could argue that it was negligent for Secretary Clinton to allow Ambassador Stevens to go to an embassy with such awful security, but he wanted to be there. One could also blame the Republican congress for the lack of security funding. Hindsight is always 20/20.



Foxi4 said:


> That doesn't mean that the candidate should accept the money, especially if it's source is an obvious special interest group.


I asked if people should be allowed to give unlimited money, and you said _no_ in matters of public service. Are you saying now that people should be allowed to give, but candidates just shouldn't accept on principle?



Foxi4 said:


> I'm okay with that. I acknowledge differences between sexes, this includes their mentalities. Besides, there's scientific evidence to support this, it's a mechanism of self-preservation. Men are more concerned and thus quicker to notice physical infidelity due to a subconscious desire to propagate their genes, meanwhile women are more concerned about emotional infidelity as it can jeopardise the future upbringing of offspring - none are aware of that. This is the source of the stereotypical "snooping" tendency, or so the researchers argued in the paper. I don't have the study handy, but it's pretty recent and very interesting.


You're now committing an association fallacy based on an appeal to probability. Your study likely deals with predispositions, not absolutes. Two fallacies don't make a right, and it doesn't make it any less sexist. Your scientific evidence supports bologna.



Viri said:


> Yup, the day Trump gets elected is the day Mexican are ripped out of their houses, and shoved into gas chambers. Blacks will be lynched, and the US is going to nuke Russia, Syria, and other countries we do not like.


Your sarcasm aside, there are parallels between Hitler and Trump with regard to rhetoric and wanting to forcibly remove millions of people from the country.


----------



## Viri (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Your sarcasm aside, there are parallels between Hitler and Trump with regard to rhetoric and wanting to forcibly remove millions of people from the country.


Correction! Forcibly remove millions of illegal immigrants from the country!


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

Viri said:


> Correction! Forcibly remove millions of illegal immigrants from the country!


It's not much of a correction unless you're saying they're not people.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I asked if people should be allowed to give unlimited money, and you said _no_ in matters of public service. Are you saying now that people should be allowed to give, but candidates just shouldn't accept on principle?


This is as is/ought argument. There's a difference between how politics are conducted and how I feel they should be conducted. If it was up to me, money would be removed from politics altogether, but in the current system the next best thing is only accepting donations from private individuals with no specific interest beyond the candidate him/herself.


> You're now committing an association fallacy based on an appeal to probability. Your study likely deals with predispositions, not absolutes. Two fallacies don't make a right, and it doesn't make it any less sexist. Your scientific evidence supports bologna.


I have no evidence of impropriety, I already admitted that. As for the accusation of sexism, I'm merely interested in what makes humans tick - I'm not claiming either sex is superior. Regarding the probability fallacy, that was your argument against certain guns and magazines, was it not? Lowering the probability of mass shootings taking place and the deathtolls when they do pre-emptively?


----------



## Viri (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's not much of a correction unless you're saying they're not people.


It is a correction! You said he's forcing people out, I corrected you and said he's forcing illegal immigrants out.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Viri said:


> It is a correction! You said he's forcing people out, I corrected you and said he's forcing illegal immigrants out.


immigrants are people tho


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Viri said:


> It is a correction! You said he's forcing people out, I corrected you and said he's forcing illegal immigrants out.


Illegal immigrants are a subset of people.


----------



## Viri (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Illegal immigrants are a subset of people.


They're people?


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Viri said:


> They're people?


For the love of God, I hope you are trolling.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Viri said:


> They're people?


Yes, they're people - human beings, thus a retraction is unnecessary on Lacius' part since he didn't make a mistake. I wish your parents made a retraction though. It's people like you who make right-wing supporters look retarded.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Aug 2, 2016)

My ideal candidate would at least attempt the following during their term:
* repeal the patriot act
* abolish the dea and repeal the controlled substances act and any laws associated with it
* end all military involvement with any nation that is not a direct threat to u.s. soil
* direct intelligence efforts abroad and not on u.s. citizens
*make it so that the executive branch no longer has any "emergency powers" while also nullifying any executive order that infringes any entity's civil rights
*reform the electoral process to allow for more than two parties


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, they're people - human beings, thus a retraction is unnecessary on Lacius' part. *I wish your parents made a retraction though*.



That is one of the funniest comments that I have ever read on GBATemp!

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



Subtle Demise said:


> My ideal candidate would at least attempt the following during their term:
> * repeal the patriot act
> * abolish the dea and repeal the controlled substances act and any laws associated with it
> * end all military involvement with any nation that is not a direct threat to u.s. soil
> ...


Only Jill Stein or maybe Gary Johnson would do all of that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> That is one of the funniest comments that I have ever read on GBATemp!


Thank you. I shamelessly stole the joke from classic Maddox, it seemed fitting.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I have no evidence of impropriety, I already admitted that. As for the accusation of sexism, I'm merely interested in what makes humans tick - I'm not claiming either sex is superior.


You are claiming, however, that Secretary Clinton engaged or likely engaged in a negative behavior on the basis of her sex. Stereotyping is a qualification for sexism. If I believed in a god, I would pray that this doesn't turn into another discussion about semantics.



Foxi4 said:


> Regarding the probability fallacy, that was your argument against certain guns, was it not? Lowering the probability of mass shootings taking place and the deathtolls when they do pre-emptively?


You are claiming a person did something because you think her sex makes it likely she would do that thing. That's a probabilistic fallacy. Acknowledging the probabilities of mass shootings with or without gun restriction is not a probabilistic fallacy; I am not claiming that something is true because there's a higher probability of it being true.



Viri said:


> It is a correction! You said he's forcing people out, I corrected you and said he's forcing illegal immigrants out.


Echoing the posts above mine, illegal immigrants are indeed people, regardless of whether or not you like them or think they should be here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You are claiming, however, that Secretary Clinton engaged or likely engaged in a negative behavior on the basis of her sex. Stereotyping is a qualification for sexism. If I believed in a god, I would pray that this doesn't turn into another discussion about semantics.


Points for a cheeky joke. If that's how it came across, I do apologise - I was merely stating that she'd be the first case of a woman completely oblivious to her husband's operations and with no influence over them, even unintended influence resulting from passing comments, that I know of. They're people - surely they talk about work over coffee and cereal in the morning. I find her "complete lack of involvement" unlikely, but that's my opinion, not fact,  and I don't present it as fact.


> You are claiming a person did something because you think her sex makes it likely she would do that thing. That's a probabilistic fallacy. Acknowledging the probabilities of mass shootings with or without gun restriction is not a probabilistic fallacy; I am not claiming that something is true because there's a higher probability of it being true.


I'm saying that it's likely, not that it's a fact. I have no evidence, thus I didn't form a direct accusation, rather presented an opinion - jokingly so at that. I mentioned scientific research pertaining female psyche as an interesting tidbit relevant to the conversation, not so much as an argument. Both cases are the same thing in my book, neither of us has conclusive evidence that our opinions on either matter are correct as future performance is not predicated on past results.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Points for a cheeky joke. If that's how it came across, I do apologise - I was merely stating that she'd be the first case of a woman completely oblivious to her husband's operations and with no influence over them, even unintended influence resulting from passing comments, that I know of. They're people - surely they talk about work over coffee and cereal in the morning. I find her "complete lack of involvement" unlikely, but that's my opinion, not fact,  and I don't present it as fact.
> I'm saying that it's likely, not that it's a fact. I have no evidence, thus I didn't form a direct accusation, rather presented an opinion - jokingly so at that. I mentioned scientific research pertaining female psyche as an interesting tidbit relevant to the conversation, not so much as an argument. Both cases are the same thing in my book, neither of us has conclusive evidence that our opinions on either matter are correct as future performance is not predicated on past results.


Excuse me then. I thought you were arguing this as an example of something scandalous Clinton had done.

On an unrelated note, Missouri is having its non-presidential primary today, and this was on my ballot:


Spoiler


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> On an unrelated note, Missouri is having its non-presidential primary today, and this was on my ballot:




 

Dubie seems like a great leader with good ideals that will help your state.

(Joking)


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

I'm on-board with The Chief. My uncle always said that "if things can't get better, they should at least get funnier". I'd smoke a doobie with Wana Dubie.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 2, 2016)

I'd consider smoking a doobie with Dubie, but I didn't vote for him. For those who didn't catch it, Dubie is running to unseat Blunt.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'd consider smoking a doobie with Dubie, but I didn't vote for him. For those who didn't catch it, Dubie is running to unseat Blunt.


Yes but it would be great if he did win so he could say 'Pass the Blunt get the Dubie!".


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Yes but it would be great if he did win so he could say 'Pass the Blunt get the Dubie!".


The inauguration party would increase carbon emissions of the state by 90%. Not that I care - I despise the environment. ;O;


----------



## Lacius (Aug 3, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Yes but it would be great if he did win so he could say 'Pass the Blunt get the Dubie!".





Foxi4 said:


> The inauguration party would increase carbon emissions of the state by 90%. Not that I care - I despise the environment. ;O;


Sorry, but Chief Wana Dubie only got about 9.5% of the Democratic vote.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Sorry, but Chief Wana Dubie only got about 9.5% of the Democratic vote.


To be honest that sounds pretty solid for a joke candidate in a major party primary. (Vermin Supreme 2020 VP?)

Edit: No that is not too good as I realized that Missouri has open primaries so it was probably mostly mischief making Republicans.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 3, 2016)

9.5% is pretty significant. Look at his face.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 3, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> 9.5% is pretty significant. Look at his face.


9.5% in a low-turnout primary election isn't very significant. To put it another way, he got 30,340 votes out of about 6.1 million Missourians.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> 9.5% in a low-turnout primary election isn't very significant. To put it another way, he got 30,340 votes out of about 6.1 million Missourians.


...that's still significant to me. LOOK AT HIS FACE!


----------



## nooby89 (Aug 25, 2016)

Wy the Americain vote Trump he is a big racist


----------



## Lacius (Aug 27, 2016)

nooby89 said:


> Wy the Americain vote Trump he is a big racist


Some people agree with Donald Trump's bigoted ideology. Just look at his campaign's assimilation of the American alt-right. Other people ignore his bigotry and shamelessly put the Republican Party before all else.


----------



## nooby89 (Aug 27, 2016)

You vote for Donald Trump you ?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 27, 2016)

nooby89 said:


> You vote for Donald Trump you ?


As I've stated throughout this thread and voted in the poll, I am supporting Secretary Clinton.


----------



## Viri (Aug 27, 2016)

Pepe!


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 2, 2016)

I'm really surprised there aren't more Gary Johnson votes.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> I'm really surprised there aren't more Gary Johnson votes.


I'm not. He's been polling consistently at around 8.2% since June, and he's likely going to get around 7% in the election if history is any indication regarding third-party polling and last-minute switches to the major party candidates.

If you look at the other unnecessary 2016 thread, Johnson is polling at 9.4%, which is closer to where he's actually at.


----------



## TheDonald (Sep 12, 2016)

Trump, who else can make America great again ?


----------



## nooby89 (Sep 12, 2016)

Me.


----------



## Engert (Sep 12, 2016)

No video of Hillary getting sick in New York?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 12, 2016)

Engert said:


> No video of Hillary getting sick in New York?


Check the other more recent thread.


----------



## Engert (Sep 12, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Check the other more recent thread.



If she drops dead and sanders is endorsed by dnc, I'll vote for him in a heartbeat.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 12, 2016)

I think trump's biggest strength is the fact he has no track record in politics. That and if everything he says is insane, then nothing he says is insane. Imagine if any of the other candidates said some of the stuff he's said. 

It's kind of like hearing an insane story, then realizing the story happened in florida. "Oh. right. florida. of course it's florida". Oh. actually, yeah. Trump is florida, everyone.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 12, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I think trump's biggest strength is the fact he has no track record in politics. That and if everything he says is insane, then nothing he says is insane. Imagine if any of the other candidates said some of the stuff he's said.
> 
> It's kind of like hearing an insane story, then realizing the story happened in florida. "Oh. right. florida. of course it's florida". Oh. actually, yeah. Trump is florida, everyone.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 12, 2016)

Engert said:


> If she drops dead and sanders is endorsed by dnc, I'll vote for him in a heartbeat.


Ignoring that Clinton isn't dying, if she were to drop dead, Sanders would not get the Democratic nomination. That part of the process is already done, and ballots are already going out. In other words, if Clinton were to die, she would still be on the ballot, and a vote for her would essentially be a vote for Tim Kaine.



osaka35 said:


> I think trump's biggest strength is the fact he has no track record in politics.


I prefer my candidates have experience, let alone good policy and temperament.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I prefer my candidates have experience, let alone good policy and temperament.



Agreed. When i say biggest strength, I mean how people perceive him. When you can't directly point to something politically negative, it leaves open wild speculation and delusional wishful thinking. Thus, it's the best thing trump has going for himself.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Ignoring that Clinton isn't dying, if she were to drop dead, Sanders would not get the Democratic nomination. That part of the process is already done, and ballots are already going out. In other words, if Clinton were to die, she would still be on the ballot, and a vote for her would essentially be a vote for Tim Kaine.


That has never happen in a major party. If it did I am not sure as to what would happen but AFAIK the Democratic party would hold a meeting as to who would replace her on the ticket but Kaine would stay. IIRC rumors have stated that had Clinton been indited after the nom that DNC officials would have tried to get Biden not Sanders.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 12, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> That has never happen in a major party. If it did I am not sure as to what would happen but AFAIK the Democratic party would hold a meeting as to who would replace her on the ticket but Kaine would stay.


It's never happened, but the abridged version of the story is that the DNC would likely choose to keep Clinton/Kaine on the ticket in order to avoid potentially having different candidates on the ballot in different states and splitting the Democratic vote, because of constraints involved with preparing ballots, and because of issues related to campaign infrastructure and finances.



RevPokemon said:


> IIRC rumors have stated that had Clinton been indited after the nom that DNC officials would have tried to get Biden not Sanders.


IIRC, those were rumors from pundits, and there's no reason to think the DNC was actually considering that.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's never happened, but the abridged version of the story is that the DNC would likely choose to keep Clinton/Kaine on the ticket in order to avoid potentially having different candidates on the ballot in different states and splitting the Democratic vote, because of constraints involved with preparing ballots, and because of issues related to campaign infrastructure and finances.


After a short google search, I believe it depends on a bunch of laws and how things would be done. In 08, Ron Paul petitioned to not be on the ballot (he was in Louisiana and Montana) with the Constitutional Party but the Montana Secretary of State said it was too late (September 11th) so he stayed. IMHO the DNC could also do this approach and check with the people to see if they could change the ticket and cite the given circumstances but it is uncharted water. However for the reasons you stated, that is also a likely outcome.

The closest thing to this theoretical situation however was Horace Greeley (a Liberal Republican with support of the Democrats ) died before the electoral college and had 63 of his electoral votes go towards noncanidates and 3 towards went towards him.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2016)

This just in, Pepe the frog is a Public Enemy no.1 and a symbol of racism and white supremacy.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

I'm beginning to think that it's not pneumonia bothering our female candidate, she just might be mentally retarded. I hope her PR campaign machine employees are proud to have been trolled by 4chan to such an extent that they wrote about a stupid Internet meme on their official campaign website, in earnest. They get as close to calling Trump a racist and white supremacist as they can without actually calling him that, lest he sues the sh*t out of them for libel, like he should.

I really can't wait for this shit-show of an election to be over, it's a mockery of the system that gets dumber and dumber by the minute.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 14, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm beginning to think that it's not pneumonia bothering our female candidate, she just might be mentally retarded.


Blame her marketing team, not her. Do you seriously think she personally writes everything on her website?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Blame her marketing team, not her. Do you seriously think she personally writes everything on her website?


I know she didn't write it, the name of the author is right there, but the piece is published on Hillary bloody Clinton dot com - if she can't proofread and control her own website in order not to look like a complete idiot in front of the whole world, I don't see how she could do so in office. Either she doesn't read and approve/disapprove her promotional material published on a website made in her name, which makes her an idiot, or she actually believes that all this is true, which makes her retarded. Her whole stance on the alt right is bordering on paranoia.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 14, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I know she didn't write it, the name of the author is right there, but the piece is published on Hillary bloody Clinton dot com - if she can't proofread and control her own website in order not to look like a complete idiot in front of the whole world, I don't see how she could do so in office. Either she doesn't read and approve/disapprove her promotional material published on a website made in her name, which makes her an idiot, or she actually believes that all this is true, which makes her retarded. Her whole stance on the alt right is bordering on paranoia.


I don't understand what the controversy is. Where did Clinton's people mess up?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't understand what the controversy is. Where did Clinton's people mess up?


By insisting Pepe is a symbol of the Alt Right and also of Racialist crap


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't understand what the controversy is. Where did Clinton's people mess up?


Pepe is an image macro that's been used for just about anything at this point, it doesn't mean anything, it's just a stupid frog. I have no doubt in my mind that they were trolled to believe that it's an alt right mascot, which it isn't, and embarrassed themselves in front of the entire Internet audience. She's on an all-out war against a meme? Really? At which point did we stop focusing on policy and started focusing on stupid Internet jokes? Because this election is looking increasingly stupid every single day. This is a presidential candidate with an article about an image of a frog being an icon of white supremacy on her campaign page, there isn't a single cell in my entire nervous system that can possibly treat that seriously.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 14, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> By insisting Pepe is a symbol of the Alt Right and also of Racialist crap





Foxi4 said:


> Pepe is an image macro that's been used for just about anything at this point, it doesn't mean anything, it's just a stupid frog. I have no doubt in my mind that they were trolled to believe that it's an alt right mascot, which it isn't, and embarrassed themselves in front of the entire Internet audience. She's on an all-out war against a meme? Really? At which point did we stop focusing on policy and started focusing on stupid Internet jokes? Because this election is looking increasingly stupid every single day. This is a presidential candidate with an article about an image of a frog on her campaign page, there isn't a single cell in my entire nervous system that can possibly treat that seriously.


It has become a symbol for the alt right, and she's not on an all-out war against the meme.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It has become a symbol for the alt right, and she's not on an all-out war against the meme.


...are you serious right now?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It has become a symbol for the alt right, and she's not on an all-out war against the meme.


It really is not a symbol for it. It is more correct to say that if anything they have taken over it although still Pepe is still used alot for normal things


----------



## Lacius (Sep 14, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> It really is not a symbol for it. It is more correct to say that if anything *they have taken over it* although still Pepe is still used alot for normal things


That still makes it a symbol used by the alt-right.



Foxi4 said:


> ...are you serious right now?


Yes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> It really is not a symbol for it. It is more correct to say that if anything they have taken over it although still Pepe is still used alot for normal things


It hasn't been taken over by anyone, it's an image macro, it's all a big f*cking joke to get lulz out of chumps, and people bought it hook, line and sinker. It doesn't represent anything, it doesn't mean anything, it's a f*cking frog.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That still makes it a symbol used by the alt-right.


Not really because it has widespread prior use.



Foxi4 said:


> It hasn't been taken over by anyone, it's an image macro, it's all a big f*cking joke to get lulz out of chumps, and people bought it hook, line and sinker. It doesn't represent anything, it doesn't mean anything, it's a f*cking frog.


Agreed but just for argument.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 14, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> It hasn't been taken over by anyone, it's an image macro, it's all a big f*cking joke to get lulz out of chumps, and people bought it hook, line and sinker. It doesn't represent anything, it doesn't mean anything, it's a f*cking frog.


It's a frog meme that had no inherent meaning. That doesn't mean it hasn't been assimilated by the alt right and used as a symbol for their hate.



RevPokemon said:


> Not really because it has widespread prior use.


As far as the history of symbols goes, that's pretty darn irrelevant.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> As far as the history of symbols goes, that's pretty darn irrelevant.


It  does if only for the fact that for the majority of its life span it has not been associated and also shows that it has other meanings. This whole alt right thing with Pepe is going to die out soon


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That still makes it a symbol used by the alt-right.
> 
> Yes.


I cannot believe this. Are you high? The alt right drives cars and eats cereal too, are those symbols of the alt right too? I bet the alt right breathes, we're breathing alt right air. My water, it's contaminated with the alt right! You're telling me that if I take a random meme, make it racist, post it on 4chan and it gets reposted a bunch of times, it becomes a symbol? The alt right has no organised structure, they have no symbols or leaders, they don't even have a single ideology, they just use an umbrella term to describe themselves. It's not like a f*cking swastika, not every alt right person wears Pepe on an arm band. Is this pod planet? Are you all pod people? Should I just shoot myself before I go mad because the world has been overrun by people as naive as toddlers? Do you actually think this is correct? That this is something a presidential candidate should encompass in her political campaign? It's a meme. It means whatever you want it to mean, it doesn't represent anything or anyone. Nobody "uses Pepe as a symbol", they do it to get a rise out of you.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 14, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> It  does if only for the fact that for the majority of its life span it has not been associated and also shows that it has other meanings. This whole alt right thing with Pepe is going to die out soon


It might die out soon. That doesn't make it any less a symbol the alt right is intentionally using right now. The majority of its lifespan before this is irrelevant. Just look at the Swastika.



Foxi4 said:


> I cannot believe this. Are you high? The alt right drives cars and eats cereal too, are those symbols of the alt right too? I bet the alt right breathes too, we're breathing alt right air.


Are they using cars and cereal as symbols? If not, then get over yourself. Your "are you high?" quip doesn't change the fact that this was a pathetic point.



Foxi4 said:


> You're telling me that if I take a random meme, make it racist, post it on 4chan and it gets reposted a bunch of times, it becomes a symbol?


You just described what a symbol is.

Edit: Pepe as a symbol for the alt right is also bigger than that.



Foxi4 said:


> The alt right has no organised structure, they have no symbols or leaders, they don't even have a single ideology, they just use an umbrella term to describe themselves.


We all know the similarities and shared ideology we're talking about when we bring up the alt-right. If not, then all you need to do is do some research. If you're too lazy to do so, just check all the alt-right pepe memes and look for commonalities.



Foxi4 said:


> It's not like a f*cking swastika, not every alt right person wears Pepe on an arm band.


This isn't relevant. It appears you're grasping at straws since your argument lacks any sort of substantive backbone. Making a statement with angst doesn't make it any less irrelevant.



Foxi4 said:


> Is this pod planet? Are you all pod people? Should I just shoot myself before I go mad because the world has been overrun by people as naive as toddlers? Do you actually think this is correct? That this is something a presidential candidate should encompass in her political campaign? It's a meme. It means whatever you want it to mean, it doesn't represent anything or anyone.


If you're going to deny the common usage of a meme as a perfectly reasonable point to bring up with regard to the alt-right, which is the real issue, then you're ignoring facts to make some sort of whiny post about memes that doesn't matter and isn't even what anybody's talking about. Anyone can use a meme for any purpose. They're largely benign and often have no inherent meaning. That doesn't change pepe's modern common usage as a symbol for the alt right. Grow up and get over it. It's probably just a fad anyway.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 14, 2016)

No surprise Lacius just supporting and endorsing whatever turd came out of clintons bum.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 14, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> No surprise Lacius just supporting and endorsing whatever turd came out of clintons bum.


Yep, that's me. I have never been critical of Hillary Clinton, and pepe has not been used as a common symbol for the alt right. My bad.

Seriously though, why do I even bother? I'm dealing with turds either way.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It might die out soon. That doesn't make it any less a symbol the alt right is intentionally using right now. The majority of its lifespan before this is irrelevant. Just look at the Swastika.


Pepe is an apolitical meme that’s been used by everyone from gamers and YouTubers to celebrities and progressive bloggers, tut no single group or ideology has ownership of the meme.  And its lifespan before this does matter because it gives it context.



Lacius said:


> We all know the similarities and shared ideology we're talking about when we bring up the alt-right. If not, then all you need to do is do some research. If you're too lazy to do so, just check all the alt-right pepe memes and look for commonalities.


For what it is worth, there is no central Alt Right group that maintains opinions on topics, rather it is a loosely grouped associations of people on the internet. Basically it's structure is like Anonymous.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> *Snip*


Excuse me while I shoot your entire argument down with a volley of torpedoes because I'm a linguist and I know exactly what a symbol is. In order for something to classify as a symbol (in a linguistic sense, which is what we're talking about) it has to be recognised by an entirety of a given group, the group has to identify with it and it has to carry intrinsic meaning. The bald eagle is a symbol for Americans - it symbolises freedom - it soars through the air unrestricted, strength - it's a predator etc. The cross is a symbol for Christians - it symbolises Jesus' sacrifice, death for our sins, it's a symbol of absolution. Pepe the frog symbolises jack sh*t - it's being used because it looks funny. A symbol works very much like a sign - there's the signifier, the physical representation, and the signified, a mental idea. Pepe does not qualify as a symbol in any shape or form - it's a stupid picture. A mascot would be more appropriate, and even that is a stretch. For something to classify as a symbol it has to have the quality of symbolism which Pepe lacks because it's a stupid meme that doesn't mean anything.

As for "similarities" between people who consider themselves the alt right, turn that judgemental eye inward - you have a lot in common with a communist, but you are not a communist. It's a loose group of people with *similar* ideas, which doesn't mean that they're white supremacists, racists or bigots - some of them very well may be, others not so much. If you're going to put all of them into one "basket of deplorables", I might as well start calling you a commie - you share some of their beliefs after all, we might as well just generalise because the political scene has suddenly turned into a sandbox.

As to why I'm rising a stink over this, it's because a presidential candidate and his/her cohorts should spend exactly 0 seconds on addressing stupid Internet memes. This is an article that's supposed to support someone who might run the country, don't they have bigger things to worry about? Someone spent time writing that piece, then someone read it, approved it, they patted each other's backs, said "good job", posted it unironically and got paid. This is an article about an Internet joke written in earnest, that's the big deal.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It has become a symbol for the alt right, and she's not on an all-out war against the meme.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 14, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Pepe is an apolitical meme that’s been used by everyone from gamers and YouTubers to celebrities and progressive bloggers, tut no single group or ideology has ownership of the meme.


I didn't claim that anyone had ownership of the meme. This is irrelevant.



RevPokemon said:


> And its lifespan before this does matter because it gives it context.


You missed my reference to the history of the Swastika.



RevPokemon said:


> For what it is worth, there is no central Alt Right group that maintains opinions on topics, rather it is a loosely grouped associations of people on the internet. Basically it's structure is like Anonymous.


This isn't relevant when we've got people who are self-identified as alt-right consistently using the meme as a symbol.



Foxi4 said:


> Excuse me while I shoot your entire argument down with a volley of torpedoes because I'm a linguist and I know exactly what a symbol is.


Ignoring your argument from authority fallacy for a moment, I also have a degree in linguistics, and after having read the rest of your post, you might want to get your money back, because you clearly don't know what a symbol is. If I recall, you also consistently take a prescriptivist approach to language that no self-respecting linguist would.



Foxi4 said:


> In order for something to classify as a symbol, it has to be recognised by an entirety of a given group, the group has to identify with it and it has to carry intrinsic meaning. The bald eagle is a symbol for Americans - it symbolises freedom - it soars through the air unrestricted, strength - it's a predator etc. The cross is a symbol for Christians - it symbolises Jesus' sacrifice, it's a symbol of absolution.


If you had taken an intro linguistics class, you would know that a symbol is any concept that represents any other concept. A letter in the alphabet is a symbol. A picture of a man on a restroom is a symbol. A traffic sign uses symbols. My avatar is a symbol for Lacius as well as a symbol for Link from _The Legend of Zelda_. A club I sponsor at the school I work at uses an internet meme as a symbol for that club.

Your classification is complete garbage made up on the spot to make a poorly-conceived point. Not only are you wrong about both the words _symbol_ and _intrinsic _(if you knew the meaning of the word, you would know that words and symbols often have no intrinsic meaning), but you're also committing egregious intellectual dishonesty by explicitly stating with _authority _something about a topic that is completely untrue. My recommendation for saving face in this situation is to either concede and move on, or you can crawl in a hole, because there's no coming back from this. Some torpedo.

When a person I'm talking to has decided that the rules for discourse don't include "_not making stuff up"_ anymore, then it makes me not want to play. I could play by those rules too, but then what would the point be?



Foxi4 said:


> Pepe the frog symbolises jack shit - it's being used because it looks funny. A symbol works very much like a sign - there's the signifier, the physical representation, and the signified, a mental idea. Pepe does not qualify as a symbol in any shape or form - it's a stupid picture. A mascot would be more appropriate, and even that is a stretch.


The moment pepe is consistently being used to mean something specific by a group of people with similar points of view, regardless of how organized that group is or how much of an umbrella term it is, it meets the real classification for symbol status. That doesn't mean this is a permanent meaning or that it can't mean something else.

Edit: Members of the alt right are literally taking pepe and consistently, on a popular scale, mass-producing self-described symbols for hate. I don't know how this is even an argument. It has gotten to the point that pepe alone, without added baggage, can and has been used by these people as symbols for hate, avatars, etc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> *Snip*


You are confusing a variety of different types of symbols - you can't equate a numeral or a letter with a religious or political symbol, but that's a matter of semiotics. The "meaning" of Pepe is in no way fixed because there is none. It doesn't refer to any concept whatsoever either. It was appropriated as a commonly used image macro, which doesn't mean that it represents the group that uses it - that's a logical leap, or as you'd put it an "association fallacy", if you will. It's a recurring character, however it doesn't carry any meaning *in and out of itself*, nor does it refer to anything at all, which disqualifies it as a symbol, at least in my opinion.

I don't have to "save face", I'm using terms that can be understood by anyone as I don't expect random people to be familiar with these specific distinctions. That, and we're discussing the matter in context - we don't have to bother with finer details. For Pepe to be a symbol of the alt right, it would have to have the same qualities as the bald eagle has for Americans, which it doesn't. Your attempt at a counterargument comes across as a "gotcha" rather than an actual counter. Do note that I only mentioned that I studied linguistics specifically because you told me that I don't know what a symbol is - if I wanted to appeal to authority, that would've been my opener.

By the way, you are correct in saying that symbols have no *logical* meaning, they do have a mental association though - they necessarily have to refer to *something* in order to be symbols, otherwise they're just scribblings or pictures. For instance, in a web browser, a symbol of a house denotes a Home page - every user knows that, it's agreed upon and understood within the group. There is no particular reason why that's the case, but we associate a house with "home", so that's the symbol that was chosen. That kind of connection is something I cannot see in the case of Pepe. To put it bluntly, there are numerous Pepes out there, and the alt right ones are only some of many, and they're not even the rarest of Pepes.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I didn't claim that anyone had ownership of the meme. This is irrelevant.


_Pepe is an apolitical meme that’s been used by everyone from gamers and YouTubers to celebrities and progressive bloggers -_That is what I was trying to get across.



Lacius said:


> You missed my reference to the history of the Swastika.


I do know about its prior usage in a religious context of Hinduism and Jainism (IIRC) but when it changed to be associated with Nazism, the people mostly were not aware of that unlike Pepe.



Lacius said:


> This isn't relevant when we've got people who are self-identified as alt-right consistently using the meme as a symbol.


It is relevant when we are acting as if they are a single organized structure such as the media has to a large point. My point stands is that like Anonymous, they are decentralized with no true leadership



Lacius said:


> _ It has gotten to the point that pepe alone, without added baggage, can and has been used by these people as symbols for hate, avatars, etc_.


So you think that a plain Pepe without anything racist (i.e text that is offensive) is enough to be considered as a symbol for hate nowadays even keeping in mind its well know previous history?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> So you think that a plain Pepe without anything racist (i.e text that is offensive) is enough to be considered as a symbol for hate nowadays even keeping in mind its well know previous history?


This is where the whole theory crumbles, I'm afraid. The whole point of the Pepe meme is the idea that there are "many Pepes" and everyone is on a scavenger hunt to find the "rarest one". As such, "alt right Pepes" are just one of many in a constant stream of image macros that have only one thing in common - the frog. It's not a symbol of anything, but we could spend all day arguing that back and forth to no effect.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 15, 2016)

Before responding to you guys, I should note that I don't think you should talk about memes until you have a proper understanding of what they are and the history behind the word. A meme, like a gene, can self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures. What pepe was a year ago isn't necessarily what pepe will be a year from now. With the pervasiveness of the alt right, the media spotlight on pepe and the alt right, etc., the pepe meme may become so toxic in the future that its only meaning is an alt right meaning, similar to a Swastika. Or it could be that the alt right usage of the meme fizzles out in another four or five months. Regardless, to argue that the alt right isn't using it as a symbol, regardless of how it's still being used by others and how it has been used in the past, is to ignore facts.

To be honest, I think a lot of you need to grow up and get over this emotional appeal to how you think memes should be treated, regardless of who is using them and how pervasive that use is. You sound like a bunch of prescriptivists, _genwunners_, etc.



Foxi4 said:


> You are confusing a variety of different types of symbols - you can't equate a numeral or a letter with a religious or political symbol, but that's a matter of semiotics.


Given the shitpost above, please do not say I'm the one confused about symbols. I can equate these things when I'm defining what a _symbol_ is and giving examples. Typically, when one defines something to someone who doesn't know what the term means, one tries to use varied examples to better explain how the term is used. A prototypical example, while good at first, isn't going to help that person very much in the real world. So, I'm not sure why this matters.



Foxi4 said:


> The "meaning" of Pepe is in no way fixed because there is none.


A symbol, like a word, often has no intrinsic _meaning._ All one can do is report how it's being used, which is what I'm doing. As a side note, based on this and your above post, I don't think you should have a degree in linguistics.



Foxi4 said:


> It was appropriated as a commonly used image macro, which doesn't mean that it represents the group that uses it - that's a logical leap, or as you'd put it an "association fallacy", if you will. It's a recurring character, however it doesn't carry any meaning *in and out of itself*, nor does it refer to anything at all, which disqualifies it as a symbol.


You need to look up what an _association fallacy_ is, because I'm not asserting anything about the _inherent_ meaning of the meme (for multiple reasons), as I've stated numerous times. I'm acknowledging the use of pepe as a symbol for the alt right. If you don't understand the difference now, and you're going to make silly arguments about a meaning *in and out of itself,* there's not much more I can say on the topic.



Foxi4 said:


> EDIT: By the way, you are correct in saying that symbols have no *logical* meaning, they do have a mental association though. For instance, in a web browser, a symbol of a house denotes a Home page - every user knows that, it's agreed upon.


Let me try to put this in a way you will understand. The home symbol as a way to beam the word "home" into your brain is one of the examples of a symbol with an intrinsic meaning because it is made to look like a literal house. This is similar to how the only words with somewhat intrinsic meanings are onomatopoeias. Don't confuse that with one of the many symbols that does not have an intrinsic meaning.



Foxi4 said:


> That I cannot see here.


See above. Your linguistics _degree_ you're holding might be blocking your vision.



Foxi4 said:


> To put it bluntly, there are numerous Pepes out there, and the alt right ones are some of many, and they're not even the rarest of Pepes.


The meme's varied usage doesn't make it any less a symbol the alt right has adopted.



RevPokemon said:


> _Pepe is an apolitical meme that’s been used by everyone from gamers and YouTubers to celebrities and progressive bloggers -_That is what I was trying to get across.


That's irrelevant to whether or not the alt right has adopted it as a symbol.



RevPokemon said:


> I do know about its prior usage in a religious context of Hinduism and Jainism (IIRC) but when it changed to be associated with Nazism, the people mostly were not aware of that unlike Pepe.


It still demonstrates that a symbol's past meaning is irrelevant to its present or future meaning(s), regardless of how many people know about its meaning. If anything, one could argue that the Clinton people and the general public are analogous to the people who didn't know about the history of the Swastika back in the day. That doesn't make the Swastika nor pepe any less of a symbol as previously described.



RevPokemon said:


> It is relevant when we are acting as if they are a single organized structure such as the media has to a large point. My point stands is that like Anonymous, they are decentralized with no true leadership


Nobody's acting like it's a single organized structure. I've heard it acknowledged numerous times in Clinton's speech, the media, etc. that they're not. It's also, once again, irrelevant.



RevPokemon said:


> So you think that a plain Pepe without anything racist (i.e text that is offensive) is enough to be considered as a symbol for hate nowadays even keeping in mind its well know previous history?


With the proper context, yes. A normal pepe posted on Facebook with no alt-right context? No. A normal pepe avatar on a neo Nazi page and/or by a neo Nazi? Yes. That's what it's become, and that was the explicit purpose of some in the self-described alt-right group. In the future, a normal pepe posted on Facebook with no alt-right context might be enough to be considered a symbol of hate. See the top of my post.



Foxi4 said:


> This is where the whole theory crumbles, I'm afraid. The whole point of the Pepe meme is the idea that there are "many Pepes" and everyone is on a scavenger hunt to find the "rarest one". As such, "alt right Pepes" are just one of many in a constant stream of image macros that have only one thing in common - the frog. It's not a symbol of anything, but we could spend all day arguing that back and forth to no effect.


See above. Your _theory_ crumbles when you realize that a group can adopt anything as a symbol, regardless of whether or not a meme is still being used in alternative ways. Your theory also crumbles when you realize how pervasive, intentional, and concerted an effort this is.


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 15, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Are you high?


Lacius be like...


----------



## Lacius (Sep 15, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> Lacius be like...


If only.


----------



## vayanui8 (Sep 15, 2016)

When you saw this image did it make you think of white supremacy? No? Thats probably because Pepe is not a white supremacist symbol.


----------



## Engert (Sep 15, 2016)

Is Pepe making fun of French people?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 15, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> When you saw this image did it make you think of white supremacy? No? Thats probably because Pepe is not a white supremacist symbol.


First, see my post about context. Second, it would be a lie to say it didn't make anyone think of white supremacy given the conversation topic and why you posted it.

Edit: The unfortunate side effect of this conversation is that all our brains likely now go to white supremacy when we see this meme, even if it's a fleeting thought.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 15, 2016)

I'm not afraid of Pepe the Frog but I'd be afraid of Pepe the Footballer. This guy is known to lose his sh!t.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2016)

The reason why we don't have to discuss the intricate details of symbolism is because the discussion is suspended in context. I specifically don't want this to devolve into an exchange of gotcha-style arguments because correcting technicalities doesn't make either stance any more or less right - it's merely meandering.

"My degree" isn't blinding me in any way, but your persistence in ignoring the whole point of the meme might be blinding you. As I've stated before, the whole point of the Pepe meme is that it's applicable to anything and, in a sense, collectible. The alt right makes alt right Pepes, depressed people make depressed Pepes etc. - Pepe itself, by design, bears no connotations - you dress him up in them, it works this way by design. As such, it's not "owned" by anyone and it never will be - it's not an alt right symbol any more than t-shirts are. You can print an alt right message on a t-shirt and you'll get an alt right t-shirt, which doesn't make all the-shirts alt right. Similarly, you can make an alt right Pepe, even en masse, it's still merely one of many - that's the whole point.

Besides, you seem to be missing the bigger picture. This isn't about Pepe, or memes, or even the alt right - it's about wasting time creating clickbait articles to gin up votes instead of spending it on addressing actual pressing issues, which is what a candidate should be doing.


----------



## Viri (Sep 15, 2016)

In ancient Rome, when they believed in the Roman gods, the Roman Emperor declared war on the sea.

In current days, Hillary declares war on a cartoon frog.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 15, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> View attachment 62726
> When you saw this image did it make you think of white supremacy? No? Thats probably because Pepe is not a white supremacist symbol.


That poor frog looks depressed. #FrogLivesMatter


----------



## Lacius (Sep 15, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The reason why we don't have to discuss the intricate details of symbolism is because the discussion is suspended in context. I specifically don't want this to devolve into an exchange of gotcha-style arguments because correcting technicalities doesn't make either stance any more or less right - it's merely meandering.
> 
> "My degree" isn't blinding me in any way, but your persistence in ignoring the whole point of the meme might be blinding you. As I've stated before, the whole point of the Pepe meme is that it's applicable to anything and, in a sense, collectible. The alt right makes alt right Pepes, depressed people make depressed Pepes etc. - Pepe itself, by design, bears no connotations - you dress him up in them, it works this way by design. As such, it's not "owned" by anyone and it never will be - it's not an alt right symbol any more than t-shirts are. You can print an alt right message on a t-shirt and you'll get an alt right t-shirt, which doesn't make all the-shirts alt right. Similarly, you can make an alt right Pepe, even en masse, but it's still merely one of many.


If you think anything I've said is mutually exclusive with this or that I even disagree with this, then you have ignored everything I've posted.

The alt right is intentionally using pepe as a symbol for hate. Get over it.



Foxi4 said:


> Besides, you seem to be missing the bigger picture. This isn't about Pepe, or memes, or even the alt right - it's about wasting time creating clickbait articles to gin up votes instead of spending it on addressing actual pressing issues, which is what a candidate should be doing.


No, it's about the alt right. That's pretty much the whole issue.



Viri said:


> In current days, Hillary declares war on a cartoon frog.


Ignoring that this would be preferable to some of the actual wars she might declare (Don't be mad at me, Hill. It's all good), I wouldn't say that she's _declared war_ on a cartoon frog.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The unfortunate side effect of this conversation is that all our brains likely now go to white supremacy when we see this meme, even if it's a fleeting thought.


If someone's perception of "Vanilla Pepe" has suddenly changed from "random nonsense" to "white supremacy" due to this discussion, I will eat a bucket of Pepes, rare.

If this is about the alt-right, write about the alt-right. Don't write about Pepe, it's a waste of everybody's time. Unfortunately, one cannot write about the alt-right since it's not an organised movement, it has no common ideology and no representatives - they're perfect bogeymen.

The funny thing is that I'm willing to wager that a lot of people involved in this discussion right now actually identify as "alt right", if we define "alt right" as "alternative right-wing", meaning non-GOP. Not to look too far for examples, libertarians are a right-wing alternative to republicans. Naturally that's not the accepted definition since logic went out the window during this election.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The alt right is intentionally using pepe as a symbol for hate. Get over it.


The whole argument is not about whether they are using pepe (we all agree on that) but it is about whether or not the qualifies him as a symbol of the alt right.




Lacius said:


> The unfortunate side effect of this conversation is that all our brains likely now go to white supremacy when we see this meme, even if it's a fleeting thought.


Without context, probably not unless this is your only experience with pepe or if you just think about odd experiences alot.


----------



## Viri (Sep 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Ignoring that this would be preferable to some of the actual wars she might declare (Don't be mad at me, Hill. It's all good), I wouldn't say that she's _declared war_ on a cartoon frog.



I hope you're gathering the Tadpole corpses for madam's war trophies, or she might fire you from CTR.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 15, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> If someone's perception of "Vanilla Pepe" has suddenly changed from "random nonsense" to "white supremacy", I will eat a bucket of Pepes.


First, whether or not you define pepe by its alt-right usage, which you obviously don't, that connotation likely comes to mind when you see it now; that was my point there.

Second, I just did a silly subjective study where I invited one white 26 year-old male to look at my computer screen and tell me what he sees. He's a casual internet user who is closer to the general public than a Temper and/or meme-user, and the picture was normal pepe. He said, "Oh, that's that frog thing that's racist, right?" He was unlikely ever aware of the "random nonsense" connotation, but my point here is clear.



RevPokemon said:


> The whole argument is not about whether they are using pepe (we all agree on that) but it is about whether or not the qualifies him as a symbol of the alt right.


Considering the former equals the latter, that is the whole argument.



RevPokemon said:


> Without context, probably not unless this is your only experience with pepe or if you just think about odd experiences alot.


It doesn't take much for something like that. Let's say much of the general public later sees pepe as racist. If enough people feel that way, there could be a level of shame on its usage, for example, that will cause even avid meme-users to avoid its usage, even if they generally see it as having a nonsense connotation. After enough time, well, you can imagine the rest of the story.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It doesn't take much for something like that. Let's say much of the general public later sees pepe as racist. If enough people feel that way, there could be a level of shame on its usage, for example, that will cause even avid meme-users to avoid its usage, even if they generally see it as having a nonsense connotation. After enough time, well, you can imagine the rest of the story.


Sure  theoretically that is true but I was speaking in terms of reality.



Lacius said:


> Second, I just did a silly subjective study where I invited one white 26 year-old male to look at my computer screen and tell me what he sees. He's a casual internet user who is closer to the general public than a Temper and/or meme-user, and the picture was normal pepe. He said, "Oh, that's that frog thing that's racist, right?" He was unlikely ever aware of the "random nonsense" connotation, but my point here is clear.


I do not know what you describe an average internet user as (I am assuming the popular social media websites, youtube, and perhaps a few mainstream news websites) but I feel in that in the case that you see it being used by the alt right then you are also going to see it in its original non alt right context so that it is relatively easy to tell the two apart.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 15, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I do not know what you describe an average internet user as (I am assuming the popular social media websites, youtube, and perhaps a few mainstream news websites)


That's my definition, yeah.



RevPokemon said:


> but I feel in that in the case that you see it being used by the alt right then you are also going to see it in its original non alt right context so that it is relatively easy to tell the two apart.


How it's being reported by the media is an important factor.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> How it's being reported by the media is an important factor.



Well let's go back to your average internet user. Assuming his tastes in websites are such as those you stated then most likely his media sources are also somewhat normally. He probably is semi politically knowledgeable (he knows at least basics of what is happening in current events although he does not fully understand) and gets his digital news from local sources (i.e local big 4 affiliates and the digital arm of the area newspaper), the tv networks (CNN, FNC, MSNBC and the National Big 4 websites), and maybe a few of the more well known news papers (NYT or WaPo). A lot of the articles that discuss Pepe are not part of those news sources  and when they are, they are not front page stories but probably in the politics section from the time being. 

So more or less he is relativly likly to not know about this. Assuming that he does however then it has to be ask on how it is reported? Do they mention prior usage for example? If so then that makes the chances a bit smaller. If a comment mentions that then it also becomes smaller. Same if he takes the time to do a short google search.

Ultimately it is safe to say most people are either indifferent or understand the circumstances.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, whether or not you define pepe by its alt-right usage, which you obviously don't, that connotation likely comes to mind when you see it now; that was my point there.
> 
> Second, I just did a silly subjective study where I invited one white 26 year-old male to look at my computer screen and tell me what he sees. He's a casual internet user who is closer to the general public than a Temper and/or meme-user, and the picture was normal pepe. He said, "Oh, that's that frog thing that's racist, right?" He was unlikely ever aware of the "random nonsense" connotation, but my point here is clear.


Firstly, everyone participating in this discussion is familiar with Pepe and with its prior use. This particular Pepe is the tiniest of blips on the radar for everyone involved. Frankly, I had no idea there even where alt right Pepes around until Hillary told me so - all I keep getting are Trump Pepes, which are admittedly very funny.

Secondly, you asked one random person who apparently lived under a rock and has never stumbled upon Pepe for an opinion, showed him the example and got the expected result? Sounds like a great study. Do I even need to explain why "asking one random person" doesn't constitute a study, informal or not? That's just asking someone a question. Good controls, sizable test group, sounds reliable. Allin all, you're presenting an anecdote as evidence - I could easily repeat it in my circle of friends and get the opposite result..


> Considering the former equals the latter, that is the whole argument.


No, it doesn't, and we established why. To use one of your own examples that I specifically disagreed with, the alt right consistently uses a set of symbols called the alphabet. If your logic held any water, prior use of the alphabet would've been irrelevant as a new group came along and usurped it. Since that's retarded, the alphabet isn't a set of white supremacist symbols.

You're consistently using the same fallacious argument you were already called out on - just because Pepe is associated with the alt right in certain circles or is being actively used by this nebulous alt right that has no representatives to speak of doesn't make it a "symbol of the alt right". The mental gymnastics you're perpetrating here are amusing, but ultimately futile.


Lacius said:


> How it's being reported by the media is an important factor.


Ah, and here we have the actual crux of the issue. Are you accusing the media of manipulation? Because we can have a healthy discussion about that, unlike the one we're having to endure now.


----------



## Engert (Sep 15, 2016)

The world is full of interesting and wonderful people. 

Hillary Clinton! Drop dead! 

Barrack Obama! Gtfo!


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 15, 2016)

Pepe the Frog is just a sad, misunderstood and lonely frog that needs companion. How anyone would see anything beyond that is ludicrous.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 15, 2016)

Now, I'm just gonna be honest and call bullshit on the Pepe meme being racist. It isn't.

Take a look at what has happened in Germany recently: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pelted-bottles-asylum-seekers-protecting.html

If this had been in America how would the white folks defending themselves be labelled? Just as they are in that article. "Neo-Nazis". EU and Merkel have ruined Europe but there's till hope for America to not get into the same situation.

Btw, I'm not Hungarian but if I were, I'd be proud as they're standing up to protect themselves!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 15, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> No, it doesn't, and we established why. To use one of your own examples that I specifically disagreed with, the alt right consistently uses a set of symbols called the alphabet. If your logic held any water, prior use of the alphabet would've been irrelevant as a new group came along and usurped it. Since that's retarded, the alphabet isn't a set of white supremacist symbols.


Once again, your analogy is just stupid. This takes us back to your false analogy of cars and air are being used by deplorable people, which doesn't mean they're being used as _symbols_ for hate. If you can't understand that distinction, then you cannot effectively participate in this conversation. In the same way, letters are being used as graphemes, not as specific symbols for hate.



Foxi4 said:


> Since that's retarded, the alphabet isn't a set of white supremacist symbols.


I agree. It's about as retarded as your analogy.



Foxi4 said:


> You're consistently using the same fallacious argument you were already called out on - just because Pepe is associated with the alt right in certain circles or is being actively used by this nebulous alt right that has no representatives to speak of doesn't make it a "symbol of the alt right". The mental gymnastics you're perpetrating here are amusing, but ultimately futile.


Until you realize that a symbol's meaning is entirely dependent upon its association, you are going to continue to apply the association fallacy incorrectly. I really don't mean to be snide, but this was actually laughable.



Foxi4 said:


> Ah, and here we have the actual crux of the issue. Are you accusing the media of manipulation? Because we can have a healthy discussion about that, unlike the one we're having to endure now.


Whether or not the media's reporting on this made people more knowledgeable of what's going on with the meme and/or contributed to how people view the meme is irrelevant to the conversation.


----------



## Viri (Sep 15, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Now, I'm just gonna be honest and call bullshit on the Pepe meme being racist. It isn't.
> 
> Take a look at what has happened in Germany recently: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pelted-bottles-asylum-seekers-protecting.html
> 
> ...


Shut up you evil racist! Those poor helpless refugees were just expressing them selves culturally by throwing rocks and glass at those evil white honky police officers! How dare those evil, racist, Hitler, Neo-Nazis think their country isn't for everyone and attack them?! I hope mother Merkal raises their monthly allowance from 3K a month to 4K a month! 

Refugees welcome! Open boarders for all! Boarders are racist!


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Once again, your analogy is just stupid. This takes us back to your false analogy of cars and air are being used by deplorable people, which doesn't mean they're being used as _symbols_ for hate. If you can't understand that distinction, then you cannot effectively participate in this conversation. In the same way, letters are being used as graphemes, not as specific symbols for hate.


According to your very own argument, if a symbol is used to perpetrate a hateful message, it becomes hateful as it inherits the qualities of the hateful group that uses it. Therefore, if I use the alphabet, a set of symbols, to construct a hateful message with, it would have to make the alphabet hateful, according to your own proposed logic progression, which is preposterous.


> I agree. It's about as retarded as your analogy.


You're the one who posited this scenario, so I'm glad that we agree. If your explanation works only in very specific circumstances then it's not a very good example.


> Until you realize that a symbol's meaning is entirely dependent upon its association, you are going to continue to apply the association fallacy incorrectly. I really don't mean to be snide, but this was actually laughable.


I thought we've established that Pepe has no particular meaning and it's merely "dressed up in it" as the user sees fit? Didn't you just spend two pages explaining how symbols don't necessarily have to have meaning in order to be symbols? Which is it - does Pepe have any intrinsic meaning or is the perception entirely dependant on the viewer's experience? This is a rethorical question since I don't associate Pepe with any particular meaning whatsoever, in fact, I was unaware of the white supremacist use until Hillary's staff told me about it, and I go into the deepest holes of the net for my lulz.


> Whether or not the media's reporting on this made people more knowledgeable of what's going on with the meme and/or contributed to how people view the meme is irrelevant to the conversation.


Nice dodge. To reiterate, "how the media report news is an important factor, but it's irrelevant". Okay.

This is getting circular and we won't see each other eye to eye on the matter, so I'll just conclude by saying that I acknowledge the fact that the alt right is using the Pepe meme since that's demonstrably true, however, the meme is simultaneously being used by millions of people every day in different contexts and reporting on it as if it's used exclusively as an alt right symbol of white supremacy now or that it carries some intrinsic hateful meaning is both disingenuous and stupid.

On top of that, it's not even a subject a presidential candidate should bother addressing at all. Perhaps if the Clinton machine was more concerned about presenting Clinton's reform plan in a favourable light and explaining her policy rather than mercilessly beating up bogeymen, I would treat it more seriously. As of late, her Facebook and Twitter accounts almost exclusively post slams against Trump - nothing actually constructive. Just today I read a post from her Facebook account saying that you should vote for Hillary because Trump made business deals with Kadafi in the past. What the f*ck is that pile of horse, didn't she receive a bunch of donations from Saudi Arabia? Didn't previous presidents shake hands with Saddam Hussein before we've decided that he's inconvenient and bombed the sh*t out of him? Does it even matter? Making a business deal with someone doesn't make you responsible for what that person does, and you probably shouldn't point out that someone has a splinter in their eye if you have a log in yours. The entire political debate has changed into a mud slinging festival, and it's kind of embarrassing to even follow it.


----------



## bi388 (Sep 15, 2016)

Viri said:


> Shut up you evil racist! Those poor helpless refugees were just expressing them selves culturally by throwing rocks and glass at those evil white honky police officers! How dare those evil, racist, Hitler, Neo-Nazis think their country isn't for everyone and attack them?! I hope mother Merkal raises their monthly allowance from 3K a month to 4K a month!
> 
> Refugees welcome! Open boarders for all! Boarders are racist!


Thats some fantastic strawmanning, fox might have a job for you


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 15, 2016)

Viri said:


> Shut up you evil racist! Those poor helpless refugees were just expressing them selves culturally by throwing rocks and glass at those evil white honky police officers! How dare those evil, racist, Hitler, Neo-Nazis think their country isn't for everyone and attack them?! I hope mother Merkal raises their monthly allowance from 3K a month to 4K a month!
> 
> Refugees welcome! Open boarders for all! Boarders are racist!


The patriarchy is to be blamed for it because of that, we cannot be progressive like the wonderful Middle-East are with women, gays and overall their lifestyle which is very healthy and lasts for a lifetime. Women for their own sake need to be fully clothed otherwise men cannot be responsible for their actions, women also need to shut up and take in whatever men demand, women should not be allowed to drive and nor speak _(edit: because saying once isn't enough)_.

Down with the patriarchy and those horrible western values no one really likes!


----------



## bi388 (Sep 15, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The patriarchy is to be blamed for it because of that, we cannot be progressive like the wonderful Middle-East are with women, gays and overall their lifestyle which is very healthy and lasts for a lifetime. Women for their own sake need to be fully clothed otherwise men cannot be responsible for their actions, women also need to shut up and take in whatever men demand, women should not be allowed to drive and nor speak _(edit: because saying once isn't enough)_.
> 
> Down with the patriarchy and those horrible western values no one really likes!


I cant even begin to try to comprehend what your message is or who youre trying to convince since I dont see anyone saying we should oppress gays and women


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> (...) women also need to shut up and take in whatever men demand, women should not be allowed to drive and nor speak


Well... Nobody's saying "no"... 



"A women president would be a disaster." - Dick Masterson, A wise man and a scholar


----------



## Viri (Sep 15, 2016)

bi388 said:


> Thats some fantastic strawmanning, fox might have a job for you


Thanks!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 15, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> According to your very own argument, if a symbol is used to perpetrate a hateful message, it becomes hateful as it inherits the qualities of the hateful group that uses it. Therefore, if I use the alphabet, a set of symbols, to construct a hateful message with, it would have to make the alphabet hateful, according to your own proposed logic progression, which is preposterous.


Are letters being used as specific symbols for hate, or are letters being used to construct words? The sooner you understand this difference, the better.



Foxi4 said:


> I thought we've established that Pepe has no particular meaning and it's merely "dressed up in it" as the user sees fit? Didn't you just spend two pages explaining how symbols don't necessarily have to have meaning in order to be symbols? Which is it - does Pepe have any intrinsic meaning or is the perception entirely dependant on the viewer's experience? This is a rethorical question since I don't associate Pepe with any particular meaning whatsoever, in fact, I was unaware of the white supremacist use until Hillary's staff told me about it, and I go into the deepest holes of the net for my lulz.


Symbols usually have no intrinsic meaning. They get their meaning entirely from how they're used. Please read my posts before responding to them. As I already said, a symbol's meaning is entirely dependent upon its association.



Foxi4 said:


> so I'll just conclude by saying that I acknowledge the fact that the alt right is using the Pepe meme since that's demonstrably true, however, the meme is simultaneously being used by millions of people every day in different contexts and reporting on it as if it's used exclusively as an alt right symbol of white supremacy or that it carries some intrinsic hateful meaning is both disingenuous and stupid.


Then we agree. Read my posts from now on.



Foxi4 said:


> On top of that, it's not even a subject a presidential candidate should bother addressing at all. Perhaps if the Clinton machine was more concerned about presenting Clinton's reform plan in a favourable light and explaining her policy rather than mercilessly beating up bogeymen, I would treat it more seriously.


If you think the _Clinton machine_ hasn't been predominantly focused on policy, then you're blind. I also don't think a single post about pepe is _merciless_.



Foxi4 said:


> As of late, her Facebook and Twitter accounts almost exclusively post slams against Trump - nothing actually constructive.


Attacking Trump for his specific rhetoric and policy positions is actually constructive.



Foxi4 said:


> Just today I read a post from her Facebook account saying that you should vote for Hillary because Trump made business deals with Kadafi in the past.


As the post states, Gaddafi was a _terrorist and a dictator_. In addition, the larger point is that his foreign business raises serious questions about a.) Trump's judgment, and b.) His ability, or lack thereof, to be president when he won't move his business to a blind trust.



Foxi4 said:


> What the f*ck is that pile of horse, didn't she receive a bunch of donations from Saudi Arabia?


Saudi Arabia is a not a terrorist. It's a country. The donation was also to the Clinton Foundation, not to Hillary Clinton. They were also charity donations, no business. Hillary was also not a Secretary of State at the time. Come on. You're grasping at straws again.



Foxi4 said:


> Didn't previous presidents shake hands with Saddam Hussein before we've decided that he's inconvenient and bombed the sh*t out of him?


No one brought that up but you.



Foxi4 said:


> Does it even matter? Making a business deal with someone doesn't make you responsible for what that person does, and you probably shouldn't point out that someone has a splinter in their eye if you have a log in yours.


I suggest you look into the serious judgment issues in doing business with a terrorist, and I suggest you look into the serious conflicts of interest that would exist if Trump became president and didn't remedy the situation properly, which he's unlikely to do.



Foxi4 said:


> The entire political debate has changed into a mud slinging festival, and it's kind of embarrassing to even follow it.


One side is slinging a lot more mud than the other. Hillary has largely been focusing on her policy positions, Trump's bad policy positions, his demagoguery, and his bigotry. Trump has been focusing on Hillary's health, etc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Are letters being used as specific symbols for hate, or are letters being used to construct words? The sooner you understand this difference, the better.


I understand the difference, you don't seem understand my point. The Pepe character, a single component, is used to construct alt right iterations of the meme, which makes it perfectly analogous to using letters to construct a racist message. Letters by themselves are not representative of any message, and neither is Pepe for the same f*cking reason. I'm surprised it took us this long to get to this point.


> Symbols usually have no intrinsic meaning. They get their meaning entirely from how they're used. Please read my posts before responding to them. As I already said, a symbol's meaning is entirely dependent upon its association.


So racist iterations of the meme are racist and alt right iterations of the meme are alt right. This was never contested by anyone.


> Then we agree. Read my posts from now on.


Pot and kettle.


> If you think the _Clinton machine_ hasn't been predominantly focused on policy, then you're blind. I also don't think a single post about pepe is _merciless_.


It's not just the Pepe article, don't be disingenuous.


> Attacking Trump for his specific rhetoric and policy positions is actually constructive.


No, it's not. Don't tell me why I shouldn't pick Trump, I'll be the judge of that and base my decision on what he says - tell me why I should pick *you*, that's the purpose of your campaign. Hillary is the last person I'll ask for an opinion on Trump's policy, specifically because she has a horse in the race - she's his opponent in the election, being critical of his policies is her default position by definition.


> As the post states, Gaddafi was a _terrorist and a dictator_. In addition, the larger point is that his foreign business raises serious questions about a.) Trump's judgment, and b.) His ability, or lack thereof, to be president when he won't move his business to a blind trust.


There are no morals in business. Trump is not responsible for what Kadafi did just because he made deals with him. The U.S. government makes deals with morally questionable individuals all the time, which doesn't make it liable for what those individuals do outside of those deals.


> Saudi Arabia is a not a terrorist. It's a country. The donation was also to the Clinton Foundation, not to Hillary Clinton. They were also charity donations, no business. Hillary was also not a Secretary of State at the time. Come on. You're grasping at straws again.


Saudi Arabia is a country that funds terrorism, the Clinton foundation made deals with Saudi Arabia, the Clinton foundation belongs to the Clintons, the situation is analogous, QED. The fact that Hillary wasn't Secretary of State at the time makes it an even better analogy as Trump wasn't in public office either, so they were both private individuals minding their own business.


> No one brought that up but you.


I brought it up because it's relevant and analogous to the Kadafi case.


> I suggest you look into the serious judgment issues in doing business with a terrorist, and I suggest you look into the serious conflicts of interest that would exist if Trump became president and didn't remedy the situation properly, which he's unlikely to do.


Already addressed, so there's no reason to reiterate the same point.


> One side is slinging a lot more mud than the other.


That's definitely true, it just doesn't work in your favour.


> Hillary has largely been focusing on her policy positions, Trump's bad policy positions, his demagoguery, and his bigotry. Trump has been focusing on Hillary's health, etc.


Sure. That's why she hasn't called a press conference since December last year, aside from her alt right speech, unless I missed something. While Trump "focuses" on her health, she focuses on his tax return, so it's an embarrassing sh*t show all around.

Can we leave Pepe alone now? There's literally nothing more to talk about here and repeating ourselves over and over is exhausting.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I understand the difference, you don't seem understand my point. The Pepe character, a single component, is used to construct alt right iterations of the meme, which makes it perfectly analogous to using letters to construct a racist message. Letters by themselves are not representative of any message, and neither is Pepe for the same f*cking reason. I'm surprised it took is this long to get to this point.


I get the point you're wanting to make, so please don't say I'm the one who doesn't understand. The problem is that your point isn't a good one. If you think letters, which are graphemes used to construct words, are the same as pepe, which is being used as a specific and consistent symbol for hate, despite everything I've said, then I cannot help you. When neo Nazis starting dressing the letter A as a hateful symbol and using it as an avatar, please let me know, because until then, the letter A is not being used as a specific symbol for hate; it's being used as a letter to construct words. If you want to talk about how words can be symbols for hate, great. That's another story. Your analogy is poorly constructed and has a glaring flaw that I have pointed out numerous times.



Foxi4 said:


> So racist iterations of the meme are racist and alt right iterations of the meme are alt right. This was never contested by anyone.


Then why are you arguing with me? It's perfectly fine for a campaign to acknowledge the consistent alt right usage and adoption of the pepe meme.



Foxi4 said:


> No, it's not. Don't tell me why I shouldn't pick Trump, I'll be the judge of that and base my decision on what he says - tell me why I should pick *you*, that's the purpose of your campaign.


First, if a candidate is deplorable, it's perfectly fine to say, "This candidate is deplorable for these reasons. This is one of the many reasons why you should vote for me instead." Second, the point of a campaign is to both convince you why A is good and to convince you why B is bad. Your unrealistic expectations of what a campaign is or should be is laughable.



Foxi4 said:


> There are no morals in business. Trump is not responsible what Kadafi did just because he made deals with him. The U.S. government makes deals with morally questionable individuals all the time, which doesn't make it liable for what those individuals do outside of those deals.


Putting aside the fact that the U.S. government has made deals with questionable individuals before, which is true, you really think it's morally okay to sustain a dictator and/or terrorist through business just because it's good for you? You think that shows good judgement from someone who is running to be president of the United States and claims to be America-first? I'm not arguing that doing business with a terrorist makes one guilty of terrorism, so don't make another one of your many strawman arguments, but it does make one an enabler.



Foxi4 said:


> Saudi Arabia is a country that funds terrorism, the Clinton foundation made deals with Saudi Arabia, the Clinton foundation belongs to the Clintons, the situation is analogous, QED.


If you think the Clinton Foundation _made deals_ with Saudi Arabia, you need to do more research, because you sound like a moron who doesn't comprehend the situation. In addition, Hillary was not on the Clinton Foundation board, and she had no position of power at State when the money was donated. You're talking about donations to a charity, purely on the receiving end, not business.



Foxi4 said:


> I brought it up because it's relevant and analogous to the Kadafi case.


It's not. Try again.



Foxi4 said:


> That's definitely true, it just doesn't work in your favour.


You seriously think the Hillary Clinton campaign, which is talking policy positions, rhetoric, etc., is slinging more mud than the conspiracy-ridden alt-right Trump campaign that targets her emails, health, fake donation scandals, etc.? Remember that we're talking about the same Trump campaign that panders to outright racists and discusses policy only so far as to say "I'm not telling" and "It's going to be great"?



Foxi4 said:


> Sure. That's why she hasn't called a press conference since December last year, aside from her alt right speech, unless I missed something.


How the hell is this relevant to her focus on policy? lol



Foxi4 said:


> While Trump "focuses" on her health, she focuses on his tax return, so it's an embarrassing sh*t show all around.


While Hillary Clinton has followed the standard protocol when it comes to releasing health records, Trump has not followed the norm of releasing his tax returns. Given the very real possibility of a conflict of interest when it comes to Trump and his business, let alone questions about his tax rate, etc., it is very reasonable to want to talk about why Trump is hiding his tax return for the first time since Watergate and why he's lying about why he can't release his taxes.

In other words, presidential policy has a very real potential effect on Trump's finances. It's important that we see what those effects are, where the conflicts of interest might be, etc. Continued baseless conspiracy theories about a candidate's health is pure mud-slinging. To even compare the two things is a level of intellectual dishonesty that I'm not even surprised to see from you anymore. It's sickens me enough that I don't really want to continue this conversation.



Foxi4 said:


> Can we leave Pepe alone now? There's literally nothing more to talk about here and repeating ourselves over and over is exhausting.


I'll leave pepe alone when you leave Hillary Clinton's campaign alone for merely acknowledging a symbol associated with white supremacy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

I'm not going to dignify the whole post with a response, I already made my case. Pepe as _an extrapolated component of a message_ is not a hateful symbol, just like the letter "N" isn't a hateful symbol _if extrapolated from the "N" word_. However, both can be used to _construct_ a hateful message, like a racist word or a racist picture. That's really all there is to say about this, you can keep disagreeing to your heart's content, I'm done - there are better things to discuss than this.

As for Clinton's charity, charities are non-profit organisations, or 501(C)'s - they're the non-profit equivalent of a corporation. They have no obligation to accept donations from anyone, especially if the donors are morally ambiguous. As far as Trump's tax return is concerned, he is not obligated to publish it - it's just a tradition. I see more potential for conflicts of interests with Clinton's charity since unlike a corporation that's publicly on the stock market or a campaign fund it is not obligated to publish its "earnings", the flow of money is not transparent. There is some real potential for abuse there, but we've already talked about that.

PS: Your letter "A" example immediately reminded me of "The Scarlet Letter", was that intentional or coincidental? Were you goading me? Because if yes, it worked - I found it humorous.


----------



## FeverishJackal (Sep 16, 2016)

Pepe the frog being seen as an oppressive symbol... I'm sorry that I can't provide truly decent discussion, because all I can say is simply,"Amazing."


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

FeverishJackal said:


> Pepe the frog being seen as an oppressive symbol... I'm sorry that I can't provide truly decent discussion, because all I can say is simply,"Amazing."


You can't have a decent discussion about a premise that borders on insanity and paranoia, and the discussion we had earlier is all the proof you need.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 16, 2016)

I think we should all believe in Hilary's words, she obviously is an authority when it comes to white supremacy thanks to her mentor.


----------



## endoverend (Sep 16, 2016)

Lmao it's so fitting that in 2016, political discussions are synonymous with discussions about Pepe the Frog


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

endoverend said:


> Lmao it's so fitting that in 2016, political discussions are synonymous with discussions about Pepe the Frog


It's fuc*ing killing me man, they should just start over. The whoooole thing, because something went wrong somewhere and now we're here.


----------



## barronwaffles (Sep 16, 2016)

Anyone who considers the 'alt-right' to be a credible entity needs to evaluate their life.

At least the memes are spicy with the latest media bogeyman.


----------



## Viri (Sep 16, 2016)

Spoiler


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 16, 2016)

FeverishJackal said:


> Pepe the frog being seen as an oppressive symbol... I'm sorry that I can't provide truly decent discussion, because all I can say is simply,"Amazing."


Exactly. It's so outrages anyone could claim anything to be racist.






Is this racist, Lacius?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You can't have a decent discussion about a premise that borders on insanity and paranoia, and the discussion we had earlier is all the proof you need.


It's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge a symbol associated with white supremacy, regardless of its history, varied usage, and how much the acknowledgement is contributing to the association. To call the premise one that borders on insanity and paranoia is to either demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on, or to express a level of disingenuousness that I don't care to have a conversation with.



Joe88 said:


> I think we should all believe in Hilary's words, she obviously is an authority when it comes to white supremacy thanks to her mentor.


It's like you don't even bother to fact-check your own statements, so I'll do it for you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

@Lacius So are you saying that he wasn't a KKK member? Or just that he left the silly treehouse club after a year so it doesn't count? What exactly are you trying to say?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius So are you saying that he wasn't a KKK member? Or just that he left the silly treehouse club after a year so it doesn't count? What exactly are you trying to say?


I'm saying to read the full history of what occurred and don't make an actual association fallacy. Hillary Clinton does not support racist ideals nor policy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm saying to read the full history of what occurred and don't make an actual association fallacy. Hillary Clinton does not support racist ideals nor policy.


Well, we're not the ones dividing the nation into two baskets, one of which is a basket of deplorables, so I'm not so sure about her supposed "all-embracing" nature. On the other hand, I also don't give a shit about her personal views as long as they don't influence policy, so there's that.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, we're not the ones dividing the nation into two baskets, one of which is a basket of deplorables, so I'm not so sure about her supposed "all-embracing" nature. On the other hand, I also don't give a shit about her personal views as long as they don't influence policy, so there's that.


Acknowledging the fact that some of Trump's supporters are deplorables who are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, etc., while lacking tact, isn't untrue.

Edit: In other words, it isn't intolerant to condemn intolerance.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Acknowledging the fact that some of Trump's supporters are deplorables who are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, etc., while lacking tact, isn't untrue.
> 
> Edit: In other words, it isn't intolerant to condemn intolerance.


Isn't it? It would seem that the dictionary disagrees with you.


> tolerance /'tɒl(ə)r(ə)ns/ _noun_
> 
> the ability or willingness *to tolerate* the existence of *opinions or behaviour* that one *dislikes or disagrees with*


You can disagree with someone, but you don't necessarily have to insult them just because you disagree with them, especially if you happen to be running for public office and offending the electorate is the last thing you should be doing. A presidential candidate with a tendency to pick and choose which citizens are respectable and which ones are deplorable is a bit of an issue. That's all irrelevant to the discussion though, I'm just being cheeky with you.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm saying to read the full history of what occurred and don't make an actual association fallacy. Hillary Clinton does not support racist ideals nor policy.


So full history of Pepe doesn't matter, but here it does.  Got it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> So full history of Pepe doesn't matter, but here it does. Got it.


Stop making sense, you're disturbing the spin zone.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Isn't it? It would seem that the dictionary disagrees with you.


You're so disingenuous that I predicted you were going to paste that exact definition in response to my post. You know what I'm talking about, and you know I picked that specific wording specifically because of the self-evident contradictory nature of the statement if you take that literal definition. Of course, I mean the following definition:

_unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group._



Foxi4 said:


> You can disagree with someone, but you don't necessarily have to insult them just because you disagree with them, especially if you happen to be running for public office and offending the electorate is the last thing you should be doing. A presidential candidate with a tendency to pick and choose which citizens are respectable and which ones are deplorable is a bit of an issue. That's all irrelevant to the discussion though, I'm just being cheeky with you.


You don't think forms of intolerance such as racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, etc. are deplorable? Because I do.



grossaffe said:


> So full history of Pepe doesn't matter, but here it does.  Got it.


One's going from deplorable to benign; the other's going from benign to deplorable. We're also talking about a non-sentient meme and its uses by other people vs. a person with the capacity to change his views. Please don't make a comparison where there is none. I also recommend you read the article I linked to above about pepe's changing meaning. Symbols have a tendency to do that.

Edit: In other words, a symbol's past usage is irrelevant to its present usage. That's not analogous to the above situation. Please think through your response before you post it.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> One's going from deplorable to benign; the other's going from benign to deplorable. We're also talking about a non-sentient meme and its uses by other people vs. a person with the capacity to change his views. Please don't make a comparison where there is none. I also recommend you read the article I linked to above about pepe's changing meaning. Symbols have a tendency to do that.


One elected to join an overtly racist militant organization, and the other is a cartoon with no intrinsic meaning.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You're so disingenuous that I predicted you were going to paste that exact definition in response to my post. You know what I'm talking about, and you know I picked that specific wording specifically because of the self-evident contradictory nature of the statement if you take that literal definition. Of course, I mean the following definition:
> 
> _unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group._


I literally picked the first one that popped up in Google, don't flatter yourself. Yours doesn't even pop up in the immediate results, so I couldn't have copy-pasted it even if I wanted to. This has nothing to do with me _supposedly _being disingenuous, you're acting paranoid, and on top of that you're grossly overestimating my level of engagement in this conversation.





> You don't think forms of intolerance such as racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, etc. are deplorable? Because I do.


I think that any form of intolerance is deplorable, including the intolerance towards people whom you find deplorable. Everyone has a right to live, to have an opinion and to express it.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> One elected to join an overtly racist militant organization, and the other is a cartoon with no intrinsic meaning.


Not to defend the man, but he renounced those views and relationships, and regardless, any association with Hillary Clinton doesn't mean she shares those views. The pepe meme, on the other hand, is a cartoon with no intrinsic meaning but is nevertheless being used as a symbol for alt right hate, regardless of how it's been used in the past.



Foxi4 said:


> I think that any form of intolerance is deplorable, including the intolerance towards people whom you find deplorable. Everyone has a right to live, to have an opinion and to express it.


So you find yourself deplorable?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> So you find yourself deplorable?


Oh boy, in many ways. Elaborate on that one though, I'm interested in what you have to say about me being intolerant.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh boy, in many ways. Elaborate on that one though, I'm interested in what you have to say about me being intolerant.





Foxi4 said:


> I think that *any form of intolerance is deplorable*, including the *intolerance towards people whom you find deplorable*. Everyone has a right to live, to have an opinion and to express it.


If you think intolerance is deplorable, that makes you intolerant of intolerance, by definition. That means, according to you, you're deplorable. If you're going to argue that finding something deplorable doesn't necessarily mean you're intolerant of that thing, then the entire conversation is pointless; you just made the same statement as Hillary Clinton, and you agree with everything I said above.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If you think intolerance is deplorable, that makes you intolerant of intolerance, by definition. That means, according to you, you're deplorable. If you're going to argue that finding something deplorable doesn't necessarily mean you're intolerant of that thing, then the entire conversation is pointless; you just made the same statement as Hillary Clinton, and you agree with everything I said above.


"Intolerance" itself is not a person, the statements you bolded are not contradictory. What I said was that intolerance is deplorable, no matter who it's directed at. Someone who's islamophobic is no better or worse than someone who's "alt-right-phobic" - not every muslim is a terrorist, not every right-wing voter is a white supremacist. Is that a controversial statement?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> "Intolerance" itself is not a person, the statements you bolded are not contradictory. What I said was that intolerance is deplorable, no matter who it's directed at. *Someone who's islamophobic is no better or worse than someone who's "alt-right-phobic"* - not every muslim is a terrorist, not every right-wing voter is a white supremacist. Is that a controversial statement?


I think the bolded statement is generally a controversial statement, yes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I think the bolded statement is generally a controversial statement, yes.


Why? There is a certain subset of muslims who blow themselves up in public and behead reporters in Internet videos, there's also a certain subset of right-wing voters who are both disappointed in the GOP and looking for other right-wing alternatives _and_ happen to be racist. Surely this is demonstrably true.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Why? There is a certain subset of muslims who blow themselves up in public and behead reporters in Internet videos, there's also a certain subset of right-wing voters who are both disappointed in the GOP and looking for other right-wing alternatives _and_ happen to be racist. Surely this is demonstrably true.


I don't think you know what Islamophobia is.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I don't think you know what Islamophobia is.


Mansplain it to me.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Mansplain it to me.


It's when one has a prejudice against Muslims on the basis of religion, by definition. Acknowledging the existence of terrorism isn't Islamophobic.


----------



## vayanui8 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's when one has a prejudice against Muslims on the basis of religion, by definition. Acknowledging the existence of terrorism isn't Islamophobic.


Just about anyone who brings up issues within Islam is labelled Islamophobic


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's when one has a prejudice against Muslims on the basis of religion, by definition. Acknowledging the existence of terrorism isn't Islamophobic.


Oh. So if Trump wants to temporarily ban muslim immigration in order to re-evaluate the country's strategy against islamic terrorists, it's not islamophobic because it's aimed at terrorism, not the religion? Because that's not the memo I got - what I was told was that he's being islamophobic.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh. So if Trump wants to temporarily ban muslim immigration in order to re-evaluate the country's strategy against islamic terrorists, it's not islamophobic because it's aimed at terrorism, not the religion? Because that's not the memo I got - what I was told was that he's being islamophobic.


Banning all Muslims is a prejudice against Muslims on the basis of religion, by definition. Again, it's like you don't read my posts. Using terrorism as a scapegoat for Islamophobia doesn't make it any less Islamophobic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Banning all Muslims is a prejudice against Muslims on the basis of religion, by definition. Again, it's like you don't read my posts. Using terrorism as a scapegoat for Islamophobia doesn't make it any less Islamophobic.


Okay. I was just making sure that I understand the definition correctly. Not that there was any danger of me not understanding it, considering the term consists of "Islam" in reference to religion and "phobia" in reference to fear. I absolutely agree with you, not all muslims are terrorists, so demonizing them all would be indeed islamophobic. Now that we have that issue covered, can we get back to the alt-right and how "every single person who identifies with the alt-right movement is necessarily a racist, white supremacist and overall scumbag"? Because that sounds... like a gross generalisation to me. I wish we had a term that could describe that kind of behaviour.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Okay. I was just making sure that I understand the definition correctly. Not that there was any danger of me not understanding it, considering the term consists of "Islam" in reference to religion and "phobia" in reference to fear. I absolutely agree with you, not all muslims are terrorists, so demonizing them all would be indeed islamophobic. Now that we have that issue covered, can we get back to the alt-right and how "every single person who identifies with the alt-right movement is necessarily a racist, white supremacist and overall scumbag"? Because that sounds... like a gross generalisation to me. I wish we had a term that could describe that kind of behaviour.


I never made that claim, nor did Clinton. I'm not going to sit here and argue against your strawmen.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Excuse me while I shoot your entire argument down with a volley of torpedoes because I'm a linguist and I know exactly what a symbol is. In order for something to classify as a symbol (in a linguistic sense, which is what we're talking about) it has to be recognised by an entirety of a given group, the group has to identify with it and it has to carry intrinsic meaning. The bald eagle is a symbol for Americans - it symbolises freedom - it soars through the air unrestricted, strength - it's a predator etc. The cross is a symbol for Christians - it symbolises Jesus' sacrifice, death for our sins, it's a symbol of absolution. Pepe the frog symbolises jack sh*t - it's being used because it looks funny. A symbol works very much like a sign - there's the signifier, the physical representation, and the signified, a mental idea. Pepe does not qualify as a symbol in any shape or form - it's a stupid picture. A mascot would be more appropriate, and even that is a stretch. For something to classify as a symbol it has to have the quality of symbolism which Pepe lacks because it's a stupid meme that doesn't mean anything.
> 
> As for "similarities" between people who consider themselves the alt right, turn that judgemental eye inward - you have a lot in common with a communist, but you are not a communist. It's a loose group of people with *similar* ideas, which doesn't mean that they're white supremacists, racists or bigots - some of them very well may be, others not so much. If you're going to put all of them into one "basket of deplorables", I might as well start calling you a commie - you share some of their beliefs after all, we might as well just generalise because the political scene has suddenly turned into a sandbox.
> 
> As to why I'm rising a stink over this, it's because a presidential candidate and his/her cohorts should spend exactly 0 seconds on addressing stupid Internet memes. This is an article that's supposed to support someone who might run the country, don't they have bigger things to worry about? Someone spent time writing that piece, then someone read it, approved it, they patted each other's backs, said "good job", posted it unironically and got paid. This is an article about an Internet joke written in earnest, that's the big deal.


yay linguist! I like you.

I agree. Just because a large-ish amount of people have co-opted a relatively popular meme(well, at some point) in a similar way, that doesn't mean some group then gains ownership of that meme. Ownership of a meme seems a bit antithetical to what a meme is.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> yay linguist! I like you.
> 
> I agree. Just because a large-ish amount of people have co-opted a relatively popular meme(well, at some point) in a similar way, that doesn't mean some group then gains ownership of that meme. Ownership of a meme seems a bit antithetical to what a meme is.


Nobody's arguing that the group has gained ownership of the meme.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I never made that claim, nor did Clinton. I'm not going to sit here and argue against your strawmen.


Don't get me wrong, I'm just asking questions.


Spoiler


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 16, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> "Intolerance" itself is not a person, the statements you bolded are not contradictory. What I said was that intolerance is deplorable, no matter who it's directed at. Someone who's islamophobic is no better or worse than someone who's "alt-right-phobic" - not every muslim is a terrorist, not every right-wing voter is a white supremacist. Is that a controversial statement?


sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding something. Did you mean intolerance in general, or intolerance as it refers to stereotyping and mis-attributions? 



Lacius said:


> Nobody's arguing that the group has gained ownership of the meme.


so, no ownership, but it represents a grouping of people? it's their symbol, as you say? 

I mean, the US doesn't own bald eagles, but they own the idea of bald eagles as representative of their own ideals. Not exclusively, but they are recognized as that being their symbol. So, to clarify, I was referring to them having ownership of what they think the ideal of pepe is (lol), rather than the actual meme itself.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding something. Did you mean intolerance in general, or intolerance as it refers to stereotyping and mis-attributions?


As I explained, the latter.



osaka35 said:


> so, no ownership, but it represents a grouping of people? it's their symbol, as you say?
> 
> I mean, the US doesn't own bald eagles, but they own the idea of bald eagles as representative of their own ideals. Not exclusively, but they are recognized as that being their symbol. So, to clarify, I was referring to them having ownership of what they think the ideal of pepe is (lol), rather than the actual meme itself.


They've adopted pepe as a symbol, yes. That doesn't mean they own it, nor does it mean they have exclusive rights to it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding something. Did you mean intolerance in general, or intolerance as it refers to stereotyping and mis-attributions?


I was replying in context. Intolerance as defined by Lacius, meaning _"unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group"_ can only refer to persons of a different social or minority group by definition. As such, I cannot be _"intolerant towards intolerance"_ because intolerance has no personhood.


----------



## Viri (Sep 17, 2016)

In other amusing news!
https://twitter.com/AmRenaissance/status/776851299417620480

He just did the rapes the Americans didn't want to do!


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I was replying in context. Intolerance as defined by Lacius, meaning _"unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group"_ can only refer to persons of a different social or minority group by definition. As such, I cannot be _"intolerant towards intolerance"_ because intolerance has no personhood.


What an interesting definition. Though i would argue our definition in american English has expanded that meaning and it might confuse native american English speakers if using a specialized definition. I mean, i figured your intent was something close to that, but i try not to assume intent.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 17, 2016)

Viri said:


> In other amusing news!
> https://twitter.com/AmRenaissance/status/776851299417620480
> 
> He just did the rapes the Americans didn't want to do!


Americans should stop labelling Spanish people as "Hispanics" or "Latinos" if they were born in America then they are Americans. If one is born in Britain he/she is British. Plain and simple.



Lacius said:


> I don't think you know what Islamophobia is.


When you come to the point of using that buzzword (or in this case, _buzzterm_) you just lost whatever argument you had left. The media uses that and hardly anyone takes them seriously or criticise them for it.

Say, what's next, transphobia? Is that having phobia of Transformers or Transporters? I'd make a joke about fatphobia but the "womyn" already went ahead of me.


----------



## Viri (Sep 17, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Americans should stop labelling Spanish people as "Hispanics" or "Latinos" if they were born in America then they are Americans. If one is born in Britain he/she is British. Plain and simple.



Yeah, if we tried that, they'd accuse you of trying to remove their culture or heritage.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> When you come to the point of using that buzzword (or in this case, _buzzterm_) you just lost whatever argument you had left. The media uses that and hardly anyone takes them seriously or criticise them for it.
> 
> Say, what's next, transphobia? Is that having phobia of Transformers or Transporters? I'd make a joke about fatphobia but the "womyn" already went ahead of me.


_Islamophobia _and _transphobia _are substantive terms, not _buzzwords_. The use of them doesn't invalidate any of my arguments.



Viri said:


> In other amusing news!
> https://twitter.com/AmRenaissance/status/776851299417620480
> 
> He just did the rapes the Americans didn't want to do!


This doesn't excuse any of Trump's deplorable comments.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> What an interesting definition. Though i would argue our definition in american English has expanded that meaning and it might confuse native american English speakers if using a specialized definition. I mean, i figured your intent was something close to that, but i try not to assume intent.


I would argue that it's not the definition of the word that's changed, it's the concept that was usurped and twisted. Nowadays tolerance is synonymous with acceptance - that's not what tolerance is. I can tolerate the shenanigans someone's up to, but I don't have to enthusiastically approve of them at all - just me allowing them to take place is tolerant enough.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I would argue that it's not the definition of the word that's changed, it's the concept that was usurped and twisted. Nowadays tolerance is synonymous with acceptance - that's not what tolerance is. I can tolerate the shenanigans someone's up to, but I don't have to enthusiastically approve of them at all - just me allowing them to take place is tolerant enough.


To be clear, I am not using the word _tolerance_ to mean _acceptance_.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> To be clear, I am not using the word _tolerance_ to mean _acceptance_.


I wasn't accusing you of that.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I wasn't accusing you of that.


I know. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear. We all saw the _South Park_ episode.

Speaking of _South Park_, the new season started Wednesday, and they're bringing back Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich for this election.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I know. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear. We all saw the _South Park_ episode.
> 
> Speaking of _South Park_, the new season started Wednesday, and they're bringing back Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich for this election.


That would unironically make it a better election.


----------



## Viri (Sep 17, 2016)

Spoiler












 Heh, this is too amusing!


----------



## CeeDee (Sep 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


>


​The Lacius salt is real​


----------



## Viri (Sep 17, 2016)

CeeDee said:


> ​The Lacius salt is real​


Make GBATemp great again!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Viri said:


> Make GBATemp great again!


GBATemp is already great, you unpatriotic sonofabitch.


----------



## CeeDee (Sep 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> GBATemp is already great, you unpatriotic sonofabitch.


Have you seen the EoF? The shitty fake *hax posts? The IOSU/kernsploit/warez beggers?

I beg to differ. It isn't as great as you think.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

CeeDee said:


> Have you seen the EoF? The shitty fake *hax posts? The IOSU/kernsploit/warez beggers?
> 
> I beg to differ. It isn't as great as you think.


You're right. Let's blame immigrants.


----------



## CeeDee (Sep 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You're right. Let's blame immigrants.


What would the GBAtemp equivalent to illegal immigrants even be? 
Idiot noobs? Trolls? Shitposters? Weebs?


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 17, 2016)

I'm sick of hourly, daily news about the presidential election now. Every time, this candidate said this, this candidate did that. Half of what I read is so unnecessary on social media.


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 17, 2016)

The election, hearing about either candidate, has become pure anathema.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> GBATemp is already great, you unpatriotic sonofabitch.


We can make it betterer, always. I have my top men working on it around the clock, and let me tell you, those men are experts. They're great experts, and they're telling me that this site is great, so I know for a fact that it's great. Now, I'm not saying that it's the greatest, but it is definitely one of the greatest sites out there. With your help, I can make it even greaterer. It will be _yuge_, bigger than China.


CeeDee said:


> What would the GBAtemp equivalent to illegal immigrants even be?
> Idiot noobs? Trolls? Shitposters? Weebs?


Dupe accounts, obviously. Already banned, but still trying to sneak through the border. Not with Donald P1ng around, not on his watch! The wall grew by 10 feet.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> We can make it betterer, always. I have my top men working on it around the clock, and let me tell you, those men are experts. They're great experts, and they're telling me that this site is great, so I know for a fact that it's great. Now, I'm not saying that it's the greatest, but it is definitely one of the greatest sites out there. With your help, I can make it even greaterer. It will be _yuge_, bigger than China.


Woah, there.  Can we really aspire to be bigger than China?  I mean, they're pretty much the epitome of human greatness.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Woah, there.  Can we really aspire to be bigger than China?  I mean, they're pretty much the epitome of human greatness.


We will be the biggest. We will rebuild the GBATemp's middle class. First, we need to build a wall around the 3DS Hacking section... and the 3DS Hacking section will pay for it!



Salute. Bald eagle.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2016)

Double-post, I know, but this just showed up on my feed and it's too funny not to post.



It would seem that Mrs.Clinton funded Trump's latest and possibly best ad campaign. #MAGAnificent

EDIT: Whoops, I see that @Viri posted a video from the same conference. My bad! To be fair though, my angle is better.


----------



## Viri (Sep 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Double-post, I know, but this just showed up on my feed and it's too funny not to post.
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that Mrs.Clinton funded Trump's latest and possibly best ad campaign. #MAGAnificent



http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsultBackfire

Check out real life, and the very last one on there. 

Also, I live in a swing state, and I wish Trump would hold a rally in my city.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 17, 2016)

Viri said:


> Yeah, if we tried that, they'd accuse you of trying to remove their culture or heritage.


After being part of the American society they got used to the special terms so while it's hard to get rid of it, it can happen.



Lacius said:


> _Islamophobia _and _transphobia _are substantive terms, not _buzzwords_. The use of them doesn't invalidate any of my arguments.


Islamophobia is a buzzword created by the media to try and shame others for criticising Islam for their backwards mentality. Transphobia is a real term, now? I suppose so.



Lacius said:


> This doesn't excuse any of Trump's deplorable comments.


Mommy Hillary taught you that word, eh.

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



Viri said:


> Make GBATemp great again!


That's racist!


----------



## Lord M (Sep 17, 2016)

the right thread title is 
*[POLL] U.S. World's Criminal Election 2016*


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 17, 2016)

Possibly coming to US unless things change drastically. Hillary is just another Obama 2.0 so things will remain as is, and if her health worsens then she won't even be able to do her own job. But that's not surprising, she spoke about memes and how Pepe (mind you, a cartoon frog) is somehow racist.

Lacius refused to reply to whether that Mexican Peperami is racist in his opinion.. probably he thinks it is. After all, he thinks Pepe is a racist frog.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Islamophobia is a buzzword created by the media to try and shame others for criticising Islam for their backwards mentality. Transphobia is a real term, now? I suppose so.


It's not a buzzword. It's a necessary term needed to describe very real prejudice. The same goes for the term _transphobia_.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Mommy Hillary taught you that word, eh.


Nah. Great minds just think alike.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Hillary is just another Obama 2.0 so things will remain as is, and if her health worsens then she won't even be able to do her own job. But that's not surprising, she spoke about memes and how Pepe (mind you, a cartoon frog) is somehow racist.


Acknowledging that white supremacists who call themselves _the alt-right_ have intentionally adopted a specific symbol for hate as they attempt to consolidate as a group is not at all indicative of any sort of health problem.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2016)

@Lacius Have you entertained the idea that the alt-right has always existed and never consolidated, they were just never addressed specifically? With the Internet in place, people with radical points of view can communicate over any distance when in real life they would possibly never meet at all. They don't "need" a symbol - they're people from /pol/, we already know that. There isn't much more there to consolidate and pretending that they even have an inkling of a unifying, homogenous political programme that they all share is somewhat funny to me. The "alt-right" as we call them now is just the next Red Scare - people will immediately forget about them after the election because at the end of the day, how many of them are there? One every 100 000 citizens? Even that seems exaggerated. Let's not forget that not all of them are even U.S. citizens, on the Internet, anyone can have an opinion about the American political scene and share it live, as if he or she was there. Hell, I'm sharing one with you right now. Bothering with bogeymen like this seems to be a diversion from real issues - I can smell a scam from a mile away and I'm smelling one right now.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius Have you entertained the idea that the alt-right has always existed and never consolidated, they were just never addressed specifically? With the Internet in place, people with radical points of view can communicate over any distance when in real life they would possibly never meet at all. They don't "need" a symbol - they're people from /pol/, we already know that. There isn't much more there to consolidate and pretending that they even have an inkling of a unifying, homogenous political programme that they all share is somewhat funny to me. The "alt-right" as we call them now is just the next Red Scare - people will immediately forget about them after the election because at the end of the day, how many of them are there? One every 100 000 citizens? Even that seems exaggerated. Let's not forget that not all of them are even U.S. citizens, on the Internet, anyone can have an opinion about the American political scene and share it live, as if he or she was there. Hell, I'm sharing one with you right now. Bothering with bogeymen like this seems to be a diversion from real issues - I can smell a scam from a mile away and I'm smelling one right now.


Have you even listened to Richard B. Spencer's press conference?

Edit: I also hope you're right that they go away after the election. It's the Trump campaign that has brought them out of the woodwork.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Sep 17, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Transphobia is a real term, now? I suppose so.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-truth-about-transgend_b_8564834.html sources linked in the article.
Denial of this sort of thing kills.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Have you even listened to Richard B. Spencer's press conference?


No, I haven't. From what I'm reading about him, he sounds like a dipshit. "Peaceful ethnic cleansing" (by deporting "undesirables", I guess) and a "return to old European values", i.e. "making the west white again" and homogenising the culture bounce about in the articles I'm skim-reading, did I get the gist of it?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> No, I haven't. From what I'm reading about him, he sounds like a dipshits. "Peaceful ethnic cleansing" (by deporting "undesirables", I guess) and a "return to old European values", i.e. "making the west white again" and homogenising the culture bounce about in the articles I'm skim-reading, did I get the gist of it?


That's the guy, but he also discussed the alt-right and the use of pepe in a press conference the other day. The fact that we're talking about the alt-right isn't because of the Clinton campaign; it's because of the Trump campaign. The alt-right has come out and said this is their time because of Trump. They have come out and said they're using pepe as a specific symbol and have explained why.

This isn't a fake story. They've been very clear about the fact that alt-right is code for racist.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 17, 2016)

The racist, sexist, misogynistic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, littlepeoplephobic, homophobic, transphobic and feministphobic Mr. Naked Ape has published a new video about Hillary Clinton and the racist nationalist Pepe. God, that is a really racist frog! Burn that frog in hell for all eternity! Gah!



On a serious note, I love Naked Ape for speaking without filters and being straight to the point.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's the guy, but he also discussed the alt-right and the use of pepe in a press conference the other day. The fact that we're talking about the alt-right isn't because of the Clinton campaign; it's because of the Trump campaign. The alt-right has come out and said this is their time because of Trump. They have come out and said they're using pepe as a specific symbol and have explained why.
> 
> This isn't a fake story. They've been very clear about the fact that alt-right is code for racist.


I think that we're focusing on the wrong things here and by addressing a very small issue perpetrated by a very loud, obnoxious minority we are giving them the attention that they both crave and do not deserve. I also wouldn't equate all of the alt-right with racism, there is some merit to sticking to traditional values in lieu of immediately adopting values of incoming cultures that are often times radically different, to the point of incompatibility. To many alt-righters it's about preservation, not persecution. Just to give an example that pertains to previously discussed issues, no matter how you slice the cake, it's simply impossible for gender equality and Sharia law to co-exist - they are mutually contradictory. On one hand, freedom of religion dictates that everyone should be able to worship in whatever ways they deem fit without persecution, on the other, that worship is often times at odds with western standards of life, or even the law. If a given imaginary religion required human sacrifice as part of worship, would stopping that be considered bigotry or self-defense? At some point something's got to give, the rule of the law has to take precedence over whatever traditions migrants might have. Immigration is a two-sided contract in my eyes, it has to work as a mutual effort. Migrant are more than welcome to come as long as they do so legally and do not impose their standards of life on others. They made the decision, be it willingly or not, to migrate to a country that follows certain rules of conduct and need to adapt. On the other side of the coin, the nation also needs to make a conscious effort to make them feel welcome and not get in their way too much - they have their duties, but also their freedoms. It's a very complicated issue, possibly for a whole new thread entirely - my point was that some people who are labelled as racist today aren't necessarily racist (in the context of innate superiority/inferiority of races) so much as they're are threatened by a vastly different culture entering their territory - a phobia, for sure, but not without merit. Just recently there was a case of a small muslim community making demands regarding pets, asking non-muslims to not walk their dogs in public as it is considered unclean and indecent. For someone who has always walked their dog, this is an invasion of their freedom, and there is no consensus to be found - either the muslims or the non-muslims have to stop going to the same park, and who decides who gets to have that privilege. Should they institute curfew? Use the park in shifts? Who gets to use it when, and isn't that just segregation? It's mindboggling and awful, really.

EDIT: I'm sorry about the typos, I'm typing this on a 4.5" smartphone. I'm doing my best to correct them, but I'm fighting a losing battle against an auto-correct that's set to two languages simultaneously. My apologies.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I think that we're focusing on the wrong things here and by addressing a very small issue perpetrated by a very loud, obnoxious minority we are giving them the attention that they both crave and do not deserve.


Then perhaps the Trump campaign should stop giving them such a prominent voice. I would love nothing better than to ignore them, but I can't do that when one of the major candidates for president is overtly pandering to them.



Foxi4 said:


> I also wouldn't equate all of the alt-right with racism


The alt-right is predominantly racist. It started out as white nationalism, which itself started out as the racist groups that came before it. _Alt-right_ is a rebrand, and they even admit it.



Foxi4 said:


> there is some merit to sticking to traditional values in lieu of immediately adopting values of incoming cultures that are often times radically different, to the point of incompatibility.


This is a non-argument. No one is forcing anyone to adopt anyone's culture. It's _taco trucks on every corner_ all over again.



Foxi4 said:


> To many alt-righters it's about preservation, not persecution.


Haha. See above.



Foxi4 said:


> Just to give an example that pertains to previously discussed issues, no matter how you slice the cake, it's simply impossible for gender equality and Sharia law to co-exist - they are mutually contradictory. On one hand, freedom of religion dictates that everyone should be able to worship in whatever ways they deem fit without persecution, on the other, that worship is often times at odds with western standards of life, or even the law. At some point something's got to give, the rule of the law has to take precedence over whatever traditions migrants might have.


Freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. That's why we have separation of church and state. Your argument is irrelevant to the topic of immigration.



Foxi4 said:


> Immigration is a two-sided contract in my eyes, it has to work as a mutual effort. Migrant are more than welcome to come as long as they do so legally and do not impose their standards of life on others.


We have a broken legal immigration system, dude. Also, having a different culture than you doesn't mean they're imposing it on you. Like, shut up. Really. This is embarrassing.



Foxi4 said:


> They made the decision, be it willingly or not, to migrate to a country that follows certain rules of conduct and need to adapt.


One cannot make a decision unwillingly, by definition. Also, I'm not sure what you're asking of immigrants. To throw away their culture? That's more than a bit unreasonable.



Foxi4 said:


> my point was that some people who are labelled as racist today aren't really racist so much as they're are threatened by a vastly different culture entering their territory - a phobia, for sure, but not without merit.


If someone is being labeled _racist_ because they're prejudice and don't want people different from them entering this country, that's pure bigotry, and they need to get over themselves.



Foxi4 said:


> Just recently there was a case of a small muslim community making demands, asking non-muslims to not walk their dogs in public as it is considered unclean and indecent. For someone who has always walked their dog, this is an invasion of their freedom, and there is no consensus to be found - either the muslims or the non-muslims have to stop going to the same park, and who decides who gets to have that privilege. It's mindboggling any awful, really.


If you had done any research, you would see that this story is fake.



Foxi4 said:


> EDIT: I'm sorry about the typos, I'm typing this on a 4.5" smartphone. I'm doing my best to correct them, but I'm fighting a losing battle against an auto-correct that's set to two languages simultaneously. My apologies.


No worries.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 17, 2016)

```
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dlXPNZU7vY
```

See, it's because of disgusting cases like this that America needs to control its boarders as who gets it. It's not "Islamophobia", it's having control. Entirely different.

France is pretty much ruined and other European countries are going the same route unless they take a stand.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> See, it's because of disgusting cases like this that America needs to control its boarders as who gets it. It's not "Islamophobia", it's having control. Entirely different.
> 
> France is pretty much ruined and other European countries are going the same route unless they take a stand.


Blaming an entire religious group for the isolated actions of a few individuals is a great example of prejudice. I'm sure I can find just as many individual examples from any group of people behaving similarly. Grow up.


----------



## Xenon Hacks (Sep 17, 2016)

Im voting for a giant douche because who would want a turd sandwich as president?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Xenon Hacks said:


> Im voting for a giant douche because who would want a turd sandwich as president?


For those who aren't familiar with the labeling this season of _South Park_:

Giant Douche = Donald Trump (played by Mr. Garrison in the show)
Turd Sandwich = Hillary Clinton
While I don't acknowledge this election as a choice between two evils, this is a Turd Sandwich household.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Blaming an entire religious group for the isolated actions of a few individuals is a great example of prejudice. I'm sure I can find just as many individual examples from any group of people behaving similarly. Grow up.


Islam is a stone age religion who has proven to be incompatible with the west, time and time again. Thus far the right thing to do is controlling who gets in and out. There's nothing to "grow up" about, you're just pretending it's not a huge problem.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Islam is a stone age religion who has proven to be incompatible with the west, time and time again. Thus far the right thing to do is controlling who gets in and out. There's nothing to "grow up" about, you're just pretending it's not a huge problem.


Don't get me wrong; I think all religions are idiotic Stone Age religions. However, to call Islam a Stone Age religion because of the actions of a minority, while ignoring the majority of Muslim immigrants who are perfect Americans, is special pleading at its finest. As I said before, grow up. Don't blame an entire group for the actions of a few individuals. It's moronic. Otherwise, I could blame all whites or all Christians for the idiotic Stone Age beliefs of the alt-right proven to be incompatible with civilized society. Or I could label all Portuguese people as idiots because you're spouting idiotic nonsense.

Edit: This issue of incompatibility that you and Foxi4 have brought up is the exact same thing brought up when the United States was anti-Irish, anti-Chinese, etc. This is nothing new.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 17, 2016)

The sad thing is that Islam used to be a progressive religion.  A time when Islamic countries were the world leaders in women's rights.  I'm curious as to what caused them to regress so much.


----------



## orangy57 (Sep 17, 2016)

voting for an "other" party is literally wasting a vote.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 17, 2016)

Orangy57 said:


> voting for an "other" party is literally wasting a vote.


Voting for someone you don't want to be president is wasting a vote.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2016)

Orangy57 said:


> voting for an "other" party is literally wasting a vote.


Hear, hear. If one has any preference between Trump and Clinton, then it's a binary choice between those two candidates.



grossaffe said:


> Voting for someone you don't want to be president is wasting a vote.


See above.


----------



## Xenon Hacks (Sep 17, 2016)

RIP Europe


----------



## Aurora Wright (Sep 17, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> ```
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dlXPNZU7vY
> ```
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion-clinic-violence.html

See, it's because of disgusting cases like this that America needs to control its boarders as who gets it. It's not "Christianophobia", it's having control. Entirely different.
The US are pretty much ruined and other countries are going the same route unless they take a stand.


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 17, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion-clinic-violence.html
> 
> See, it's because of disgusting cases like this that America needs to control its boarders as who gets it. It's not "Christianophobia", it's having control. Entirely different.
> The US are pretty much ruined and other countries are going the same route unless they take a stand.


While no less tragic, that's still only 11 deaths over a 22 year period.  Crazed Muslims matched that toll when there were four terrorist attacks within a single week in Germany last July.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 17, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I would argue that it's not the definition of the word that's changed, it's the concept that was usurped and twisted. Nowadays tolerance is synonymous with acceptance - that's not what tolerance is. I can tolerate the shenanigans someone's up to, but I don't have to enthusiastically approve of them at all - just me allowing them to take place is tolerant enough.


That's language for you. Though I thought tolerance was synonymous with allowing, not accepting. I tolerate that behaviour, as in, I'm not wanting to actively dissuade it. I'm intolerant of that behaviour, as in, I want to actively dissuade it. I mean, I hear people say "I tolerate it, but I don't like it". Gives a sense of "I'm being patient and understanding to that particular thing", yeah? Though there is that extra baggage of judgement that's usually meant when calling someone "intolerant" that isn't necessarily there in that definition. hmm...anywho, sorry for the side-tracking, I just enjoy discussing language.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2016)

@Lacius By "making the decision to immigrate unwillingly" I meant that they were forced to flee from their home country for whatever reason. They could've stayed in their homes and possibly die in a skirmish or they were downright chased out of their homes, so they made the decision under pressure.

Whether the story is a hoax or not is not for me to judge, it was reported by prominent papers in the UK, although upon closer inspection it is very likely that this might be some stupid troll printing out leaflets to incite racial tension - there's apparently a 4chan thread suggesting that that's the case, but who can you really believe on the Internet at this point?

As for adapting versus adopting, I live in the UK where you get to hear story after story about a clashes due to racial tension, and the blame is on both sides. I see racists doing their racist spiel, I also see muslims doing their muslim spiel. I don't expect them to throw away their culture, I expect them to follow the law of the land, and that is not always the case, which rapidly builds resentment. What they do in their own homes is entirely up to them - that's none of my business. That being said, shared spaces should be treated as wholely secular.

My take on this is very simple - I have nothing against muslims, so long as they live peacefully with their neighbours and integrate with their communities. This often isn't the case, not in the UK and not in the U.S., from what I'm seeing, and it's not just muslims - it's everybody. The fault is on both sides and the solution is somewhere in the middle. Muslims aren't the first to cause racial tension, you mention it yourself.

Take the example of ghettos. Racial segregation still ripples across time even today - like attracts like, people live in small, isolated and homogenous communities and as such perpetuate certain behavioural patterns which aren't always good. There's a reason why ghettos have higher crime rates, and it's not because "blacks live there", it's because that's ghetto life. They have less employment opportunities, lower standard of life, lower level of education and all the bad role models you could think of. The model of "getting somewhere" is dealing drugs, and since drugs are illegal, there are only two ways "gangstas" can end - in prison or dead, be it due to getting shot by a cop or due to black on black violence and gang warfare. There's a reason why there is no such thing as an "old gangsta" - it's because you get shot or locked up. This in turn leads to broken families, and broken families raise broken children. The U.S. hasn't even broken that vicious cycle yet, and you've had half a century to deal with it - what chances do you think you have with integrating an even more different culture into the fold?

There is a large divide between how radical muslims and westerners see the world, and that gap needs to start closing. A racist Brit will look at a muslim and think "terrorist", a radical muslim will look at a British woman and think "harlot" - that's just the way it is. I am very fortunate to work in an environment where people of many different ethnicities that have managed to integrate work together, but I have also seen the opposite - poorer neighbourhoods with strong lines of division based on race, and it's not a pretty sight. How to solve it is beyond my competence, but I suppose that time is our biggest ally - with each passing generation we'll learn how to co-exist better.

As for the extreme right, I think we're having the wrong political conversation in the world today. I would like to believe in some degree of innate human goodness. Each side of the political spectrum, whether we believe it or not, wants to improve the country it's from - we necessarily have to give it that benefit of the doubt. I might not come across this way very often, but I honestly believe that whatever ideals you represent, you represent them because they could lead to some form of good - to your community, your country, if you're greedy it might be yourself, but in general people don't do things that their moral barometer indicates as evil - that would make them psychopaths. We cannot have a healthy political conversation until we acknowledge that fact and stop thinking of each other as enemies of the state. I *hate* the left, I think most left-wing ideas are utopian and counter to human nature, but I acknowledge that the left believes what it believes because they think it's good for all of us. That idea isn't prevalent in today's climate, and that's damaging.

I hate to bring it up because it always derails discussion, but Nazi Germany wasn't established because one generation of Germans consisted of psychos. They were fed up of being poor as dirt and vulnerable after WW1, they felt pressure of embargoes and reparations under which they couldn't get up and they lashed out, willingly. They became monsters because the situation called for it, they honestly believed it was the right thing to do, at least initially. Nobody is born hateful or racist, those ideas are fed, and I would like to know where they're coming from, because there is an underlying cause. There is some bone of contention that we can't see right now that causes this, and maybe a 100 years from now it will be obvious, but we need to get there faster than that. I don't want to think that the alt-right exists because they're insane - I want to know what they're really saying, what's the actual problem that caused them to be the way they are that they maybe don't know how to verbalise or aren't aware of.



grossaffe said:


> The sad thing is that Islam used to be a progressive religion.  A time when Islamic countries were the world leaders in women's rights.  I'm curious as to what caused them to regress so much.


Do you think bombing them into the stone age, dragging them into conflicts and the crusades have anything to do with that? We've been f*cking with them since we've met them. Or was this a rethorical question?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Hear, hear. If one has any preference between Trump and Clinton, then it's a binary choice between those two candidates


Not unless you live in a state where either one could win but in most states one of the two can't win so the point is mostly moot.


----------



## Viri (Sep 18, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Not unless you live in a state where either one could win but in most states one of the two can't win so the point is mostly moot.


Feels good living in a swing state.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 18, 2016)

Everybody that vote a President is a friend of hebrew muslims masons...


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 18, 2016)

There is no such thing as "hebrew muslims" technically, unless you mean Saudi Arabia's bullshit, but yea, Israel is the reason all of this is happening.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 18, 2016)

If Israel was destroyed, the world will be free finally. But only in that case...


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 18, 2016)

Lord M said:


> If Israel was destroyed, the world will be free finally. But only in that case...


Give it 20 years. The Afterthoughts of everything wrong with the world will be gone by then.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 18, 2016)

clownb said:


> Give it 20 years. The Afterthoughts of everything wrong with the world will be gone by then.


In 20 years will be too late, and i will be too old. In the next 20 years i cant imagine how many things will be ruined by these criminals. The people of ALL countries must fight now for freedom. Is for foolish to wait now that a criminal afterthoughts for his sins. If a people kill a member of your family you like to wait his afterthoughts of his action? This cant give back the lost people, cant give him back his life. No, waiting mean only that we follow their game!


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 18, 2016)

All the jews are coming down with skin cancer, which is quite humorous. Apparently the movement to occupy Palestine with people from Poland and Russia is not so successful.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2016)

clownb said:


> All the jews are coming down with skin cancer, which is quite humorous. Apparently the movement to occupy Palestine with people from Poland and Russia is not so successful.


That's the funniest conspiracy theory I've ever heard, and I rarely encouter ones I've never heard before. Do you mean Polish Jews or just Polish people? Because believe me, nobody's in a rush to move to Israel where I come from. The country is over 95% Catholic for God's sake.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 18, 2016)

Over 95% of idiots who dreams of fairy tales...


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 18, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's the funniest conspiracy theory I've ever heard, and I rarely encouter ones I've never heard before. Do you mean Polish Jews or just Polish people? Because believe me, nobody's in a rush to move to Israel where I come from. The country is over 95% Catholic for God's sake.


It's not a conspiracy theory. The People living in Israel today were not born there. They kind of just shipped in for the free money. Isn't that much obvious? Even their Prime Minister had to change his name twice because Netai wasn't made up and silly sounding enough. No, better make it Netanyahu, you Polish freak... that'll convince them!

His real name is Milikowski btw.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2016)

clownb said:


> It's not a conspiracy theory. The People living in Israel today were not born there. They kind of just shipped in for the free money. Isn't that much obvious? Even their Prime Minister had to change his name twice because Netai wasn't made up and silly sounding enough. No, better make it Netanyahu, you Polish freak... that'll convince them!
> 
> His real name is Milikowski btw.


Binjamin Netanyahu was born in Tel Aviv, he's an Israeli national. You're thinking of his father, Benzion Netanyahu, born Benzion Mileikowsky, who indeed was born in Warsaw - he was a son of a rabbi, he was as jewish as it gets. You are correct, people who live in Israel often times weren't born there, on account of Israel not existing prior to its establishment post-WW2, so I don't know what your point is. Poland follows the rule of blood (ius sanguinis), not the rule of soil (ius soli), so he wasn't "Polish" unless at some point the family intermixed with Polish nationals or recieved citizenship - since his grandfather married in Russia, the former is out of the question, I can't verify the latter as I don't have access to such documentation for obvious reasons. Just because he was born in Poland doesn't necessarily make him Polish, and even if he was a Polish jew, I still don't see the problem.


Lord M said:


> Over 95% of idiots who dreams of fairy tales...


At least we can spell, so there's that.


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 18, 2016)

I struggle to remember the point exactly.  I guess that the violent nature of Muslims has a lot to do with the establishment of the fake Zionist state, not the the crusades thousands of years ago and they still hold a grudge as you suggested. They held whites as slaves. I think there is simpler point that is our cultures are incompatible and these guys should probably try to save their own nation rather than invading EU en masse while leaving their women and children behind to die.

I've been drinking again and promised I wouldn't post here while doing so, but it's done.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2016)

clownb said:


> I struggle to remember the point exactly.  I guess that the violent nature of Muslims has a lot to do with the establishment of the fake Zionist state, not the the crusades thousands of years ago and they still hold a grudge as you suggested. They held whites as slaves. I think there is simpler point that is our cultures are incompatible and these guys should probably try to save their own nation rather than invading EU en masse while leaving their women and children behind to die.
> 
> I've been drinking again and promised I wouldn't post here while doing so, but it's done.


I will agree that Israel was created on land that technically "belonged" to the Palestinians who lived there and was supposed to be returned to them by the end of the British mandate which was established after WW1 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but several conflicts got in the way of that, most notably the Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine and WW2. The British Empire was interested in establishing a Jewish homeland since 1917 and the publication of the Balfour declaration, and although Trans-Jordan was excluded by the later Trans-Jordan Memorandum of 1922, the establishment of Israel didn't come as a complete surprise - it was in the making for decades. Anyway, the main point is that jews were present in Palestine prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. Its creation was a direct cause of the Arab-Israeli war and the present conflict is specifically caused by disputes over land. The borders of Israel were decided very inconveniently and without much regard to Palestinians who occupied the land. The British Empire wanted to placate both sides of the conflict, unsuccessfuly. They had to do "something" with all the jews who survived the Holocaust and giving them land made sense at the time, not to mention that they already declared willingness to do so earlier. The matter is complicated and can't be simplified to "big bad jews came along and took the land" - that's not how it happened. It also wasn't just Britain's decision - it was wholely ratified by the League of Nations.


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 18, 2016)

Very well put, actually. UK created the mess and US has to pay for it forever.


----------



## leon315 (Sep 18, 2016)

sadly, Hillary will get Trumped ...

Feeling so bad for people from mexico...


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2016)

clownb said:


> Very well put, actually. UK created the mess and US has to pay for it forever.


I just wanted it to be clarified, since for all intents and purposes the State of Israel didn't exist until mid-20th century, but neither did the State of Palestine - both Palestine and Israel are relatively young states. Palestine was a region populated by a variety of ethnicities and rule over it kept changing hands. Wikipedia has a detailed article on the history of Palestine if anyone's interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2016)

clownb said:


> All the jews are coming down with skin cancer, which is quite humorous. Apparently the movement to occupy Palestine with people from Poland and Russia is not so successful.


Yeah, skin cancer is hilarious. 

Edit: In other news, Gary Johnson (and of course Jill Stein) did not qualify for the first presidential debate. By their methods, the Commission on Presidential Debates says Johnson's polling average is at 8.4% (and that's in line with virtually all of the aggregate sites), which doesn't meet the 15% requirement. When you adjust for likely voters, Johnson's polling average is even lower than that.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 18, 2016)

God and Christianity religion was created by jews and muslims as an adaption of judaism, that anyway are all bullshits. So who believe in a religion (expecially in Christianity) is an idiot, indeed...


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2016)

Lord M said:


> God and Christianity religion was created by jews and muslims as an adaption of judaism, that anyway are all bullshits. So who believe in a religion (expecially in Christianity) is an idiot, indeed...


I agree that religion is idiotic, but I don't know if it's fair to call all religious people _idiots_. If we're going to define the word _idiot_ as _one who believes at least one idiotic thing_, then we're probably all idiots.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 19, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I agree that religion is idiotic, but I don't know if it's fair to call all religious people _idiots_. If we're going to define the word _idiot_ as _one who believes at least one idiotic thing_, then we're probably all idiots.


I believe that in deep down we are all idiots, but religious people are more idiots. 1) Because they all believe in same thing, at same way. 2) Because they try to put even normal people to believe in their nonsense (see the volunteers who go on islands to convince the natives about the existence of God and destroy their popular beliefs). The religious dont use their brains, but only follow and believe (without doubt) in what their religion declares. Are foolish that believe to be highter than normal people >_>)


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2016)

Lord M said:


> God and Christianity religion was created by jews and muslims as an adaption of judaism, that anyway are all bullshits. So who believe in a religion (expecially in Christianity) is an idiot, indeed...





Lord M said:


> I believe that in deep down we are all idiots, but religious people are more idiots. 1) Because they all believe in same thing, at same way. 2) Because they try to put even normal people to believe in their nonsense (see the volunteers who go on islands to convince the natives about the existence of God and destroy their popular beliefs). The religious dont use their brains, but only follow and believe (without doubt) in what their religion declares. Are foolish that believe to be highter than normal people >_>)


I can see how not being religious freed up a lot of your spare time, allowing you to dedicate it to more scholarly exploits, like learning some history or how to spell correctly. Truly you're driving your point home by having the writing skills of a pre-schooler.


----------



## barronwaffles (Sep 19, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I can see how not being religious freed up a lot of your spare time, allowing you to dedicate it to more scholarly exploits, like learning some history or how to spell correctly. Truly you're driving your point home by having the writing skills of a pre-schooler.



Hey, no need to be bigoted - we nearly went through that illiterate 8 year old atheist phase.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 19, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I can see how not being religious freed up a lot of your spare time, allowing you to dedicate it to more scholarly exploits, like learning some history or how to spell correctly. Truly you're driving your point home by having the writing skills of a pre-schooler.


Maybe because i am italian and need google translate to comunicate or write around the web. Only kids see the grammar of those who does not speak a language but is forced to use it to communicate with others... a pathetic excuse of those who do not know how to come out  winner by a discussion, yeah because maybe you'll win a trophy...


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> Hey, no need to be bigoted - we nearly went through that illiterate 8 year old atheist phase.


Oh, it just annoys me so much. There's this notion that just the fact you're an atheist makes you innately more intelligent, skilled or knowledgeable. It's just another generalisation - religious people must necessarily be stupid and atheists must necessarily be smart, when the truth of the matter is that most of these vocal atheists spend all day munching on Doritos and making dents in couches while watching Netflix. Get f*cked, atheists - you're the real dipshits, you spend hundreds on hours every month flaunting your intellectual superiority and don't do shit. It's become its own sort of religion. I keep hearing that religious people spend all day trying to convert people - that's not what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing is a bunch of fat fedora-wearing neckbeards telling others that they're stupid because they believe in some form of higher being or authority. The great majority of them are guilty of the exact same thing religious people are accused of when in the real world nobody gives a shit if you believe in something or not, that doesn't tell me anything about whether you're a good or a shitty person.


Lord M said:


> Maybe because i am italian and need google translate to comunicate or write around the web. Only kids see the grammar of those who does not speak a language but is forced to use it to communicate with others... a pathetic excuse of those who do not know how to come out  winner by a discussion, yeah because maybe you'll win a trophy...


Google Translate doesn't adjust your awful punctuation - that's all you. If you're so f*cking smart, why won't you learn the lingua franca of the western world - English? I'm Polish and I did, how does your nationality excuse you in any way? Big thinker over here, laying down the law when it comes to intelligence using the writing skills of a 5-year-old. And just so we're clear, it's not your grammar that denotes whether you're smart or not - it's your judgemental attitude.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Sep 19, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion-clinic-violence.html
> 
> See, it's because of disgusting cases like this that America needs to control its boarders as who gets it. It's not "Christianophobia", it's having control. Entirely different.
> The US are pretty much ruined and other countries are going the same route unless they take a stand.


While those deaths were indeed horrible the comparison here is like oranges to apples. Muslims aren't willing to accept the western values and they dehumanise women as well as commit human atrocities everywhere they go.

Sure there are good Muslims but even those good ones will support Sharia Law and other backward mentalities if they're asked.

Milo has posted a new video on YouTube and it's once again very concerning and informative towards America and Europe:


----------



## Lord M (Sep 19, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, it just annoys me so much. There's this notion that just the fact you're an atheist makes you innately more intelligent, skilled or knowledgeable. It's just another generalisation - religious people must necessarily be stupid and atheists must necessarily be smart, when the truth of the matter is that most of these vocal atheists spend all day munching on Doritos and making dents in couches while watching Netflix. Get f*cked, atheists - you're the real dipshits, you spend hundreds on hours every month flaunting your intellectual superiority and don't do shit. It's become its own sort of religion. I keep hearing that religious people spend all day trying to convert people - that's not what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing is a bunch of fat fedora-wearing neckbeards telling others that they're stupid because they believe in some form of higher being or authority. The great majority of them are guilty of the exact same thing religious people are accused of when in the real world nobody gives a shit if you believe in something or not, that doesn't tell me anything about whether you're a good or a shitty person.
> Google Translate doesn't adjust your awful punctuation - that's all you. If you're so f*cking smart, why won't you learn the lingua franca of the western world - English? I'm Polish and I did, how does your nationality excuse you in any way? Big thinker over here, laying down the law when it comes to intelligence using the writing skills of a 5-year-old. And just so we're clear, it's not your grammar that denotes whether you're smart or not - it's your judgemental attitude.


Because I have better things to do than learn a language. Technically Rome was capital of the world, it is already so much that the world language is not Italian lol


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2016)

Lord M said:


> Because I have better things to do than learn a language. Technically Rome was capital of the world, it is already so much that the world language is not Italian lol


Fair enough. I'm sure you're do have better things to do. What I'm saying is that you probably shouldn't point out that someone has a splinter in their eye when there's a log in yours.


----------



## Engert (Sep 19, 2016)

I think we need to define the level of idiocy. 
Once we do that we present it to United Nations so they can implement it worldwide.
I'm sure U.N. thinks highly of this forum.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Sep 19, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> the truth of the matter is that most of these vocal atheists spend all day munching on Doritos and making dents in couches while watching Netflix.



Source?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Source?


Their Facebook profiles. The fedora-wearing atheist is a stereotype for a reason - there's plenty of them to go around. That's not to say than there aren't any well-adjusted atheists - there are plenty, they're just not spending their time moralising and calling other people morons for not being in their little club.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 19, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Their Facebook profiles. The fedora-wearing atheist is a stereotype for a reason - there's plenty of them to go around. That's not to say than there aren't any well-adjusted atheists - there are plenty, they're just not spending their time moralising and calling other people morons for not being in their little club.


Agreed. This is common in any system of thought, though. It's usually those high-schoolers or college folk that have just had their minds opened to more, but without the ability to place them in context. I guess they just have a hard time separating belief from person, especially when that person expresses their faith defines them. Gotta respect the fact they're a human being despite whatever silly thing they may believe, and gotta separate harmful action from perceived intent.

I personally just hope they grow out of it with time...though I know that doesn't always happen. Personally, I blame our lack of mandated education on the matter of rhetoric and ethics (at least, here in the states). But that's just me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Agreed. This is common in any system of thought, though. It's usually those high-schoolers or college folk that have just had their minds opened to more, but without the ability to place them in context. I guess they just have a hard time separating belief from person, especially when that person expresses their faith defines them. Gotta respect the fact they're a human being despite whatever silly thing they may believe, and gotta separate harmful action from perceived intent.
> 
> I personally just hope they grow out of it with time...though I know that doesn't always happen. Personally, I blame our lack of mandated education on the matter of rhetoric and ethics (at least, here in the states). But that's just me.


Correct. "Recently enlightened" people are the most annoying thing to deal with. Smoking a joint and watching an episode of "Cosmos" seems to make everyone qualified astronomers for some reason.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2016)

Lord M said:


> but religious people are more idiots. 1) Because they all believe in same thing, at same way.


Not only are there numerous contradictory religions, but there are as many versions of a religion as there are people who believe that religion. Grow up. There are plenty of smart theists, and there are plenty of idiotic atheists.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 19, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Not only are there numerous contradictory religions, but there are as many versions of a religion as there are people who believe that religion. Grow up. There are plenty of smart theists, and there are plenty of idiotic atheists.


You need to grow up. I never said that atheist are everybody better. But who believe in something that dont exist, is automatically an idiot and limited mind.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 19, 2016)

Every social group has intelligent and wonderful contributors in society. Religions, races, genders, or any other type of person has it's good and bad apples. Simple as that.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2016)

Lord M said:


> You need to grow up. I never said that atheist are everybody better. But who believe in something that dont exist, is automatically an idiot and limited mind.


You just said all theists are idiots and have limited minds. Tell me again how that's not the same thing. Give me a break.


----------



## Engert (Sep 19, 2016)

I wouldn't say that all religious people are idiots because that would be offensive to many good-hearted religious people out there. 
I would say that all religious people are Fucking Idiots.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 19, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You just said all theists are idiots and have limited minds. Tell me again how that's not the same thing. Give me a break.


Ah sorry, theist sounds and write like an italian word that have another type of meaning lol. Like i said, i dont know english, its just too hard for me to explain what i mean. No no, i confirm what i've said.
Since Religion was created by small group of persons, if milions and milions of people believe in these creations, are idiots, because they easly got their mind fuc*ed by few people >_>


----------



## Bat420maN (Sep 19, 2016)

I think in the beginning Trump was just there to make us feel good when Hillary got put in office. If it was left to just the vote at this point Trump will win but, it never is. Hillary will be our next president! I probably wont even go out to vote this election but, if I did, I would vote for Joe Rogan.

I just glanced at the last few pages, how the fuck did this turn into religion?


----------



## Engert (Sep 19, 2016)

This has been turning into many things including religion, so stop whining and jump on the band wagon.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 19, 2016)

Yeah, Bat is right. Its a poll of election page, and turn into a religion. i only express an opinion about it, and the "grow up" people have made a debate lol
Anyway is insignificant who wins, because the U.S president (as, i think, president of whole world) are in cahoots with jews and masons, so one or other, in any case always follow their directives


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2016)

Bat420maN said:


> If it was left to just the vote at this point Trump will win


If the election were held today, it is likely that Hillary Clinton would still win, albeit narrowly. She's still ahead nationally by about 1.5% according to the aggregate numbers, and she's never needed very many swing states. She could lose Florida, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, and Nevada, and she would still win the electoral college 272 to 266.



Bat420maN said:


> I probably wont even go out to vote this election but, if I did, I would vote for Joe Rogan.


Do you have any preference between Trump and Clinton?


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 19, 2016)

This is pretty disgusting, 4 terrorist attacks took place on US soil in major cities within the last couple of days, 3 involving bombs
media: no big deal everything is puppies and rainbows

http://regated.com/2016/09/media-attempt-to-downplay-nyc-terrorist-attack/


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2016)

Lord M said:


> You need to grow up. I never said that atheist are everybody better. *But who believe in something that dont exist*, is automatically an *idiot and limited mind*.





Lord M said:


> Yeah, Bat is right. Its a poll of election page, and turn into a religion. i only express an opinion about it, and the "grow up" people have made a debate lol
> Anyway is insignificant who wins, *because the U.S president (as, i think, president of whole world) are in cahoots with jews and masons*, so one or other, in any case always follow their directives


I was going to make a point, but you did it for me.


----------



## Bat420maN (Sep 19, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If the election were held today, it is likely that Hillary Clinton would still win, albeit narrowly. She's still ahead nationally by about 1.5% according to the aggregate numbers, and she's never needed very many swing states. She could lose Florida, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, and Nevada, and she would still win the electoral college 272 to 266.
> 
> 
> Do you have any preference between Trump and Clinton?



At this point they are both a joke! If I was forced to vote right now for one of them though, I would go Hillary, just so Bill can get back up in that place. I also feel that Hillary is a lot sicker then the media is letting on, honestly not sure if four years is in her future. So we could end up with that Kaine guy and I dont know shit about him. Joe Rogan is simply the best option, DMT, weed, and MMA for everyone!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2016)

Bat420maN said:


> At this point they are both a joke! If I was forced to vote right now for one of them though, I would go Hillary, just so Bill can get back up in that place. I also feel that Hillary is a lot sicker then the media is letting on, honestly not sure if four years is in her future. So we could end up with that Kaine guy and I dont know shit about him. Joe Rogan is simply the best option, DMT, weed, and MMA for everyone!


If you have any preference between Clinton and Trump, then your choice is a binary one since only one of those two candidates can win. Joe Rogan cannot win, so a vote for him is a throwaway vote.

In addition, are you aware of any reason to think Clinton is sicker than what's indicated by her health records, or is this just a silly feeling you have?


----------



## Bat420maN (Sep 19, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If you have any preference between Clinton and Trump, then your choice is a binary one since only one of those two candidates can win. Joe Rogan cannot win, so a vote for him is a throwaway vote.
> 
> In addition, are you aware of any reason to think Clinton is sicker than what's indicated by her health records, or is this just a silly feeling you have?



I guess you could call it a silly feeling, I have no facts to back it up. She just looks bad compared to even a few months ago. Also seems like her TV and apperance time has pretty much cut in half at the least in the last month or so. So just a silly feeling!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2016)

Bat420maN said:


> I guess you could call it a silly feeling, I have no facts to back it up.


If that's the case, then yes, it's a silly feeling.



Bat420maN said:


> She just looks bad compared to even a few months ago.


Ignoring for a second that I don't see it, you are aware that she had pneumonia not long ago, yes?



Bat420maN said:


> Also seems like her TV and apperance time has pretty much cut in half at the least in the last month or so.


Clinton just held her sixth press conference in less than three weeks, contrasted with Trump's zero. This must have been another silly feeling pulled out of your ass.

For more on feelings vs. facts:


----------



## Bat420maN (Sep 19, 2016)

I can tell you're way more into this then I am. Again, I wont be voting for either of them. They both would be an embarassment to our country. None of our votes count for shit anyways, they will elect who they can control and at this point that's Hillary.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 19, 2016)

Bat420maN said:


> I can tell you're way more into this then I am. Again, I wont be voting for either of them. They both would be an embarassment to our country. None of our votes count for shit anyways, they will elect who they can control and at this point that's Hillary.


STrange. In The Simpsons, created by Mat groening, 31th grade mason (his own words) suggests with many allusion about "president Trump"...


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2016)

Bat420maN said:


> I can tell you're way more into this then I am. Again, I wont be voting for either of them. They both would be an embarassment to our country. None of our votes count for shit anyways, they will elect who they can control and at this point that's Hillary.


If you would rather Clinton beat Trump, then a vote for Clinton is the only sound option.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Sep 19, 2016)

The people who vote for Hillary are fucked up.


----------



## Bat420maN (Sep 19, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If you would rather Clinton beat Trump, then a vote for Clinton is the only sound option.



No! The sound option would be to throw those two away and start over, that would be the sound option.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2016)

Lord M said:


> STrange. In The Simpsons, created by Mat groening, 31th grade mason (his own words) suggests with many allusion about "president Trump"...


I like the notion that someone who supposedly belongs to a secret society and controls the world from behind the scenes with his brotherhood buddies chose to become a cartoonist for a living. The thought process of a conspiracy theorist is truly fascinating to me. "A bearded man in the sky? That's stupid. The world is controlled by 12 bankers and 9/11 was an inside job? Well d'uh, who do you think I am, some kind of an idiot? Of course that's true!"

As for Trump on The Simpsons, these weren't allusions, this was a full-blown skit and it surprises nobody because Trump was asked about whether he'd like to run for president for several decades now, it was speculated for as long as he's been a businessman because he's the face of American capitalism.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2016)

Bat420maN said:


> No! The sound option would be to throw those two away and start over, that would be the sound option.


That's not an option.


----------



## vayanui8 (Sep 20, 2016)

Lord M said:


> I believe that in deep down we are all idiots, but religious people are more idiots. 1) Because they all believe in same thing, at same way. 2) Because they try to put even normal people to believe in their nonsense (see the volunteers who go on islands to convince the natives about the existence of God and destroy their popular beliefs). The religious dont use their brains, but only follow and believe (without doubt) in what their religion declares. Are foolish that believe to be highter than normal people >_>)


You are such a hypocrite. You complain that religious people try and force their opinions on others, and then proceed to try and force your opinion on them. Every group has people that are foolish and people that are intelligent. Generalizing them just shows your ignorance. 

Ironically, atheism has practically became a religion itself, with people like you following the same habits you claim to hate about religion in the first place. This obviously doesn't include every atheist, or even most of them, but this hipster atheist better than you attitude is both hypocritical and ignorant.


----------



## Engert (Sep 20, 2016)

I think the next move for atheist including myself is to declare war on all religions and use nuclear weapons. Either that, or I hope an asteroid kills all religious people.

May the atheism prosper and may all religious people get cancer.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Sep 20, 2016)

snip


----------



## GhostLatte (Sep 20, 2016)

Although I hate Clinton and Trump, I'd vote for the lesser of the two evils.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 20, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's not an option.


Issue is the electoral college because except for a few states, either Clinton or Trump has no chance of winning the state and its electoral votes (I.e. tx and Ca). Meaning Trump or Clinton is a wasted vote except in those few states.

So it that case you really accomplish nothing with a vote for either of the two while at least with a third party it helps to get funding.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Issue is the electoral college because except for a few states, either Clinton or Trump has no chance of winning the state and its electoral votes (I.e. tx and Ca). Meaning Trump or Clinton is a wasted vote except in those few states.
> 
> So it that case you really accomplish nothing with a vote for either of the two while at least with a third party it helps to get funding.


Except there are still only two candidates who can win this election. In addition, the odds of Clinton winning Texas and other red states like it, for example, are non-zero and many times greater than a third-party candidate winning the states, let alone the election. Finally, given the volatility of the polls this year and the possibility of a surge for either candidate, there are about 20 states that could potentially be in actual play this election cycle, not _a few_. We will see where the dust settles by November.

This non-competitive state argument is both total BS and irrelevant to my point. The Electoral College is a broken system, but my point still stands. The argument about funding is perfectly fine, but I didn't say, "if you care about funding." I said, "if you care who wins," so leave the irrelevant spin at home. If your entire counter argument is contingent upon changing my qualifier, then there's no reason to respond to my post. Whether one lives in a solid red state is irrelevant, and I'm not talking to people who care more about third-party funding than who wins the election. My statement still stands: If one has a preference between Trump and Clinton and cares who wins, then it's a binary choice between them. Anything else is a throwaway vote.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 20, 2016)

Engert said:


> I think the next move for atheist including myself is to declare war on all religions and use nuclear weapons. Either that, or I hope an asteroid kills all religious people.
> 
> May the atheism prosper and may all religious people get cancer.


I hope you're joking, because that's a really disgusting comment.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 20, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Except there are still only two candidates who can win this election. In addition, the odds of Clinton winning Texas and other red states like it, for example, are non-zero and many times greater than a third-party candidate winning the states, let alone the election.


Granted I will admit there is a way for Clinton to win Texas (the Hispanic vote) and Georgia (The low turn out of white Republicans and a high turn out of African Americans) likewise Trump has a way to win the left leaning Rust belt States the way he appeals to working class whites.  Also see the bottom of my post.



Lacius said:


> Finally, given the volatility of the polls this year and the possibility of a surge for either candidate, there are about 20 states that could potentially be in actual play this election cycle, not _a few_. We will see where the dust settles by November.


First I do not know what you consider to be close (for the sake of arguing I will believe you mean Clinton vs Trump are within 6% in a 4 way race) but regardless it is most likely widen. However let's talk more come a week or two before election day.

To add insult to injury is that the Electoral college greatly helps Hillary as we could repeat the 04 elections and the Democrats would win.




Lacius said:


> This non-competitive state argument is both total BS and irrelevant to my point. The Electoral College is a broken system, but my point still stands.


How is it bs? If you agree that the EC is broken then it is a valid argument. 



Lacius said:


> The argument about funding is perfectly fine, but I didn't say, "if you care about funding." I said, "if you care who wins," so leave the irrelevant spin at home. If your entire counter argument is contingent upon changing my qualifier, then there's no reason to respond to my post.


First I must state that I did not mean to post that about your logic but as my personal distaste of the current system. However since you got me talking



Lacius said:


> Whether one lives in a solid red state is irrelevant, and I'm not talking to people who care more about third-party funding than who wins the election. My statement still stands: If one has a preference between Trump and Clinton and cares who wins, then it's a binary choice between them. Anything else is a throwaway vote.


The issue with this is as you stated the EC is shit. Under the system millions of votes literally do not matter unless that canidate wins the state. BUT if that person wins then you have tons of excess votes that do nothing.

Regardless we have to understand if you care who wins then in most cases it is not a binary choice as one of the two has no realistic shot of winning certain states. Voting Trump in Vermont for example archives nothing as he has no shot.

 I am just pointing out it is BS to criticize voting for Stein or Johnson since they can not win when Trump or Clinton have no realistic chance of winning in most states.


----------



## Viri (Sep 20, 2016)

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hillary-clinton-tech-guy-asked-reddit-for-email-advice

So, in other news, the guy who ran Hillary's server asked for advice on how to delete a "Very important VIP's" server. 

He even posted the IP address and has been going pretty hardcore trying to delete his entire Reddit history. https://twitter.com/ANONAMERICANHQ/status/778051001156788225

Also, a video of his profile and showing him deleting his Reddit history.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 20, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> You are such a hypocrite. You complain that religious people try and force their opinions on others, and then proceed to try and force your opinion on them. Every group has people that are foolish and people that are intelligent. Generalizing them just shows your ignorance.
> 
> Ironically, atheism has practically became a religion itself, with people like you following the same habits you claim to hate about religion in the first place. This obviously doesn't include every atheist, or even most of them, but this hipster atheist better than you attitude is both hypocritical and ignorant.


Ok, it is all as you say...

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



Foxi4 said:


> I like the notion that someone who supposedly belongs to a secret society and controls the world from behind the scenes with his brotherhood buddies chose to become a cartoonist for a living. The thought process of a conspiracy theorist is truly fascinating to me. "A bearded man in the sky? That's stupid. The world is controlled by 12 bankers and 9/11 was an inside job? Well d'uh, who do you think I am, some kind of an idiot? Of course that's true!"
> 
> As for Trump on The Simpsons, these weren't allusions, this was a full-blown skit and it surprises nobody because Trump was asked about whether he'd like to run for president for several decades now, it was speculated for as long as he's been a businessman because he's the face of American capitalism.


At least we can see Illuminati, but where is your bearded man in the sky? In the sky ahahaha, that live on clouds, this is more pathetic than Red Hood fairy tale lol. Anyway your comment is useless now, the election are coming, right? We will see...


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2016)

Lord M said:


> At least we can see Illuminati, but where is your bearded man in the sky? In the sky ahahaha, that live on clouds, this is more pathetic than Red Hood fairy tale lol. Anyway your comment is useless now, the election are coming, right? We will see...


This might be difficult to comprehend for someone who can "see the Illuminati" playing practical jokes and setting up pranks against the society for no reason, but religion isn't meant to be treated literally. It's metaphysical by definition and plays the same role as ethics or philosophy, it's a vehicle for teaching moral lessons that's suspended in the belief in higher authority/some unexplained creative force that put the universe in place and in motion. Nobody actually believes that there's a dude sitting on a cloud somewhere way up there watching us unless they're under the age of 5, I know this might be a shocking revelation for someone with an open mind like yourself, but it's true.

As for the election, it would seem that the gap between Clinton and Trump is closing, which will make for an interesting race.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 20, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> This might be difficult to comprehend for someone who can "see the Illuminati" playing practical jokes and setting up pranks against the society for no reason, but religion isn't meant to be treated literally - it's metaphysical by definition and plays the same role as ethics or philosophy, it's a vehicle for teaching moral lessons that's suspended in the belief in higher authority/some unexplained creative force that put the universe in place and in motion. Nobody actually believes that there's a dude sitting on a cloud somewhere way up there unless they're under the age of 5, I know this might be a shocking revelation for someone with an open mind like yourself, but it's true.
> 
> As for the election, it would seem that the gap between Clinton and Trump is closing, which will make for an interesting race.


Yeah, because you accept moral lessons teached by a religion created by who ruin your actual world? Nice, this is what a smart people do...


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2016)

Lord M said:


> Yeah, because you accept moral lessons teached by a religion created by who ruin your actual world? Nice, this is what a smart people do...


I have no idea what you're trying to say. The people who "created" my religion have been dead for about 2000 years. That, and the particular religion is irrelevant, the holy books are a direct product of the cultures that have written them, it's the concept that matters. We're getting sidetracked here though, my point was that as a conspiracy theorist you're the last person who should criticise religious people for believing in stuff that doesn't exist - they're not the ones who are claiming that the Earth is hollow, the moon landing was a scam and 9/11 was a holographic projection - you guys are. You're poisoning the Internet with a consistent stream of bullshit that's obviously false on a daily basis, so your indignation falls on deaf ears. Let's get back to the election, because that's the point of this thread, unless you have something to add, like how the Pope is a reptilian spy or some other nonsense like that, I'll happily listen to more of that stuff.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 20, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to say. The people who "created" my religion have been dead for about 2000 years. That, and the particular religion is irrelevant, the holy books are a direct product of the cultures that have written them, it's the concept that matters. We're getting sidetracked here though, my point was that as a conspiracy theorist you're the last person who should criticise religious people for believing in stuff that doesn't exist - they're not the ones who are claiming that the Earth is hollow, the moon landing was a scam and 9/11 was a holographic projection - you guys are. You're poisoning the Internet with a consistent stream of bullshit that's obviously false on a daily basis, so your indignation falls on deaf ears. Let's get back to the election, because that's the point of this thread, unless you have something to add, like how the Pope is a reptilian spy or some other nonsense like that, I'll happily listen to more of that stuff.


About moral lesson, you want to talk about the inquisition, uh? Where is the moral? Church fantasies about witch and magic as excuse to kill innocent womans? Because they use natural cure and church in this way cannot sell their poisoning drug? Is a case, surely, that "drug" came from greek and mean "poison". But a smart guy like you dont need to study, right?  Ah no, its your religion which it requires to believe in things without question, because a people that dont do a question, is a people easly to control eheh
How many people was killed by church inquisition about their fantasies? The Moral? Is that you never go against drug society lol


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2016)

Lord M said:


> About moral lesson, you want to talk about the inquisition, uh? Where is the moral? Church fantasies about witch and magic as excuse to kill innocent womans? Because they use natural cure and church in this way cannot sell their poisoning drug? Is a case, surely, that "drug" came from greek and mean "poison". But a smart guy like you dont need to study, right?  Ah no, its your religion which it requires to believe in things without question, because a people that dont do a question, is a people easly to control eheh
> How many people was killed by church inquisition about their fantasies? The Moral? Is that you never go against drug society lol


The Crusades were not fought over drugs, and I would argue that they weren't even fought over religion for that matter, they were fought to extend the sphere of influence of the Vatican. You would know that if you read a middle school-grade history book. The individual fighters might've believed they were fighting "for God", but they weren't. Besides, extremism isn't limited to religion - people have killed for the stupidest reasons over the years - take the Nazis for instance. Killing due to ignorance is just one of many such instances. The Vatican has never produced or distributed medicine, your entire drug war point is probably drug-induced. I suspected that you're a pothead, but figured that generalising to such an extent would be unfair. I was mistaken. You're the textbook example of any Internet truther - vocal militant atheist, drugs enthusiast ("natural remedy" te-he - let's pretend that drug use isn't recreational) and conspiracy theorist. Sounds like a very distinct attitude, yay for individualism. Now, for the sake of the thread I'll have to ignore your ramblings - you're welcome to create some anti-religious blog post where you could share some more of your insights that we totally haven't heard before, let's keep this thread strictly election-related.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 20, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The Crusades were not fought over drugs, and I would argue that they weren't even fought over religion for that matter, they were fought to extend the sphere of influence of the Vatican. You would know that if you read a middle school-grade history book. The individual fighters might've believed they were fighting "for God", but they weren't. The Vatican has never produced or distributed medicine, your entire drug war point is probably drug-induced. I suspected that you're a pothead, but figured that generalising to such an extent would be unfair. I was mistaken. You're the textbook example of any Internet truther - vocal militant atheist, drugs enthusiast ("natural remedy" te-he - let's pretend that drug use isn't recreational) and conspiracy theorist. Sounds like a very distinct attitude, yay for individualism. Now, for the sake of the thread I'll have to ignore your ramblings - you're welcome to create some anti-religious blog post where you could share some more of your insights that we totally haven't heard before, let's keep this thread strictly election-related.


You believe in what you read in school books? ahahaha Goodbye...
Yes, im tired about this useless discussion. Deception and lies are too deeply rooted in you, you are a lost case. Obviously, you are free to believe in what you want, but please dont annoying who know the truth, thanks


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2016)

Lord M said:


> You believe in what you read in school books? ahahaha Goodbye...


You mean verified sources? Yes, I believe in what historians and scientists tell me. You not believing them explains a lot.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 20, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You mean verified sources? Yes, I believe in what historians and scientists tell me. You not believing them explains a lot.


Books are writed by winner, indeed. So, if a criminal/mason win, write a book, and put inside them what he/they want. Obviously, you dont know that school have the task to teach the wrong things, so that people, as a child, never get closer to the truth. In this case, you are a living example... If i kill you, an innocent, i can go around and scream that you are the worst people that never lived, obviously, because you, as a dead, cannot stop my lies. You can understand this, at least?
P.S: About election, an old italian sage said: if the vote have really a power, they never let us to do it eheheheh


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2016)

Lord M said:


> Books are writed by winner, indeed. So, if a criminal/mason win, write a book, and put inside them what he/they want. Obviously, you dont know that school have the task to teach the wrong things, so that people, as a child, never get closer to the truth. In this case, you are a living example...


You're right, the only way to get to the truth is reading articles written by dipshits in their basements and posted on .to domains and 4chan instead of referring to historical sources written at the time those events were taking place - conspiracy theorists are more qualified to "teach" than actual scientists and professors who dedicated their lives to research. Let's add "anti-intellectual" to the list of your flaws.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 20, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> You're right, the only way to get to the truth is reading articles by dipshits in their basements who are somehow more qualified to "teach" than actual scientists and professors. Let's add "anti-intellectual" to the list of your flaws.


Like a medieval people, you think that because only a qualified people like professor and scientist say something, is a law. They are hero etc. etc. Yes, a true hero, because scientist created cancer. Take your heroes ahahah


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2016)

Lord M said:


> Like a medieval people, you think that because only a qualified people like professor and scientist say something, is a law. They are hero etc. etc. Yes, a true hero, because scientist created cancer. Take your heroes ahahah


Yes, scientists created cancer and they're spraying it over the world - the chemtrails are plain to see. It is true that teens with basic understanding of Google are better researchers than actual learned and peer-reviewed writers. Please, tell us more - what's your favourite theory? What do you think about Big Foot? What about ancient aliens?

@Lacius, I sincerely hope you don't terribly mind me squeezing some truth out here, it's just too good to let it slip. It's like a unicorn, I have to lasso it.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 20, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, scientists created cancer and they're spraying it over the world - the chemtrails are plain to see. It is true that teens with basic understanding of Google are better researchers than actual learned and peer-reviewed writers. Please, tell us more - what's your favourite theory? What do you think about Big Foot? What about ancient aliens?
> 
> @Lacius, I sincerely hope you don't terribly mind me squeezing some truth out here, it's just too good to let it slip. It's like a unicorn, I have to lasso it.


The ignorance is strong in you, my young friend. Maybe is a coincidence, that you came from Poland, the poeple that pissed off my country with their vices loool. Apart from that, you really think that i read the first stupid thing and believed in it? you're more stupid than you look, because you are here, close to me, and see when i read the first stupid articles lol. No, me and many peoples have done extensive research and many comparisons before you get to the only obvious conclusion. Dont worry about complottism, because, in reality, i have destroyed the Twin Towers ahahah


----------



## barronwaffles (Sep 20, 2016)

I think we can all agree that moonbeams did 9/11.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2016)

Lord M said:


> The ignorance is strong in you, my young friend. Maybe is a coincidence, that you came from Poland, the poeple that pissed off my country with their vices loool. Apart from that, you really think that i read the first stupid thing and believed in it? you're more stupid than you look, because you are here, close to me, and see when i read the first stupid articles lol. No, me and many peoples have done extensive research and many comparisons before you get to the only obvious conclusion. Dont worry about complottism, because, in reality, i have destroyed the Twin Towers ahahah


How does your research routine look like? Do you go to a library and check original documents? Or do you have special deep web sites where truth is posted? This is fascinating to me considering the fact that you're talking about events that literally nobody alive has witnessed, so all we have are written historical accounts and expert opinions, which you ignore from what I understand. A personal question too, do you have a laptop, and does it have a piece of tape covering the webcam?


barronwaffles said:


> I think we can all agree that moonbeams did 9/11.


I never want this to stop, I'm really learning new things.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 20, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> How does your research routine look like? Do you go to a library and check original documents? Or do you have special deep web sites where truth is posted? This is fascinating to me considering the fact that you're talking about events that literally nobody alive has witnessed, so all we have is historical accounts, which you ignore from what I understand. A personal question too, do you have a laptop, and does it have a piece of tape covering the webcam?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> I never want this to stop, I'm really learning new things.


Too long to explain. But, at same thing, so if a scientis say that 2+2=5 you believe in he because is qualified. Interesting, this really mean how to use own brain. If complottist dont exist, watch simply things: in the Matrix, the most-truth movie ever made, on Neo passport you can clearly read the exact same date of Twin Tower disaster. Morpheus say that "they" [masons], obscured the skys first [chemtrails] and the I.A take control about human kind [technology, iphone, ipad, idi*k etc.]. You cant negate that iphone turn people in living zombies lol. And about Roddy Piper? He make time ago a movie, They Lives, and after years, after he said that it was not a movie, but a documentary, few time after he is dead. And other peoples that said same things, strangely, They would have committed suicide shortly after. But maybe is better to say that They [masons] have commited those people suicide lol


----------



## Demifiend (Sep 20, 2016)

*Sigh*, why does everyone gets into a shit storm of insults and arguments everytime politics are talked about, how is it possible that we as a species have advanced so much in technology, language, science, theories, knowledge, the use of your surroundings to build homes, skyscrapers, businesses, etc. but many still talk like "My candidate is right, yours is shit, fuck you". 

Well, at least compared to medieval styles, this should be an improvement, there are no inquisitions who labels you as an heretic and hang you for saying such things right now... or maybe?. 

On-topic: None of the candidates looks good, is either someone who gives the middle finger to its own people unless they are white, or is a psycho incapable of hiding lies, they suck so much that i'd rather see a monkey eating a banana as a president, at least the monkey is not mean-spirited nor it doesn't lie.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2016)

Lord M said:


> Too long to explain. But, at same thing, so if a scientis say that 2+2=5 you believe in he because is qualified. Interesting, this really mean how to use own brain. If complottist dont exist, watch simply things: in the Matrix, the most-truth movie ever made, on Neo passport you can clearly read the exact same date of Twin Tower disaster. Morpheus say that "they" [masons], obscured the skys first [chemtrails] and the I.A take control about human kind [technology, iphone, ipad, idi*k etc.]. You cant negate that iphone turn people in living zombies lol. And about Roddy Piper? He make time ago a movie, They Lives, and after years, after he said that it was not a movie, but a documentary, few time after he is dead. And other peoples that said same things, strangely, They would have committed suicide shortly after. But maybe is better to say that They [masons] have commited those people suicide lol


That sounds amazing. It must be great to live your life. I wouldn't want to live it for more than a day, but a solid 24 hours of blissful ignorance and complete clarity would be a nice change.

You seem to misunderstand how science works - scientific statements come with proofs. They're literally written down and verifiable, that's how peer-reviewed research works. No scientist would ever claim that "2+2=5" because it's retarded and easily disproven - loss of face is a genuine concern in science, not so much in Internet theorising since there are no faces to begin with.

As for you calling me your "young friend", I'm older than you, and I'm not your friend. Unwilling acquaintance is a better description.

I'll close with this, since you've already posted amazing stuff - if the masons are so powerful that they've orchestrated genocide on a global scale and have been doing it for centuries... and they're in control of our information systems... what makes you special? Why aren't you dead? The degree of narcissism you people display is astounding - there's a super-secret organisations that necessarily needs to stay in the shadows, an organisation that has no moral qualms squashing whole civilizations... but not you, because you're too good. You're 100% anonymous, they'll never get you, and if they do, you'll die spreading the truth!

This was entertaining. Try sobering up, consider getting an education and get a steady job. You're 24, you still have a chance to get back on track.


----------



## Lord M (Sep 20, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That sounds amazing. It must be great to live your life. I wouldn't want to live it for more than a day, but a solid 24 hours of blissful ignorance and complete clarity would be a nice change.
> 
> You seem to misunderstand how science works - scientific statements come with proofs. They're literally written down and verifiable, that's how peer-reviewed research works. No scientist would ever claim that "2+2=5" because it's retarded and easily disproven - loss of face is a genuine concern in science, not so much in Internet theorising since there are no faces to begin with.
> 
> ...


You do not have a sense of humor, I suppose. About "friend" and so on its obviously a joking, because you are nothing for me, totally indifferent. You answered yourself about the Masons: for tehy i am nothing, they dont take care about me, because they like sleeping poeple like you, that treat those who say the truth as lunatics escaped from the asylum. Indeed, this is what they want.
Anyway a scientist that say 2+2=5 is a example that peoples bite any bullshit a scientist would say. An example, you know what mean? Even a child know. -.-
Yeah, you're right, its useless to scream the truth to people, they love to live in lies and fucked up by masons. Who makes me do? I can only hope for a brutal death to everybody do not take care about those things, that unconsciously (who, however obtusely refused the truth) contributed to the ruin of the world supporting the plans of these criminals


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2016)

Lord M said:


> You do not have a sense of humor, I suppose. About "friend" and so on its obviously a joking, because you are nothing for me, totally indifferent. You answered yourself about the Masons: for tehy i am nothing, they dont take care about me, because they like sleeping poeple like you, that treat those who say the truth as lunatics escaped from the asylum. Indeed, this is what they want.
> Anyway a scientist that say 2+2=5 is a example that peoples bite any bullshit a scientist would say. An example, you know what mean? Even a child know. -.-
> Yeah, you're right, its useless to scream the truth to people, they love to live in lies and fucked up by masons. Who makes me do? I can only hope for a brutal death to everybody do not take care about those things, that unconsciously (who, however obtusely refused the truth) contributed to the ruin of the world supporting the plans of these criminals


People don't buy anything scientists say - just verified and repeatable studies. Y'know - facts. I really hope you'll turn a new leaf some day, before your retirement plan is f*cked. You're naive, but I wish you well. Everyone believed in goofy shit when they were young, you can just pretend none of this ever happened once you grow up to accept reality. Good luck on your future ventures, have fun!


----------



## Engert (Sep 20, 2016)

Can someone explain to me Bulding 7 on 9.11?
http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/


----------



## barronwaffles (Sep 20, 2016)

Engert said:


> Can someone explain to me Bulding 7 on 9.11?
> http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/



The moon looked upon the lands of New York with lust in its eyes.


----------



## Engert (Sep 20, 2016)

^ thank you! 
Finally someone who understands.

Now, when we do a forum upgrade and we have major issues which will be "totally unpredicted of course", I want some admin to change the above post.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2016)

Viri said:


> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hillary-clinton-tech-guy-asked-reddit-for-email-advice
> 
> So, in other news, the guy who ran Hillary's server asked for advice on how to delete a "Very important VIP's" server.
> 
> ...


So what?



Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius, I sincerely hope you don't terribly mind me squeezing some truth out here, it's just too good to let it slip. It's like a unicorn, I have to lasso it.


You two have fun.



Demifiend said:


> On-topic: None of the candidates looks good, is either someone who gives the middle finger to its own people unless they are white, or is *a psycho incapable of hiding lies*, they suck so much that i'd rather see a monkey eating a banana as a president, at least the monkey is not mean-spirited nor it doesn't lie.


Hillary Clinton lies less often than most politicians, and she by far lies less often than Donald Trump, not that he's a very high bar.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 20, 2016)

Viri said:


> He even posted the IP address and has been going pretty hardcore trying to delete his entire Reddit history. https://twitter.com/ANONAMERICANHQ/status/778051001156788225


Aren't those local IP addresses that couldn't be used to hack from outside the network?...


----------



## Demifiend (Sep 21, 2016)

Lacius said:


> So what?
> 
> 
> You two have fun.
> ...



All politicians lies, regardless of gender, age, race, nationality, etc. the thing that a politician should worry the most is that when they are lying, they need to phrase it in a way people won't discover they are really lying, specially if you're a candidate to be a president, once you're one (a president, assuming you win) you can lie and say bullshit without fear however you want because you're now a president, but when you're just in the campaign process, you need to watch out for rumors, gossip, talk of mouth, etc. that anyone will do against you. 

These two are very laid back in those aspects tho, they just spout whatever they want and they win loyal followers regardless, but when you take into account this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hillary_Clinton_controversies

You're now not in the position to cause more controversy, that would damage your image and reputation, again, not that those two have a very good reputation anyway, but you just can't fuck up anymore specially during such heated moments, so when you're incapable of hiding lies or secrets, you cause controversy, said controversy can deal damage to your image, your image is what she relies to win or not the campaign, and also followers or people who don't want Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2016)

Demifiend said:


> All politicians lies, regardless of gender, age, race, nationality, etc. the thing that a politician should worry the most is that when they are lying, they need to phrase it in a way people won't discover they are really lying, specially if you're a candidate to be a president, once you're one (a president, assuming you win) you can lie and say bullshit without fear however you want because you're now a president, but when you're just in the campaign process, you need to watch out for rumors, gossip, talk of mouth, etc. that anyone will do against you.
> 
> These two are very laid back in those aspects tho, they just spout whatever they want and they win loyal followers regardless, but when you take into account this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hillary_Clinton_controversies
> ...


First, most Hillary Clinton controversies are right-wing bullshit with little basis in reality. This is evidenced by the fact that the suicide of Vince Foster is even on the list, let alone many more ridiculous ones. Second, if we're going by an informal comparison of PolitiFact statements, Hillary Clinton doesn't lie much relative to other politicians. Get your facts straight.


----------



## Demifiend (Sep 21, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, most Hillary Clinton controversies are right-wing bullshit with little basis in reality. This is evidenced by the fact that the suicide of Vince Foster is even on the list, let alone many more ridiculous ones. Second, if we're going by an informal comparison of PolitiFact statements, Hillary Clinton doesn't lie much relative to other politicians. Get your facts straight.



The controversies are, as you say, bullshit, but when someone unconnected to politics tries to find info on any of the candidates, the first thing they may cross is the "popular info" which in this case, are controversies, people will spend more time trying to decipher the basis of the controversy rather than actual important info of said candidate. I say that is neither Trump's or Hillary's fault that the controversies for each candidate happened the way it was, but regardless, more people would only be interested in said candidate if something minimally interesting is related to him/her, if not, it would be boring, and as someone who's an outsider or oblivious to us politics, given the info i have, i can't just trust any charts someone says.

The link you gave me has Bachmann, Trump, Cruz, etc. among the highest offenders of lies or false statements, while Sanders, Clinton and Obama have very low false or mid-false statuses, does it add that the first bunch are republicans and the last one are democrats, does it also adds that Robert Mann (the author of this chart) is also a democrat, i can't just trust anything one side says over the other, i'm neither in Hillary nor Trump's position as i'm neither a Republican "rightist" or Democrat "leftist", but if you're gonna stay by the facts, then also admit the faults of both.

I can't just stay abide while something  like this exists, that said president pulled over one thousand lies during all of his career, and the chart you gave me, ranks Obama even more honest than Hillary, who do i trust in this?, you tell me.  

P.D: All of what i said is by the stance of someone who's not in the US, never knew an irl person from it, nor it does not know the total practices of this country, so if you detect any information that supposedly, is wrong, then tell me, Internet is a fountain of lies and truths, but i know that politics consists mostly of lies, so all i said is based on the info i found, not in actual experiences nor stances from any people who resides in there.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2016)

Demifiend said:


> The controversies are, as you say, bullshit, but when someone unconnected to politics tries to find info on any of the candidates, the first thing they may cross is the "popular info" which in this case, are controversies, people will spend more time trying to decipher the basis of the controversy rather than actual important info of said candidate. I say that is neither Trump's or Hillary's fault that the controversies for each candidate happened the way it was, but regardless, more people would only be interested in said candidate if something minimally interesting is related to him/her, if not, it would be boring, and as someone who's an outsider or oblivious to us politics, given the info i have, i can't just trust any charts someone says.


The facts speak for themselves.



Demifiend said:


> The link you gave me has Bachmann, Trump, Cruz, etc. among the highest offenders of lies or false statements, while Sanders, Clinton and Obama have very low false or mid-false statuses, does it add that the first bunch are republicans and the last one are democrats, does it also adds that Robert Mann (the author of this chart) is also a democrat, i can't just trust anything one side says over the other, i'm neither in Hillary nor Trump's position as i'm neither a Republican "rightist" or Democrat "leftist", but if you're gonna stay by the facts, then also admit the faults of both.


His political affiliation is irrelevant to the unbiased methodology he used to compile the chart. To argue that a fact cannot be trusted because it makes one side look good and the other side look bad is to ignore perfectly good facts. You don't get to cherry-pick facts in favor of some idealistic ideological balance while simultaneously saying you care about the facts. Whether or not something _feels_ ideologically balanced has no bearing on whether or not that thing is true.



Demifiend said:


> I can't just stay abide while something  like this exists, that said president pulled over one thousand lies during all of his career, and the chart you gave me, ranks Obama even more honest than Hillary, who do i trust in this?, you tell me.


When a source like this cites garbage like a failure to close Guantanamo, something Obama wants to do but cannot because the Republicans are blocking him, or alleged ties to Wall Street that don't exist, as lies, then the source is bullshit. Hell, the source says Obama lied when he said he believed in public education just because he sent his kids to private schools, which is irrelevant to whether or not he believes in public education. It's absolute garbage. If you can't tell the difference between BS political spin and facts, then it's going to be pretty difficult for me to use reason to argue whom you should and shouldn't trust. In other words, I'm not going to bother to help you if you can't bother to put on your thinking cap and help yourself.


----------



## Demifiend (Sep 21, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The facts speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> His political affiliation is irrelevant to the unbiased methodology he used to compile the chart. To argue that a fact cannot be trusted because it makes one side look good and the other side look bad is to ignore perfectly good facts. You don't get to cherry-pick facts in favor of some idealistic ideological balance while simultaneously saying you care about the facts. Whether or not something _feels_ ideologically balanced has no bearing on whether or not that thing is true.
> ...



Read the PD again, all the info i got was on the Internet, i'm foreigner to these kind of threads, how do you want me to know what's real or not when the only sources of information i have regarding that is the Internet, my stance was based on what i got on the most basic (or the first answer google gives me) pages i found, if you could cite sources of true political facts, not only politifacts, but others that gives an in-depth basic analysis, then i have what to work onto, I cannot nor bother to put the "thinking cap" because what i could say may be false or true. 

I'm not looking to fight nor start an argument, i just want to know where i could find trusted information, and Google nor Yahoo aren't exactly helping me there, so in order to have a better grasp of the situation, i would like you to put the best sources you could give me, so i can actually say something truthful.


----------



## Engert (Sep 21, 2016)

Why can't people be aborted .... say .... 20 years after they're born? 

How do we define abortion?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 21, 2016)

Engert said:


> Why can't people be aborted .... say .... 20 years after they're born?
> 
> How do we define abortion?


Out of curiosity, where did that come from?


----------



## Viri (Sep 21, 2016)

Spoiler


----------



## Engert (Sep 21, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Out of curiosity, where did that come from?



Excuse me? I'm not sure I understand your question. 
Also, as a peace-loving man I have another question.
Should public executions become the norm again? 
And a follow up question to that. How do we define "public"? When 1 person is present? 2? 20? 50? 
I mean how do I know when I'm in public?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 21, 2016)

Engert said:


> Excuse me? I'm not sure I understand your question.
> Also, as a peace-loving man I have another question.
> Should public executions become the norm again?
> And a follow up question to that. How do we define "public"? When 1 person is present? 2? 20? 50?
> I mean how do I know when I'm in public?


I mean, I don't mind discussing stuff like that, I'm just trying to figure out what prompted it


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 21, 2016)

using politifact as your only source


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2016)

Engert said:


> Why can't people be aborted .... say .... 20 years after they're born?
> 
> How do we define abortion?


An abortion refers to the intentional termination of a pregnancy. So, aborting an embryo or fetus, by definition, is when you terminate a fetus or embryo before birth.



Engert said:


> Excuse me? I'm not sure I understand your question.
> Also, as a peace-loving man I have another question.
> Should public executions become the norm again?
> And a follow up question to that. How do we define "public"? When 1 person is present? 2? 20? 50?
> I mean how do I know when I'm in public?


There shouldn't be any executions.



Joe88 said:


> using politifact as your only source


I'm not arguing that PolitiFact is perfect. In fact, I have quite a few problems with PolitiFact. They've ironically made some absolute bullshit rulings in an obvious effort to seem ideologically balanced. However, most of what's on the right of your little screen grab doesn't contradict what's on the left. So, for both of these reasons, I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## Engert (Sep 21, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I mean, I don't mind discussing stuff like that, I'm just trying to figure out what prompted it



Umm I'm not sure what you mean.
What prompts any response in this thread?
I'm human too you know? With a $1000 tailored suit.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 21, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm not arguing that PolitiFact is perfect. In fact, I have quite a few problems with PolitiFact. They've ironically made some absolute bullshit rulings in an obvious effort to seem ideologically balanced.


Really? PolitiFact's truly biggest issue is how they decide what constitutes each level in their ranking. But all in all it is pretty accurate and does much better then say FAIR or most fact checking departments of news outlets.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Really? PolitiFact's truly biggest issue is how they decide what constitutes each level in their ranking. But all in all it is pretty accurate and does much better then say FAIR or most fact checking departments of news outlets.


Its ratings are sometimes quite terrible, sometimes rating blatantly true things as half-true or mostly-false. They've also rated blatantly false statements as half-true. These aren't including the ratings that have changed over the years when confronted with the actual evidence.

Edit: Actually, I was mistaken with my last sentence. My example of a false thing being rated half-true was once rated mostly true.


----------



## Engert (Sep 21, 2016)

Can someone prove to me that global warming is caused by humans?
Also once we establish that, can someone put the timescale into perspective please?
What I'd like to know is that if we have 20 more years left, I'm going to make some terrible but fun choices.
Thanks.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 21, 2016)

Engert said:


> Can someone prove to me that global warming is caused by humans?
> Also once we establish that, can someone put the timescale into perspective please?
> What I'd like to know is that if we have 20 more years left, I'm going to make some terrible but fun choices.
> Thanks.


perhaps this would be a good start:


----------



## Engert (Sep 22, 2016)

Thank you. So we should be good for a while.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 22, 2016)

Engert said:


> Can someone prove to me that global warming is caused by humans?
> Also once we establish that, can someone put the timescale into perspective please?
> What I'd like to know is that if we have 20 more years left, I'm going to make some terrible but fun choices.
> Thanks.







https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/simulated-global-temperature-change-0


----------



## Engert (Sep 23, 2016)

After the Cold War, the global goal is now to create one people where everybody is happy and they get along and everyone is gender neutral.
How can we accomplish this when people hate their neighbors never mind immigrants coming from third world countries?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 23, 2016)

Engert said:


> After the Cold War, the global goal is now to create one people where everybody is happy and they get along and everyone is gender neutral.
> How can we accomplish this when people hate their neighbors never mind immigrants coming from third world countries?


Da FAWK


----------



## Engert (Sep 24, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Da FAWK



Answer the god damn question using empirical proof with proper definitions !


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 24, 2016)

Engert said:


> After the Cold War, the global goal is now to create one people where everybody is happy and they get along and everyone is gender neutral.
> How can we accomplish this when people hate their neighbors never mind immigrants coming from third world countries?


Experience is the only thing that can cut through hate, unfortunately. That's a great question, and one that I can't answer because I like to think of myself as a pretty tolerant person


----------



## Engert (Sep 24, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Experience is the only thing that can cut through hate, unfortunately. That's a great question, and one that I can't answer because I like to think of myself as a pretty tolerant person



Thank you kind sir.
I this not expect that answer in This thread.


----------



## TiM127 (Sep 26, 2016)

Other: Evacuate the country and pray to God that Trump or Hillary doesn't start World War III


----------



## FeverishJackal (Sep 27, 2016)

Only the best can start a World War


----------



## BurningDesire (Sep 27, 2016)

^ is what tonight's debate looked like.


----------



## Viri (Sep 27, 2016)

Wow, that was fucking awful. They both did terribad.


----------



## Katsumi San (Sep 27, 2016)

BurningDesire said:


> View attachment 64100
> ^ is what tonight's debate looked like.


Hmm American is want ignorant racist or deceiving crook? Choice is not become easy thing...


----------



## BurningDesire (Sep 27, 2016)

Katsumi San said:


> Hmm American is want ignorant racist or deceiving crook? Choice is not become easy thing...


I'm not tying to be rude but I can't understand that sentence xD too broken5me


----------



## Katsumi San (Sep 27, 2016)

BurningDesire said:


> I'm not tying to be rude but I can't understand that sentence xD too broken5me


Is okay! I use google translation.


----------



## BurningDesire (Sep 27, 2016)

Katsumi San said:


> Is okay! I use google translation.


Oh haha. That explains why


----------



## Katsumi San (Sep 27, 2016)

I only comment because I see live tv debate. I do not understand many thing they are say. Hmm... good luck to whoever is best talking person?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

Katsumi San said:


> Hmm American is want ignorant racist or deceiving crook? Choice is not become easy thing...


I would argue that Clinton wasn't deceiving in the debate, but the whole thing was hard to watch. She let him get away with a lot.


----------



## Monado_III (Sep 27, 2016)

After hearing about the mess that was the debate, I'm soooo happy I live in the great white north.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 27, 2016)

Katsumi San said:


> Hmm American is want ignorant racist or deceiving crook? Choice is not become easy thing...





BurningDesire said:


> I'm not tying to be rude but I can't understand that sentence xD too broken5me


I'm assuming it should be something along the lines of
"Hmm... Americans either want an ignorant racist or a deceiving crook? It's a difficult choice between those options..."

Edit: Also, I think we can all agree that the clear loser of that debate was Lester Holt himself (the moderator). He just let Trump walk all over him.
Trump sounded like a second grader telling a classmate off. I don't remember the exact quotes, but the ones that come to mind were something like "These commercials she's putting out, they're not saying very nice things about me. She's not being very nice," and "I could have said some really nasty things about her and her family, but I didn't"
Clinton sounded very prepared, though.

It should also be mentioned that I listened to this on the radio and had absolutely no visuals on it whatsoever, so I can't say anything about how the two looked


----------



## Supster131 (Sep 27, 2016)

This is what we get for not voting for Bernie Sanders. We get a criminal and an idiot fighting like little children.


----------



## Katsumi San (Sep 27, 2016)

Hmm...


TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm assuming it should be something along the lines of
> "Hmm... Americans either want an ignorant racist or a deceiving crook? It's a difficult choice between those options...



If this correct structure then thank you very much kind person!


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

I am sorry but it is damn scary that one of them will lead us. Neither one of them would honstly be very good.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 27, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> This is what we get for not voting for Bernie Sanders. We get a criminal and an idiot fighting like little children.


I... yeah, I agree with you. I was definitely a Sanders supporter and will still be eternally <WTF Jackie Chan face>ing in regards to why he was not the Democratic nominee

However, that said, we have to make do with the options we have. And all things said and done, the negative stigma surrounding Clinton has been blown WAY out of proportion.

In short, is she my ideal pick? Hell no. Is she my preferred pick from the options we have? Hell yes.


----------



## Supster131 (Sep 27, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I... yeah, I agree with you. I was definitely a Sanders supporter and will still be eternally <WTF Jackie Chan face>ing in regards to why he was not the Democratic nominee
> 
> However, that said, we have to make do with the options we have. And all things said and done, the negative stigma surrounding Clinton has been blown WAY out of proportion.
> 
> In short, is she my ideal pick? Hell no. Is she my preferred pick from the options we have? Hell yes.


Unfortunately, that's where my opinion differs from yours. I was also a Sanders, but I kind of lean towards Trump. I understand, some of her negative stigma has been blown of proportion, but where did they come from? They came from the shady shit she has done. I didn't really want to support Trump, but I would rather take an idiot over a criminal.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> This is what we get for not voting for Bernie Sanders. We get a criminal and an idiot fighting like little children.


One has to first commit a crime to be considered a criminal.


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 27, 2016)

Glad I didn't watch the debate, I'm not voting for either one for reasons that I will abstain elaborating for.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Glad I didn't watch the debate, I'm not voting for either one for reasons that I will abstain elaborating for.


And I respect you for that very much.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 27, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> Unfortunately, that's where my opinion differs from yours. I was also a Sanders, but I kind of lean towards Trump. I understand, some of her negative stigma has been blown of proportion, but where did they come from? They came from the shady shit she has done. I didn't really want to support Trump, but I would rather take an idiot over a criminal.


Eh... it would seem as though there's a video you need to watch, because as always John Oliver can say things so much better than I can:


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 27, 2016)

SHILLacius said:


> How dare you don't support our führer, Hillary Clinton!



*Shrug* I personally couldn't care less about either candidate 



SHILLacius said:


> But John Oliver is stupid because he dared to say that Hillary made bad decisions in that video!
> 
> Hillary is perfect! She has never made any mistakes, and she never will!



Okay, it was kinda cute to be like this with Hillary that and Hillary this, but it's starting to get a little old. Neither candidate is perfect, but you can stop with the her being perfect bit, please? Pretty please with sugar on top? It's starting to kinda freak me out a bit.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Eh... it would seem as though there's a video you need to watch, because as always John Oliver can say things so much better than I can:



Sad part is that describes lesser of the evils. Regardless I just hope people realize that they can vote for other options.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Sad part is that describes lesser of the evils. Regardless I just hope people realize that they can vote for other options.


I'm glad that there are other options for other people, but honestly Clinton aligns most with my views anyway, particularly in terms of disability status and recognition. For instance, I'm not a fan of the fact that Stein is supportive of the anti-vaccination movement in any form


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm glad that there are other options for other people, but honestly Clinton aligns most with my views anyway, particularly in terms of disability status and recognition. For instance, I'm not a fan of the fact that Stein is supportive of the anti-vaccination movement in any form


http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/

But regardless if you most agree with Clinton and vote for her because of that then ok. I do however have a problem with people who act as if the big 2 are the ONLY canidates and that said candidates are entitled to your vote.


----------



## The Cringe (Sep 27, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Stein is supportive of the anti-vaccination movement in any form


Not true.

http://www.jill2016.com/baseless_anti_vax_attacks_against_dr_jill_stein_distract_from_concerns


----------



## Lord M (Sep 27, 2016)

The World War III It is already in progress, under the aspect of politics and false democracy. 
Wake up folks >_>


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
> 
> But regardless if you most agree with Clinton and vote for her because of that then ok. I do however have a problem with people who act as if the big 2 are the ONLY canidates and that said candidates are entitled to your vote.


... interesting. I guess I need to tune my news sources a bit finer


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 27, 2016)

Other than the obvious biased moderator, it was interesting debate.
Trump came out strong early on in the first half but clinton had the advantage in the second half.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Sad part is that describes lesser of the evils. Regardless I just hope people realize that they can vote for other options.


The lesser of two evils is still less evil, although I wouldn't call Clinton remotely analogous to evil.



RevPokemon said:


> http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
> 
> But regardless if you most agree with Clinton and vote for her because of that then ok. I do however have a problem with people who act as if the big 2 are the ONLY canidates and that said candidates are entitled to your vote.


She's still anti-vaccine to a degree. She had peddled some debunked nonsense about mercury in vaccines, she has advocated for parental choice with regard to childhood vaccinations, which is a terrible idea, and she consistently panders to the anti-vaccination crowd. Regardless of whether or not we want to call that _anti-vaccine_, it's enough to demonstrate poor judgment on her part.



Joe88 said:


> Trump came out strong early on in the first half but clinton had the advantage in the second half.


That sounds about right. My belief is that, in an effort to rise above the fray and not come off as hostile, Clinton allowed a lot of his nonsense by. She had several openings for some pretty good zingers that she didn't take (and some that she did), and it was sometimes frustrating to watch.

Regardless though, after everything's said and done, Clinton appears to have come out the victor after the debate, with a CNN poll saying 62% of people thought she was the winner. These kinds of polls have historically been pretty accurate with regard to predicting immediate future bumps in the election polls, and she's apparently won by the third-largest margin since this kind of polling has existed. For context, Hillary's margin of victory here is comparable to but not as large as Romney's victory after his first debate with President Obama.


----------



## Zyteus (Sep 27, 2016)

Gary Johnson. I greatly dislike both Trump and Clinton and not voting at all is the same as voting for them. So I will vote against them, even though one of them is going to win, just to say I lowered their chance at winning, even though it is only by a minuscule amount.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The lesser of two evils is still less evil, although I wouldn't call Clinton remotely analogous to evil.


It depends but in the terminology you could say if you think said candidate will do harm to your country then you could describe that as "evil" although it is subjective



Lacius said:


> She's still anti-vaccine to a degree. She had peddled some debunked nonsense about mercury in vaccines, she has advocated for parental choice with regard to childhood vaccinations, which is a terrible idea, and she consistently panders to the anti-vaccination crowd. Regardless of whether or not we want to call that _anti-vaccine_, it's enough to demonstrate poor judgment on her part.


For what it is worth same for Clinton who previously stated they could be an environmental cause of autism although she changed positions and association with Mark Hyman.



Lacius said:


> That sounds about right. My belief is that, in an effort to rise above the fray and not come off as hostile, Clinton allowed a lot of his nonsense by. She had several openings for some pretty good zingers that she didn't take (and some that she did), and it was sometimes frustrating to watch.
> 
> Regardless though, after everything's said and done, Clinton appears to have come out the victor after the debate, with a CNN poll saying 62% of people thought she was the winner. These kinds of polls have historically been pretty accurate with regard to predicting immediate future bumps in the election polls, and she's apparently won by the third-largest margin since this kind of polling has existed. For context, Hillary's margin of victory here is comparable to but not as large as Romney's victory after his first debate with President Obama.


The CNN poll was overly Democrats but the numbers sound about right and it should help her or at least hurt Trump. Regardless I thought it was all in all an awful debate.



Zyteus said:


> Gary Johnson. I greatly dislike both Trump and Clinton and not voting at all is the same as voting for them. So I will vote against them, even though one of them is going to win, just to say I lowered their chance at winning, even though it is only by a minuscule amount.


*Sees this*
*hugs*


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Regardless though, after everything's said and done, Clinton appears to have come out the victor after the debate, with a CNN poll saying 62% of people thought she was the winner. These kinds of polls have historically been pretty accurate with regard to predicting immediate future bumps in the election polls, and she's apparently won by the third-largest margin since this kind of polling has existed. For context, Hillary's margin of victory here is comparable to but not as large as Romney's victory after his first debate with President Obama.



Of course she won when they sampled 15% more democrats than republicans







http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/27/poll.pdf


Trump also won every other online poll but again none of these polls mean anything


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> Of course she won when they sampled 15% more democrats than republicans
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most of those sources are very biased


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> For what it is worth same for Clinton who previously stated they could be an environmental cause of autism although she changed positions and association with Mark Hyman.


Regardless, she's the only candidate now whom I would describe as _pro-vaccine_.



RevPokemon said:


> The CNN poll was overly Democrats but the numbers sound about right and it should help her or at least hurt Trump.





Joe88 said:


> Of course she won when they sampled 15% more democrats than republicans


The CNN poll was, however, a representative sample of likely voters, so it doesn't matter. To make the polling group equally Democratic and equally Republican is to skew the data. That's not how polling works because you need a random sample. In other words, the respondents were disproportionately Democratic-identifying because the country is disproportionately Democratic-identifying. This is a non-issue.

Edit: This issue you've brought up is the entire premise of the Unskewed Polls movement back in 2012 (in summary, Republicans didn't like that all the polling data showing Obama ahead included more Democrats than Republicans, so they tweaked the data to show what the polling would be if it were 50/50 Democrats and Republicans). It was hilarious and a demonstration of a fundamental misunderstanding of how polls work.

Edit x2: @Joe88, self-selection polls like the ones you listed are also pointless and are more of an indicator of the views of one's audience rather than the general public.


----------



## ov3rkill (Sep 27, 2016)

Trump because of his wig, hot daughter and wife. haha. j/k
I'm not American. I guess it boils down to who's the lesser evil.


----------



## banjo2 (Sep 27, 2016)

I'd vote for Evan McMullin, and it seems i'm all alone here. A little .2 percent. 1 vote.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

banjo2 said:


> I'd vote for Evan McMullin, and it seems i'm all alone here. A little .2 percent. 1 vote.


In all fairness, I only added him to the poll a few days ago when he attained ballot access to 270+ electoral votes. He might be more popular than 0.2% on GBATemp, and he's at about 1% nationwide according to a single poll from August.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> In all fairness, I only added him to the poll a few days ago when he attained ballot access to 270+ electoral votes. He might be more popular than 0.2% on GBATemp, and he's at about 1% nationwide according to a single poll from August.


Most polling I have seen nationally has him around Castle level, BUT he is doing great in Utah (around Johnson level) since he is from the state, is mormon, went to BYU, and is by far more conservative than my boy Gary Johnson.


----------



## banjo2 (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> In all fairness, I only added him to the poll a few days ago when he attained ballot access to 270+ electoral votes. He might be more popular than 0.2% on GBATemp, and he's at about 1% nationwide according to a single poll from August.


In other words, it's 5 times more in actual votes then in GBATemp?


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

banjo2 said:


> In other words, it's 5 times more in actual votes then in GBATemp?


Well when other is an option that makes sense.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2016)

banjo2 said:


> In other words, it's 5 times more in actual votes then in GBATemp?


Possibly? There isn't much polling on him, so it's hard to know where he really stands. It's not good to go off a single poll, particularly one from August. GBATemp also isn't representative of the United States for various reasons, and the results will differ from the general public.


----------



## RevPokemon (Sep 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Possibly? There isn't much polling on him, so it's hard to know where he really stands. It's not good to go off a single poll, particularly one from August. GBATemp also isn't representative of the United States for various reasons, and the results will differ from the general public.


Well for what it is worth his big shot or claim to fame would be if he affects Utah and that is really the only thing that matters for him to be honest.


----------



## Viri (Sep 28, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Most polling I have seen nationally has him around Castle level, BUT he is doing great in Utah (around Johnson level) since he is from the state, is mormon, went to BYU, and is by far more conservative than my boy Gary Johnson.


I don't even like Gary Johnson, but part of me wanted him to get the 15% and join the debate, just to throw a wrench into everything, and make the debates far more entertaining.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2016)

So last night's VP debate was spectacularly disappointing


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 5, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So last night's VP debate was spectacularly disappointing


How is that so?


----------



## Bubbysaur (Oct 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> How is that so?



They didn't even go into anything important. They just spoke above each other and spoke more about their running mates than they did about themselves and what THEY would do to help their running mates. It was a shit storm. Hell, the moderator couldn't even moderate properly to keep everything in check.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 5, 2016)

Bubbysaur said:


> They didn't even go into anything important. They just spoke above each other and spoke more about their running mates than they did about themselves and what THEY would do to help their running mates. It was a shit storm. Hell, the moderator couldn't even moderate properly to keep everything in check.


True but regardless historicly VP debates really do not change the election out comes that much compared to the presidential debates. Regardless I do feel that as a whole they were not very good as Pence just kept acting as if Trump had not said those things while Kaine keep pressing on it and got flustered.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2016)

Bubbysaur said:


> They didn't even go into anything important. They just spoke above each other and spoke more about their running mates than they did about themselves and what THEY would do to help their running mates. It was a shit storm. Hell, the moderator couldn't even moderate properly to keep everything in check.


To her credit, she did try


RevPokemon said:


> True but regardless historicly VP debates really do not change the election out comes that much compared to the presidential debates. Regardless I do feel that as a whole they were not very good as Pence just kept acting as if Trump had not said those things while Kaine keep pressing on it and got flustered.


This time around had the opportunity to change that, though, granted that some people seem to think that Clinton will be impeached and it would appear as though Trump will just be a figurehead for whatever his VP wants to do


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 5, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> This time around had the opportunity to change that, though, granted that some people seem to think that Clinton will be impeached


Though that does not appear likely at all and if you did believe that than either way I doubt you would like Kaine.




TotalInsanity4 said:


> Trump will just be a figurehead for whatever his VP wants to do


Considering how a good bit of his ideas were against the GOP plank and how he has been so vocal about his idea, I doubt he will just sit and let Pence run the show.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Though that does not appear likely at all and if you did believe that than either way I doubt you would like Kaine.


I totally agree


> Considering how a good bit of his ideas were against the GOP plank and how he has been so vocal about his idea, I doubt he will just sit and let Pence run the show.


You'd think so, wouldn't you?


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 5, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You'd think so, wouldn't you?


The question is however if this is true or if it is something the Trump campaign said or attempted to do in order to win over conservatives and right leaning independents who are skeptical of Trump since "Pence will work out the policy for me so no worries"?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The question is however if this is true or if it is something the Trump campaign said or attempted to do in order to win over conservatives and right leaning independents who are skeptical of Trump since "Pence will work out the policy for me so no worries"?


Except that was a private conversation between Donald Jr. and the Kasich campaign


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 5, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Except that was a private conversation between Donald Jr. and the Kasich campaign


Consider that 

Team Kasich was not on the best terms with Team Trump at the particular moment.
Coming from the King of BS, it is very likely he could have been BSing him to get him on board.
People from the Trump team denounce the idea. I am not saying they are right or that it never happened but it makes you think.

Anyway I really am not sure if it is true but hell anything could have happened knowing how big of a spaz Trump is.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 5, 2016)

I was disappointed with the vice presidential debate for the following reasons:

Kaine didn't do a great job. While he definitely won on policy, his whole demeanor was awkward and unpolished. The interruptions didn't help, and he repeated the same rehearsed talking points over and over in a similar way Marco Rubio did during the primary season.
Pence came off as polished and sincere.
Nobody called out Pence on his extreme social conservatism, and nobody mentioned the anti-LGBT Religious Freedom Restoration Act fiasco that Pence handled so poorly.
Regardless, the debate is not going to make a difference.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 6, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Nobody called out Pence on his extreme social conservatism, and nobody mentioned the anti-LGBT Religious Freedom Restoration Act fiasco that Pence handled so poorly.


I feel in alot of ways that was Kaine's fault as there were a good amount of times that I felt it could have been mentioned and would have made a good point. Although I would say that in many ways Pence did come off as very socially conservative in the abortion part in such of a way it would only be natural to assume that he was not very LGBT friendly.



Lacius said:


> Regardless, the debate is not going to make a difference.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vice-presidential-debate-2016-influence-on-elections/ and when added to this http://www.wsj.com/articles/vice-presidential-debate-ratings-may-be-lowest-since-2000-1475695802 really makes that so.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Oct 6, 2016)

I found it disappointing as well. I have no choice but to support Hillary as she is a major candidate, but primarily I'm for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. 

Tim Kaine was annoying, he was always annoying, I didn't like how he spoke in the debate. 
Pence, well, just repeated Trump's words just like Kaine repeated Hillary's words. 

Both just argued like kids, lol.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 6, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> I found it disappointing as well. I have no choice but to support Hillary as she is a major candidate, but primarily I'm for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
> 
> Tim Kaine was annoying, he was always annoying, I didn't like how he spoke in the debate.
> Pence, well, just repeated Trump's words just like Kaine repeated Hillary's words.
> ...


Yeah. Basically just that especially when it came to abortion. Just be luck you don't vote for either of them as you are in snow Mexico


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 6, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> I have no choice but to support Hillary as she is a major candidate, but primarily I'm for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.


You always have a choice.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 6, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> You always have a choice.


He is from Canada tho


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 6, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> He is from Camada tho


Good point...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 6, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> He is from Camada tho


Not to mention below legal voting age


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 6, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Not to mention below legal voting age


First off, sorry bout the spelling error (damn you droid phone) but I thought CTO was over 18 and was in university in Canada?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 6, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> First off, sorry bout the spelling error (damn you droid phone) but I thought CTO was over 18 and was in university in Canada?


I guess I just assumed he was a little younger than me, I guess he might be over 18 though

Yo @ComeTurismO are you older than 18?


----------



## ComeTurismO (Oct 6, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I guess I just assumed he was a little younger than me, I guess he might be over 18 though
> 
> Yo @ComeTurismO are you older than 18?





RevPokemon said:


> Yeah. Basically just that especially when it came to abortion. Just be luck you don't vote for either of them as you are in snow Mexico


Ah, I am in Canada and turning 17 in about 10 days, but still was talking about who to support for the next presidency. After all, both of us nations are major trading partners!


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 6, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> Ah, I am in Canada and turning 17 in about 10 days, but still was talking about who to support for the next presidency. After all, both of us nations are major trading partners!


Yup you give us maple syrup and hockey sticks while we give you guys cars and good TV shows. Also next US election we may have a Canadian as president!


----------



## ComeTurismO (Oct 6, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Yup you give us maple syrup and hockey sticks while we give you guys cars and good TV shows. Also next US election we may have a Canadian as president!


not to mention the primary resources:


lumber

fish

agricultural products

energy

the things we mine 

american culture is all reflected in my city.. I don't see much Canadian-things going on, it's all American stuff.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 7, 2016)

179 Donald Trump votes, seems tempers are more right than left, don't tell pingpong though as that jeremy corbyn wanna be will come and close the thread.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 7, 2016)

shamzie said:


> 179 Donald Trump votes, seems tempers are more right than left, don't tell pingpong though as that jeremy corbyn wanna be will come and close the thread.


Many of them are toll/lulz votes and also made by non Americans. Plus if GBATemp was that conservative then why would Stein have such high numbers?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 7, 2016)

shamzie said:


> 179 Donald Trump votes, seems tempers are more right than left, don't tell pingpong though as that jeremy corbyn wanna be will come and close the thread.


I can assure you @p1ngpong has no issue with the conservative threads, he just has issues with the uninformed/hate-fueled commentary that tends to follow them


----------



## pokemonster (Oct 7, 2016)

You can stop the trump


----------



## Lacius (Oct 7, 2016)

shamzie said:


> 179 Donald Trump votes, seems tempers are more right than left, don't tell pingpong though as that jeremy corbyn wanna be will come and close the thread.


There are also 110 votes for _Other_, which includes a lot of Bernie Sanders fans who don't know the difference between a primary election and a general election.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I can assure you @p1ngpong has no issue with the conservative threads, he just has issues with the uninformed/hate-fueled commentary that tends to follow them



I would have agreed with you until he mentioned Alex Jones and info-wars which in my opinion shows a clear political bias and tends to suggest if you disagree, the thread gets locked.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 7, 2016)

shamzie said:


> I would have agreed with you until he mentioned Alex Jones and info-wars which in my opinion shows a clear political bias and tends to suggest if you disagree, the thread gets locked.


Info Wars is bullshit



Lacius said:


> There are also 110 votes for _Other_, which includes a lot of Bernie Sanders fans who don't know the difference between a primary election and a general election.


Or also as I stated for people who can not vote due to age or nationality yet still comment on this thread. Likewise many who can't vote have selected one of the 6 candidates.


----------



## Viri (Oct 7, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Info Wars is bullshit


I did laugh when Info wars ambushed The Young Turks. That was some pretty funny shit.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> There are also 110 votes for _Other_, which includes a lot of Bernie Sanders fans who don't know the difference between a primary election and a general election.


When did the Democratic National Convention take place (where the Goddess that you worship officially became the nominee)?


Spoiler



July 25-July 29


When did you make this thread?


Spoiler


----------



## Lacius (Oct 7, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> When did the Democratic National Convention take place (where the Goddess that you worship officially became the nominee)?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


First, Clinton secured the nomination long before I posted this thread. Second, people have the ability to change their votes.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Second, people have the ability to change their votes.


Just like the delegates at the convention, which is why her nomination was not completely secured at that point (thus disproving the first claim in your response).


----------



## Viri (Oct 7, 2016)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

Buhahahahahahahahahaha! Mien sides!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 7, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Just like the delegates at the convention, which is why her nomination was not completely secured at that point (thus disproving the first claim in your response).


Could the superdelegates have changed their votes? Sure, but I'm not concerned with blatant denial and idealistic BS. Clinton was the presumptive nominee with majorities in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and superdelegates when I made this poll. At the time this thread was posted, Sanders would have needed 508 out of Clinton's 545 superdelegates to flip, and it's idiotic to think that was at all a realistic possibility. All of that aside, there's also no precedent for the Democratic superdelegates to go against the winner of the pledged delegates and/or popular vote.

You seem to be forgetting that I voted for Sanders in the primary. However, I'm able to see it when a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee.


----------



## Viri (Oct 7, 2016)

Super delegates in any party is bullshit, and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. All parties should agree to never use that shit.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 7, 2016)

Viri said:


> Super delegates in any party is bullshit, and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. All parties should agree to never use that shit.


I'm in complete agreement. There's no reason for them to exist.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, Clinton secured the nomination long before I posted this thread.


Of course she has, we know that from the DNC leaks, and we know how she did it. It just wasn't very democratic - ironic, considering she's a democratic party candidate.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 7, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course she has, we know that from the DNC leaks, and we know how she did it. It just wasn't very democratic - ironic, considering she's a democratic party candidate.


We know from the DNC leaks that nothing was done to tilt the election in Clinton's favor, despite the pro-Clinton views of some people.


----------



## The Cringe (Oct 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We know from the DNC leaks that nothing was done to tilt the election in Clinton's favor, despite the pro-Clinton views of some people.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 7, 2016)

The Cringe said:


> View attachment 65359


Can you articulate a single thing the DNC did, aside maybe from the debate schedule, that had a tangible effect on the primary in Clinton's favor?


----------



## netovsk (Oct 7, 2016)

Trump is a con, a fraud, it is so obvious that if he gets elected he will have to face reality and go back on most promises he made or lead US into total disaster.

Hillary is a drone fueled by foreign, anti-american and globalist interests.

Me and everyone in the world who loves and admire your country wish you people from US had not chosen the two absolute worst candidates from each party, but somehow you did.

That being, if I were an US citizen I would vote for Gary Johnson.

About "making america great again" america is great now. One of the greatest GDP per capita in the world, one of the best human development index ratings, you lead innovation, you own almost every intellectual property and brand that actually matters, microsoft, hollywood, ford, apple, google, coca-cola, tesla, nasa, valve , you dominate music and you're leading the way into renewable energy sources, if US isn't great now, I don't know what being great is.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We know from the DNC leaks that nothing was done to tilt the election in Clinton's favor, despite the pro-Clinton views of some people.


I thought being disingenuous was my shtick? The anti-Sanders bias is pretty clear in the emails, he was attacked in numerous ways, from the way he ran his campaign to personal attacks, for instance on the grounds of his atheism. The leak also exposed the fact that the seat arrangement in government is highly dependant on the size of your donations to "the cause" rather than on the quality of your rethoric, like it should be. The whole convention turned out to be a shit show everyone knew it was, saying that nothing was done to tilt the scales against Sanders is silly when the anti-Bernie sentiment is blatantly obvious. Clinton's own lawyer was advising the DNC on what actions they should take against him. They issued an official apology to Sanders once all this came to light and five heads rolled because of this leak, there's no reason to pretend that the cards weren't stacked against Sanders from the start.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/

Mind you, I don't think Sanders was a good candidate and I'd rather see the Devil himself take the seat of POTUS, but at the very least I can see shennanigans were going on.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 8, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I thought being disingenuous was my shtick? The anti-Sanders bias is pretty clear in the emails, he was attacked in numerous ways, from the way he ran his campaign to personal attacks, for instance on the grounds of his atheism. The leak also exposed the fact that the seat arrangement in government is highly dependant on the size of your donations to "the cause" rather than on the quality of your rethoric, like it should be. The whole convention turned out to be a shit show everyone knew it was, saying that nothing was done to tilt the scales against Sanders is silly when the anti-Bernie sentiment is something blatant. Clinton's own lawyer was advising the DNC on what actions they should take against him. They issued an official apology to Sanders once all this came to light and five heads rolled because of this leak, there's no reason to pretend that the cards weren't stacked against Sanders from the start.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/


And yet, you articulated nothing substantive that the DNC actually did that tilted things in Clinton's favor. All you mentioned was people privately expressing their opinions, which isn't controversial.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 8, 2016)

netovsk said:


> if US isn't great now, I don't know what being great is.


Being great is having a real democracy, not one that is undermined by multibillion-dollar corporations and the lawmakers that they have in their pockets.

A democracy where anyone who undermines elections (I am looking at you, Hillary Clinton, and those you have strong financial ties with! I am also looking at you Debbie Wasserman Schultz! ) should be charged with treason.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> And yet, you articulated nothing substantive that the DNC actually did that tilted things in Clinton's favor. All you mentioned was people privately expressing their opinions, which isn't controversial.


There is nothing private about exchanging email within an organisation. This kind of activity bears all the signs of character assassination. Do note that part of the stink is also Bernie's complaint about the DNC unevenly distributing their resources to support the campaigns of their two candidates, don't omit facts mentioned by the linked article. Bernie was targeted because he spoke against how the DNC operated - that's why Clinton's lawyer was involved in the first place. The point was saving face of the organisation, but we all know how that worked out.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 8, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> There is nothing private about exchanging email within an organisation.


We wouldn't have seen the emails if they hadn't been leaked. They were, by all definitions, private correspondences. lol



Foxi4 said:


> This kind of activity bears all the signs of character assassination.


Spit-balling hypotheticals and personal views in private isn't controversial. You'll note that nothing that was suggested actually happened. When it comes to the DNC during the primary season, all that's required is that they act impartially. That doesn't mean their private thoughts have to be impartial. To suggest otherwise is to have unrealistic and idealistic standards.



Foxi4 said:


> Do note that part of the stink is also Bernie's complaint about the DNC unevenly distributing their resources to support the campaigns of their two candidates, don't omit facts mentioned by the linked article. Bernie was targeted because he spoke against how the DNC operated - that's why Clinton's lawyer was involved in the first place. The point was saving face of the organisation, but we all know how that worked out.


Like I've already said, while some of the leaks don't look good, they don't demonstrate any wrongdoing. This idea that Sanders was somehow cheated out of the nomination is garbage. The same people were spewing the same nonsense even before the email leaks, and they became a weak justification for the thing they already believed without any evidence.

tl;dr You haven't shown us any actions the DNC took that tipped the scale in Clinton's favor.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We wouldn't have seen the emails if they hadn't been leaked. They were, by all definitions, private correspondences. lol
> 
> Spit-balling hypotheticals and personal views in private isn't controversial. You'll note that nothing that was suggested actually happened. When it comes to the DNC during the primary season, all that's required is that they act impartially. That doesn't mean their private thoughts have to be impartial. To suggest otherwise is to have unrealistic and idealistic standards.
> 
> ...


A conversation taken at work, on company servers, regarding work, is not private - it's a conversation between employees, not private individuals. It's "private" in the sense that it's not on public record, that's not the definition we're talking about though. Work-related correspondence is not someone's private musings - it's work. If employees are discussing the course of action the whole group should take in response to something and make suggestions regarding issues, it's part of their work, not water cooler chit-chat. It's the digital equivalent of going to the conference room.

If that's your interpretation of events, that's fine by me - you're free to think that. I find the records suspicious, and if the members of the DNC were so brazen in their emails, I can only imagine what they were talking about in actual private conversations, outside of the DNC infrastructure.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 8, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> A conversation taken at work, on company servers, regarding work, is not private - it's a conversation between employees, not private individuals. It's "private" in the sense that it's not on public record, that's not the definition we're talking about though. Work-related correspondence is not someone's private musings - it's work.


As a teacher, I'm supposed to act impartially to my students, regardless of whether or not I dislike some of them. That doesn't mean I can't talk to other teachers about students we don't like. It might be a conversation taken at work, it might be a conversation regarding work, and the conversation might under some circumstances even be in poor taste, but it does have an expectation of privacy. It also doesn't mean I can't do my job and act impartially, even if some of my students are real jerks.

If, hypothetically, hackers got into the school emails and leaked to parents some emails about students I dislike, that would be embarrassing and wouldn't look good. That doesn't mean I did anything wrong other than having a conversation in a way that had the potential to become public. The actual thoughts and conversations are not controversial, and to say otherwise would be to condemn people for thought crimes.

Your view of the situation is way off, and I'm disappointed.



Foxi4 said:


> If that's your interpretation of events, that's fine by me - you're free to think that. I find the records suspicious, and if the members of the DNC were so brazen in their emails, I can only imagine what they were talking about in actual private conversations, outside of the DNC infrastructure.


It's not just my interpretation that there's apparently no evidence of any action taken by the DNC that titled things in Clinton's favor. It's a fact.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> As a teacher, I'm supposed to act impartially to my students, regardless of whether or not I dislike some of them. That doesn't mean I can't talk to other teachers about students we don't like. It might be a conversation taken at work, it might be a conversation regarding work, and the conversation might under some circumstances even be in poor taste, but it does have an expectation of privacy. It also doesn't mean I can't do my job and act impartially, even if some of my students are real jerks.
> 
> If, hypothetically, hackers got into the school emails and leaked to parents some emails about students I dislike, that would be embarrassing and wouldn't look good. That doesn't mean I did anything wrong other than having a conversation in a way that had the potential to become public. The actual thoughts and conversations are not controversial, and to say otherwise would be to condemn people of thought crimes.
> 
> Your view of the situation is way off, and I'm disappointed.


As a teacher you're not supposed to like or dislike your students and commenting on your personal feelings regarding your pupils that is in no way related to teaching them is highly unprofessional, especially if it entails a waste of company resources, in this case misusing the email server to exchange "private" correspondence. That's not what the school's email server is for.

If the hackers released an email chain of teachers targeting specific students, criticising them and expressing personal bias against them, I would expect the school to fire each and every one of them because making moral judgments on the students is not part of your job description. You're not being paid to discuss your personal feelings during work time - it's theft of time, and time is in this case money.

Unless the student's behaviour is directly affecting the classroom and impeding your ability to teach them, other students or both, and you need advice from other teachers or want to make a coordinated effort to correct the behaviour, you have no business discussing your personal feelings about them with other teachers - if you want to, do it after work, over some coffee.


> It's not just my interpretation that there's apparently no evidence of any action taken by the DNC that titled things in Clinton's favor. It's a fact.


Sure.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 8, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> As a teacher you're not supposed to like or dislike your students and commenting on your personal feelings regarding your pupils that is in no way related to teaching them is highly unprofessional, especially if it entails a waste of company resources, in this case misusing the email server to exchange "private" correspondence. If the metaphorical hackers released an email chain of teachers targeting specific students, criticising them and expressing personal bias against them, I would expect the school to fire each and every one of them because making moral judgments of the students is not part of your job description and discussing you're not being paid to discuss your personal feelings during work time - it's theft of time. Unless the student's behaviour is directly affecting the classroom and impeding your ability to teach them, other students or both, you have no business discussing your personal feelings about them with other teachers - if you want to, do it after work, over some coffee.


I agree with what you said... about the use of school email. Other than that, your post demonstrates a fundamental disconnect from reality. Teachers are going to like and dislike some students more than others. No teacher would argue otherwise. Some students are sociopathic jerks. Others are exceptionally polite. Teachers do, however, have a responsibility to act impartially, which the DNC apparently did.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> your post demonstrates a fundamental disconnect from reality





grossaffe said:


> Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I agree with what you said... about the use of school email. Other than that, your post demonstrates a fundamental disconnect from reality. Teachers are going to like and dislike some students more than others. No teacher would argue otherwise. Some students are sociopathic jerks. Others are exceptionally polite. Teachers do, however, have a responsibility to act impartially, which the DNC apparently did.


I know that, I taught IT and English in a primary during my studies as part of Work Experience. My point wasn't that teachers don't have feelings or personal bias, my point is that they shouldn't be vocal about them - a teacher is supposed to be an impartial arbiter. If you want to discuss those matters, discuss them in private, outside of your workplace. It's still unprofessional, but at least it's not a misuse of company resources and time.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 8, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I know that, I taught IT and English in a primary during my studies as part of Work Experience. My point wasn't that teachers don't have feelings or personal bias, my point is that they shouldn't be vocal about them - a teacher is supposed to be an impartial arbiter.


So you admit that your problem is with the fact that these people in the DNC said in email what they were thinking, not with the fact that they thought it or that they allegedly did something to tip the scale?


----------



## CrazySka (Oct 8, 2016)

Alright alright.. back on topic  please


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> So you admit that your problem is with the fact that these people in the DNC said in email what they were thinking, not with the fact that they thought it or that they allegedly did something to tip the scale?


We were discussing the school analogy, not the DNC emails, we've departed from that. The emails clearly show that some members of the convention were looking for ways to discredit the Sanders campaign, that was the explicit goal, and it's clear wrong-doing. To make another analogy, "it's not murder, it's just conspiracy to murder". The DNC is supposed to support its candidates, not cut them down. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case judging by the leaked emails.


CrazySka said:


> Alright alright.. back on topic  please


Acknowledged.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 8, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> We were discussing the school analogy, not the DNC emails, we've departed from that. The emails clearly show that some members of the convention were looking for ways to discredit the Sanders campaign, that was the explicit goal, and it's clear wrong-doing. To make another analogy, "it's not murder, it's just conspiracy to murder". The DNC is supposed to support its candidates, not cut them down. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case judging by the leaked emails.


Your analogy is flawed when hypothetical opposition research is politics. They didn't act on it.


----------



## Viri (Oct 10, 2016)

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465

Wew lass


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 10, 2016)

Love how he baits the msm to ctr.

Bill wasnt too happy tonight...


----------



## Viri (Oct 10, 2016)

https://www.bleachbit.org/ Hmmm, notice anything? Looks like they're loving the attention.


----------



## netovsk (Oct 10, 2016)

Viri said:


> https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465
> 
> Wew lass



Get it print screened for the sake of american history.


----------



## Viri (Oct 10, 2016)

Spoiler









 Trump: It's not
Media: Yeah, but it literally COULD be!


----------



## netovsk (Oct 10, 2016)

I wonder why US media like CNN for instance is so precise and unbiased when it comes to reporting certain foreign matters and then when it comes to US politics, this.


----------



## Tigran (Oct 10, 2016)

Because they want ratings... and if they make it close they get more viewers.. so they get more cash.

News Programs and News Channels should not have any commercials, thus don't have to worry about ratings, thus can be more objective.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 10, 2016)

Tigran said:


> Because they want ratings... and if they make it close they get more viewers.. so they get more cash.
> 
> News Programs and News Channels should not have any commercials, thus don't have to worry about ratings, thus can be more objective.


But the question os how would they make money while staying interest neutral?


----------



## Tigran (Oct 10, 2016)

An independent fund that neither democrats nor republicans can mess with. Make the fund once... and then be like, "Sorry...We can no longer touch this." 

Yeah, never happen, but that would be 1 easy way. there are of course others.


----------



## Engert (Oct 10, 2016)

You know what I love about this election? 
The people who still believe that these so called candidates are about fact checking and being logical.
The American elections are not based on facts or logic, but on passions and impulses, especially in this election. 

It's hilarious seeing questions from the audience about some dead kid in Aleppo when we have American kids dying of hunger or gun violence in poor areas.

The stupid are asking questions for the stupid. 

Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## Tigran (Oct 10, 2016)

Well the problem with the Gun violence in america is that people are -so- afraid of loosing their guns. The NRA has such a stranglehold over everyone it's horrifying.

Even the idea that "Hey.. If you buy a gun from a gun show.. you need to get a background check." is turned around into "Deh tuken mah guuuuuns away!"


----------



## Viri (Oct 10, 2016)




----------



## netovsk (Oct 10, 2016)

After I watched the debate and looked into the repercussion I must admit that I felt very sad, really.

The debate of two people, one of whose is going to be commander in chief of the only superpower left in the world, the most relevant role in earth nowdays revolves around who is grabbing female genitalia and forced intercourse?

Is this the best human race has to offer? How was this allowed to happen? Does it stop or in 2020 are politics going to be M rated?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

netovsk said:


> After I watched the debate and looked into the repercussion I must admit that I felt very sad, really.
> 
> The debate of two people, one of whose is going to be commander in chief of the only superpower left in the world, the most relevant role in earth nowdays revolves around who is grabbing female genitalia and forced intercourse?
> 
> Is this the best human race has to offer? How was this allowed to happen? Does it stop or in 2020 are politics going to be M rated?


The whole story is typical fake outrage over what amounts to gym talk from a decade ago. It's just interference that's supposed to divert attention from the recent Wikileaks release and the other candidate's borderline criminal transgressions. Thank god Donald just wanted to grab pussy, not delete 33,000 of'em or smash'em with a hammer.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The whole story is typical fake outrage over what amounts to gym talk from a decade ago. It's just interference that's supposed to divert attention from the recent Wikileaks release and the other candidate's borderline criminal transgressions. Thank god Donald just wanted to grab pussy, not delete 33,000 of'em or smash'em with a hammer.


See, the problem with that is that the tape finally gives credence to this. So, really, I _would_ be worried about that if I were you

And it should also be mentioned that the emails were in fact supposed to be deleted before the court subpoena, the IT guy just supposedly forgot to do it and has since taken full responsibility. That doesn't make Clinton any less careless with confidential data, but it does indicate that she most likely had no intentions of destroying evidence, as a matter of fact it was more likely in the interest of preserving security by removing already read classified information


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> See, the problem with that is that the tape finally gives credence to this. So, really, I _would_ be worried about that if I were you
> 
> And it should also be mentioned that the emails were in fact supposed to be deleted before the court subpoena, the IT guy just supposedly forgot to do it and has since taken full responsibility. That doesn't make Clinton any less careless with confidential data, but it does indicate that she most likely had no intentions of destroying evidence, as a matter of fact it was more likely in the interest of preserving security by removing already read classified information


Absolutely ridiculous implications. All I see is the Democrats accusing a Republican of thought crime because that's the best they can do - they've ran out of relevant ammunition so they're clinging to shock hit pieces that have nothing to do with policy whatsoever. You're also not going to convince me that the entirety of the department's security was handled by one "dude" that gets his IT tips from Reddit - Hill's tech illiterate staff was deleting data by means of smashing devices with a hammer, and I very much doubt that was official procedure. It's very convenient that almost every laptop, iPad and Blackberry that was confiscated in that investigation was physically destroyed in some way, as if that somehow deletes the files they contain. I don't believe in coincidences like this, I'm not going to pretend that I'm retarded to feel better about a politician. Besides, the emails are just the tip of the iceberg - we'll see what people can find in the Podesta emails which so far shine some light on suspicious dealings regarding Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation from back when Hill was a Secretary of State. Do you see any news on that? No, it's all "grabbing pussy" because it's cheap outrage for mouthbreathers who probably say worse things everyday, and it's ten years out of date.


----------



## Procyon (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Absolutely ridiculous implications. All I see is the Democrats accusing a Republican of thought crime because that's the best they can do - they've ran out of relevant ammunition so they're clinging to shock hit pieces that have nothing to do with policy whatsoever. You're also not going to convince me that the entirety of the department's security was handled by one "dude" that gets his IT tips from Reddit - the entire tech illiterate staff was deleting data by means of smashing devices with a hammer, and I very much doubt that was official procedure. It's very convenient that almost every laptop, iPad and Blackberry that was confiscated in that investigation was physically destroyed in some way, as if that somehow deletes the files they contain. I don't believe in coincidences like this, I'm not going to pretend that I'm retarded to feel better about a politician. Besides, the emails are just the tip of the iceberg - we'll see what people can find in the Podesta emails which so far shine some light on suspicious dealings regarding Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation from back when Hill was a Secretary of State. Do you see any news on that? No, it's all "grabbing pussy" because it's cheap outrage for mouthbreathers who probably say worse things everyday, and it's ten years out of date.



Trump isn't better at all, remember him, and the Cuba policy, or the tax schemes? He only can say things that are "wrong".


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

Procyon said:


> Trump isn't better at all, remember him, and the Cuba policy, or the tax schemes? He only can say things that are "wrong".


Trump was not a social servant, he's not responsible for what policy is enacted. If the federal government believes that he broke an embargo, they're free to pursue him on that. Regarding taxes, as a business owner it's his responsibility to pay as little in taxes as possible in order to protect his bottom line. If I could somehow refrain from paying taxes, I would do the same - it's my money, as factor of the time and effort I've spent making it.


----------



## leonmagnus99 (Oct 10, 2016)

i vote for -Reggie Fils-Aimé.

(jokes aside, if i was an american and had to vote, i would vote trump over hillary).


----------



## Procyon (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump was not a social servant, he's not responsible for what policy is enacted and as a business owner it's his responsibility to pay as little in taxes as possible in order to protect his bottom line. If I could somehow refrain from paying taxes, I would do the same - it's my money, as factor of the time and effort I've spent making it.



You shouldn't lie about the taxes, that's wrong, and against the laws (in every country). If they catch you lying about your taxes here, then you need to pay a lot.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

Procyon said:


> You shouldn't lie about the taxes, that's wrong, and against the laws (in every country). If they catch you lying about your taxes here, then you need to pay a lot.


If the IRS believes that Trump *deliberately and maliciously* paid less taxes than he should've, they're free to pursue him on it and present evidence that support their claim. If he merely used a loophole, too bad so sad - no law is watertight. If there is a way to save money, a business owner has a responsibility to his shareholders to exploit it and maximise profit. Trump is not responsible for shifty laws full of loopholes, he didn't enact them, he merely has to play by them efficiently.


----------



## Procyon (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> If the IRS believes that Trump *deliberately and maliciously* paid less taxes than he should've, they're free to pursue him on it and present evidence that supports their claim. If he merely used a loophole, too bad so sad - no law is watertight.



I know, but he lied about his income of his companies, to be far under the level. Also he says he was always against the Iraq war, but at start he was all for it. You can find the original files probably online. Now he says he was always against it, a president who changes his statement every time isn't a fitting president. You need someone who stands behind his statements.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

Procyon said:


> I know, but he lied about his income of his companies, to be far under the level. Also he says he was always against the Iraq war, but at start he was all for it. You can find the original files probably online. Now he says he was always against it, a president who changes his statement every time isn't a fitting president. You need someone who stands behind his statements.


That's ridiculous. You don't want a person who doesn't change his or her opinion based on new evidence, you want a person who can analyse the situation and draw conclusions. The premise that someone has to stand fast and support a position even if it turns out that it was wrong all along with the determination bordering on retardation is false and stupid.

Trump also maintained that he won't run for president for the last three decades, he was asked whether he aspires for the role since the 80'ies, should we grill him on that too? How come he didn't want to run and now, 30 years later, he does? Flip-flopper, right? Wrong, you can change your opinion over time, especially over the course of a decade.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 10, 2016)

People like the change.
The world seems to be too static and boring for the average earthling.
I suppose everybody prefers chaos, war, and the fun of the unexpected.
Let the world burn!
Accept the chaos alignment already!
It is fun to let everything go to hell, it seems. 

_*Going back to fascism is at least better than the old same boring talkative PC-guilty old democrats.*_

You know, perhaps fascism leads to anarchism, and the more chaotic it gets, the funnier the ride.
Yey! Hell for everyone! I am in!


----------



## Procyon (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> That's ridiculous. You don't want a person who doesn't change his or her opinion based on new evidence, you want a person who can analyse the situation and draw conclusions. The premise that someone has to stand fast and support a position even if it turns out that it was wrong all along with the determination bordering on retardation is false and stupid.



Well, but someone who lies about his old statement is wrong at all times. 
And someone who 
Also that guy posted something on Twitter a while ago. "If Apple does't unlock the terrorist's phone then I will switch to Samsung #MakeAmericaGreatAgain", even though Samsung is as South Korean as it gets and he is pro American. I saw the Tweet on his Twitter, and it wasn't a fake account, or a fake image. He also wants Mexico to pay for his wall, something he can forget, because Mexico will never do that.

Also someone who stoops himself to humilate other people is a misfit as president in my eyes.


----------



## Tigran (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> The whole story is typical fake outrage over what amounts to gym talk from a decade ago. It's just interference that's supposed to divert attention from the recent Wikileaks release and the other candidate's borderline criminal transgressions. Thank god Donald just wanted to grab pussy, not delete 33,000 of'em or smash'em with a hammer.



Except Emails don't work that way... The investigator should have been able to find some of these missing emails on their own.. The emails would still be on the server of the people that emailed them to her, or she emailed too.

Not to mention you can't just completely scrub certain emails. It would a scrub everything, or there would be recoverables on the HDD. One or the other.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> People like the change.
> The world seems to be too static and boring for the average earthling.
> I suppose everybody prefers chaos, war, and the fun of the unexpected.
> Let the world burn!
> ...


I entertain the joke, but I don't like the implication. Who's the fascists here? Is it the people who want to indict a man over what he *said*, so basically thought crime? Remind me, members of which party were assaulted and had stones and eggs thrown at them on numerous occasions? Because I'm pretty sure it was the Trump supporters, and there's video evidence of that happening, and not just once or twice. Who's the fascists here? "Either you're with us or you're the enemy"?


Procyon said:


> Well, but someone who lies about his old ststement is wrong at all times. Also that guy posted something on Twitter a while ago. "If Apple does't unlock the terrorist's phone then I will switch to Samsung #MakeAmericaGreatAgain", even though Samsung is as South Korean as it gets and he is pro American. I saw the Tweet on his Twitter, and it wasn't a fake account, or a fake image. He also wants Mexico to pay for his wall, something he can forget, because Mexico will never do that.


So he's saying that he won't support a company that doesn't behoove him - that's free market. Given two choices of top-end phones, he can only choose between Apple and Samsung. Perhaps if RIM got their shit together, or Microsoft, or Google, it'd be different. Besides, none of these companies manufacture in the U.S., the devices are alleged built in China by Foxconn and their ilk, so your point is null and void. As for lying under oath, I wouldn't go pointing fingers at Trump here as the alternative seems far worse. The only reason Hill wasn't accused of lying under oath more is her apparent dementia - she has a problem with "recalling" things, it's a standard play in her book that she still remembers from her days as an attorney and not a new development.


----------



## Procyon (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I entertain the joke, but I don't like the implication. Who's the fascists here? Is it the people who want to indict a man over what he *said*, so basically thought crime? Remind me, members of which party were assaulted and had stones and eggs thrown at them on numerous occasions? Because I'm pretty sure it was the Trump supporters, and there's video evidence of that happening, and not just once or twice. Who's the fascists here? "Either you're with us or you're the enemy"?
> So he's saying that he won't support a company that doesn't behoove him - that's free market. Given two choices of top-end phones, he can only choose between Apple and Samsung. Perhaps if RIM gets their shot together, or Microsoft, or Google, it'd be different. Besides, none of these companies manufacture in the U.S., the devices are alleged built in China by Foxconn and their ilk, so your point is null and void. As for lying under oath, I wouldn't go pointing fingers at Trump here as the alternative seems far worse. The only reason Hill wasn't accused of lying under oath more is her apparent dementia - she has a problem with "recalling" things, it's a standard play in her book that she still remembers from her days as an attorney and not a new development.


'Well he's pro-American, and prefers a non-American company.
Also I would prefer Hillary over Trump.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

Tigran said:


> Except Emails don't work that way... The investigator should have been able to find some of these missing emails on their own.. The emails would still be on the server of the people that emailed them to her, or she emailed too.
> 
> Not to mention you can't just completely scrub certain emails. It would a scrub everything, or there would be recoverables on the HDD. One or the other.


That's a nice story. Now, how are you supposed to find out who she emailed with if her devices and her server are wiped and they don't have a warrant to confiscate any other devices but hers? As for recoverables, there absolutely are ways to delete data beyond the point of any recovery - overwrite it enough times and it will get garbled up. Honestly, we're not FBI investigators, it's them who dropped the ball on that. If the FBI really wanted to know what was on those devices, all they had to do was give Gucifer a call - apparently he was more qualified. That's all besides the point though, we're getting sidetracked here.


Procyon said:


> 'Well he's pro-American, and prefers a non-American company. Also I would prefer Hillary over Trump.


He prefers a company that cooperates with the law enforcement, yes. That's the paramount issue here. You're free to support whoever you want, nobody's stifling that right.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 10, 2016)

The problem is in the people that feel at ease with such ideas, not in the apartheidist moron they are feeling so comfortable with.
You know, the past has shown that from time to time humans deserve to go to hell.
It is not a phenomenon only present in America, anyway.
In recent times, perhaps during the last 10 years, the world has started turning more and more to the right school of "thinking".
And I don't mean it in the economical sense, that wouldn't be alarming. I mean it in the late 1930s right-nationalist flavour.
It's been happening in USA, UK, Ukraine, Japan, etc. And also in Germany.
I wouldn't be too suprised if the AfD gained a lot of power, and the expansionist ideas came back.
Well, who knows what could happen if the EU ended up failing and dissolving in the current fucked up world context.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> The problem is in the people that feel at ease with such ideas, not in the apartheidist moron they are feeling so comfortable with.
> You know, the past has shown that from time to time humans deserve to go to hell.
> It is not a phenomenom only present in America, anyway.
> In recent times, perhaps during the last 10 years, the world has started turning more and more to the right school of "thinking".
> ...


I see this "race to hell" in slightly different colours. It's not a battle between the right and the left so much as it is a battle between those who are authoritarian and those who are not. I heard a really good description of the phenomenon and it stuck with me, so let me paraphrase it by saying that we're suffering from an epidemic of "close-minded people with open-minded stances". In this day and age you have to be "tolerant" (I'm using sneer quotes because that's not at all what tolerance is all about) towards everyone and everything, otherwise you're branded as a bigot and destroyed by a rapidly formed mob. That's not what tolerance is - "tolerance is being able to sit with someone with an opposing stance in one room and not jump at their throat". What you're saying about "the right" is what I say about the aggressive left that does nothing but perpetrate Cultural Marxism and metaphorical lynching, all day, everyday. If I have to think the same way you think or else I'm under threat of being disowned by my friends and family, if I risk my personal reputation and professional career by making an honest and often innocuous statement, that's true fascism, and that's what worries me far more than "racists and bigots" that are few and far between. Real fascism is an attempt to stifle independent thought and trying to gel everyone into a homogenous mass of group think in an attempt to distort reality, a mass in which any form of objection is scoffed at and individuality is frowned upon - that's what I'm scared of. That's what I think people are tired of - getting beaten to death for the sake of maintaining the politically correct reality distortion bubble, because that's what I'm sick of.


----------



## Haider Raza (Oct 10, 2016)

Hmmmmmmmm :/


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 10, 2016)

Well, I agree with that. Only that I don't see how Trump represents any type of improvement against the hypocrisy of PC.
He is just another type of hypocrite, he is just playing an anti-PC as a publicity stunt but what is behind that play?
Well, a very dangerous demagogue IMHO.

PS: Why very dangerous? Well just look what kind of sentiment he is trying to awake in people and use to support its campaign.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well, I agree with that. Only that I don't see how Trump represents any type of improvement against the hypocrisy of PC.
> He is just another type of hypocrite, he is just playing an anti-PC as a publicity stunt but what is behind that play?
> Well, a very dangerous populist IMHO.


Many people will take any form of change over maintaining the status quo, which comes back to your initial point of craving change. I am far from endorsing Trump, however out of the two evils I can point out the more appealing one very easily.


----------



## Procyon (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Many people will take any form of change over maintaining the status quo, which comes back to your initial point of craving change. I am far from endorsing Trump, however out of the two evils I can point out the more appealing one very easily.



My gut is never wrong, and it tells me that the USA will turn into a BTTF-like living hell, if Trump wins.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 10, 2016)

Procyon said:


> My gut is never wrong, and it tells me that the USA will turn into a BTTF-like living hell, if Trump wins.


LOL, well after all D. Trump was used as a model for the BTTF2 Biff character.


----------



## Procyon (Oct 10, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> LOL, well after all D. Trump was used as a model for the BTTF2 Bill character.



Then I guess they knew the truth behind him, and it was Biff


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well, I agree with that. Only that I don't see how Trump represents any type of improvement against the hypocrisy of PC.
> He is just another type of hypocrite, he is just playing an anti-PC as a publicity stunt but what is behind that play?
> Well, a very dangerous demagogue IMHO.
> 
> PS: Why very dangerous? Well just look what kind of sentiment he is trying to awake in people and use to support its campaign.


I'm okay with duping suckers into voting. The whole message of "go out and vote" has always been about getting large masses of the dumbest, most uninformed voters into the polling stations because those are the people advertising works on. The voting game has always been disingenuous.


Procyon said:


> My gut is never wrong, and it tells me that the USA will turn into a BTTF-like living hell, if Trump wins.


I'm afraid that your personal gut feeling, a subjective opinion by definition, doesn't carry much weight. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have a businessman in the White House than a politician-wannabe. As I've already said earlier in this thread, anyone who aspires to participating in politics as a career should be disqualified from becoming a politicians on that basis. That, and BTTF2 was great - are you hating on Hoverboards? I am pro Hoverboards, any society that leads to the invention of Hoverboards is great, you lose by default.


----------



## Procyon (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm okay with duping suckers into voting. They whole message of "go out and vote" has always been about getting large masses of the dumbest, most uninformed voters into the polling stations because those are the people advertising works on.
> I'm afraid that your personal gut feeling, a subjective opinion by definition, doesn't carry much weight. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have a businessman in the White House than a politician-wannabe. As I've already said earlier in this thread, anyone who aspires to participating in politics as a career should be disqualified from becoming a politicians on that basis.



Well, I think a businessman, who is gross, annoys a lot of people, humiliates people, says things he better shouldn't say etc. is in my eyes a misfit


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

Procyon said:


> Well, I think a businessman, who is gross, annoys a lot of people, humiliates people, says things he better shouldn't say etc. is in my eyes a misfit


And I think that makes him a perfect candidate - a human, for a change.

Vote Trump/Hoverboards 2016.


----------



## Procyon (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> And I think that makes him a perfect candidate - a human, for a change.
> 
> Vote Trump/Hoverboards 2016.



Nope, he is not a fitting person, but you'll find out in due time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

Procyon said:


> Nope, he is not a fitting person, but you'll find out in due time.


Perhaps, but I find him better than the alternative. I've already stated that this election is screwed from the outset as there are no good candidates running. Every second spent on discussing how Trump says "mean things" is a second that's wasted - firstly because it contributes to a conversation that has nothing to do with policy, secondly because he's entitled to say whatever's on his mind - free speech. I specifically like the "Drumpf" movement, because according to the left we can make fun of Trump's family for changing their goofy name, but God forbid you call Caitlyn Jenner "Bruce" - if you do that, you're a hate monger. Everything is fucked, "if it's going to get worse, it might as well get funnier" - that's what my uncle used to say, and I subscribe to it to a fault.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Oct 10, 2016)

Logan Pockrus said:


> Do I really have to make this decision?  I'm not going to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, as neither of them even have a remote chance of winning.  That leaves Trump and Hillary.  The problem is, both of these candidates fucking suck!  Their views align in many ways (not all ways, but quite a few), so I think we'll be in the same position next "voting season" with either candidate.  The only reason I'd vote for Trump is because I'm a strong conservative and simply can't find it in myself to support a liberal candidate.  So, if I vote, I'll be (reluctantly) voting for Trump.


If many people think like this, they will never support the minor candidates. Imo, you should still vote in the minor candidate as to state your own opinion regardless of results. For the same reason why blank votes are better than not voting at all.


----------



## Procyon (Oct 10, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps, but I find him better than the alternative. I've already stated that this election is screwed from the outset as there are no good candidates running. Every second spent on discussing how Trump says "mean things" is a second that's wasted - firstly because it contributes to a conversation that has nothing to do with policy, secondly because he's entitled to say whatever's on his mind - free speech. I specifically like the "Drumpf" movement, because according to the left we can make fun of Trump for changing his goofy name to something he likes better, but God forbid you call Caitlyn Jenner "Bruce" - if you do that, you're a hate monger. Everything is fucked, "if it's going to get worse, it might as well get funnier" - that's what my uncle used to say, and I subscribe to it to a fault.



He never changed his name, it were his far ancestors


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 10, 2016)

Procyon said:


> He never changed his name, it were his far ancestors


You're absolutely right, my bad, I misspoke, but you get my point. Thank you for pointing that out, I've corrected my statement accordingly.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Oct 10, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> If many people think like this, they will never support the minor candidates. Imo, you should still vote in the minor candidate as to state your own opinion regardless of results. For the same reason why blank votes are better than not voting at all.


Trust me, I was considering Johnson for a while after writing that post.  Now I'm just not going to vote, probably.


----------



## netovsk (Oct 10, 2016)

And what do you guys think of Hillary's persistence of setting up a no-fly zone over Aleppo? 

Wouldn't that result in an act of aggression against Russia?

I don't want to enter into conspiracy theories here but doesn't make sense, risking going to war with russia because US wants to make a stand.

It's almost as if there are certain parties who want it to happen because they profit from war, but I might be paranoid.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 11, 2016)

netovsk said:


> And what do you guys think of Hillary's persistence of setting up a no-fly zone over Aleppo?
> 
> Wouldn't that result in an act of aggression against Russia?
> 
> ...



Clinton has long been one of the more hawkish/pro interventionist Democrats and has supported U.S involvement in at least 4 wars (Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya) and possibly more (which to be far I will not count). Regardless with a record like that you have to be concerned about how she would handle the situation as to if America should intervene with military presence in the area or elsewhere.
Why does Clinton (and other Democrats) do this? She saw Democratic senators politically damaged by voting against the 1991 war against Iraq, and she was not about to take the risk of opposing the next one. Regardless the often outcome is historically (i.e. Vietnam) people who have been vocally against these wars have had hurt public images and often have been accused of not supporting their country. But yes, there are reasons as to why congress supports these wars outside of the "good" that they bring to the region.



Also anybody have thoughts on this?
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/785154577209315328


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 11, 2016)

NBC's skewed polling exposed

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...osed-about-that-nbcwsj-clinton-11-point-poll/

and this is why msm polling should not be trusted, and no public polling should be trusted before anyone asks
just like cnn just got caught on camera telling "unbiased" voters what to say with their poll group stunt they tried to pull

These leaked podesta emails are also exposing all sorts of things (and its just getting started, still over 45000 emails to be released)
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/785859672356032512
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4433?1

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/...ortedly-wrote-saudi-arabia-qatar-funding-isis
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fobs...e-special-attention-friends/story?id=42615379


----------



## Viri (Oct 11, 2016)

https://twitter.com/WDFx2EU7/status/784856591224844288/video/1

So, how big do you think Obama is? I suppose Trump and Bill aren't the only perverts


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> NBC's skewed polling exposed
> 
> https://theconservativetreehouse.co...osed-about-that-nbcwsj-clinton-11-point-poll/
> 
> ...


The NBC poll is methodologically sound (although no one should ever listen to a single poll), the leaked emails don't do anything to expose anything that actually hurts Hillary Clinton, and some of the leaked emails have been proven to be fake.

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-pu...-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> the leaked emails don't do anything to expose anything that actually hurts Hillary Clinton,


Maybe not "hurt her" but it certainly will not help.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The NBC poll is methodologically sound (although no one should ever listen to a single poll), the leaked emails don't do anything to expose anything that actually hurts Hillary Clinton, and some of the leaked emails have been proven to be fake.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-pu...-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635


You are a fraud. Link to actual email: https://t.co/akvUCmWbot it is clearly not implying that you are Sidney Blumenthal.— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 11, 2016

As soon as I saw that pathetic excuse of a hit piece this morning, I just knew that you would link to Kurt Eichenwald's misinformation in this thread.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/785683111614873604
> As soon as I saw that pathetic excuse of a hit piece this morning, I just knew that you would link to Kurt Eichenwald's misinformation in this thread.


That's not how it's being reported by the right.

Edit: In other words, don't blame me or Eichenwald for Trump's misinformation.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-incorrectly-pins-benghazi-criticism-s/


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's not how it's being reported by the right.
> 
> Edit: In other words, don't blame me or Eichenwald for Trump's misinformation.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-incorrectly-pins-benghazi-criticism-s/


The left using this to show that Wikileaks is against Hilliary, however is an issue as well.


----------



## Viri (Oct 12, 2016)

https://twitter.com/WDFx2EU7/status/785952258840145921
https://twitter.com/asamjulian/status/785996533166661632

I lol'd! I gotta check her site and see when she comes to my city, and try this, it looks like a lot of fun!


----------



## swabbo (Oct 12, 2016)

Hillary Clinton (Democratic Party) *✘*
 Donald Trump (Republican Party) *✘*
 Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) *✘*
 Jill Stein (Green Party) *✘*
 Other *✘*
 Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) *✘*
 Evan McMullin (Independent) *✘*
 Live outside self-absorbed USA and don't care *☑*


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2016)

I love how every leaked email linked to Hillary must necessarily be a conspiracy perpetrated by Russian boogiemen who are supposedly best buddies with Trump. It's all a conspiracy, guys.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 12, 2016)

The real conspiracy is reaching the election day with only (and yes, I'm citing South Park but they got it right) a Big douche and a Turd sandwich as candidates with chances of becoming president.
Hell, there are near 320M other citizens in USA, how the hell did those blockheads get there instead?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> The real conspiracy is reaching the election day with only (and yes, I'm citing South Park but they got it right) a Big douche and a Turd sandwich as candidates with chances of becoming president.
> Hell, there are near 320M other citizens in USA, how the hell did those blockheads get there instead?


That's a fair way to describe it. At the end of the day, it's a choice between two bad candidates.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The left using this to show that Wikileaks is against Hilliary, however is an issue as well.


WikiLeaks is admittedly against Clinton.


Foxi4 said:


> I love how every leaked email linked to Hillary must necessarily be a conspiracy perpetrated by Russian boogiemen who are supposedly best buddies with Trump. It's all a conspiracy, guys.


The email hacks were almost certainly directed by the Russian government. The motive isn't as substantiated, but there's a good chance it was to influence the presidential election.

While I don't think it demonstrates anything, Trump did appear to act in tandem with a Russian news outlet by reporting the false email story. I'm assuming coincidence and convergent idiocy, but you can see how conclusions can be drawn.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2016)

Lacius said:


> WikiLeaks is admittedly against Clinton.


WikiLeaks has no strict political affiliation, the most you can say about the outlet is that it's anti-establishment. The fact that Hillary represents the establishment is coincidental.


> The email hacks were almost certainly directed by the Russian government. The motive isn't as substantiated, but there's a good chance it was to influence the presidential election.
> 
> While I don't think it demonstrates anything, Trump did appear to act in tandem with a Russian news outlet by reporting the false email story. I'm assuming coincidence and convergent idiocy, but you can see how conclusions can be drawn.


I'm assuming coincidence, or he simply didn't know that some information might've been doctored, but he's far from an idiot. He saw a headline and used it accordingly.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 12, 2016)

1200 more emails released today

(democratic debate with sanders)




("locker room talk" "ripping up republican ballots is fine")



CTR SuperPAC breaking federal campaign law (see attachments)
https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/5636


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 12, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> 1200 more emails released today
> 
> (democratic debate with sanders)


That's just Russian propaganda.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 12, 2016)

and another 700 emails released

(kaine was already selected as vp well over a year before)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2986

(hillary camp acknowledges "radical islam")
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5832

(full intent to support both TPP and TPA)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6616

(hiring blacks on hillary staff to gain black voters)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6546

(warning the hillary camp that all these scandals could take her down)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6900

(hillary needs her talking points to be under 3 pages since so she can memorize them since there will be no podium)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5454

(will be impossible to remember since there will be no podium)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5421

Does she not know her own policies that she needs to read off a script?

and apparently podesta's apple id login info was in one of the emails


----------



## Viri (Oct 12, 2016)

Any time Wikileaks leaks something negative about Clinton, it's just Russian propaganda! /s


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 12, 2016)

Viri said:


> Any time Wikileaks leaks something negative about Clinton, it's just Russian propaganda! /s


Da, Comrade.


----------



## Viri (Oct 12, 2016)

Spoiler












He's not having a very good day. I would post more images, but I fear getting banned. Mods are deleting threads like crazy though, but thankfully 8chan never deletes anything.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 12, 2016)

as long as it didnt contain sensitive info...

edit: looks like the account just got locked
I think some of the new emails were saved

also they erased both his iphone and ipad ~RIP


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 12, 2016)

It's funny, on my facebook I have people lumping wikileaks supporters with anti-hillary folk, which automatically means (to them) you're sexist, trump supporters.

This election is just bringing the bad out of a lot of people. So many sexist, "my team is better than your team", super conflating, double-think people. Even those who say sexism is terrible while saying something sexist in the same sentence. Otherwise solid people are just flushing their brain down the toilet out of feeeeelings. I don't care if you think very differently, just be able to express why you feel that way and be open to criticism of those positions.

We're all trying to figure out truth from fiction, try not to place personal meaning into assertions. It's okay to be wrong. I know I'm wrong allll the frikin' time, and I'm always happy to be corrected.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 12, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> It's funny, on my facebook I have people lumping wikileaks supporters with anti-hillary folk, which automatically means (to them) you're sexist, trump supporters.


THIS

As a Libertarian Party Supporter I am constantly told by either Democrats or Republicans that I support one side or the other just because I hate both of them. Same with Bush and Obama. I just do not get why people think that dislike of one means you like the other.


----------



## Viri (Oct 12, 2016)

My god, what a kiss ass.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/deleted-hillary-emails-were-just-made-public/


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 12, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> THIS
> 
> As a Libertarian Party Supporter I am constantly told by either Democrats or Republicans that I support one side or the other just because I hate both of them. Same with Bush and Obama. I just do not get why people think that dislike of one means you like the other.


We've been conditioned to partisanship by the system.  If you're not on my team, you're on "the other" team.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 13, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> We've been conditioned to partisanship by the system.  If you're not on my team, you're on "the other" team.


Correct - people vote for banners now, not for representatives or policy. This is exactly the factor that differentiates Hillary and Trump supporters. Hillary supporters are voting "for the democratic nominee" while Trump supporters are very clearly voting for Trump as an individual, not the GOP.


----------



## Viri (Oct 13, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Correct - people vote for banners now, not for representatives or policy. This is exactly the factor that differentiates Hillary and Trump supporters. Hillary supporters are voting "for the democratic nominee" while Trump supporters are very clearly voting for Trump as an individual, not the GOP.


Pretty much this. I hate both sides, but I like Trump. I would vote for him even if he ran under a different party.

Also, look who changed sides! Totally isn't hacked 


Spoiler


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 13, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> THIS
> 
> As a Libertarian Party Supporter I am constantly told by either Democrats or Republicans that I support one side or the other just because I hate both of them. Same with Bush and Obama. I just do not get why people think that dislike of one means you like the other.





grossaffe said:


> We've been conditioned to partisanship by the system.  If you're not on my team, you're on "the other" team.


Well said! Here are some shining examples:

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...socks_the_cat_hits_kickstarter#comment3670799

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...socks_the_cat_hits_kickstarter#comment3670982

And here are my replies to that misinformed person:

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...socks_the_cat_hits_kickstarter#comment3670976

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...socks_the_cat_hits_kickstarter#comment3670990


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 13, 2016)

podesta's twitter was hacked via 4chan /pol/
tweet that was since removed
http://archive.is/OJjlI









Spoiler: The hacker known as 4Chan


----------



## emigre (Oct 13, 2016)

So what's the best defence of eyeing up ten year olds?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 13, 2016)

emigre said:


> So what's the best defence of eyeing up ten year olds?


I suppose the best defense is the "my opponent is no better" line.
At the end of the day it is the only thing I am listening from both parties.
Kind of sucks the only defense these blockheads have is just digging up some shit from the other's side. But sure there is a lot to dig anyway.


----------



## Viri (Oct 13, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> podesta's twitter was hacked via 4chan /pol/
> tweet that was since removed
> http://archive.is/OJjlI
> 
> ...



Stop posting Russian propaganda, just because the emails leaked his account info doesn't mean, uhhh* RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA!*

Also, in other news...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...d_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 13, 2016)

another day another 2000 fake russian propaganda emails released

(hillarys complete debate prepbook - see attachments)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8009

(tin foil hat-ish, but this email was sent 3 days before Antonin Scalia's untimely death, "wet works" is a military term for assassination)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008

("the Clintons won't forget what their friends have done for them")
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7252

(Bill's 1 million dollar birthday check from qatar)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396#efmAAGABSAEOAETAEaAGWAGaAHZAJBAJd

(Clinton staff conspiring to fake Wallstreet speeches)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8086

(talks about controlling her public speaking events, to make sure they dont seem low energy to the public)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5240

("Foreign govt donors: all the money is in")
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7452

(collusion with CNBC and the hillary campaign on what to ask trump during on air interviews and even sending them graphs to show)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7710

(the woman who accused trump of rape is linked to the clinton campaign)


Spoiler


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 13, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> (Bill's 1 million dollar birthday check from qatar)


And all my grandma ever gave me was $10


----------



## Lacius (Oct 13, 2016)

Forgive me if I haven't responded to the tinfoil hat email garbage that's been posted here recently. Given the lack of substance in the emails, in addition to the meltdown of the Trump campaign and Clinton's +6 (and rising) aggregate polling, I haven't seen much of a point in responding at all.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 13, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Forgive me if I haven't responded to the tinfoil hat email garbage that's been posted here recently. Given the lack of substance in the emails, in addition to the meltdown of the Trump campaign and Clinton's +6 (and rising) aggregate polling, I haven't seen much of a point in responding at all.


I have to say I agree. It honestly would be better to focus on the key issues at hand which is why I am not voting for either of the big 2. Plus before the debates it was a semi bit of a stretch to say Trump would win but now it is semi impossible as





If she wins only one of the gray states then she gets the 270 to win.


Any way off topic, any thoughts on how well McMullen is doing? I mean he is doing pretty well in Utah and according to 538 is more likely to get an electoral college vote than Johnson


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Any way off topic, any thoughts on how well McMullen is doing? I mean he is doing pretty well in Utah and according to 538 is more likely to get an electoral college vote than Johnson


There's a great article on how McMullin is the third most likely candidate to win and has a reasonable path to victory.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...utah-and-the-presidency/?ex_cid=2016-forecast


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> There's a great article on how McMullin is the third most likely candidate to win and has a reasonable path to victory.
> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...utah-and-the-presidency/?ex_cid=2016-forecast


Yeah I saw it but a few issues I had are of course that to happen than Trump would have to do better in order to beat Hillary in enough states for the votes plus McMullin would have to still keep Utah. Plus we all know that congress would never let him or Johnson (who theoretically has a shot at NM) win and neither would the supreme court if it came down to it.

Edit: Also could just be me but I do think he + maybe castle could be much more of a "spoiler" (I hate that term) than Stein


----------



## Viri (Oct 14, 2016)

https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/

Go and vote! It's kinda neat to see who which countries voted for. I'm surprised in Canada


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 14, 2016)

If podesta's apple login info in one of the emails wasnt proof enough, he even used the same exact password on multiple sites (gmail, twitter)


Viri said:


> https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/
> 
> Go and vote! It's kinda neat to see who which countries voted for. I'm surprised in Canada


People started running bots to vote though so that ruined it


----------



## Viri (Oct 14, 2016)

Do you think he's going to get fired? His reaction so far has been funny.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 14, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> another day another 2000 fake russian propaganda emails released


This always confuses me, because it seems like there's a huge need to dismiss these sorts of things for some reason. For those who dismiss such things out of hand, or "zomg da russianz", do they not know how politics work? And why the assumption the republican's don't do the exact same thing? Is the fact that a politician works behind the scenes differently than how they present themselves THAT much of a shocker that you need to dismiss common-place events? Really, I have no doubt they just throw things at the wall sometimes to see what sticks, or at least all they can get away with, while still being able to present a believable persona of a morally driven human.

If there's a loophole that allows for an advantage, always assume they're going to take it until you have evidence to the contrary. Email the host to ask for special stuff? sure, why not. worse they can say is no. See if there's a loophole for accepting of foreign money? just don't piss off whoever would take you down and you're good. Hire folks to investigate charges and dig up as much dirt as possible on your opponent? Well that seems like something that you could morally justify to yourself after a few drinks. It's all about winning; the means always justify the ends in politics. That's the game.

Those few who have morals as their guiding force, like Bernie, are pushed to the side if they don't "play ball". There are a few republicans who are driven by their morals, and even though I disagree with many of their positions, I definitely respect them for that. Politics, as a general rule of thumb, are amoral in the US. Morals are a bonus, not a driving force, for many politicians.

On a related note, Wikileaks has yet to been shown to be factually wrong, and have a perfect track record with the veracity of their leaks. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will give their leaks the weight they have earned.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 14, 2016)

more juicy emails released, another 1000 (40,000+ emails yet to be released)

(clinton campaign discussing how to coverup the Benghazi emails)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272

(state dept. covering up emails deleted by hillary)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBI2BOJ

(talks about withholding emails that were sent and received from obama about the email subpoena, implies obama was involved with the email scandal)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545

(talks about trying to get small doners to counteract big donors to make it seems like more everyday people support her, possible creating fake names as donators)
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9193

(Gonzalo Curiel who is a judge for a trump trial and who attacked trump, his wife has connections to the clinton campaign)
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10205

(some states were already claimed for hillary and rigged against other candidates way before primary voting took place)
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9846

(Julie Pace a journalist in contact asking for something from podesta to paint hillary in a good light)
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7489

and nothing to see here, just msm bias


Spoiler


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> and nothing to see here, just msm bias


It's not good news/business to spend more than thirteen minutes on conspiracy nonsense.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's not good news/business to spend more than thirteen minutes on conspiracy nonsense.


Yes, because Podesta's leaked login information was totally fake...


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Yes, because Podesta's leaked login information was totally fake...


That's not what I said.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's not what I said.


My point is that it is clearly not "conspiracy nonsense." If it was, then it would not contain accurate information, such as that login information.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> My point is that it is clearly not "conspiracy nonsense." If it was, then it would not contain accurate information, such as that login information.


The conspiracy nonsense comes from how the emails are largely being interpreted by a minority of people on the internet.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The conspiracy nonsense comes from how the emails are largely being interpreted by a minority of people on the internet.


You have the mainstream media (including your man, Kurt) to thank for only a minority of people researching them.


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:
			
		

> ...


Oh, deity, I don't want to dive into this thread again... but I told you Trump would self-destruct and a third party would be perfectly fine to vote for.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> You have the mainstream media (including your man, Kurt) to thank for only a minority of people researching them.


Yeah, that's definitely not the problem.



Nightwish said:


> Oh, deity, I don't want to dive into this thread again... but I told you Trump would self-destruct and a third party would be perfectly fine to vote for.


I predicted the self-destruction of Trump too, but that's not going to dissuade his deplorables, and a third-party candidate still isn't viable, unfortunately.


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I predicted the self-destruction of Trump too, but that's not going to dissuade his deplorables, and a third-party candidate still isn't viable, unfortunately.


But they started too, this week if not before.
Also, the polls that count seats, not the popular vote, have very confident predictions that the election was already decided months ago.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Yeah, that's definitely not the problem.





The Cringe said:


>


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

Sorry, my tinfoil hat must not be on securely.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Oct 15, 2016)

Clinton or Trump the chump ....america is screwed either way makes me glad I'm Canadian .....no wait weve got trudeu ...sigh


----------



## Viri (Oct 15, 2016)

I look forward to when Wikileaks starts releasing Hillary's emails she deleted, now that will be a fun read.

Also, who else hype for next Wednesday!?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

Viri said:


> I look forward to when Wikileaks starts releasing Hillary's emails she deleted, now that will be a fun read.
> 
> Also, who else hype for next Wednesday!?


First, I don't know why we're eager to see Clinton's personal emails hacked and released. Second, while I am excited for the third and final debate, it's unlikely to make a difference or even have a large audience.


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, I don't know why we're eager to see Clinton's personal emails hacked and released.


To see what illigal activities the master of deception has been hiding from us.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> To see what illigal activities the master of deception has been hiding from us.


Trump seems to have engaged in more illegal activity than Clinton. In fact, there's no evidence she's done anything illegal.


----------



## The Cringe (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> there's no evidence she's done anything illegal


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Second, while I am excited for the third and final debate, it's unlikely to make a difference or even have a large audience.


Which is sad since the topics that they are suppose to talk about (SCOTUS,immigration, foreign hotspots, Debt for instance) are all great things to talk about which could (if not for what has happened recently) really make voters think since you arguably could say both (or at least their parties) have stumbled at times in those areas. Still it is pretty big and will probably be the most viewed thing of the night and I know I will be watching while campaigning.


----------



## JohnGT (Oct 15, 2016)

acquiescence for all those sexual assaults is staggering. after all those things happen, still so big support for Trump, 40% votes?! people just dont understand which things should matter for them most. because there will be aftermath.
what will happen is that more and more men, on authoritarian positions will realize that there is this bug allowance in society for those things ... they will no longer try to stop themselve from bad behavior, ike sexual assaults.

this is so bad, i'm just happy i dont have my own family to worry about. these things will increase, more men will think that they can get away with them ... this is how psychology works: given opportunity things going to happen, its only matter of percentage. because amount of how much a person can hold back from doing something that he/she desires is limited. it is not infinite, and the majority of people see it wrongly, that is they think one can hold back from doing something only by his or her free will.
basically how it works is you have to struggle mentally to prevent yourself from not doing things like spitting, peeing, scratching and other things, which include sexual activities. important part is that because this is like a value .. we can see that this is true because different people can have different amount of it and one person can have more of it one time and less another. difference can be esily seen between healthy and sick, young and old, tired or rested. so if there going to be more people exposed, more of it will happen. at a personal level, only 2 things can prevent those bad things from happening: (1) not being exposed to them or (2) keeping yourself distracted by other things.

so yeah, this is my psyhology lesson. it looks like things are going to get bad from now on.


----------



## chartube12 (Oct 15, 2016)

I am not voting this election. Trump and Hillary are both crazy. And only insane people vote for those in the other parties.


----------



## MarzDaindigo (Oct 15, 2016)

i dont like how much of a joke trump is if he actually showed some smarts and politics then...idk hes still a douche. hillary wants to ban weed and that saddens me idc if its a dumb reason its my reason.

I can say i dont want my daughter looking up to a man that grabs pussy as a handshake

@chartube12
I agree 100% i decided not to vote this time cuz its a damn circus and at this point idgaf enough to vote whoever wins its still gonna be a shit fest. Obama did.......ok much better than bush but not as good as kennedy but now its a celebrity vs a lost lamb wtf man

@Foxi4 come on son he didnt eat that lmao


----------



## Engert (Oct 15, 2016)

Owned!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

@The Cringe
What did Clinton do that was illegal? Because Donald Trump inarguably broke the law with the Trump Foundation when it made campaign contributions, regardless of whether or not those contributions were bribes. Donald Trump has been accused of illegal sexual impropriety. Trump University is being investigated for breaking the law. He illegally accepted 9/11 funds that were for small businesses.



RevPokemon said:


> Still it is pretty big and will probably be the most viewed thing of the night and I know I will be watching while campaigning.


For obvious reasons as a Clinton supporter, I would like more people to watch the third debate. Relative to other debates, however, it's unlikely to matter. Viewership is likely to be relatively small.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Oct 15, 2016)

I find it rather funny that shortly after trumps audio clip was released, the "grab them by the pussy" clip, a bunch of women come forward claiming sexual assault. The strange thing is, women that are usually gold diggers on things like this will haapily settle out of court on these type of claims and receive lots of money from the person that they accuse. It is so strange that all these women wait until now to make these claims when they could have potentially made millions. And we all know women wont delay on being money grubbers when given a chance. Ok, some women might wait, but certainly not all of them.
Of course, not one of these women are actively pressing charges against trump for these alleged actions, probably because lying under oath is a punishable offense and they dont want to be anymore in the hotseat than they already are.
And honestly, a mojority of those women are butt ugly, even one that is an old hag. The guy is a billionaire and he could easily have any woman with questionable standards which is most women. He certainly doesnt need to settle with ugly broads. Just being real here. 

The other party is getting desperate and is willing to do whatever it takes to ruin trump in the last minute for the imbeciles that will believe anything.

I am not a trump supporter. I generally stay out of politics and i dont vote. If anything, the country would be better off if I was president with as much of a fuck up as I am.

These are just my observations about this bologna.


----------



## Engert (Oct 15, 2016)

I can't wait to see a dysfunctional government after whoever wins this election.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I find it rather funny that shortly after trumps audio clip was released, the "grab them by the pussy" clip, a bunch of women come forward claiming sexual assault. The strange thing is, women that are usually gold diggers on things like this will haapily settle out of court on these type of claims and receive lots of money from the person that they accuse.


There's nothing wrong with a healthy level of skepticism, but each accusation should be taken seriously. To say flatout that these women are lying is to cross a line. It's as bad (if not worse, since Donald Trump has admitted to being able to do this kind of behavior) than blindly accepting these accusations as fact without evidence.



DeadlyFoez said:


> It is so strange that all these women wait until now to make these claims when they could have potentially made millions. And we all know women wont delay on being money grubbers when given a chance. Ok, some women might wait, but certainly not all of them.


It could be that money is irrelevant because the accusations are true. While it doesn't prove anything, it arguably lends credence to their claims.



DeadlyFoez said:


> Of course, not one of these women are actively pressing charges against trump for these alleged actions, probably because lying under oath is a punishable offense and they dont want to be anymore in the hotseat than they already are.


Emotional trauma and statutes of limitations are two reason off the top of my head why one wouldn't press charges. You also know that in actual cases of sexual assault, women often don't report it and/or don't press charges because they don't want to deal with scrutiny (e.g. people calling them liars) or victim-blaming, right?

I don't believe you thought your post through.



Engert said:


> I can't wait to see a dysfunctional government after whoever wins this election.


Clinton has demonstrated that she's more than capable of being as effective a president as someone like President Obama. I'm much more worried about the gridlock and dysfunction of Congress.


----------



## Engert (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Clinton has demonstrated that she's more than capable of being as effective a president as someone like President Obama. I'm much more worried about the gridlock and dysfunction of Congress.



Agreed. She's as effective as your professional trolling. 
Unfortunately the American voter is obvlivious to professional trollers and their deflections on technicalities and morals.
They go mostly with a gut feeling  and not logic or facts.
So after this election we are going to see professional liars like Hillary against a disorganized Republican Party and congress make government work. It's going to be beautiful, especially the trolling on who's to blame after.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Oct 15, 2016)

This is the very first post that i have ever made in my life on anything political and it was only towards one thing. I could devulge into how claims against clinton are unfounded, but sadly many of these accusations have been brought into a court while many other are obvious smearing bs. 

Your points are valid, for the most part. Trump only said what he would like to do, not what he has done, so he did not admit to any actual actions. 

Also, many of these accusers stories have proven to have major holes in them, whether that is just the other side making up even more bs or not, who freaking knows. It is just a huge mud slinging fest from both parties which is unprofessional and both of them didnt gain any respect from me.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

Engert said:


> Agreed. She's as effective as your professional trolling.
> Unfortunately the American voter is obvlivious to professional trollers and their deflections on technicalities and morals.
> They go mostly with a gut feeling  and not logic or facts.
> So after this election we are going to see professional liars like Hillary against a disorganized Republican Party and congress make government work. It's going to be beautiful, especially the trolling on who's to blame after.


First, I'm neither a troll nor a professional. Second, Clinton lies less than most politicians and much less than Donald Trump.



DeadlyFoez said:


> This is the very first post that i have ever made in my life on anything political and it was only towards one thing. I could devulge into how claims against clinton are unfounded, but sadly many of these accusations have been brought into a court while many other are obvious smearing bs.


Whether or not a case has been brought to court is irrelevant when assessing its truthfulness.



DeadlyFoez said:


> Trump only said what he would like to do, not what he has done, so he did not admit to any actual actions.


All I said was Trump has "admitted to being able to do this kind of behavior." We're not in disagreement.



DeadlyFoez said:


> Also, many of these accusers stories have proven to have major holes in them, whether that is just the other side making up even more bs or not, who freaking knows. It is just a huge mud slinging fest from both parties which is unprofessional and both of them didnt gain any respect from me.


It is not fair to blame the Clinton campaign for the release of Trump's video and the aforementioned Trump accusers. It's Trump who brought Bill Clinton rape allegations into this and is hypocritically trying to make this campaign about sexual misconduct. To say the two are comparable is complete BS.

http://www.nbcnews.com/card/clintons-response-when-they-go-low-we-go-high-n663036


----------



## Engert (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> First, I'm neither a troll nor a professional. Second, Clinton lies less than most politicians and much less than Donald Trump.



Sure. Tell that to your other professional trolling friends who are interested in towing a party line instead of a national interest while everyone is disgusted with both parties this year.

I'm not sure what make professional trolls go to work, some link it to childhood issues but it's irrelevant at this point. Professional trollers are professional tacticians in deflecting questions by dissecting letters and commas instead of answering questions.
Believe it or not you have more in common with trump but you don't connect with him because you have intentional long term goals instead of knee jerk reactions. Hence, professional troller.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

Engert said:


> Sure. Tell that to your other professional trolling friends who are interested in towing a party line instead of a national interest while everyone is disgusted with both parties this year.
> 
> I'm not sure what make professional trolls go to work, some link it to childhood issue but it's irrelevant at this point. Professional trollers are professional tacticians in deflecting questions by dissecting letters and commas instead of answering questions.
> Believe it or not you have more in common with trump but you don't connect with him because you have intentional long term goals instead of knee jerk reactions. Hence, professional troller.


I am responding to misinformation in order to correct the record and participate in entertaining and intellectually stimulating discourse. A troll intentionally tries to incite a negative emotional response. Because the latter is not my intent, I am not a troll. I don't get paid for this, and it's not a job, so I am not a professional either.



Engert said:


> Sure. Tell that to your other professional trolling friends who are interested in towing a party line instead of a national interest while everyone is disgusted with both parties this year.


I think a Hillary Clinton presidency and liberal policy positions are objectively far more conducive to the well being of the nation than a Donald Trump presidency and conservative policy positions.

What's funny is your slight about childhood issues is what's trolling. Nice try though.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 15, 2016)

Engert said:


> I can't wait to see a dysfunctional government after whoever wins this election.



i guess you're too stupid to notice your government has been continuously more dysfunctional in many regards for as long as i can remember. a good 20 or so years.
but not because of whoever was in office, but because you guys feel its a good idea to put both your stupid parties in charge simulatneously all the time.
democratic senate and republican president, republican senate and democratic president.
and while a democratic senate has, at all times, been less obstructive during policy making, in both cases, many policy changes have been prevented by these setups, many of which translated into overall worse living conditions for the american people.

yet, you can make the situation worse by electing an incompetent politician (and businessman) like trump, who's going to throw a tantrum the second he doesn't get what he feels he deserves and will probably step back after two years, once he realizes that being a president isn't half as fun as he or most people imagine.




DeadlyFoez said:


> I find it rather funny that shortly after trumps audio clip was released, the "grab them by the pussy" clip, a bunch of women come forward claiming sexual assault. The strange thing is, women that are usually gold diggers on things like this will haapily settle out of court on these type of claims and receive lots of money from the person that they accuse. It is so strange that all these women wait until now to make these claims when they could have potentially made millions. And we all know women wont delay on being money grubbers when given a chance. Ok, some women might wait, but certainly not all of them.
> Of course, not one of these women are actively pressing charges against trump for these alleged actions, probably because lying under oath is a punishable offense and they dont want to be anymore in the hotseat than they already are.
> And honestly, a mojority of those women are butt ugly, even one that is an old hag. The guy is a billionaire and he could easily have any woman with questionable standards which is most women. He certainly doesnt need to settle with ugly broads. Just being real here.
> 
> ...



as for you,  you realize that in any other situation, trump would have denied everything and an army of expensive lawyers would have worked hard to make the whole deal too expensive for the accuser to be able to keep going, right?
it doesn't matter if you could gain millions in court if you have to somehow shoulder 5 years of legal fees first.

and they usually dont happily settle out of court. they do that for exactly this reason. that team of expensive lawyers makes an estimate about how long they'd need to be paid for the accusing side to run out of money. the accused then realizes, 'if i offer just 1/5 of that money in return for the accuser to never ever bring that stuff up again, I still come out ahead'. an then they make that offer, adding that, if the accuser doesn't take the deal, they'll still never get their justice because by the time a verdict in their favor comes near, they'd have to have paid countless thousands in legal fees already.

so its out of court or nothing for most people in most cases. tell me, what would you chose?

now, this time (and not unlike the cosby case), trump all but admitted he did these things. so everyone suddenly has something that equals hard evidence. and not only that, now these people can actually band together, drastically reducing the money needed to get through all the legal instances. in addition to that, with the evidence trump himself presented, a bunch of lawyers will be more than willing to take these cases basically for free, since a victory is all but ensured and they get their payout when trump has to pay.


----------



## Engert (Oct 15, 2016)

What's ever funnier is Hillary'a childhood tho. Check with PBS, a somewhat left - wing station. 

Nice going troll man. You might even get paid for this someday.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

Engert said:


> Nice going troll man. You might even get paid for this someday.


I really should.


----------



## Engert (Oct 15, 2016)

@Clydefrosch , relax I'm with you. 
The humor here is that American people think a political party is and always has been the anwser. 
It's more important to appease your party than to address any issues head on.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

Engert said:


> @Clydefrosch , relax I'm with you.
> The humor here is that American people think a political party is and always has been the anwser.
> It's more important to appease your party than to address any issues head on.


I vote on policy, not party loyalty.


----------



## Engert (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I vote on policy, not party loyalty.



Damn, you are delusional. 
You're the classic crazy person in any hospital screaming "IM NOT CRAZY".


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2016)

Engert said:


> Damn, you are delusional.
> You're the classic crazy person in any hospital screaming "IM NOT CRAZY".


I think I'm in the best position to know why I'm voting for a particular candidate.


----------



## Engert (Oct 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I think I'm in the best position to know why I'm voting for a particular candidate.



There's just one thing you forgot here tho which you may wanna use later in in your professional trolling career. You wanna keep things close to your chest like Hillary, so the hundreds of professional trolling comments cannot be used against you. 
Hillary learned about this tactic in her younger days in Arkansas.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Oct 15, 2016)

Hillary is extremely intelligent.


----------



## JohnGT (Oct 15, 2016)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I find it rather funny that shortly after trumps audio clip was released, the "grab them by the pussy" clip, a bunch of women come forward claiming sexual assault. The strange thing is, women that are usually gold diggers on things like this will haapily settle out of court on these type of claims and receive lots of money from the person that they accuse. It is so strange that all these women wait until now to make these claims when they could have potentially made millions. And we all know women wont delay on being money grubbers when given a chance. Ok, some women might wait, but certainly not all of them.
> Of course, not one of these women are actively pressing charges against trump for these alleged actions, probably because lying under oath is a punishable offense and they dont want to be anymore in the hotseat than they already are.
> And honestly, a mojority of those women are butt ugly, even one that is an old hag. The guy is a billionaire and he could easily have any woman with questionable standards which is most women. He certainly doesnt need to settle with ugly broads. Just being real here.
> 
> ...



you of course have the right to your own opinion. and its consistent with what main part of the society thinks. however it is not true that women who come out against sexual assaults by men with authority, that 1st reason for this is money. because 1st reason, most of the times, is fact that they (women) can't stand the fact that other women, now younger and even more voulnerable than they, are still exposed. they feel that, this is the only thing that they can to contribute toward stopping more sexual assaults from this man and potentially others. this is what they tell in interviews and has been established by doctors. if indeed they decide to come forward, because rape is a rape, causes shame and pain and coming forward after the fact is not easy, and its already easytimated that most cases of rape are going to be unreported.

there is no major reason to believe otherwise. for anyone who has been harmed by someone or by some defective part of the society, number one thing is to prevent this thing to happening again to other person. sometimes its about adults who want to protect their children, sometimes its about some trivial thing that friends want to warn about. anyone can just test and ask themselves. when something bad happened what he or she would think would be best to do after the fact they are no longer able to reverse the harm. this is the compassion part, and part of the society we live in and rules we agree to go by.

claim that most of the times these are quick ways to make big money for women is also incorrect, because most of the times those court cases last for a very long time. just for example how long Bill Cosby's lasted or is still going.

women are clearly more vournelable than men in relationships and this is a fact ... just take mariage for example, if husband rapes the woman, outside anyone knowing anything, the only way to verify claims by each side is by: who's claims we want to believe. other than that, who has better lawyers - but i dont see how this could benefit women more. so if husband turns out to be not a person he suppose to be, when arguments of physical strength arise its obvious who is at a disatvantage.

i hope my explanations make sense and you possibly could change your mind in the future. the thing that it doesn't matter, for the most part. i dont think your view here is extreme in any way.


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 15, 2016)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Hillary is extremely intelligent.


There is a difference between intelligence and cunning.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Oct 15, 2016)

Engert said:


> Damn, you are delusional.
> You're the classic crazy person in any hospital screaming "IM NOT CRAZY".


----------



## Engert (Oct 15, 2016)

lcie nimbus said:


> View attachment 66223


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 15, 2016)

another 800 or so emails released

(mentioned bernie will not get the nomination in july of last year and says they will pay him for his endorsement to get his voters)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10669

(contains 3 transcripts of hillarys paid goldmans sachs speeches [see attachments], also basically says she is not interested in holding wall street accountable)
https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/11011

(suggests pay to play when she becomes president)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10313

(implies non-cleared clinton aides saw top secret emails, talks about TS emails on the server and hopes the NYT story on the emails wont get approved)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10587

(worried about the rape claim against bill clinton from a tweet)
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10461

(shows colluding with the clinton campaign and the new york times about an article that was not published yet so the clinton campaign could change their policy on it)
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10423

(even more collusion between the media and the clinton campaign, reuters reporter sent information directly to podesta)
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10530

(off the record reporter parties held at podesta's own home)
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10353

(gathering info on Juanita Broaddrick [bill clinton rape accuser])
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10275

and it seems the msm airing nothing but fake trump scandals doesnt seems to be working, people are far more interested in wikileaks based on google trends



Spoiler


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 16, 2016)

pack it in guys, cnn just declared that it is illegal for anyone but the msm to look at wikileaks leaked emails, and we should only get info about the emails from them


----------



## Engert (Oct 16, 2016)

The moron in the video has said many dumb things before.


----------



## Jill_Stein (Oct 17, 2016)

Who else here is sick of these large corporations lobbying for laws that allow legal action to be taken against console hackers, homebrew developers, and creators of fanmade content? I personally am, and as part of the *Green New Deal*, I will push for reforms that will protect your rights to enjoy and share developments in homebrew, fanmade content, and the hacking of consumer electronics.

@Donald_Trump and @Hillary_Clinton are simply the faces of the corporate duopoly's establishment, and they only care about themselves, their donors, and your votes. *Make no mistake; they do not care about you, and they will not advocate for your rights or your freedom!*

Please send the establishment a message by voting for *Green Party* candidates this election season!


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 17, 2016)

Jill_Stein said:


> Who else here is sick of these large corporations lobbying for laws that allow legal action to be taken against console hackers, homebrew developers, and creators of fanmade content? I personally am, and as part of the *Green New Deal*, I will push for reforms that will protect your rights to enjoy and share developments in homebrew, fanmade content, and the hacking of consumer electronics.
> 
> @Donald_Trump and @Hillary_Clinton are simply the faces of the corporate duopoly's establishment, and they only care about themselves, their donors, and your votes. *Make no mistake; they do not care about you, and they will not advocate for your rights or your freedom!*
> 
> Please send the establishment a message by voting for *Green Party* candidates this election season!


We have on GBATemp Stein, Trump, and Hilliary accounts but no Johnson?!? WTF?!? Doesn't my homeboy candidate deserve a GBATemp parody account?!


----------



## CeeDee (Oct 17, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> We have on GBATemp Clinton, Trump, and Hilliary accounts but no Johnson?!? WTF?!? Doesn't my homeboy candidate deserve a GBATemp parody account?!


No.


----------



## Jill_Stein (Oct 17, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> We have on GBATemp Clinton, Trump, and Hilliary accounts but no Johnson?!? WTF?!? Doesn't my homeboy candidate deserve a GBATemp parody account?!


I believe it is because he is afraid of losing supporters to me.
Why is @GovGaryJohnson ducking major media requests to debate me? RT if you'd like to see a Johnson/Stein re-match! https://t.co/2G91xgx8EV pic.twitter.com/gsVbk2g7u9— Dr. Jill Stein🌻 (@DrJillStein) October 15, 2016

I'm ahead of @GovGaryJohnson among independent voters. My numbers are rising, despite polls excluding 18-22 year olds. Ready to debate Gary? pic.twitter.com/vADMT179c3— Dr. Jill Stein🌻 (@DrJillStein) October 14, 2016

No wonder @GovGaryJohnson is too scared to debate me. I blew him out of the water in viewership last night on C-SPAN. Ready whenever, Gary. pic.twitter.com/Fi1wabXf0J— Dr. Jill Stein🌻 (@DrJillStein) October 13, 2016


----------



## Viri (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> pack it in guys, cnn just declared that it is illegal for anyone but the msm to look at wikileaks leaked emails, and we should only get info about the emails from them



https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512
Heh, yeah, Wikileaks Tweeted about that. And welp, CNN said it's illegal for us to view the emails, I guess we should all stop. But don't worry, CNN is allowed to view them, and I'm sure they'll cover the emails for us


----------



## Viri (Oct 17, 2016)

Jill_Stein said:


> Who else here is sick of these large corporations lobbying for laws that allow legal action to be taken against console hackers, homebrew developers, and creators of fanmade content? I personally am, and as part of the *Green New Deal*, I will push for reforms that will protect your rights to enjoy and share developments in homebrew, fanmade content, and the hacking of consumer electronics.
> 
> @Donald_Trump and @Hillary_Clinton are simply the faces of the corporate duopoly's establishment, and they only care about themselves, their donors, and your votes. *Make no mistake; they do not care about you, and they will not advocate for your rights or your freedom!*
> 
> Please send the establishment a message by voting for *Green Party* candidates this election season!


Hey Jill, explain this!



Spoiler


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 17, 2016)

oh forgot to do my daily important leak email post
I'll leave you with a few extra spicy emails 

WARNING: DON'T LOOK AT THESE OR YOU WILL BREAK THE LAW AND BE SENT TO PRISON!
-CNN probably

(the clinton campaign is taking money from foreigners who represent foreign goverments, suggests play to pay)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11915

(actually wished that the shooter in the san bernardino shooting was white and not a muslim)
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11500


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Oct 17, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Clinton, Trump, and Hilliary


*Clinton*, Trump, and *Hillary*.

Um....


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 17, 2016)

Logan Pockrus said:


> *Clinton*, Trump, and *Hillary*.
> 
> Um....


I dun f'd up


----------



## Viri (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> (actually wished that the shooter in the san bernardino shooting was white and not a muslim)
> https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11500


Hah, you would think he of all people would know that Muslim isn't a race. I can become a Muslim tomorrow if I wanted to, and I'm white, lols.


----------



## Engert (Oct 17, 2016)

Jill_Stein said:


> Who else here is sick of these large corporations lobbying for laws that allow legal action to be taken against console hackers, homebrew developers, and creators of fanmade content? I personally am, and as part of the *Green New Deal*, I will push for reforms that will protect your rights to enjoy and share developments in homebrew, fanmade content, and the hacking of consumer electronics.
> 
> @Donald_Trump and @Hillary_Clinton are simply the faces of the corporate duopoly's establishment, and they only care about themselves, their donors, and your votes. *Make no mistake; they do not care about you, and they will not advocate for your rights or your freedom!*
> 
> Please send the establishment a message by voting for *Green Party* candidates this election season!



Jill, why don't you stick to being a (bad) doctor? 
People would have taken you seriously if you at least talked about American civil liberties being eroded by illegal acts such as patriot act. 

Take care.


----------



## Viri (Oct 17, 2016)

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088

Looks like Wikileaks pissed off the US too much. I hope he's okay!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2016)

For anyone considering voting third party:


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> For anyone considering voting third party:



I thought the John Oliver piece was extremely poor.  Yes you can cream skim Johnson and Stein's foibles, and make them look ridiculous. Same with Clinton and Trump. But if you're "taking 3rd candidates seriously" you have to do more than a laundry list of good things followed by a polemic of bad.

Although John Oliver is a comedian not a journalist so I can not expect too much from a person like him.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I thought the John Oliver piece was extremely poor.  Yes you can cream skim Johnson and Stein's foibles, and make them look ridiculous. Same with Clinton and Trump. But if you're "taking 3rd candidates seriously" you have to do more than a laundry list of good things followed by a polemic of bad.
> 
> Although John Oliver is a comedian not a journalist so I can not expect too much from a person like him.


The major criticisms of Stein's college debt plan and Johnson's taxation plan and climate change _plan_ really are substantial. It's not cherry-picking, and it was a good piece.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Oct 17, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I dun f'd up


Holy crap--I made the same mistake today when mentioning these two candidates to someone today. Something else happened which I mentioned in the EOF, what the hell is going on? Why is GBATemp illustrating my life today?


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 17, 2016)

Hey, even if you don't vote between hillary and trump, get out and vote!

"...On the other hand, Ryan warned, 'If we lose the Senate, do you know who becomes chair of the Senate Budget Committee? A guy named Bernie Sanders. You ever heard of him?'"

So go out and vote democrat, or third party if there's a chance in heck they might win. Otherwise just stick to democrats. Vote out all those obstructionist and vote in folks that'll actually do something. And if bernie becomes chair of the senate budget committee, then that's excellent. 

On a related note, for those who don't know, the president doesn't do anything with the passing of the national budget anyway, except ask congress to pwetty pwetty pwease add his/her suggestions.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> On a related note, for those who don't know, the president doesn't do anything with the passing of the national budget anyway, except ask congress to pwetty pwetty pwease add his/her suggestions.


He or she signs it.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The major criticisms of Stein's college debt plan and Johnson's taxation plan and climate change _plan_ really are substantial. It's not cherry-picking, and it was a good piece.


Yes but at the same time if we were to be serious then we would have to consider Clinton's policies (her truly awful foreign interventionalist views) which also are a major concern. Let's not act like there are no substantial reason not to vote Clinton.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Yes but at the same time if we were to be serious then we would have to consider Clinton's policies (her truly awful foreign interventionalist views) which also are a major concern. Let's not act like there are no substantial reason not to vote Clinton.


Admittedly, Clinton is more interventionist than I would like. It's a legitimate criticism. It is, however, not disqualifying nor a demonstration of a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work, like the aforementioned criticisms of Johnson and Stein.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 17, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Admittedly, Clinton is more interventionist than I would like. It's a legitimate criticism. It is, however, not disqualifying nor a demonstration of a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work, like the aforementioned criticisms of Johnson and Stein.


Considering that her support of those interventions seem to demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding blowback, however that point can be moot since when we consider what is a disqualifing position than that is subjective to each voter. Her hawkish views are disqualifying for many people (myself included) and are a legitimate reason not to vote for her.

In terms of the fundamental understanding than that to could be subjective since it depends on opinion. Consumption taxes are not a fringe idea and they have numerous supporters but likewise the left dislikes them. Again it is subjective. I could claim that Clinton's tax ideas show a lack of undersfanding aswell but it is subjective.

Either way Clinton has posistions and policy proposals which can disqualify her from receiving your vote depending on your own views and opinions.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Considering that her support of those interventions seem to demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding blowback, however that point can be moot since when we consider what is a disqualifing position than that is subjective to each voter. Her hawkish views are disqualifying for many people (myself included) and are a legitimate reason not to vote for her.


Coherent arguments can be made for some of the interventions she supports, but I'd have to know what you're referring to in the first place. Favoring some interventions doesn't mean one isn't aware of blowback. You can't take a complicated issue such as this and claim it's as simple as the whoppers Stein and Johnson have proposed with obvious and serious flaws.

I'm not saying a person can't be critical of these or any other position, and I'm not saying they can't be disqualifying for some voters. But they demonstrate a difference in opinion, not a _fundamental misunderstanding_, and that's not hyperbole.



RevPokemon said:


> In terms of the fundamental understanding than that to could be subjective since it depends on opinion. Consumption taxes are not a fringe idea and they have numerous supporters but likewise the left dislikes them. Again it is subjective.


Stein is objectively wrong about how quantitative easing works. Johnson is objectively wrong that consumption taxes won't hurt the poor and benefit the rich, and he's objectively wrong that it won't reduce revenue. Worse yet, neither Stein nor Johnson can offer a defense against these criticisms.



RevPokemon said:


> I could claim that Clinton's tax ideas show a lack of undersfanding aswell but it is subjective.


Could you be more specific? It might be less subjective than you think, depending on your criticism.



RevPokemon said:


> Either way Clinton has posistions and policy proposals which can disqualify her from receiving your vote depending on your own views and opinions.


Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. If this were what I was talking about, then I would drop the previous topic and could argue that some people are just objectively wrong, and the people who hold these subjective _views and opinions_ are as flawed in their reasoning as their candidates are.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 18, 2016)

I'm surprised more people aren't talking up Evan McMullin as a Trump alternative; ya'll should probably look into him, especially if you're a conservative disgusted by Donald and his awful rhetoric


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm surprised more people aren't talking up Evan McMullin as a Trump alternative; ya'll should probably look into him, especially if you're a conservative disgusted by Donald and his awful rhetoric


The problem with your reasoning is that Republican Party voters generally like Donald Trump and his rhetoric.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 18, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The problem with your reasoning is that Republican Party voters generally like Donald Trump and his rhetoric.


Ultimately his policy is most inline with the GOP's than all the other canidates including Trump and Johnson. Plus alot of the GOP hates trump but just support him since he is the lesser evil.



Lacius said:


> Johnson is objectively wrong that consumption taxes won't hurt the poor and benefit the rich, and he's objectively wrong that it won't reduce revenue. Worse yet, neither Stein nor Johnson can offer a defense against these criticisms.



I do not want to get into a econimics fight but consumption tax is not objectively wrong and is favored by many economists. Although since our views of economics are different we will not agree on this


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Ultimately his policy is most inline with the GOP's than all the other canidates including Trump and Johnson. Plus alot of the GOP hates trump but just support him since he is the lesser evil.


This idea that, among self-identified Republican Party voters, Donald Trump is disliked and merely the lesser of two evils is garbage. He has nearly 81-84% support from Republican voters, which is comparable to other election years. Do not think that because some GOP leaders are hesitant to support Trump and his antics, the actual Republican voters have any standards, because they don't. Donald Trump is the Republican Party. What he says is what they largely think.

Alternatives such as McMullin appeal to a minority of Republican voters when contrasted with Donald Trump.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 18, 2016)

Lacius said:


> his idea that, among self-identified Republican Party voters, Donald Trump is disliked


Considering about 1/2 of Gop voters disliked Trump in Jun and as of now is only going up now.



Lacius said:


> merely the lesser of two evils


Which is why many Republicans vote for him.



Lacius said:


> He has nearly 81-84% support from Republican voters, which is comparable to other election year


For what it is worth if that holds true and turns to support on Voting day than that would twice the amount of cross voting Republicans that in 08 after Bush when the canidate was a man who many of the conservative branch hated.



Lacius said:


> Donald Trump is the Republican Party. What he says is what they largely think.


Not including his past views on issues, Trump has taken many positions that are outside the conservative consensus.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 18, 2016)




----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 18, 2016)

VinLark said:


>



This was already posted


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 18, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> This was already posted


Oh whoops. Sorry about that


----------



## ComeTurismO (Oct 18, 2016)

Melania did a horrible job defending her husband and herself as a potential first-lady on CNN's debate today. She believes that she will battle cyber-bullying on social media, and thinks it is wrong. Why isn't she taking action when Trump is doing that same exact thing on Twitter and Facebook? 

One reasonable discussion, unrelated to above (kinda): 

How do you think and what do you think Bill will do as a 'first-gentleman/man/dude/guy' if Hillary is elected?


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 18, 2016)

a small update, Ecuador cut off his internet access on satuday right after clinton's goldman sachs paid speeches were released
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865
Unfortunately for them that wont stop the leaks just by cutting off julian, a bot was created to automatically release the emails every single day
he set up many backup plans in the event something happened to him weather he was imprisoned or even if his death might occur, a decryption key would be released to unlock previously uploaded encrypted files
ecudador replied back they would continue to house and protect assange https://twitter.com/CancilleriaEc/status/788161697106329604


and with that I present a few highlights of next batch of 800 leaked emails

(Chelsea Clinton concerned about security issues, spying, and surveillance between employees, one employee saw another going through someone's blackberry, and even loading spyware on computers)
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12401

(politico chief correspondent sending unreleased stories to the clinton campaign to allow them to change it if they want before posting, he even called him self a hack for doing it)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681


and a nice undercover investigation video on DNC and clinton campaign corruption, a few smaller msm outlets are reporting on the video so far



part 2 is going to be released tomorrow and he declared far worse than this one


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 18, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> Why isn't she taking action when Trump is doing that same exact thing on Twitter and Facebook?


Because without Twitter, Trump is another Steve Forbes and probably wouldn't have won.



ComeTurismO said:


> How do you think and what do you think Bill will do as a 'first-gentleman/man/dude/guy' if Hillary is elected


I think he will be pretty active in helping her plans and will have a large roll


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 18, 2016)

#HillaryForPrison
#CantStumpTheTrump


Spoiler


----------



## Viri (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> a small update, Ecuador cut off his internet access on satuday right after clinton's goldman sachs paid speeches were released
> https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865
> Unfortunately for them that wont stop the leaks just by cutting off julian, a bot was created to automatically release the emails every single day
> he set up many backup plans in the event something happened to him weather he was imprisoned or even if his death might occur, a decryption key would be released to unlock previously uploaded encrypted files
> ...



Damage control! https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/788199962832175104

Also, a reminder, which I kinda knew when it happened earlier this year.


Spoiler













Spoiler










They're such nice peoples

Hillary would never pay people to protest and incite violence at Trump rallies, right?
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursem...IGUEZ&min_date=01/01/2015&max_date=12/31/2016


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 18, 2016)

Lacius said:


> For anyone considering voting third party:


Oh noes, Jill Stein speech panders to voters! How terrible!
As to the college debt, it's better crap than to keep enriching capitalists to make education worse, which is what everyone else wants to do, even if she gets some names wrong - the president wouldn't write the economical plan himself.


----------



## Viri (Oct 18, 2016)

Hah, the lobbyist must be scared of that, and begging congress already to not pass it 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps-five-point-plan-for-ethics-reform


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 18, 2016)

Viri said:


> Hah, the lobbyist must be scared of that, and begging congress already to not pass it
> 
> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps-five-point-plan-for-ethics-reform


"I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists."

You don't find that in the least bit concerning?... I mean, it's one thing if someone is funneling money into someone's account to try to influence their opinion on an issue, but it's entirely different if someone who has prior experience in office is actually trying to give someone advice that they've asked for. A political office is not an easy operation to take on alone...


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> Oh noes, Jill Stein speech panders to voters! How terrible!


When it's 9/11 truthers and anti-vaxxers, to name a couple, it is actually terrible.



Nightwish said:


> As to the college debt, it's better crap than to keep enriching capitalists to make education worse, which is what everyone else wants to do, even if she gets some names wrong - the president wouldn't write the economical plan himself.


Considering it's a non-plan, no, it's not better.


----------



## Viri (Oct 18, 2016)

https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/788484460652167168

Another one bites the dust!


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 19, 2016)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...6-will-be-his-last-attempt-at-elected-office/

Looks like I won't be spending 2019-2020 as a Johnson campaigner.


----------



## Viri (Oct 19, 2016)

http://www.cbs46.com/story/33418363/witness-dnc-tour-bus-dumps-human-waste-into-storm-drain

She's literally taking a shit on America. I lol'd pretty hard.

I feel so bad for who ever lives there, that must have smelled awful.


----------



## MisterPantsEyes (Oct 19, 2016)

Post your face when you see Trump.

This is my my face when I see Trump:






Though this could also be my face when I see Trump:





And this is my face when I think about Trump supporters trying to understand what I'm talking about:


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Oct 19, 2016)

my face when I hear about trump


----------



## MisterPantsEyes (Oct 19, 2016)

lcie nimbus said:


> my face when I hear about trump


I see no face.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Oct 19, 2016)

MisterPantsEyes said:


> I see no face.


damn the image must have been to big ill try again


Spoiler: trump face


----------



## MisterPantsEyes (Oct 19, 2016)

lcie nimbus said:


> damn the image must have been to big ill try again
> 
> 
> Spoiler: trump face


I see your face and I appreciate it, it's relatable. But it doesn't have a deep meaning like my faces do.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Oct 19, 2016)

MisterPantsEyes said:


> I see your face and I appreciate it, it's relatable. But it doesn't have a deep meaning like my faces do.



its just an indifferent face


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 19, 2016)

as much as I would like to change the subject from that riveting conversation


a clinton super pac had plans to frame and accuse assange for being a pedophile and being a russian spy
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/587lbg/i_have_been_looking_into_the_san_fransisco/

a follow up to a previously posted email on bill's 1 million dollar birthday check from qatar, firearm flow increased almost 1500%, so it was essentially an arms deal
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788575667214553088?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

classified military information being sent to podesta from clintons private email server
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18917

clinton campaign getting debate topics for a democratic debate in advance from fox (again)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/21526#efmAJiAOE


Pt.2 on voter fraud


dnc employee talks about beating up women at trump rallies to make it seem like all men who support trump do it


----------



## bkifft (Oct 19, 2016)

MisterPantsEyes said:


> Post your face when you see Trump.
> 
> This is my my face when I see Trump:
> [snip]
> ...


I'm not sure if I get what you mean, but every time you see trump you want to be prosecuted by the Volksgerichtshof and get beheaded afterwards?


----------



## Engert (Oct 19, 2016)

@Joe88 it's hilarious right?
This is the stuff that trump was talking about all along but because he talks like a dumb gorilla nobody takes him seriously. 
With these new surfaced videos now even CNN takes trump more seriously and they don't trash him as much.


----------



## GreaterDog (Oct 19, 2016)

HARAMBE FOR PREZZZZZ


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Oct 20, 2016)

I'm comin down with a bad case of trumpinitis and hilliria . now withdrawing from the cesspool of American politics


----------



## Viri (Oct 20, 2016)

Remember, CNN is not bias at all!


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 20, 2016)

Viri said:


> Remember, CNN is not bias at all!



And they could not even time it quite right!


----------



## Viri (Oct 21, 2016)

I like how Hillary just pissed off the Pentagon on live TV by giving away classified information and then Tweeting it afterwards to make it not seem like a slip up. But hey, maybe we're being too hard on her, because remember...



Spoiler


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Oct 21, 2016)

Hillary creeps me the fuck out, you may disagree with me, but the evidence that i have found states that she has lied numerous times. Not voting for her.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 21, 2016)

Viri said:


> I like how Hillary just pissed off the Pentagon on live TV by giving away classified information and then Tweeting it afterwards to make it not seem like a slip up. But hey, maybe we're being too hard on her, because remember...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



They're grabbing at straws if they say that "about four minutes" is "precise intel on nuclear launch times." On top of that, an overview of literally the ENTIRE procedure for a launch can be found on the internet. How do I know? John Oliver did a segment on it over a year ago


----------



## Viri (Oct 21, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> They're grabbing at straws if they say that "about four minutes" is "precise intel on nuclear launch times." On top of that, an overview of literally the ENTIRE procedure for a launch can be found on the internet. How do I know? John Oliver did a segment on it over a year ago


Yuh, the Pentagon are just being babies about a lady who was the first lady, and the secretary of state telling and confirming to the entire world about our nuclear response time. There is nothing wrong with a lady with her credentials talking about open secrets to millions on live TV.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 21, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Hillary creeps me the fuck out, you may disagree with me, but the evidence that i have found states that she has lied numerous times. Not voting for her.


Then who are you going to vote for? Trump has been caught lying more than she does.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 21, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> Then who are you going to vote for? Trump has been caught lying more than she does.


Vermin.
Supreme.
President of the universe!!!
(Not worse than any of the candidates, he had a better sense of humor for sure)


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 22, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> They're grabbing at straws if they say that "about four minutes" is "precise intel on nuclear launch times." On top of that, an overview of literally the ENTIRE procedure for a launch can be found on the internet. How do I know? John Oliver did a segment on it over a year ago


You really love John Oliver don't ya? 



KingVamp said:


> Then who are you going to vote for? Trump has been caught lying more than she does.


He could join me on the Johnson Train!
Choo Choo


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Oct 22, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> Then who are you going to vote for? Trump has been caught lying more than she does.


Trump, at least he's realistic and honest, most of the time. Good businessman as well!


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 22, 2016)

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-email...AIRAMIAN3AU-AZ2Aa5AelAe4AlZA2SA3bA6eA-xBIPBJy


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 22, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> You really love John Oliver don't ya?


I said that partially for levity because I've been making a lot of references to him lol


----------



## Viri (Oct 24, 2016)

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/786056103188508672



Spoiler


----------



## BARNWEY (Oct 24, 2016)

Kenneth Bone has my vote...


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 24, 2016)

basically confirms they were pressured by the us govt trying to protect clinton and the dnc






https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790353988642299904


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 24, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> basically confirms they were pressured by the us govt trying to protect clinton and the dnc
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think they were pressured by the US government, yes. But the reason is to put a stop to the fall into digrace of the US in the eyes of the world. The whole e-mail scandal is really shameful.
In the other hand the Turd Sandwich is just a Turd Sandwich. All candidates in this election are shit, there's no defending any of them.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 24, 2016)

Ya'll should totally watch this. Relevant and necessary:


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 25, 2016)

"we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov"
Saying they basically need to cover up the email scandal, obama received emails from her that were from the private email server, so he did know about it and lied that he didn't know until he saw it on the news

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077

how much deeper does the rabbit hole go I wonder...


and in other news, electronic voting machines are turning republican votes to democratic and in texas of all places


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 25, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Trump, at least he's realistic and honest, most of the time. Good businessman as well!


Trump is a clown nothing more. Never liked him. Even when he was in wwe. When i first heard that he gonna run for president i though it is a joke. You have really bad times in the us if so much people voting for him. I not surprised about all those reports about him and yes i 100% believe to those reports.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 25, 2016)

sergey3000 said:


> Trump is a clown nothing more. Never liked him. Even when he was in wwe. When i first heard that he gonna run for president i though it is a joke. You have really bad times in the us if so much people voting for him. I not surprised about all those reports about him and yes i 100% believe to those reports.


Yeah I remember back when I thought it was so funny around 13 or so. Oh well atleast it is helping Johnson so that's good.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Oct 25, 2016)

You can prefer whoever you want.
In the US, the people's opinion is not considered.
Your President is elected by the "great electors" not by the people.
Is this "democracy"?
Look at Bush vs Gore: Clinton's wife risk to win in the same manner


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 25, 2016)

Democracy: the November joke


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 26, 2016)

EmanueleBGN said:


> In the US, the people's opinion is not considered.


Have you looked at the EU recently? It was so badly and forcibly built that it can't listen to the people anymore because the citizens have been manipulated into thinking the problem is most of the other EU countries.


EmanueleBGN said:


> Your President is elected by the "great electors" not by the people.


Have you looked at the EU recently? I'm feeling like a broken record here... But seriously, the Eurogroup doesn't officially exist, and yet it rules, Shauble wasn't elected Holy European Emperor, and yet he is, treaties should be discussed with the people, and yet they're rubber stamped by those who profit from them...


EmanueleBGN said:


> Is this "democracy"?


Democracy is not just putting a cross (or the weird thing Americans do) on someone every four years, so no, it isn't. There's a limit to how much power you can safely give the vocal mob, but the west doesn't even listen anymore: anyone against the status quo is a populist, and couldn't possibly have sound reasons for rejecting TTIP, CETA, the Euro, the Stability Pact, Big Brother (not the show, guys), globalization or capitalism (as implemented, not as promoted, though that applies to the whole list)...


----------



## TechyTurtle (Oct 26, 2016)

Im voting for rump, an ass you can trust!


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Oct 26, 2016)

sergey3000 said:


> Trump is a clown nothing more. Never liked him. Even when he was in wwe. When i first heard that he gonna run for president i though it is a joke. You have really bad times in the us if so much people voting for him. I not surprised about all those reports about him and yes i 100% believe to those reports.


I could disagree with you, and i do. I'm voting for him, because Hilary just seems pure evil! More than Eggman evil that's for sure. Trump may have his issues, but at least he's an honest man, and a good business man that i can trust; and not that back stabbing bitch, Obama.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 26, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> and in other news, electronic voting machines are turning republican votes to democratic and in texas of all places


http://www.snopes.com/texas-vote-switching/


> *WHAT'S TRUE:* A woman in Tarrant County claimed that her vote switched from Republican to Democrat and she caught and corrected the error; a subsequent investigation determined the machine was working properly, and the woman admitted she may have erroneously selected the wrong candidate.
> 
> *WHAT'S FALSE: *Reports are not flooding in from across Texas about vote switching, and most anecdotes are identical with localities changed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 26, 2016)

Are you really using snopes as a source?
The onion and buzzfeed are more accurate than that left wing propaganda tool.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 26, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> Are you really using snopes as a source?
> The onion and buzzfeed are more accurate than that left wing propaganda tool.


Snopes is pretty good to be honest and I can say it has been pretty accurate.


----------



## Viri (Oct 26, 2016)

Syria is enough of a reason to vote for anyone but Clinton. I'd rather not get drafted into a war against Russia, or get nuked by them after Clinton escalates the war by enforcing a no fly zone in Syria. Not even Obama wants to enforce that, because he knows what would happen.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 26, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> Are you really using snopes as a source?
> The onion and buzzfeed are more accurate than that left wing propaganda tool.


Hm. What news sources exactly would you trust over a dedicated fact-checking website that cites and quotes its sources, if I may ask?


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 26, 2016)

Viri said:


> . I'd rather not get drafted into a war against Russia,


Assuming if the rules are the same as the last time they held a draft than there are of course ways to get out but it is unlikely we will ever have one in the near future.


----------



## Viri (Oct 27, 2016)

Spoiler














Spoiler













Spoiler












https://twitter.com/peterdukephoto/status/791558969105846272

Based homeless lady guarding Trump's star. If I was in California, I'd so buy her a beer and give her a 20!


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 27, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Trump, at least he's realistic and honest, most of the time. Good businessman as well!



We said the same thing about Sean Murray, that he was honest, and look what happened. He can double-cross you at any time and you'll just take him at his word.



Joe88 said:


> https://wikileaks.org/podesta-email...AIRAMIAN3AU-AZ2Aa5AelAe4AlZA2SA3bA6eA-xBIPBJy



Let's see the Trump campaign's emails. I bet they look exactly the same. This is how political organizations operate.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 27, 2016)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> Let's see the Trump campaign's emails. I bet they look exactly the same. This is how political organizations operate.


Probably but the emails are still not very good regardless.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Oct 27, 2016)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> We said the same thing about Sean Murray, that he was honest, and look what happened. He can double-cross you at any time and you'll just take him at his word.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see the Trump campaign's emails. I bet they look exactly the same. This is how political organizations operate.


True, but would you liked to be back-stabbed by the most evil (possible) president!? I know I don't want her in Office!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 27, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> True, but would you liked to be back-stabbed by the most evil (possible) president!? I know I don't want her in Office!


What makes you say she's evil?


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Oct 27, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What makes you say she's evil?


Her look, she just appears evil so much. I can't stand looking at her, and that grin she makes is quite horrible as well.


----------



## Viri (Oct 27, 2016)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> Let's see the Trump campaign's emails. I bet they look exactly the same. This is how political organizations operate.


I personally would like to read the GOP's emails and see how scared they were when Trump was destroying Cruz and Bush, and how hard they tried to stop him. I guess it would be kinda like the DNC emails, swap Bernie with Trump and them being unsuccessful. Thank god the GOP didn't have super delegates, all parties need to agree to get rid/never have them.


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 27, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Her look, she just appears evil so much. I can't stand looking at her, and that grin she makes is quite horrible as well.


Oh, well, Trump doesn't look evil as well when he insults women, veterans, mexicans, muslims, blacks, democrats, journalists... 
Or when he sues and threatens to sue every single journalist with a different opinion. Totally not evil.

Let's go back to people like Bush and Blair, they're so photogenic, I'm sure they're completely trustworthy and wouldn't do crazy things like supporting war crimes or human rights violations.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Oct 27, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> Oh, well, Trump doesn't look evil as well when he insults women, veterans, mexicans, muslims, blacks, democrats, journalists...
> Or when he sues and threatens to sue every single journalist with a different opinion. Totally not evil.
> 
> Let's go back to people like Bush and Blair, they're so photogenic, I'm sure they're completely trustworthy and wouldn't do crazy things like supporting war crimes or human rights violations.


Okay, I'm done with this bullshit...peace!


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 27, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> Oh, well, Trump doesn't look evil as well when he insults women, veterans, mexicans, muslims, blacks, democrats, journalists...
> Or when he sues and threatens to sue every single journalist with a different opinion. Totally not evil.
> 
> Let's go back to people like Bush and Blair, they're so photogenic, I'm sure they're completely trustworthy and wouldn't do crazy things like supporting war crimes or human rights violations.



Because Clinton is *so *trustworthy too and can't *possibly *do any wrong, right:?  Not to mention she's for the TPP, that's a deal-breaker IMO.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 27, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Because Clinton is *so *trustworthy too and can't *possibly *do any wrong, right:?  Not to mention she's for the TPP, that's a deal-breaker IMO.


Don't forget 4 (possibly 6) wars,


----------



## Viri (Oct 27, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> Let's go back to people like Bush and Blair, they're so photogenic, I'm sure they're completely trustworthy and wouldn't do crazy things like supporting war crimes or human rights violations.


So.... you're for Trump? I mean how many war crimes has Obama committed so far in Syria? Also,didn't he bomb a hospital, I'm pretty sure that's a human right violation? A vote for Hillary is pretty much a vote for the same, well, maybe a bit more insane, as she wants to enforce a no fly zone, that not even Obama is insane enough to do.


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 28, 2016)

Guys, come on!
I know I didn't post all that much here, but you can go back and see that I don't like either of the candidates. I was just focusing on the argument that you shouldn't vote based on appearances.
I'd feel terrible if I had to vote for any of those persons to elect a lesser evil, because it would still be a vote to fuck myself. Honestly, it's pathetic how Jon Stewart's apprentices are sponsoring Hillary.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 28, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Because Clinton is *so *trustworthy too and can't *possibly *do any wrong, right:?  Not to mention she's for the TPP, that's a deal-breaker IMO.


Except she's not for the TPP.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Except she's not for the TPP.



Huh I thought she was, huh, good, I'm glad she opposes it then.


----------



## x65943 (Oct 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Except she's not for the TPP.



She was a vocal proponent of the TPP before Sanders convinced half the Democratic leaning electorate that it was not good for America. 

She said that once she saw the final version she could no longer support it. What that means is that she liked the earlier drafts. You can fully expect her to support a similar agreement in the future without those "final details" that supposedly bothered her. 

I think she only switched her opinion to appeal to Bernie supporters. I fully expect her to negotiate a similar trade deal in the future.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 28, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Huh I thought she was, huh, good, I'm glad she opposes it then.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/polit...linton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/

Ultimately I think it depends on how you take it but for what it is worth considering past history of these free trade deals that she did support it but likely changed on it for political reasons to appeal to progressives somewhat like how Romney was on abortion so to speak. Although we probably will never know how much the "final" deal and the previous versions were.


Also see


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 28, 2016)

x65943 said:


> She was a vocal proponent of the TPP before Sanders convinced half the Democratic leaning electorate that it was not good for America.
> 
> She said that once she saw the final version she could no longer support it. What that means is that she liked the earlier drafts. You can fully expect her to support a similar agreement in the future without those "final details" that supposedly bothered her.
> 
> I think she only switched her opinion to appeal to Bernie supporters. I fully expect her to negotiate a similar trade deal in the future.



On second thought, screw it, the TPP is a bad idea for many people, I won't support any politician that supports such a horrible trade policy.


----------



## Viri (Oct 28, 2016)

Yeah, she opposes it, for now! 

If she gets into the White House, she'll be like "I opposed what?! Oh no, you just misunderstood me "


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 28, 2016)

Viri said:


> Yeah, she opposes it, for now!
> 
> If she gets into the White House, she'll be like "I opposed what?! Oh no, you just misunderstood me "


Would she really use a  tho?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 28, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Not to mention she's for the TPP, that's a deal-breaker IMO.


That's not necessarily true, she was for the Trans-Pacific Partnership before a bunch of revisions were made that made it what it is today. If I recall correctly she doesn't support it in its current state


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's not necessarily true, she was for the Trans-Pacific Partnership before a bunch of revisions were made that made it what it is today. If I recall correctly she doesn't support it in its current state


But the real question like what they raised on Young Turks is how honest is she about it given what little we know? I highly recommend watching that video as it really explains it very well. But ultimately it would be foolish to say that her position did not change beceause of political reasons.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Oct 28, 2016)

I don't know if I should laugh or cry that the US' politics make my country's seem serious and sane

Sent from my cave of despair where I collect souls


----------



## Lacius (Oct 28, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> But the real question like what they raised on Young Turks is how honest is she about it given what little we know? I highly recommend watching that video as it really explains it very well. But ultimately it would be foolish to say that her position did not change beceause of political reasons.


It is by definition foolish to make claims when you have no evidence.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It is by definition foolish to make claims when you have no evidence.


Let's be honest, everything that Clinton does is politically oriented. I only, and I mean _only_ like her because the demographic she panders to mirrors my beliefs

That said, she's a politician, so that is to be expected (as unfortunate as it is). The positive side of that is that she has to make good of her promises in some form or she won't get a second term


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 28, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> Are you really using snopes as a source?
> The onion and buzzfeed are more accurate than that left wing propaganda tool.


[citation needed]



TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's not necessarily true, she was for the Trans-Pacific Partnership before a bunch of revisions were made that made it what it is today. If I recall correctly she doesn't support it in its current state


Yes, but what exactly about it did she dislike? Does she actually really like it, but pollsters told her that it would hurt her numbers to support it at the moment? I mean, it's not like trump is a choice, he's a buffoon, but we should try and keep hillary honest.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 28, 2016)

what is a TPP?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Let's be honest, everything that Clinton does is politically oriented. I only, and I mean _only_ like her because the demographic she panders to mirrors my beliefs
> 
> That said, she's a politician, so that is to be expected (as unfortunate as it is). The positive side of that is that she has to make good of her promises in some form or she won't get a second term


She's going to make politically-oriented decisions, but that doesn't mean everything she does is politically-oriented, and that doesn't mean her opposition to the TPP is politically-oriented. I'm not saying her opposition to the TPP certainly isn't politically-oriented, but I can't tell one way or the other, and you're not privy to more information than I have. For now, her story on her opposition to the TPP checks out.



Noctosphere said:


> what is a TPP?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It is by definition foolish to make claims when you have no evidence.


Regardless no matter what her positions are at least somewhat due to political support and in order to gain voters. That is the same with every politician as they all wisely take certain positions in order to help their political careers. Romney did it to get the GOP nom. Clinton did it too better appeal the the more progressive democrats. The list literally goes on forever of politicians who take positions for their political career.- Edit: I did not see your ninja post

Likewise the question is how much does this affect her decision?  In the case of the TPP, the things that she cited as reasons that she was against the final version of the TPP were things that the earlier versions had as well such as the monetary affects and pharmaceutical patents. Regardless it is safe to say her change was politically motivated.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 28, 2016)

why would american oppose to something giving a plus to their economy..?


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 28, 2016)

Noctosphere said:


> what is a TPP?


 The trans-pacific partnership. Basically a bunch of countries getting together to agree on trade (but not china). Many see it as pro-business and anti-consumer in its structure and desired effects. Whenever you see "economy", they can either mean "economy" or "big businesses". They use both interchangeably. They are very different things, though people continue to conflate them.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 28, 2016)

Noctosphere said:


> why would american oppose to something giving a plus to their economy..?


trade deals are complex and have good parts and bad parts but in the case of the TPP many people feel that their are too many unfavorable parts.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 28, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Regardless it is safe to say her change was politically motivated.


The fact that you think it's _safe_ to say that tells me you don't care to have a reality-based discussion. I'm not concerned with your feels. See my previous post.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 28, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The fact that you think it's _safe_ to say that tells me you don't care to have a reality-based discussion. I'm not concerned with your feels. See my previous post.


I did see your post and I have read it. But the issue is that her criticisms about the TPP's final form were also there in earlier forms. In fact consider as I said the pharmaceutical patents which changed from the earlier 10 years to about 8 years. Likewise the earlier versions which were identical on currency manipulation, which was also a cited reason as to why the current TPP was a bad deal. I am not saying that the TPP is a disqualifier or that it means one should not vote for Clinton but it is still something to consider.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 28, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I did see your post and I have read it. But the issue is that her criticisms about the TPP's final form were also there in earlier forms. In fact consider as I said the pharmaceutical patents which changed from the earlier 10 years to about 8 years. Likewise the earlier versions which were identical on currency manipulation, which was also a cited reason as to why the current TPP was a bad deal. I am not saying that the TPP is a disqualifier or that it means one should not vote for Clinton but it is still something to consider.


As much as hillary seems to be pro-business, you've just got to know trump is 10x worse. I still think we should hold her feet to the fire, though. Give but an inch, and she'll go complete center.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 28, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> As much as hillary seems to be pro-business, you've just got to know trump is 10x worse.


Yes I would have to agree that Trump is awful when it comes to trade and most other libertarians would agree with that assertion. 



osaka35 said:


> I still think we should hold her feet to the fire, though. Give but an inch, and she'll go complete center.


Agreed. As someone not voting for the Big 2, I tell people all the time that whenever I speak against one of the two, that it does not mean that I support the other since I am against both of them.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 28, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Yes I would have to agree that Trump is awful when it comes to trade and most other libertarians would agree with that assertion.
> 
> 
> Agreed. As someone not voting for the Big 2, I tell people all the time that whenever I speak against one of the two, that it does not mean that I support the other since I am against both of them.


hell yeah, vote Lary Jackson guys


----------



## Viri (Oct 28, 2016)

Welp, the FBI reopened her case, this will make the rest of the election to be interesting


----------



## endoverend (Oct 28, 2016)

This FBI thing is crazy shit. Has there ever been a candidate under such a high amount of suspicion this close to election day?


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 28, 2016)

Between Project Veritas videos, WikiLeaks & the re-opened FBI investigation against Hillary, she doesn't stand a chance! #Trump2016!


----------



## Viri (Oct 28, 2016)

I'm honestly a little sad this election will be over in 11 days, it has been such a fun one, compared to the boring ones we had in the past.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 28, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> Between Project Veritas videos, WikiLeaks & the re-opened FBI investigation against Hillary, she doesn't stand a chance! #Trump2016!


Dem tax returns tho


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Dem tax returns tho


What if Trump emailed Clinton his taxes but she deleted them? /s


Anyway I do not trust either one of those two at all.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Dem tax returns tho


Withholding tax returns isn't illegal.

Lying under oath and erasing federal property is a felony.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 28, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> Withholding tax returns isn't illegal.
> 
> Lying under oath and erasing federal property is a felony.


You're right, it isn't, but his reasons for withholding them are flimsy at best and should make you at least a little suspicious as to why he wouldn't want to release them. And while yes, it is a felony, multiple Republican-initiated trials have found her not guilty on the charges brought up, so right there should indicate that it's at least _possible _that the allegations are being blown out of proportion

It should also be mentioned that I enjoy playing devil's advocate. I don't really trust Clinton either, but I will give reasons why one might look past something from either candidate if someone is specifically targeting them


----------



## Viri (Oct 28, 2016)

http://nypost.com/2016/10/28/new-clinton-emails-found-during-anthony-weiner-sexting-probe/

Oh god, my sides, lols!


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 28, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> multiple Republican-initiated trials have found her not guilty


Not true. She was never tried, there was an investigation where the FBI recommended they not prosecute her, _but she can still be prosecuted_, and she certainly will be when Trump becomes president

"There should be no company too big to fail, and no person too powerful to jail" -Hillary. I bet she didn't think that would apply to her, though .


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 28, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> Not true. She was never tried, there was an investigation where the FBI recommended they not prosecute her, _but she can still be prosecuted_, and she certainly will be when Trump becomes president
> 
> "There should be no company too big to fail, and no person too powerful to jail" -Hillary. I bet she didn't think that would apply to her, though .


To your credit, I was thinking of the Benghazi hearing

However, the point still stands that that's what kicked off the whole uncovering of the email scandal and the justice department has done squat about it. So either they're bad at their job (unlikely) or the issue simply isn't as bad as the public is led to believe, especially considering the highly political aspect and the temptation to use it as a smear is very high


----------



## Viri (Oct 28, 2016)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/638318502059880450

Trump was right!


----------



## Enteking (Oct 28, 2016)

Trump. The dishonest American and international media hate him and would do everything to destroy him but I love his speeches, his political agenda (which supported by the horseshoe theory is much closer to Sanders when compared to Clinton and also very modern, open minded, unconventional and not really conservative but smart, effective and intelligent) and the real change that he can bring to the American economy. I also hate political correctness and I am intelligent enough to make my own opinion. Media reports about him are so extremely and obviously biased and one-sided that you should not believe them. Make your own judgment instead.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 28, 2016)

another gift, leaked audio recording of hillary talking about rigging a Palestine election (2006)
https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Hm. What news sources exactly would you trust over a dedicated fact-checking website that cites and quotes its sources, if I may ask?


I guess I should be asking here is why the heavy reliance on fact checking web sites? Because often the time is who is fact checking the fact checkers? They take already available sources and spin them to make them look false or true to fit their political agenda. I have already posted alot of leaked emails on collusion between the hillary campaign, the dnc, and these web sites.
Snopes itself has been pointed out by others for spinning stuff or making false claims as true. Like the absent US flags at the DNC 1st day, they put a day 2 photo and claimed it as day one to prove wrong the right wing sites and trump. Or how they fact checked hillary defending a child rapist and laughing and spun it into a mostly false claim.

Imo, these web sites should be avoid and your own research would show alot better results.


----------



## Viri (Oct 28, 2016)

Spoiler












Here is one of the sext messages the guy sent to a 15 year old. And, oh my!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 28, 2016)

A few notes on the recent conversation:

The original FBI investigation concluded that there's no evidence that Clinton ever broke any laws pertaining to her emails.
The FBI investigation into Clinton's use of emails has not been reopened.
The emails being referenced today apparently have little if anything to do with Clinton, weren't sent by her, and have nothing to do with her private server.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A few notes on the recent conversation:
> 
> The original FBI investigation concluded that there's no evidence that Clinton ever broke any laws pertaining to her emails.
> The FBI investigation into Clinton's use of emails has not been reopened.
> The emails being referenced today apparently have little if anything to do with Clinton, weren't sent by her, and have nothing to do with her private server.


I would quibble that they couldn't find any evidence of intent, only evidence of recklessness (which they said would land a normal person in jail in a heartbeat). They did not say there's no evidence  Just that they found no evidence of intent.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A few notes on the recent conversation:
> 
> The original FBI investigation concluded that there's no evidence that Clinton ever broke any laws pertaining to her emails.
> The FBI investigation into Clinton's use of emails has not been reopened.
> The emails being referenced today apparently have little if anything to do with Clinton, weren't sent by her, and have nothing to do with her private server.


[damage control intensifies]


----------



## Smoker1 (Oct 29, 2016)




----------



## Viri (Oct 29, 2016)

I'm voting for the second Civil War


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I would quibble that they couldn't find any evidence of intent, only evidence of recklessness (which they said would land a normal person in jail in a heartbeat). They did not say there's no evidence  Just that they found no evidence of intent.


Your quibbling is nonsensical, and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of what actually happened.

Comey flatly said there is no evidence that Clinton broke any laws, and that's almost verbatim. He also said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case (because, as he said, there is no case).

There's no distinction regarding intent.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Your quibbling is nonsensical, and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of what actually happened.
> 
> Comey flatly said there is no evidence that Clinton broke any laws, and that's almost verbatim. He also said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case (because, as he said, there is no case).
> 
> There's no distinction regarding intent.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you are miss-remembering  while i dont think they're a huge deal, hand-waving away inconvenient facts just makes your position look weaker. better ways to address the problem, in my opinion. though i do hate she literally wants to kill assange, while at the same time being so lackadaisical with her emails. she shady, but she aint crazy.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

emphasis mine:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, *especially regarding intent*. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

_To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now_."


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you are miss-remembering  while i dont think they're a huge deal, hand-waving away inconvenient facts just makes your position look weaker. better ways to address the problem, in my opinion. though i do hate she literally wants to kill assange, while at the same time being so lackadaisical with her emails. she shady, but she aint crazy.
> 
> https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
> 
> ...


Try again.

_Sen. Sasse: Do you think that Secretary Clinton broke any laws related to classified data?

Director Comey: We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information.
_
Edit: There is also nothing in your post where he suggests there's any evidence Clinton broke any laws.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Oct 29, 2016)

This is about America, Jesus, freedom.

Trump 2016, 'MERICA!


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Try again.
> 
> _Sen. Sasse: Do you think that Secretary Clinton broke any laws related to classified data?
> 
> ...


yes, exactly. they didn't find enough evidence to justify intent. enough evidence. they did not find any positive evidence she did not do it, as you claimed, only that the evidence they do have is not nearly sufficient to get a conviction with a former secretary of state. a normal person yes, but not a former secretary of defense. you've gotta show intent with them, not recklesness or ignorance. the trick is, you've got take the message as a whole, not just one or two lines.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Oct 29, 2016)

Is America really free ? Ha, no! Also, according to Debate is that 81 percent say No too. 

Also there is other news:

New Study Shows ‘Land Of The Free’ Is in Swift Decline, Many Countries Pass Up US in Freedom Rank


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> yes, exactly. they didn't find enough evidence to justify intent. enough evidence. they did not find any positive evidence she did not do it, as you claimed, only that the evidence they do have is not nearly sufficient to get a conviction with a former secretary of state. a normal person yes, but not a former secretary of defense. you've gotta show intent with them, not recklesness or ignorance. the trick is, you've got take the message as a whole, not just one or two lines.


He clearly says there's no evidence that Clinton broke the law, intentionally or not. Don't be disingenuous and act like the quote I posted had anything to do with intent. You were wrong.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> He clearly says there's no evidence that Clinton broke the law, intentionally or not. Don't be disingenuous and act like the quote I posted had anything to do with intent. You were wrong.


I'm confused. Why are you ignoring the quote I gave and the context it provides for yours? Or does your quote overwrite previous quotes from the same person? ooo or is your quote that individual correcting what they said previously?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I'm confused. Why are you ignoring the quote I gave and the context it provides for yours? Or does your quote overwrite previous quotes from the same person? ooo or is your quote that individual correcting what they said previously?


It's that you havent provided a single piece of evidence from Comey or anyone else to suggest that Clinton broke any laws, intentionally or otherwise.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Oct 29, 2016)

I'm voting for Trump, because schools is this nation's backbone.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It's that you havent provided a single piece of evidence from Comey or anyone else to suggest that Clinton broke any laws, intentionally or otherwise.


I'm not sure of your level of understanding of the law, so I'm not sure how I should word my response. You said they have found positive evidence that clears clinton's name completely (your first post I responded to). That is incorrect, which is what I've been trying to tell you. What they DID say is that the minimum amount of evidence to prove intent, which they need to proceed with prosecution of a former secretary of defense in this scenario, was not met (see my quote for them saying as much). At worst I'm being pedantic, but it's crucial in court cases to be precise and accurate in your wording.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> You said they have found positive evidence that clears clinton's name completely (your first post I responded to).


If you're going to lie about what I said, I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 29, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> This is about America, Jesus, freedom.
> 
> Trump 2016, 'MERICA!


The last statement you made is basically a total antonym of the first three


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The original FBI investigation concluded that there's no evidence that Clinton ever broke any laws pertaining to her emails.





osaka35 said:


> You said they have found positive evidence that clears clinton's name completely





Lacius said:


> If you're going to lie about what I said, I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post.


I apologize. That was my mistake. You said "no evidence", whereas I thought you said "evidence that clinton didn't break any laws" as that seemed to be the basis for why you were arguing with me (I was agreeing with you in my original response, just pointing out a slight correction in language...then you seem to reject the very premise of what I was saying)

That being said,


Lacius said:


> Comey flatly said there is no evidence that Clinton broke any laws, and that's almost verbatim.





osaka35 said:


> [Comey:] "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."





Lacius said:


> He also said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case (because, as he said, there is no case).





osaka35 said:


> [Comey:] "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."





Lacius said:


> Don't be disingenuous and act like the quote I posted had anything to do with intent





osaka35 said:


> [Comey:]"There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, *especially regarding intent*. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past..._All the cases prosecuted involved_ some combination of: *clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information*; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an *inference of intentional misconduct*; or indications of *disloyalty* to the United States; or *efforts to obstruct justice*. _*We do not see those things here.*_"



If you only want to look at your particular quote in isolation in order to say that Comey has never said, or never intended, that intent was the core of why she was not prosecuted, then there's little I can argue with you about.

That being said, they said they weren't able to find any direct evidence that she intentionally did things to obstruct anything. Just that she was really dumb for hosting classified information on her own server. She's a politician, so I doubt she would have been prosecuted even if they did find anything.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> snip


Nothing you posted is Comey saying there's evidence Clinton did anything illegal. Saying she was arguably negligent is not the same thing as saying she did anything illegal, and we know now that the evidence he was referring to wasn't even true. Contrary to what Comey thought he was talking about, Clinton did not send nor receive information properly marked as _classified_. In addition, you're ignoring the quote from Comey where he flat out says, _"We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information."_

Why are you even arguing this? You're objectively wrong.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Nothing you posted is Comey saying there's evidence Clinton did anything illegal. Saying she was arguably negligent is not the same thing as saying she did anything illegal, and we know now that the evidence he was referring to wasn't even true. Contrary to what Comey thought he was talking about, Clinton did not send nor receive information properly marked as _classified_. In addition, you're ignoring the quote from Comey where he flat out says, _"We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information."_
> 
> Why are you even arguing this? You're objectively wrong.


I think you're missing something lol. that quote is not mutually exclusive to the idea that intent was the biggest reason why she didn't violate any of the statutes. She was secretary of defense. The statutes that apply to her are different than other people. Comey said as much. What did you think he was talking about? And AGAIN:


osaka35 said:


> I would quibble that they couldn't find any evidence of intent, only evidence of recklessness (which they said would land a normal person in jail in a heartbeat). They did not say there's no evidence  Just that they found no evidence of intent.


If you think I'm objectively wrong, I think you're not understanding the point I'm making. I was just trying to point out a quibble over the specifics, then you got all insulty.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Oct 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The last statement you made is basically a total antonym of the first three



False.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> that quote is not mutually exclusive to the idea that intent was the biggest reason why she didn't violate any of the statutes.


No, this is. One cannot claim ignorance or lack of intent as a defense for breaking a law. If I run a red light because I didn't see it, that doesn't matter; I'm still getting a ticket. She wasn't charged with breaking the law because there is no evidence that she broke the law, period.

_"We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information."_



osaka35 said:


> She was secretary of defense.


No, she was Secretary of State.



osaka35 said:


> The statutes that apply to her are different than other people. Comey said as much.


No, Comey did not say that.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 29, 2016)

Viri said:


> I personally would like to read the GOP's emails and see how scared they were when Trump was destroying Cruz and Bush, and how hard they tried to stop him. I guess it would be kinda like the DNC emails, swap Bernie with Trump and them being unsuccessful. Thank god the GOP didn't have super delegates, all parties need to agree to get rid/never have them.


Haha, now those would be fun to read! Also, superdelegates are the dumbest things tbh.



Dr.Hacknik said:


> True, but would you liked to be back-stabbed by the most evil (possible) president!? I know I don't want her in Office!


I don't want either of 'em. They're both so untrustworthy, so dishonest, so terrible. If I had to pick, ehhhhh probably Hillary, but I'd be scared as shit regardless.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> One cannot claim ignorance or lack of intent as a defense for breaking a law.


But...what. That's exactly what those who think she should be prosecuted say lol. Wait, so are you agreeing with the sentiment, but in order to not be against clinton, you just want to ignore any stupidity on her part? That if evidence of negligent was presented to your satisfaction, you feel she should be prosecuted?

_"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see *those things* here._"



Lacius said:


> _"We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information."_


They have different statutes depending on who it is...they have special statute for personnel, and a different one for higher ups, and no statute for publishers. You should look into the statutes that a secretary of state has.




Lacius said:


> No, she was Secretary of State.


Sorry, that was my bad  typing too fast.




Lacius said:


> No, Comey did not say that.


_
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now_."

Well, I thought he obviously saying they're not going to prosecute her like a normal person. Not like a private citizen. So either she follows different rules due to her being secretary of state, or because of some shady reason (which would be the republican standpoint). I take that she didn't break any laws because there are special, far more lenient laws, that require intent in order to prosecute. But hey, whichever you want.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> But...what. That's exactly what those who think she should be prosecuted say lol. Wait, so are you agreeing with the sentiment, but in order to not be against clinton, you just want to ignore any stupidity on her part? That if evidence of negligent was presented to your satisfaction, you feel she should be prosecuted?
> 
> _"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see *those things* here._"
> 
> ...


She didn't break any laws.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2016)

Lacius said:


> She didn't break any laws.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'll take it.


----------



## Viri (Oct 29, 2016)

Spoiler











Are you ready for the true winner?


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 29, 2016)

Viri said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


he's gonna start a political revolution


----------



## pokemonster (Oct 29, 2016)

you can see clinton monster supporter.


----------



## vonfnas (Oct 29, 2016)

Gotta love all the trolls placing their vote on Trump xD


----------



## el_gonz87 (Oct 29, 2016)

vonfnas said:


> Gotta love all the trolls placing their vote on Trump xD



I'm just glad this thread is not hosted on her server or she would be up 11 points and a 6yr old Russian hacker would know all the secrets of gbatemp!!


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 29, 2016)

pokemonster said:


> you can see clinton monster supporter.



Some people just need a nice long stay at Arkham Asylum.


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 29, 2016)

pokemonster said:


> you can see clinton monster supporter.


Her supporters are petty thieves, vandals, and violent thugs. At best they are simply delusional.


----------



## vonfnas (Oct 29, 2016)




----------



## Engert (Oct 29, 2016)




----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 29, 2016)

clownb said:


> Her supporters are petty thieves, vandals, and violent thugs. At best they are simply delusional.


There's 318 million people in the US. If Clinton is somewhere in the 40-50% range in polls, then why aren't there 127-159 million people going to jail right now? Right, because you made a silly generalization. Most people voting for anyone - Trump, Hillary, or otherwise - are actually (*gasp*) _decent people!_


----------



## Viri (Oct 29, 2016)

pokemonster said:


> you can see clinton monster supporter.



How tolerant.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 29, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I'm just glad this thread is not hosted on her server or she would be up 11 points and a 6yr old Russian hacker would know all the secrets of gbatemp!!


Smea does already know all about this website.


I kid.


----------



## Viri (Oct 29, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I'm just glad this thread is not hosted on her server or she would be up 11 points and a 6yr old Russian hacker would know all the secrets of gbatemp!!


https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/792231193978687488


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 30, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> False.


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 30, 2016)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> There's 318 million people in the US. If Clinton is somewhere in the 40-50% range in polls, then why aren't there 127-159 million people going to jail right now? Right, because you made a silly generalization. Most people voting for anyone - Trump, Hillary, or otherwise - are actually (*gasp*) _decent people!_


Silly? Maybe. Absolutely true? Yes. The deeply deluded can still be decent, well meaning individuals, but the fact of the matter is that we have Hillary supporters stealing yard signs, a GOP office firebombed in NC, Trump's Hollywood star completely destroyed, threats from BLM to riot everywhere if Trump is elected, and acts of actual assault by paid operatives and normies alike occurring against Trump supporters. Clearly, the neocon commies are losing their grip on reality.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 30, 2016)

clownb said:


> Silly? Maybe. Absolutely true? Yes. The deeply deluded can still be decent, well meaning individuals, but the fact of the matter is that we have Hillary supporters stealing yard signs, a GOP office firebombed in NC, Trump's Hollywood star completely destroyed, threats from BLM to riot everywhere if Trump is elected, and acts of actual assault by paid operatives and normies alike occurring against Trump supporters. Clearly, the neocon commies are losing their grip on reality.


You say that like it's exclusive to Clinton supporters, while completely ignoring acts of physical assault and verbal threats that have come from Trump supporters. The difference between Clinton and Trump is that Donald is encouraging it while Clinton is not.

All the same, though, I don't even think it's an issue of candidates. This election is just putting a spotlight on the worst of the population, and I'm frankly glad it is because we don't need that kind of negativity in America


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 30, 2016)

clownb said:


> Silly? Maybe. Absolutely true? Yes. The deeply deluded can still be decent, well meaning individuals, but the fact of the matter is that we have Hillary supporters stealing yard signs, a GOP office firebombed in NC, Trump's Hollywood star completely destroyed, threats from BLM to riot everywhere if Trump is elected, and acts of actual assault by paid operatives and normies alike occurring against Trump supporters. Clearly, the neocon commies are losing their grip on reality.


I don't think it's really "Hillary supporters rampaging." It's more like "anti-Trumpers rampaging." I dunno man, we have some stupid people in this country. Like, BLM riots? Seriously? As if that movement hasn't been hijacked by political agendas enough. To level it out, there's a whole lotta idiots on Trump's side, too, and both sides have documented cases of assaulting the other.


----------



## Viri (Oct 30, 2016)

Yuh, Anti-Trumpers are pretty scary folk, they'll attack me if I go outside with a MAGA hat on. I guess I should go and listen to them, and vote for Hillary. 

When they were in California, burning the American flag, wiping their ass with the American flag, blocking off the road, smashing things, attacking Trump supporters, all the while waving the Mexican flag. I'm sure that scared all the Trump supporters into voting Hillary!


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 31, 2016)

*
Please remember this when you go to vote! Thank you and God bless.*​


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 31, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> *
> Please remember this when you go to vote! Thank you and God bless.*​


Can't see the image on my (school) network, what is it?


----------



## x65943 (Oct 31, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Can't see the image on my (school) network, what is it?



A fake ad saying Harambe endorsed Gary Johnson before his death


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 31, 2016)

x65943 said:


> A fake ad saying Harambe endorsed Gary Johnson before his death


Fake?  FAKE!  Do not anger the ghost of Harambe.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 31, 2016)

Ok lol

On a more serious note, ESPECIALLY everyone out there who is of Latino or African descent, Donald Trump has recently been encouraging his supporters to sign up and watch the elections, and some of the more wackjobs out of the bunch actually appear to be listening.

Make sure you know your rights, you DO NOT need to present IDs to anyone other than the person manning the voting booth.
If anyone attempts to bully you into voting for a candidate you do not support at the ballot area, that is illegal. Inform them of this and get make sure an official is on the scene if it gets worse.
You CANNOT vote online, only through the mail or at the actual event. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sway the election to their favor by preventing you from voting.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 31, 2016)

x65943 said:


> A fake ad saying Harambe endorsed Gary Johnson before his death


If it is fake than find an article on Snopes or Politifact giving it a false, mostly false, or fake rating. 

I'm waiting...

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



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Make sure you know your rights, you DO NOT need to present IDs to anyone other than person manning the voting booth.


The ACLU has good info on this for those interested 



TotalInsanity4 said:


> If anyone attempts to bully you into voting for a candidate you do not support at the ballot area, that is illegal. Inform them of this and get make sure an official is on the scene if it gets worse.


See this https://www.justice.gov/crt/voting-section



TotalInsanity4 said:


> You CANNOT vote online, only through the mail or at the actual event. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sway the election to their favor by preventing you from voting.


Also at this time in alot of places it is too late to apply to vote by mail.


----------



## x65943 (Oct 31, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> If it is fake than find an article on Snopes or Politifact giving it a false, mostly false, or fake rating.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus of proof falls on you.

I can link you to an audio recording of Rush Limbaugh (from politifact) asking why Harambe didn't evolve into a human.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 31, 2016)

x65943 said:


> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus of proof falls on you.
> 
> I can link you to an audio recording of Rush Limbaugh (from politifact) asking why Harambe didn't evolve into a human.









Or you could mention that Gorillas generally do not endorse politicians.


----------



## Viri (Oct 31, 2016)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-st-donna-brazile-cnn-20161031-story.html

So, do you think she gave Bernie the questions before the debate too?


----------



## I pwned U! (Oct 31, 2016)

Viri said:


> So, do you think she gave Bernie the questions before the debate too?


I (and most people) do, but Lacius will probably still be in denial about it. We will soon see what laughable defenses he comes up with this time...


----------



## Lacius (Oct 31, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I (and most people) do, but Lacius will probably still be in denial about it. We will soon see what laughable defenses he comes up with this time...


I don't really care.


----------



## Nightwish (Nov 1, 2016)

Dawkings was so wrong, THIS is the greatest show on earth, shame the season ending so soon.
OTOH, we'll probably have some extra Trump episodes for a while...


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 1, 2016)




----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 1, 2016)

cornerpath said:


> OBAMA 3RD TERM DUMBASSES


He can't do that due to term limiting


----------



## Captain_N (Nov 1, 2016)

the main 2 are like being on the titanic and/or the Hindenburg.... You are screwed no matter what you do.


----------



## Viri (Nov 1, 2016)

http://nypost.com/2016/10/31/hillary-planning-election-night-fireworks-show-on-hudson-river/

Heh


----------



## I pwned U! (Nov 1, 2016)

Viri said:


> http://nypost.com/2016/10/31/hillary-planning-election-night-fireworks-show-on-hudson-river/
> 
> Heh


There will be fireworks for her, alright...


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 1, 2016)

cornerpath said:


> OBAMA is kinda different.  This my opinion
> 
> 1. What kind of president brag about running a 3rd term every time he speaks at function? Well not every time but
> he been doing it so much every since 2014- or 2015. Some people say "Ah cornerpath he's joking" but I don't know man
> ...


Uh no he can't as that would be a clear violation of the 22nd Amendment


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Nov 1, 2016)

cornerpath said:


> OBAMA is kinda different.  This my opinion
> Idk I just have a feeling Obama is up too something



No. I guarantee you that is not going to happen.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 1, 2016)

Captain_N said:


> the main 2 are like being on the titanic and/or the Hindenburg.... You are screwed no matter what you do.


I'll stick with the Titanic reference because if you're a first-class citizen, the life boats are available to you.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 1, 2016)

cornerpath said:


> Yes theres a high chance that none of that would happen but I can't help but feel Obama have something planned
> 
> Guys I will keep my eyes on Obama until election ...if any breaking news pop up.. I will report


Thanks.  Nice to have someone looking out for us in these crazy times.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 1, 2016)

he started distancing himself from hillary, cancelled all future rallies for her and sided with comey, im pretty sure he is well aware what those emails contain and might bring him down too


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 1, 2016)

cornerpath said:


> Yes theres a high chance that none of that would happen but I can't help but feel Obama have something planned
> 
> Guys I will keep my eyes on Obama until election ...if any breaking news pop up.. I will report


If something did happen, I think we would know


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 1, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ok lol
> 
> On a more serious note, ESPECIALLY everyone out there who is of Latino or African descent, Donald Trump has recently been encouraging his supporters to sign up and watch the elections, and some of the more wackjobs out of the bunch actually appear to be listening.
> 
> ...


No thank you. I can watch my own back. I'm not as stupid or oppressed as you think I am.


----------



## scott0bloke (Nov 1, 2016)

Alex4U said:


> Why donald Trump hate me and the others mexicans :´)?
> By the way... im not american, so, i cant vote...



he doesn't hate Mexicans or blacks if your illegal you have no right to live in that country it's not racist its just how it is


----------



## Chary (Nov 1, 2016)

[QUOTE="cornerpath, post: 6790345, member: 357974"
Here are my reason why I think how he would get his 3rd Term[/QUOTE]

Although the Obamacare thing was totally shady dealings, I highly, highly doubt that Obama would ever get a third term through any crazy plans, unless we suddenly go into war. The only time we ever had a president serve over the maximum 2,922 days was Roosevelt, who no one wanted to leave office due to fear, unstable economy and war. If Trump and Clinton both dropped dead, right here and now, as well as their running-mates, we'd still have Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, who would become our major candidates. If all four of the major competitors could not run, the rule preventing a third term would come into play, shoving Obama out of office no matter what. Joe Biden could not stay in office either, afaik, and the current Speaker of the House would assume presidency automatically.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 1, 2016)

Chary said:


> [QUOTE="cornerpath, post: 6790345, member: 357974"
> Here are my reason why I think how he would get his 3rd Term



Although the Obamacare thing was totally shady dealings, I highly, highly doubt that Obama would ever get a third term through any crazy plans, unless we suddenly go into war. The only time we ever had a president serve over the maximum 2,922 days was Roosevelt, who no one wanted to leave office due to fear, unstable economy and war. If Trump and Clinton both dropped dead, right here and now, as well as their running-mates, we'd still have Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, who would become our major candidates. If all four of the major competitors could not run, the rule preventing a third term would come into play, shoving Obama out of office no matter what. Joe Biden could not stay in office either, afaik, and the current Speaker of the House would assume presidency automatically.[/QUOTE]
Well uh technically though I believe it probably be decided by congress after the EC casts their votes


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 1, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> No thank you. I can watch my own back. I'm not as stupid or oppressed as you think I am.


?? You seem to think I was addressing you personally, that was a general PSA


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 1, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> On a more serious note,* ESPECIALLY  anyone out* *there who is of Latino or African* *descent*, Donald Trump has recently been encouraging his supporters to sign up and watch the elections, and some of the more wackjobs out of the bunch actually appear to be listening.
> 
> *If anyone attempts to bully you *into voting for a candidate you do not support at the ballot area, that is illegal. Inform them of this and get make sure an official is on the scene if it gets worse.





TotalInsanity4 said:


> ?? You seem to think I was addressing you personally, that was a general PSA


By you saying that and then following it up with that point. It shows that you think of African Americans and Latinos as weak and stupid people who have never gone to vote before until now. I'm here to tell you that you're wrong on that. You should probably get that idea that "minorities" are weak and stupid from your head because they hold more power now than ever before. So basically your statement is false. The left is the one who can bully and change votes because people are afraid of being attacked or labeled racist for supporting trump.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 1, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> By you saying that and then following it up with that point. It shows that you think of African Americans and Latinos as weak and stupid people who have never gone to vote before until now. I'm here to tell you that you're wrong on that. You should probably get that idea that "minorities" are weak and stupid from your head because they hold more power now than ever before. So basically your statement is false. The left is the one who can bully and change votes because people are afraid of being attacked or labeled racist for supporting trump.


I am half Latino myself and can not speak for TI4 but what he was referring to was the fact that in some areas people have targeted Latinos and African Americans at the voting places. That is not to say that "minorities" are weak but rather that there is a possibility of voter coercion.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I am half Latino myself and can not speak for TI4 but what he was referring to was the fact that in some areas people have targeted Latinos and African Americans at the voting places. That is not to say that "minorities" are weak but rather that there is a possibility of voter coercion.


I'm just pointing out that most Latinos and African Americans know their rights. Most "minorities" would not let themselves be bullied into changing their vote. Also how is he so sure it's Trump supporters? It could be Hillary supporters attacking Trump supporters. Its a fact Latino and African American Trump supporters are attacked by other Latinos or African Americans because they get mad that someone has a different opinion than them. They get ridiculed, attacked, and called names. Their skin color goes out the window as soon as they mention they support Trump.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 1, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I am half Latino myself and can not speak for TI4 but what he was referring to was the fact that in some areas people have targeted Latinos and African Americans at the voting places. That is not to say that "minorities" are weak but rather that there is a possibility of voter coercion.





Gingerbread Crumb said:


> By you saying that and then following it up with that point. It shows that you think of African Americans and Latinos as weak and stupid people who have never gone to vote before until now. I'm here to tell you that you're wrong on that. You should probably get that idea that "minorities" are weak and stupid from your head because they hold more power now than ever before. So basically your statement is false. The left is the one who can bully and change votes because people are afraid of being attacked or labeled racist for supporting trump.


I am half Latino myself and can not speak for TI4 but what he was referring to was the fact that in some areas people have targeted Latinos and African Americans at the voting places. That is not to say that "minorities" are weak but rather that there is a possibility of voter coercion.[/QUOTE]
That is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not implying that anyone of minority races are in any way weak, just that there are douchebags that are out there who are going to try to fuck shit up on voting day and that you ought to know what you can legally do to prevent things from going south on election day should a problem arise

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



Gingerbread Crumb said:


> I'm just pointing out that most Latinos and African Americans know their rights. Most "minorities" would not let themselves be bullied into changing their vote. Also how is he so sure it's Trump supporters? It could be Hillary supporters attacking Trump supporters. Its a fact Latino and African American Trump supporters are attacked by other Latinos or African Americans because they get mad that someone has a different opinion than them. They get ridiculed, attacked, and called names. Their skin color goes out the window as soon as they mention they support Trump.


While yes, there are most likely Clinton supporters that will be doing the same thing, it is Trump who is going out and encouraging the behavior, which indicates that there will be a stronger response from his supporters


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 1, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not implying that anyone of minority races are in any way weak, just that there are douchebags that are out there who are going to try to fuck shit up on voting day and that you ought to know what you can legally do to prevent things from going south on election day should a problem arise





TotalInsanity4 said:


> While yes, there are most likely Clinton supporters that will be doing the same thing, it is Trump who is going out and encouraging the behavior, which indicates that there will be a stronger response from his supporters


Speaking of which I must point out please do not wear apparel of any of the candidates (MAGA hats, Hilliary "H>" shirts, etc.) as that also can start stuff from stupid people and you do not want that to happen.


----------



## pokemonster (Nov 1, 2016)

You can't stop the train


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 1, 2016)

pokemonster said:


> You can't stop the train



That reminds me of the last time someone wrote an anthem for Trump


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 2, 2016)

As a Canadian, I would have to vote for Trump.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 2, 2016)

Attacker3 said:


> As a Canadian, I would have to vote for Trump.


You are wanting the massive influx of american citizens to your country? We promise not to bring too many new yorkers.


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 2, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> You are wanting the massive influx of american citizens to your country? We promise not to bring too new yorkers.



No, we are planning to build a wall, and we are going to make the Americans pay for it.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 2, 2016)

Attacker3 said:


> No, we are planning to build a wall, and we are going to make the Americans pay for it.


Hey, as long as we are the ones who get to build it, that sounds like job creation to me! As long as there's a timmies every few miles built into the wall, and maybe a poutine chip wagon as well, I'd be happy to donate money to that.


----------



## Viri (Nov 3, 2016)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ctment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html

Ruh-Roh! Is it more Russians?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 3, 2016)

Viri said:


> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ctment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html
> 
> Ruh-Roh! Is it more Russians?


I feel like the FBI has been saying that for six months and doing absolutely nothing about it


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 3, 2016)

Looks like they finally are now, even ignoring doj orders. The clinton crime family is going down.


----------



## Glyptofane (Nov 6, 2016)

So is this discussion over for some reason? Did Lacius run out of excuses?


----------



## pokemonster (Nov 6, 2016)

SHOCKING: Donald Trump Assassination Attempt


"attempted assassination found connected to the clinton foundation"


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 6, 2016)

pokemonster said:


> SHOCKING: Donald Trump Assassination Attempt
> 
> 
> "attempted assassination found connected to the clinton foundation"



What's even more shocking is how wrong that is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...baseless-allegation-of-assassination-attempt/


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 6, 2016)

Actually whats even more shocking is that guys name shows up several times on wikileaks dumps, he also seems to be involved in voter fraud

https://search.wikileaks.org/?q="austyn+crites"


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 6, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> Actually whats even more shocking is that guys name shows up several times on wikileaks dumps, he also seems to be involved in voter fraud
> 
> https://search.wikileaks.org/?q="austyn+crites"


Even if that were the case that doesn't change the fact that there was no weapon on the scene. Unless you're paranoid enough to suggest that Donald's personal secret service detail was paid off by Hillary


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2016)

clownb said:


> So is this discussion over for some reason? Did Lacius run out of excuses?


I grew bored of shoveling away the garbage here and turned off notifications. Taking a quick glance at what I missed, there are posts about President Obama's supposed lawlessness, claims that someone tried to assassinate Donald Trump, and rants about voter fraud. All three of these things are demonstrably pieces of garbage with no basis in reality.

Yeah, I'm not missing anything. I'll see you all November 9.


----------



## Sheimi (Nov 6, 2016)

I hope people make the right decisions on Tuesday. All are bad choices.


----------



## emigre (Nov 6, 2016)

Sheimi said:


> I hope people make the right decisions on Tuesday. All are bad choices.



Obama gets a third term?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2016)

Sheimi said:


> I hope people make the right decisions on Tuesday. All are bad choices.


If they're all bad choices, how can one expect people to "make the right decisions"? In other words, you're basically saying, "There's no right decision. Make the right decision."

I would also argue that they aren't all bad choices. Hillary Clinton is a very good choice, actually.


----------



## Raylight (Nov 6, 2016)

Attacker3 said:


> No, we are planning to build a wall, and we are going to make the Americans pay for it.


lmfao.

on another note whats with all these late candidates? As if there's really enough time to garner enough attention.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2016)

Raylight said:


> lmfao.
> 
> on another note whats with all these late candidates? As if there's really enough time to garner enough attention.


Many of these candidates have been around for awhile but only recently got write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes, which was my criteria for adding candidates to the poll.


----------



## Raylight (Nov 6, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Many of these candidates have been around for awhile but only recently got write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes, which was my criteria for adding candidates to the poll.


ive only just recently seen 2 of them on youtube ads lol its a bit late for them.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2016)

Raylight said:


> ive only just recently seen 2 of them on youtube ads lol its a bit late for them.


They didn't have a shot regardless of when they entered the race.


----------



## Raylight (Nov 6, 2016)

Lacius said:


> They didn't have a shot regardless of when they entered the race.


true enough


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 6, 2016)

Of course they have a shot

A long shot


----------



## Raylight (Nov 6, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Of course they have a shot
> 
> A long shot


lol like a wet match in a dark cave


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 6, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Of course they have a shot
> 
> A long shot


McMullin probably has the best shot of the third party candidates, despite being probably 5th in the polls.  He has a legitimate chance to win Utah because of the religious vote.  If he takes that state and Clinton and Trump split the rest of the electoral votes, congress has to step in and pick a president from the top 3, and by winning Utah, McMullin would qualify.  Congress, being Republican controlled, wouldn't pick Clinton.  And with all the Republicans that aren't Trump fans, they could collude to select McMullin instead.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> McMullin probably has the best shot of the third party candidates, despite being probably 5th in the polls.  He has a legitimate chance to win Utah because of the religious vote.  If he takes that state and Clinton and Trump split the rest of the electoral votes, congress has to step in and pick a president from the top 3, and by winning Utah, McMullin would qualify.  Congress, being Republican controlled, wouldn't pick Clinton.  And with all the Republicans that aren't Trump fans, they could collude to select McMullin instead.


Technically possible, but it isn't going to happen.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 6, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Technically possible, but it isn't going to happen.


Thanks, Nostradamus.  Really going out on a limb there.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 6, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Thanks, Nostradamus.  Really going out on a limb there.


Let me rub mine a sec...


Spoiler








Grab the presidency by the pussy!


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 6, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> Let me rub mine a sec...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Are you sure you didn't misread that?  Maybe it's saying that if he loses, he'll grab the President by the pussy.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Thanks, Nostradamus.  Really going out on a limb there.


In all seriousness though, the House is very likely in the above situation to either be deadlocked or vote for Trump. McMullin is a toxic pick after having presumably lost 49/50 states, and it would throw both the Republican Party and the country into chaos electing a president who 95-99% of people didn't vote for.

Edit: I forgot to mention that if the House deadlocks all the way to Inauguration Day, the vice president picked by the Senate becomes the president. President Mike Pence is a lot less toxic than McMullin and would likely be the preferred outcome for many in the House for numerous reasons. In other words, in the case when nobody gets 270 electoral votes, Pence likely wins.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 6, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Are you sure you didn't misread that?  Maybe it's saying that if he loses, he'll grab the President by the pussy.


Trump only grabs 10's, and I don't mean Size 10's.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 6, 2016)

Lacius said:


> In all seriousness though, the House is very likely in the above situation to either be deadlocked or vote for Trump. McMullin is a toxic pick after having presumably lost 49/50 states, and it would throw both the Republican Party and the country into chaos electing a president who 95-99% of people didn't vote for.


Considering the record level of dislike for both of the primary candidates, some level of chaos seems to be inevitable.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Considering the record level of dislike for both of the primary candidates, some level of chaos seems to be inevitable.


Pissing off 95-99% of people is different from pissing off roughly 50% of people. Also, see my edit.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 6, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Pissing off 95-99% of people is different from pissing off roughly 50% of people. Also, see my edit.


Many of these people are voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate, so a scenario in which the person they are voting against does not win could actually result in more happy voters than otherwise.  Plus all of the people who abstained from voting because of the options available.

As for your edit, that was a scenario I had not considered.  Whatever happens, it will be interesting to see if McMullin does wind up taking Utah, and what impact that has on the election.


----------



## Engert (Nov 6, 2016)

emigre said:


> Obama gets a third term?



Fuuuuck youuuuuu.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 7, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Technically possible, but it isn't going to happen.


The issue is McMullin also is probably going to turn out like Orman did in 14.



Lacius said:


> In all seriousness though, the House is very likely in the above situation to either be deadlocked or vote for Trump


Although is Clinton won the popular vote and the amount of electoral votes than I personally feel that she still would have a chance by trying to win over centrist Republicans such as Susan Collins who might would give HRC the nod over Trump but as you said the big problem is that McMullin does not have the people in congress who will fight for him unlike Trump or Clinton.  Granted I hate that as everyone knows I hate Trump and Hillary and hate the fact that one of them will win.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 7, 2016)

So what was that that you guys were saying about the FBI indicting Clinton?


----------



## Viri (Nov 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So what was that that you guys were saying about the FBI indicting Clinton?





Spoiler











Pretty much my thought from the get go, since it just came out of no where, and at such a late day in the election. That and them being super vague.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So what was that that you guys were saying about the FBI indicting Clinton?








and part 2 of the DNC leaks was just released (8000+ new emails released)
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795440430259335168


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 7, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> and part 2 of the DNC leaks was just released (8000+ new emails released)
> https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795440430259335168


Should be mentioned that not all of the emails were undiscovered, they just said that new emails were found


----------



## Viri (Nov 7, 2016)

I dunno, I feel like this whole thing is just to get our mind off of something. I also don't think Huma and her husband are off the hook, esp not her husband.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 7, 2016)

Viri said:


> I dunno, I feel like this whole thing is just to get our mind off of something. I also don't think Huma and her husband are off the hook, esp not her husband.


It's to distract us from the election


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2016)

I honestly think Hilary going win or maybe I should say, I honestly think Trump is going to lose.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 7, 2016)

Hey everyone, don't forget to go vote out the obstructionist on tuesday. I don't really care what side of the spectrum you fall, you've got to agree that a congress that does nothing deserves to be voted out. They at the very least don't deserve your support. Go vote for someone other than the republican incumbent.


----------



## Chary (Nov 7, 2016)

OH GOSH ITS ALMOST THE END OF DAYS. 

In the ruins of the devastated world created by Clinton/Trump, we shall look back on this thread and cry, because we did nothing to stop the impending doom, caused by the US election. 

thanks, obama


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 7, 2016)

Chary said:


> because we did nothing to stop the impending doom


We dun fcked up @Chary


----------



## WiiUBricker (Nov 7, 2016)

So tomorrow is election day. Is this forecast up to date?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 7, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> So tomorrow is election day. Is this forecast up to date?


fivethirtyeight is always up-to-date, I believe


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 7, 2016)

Well, it's tomorrow. I want Trump to win, but I have this feeling in my mind that Hillary is going to win. 

omg geys ww3 is going to happen


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 7, 2016)

VinLark said:


> Well, it's tomorrow. I want Trump to win, but I have this feeling in my mind that Hillary is going to win.
> 
> omg geys ww3 is going to happen


Sorry to sound super liberal, but why would you want Trump to win?


----------



## Viri (Nov 7, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Hey everyone, don't forget to go vote out the obstructionist on tuesday. I don't really care what side of the spectrum you fall, you've got to agree that a congress that does nothing deserves to be voted out. They at the very least don't deserve your support. Go vote for someone other than the republican incumbent.


Pretty much my thought. I don't care who you vote for, just get out there and vote! We dealt with a lot of shit and wars just to have the privilege to vote, so get out there and vote! Also, yeah, fuck our congress. No matter who wins tomorrow's presidency, congress is just gonna screw them over.


----------



## Demifiend (Nov 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sorry to sound super liberal, but why would you want Trump to win?



I want to see him fucking and blowing shit up man, and if I had a bad day all I need to do is to read what he says and I crack myself laughing as well cheer up!
...Of course i'm not an US citizen, by any means of the matter, but this is the opinion from an outsider so


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 7, 2016)

Demifiend said:


> I want to see him fucking and blowing shit up man, and if I had a bad day all I need to do is to read what he says and I crack myself laughing as well cheer up!
> ...Of course i'm not an US citizen, by any means of the matter, but this is the opinion from an outsider so


Ok that sounds amusing and all but I live here


----------



## Viri (Nov 7, 2016)

Demifiend said:


> I want to see him fucking and blowing shit up man, and if I had a bad day all I need to do is to read what he says and I crack myself laughing as well cheer up!
> ...Of course i'm not an US citizen, by any means of the matter, but this is the opinion from an outsider so


Don't worry, you'll probably get that with either candidate, the war hawk her self says she wants a no fly zone over Syria.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sorry to sound super liberal, but why would you want Trump to win?


I don't know. Things might be bad with both candidates and I wonder to see what will happen if Trump is elected. I don't like what Hillary did and what she might do if she's elected.


----------



## Demifiend (Nov 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ok that sounds amusing and all but I live here


Run to Canada!, no well, I mean, what can I do?, what can you do?, is too late for anything to happen, is either a suspicious warhawk or a racist "Let's build da wall!"
Hope you survive living with them though. 



Viri said:


> Don't worry, you'll probably get that with either candidate, the war hawk her self says she wants a no fly zone over Syria.



Trump looks to have more joke material than Clinton by far,  mostly because he has a record of... zero politics in his life, on the other side, Clinton has more years and looks more prepared to say it in a way that looks comical, but not enough comical, you get what I mean?, unless there's something else about her that I missed that is really, really hilarious.


----------



## DeoNaught (Nov 7, 2016)

VinLark said:


> I don't know. Things might be bad with both candidates and I wonder to see what will happen if Trump is elected. I don't like what Hillary did and what she might do if she's elected.


 Its like were screwed either way. because trump is really stupid, and wanting to build a wall, how will he get Mexico to pay for the wall and then reimburse US for it.
HOW WILL BUILDING A WALL STOP ILLEGAL IMAGRANTS FROM COMING IN? THERE ARE PLANES PEOPLE, PLANES. Hillary is a Liar, I don't think she will win the elections because of this.
But maybe we aren't screwed, there is still other candidates, good ones at that. What is sad about all of this is that a Teen is worrying about this, A TEEN, normally I wouldn't care but the stuff these people are doing is just stupid, and sad. But like I said there is still a little hope, thankfully.



Demifiend said:


> Run to Canada!, no well, I mean, what can I do?, what can you do?, is too late for anything to happen, is either a suspicious warhawk or a racist "Let's build da wall!"
> Hope you survive living with them though.


I hope I survive living with them, I like Canada though, it would be nice to live their... without these idiots.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 7, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Hey everyone, don't forget to go vote out the obstructionist on tuesday. I don't really care what side of the spectrum you fall, you've got to agree that a congress that does nothing deserves to be voted out. They at the very least don't deserve your support. Go vote for someone other than the republican incumbent.


For what it is worth that will pretty much always happen when the president is a different party than Congress. It is just natural and is quite common but regardless we are better off with this setup as it stops one side from having too much power.



Viri said:


> Don't worry, you'll probably get that with either candidate, the war hawk her self says she wants a no fly zone over Syria.


I have to agree as both are hawks and no matter what war is extremely likely.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 7, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> For what it is worth that will pretty much always happen when the president is a different party than Congress. It is just natural and is quite common but regardless we are better off with this setup as it stops one side from having too much power.


Normally I'd agree except we just had to deal with all of the bullshit about not wanting to name a Supreme Court Justice and that whole thing about making it possible for other countries to sue us just because congress wanted to oppose Obama


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Normally I'd agree except we just had to deal with all of the bullshit about not wanting to name a Supreme Court Justice and that whole thing about making it possible for other countries to sue us just because congress wanted to oppose Obama


That second thing wasn't obstructionism.  Congress got together to override a veto.  In that case, Obama would be considered the obstructionist by using the veto.  Not that I'm disagreeing with the veto.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 7, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> that whole thing about making it possible for other countries to sue us just because congress wanted to oppose Obama


Thing with that was that it was overridden overwhelmingly with bipartisan support from Democrats as well.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> we just had to deal with all of the bullshit about not wanting to name a Supreme Court Justice


For what it is worth it is also funny that Biden said in the 90's regarding it is so different from now but regardless I think the GOP is smart to not vote rather than voting him down now

Either way it is still the second that when Congress and the President are different than they will disagree. But on the other hand the Democratic lead Congress of 2010 had similar ratings


----------



## Viri (Nov 7, 2016)

Spoiler












Kinda off topic, so, do you think he did it? Gotta admit, the resemblances do look alike!


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 7, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Thing with that was that it was overridden overwhelmingly with bipartisan support from Democrats as well.


And then there was instaregret and "but why didn't obama explain to us what the bill meant?", which is yet another reason to vote those particular people out. I'm not sure of the percentage of instaregret there was though. 

How do you override a veto, then get upset when you didn't understand the implications of that action? Imma vote all incumbents out!


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 7, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> And then there was instaregret and "but why didn't obama explain to us what the bill meant?", which is yet another reason to vote those particular people out. I'm not sure of the percentage of instaregret there was though.
> 
> How do you override a veto, then get upset when you didn't understand the implications of that action? Imma vote all incumbents out!


Still the fact that the man rumored to be majority speaker of a dem Congress (Chuck Schmur) sponsored it says volumes.
Edit: Not to mention Sanders, HRC, and Kaine


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 8, 2016)

Welp. Well, it's the last day.


----------



## emigre (Nov 8, 2016)

I hope Hilary wins. I plan on holidaying to New York sometime over the next few years. Trump will probably make it hard for a muzzer like me to get a visa.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 9, 2016)

Here we are people. END OF THE WOOOOOORRRRLLLLDDDDDD! Seriously, if the nukes start falling, it won't be because of my vote  -good luck to planet Earth. We are all going to need it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## Chary (Nov 9, 2016)

So he's got West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana. She's got Vermont. We're in for the long haul with Florida, as it flip flops through the night. Stressfest 2016


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

Yeah, more stressful than the last election.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

I once again reiterate my statement that I don't like either candidate, for reasons that I don't wish to discuss and words that I'd rather not use on here.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

Big question is who gets the Senate? Indiana is a big deal for the GOP and NC and MO look like they will go Red


----------



## yabbitboy (Nov 9, 2016)

Although I would vote for Trump if I lived in the USA - just because he is great material for comedian talk shows... I have place a $250 on an online bet for Clinton to win....


----------



## DKB (Nov 9, 2016)

God. If Trump wins Florida and Ohio..the race is over. lol

the evil side of me wants him to win


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

TRUMP2016!!!!


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

It ridiculous that his is even that close.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 9, 2016)

Chary said:


> So he's got West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana. She's got Vermont. We're in for the long haul with Florida, as it flip flops through the night. Stressfest 2016



Last election wasn't THAT bad. Soon as California dropped it was game over. At least that one was done before 1am. This election... fuck if I know! Right now it's looking bad. Better hope California crushes this one as well. Dont want either of them as president and gave my vote to Jill Stein.


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

Trump has a VERY good chance of winning.


----------



## DKB (Nov 9, 2016)

SomecallmeBerto said:


> Trump has a VERY good chance of winning.



Which means that the USA has a VERY good chance of ending.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

DKB said:


> Which means that the USA has a VERY good chance of ending.



Yes, because Clinton is such a saintly woman, right?


Don't forget the double standards on the internet:


Remember, if you bash Trump, it's okay
But if someone has something he or she doesn't agree with when it comes to Clinton, you're labeled as a misogynist


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

DKB said:


> Which means that the USA has a VERY good chance of becoming great again.


Repaired that spelling mistake, sir.


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Repaired that spelling mistake, sir.



Or at the minimum not a 3rd world shithole


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

Heaven forbid people have different opinions and don't always agree with one or the other, there are policies of Clinton's that I don't personally agree with, but if I dare express it, the opposing supporters call others out on it. Why should one party support be forced to support the same views as others, or vice versa? Why can't people just agree to disagree, like what they like and not get all bitter just because someone has a different view than someone else? It doesn't solve a damn thing.  I have my reasons for supporting X as people have their reasons for supporting Y.

I rarely express my concerns on politics for this reason, because I know somehow, somewhere, I'll be ridiculed for it. I don't go around bashing people for supporting Trump or Clinton, I should expect the same level of civility from others.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

Hanafuda said:


> -snip-


(just in reference to the trump suing thing in the bottom right) If they're standing in line when the polls close, they're legally allowed to vote. Just no more can be added to the queue after the polls "close". It's a state law.


----------



## DKB (Nov 9, 2016)

To be honest, I don't give a fuck who wins. I just want to keep living my life the way it is right now. If that doesn't change, then why care who becomes president.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Heaven forbid people have different opinions and don't always agree with one or the other, there are policies of Clinton's that I don't personally agree with, but if I dare express it, the opposing supporters call others out on it. Why should one party support be forced to support the same views as others, or vice versa? Why can't people just agree to disagree, like what they like and not get all bitter just because someone has a different view than someone else? It doesn't solve a damn thing.  I have my reasons for supporting X as people have their reasons for supporting Y.
> 
> I rarely express my concerns on politics for this reason, because I know somehow, somewhere, I'll be ridiculed for it. I don't go around bashing people for supporting Trump or Clinton, I should expect the same level of civility from others.


You're either us or against us @the_randomizer ! Team cap or team iron! Team edward or team jacob! team mako or team bolin! there can be only one!

Nah, but this is a potential answer to your question:


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

My only hope is no one gets upset for voicing my concerns, , if anyone is offended or upset with my expression, I sincerely apologize. I'm just...unsure what to think right now about this as a whole. So much ambivalence, I don't know where to begin -_-


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Last election wasn't THAT bad. Soon as California dropped it was game over. At least that one was done before 1am. This election... fuck if I know! Right now it's looking bad. Better hope California crushes this one as well. Dont want either of them as president and gave my vote to Jill Stein.


That is how I feel as a Johnson voter



osaka35 said:


> You're either us or against us @the_randomizer ! Team cap or team iron! Team edward or team jacob! team mako or team bolin! there can be only one!
> 
> Nah, but this is a potential answer to your question:



I hate both of them as well


Anyway Evan McMullin is looking good now


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> My only hope is no one gets upset for voicing my concerns, , if anyone is offended or upset with my expression, I sincerely apologize. I'm just...unsure what to think right now about this as a whole. So much ambivalence, I don't know where to begin -_-



No matter what you say or do people will hate you. I wouldn't get too worked up over it.(easier said then done I know)


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> My only hope is no one gets upset for voicing my concerns, , if anyone is offended or upset with my expression, I sincerely apologize. I'm just...unsure what to think right now about this as a whole. So much ambivalence, I don't know where to begin -_-


basically that is how I have been all year


----------



## DKB (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> My only hope is no one gets upset for voicing my concerns, , if anyone is offended or upset with my expression, I sincerely apologize. I'm just...unsure what to think right now about this as a whole. So much ambivalence, I don't know where to begin -_-



Everyone is getting upset over everything right now. A lot of people are worried. I know for a fact that a lot of people in their heart don't want neither of them to win.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Nov 9, 2016)

Cringing and worried for me American friends - stay safe & strong people. Praying for Hillary's victory - only better option for America.

*But this does not mean I like both of them! If one of them will win, please be it Hillary!


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

Watch nevada. If trump wins that, we're in trouble.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

I suddenly feel near-paralytic anxiety, I'm gonna need a break from reality.  This whole thing is making me sick.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> Cringing and worried for me American friends - stay safe & strong people. Praying for Hillary's victory - only better option for America.
> 
> *But this does not mean I like both of them! If one of them will win, please be it Hillary!


GOP Congress + HRC Presidency is probably the best outcome for America to be honest since it will work out pretty good.



osaka35 said:


> Watch nevada. If trump wins that, we're in trouble.


Just depends to be honest as Michigan still is not finished and a Utah upset could happen


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> I suddenly feel near-paralytic anxiety, I'm gonna need a break from reality.  This whole thing is making me sick.


This is normal, you're waking up from your vat-like state.


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

Trump just took Ohio.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

SomecallmeBerto said:


> Trump just took Ohio.


Akron! Are we not men?


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

Just heard HRC won VA which is very needed for her


----------



## TheDonald (Nov 9, 2016)

Donald is da man


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

https://reason.com/blog/2016/11/08/trump-is-winning-but-so-is-assisted-suic

Move to Colorado while you can!


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Just heard HRC won VA which is very needed for her


Where she's going she won't need anything!


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

If trump wins, I'm moving to another country. Can I come live in canada anyone? I have a master degree and I love poutine.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> If trump wins, I'm moving to another country. Can I come live in canada anyone? I have a master degree and I love poutine.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> If trump wins, I'm moving to another country. Can I come live in canada anyone? I have a master degree and I love poutine.


Canada is going to build a wall because of people like you!


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

VinLark said:


>



I've lived in canada for a year or two previously, but it's hard to move up there permanently. I WANNA


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

Well, Trump went from not winning to most likely in a span of 2 hours


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

160 TO 197 LETS GO BOI


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

If somehow Trump wins, does it mean the election is still rigged?


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 9, 2016)

nyt is predicting 94% chance of trump winning right now


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> If somehow Trump wins, does it mean the election is still rigged?



...Yes?...no?


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> If somehow Trump wins, does it mean the election is still rigged?


Yes, it means russia hacked the election systems ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> If somehow Trump wins, does it mean the election is still rigged?


Nope.


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

190 to 201


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

197 - 201


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 9, 2016)

Gonna leave this here. If you have California and STILL haven't won yet, consider yourself fucked! Ugh! Hillary! :/


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

Real shame. Markets are tanking.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

Now Trump is 216......

_rigging intensifies _


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> Real shame. Markets are tanking.



Happened with brexit, it will bounce back.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Gonna leave this here. If you have California and STILL haven't won yet, consider yourself fucked! Ugh! Hillary! :/


Well it still is not over but it makes me think of what a Bernie nom would of done anyway Clinton peeps will blame


3rd party supporters as HRC was entitled to us
The media which helped Trump wayyyy to much
Russia
Wikileaks
People who did not vote
But never actually blame the campaign.

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



SomecallmeBerto said:


> Happened with brexit, it will bounce back.


but bitcoin and other cryptocurrency while you can!!!!!!


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

Wowies, I voted for Trump in PA, and I cannot believe that Trump might actually win PA. 

Also, they didn't even ask for my ID or anything, voter fraud is so real, I could have voted at 5 different places if I wanted to. I felt shitty when they asked for no ID. We need voter ID srsly.

Oh, and ya, this was in Philly. I'm surprised there was like no lines for such a huge election. I was in and out in 10 minutes at 6:30.


----------



## HuskyXD (Nov 9, 2016)

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/ol...trending/photo/2016/06/14/20574563-mmmain.png


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

HuskyXD said:


> http://image.oregonlive.com/home/ol...trending/photo/2016/06/14/20574563-mmmain.png



Pokeball go!! BTW if he wins I will add him to my team.


----------



## HuskyXD (Nov 9, 2016)

SomecallmeBerto said:


> Pokeball go!! BTW if he wins I will add him to my team.



I already added to my team when pokemon moon got leaked lol.  I made sure it's a male and the nature is adamant


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## HuskyXD (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Nov 9, 2016)

HuskyXD said:


> View attachment 68271



I'd vote for him...wait


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

Well, I hope you guys are happy with what are you getting. I hope he doesn't mess up USA too much.


----------



## HuskyXD (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> Well, I hope you guys are happy with what are you getting. I hope he doesn't mess up USA too much.



Can't be as bad as George Bush, and you guys had him for 8 years.


----------



## TheDonald (Nov 9, 2016)

I couldn't be happier than I'm now, thanks


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

HuskyXD said:


> Can't be as bad as George Bush, and you guys had him for 8 years.



I'd say the same about many other unnamed POTUS, but I won't here.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

209 TO 216


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 9, 2016)

Dark Ages part 2, here we come....


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

I thought it was impossible, but Trump won.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Nov 9, 2016)

You all are in my thoughts. Right now Trump won Florida.


----------



## DKB (Nov 9, 2016)

It was nice knowing all of you.

lol


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## LightyKD (Nov 9, 2016)

Time to get drunk...


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> You all are in my thoughts.


We're living major history!!



LightyKD said:


> Time to get drunk...


That's what my fucking dad would say!


----------



## Chary (Nov 9, 2016)

Holy crap what a turnaround.


----------



## HuskyXD (Nov 9, 2016)

This is lady gaga who wore this at Clinton's rally.  https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/nintchdbpict000280794981.jpg?w=960&strip=all


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> You all are in my thoughts. Right now Trump won Florida.


still Michigan could be close as a Clinton win


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

Chary said:


> Holy crap what a turnaround.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Nov 9, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> still Michigan could be close as a Clinton win


Very close indeed, Michigan is a key state...


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 9, 2016)

Lacius on suicide watch?


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 9, 2016)

Fuck this shit! I need to buy a fallout shelter.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> still Michigan could be close as a Clinton win


She didn't win the other places she was predicted to win, so I doubt it.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Fuck this shit!


Again, shit my dad would say!


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

I just imagine if Obama acted like Trump, he wouldn't won. At least, unlikely, anyway.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> I just imagine that if Trump acted like Obama he wouldn't have won.


fixed


----------



## Chary (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> I just imagine if Obama acted like Trump, he wouldn't won.


Eugh. John Mccain. No thanks.


----------



## Apex (Nov 9, 2016)

I leave the country for four years and this happens? Whatsamatter with you people? 

At least fear of Trump is causing the global market to go haywire and making the yen worth more. It'll finally make paying off stupid student loans easier.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

I'm moving to canada. Or new zealand. I love new zealand. I wish to marry a kiwi.


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 9, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I'm moving to canada. Or new zealand. I love new zealand. I wish to marry a kiwi.



We don't want you.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Or new zealand. I love new zealand.


Love it or leave it!


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 9, 2016)

Cynic-o-meter 98%


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> We don't want you.


but I used to live in canada...


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 9, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> but I used to live in canada...



New Zealand - Australia's Canada.


----------



## DeoNaught (Nov 9, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> but I used to live in canada...


 why did you leave?


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

DeoNaught said:


> why did you leave?


Exactly.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Again, shit my dad would say!



Lmao. I'm sure I'm not your dad.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

DeoNaught said:


> why did you leave?


it was only a student work visa, so I wasn't allowed to stay permanently. I visited every few months though, because of a cute girl.



barronwaffles said:


> New Zealand - Australia's Canada.


With the most beautiful accent in the entire world.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 9, 2016)

Bow to your new overlord.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> I'm sure I'm not your dad.


I wasn't saying that in positive light, I hate that guy!


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 9, 2016)

Apex said:


> I leave the country for four years and this happens? Whatsamatter with you people?
> 
> At least fear of Trump is causing the global market to go haywire and making the yen worth more. It'll finally make paying off stupid student loans easier.



Interesting! I just got some yen off a guy last week!

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



hobbledehoy899 said:


> I wasn't saying that in positive light, I hate that guy!


I figured that much.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

Apex said:


> At least fear of Trump is causing the global market to go haywire and making the yen worth more. It'll finally make paying off stupid student loans easier.





LightyKD said:


> Interesting! I just got some yen off a guy last week!





> I figured that much.


You get it!


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 9, 2016)

.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

It would be crazy if Hilary still won, but I don't see it happening. Would be an emotional roller coaster ride. Either way, the divide in this country is going be insane. 
How we went from 8 years of Obama to this is beyond me.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> the idiots are winning!


We're all devo!


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

Woah, all the drama queens on twitter tonight.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

VinLark said:


> Woah, all the drama queens on twitter tonight.


It's a quality meme!


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 9, 2016)

Seems Michigan and Pennsylvania are the deciding factor right now, since it's really neck-and-neck with those two.


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

Maybe my vote did make a difference  first time PA will go red since 1988


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

Viri said:


> Maybe my vote did make a difference  first time PA will go red since 1988


I hope PA makes it for you! Minnesota seems like cold California with the amount of Hillary lawn signs out.


----------



## orangy57 (Nov 9, 2016)

looks like it's almost the series finale of america here

we're screwed


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

Orangy57 said:


> looks like it's almost the series finale of america here
> 
> we're screwed



Why do people keep saying this? We don't know what's going to happen, but worrying about it isn't going solve anything.


----------



## DKB (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Why do people keep saying this? We don't know what's going to happen, but worrying about it isn't going solve anything.



if you knew anything about trump you'd be fucking worried

edit: keep forgetting that both are bad but still


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

DKB said:


> if you knew anything about trump you'd be fucking worried


Worried that he's gonna make America great again? Nope, I'm bloody eccentric about it!


----------



## orangy57 (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Worried that he's gonna make America great again? Nope, I'm bloody eccentric about it!



but
h
o
w


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 9, 2016)

he's going to build walls and send out the message that groping women is okay.


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 9, 2016)

Orangy57 said:


> but
> h
> o
> w




Tariffs on foreign memes.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> and send out the message that groping women is okay.








And where did you get that idea? Buzzfeed?


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 9, 2016)

.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


>


I don't usually ask this, but how old are you? Nothing in my comment implied edge lmao.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Nov 9, 2016)

So Trump won? How was this possible when the forecast clearly saw him lose?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> So Trump won? How was this possible when the forecast clearly saw him lose?


Eh, this isn't over yet. But projects are really high for Trump.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

She isn't completely out, it is close and it is still possible for her to win, but I just don't see it.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Nov 9, 2016)

VinLark said:


> Eh, this isn't over yet. But projects are really high for Trump.


Oh I see. Damn dirt sheets.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Nov 9, 2016)

When you think about it "Make America Great Again" is a very non conservative thing to say, nevermind his whole campaign slogan. Conservatives usually doubt America's issues and just say "murica is the best" "we r smart".

Surprised his campaign slogan doesn't piss of the Neo Nazis and the Confeds.


----------



## Chary (Nov 9, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> So Trump won? How was this possible when the forecast clearly saw him lose?


Mass voter turnout won't reflect polls taken from sample groups. The same thing happened with Obama. He was shown to lead the polls slightly in 2008, but when voting day came, Obama slaughtered Mc Cain in the election, because so many people suddenly came out to vote which was unpredicted. It's so difficult to gauge voters, so polls are never a stable thing to go by.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> When you think about it "Make America Great Again" is a very non conservative thing to say, nevermind his whole campaign slogan. Conservatives usually doubt America's issues and just say "murica is the best" "we r smart".


That's because he's not a cuckservative, but a true Republican.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 9, 2016)

'MERICA has spoken.

This is about America, Jesus, and freedom.

Trump 2016


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 9, 2016)

HE DID IT, THE MADMAN ACTUALLY DID IT!


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

We need a strong America (on all counts) that can rise up to increasingly imperialistic China, so Trump is my choice.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

Too bad we couldn't just have Obama again, like all those conspiracy theories. Well, get ready for 4 terrible years.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

I'm dead inside


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

I'll say that I'm not a fan of either Dem or Republican candidate, but now, given the results....my mind is numb and fogged up, I can't seem to think straight, ugh, maybe I need ice cream or some kind of comfort food. IDK if I'll get any sleep tonight 

Yeah, maybe I'll defect to Sweden, Canada or Japan, where I lived a while back.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

Also, some states are voting back the death penalty.


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> I'll say that I'm not a fan of either Dem or Republican candidate, but now, given the results....my mind is numb and fogged up, I can't seem to think straight, ugh, maybe I need ice cream or some kind of comfort food. IDK if I'll get any sleep tonight
> 
> Yeah, maybe I'll defect to Sweden, Canada or Japan, where I lived a while back.



look on the bright side, at least we won't be having more syrian refugees


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

(Wrong thing)


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

Who'd have thought? America disappoints the world, yet again.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> Who'd have thought? America disappoints the world, yet again.



Because it clearly didn't do so before the past twelve years, right?

If people are gonna bash America, that's their own damn problem.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

Doesn't help that some people who could have help Hillary voted 3rd party.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> Who'd have thought? America disappoints the world, yet again.


Get used to it.  We're not the world's puppets and we'll make our own stupid ****ing decisions if we want.  Such as nominating both Clinton and Trump.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Because it clearly didn't do so before the past eight years, right?


What are you saying? You rather have Romney?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> What are you saying? You rather have Romney?



I'm just saying that people won't be any more disappointment than they were before, so how will people tell?


The whole Dems vs Republicans, the two-party system, the opposing opinions, the "My-opinions-are-better-than-yours" arguments, they're all BS as far as I can tell. People should just voice their opinions without opposing people getting all up in arms. Not everyone has to agree with everything.

I don't care that others have opinions, that's fine, but what I do care about is when people try to get me to bend mine to align with theirs or theirs to others, I don't bash others for supporting one party or another.  I should expect the same treatment when I voice my concerns, you know?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Because it clearly didn't do so before the past twelve years, right?
> 
> If people are gonna bash America, that's their own damn problem.



no, specifically because it has disappointed the world so many times.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> Who'd have thought? America disappoints the world, yet again.


> Implying Europe and Germany hasn't disappointed people in the past


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> Doesn't help that some people who could have help Hillary voted 3rd party.


a couple of Obama states flipped to Trump, clearly shows how distrusted she is


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

VinLark said:


> > Implying Europe and Germany hasn't disappointed people in the past


where exactly are you reading that?

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



Arkansaw said:


> a couple of Obama states flipped to Trump, clearly shows how distrusted she is



i hope those guys bought candles.
because Bernie probably won't survive this day.


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> where exactly are you reading that?



Hilter won elections, he just cancelled them afterwards.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Nov 9, 2016)

Arkansaw said:


> We need a strong America (on all counts) that can rise up to increasingly imperialistic China, so Trump is my choice.


Official Make America Great Again hats were made in China lol. The funny part is that a hand full of bootlegs made by a few guy were made in Kansas lol.


----------



## foob (Nov 9, 2016)

More circus to distract the masses.

The real bosses you never see, but they funded the circus, and started the wars, and instigated the terror you believe you must fight against.
_On your tax dollars. _

While your nation goes broke. As do many others.
But that's OK: you, your children and their children and theirs will pay off the lovely debt.
One way or another.

Slaves.
World War III in the making.
Blind to not see it.
WOMD lies.
Kill the enemies the US created.
Fight CIA/Saudi-funded terrorist groups. Created on your taxes.
Create the geopolitical instability.
Then fight it. To profit as much as you want.

Monsanto and Cargill in your food.
Depopulation on the agenda.
The Circus. The illusion of choice. Diebold.
9/11 lies.
The 'missing' Pentagon trillions.
While the top insiders profit on misery through resource theft and drug cultivation.
The Network. Let's continue to profit on your eyeballs.
While the nation goes broke.
And large tracts of land are sold to your 'once-enemies'.

Oh but you can 'vote' again. And be lied to - again.
And be told you have a voice.
While you are being swindled by our own leaders.

A prayer to all those who believe in the system.
A rude awakening...when?

Like it matters who the public face of the Real Powers is.
The Real Powers pulling every string.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I'm dead inside


but still looking kawai~


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> Doesn't help that some people who could have help Hillary voted 3rd party.



Perhaps those people didn't want to help Hillary?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

Arkansaw said:


> Hilter won elections, he just cancelled them afterwards.


that is an interesting and well known historical fact, just as much as it is a well known historical fact that the world didn't really care and downright supported many of hitlers boldest choices up until the whole war effort. and even then, it took japan attacking pear harbor to actually cross a line with the us.
dang, almost got my world wars mixed up

but where exactly did I say europe or germany never did anything wrong?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> Perhaps those people didn't want to help Hillary?


They didn't seem to want to help Trump.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> They didn't seem to want to help Trump.


What you're missing is that they didn't want to support ether, you dip-Hill-slip.


----------



## DarkenedMatter (Nov 9, 2016)

Literally nothing but cry babies and social justice warriors on Hillary's side. 

We have to worry about the USA as a nation not some fucking cry baby minority worrying about everyone's feelings.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

Omfg just call it already so I can go to sleep. Why is this taking so long.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> that is an interesting and well known historical fact, just as much as it is a well known historical fact that the world didn't really care and downright supported many of hitlers boldest choices up until the whole war effort. and even then, it took japan attacking pear harbor to actually cross a line with the us.
> dang, almost got my world wars mixed up
> 
> but where exactly did I say europe or germany never did anything wrong?



He didn't, but your tone implied that America was the only country that others could be disappointed at, no country will ever be perfect.

America has its problems, every country does, but cut them some slack every now and then, blame the government for being stupid, not the citizens.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> What you're missing is that they didn't want to support ether, you dip-Hill-slip.


Insults, really? I shouldn't be surprise. The thing is, if they were more so didn't want Trump in, they lost their chance.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 9, 2016)

One wants to destroy the economy. The other wants to help it. One wants to take your guns. The other wants to help you keep them. One is actually advocating for abortions up to the last week. The other. Well... Not up to the last week but still. 

One wants to bring in more refugees and illegals.. Which we already have far too many (inb4nativeamericancomment). The other wants to keep illegals (key word here people) out. Both will lead to violence. Clinton will lead to nuclear war. Anyone here realize Russia threatened us? Not to mention North Korea is looking for a reason.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> The thing is, if they were more so didn't want Trump in, they lost their chance.


So you're saying that they should have just voted for Hillary and that they just squandered their votes instead.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> What you're missing is that they didn't want to support ether, you dip-Hill-slip.






the_randomizer said:


> He didn't, but your tone implied that America was the only country that others could be disappointed at, no country will ever be perfect.
> 
> America has its problems, every country does, but cut them some slack every now and then, blame the government for being stupid, not the citizens.


my tone implied that this topic is specifically about america and today, america specifically is in the spotlight, so of fucking course my comment in the thread about the thing happening in america today, relates specifically to america.

and yes, of course i blame their government for being stupid, but not on the one day, where american citizens actually are in control to at least some degree.


----------



## driverdis (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> that is an interesting and well known historical fact, just as much as it is a well known historical fact that the world didn't really care and downright supported many of Hitler's boldest choices up until the whole war effort. and even then, it took Japan attacking Pearl Harbor to actually cross a line with the U.S.
> dang, almost got my world wars mixed up
> 
> but where exactly did I say europe or germany never did anything wrong?



Pear Harbor?
fixed that for you


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> So you're saying that they should have just voted for Hillary and that they just squandered their votes instead.


in a two party system where third parties have absolutely no chance under current conditions, that is pretty much the case, yes.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

PA has been called for Donald Trump. 264 for Donald!!!


----------



## 3DSDude_ (Nov 9, 2016)

inb4 locked thread


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

driverdis said:


> Pear Harbor?
> fixed that for you


That was orchestrated by the Japanese Empire, not National Socialist Germany.


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> Who'd have thought? America disappoints the world, yet again.


AHAHAHAHA! Like we give a fuck what Germany has to say about our politics. Your country is gonna ruin Europe for the 3rd time.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> So you're saying that they should have just voted for Hillary and that they just squandered their votes instead.


If they wanted Trump less than Hillary, yes.

Doesn't matter tho, he won.


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

I have to admit Trump will not be popular with many people, but he is no Hitler. He will do things his way and that may be change America needs.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> in a two party system where third parties have absolutely no chance under current conditions, that is pretty much the case, yes.


Still, it's a pretty shrill thing to say on ether side that they should have just voted for Donald or Hillary.


----------



## driverdis (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Still, it's a pretty shrill thing to say on ether side that they should have just voted for Donald or Hillary.



as much as it is so, the Electoral College is the reason for this. without it voting for third parties can actually accomplish something as only the popular vote would be needed.


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

Trump wins PA. You're welcome btw!


----------



## WiiUBricker (Nov 9, 2016)

Welp, guess Canada's immigration office will be very busy soon.


----------



## vayanui8 (Nov 9, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> Welp, guess Canada's immigration office will be very busy soon.


The websites already down lol


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> Welp, guess Canada's immigration office will be very busy soon.


They'll be the first to build a wall at this point!


----------



## I pwned U! (Nov 9, 2016)

Who else is looking forward to reading @Lacius's reaction?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

The Pennsylvania turn around shows just how bad a pick democrats did and right after picking Obama. They should have won this one.


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> The Pennsylvania turn around shows just how bad a pick democrats did and right after picking Obama. They should have won this one.



It was hopeless because their best candidate is not eligible for re-election.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

Arkansaw said:


> It was hopeless because their best candidate is not eligible for re-election.


Not to mention that Bernie got swindled over the weekend...


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 9, 2016)

Well, going to bed now. Waking up to a new 4 years.


I pwned U! said:


> Who else is looking forward to reading @Lacius's reaction?


He is probably not going to response beyond saying he is  disappointed, if that.


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Not to mention that Bernie got swindled over the weekend...



He might have better chances than Hillary, but he will be roundly rejected by conservatives and anti-socialists. And maybe a little too old


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

Well guys, it's been a long ride. I wish you all the best through these next 4 years. Good night everybody!


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> Waking up to a new 4 years.


Have fun in your deep sleep!


----------



## RustInPeace (Nov 9, 2016)

As a Pennsylvania resident, I have to say, fuuuuuuck. I'll just have to turn to video games and movies to cope.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Still, it's a pretty shrill thing to say on ether side that they should have just voted for Donald or Hillary.


that may very well be so, but reality has a way of not giving a crap is something is shrill or not. because that was their only choice.

under the rules of your own political system, third parties have no actual standing in elections. they might have had a tiny chance in this one, if all of those that wanted neither candidate actually had agreed on a single other third party candidate ti vote. but they didn't and they couldn't, because of course, those people all have much much more diverse interestes than just 'neither donald nor hillary'.
the rational conclusion is thus, third parties can't ever win. meaning you have to take a step back, assess the situation and vote for whatever comes closer to what you really want. in your own and everybody elses best interest.

which is apparently a problem for voters (yes, all over the world, but its much more apparent in two party systems) in general, since almost all of them seem to vote as if republicans and democrats where a sports team that you support through thick and thin. which they aren't. god knows how the last 50 years of american politics would have looked like if people actually voted purely by comparing party/candidate program to their own self interests (which countless pools and studies have show, they don't. they think they do, but they don't because they barely spend any time actually informing themselves. no, watching three debates and some youtube snippets of a speech is not informing).
we'd definitely wouldn't have come to this election, because at least then, people wouldn't have constantly felt disappointment when their candidate, surprisingly, didn't act in their self interest.
on the other hand, we probably wouldn't have gotten Sanders either. Though it doesn't exactly matter, since now, none of his thoughts and ideas will have any chance to find their way into politics. not for the next four years at least.

or somehow manage to change your system to a multi-party one. where if a party gets 10% of the votes, they get 10% of the seats in whatever political institution. meaning that, in some cases, to rule, the republicans would have to forge a coalition with one of those 10%ers, giving them the chance to bring in some of their fresh ideas. in such a system, a third party vote wouldn't be wasted.



Arkansaw said:


> I have to admit Trump will not be popular with many people, but he is no Hitler. He will do things his way and that may be change America needs.


i mean, torture, death penalty, people with disabilities, minorities, lack of actual political background... but I'm sure, any global crisis he causes, he'll cause mainly by accident.
well, if the republican party manages to get the senate and house of representatives (those are the two, right?), he might just leave the kind of political legacy behind that will be part of all the history books one day.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> well, if the republican party manages to get the senate and house of representatives (those are the two, right?), he might just leave the kind of political legacy behind that will be part of all the history books one day.


The Republicans don't like Trump, though.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> The Republicans don't like Trump, though.


That's honestly one of the reasons he won.


----------



## Xexyz (Nov 9, 2016)

Haha funny prank America, where's the camera?


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 9, 2016)

Republicans have all majority power now (president, house, senate, and supreme court) I think they can make peace

also podesta just told everyone at hillarys hq to go home, hillary doesnt seem she is going to do her concession speech tonight


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> That's honestly one of the reasons he won.


Sure is one of the many reasons why I voted for him.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

Viri said:


> Sure is one of the many reasons why I voted for him.


That really proved that Donald Trump wasn't going to be just another Mitt Romney-type.


----------



## RustInPeace (Nov 9, 2016)

Has there ever been a presidential battle where neither candidate got the majority popular vote? As in at least 51%?


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> That really proved that Donald Trump wasn't going to be just another Mitt Romney-type.


I fucking hated Romney, and didn't even register in 2012, because I hated both people running.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Nov 9, 2016)

Spoiler


----------



## Mr.ButtButt (Nov 9, 2016)

rn


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> *Bernie memorial meme featuring Wolverine*


But who did/would you actually vote for?


----------



## invaderyoyo (Nov 9, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> But who did/would you actually vote for?


Clinton...


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

Trump takes Wisconsin


----------



## WiiUBricker (Nov 9, 2016)

It's over now. The 45th president of the US officially is.. Trump.


----------



## RustInPeace (Nov 9, 2016)

276 votes, he already won.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 9, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Clinton...


mmm whatcha smea


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> The Republicans don't like Trump, though.


no, a few republicans don't like trump. most of them ended up giving their support and they certainly care more about the republican nominee making it in the white house than they care about that nominee being trump.


----------



## shaunj66 (Nov 9, 2016)

I don't even know what to say.


----------



## naddel81 (Nov 9, 2016)

dark age has just arrived!


----------



## T-hug (Nov 9, 2016)

shaunj66 said:


> I don't even know what to say.


I'm not surprised at all tbh.


----------



## Erikku (Nov 9, 2016)

I need a small loan of bleach now


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

As long as he leaves internet and video games alone, Trump is all good in my book.


----------



## kingsora831 (Nov 9, 2016)

Arkansaw said:


> As long as he leaves internet and video games alone, Trump is all good in my book.



Sure, if you want less and cheaper produced games.
The stock market just dropped 5% across the world, the america dollar has dropped, the japan yen has dropped. (this was at the end of closing time, so expect that to drop more in the morning most likely after the official announcement) 

Unless it recovers soon, companies will start drawing back the reins on what to invest in and spend money on. Citizens will stop spending money because their dollar is worth less. Prices for all things will begin to increase so companies can offset the loss in dollar worth.
And since minimum wage/wages in general will not be rising any time soon (because all the mexicans got the jobs*) you can expect alot less of things being released and getting alot less for your dollar.


----------



## Glyptofane (Nov 9, 2016)

Congratulations, my fellow shitlords.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Nov 9, 2016)

There is still some time left. Grab everything you can and book a ticket to mars.


----------



## KiiWii (Nov 9, 2016)

Wow now brexit doesn't seem so bad


----------



## vincentx77 (Nov 9, 2016)

You think Mexico is already raiding its collective sofa trying to figure out how it will to pay for the Great Wall of Trump? This whole situation just makes me want to vomit. I am truly disgusted with our country.


----------



## Trolling (Nov 9, 2016)

Join the Europe side my fellow Americans. We also have cookies.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

At least he doesn't support that bedamned TPP, right??

If Clinton won, people on the opposite side of the political spectrum would be doing the same thing going on now.


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

The wall is just symbolic but I do expect him to deliver results with respect to border control and illegals. Enough of blaming America for leaving the doors open


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

Say it with me, President Donald J. Trump!

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



Arkansaw said:


> The wall is just symbolic but I do expect him to deliver results with respect to border control and illegals. Enough of blaming America for leaving the doors open


Yeah, I'm sure you said the same thing about Trump winning. The wall is gonna be Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge!


----------



## Chary (Nov 9, 2016)

kingsora831 said:


> Sure, if you want less and cheaper produced games.
> The stock market just dropped 5% across the world, the america dollar has dropped, the japan yen has dropped. (this was at the end of closing time, so expect that to drop more in the morning most likely after the official announcement)
> 
> Unless it recovers soon, companies will start drawing back the reins on what to invest in and spend money on. Citizens will stop spending money because their dollar is worth less. Prices for all things will begin to increase so companies can offset the loss in dollar worth.
> And since minimum wage/wages in general will not be rising any time soon (because all the mexicans got the jobs*) you can expect alot less of things being released and getting alot less for your dollar.


Yeah, remember after Obama took office after Bush and America went through that huge economic slide where the dollar was worth dirt? And because of that, game devs only could create mediocre video games like Borderlands, Left 4 Dead 2, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Demon's Souls, Mass Effect, Red Dead Redemption and Fallout: New Vegas? Boy those were tough times for the industry.

There's always a huge uncertainty after a new president is elected. America is a gigantic player in world economics, so everything dips as investors freak out for the first few weeks. Then it usually stabilizes. 



vincentx77 said:


> You think Mexico is already raiding its collective sofa trying to figure out how it will to pay for the Great Wall of Trump? This whole situation just makes me want to vomit. I am truly disgusted with our country.


You...do know the wall was mostly hyperbole, and was only hyped up to get reactions from voters? He's surely not going to create a giant Great Wall, but Mexico will have to inevitably do something about their borders with us.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

I guess we can now count down the days until he


Arkansaw said:


> As long as he leaves internet and video games alone, Trump is all good in my book.



i guess those would be low on his list, considering that you can't pirate hotels or a degree from trump university. however, his election alone will influence these since global market everything is intertwined yadayadayada.



KiiWii said:


> Wow now brexit doesn't seem so bad



as far as bad voter decisions go, they're about equal and their consequences, sadly, will only become clear to everyone after the fact.



kingsora831 said:


> Sure, if you want less and cheaper produced games.
> The stock market just dropped 5% across the world, the america dollar has dropped, the japan yen has dropped. (this was at the end of closing time, so expect that to drop more in the morning most likely after the official announcement)
> 
> Unless it recovers soon, companies will start drawing back the reins on what to invest in and spend money on. Citizens will stop spending money because their dollar is worth less. Prices for all things will begin to increase so companies can offset the loss in dollar worth.
> And since minimum wage/wages in general will not be rising any time soon (because all the mexicans got the jobs*) you can expect alot less of things being released and getting alot less for your dollar.



that sounds about right.


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 9, 2016)

kingsora831 said:


> Sure, if you want less and cheaper produced games.
> The stock market just dropped 5% across the world, the america dollar has dropped, the japan yen has dropped. (this was at the end of closing time, so expect that to drop more in the morning most likely after the official announcement)
> 
> Unless it recovers soon, companies will start drawing back the reins on what to invest in and spend money on. Citizens will stop spending money because their dollar is worth less. Prices for all things will begin to increase so companies can offset the loss in dollar worth.
> And since minimum wage/wages in general will not be rising any time soon (because all the mexicans got the jobs*) you can expect alot less of things being released and getting alot less for your dollar.



The entertainment industry is often one of the few that actually thrives during an economic downtown, so, no.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

Chary said:


> Yeah, remember after Obama took office after Bush and America went through that huge economic slide where the dollar was worth dirt? And because of that, game devs only could create mediocre video games like Borderlands, Left 4 Dead 2, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Demon's Souls, Mass Effect, Red Dead Redemption and Fallout: New Vegas? Boy those were tough times for the industry.
> 
> There's always a huge uncertainty after a new president is elected. America is a gigantic player in world economics, so everything dips as investors freak out for the first few weeks. Then it usually stabilizes.
> 
> ...



sure could've fooled me, because he sure as hell never even implied that his was was just meant to be figurative.
and considering that the us economy in general, as well as every other lower and middle class entrepreneur has always just benefited from the cheap mexican labour in the border states, I'm not sure you're going to be happy if they ever actually do something about that border.


----------



## Chary (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> sure could've fooled me, because he sure as hell never even implied that his was was just meant to be figurative.
> and considering that the us economy in general, as well as every other lower and middle class entrepreneur has always just benefited from the cheap mexican labour in the border states, I'm not sure you're going to be happy if they ever actually do something about that border.


I live in a border state, I live in Houston TX, which is mere miles away from the border. I have family in Southern California. I know firsthand about all this illegal immigrant garbage. And I am ready for it to stop. Cheap Mexican labor isn't going to magically disappear, in fact, those cheap jobs will be given to hard working legal immigrants, rather than people jumping here illegally and sapping the system. All aboard the Trump Train.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 9, 2016)

I'm glad he won


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

Chary said:


> I live in a border state, I live in Houston TX, which is mere miles away from the border. I have family in Southern California. I know firsthand about all this illegal immigrant garbage. And I am ready for it to stop. Cheap Mexican labor isn't going to magically disappear, in fact, those cheap jobs will be given to hard working legal immigrants, rather than people jumping here illegally and sapping the system. All aboard the Trump Train.



but it is. because mexican labor is much cheaper than american labor, as far as the person hiring the mexiacan worker is concerned. less taxes, less wage in general, they work more and harder because if they don't they don't, they're even easier to replace than americans, also they need to earn money cause they don't get any government subsidies and have no one to turn to as far as the legal system is concerned.

most of these businesses couldn't stay in business if they had to pay american wages to american workers and abide by american work laws etc etc. they would literally go out of business.
meaning the jobs are gone and the mexicans that at least fuel most of that money back into the econnomy by buying food, paying for rent etc etc, is gone too. 

i would wager that its also going to cause problems in the young and old care industry and most types of lowly manual labor like gardening and house cleaning.

i mean, maybe it ends up being not so bad, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

The illegals might have inflated the actual support Hillary would get. In the end she still needs legal voters


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> but it is. because mexican labor is much cheaper than american labor, as far as the person hiring the mexiacan worker is concerned. less taxes, less wage in general, they work more and harder because if they don't they don't, they're even easier to replace than americans, also they need to earn money cause they don't get any government subsidies and have no one to turn to as far as the legal system is concerned.
> 
> most of these businesses couldn't stay in business if they had to pay american wages to american workers and abide by american work laws etc etc. they would literally go out of business.
> meaning the jobs are gone and the mexicans that at least fuel most of that money back into the econnomy by buying food, paying for rent etc etc, is gone too.
> ...



So businesses that don't pay tax and pay a poverty level wage to people who often send anything extra they have left overseas/back home won't be able to contribute anymore?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 9, 2016)

KiiWii said:


> Wow now brexit doesn't seem so bad


Actually, you are right.
Specially after President Grump promised he would keep an UK comes first, only then Europe, policy even after Brexit (in opposition of what Obama said).
But oh well, time will say.
I think we will have a pretty entertaining week, regarding the media having to eat their shit after making fun of Trump the last months (including famous youtubers). That will be fun to watch.

PS: to the apocalyptic commenters in here, IMHO it is just the (perhaps) slightly worse option, Clinton was also BS (perhaps slighlty, if even, preferable?) and also a criminal. The world was going South either way.


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

Ahhh, remember when Nate Silver said this. 

https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/792776834396004353


----------



## rasputin (Nov 9, 2016)

Barak obama is the most powerful person in the USA, he alone decides on every matter and wether to go to war or not.

Or so we're told to believe. Come join the indoctrinated repeatophiles brigrade, you know it makes sense, the telly told you. Vote and care about the obvious dog and pony show, believe it makes a difference!


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> So businesses that don't pay tax and pay a poverty level wage to people who often send anything extra they have left overseas/back home won't be able to contribute anymore?



of course the businesses still pay most taxes, but they save on, whats it called, i think payroll taxes? this keeps labor costs down and is often what makes or breaks a small and middle sized business.

and of course, when the migrant worker pays rent, spends money for food and clothing and luxury goods (because they have phones and mobile carriers too) thats money flowing into the economy with all the relevant taxes.

just look at the bigger picture. there have been multiple studies on that stuff and at the end of the day, the us is still profiting from illegal migrant workers and there's whole industries that, if you took out all mexican migrants today, would face certain collapse.




rasputin said:


> Barak obama is the most powerful person in the USA, he alone decides on every matter and wether to go to war or not.
> 
> Or so we're told to believe. Come join the indoctrinated repeatophiles brigrade, you know it makes sense, the telly told you. Vote and care about the obvious dog and pony show, believe it makes a difference!



so who are your overlords of choice? lizard people? rich folks? freemasons?
the president is of course a powerful actor in the us. and now that one party seems to control all the important institutions, he's going to be more than ever.

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



sarkwalvein said:


> Actually, you are right.
> Specially after President Grump promised he would keep an UK comes first, only then Europe, policy even after Brexit (in opposition of what Obama said).
> But oh well, time will say.
> I think we will have a pretty entertaining week, regarding the media having to eat their shit after making fun of Trump the last months (including famous youtubers). That will be fun to watch.
> ...




i'm not sure if it really qualifies as making fun of trump when you repeat things he said but in a slightly appalled or comically confused tone
it's not like he made it easy for anyone to take him serious


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> of course the businesses still pay most taxes, but they save on, whats it called, i think payroll taxes? this keeps labor costs down and is often what makes or breaks a small and middle sized business.
> 
> and of course, when the migrant worker pays rent, spends money for food and clothing and luxury goods (because they have phones and mobile carriers too) thats money flowing into the economy with all the relevant taxes.



You're fooling yourself if you think a business that abuses illegal workers isn't going to flaunt virtually every tax possible - they are largely low skill, contract work that is handled under-the-table whenever possible : this is also what kills competition with legitimate business.

You can't compete with someone who's willing to do the job for half the price with no tax attached.


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> You're fooling yourself if you think a business that abuses illegal workers isn't going to flaunt virtually every tax possible - they are largely low skill, contract work that is handled under-the-table whenever possible : this is also what kills competition with legitimate business.
> 
> You can't compete with someone who's willing to do the job for half the price with no tax attached.



The other option is for the legal workers getting undercut to move into mexico and settle for their cost of living, but maybe it is easier tor them to vote


----------



## MionissNio (Nov 9, 2016)

I have been living under a rock so, 

I wanted to go to America , I think Trump has become the president eight which means I'll have to cancel my trip?


----------



## AsPika2219 (Nov 9, 2016)

Look likes *DONALD TRUMP* win this election.... Anyway, congrats for becomes next US president!


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

MionissNio said:


> I have been living under a rock so,
> 
> I wanted to go to America , I think Trump has become the president eight which means I'll have to cancel my trip?


If you have money you would be most welcome.


----------



## smf (Nov 9, 2016)

Arkansaw said:


> If you have money you would be most welcome.



They'll take your money, but you won't be welcome.


----------



## elBenyo (Nov 9, 2016)

It's over. Trump won.


----------



## Haider Raza (Nov 9, 2016)

So donald duck got elected as president. Bad news for poor black people.


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 9, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> So donald duck got elected as president. Bad news for poor black people.



>implying anyone genuinely cares about the plight of poor people, regardless of race 

If you want to help others, go out and do it.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 9, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> You're fooling yourself if you think a business that abuses illegal workers isn't going to flaunt virtually every tax possible - they are largely low skill, contract work that is handled under-the-table whenever possible : this is also what kills competition with legitimate business.
> 
> You can't compete with someone who's willing to do the job for half the price with no tax attached.



then again, you're implying that there's enough local workers who'd be willing to do the job in the first place.

i mean, i know illegal immigrant workers don't just have benefits for the us, but it's clearly not as cut and dry as some would love it to be.
they didn't take your jobs, the economy and it changing took most of your jobs, illegals / migrants in general simply took the jobs you barely want to do yourself.

you can clearly argue for and against this system that kinda implemented itself over the decades, but you're definitely not wanting to be in the generation that has to deal with the fallout of breaking it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

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



MionissNio said:


> I have been living under a rock so,
> 
> I wanted to go to America , I think Trump has become the president eight which means I'll have to cancel my trip?



how american does your skin look like?


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

Illegal workers are not even the main problem here. While ISIS bombers can't enter through a plane, they can keep trying their luck at the unsecured borders, eventually they will succeed.


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

Spoiler


----------



## MionissNio (Nov 9, 2016)

Clydefrosch said:


> then again, you're implying that there's enough local workers who'd be willing to do the job in the first place.
> 
> i mean, i know illegal immigrant workers don't just have benefits for the us, but it's clearly not as cut and dry as some would love it to be.
> they didn't take your jobs, the economy and it changing took most of your jobs, illegals / migrants in general simply took the jobs you barely want to do yourself.
> ...


Sort of Tannish and white but idk if I would be accepted cause I have a weird accent.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Nov 9, 2016)

America just went back 40-50 steps. Let's not make Election day and his presidency forget what he has done in the past... The world is already affected with his presidency.

Still proud to be a Canadian


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 9, 2016)

Waiting for 2 concession speechs today...


----------



## DeoNaught (Nov 9, 2016)

Arkansaw said:


> Illegal workers are not even the main problem here. While ISIS bombers can't enter through a plane, they can keep trying their luck at the unsecured borders, eventually they will succeed.


Well now we have a wall for that.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Nov 9, 2016)

Looks like Hillary's winning the popular vote. What is the purpose of the electoral college?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

Remember, if anyone has any opinions that don't align with Clinton's policies and her stances on any issues, etc,  you're automatically wrong and no longer allowed to voice your opinion 


This just in, people aren't allowed to voice opinions without being called wrong, misogynist, racist, bigoted, they have to choose the opposing side or otherwise they're wrong, right?


The drama behind this, the no. of people expressing their disappointment, this would have been the same if Clinton won, so really, this wouldn't be much difference IMO.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Remember, if anyone has any opinions that don't align with Clinton's policies and her stances on any issues, etc,  you're automatically wrong and no longer allowed to voice your opinion


We can't let the basket of deplorables have a voice, can we?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> We can't let the basket of deplorables have a voice, can we?



Never said that, just saying that no matter who was going to win, people are going to be disappointed, it happens ever four years, not much is going to change, but having opinions that don't align with others is somehow a grievous crime on the internet.  People clearly aren't allowed to express them without some severe backlash. 

So, for this reason, I dread and almost never want to express my political opinion and beliefs anywhere unless I can do so without a username; right now, I feel ill, I don't know what to feel, as either candidate would make me feel this way I'm feeling right now. The two party system is a joke, no one can seem to agree on anything or even be remotely civil, it's just, ugh.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Never said that, just saying that no matter who was going to win, people are going to be disappointed, it happens ever four years, not much is going to change, but having opinions that don't align with others is somehow a grievous crime on the internet.  People clearly aren't allowed to express them without some severe backlash.
> 
> So, for this reason, I dread and almost never want to express my political opinion and beliefs anywhere unless I can do so without a username; right now, I feel ill, I don't know what to feel, as either candidate would make me feel this way I'm feeling right now. The two party system is a joke, no one can seem to agree on anything or even be remotely civil, it's just, ugh.


I was making reference to Hillary placing Trump's supporters into a metaphorical basket of deplorables.  And then her supporters embracing this metaphor to continually attack Trump supporters.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> I was making reference to Hillary placing Trump's supporters into a metaphorical basket of deplorables.  And then her supporters embracing this metaphor to continually attack Trump supporters.



The problem with politics as a whole is that it automatically creates animosity and hostility in two different spectrum/views, and that people will always have different opinions, that part doesn't bother me at all as I'm glad people can voice their opinions and be open and so on. What does bother me, though is when the opposing side or any party attack another thinking that the opposite party is somehow more wrong/more right than the other one.  I haven't stated whose views I agree with or not agree with, as I want to remain as neutral and civil as I can be during this tumultuous turn of events. I haven't go around bashing either party or their supporters, because what good would it do me or what good would it do anyone? Nothing, it would be a waste of time, it would just hurful for anyone to do.  This is my two cents.


----------



## GhostLatte (Nov 9, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Looks like Hillary's winning the popular vote. What is the purpose of the electoral college?


In plain English, it is to fuck over the popular vote.


----------



## netovsk (Nov 9, 2016)

I know he's a crook but boy I'm so glad he won.

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



GhostLatte said:


> In plain English, it is to fuck over the popular vote.



Too bad california is so big.


----------



## Sheimi (Nov 9, 2016)

Welp, already started the process of moving to a different country.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 9, 2016)

The Electoral College gives voice to the smaller states that would otherwise be completely ignored by politicians.  Who would ever bother with campaigning in the mid-west, otherwise?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 9, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> The Electoral College gives voice to the smaller states that would otherwise be completely ignored by politicians.  Who would ever bother with campaigning in the mid-west, otherwise?


They already campaign here because we caucus first


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Nov 9, 2016)

Today's a good day. A happy one, actually. Daddy Trump has won.


----------



## anhminh (Nov 9, 2016)

First you have clown attack people, now you have clown as president.

2016 is really a year for clown.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

anhminh said:


> First you have clown attack people, now you have clown as president.
> 
> 2016 is really a year for clown.



It could've been worse, we could've had Sanders.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> It could've been worse, we could've had Sanders.


Kek. Hillary was still worse though.


----------



## Nightwish (Nov 9, 2016)

Arkansaw said:


> While ISIS bombers can't enter through a plane, they can keep trying their luck at the unsecured borders, eventually they will succeed.


Isis has bombers now? 
If I were in the US I'd be much more worried about the weekly random killings, including by the police, than by a statistical anomaly once in a while that is unstoppable no matter how many trillions keeps getting wasted on it, not to mention all the innocents you kill to even try.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> I think I know where @Lacius is. I found a very active Twitter account that may (or may not) be his...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: An anti-Trump Twitter user who apparently has never heard of anger management:
> ...


Well, that's as much as I expected from @Lacius


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Remember, if anyone has any opinions that don't align with Clinton's policies and her stances on any issues, etc,  you're automatically wrong and no longer allowed to voice your opinion
> 
> 
> This just in, people aren't allowed to voice opinions without being called wrong, misogynist, racist, bigoted, they have to choose the opposing side or otherwise they're wrong, right?


Hi, we're calling to do a poll, and we would like to know who you're voting for?! Hillary or Trump?

Uhhh, shit, I don't want to be called Hitler and a Women hater, uhh... yeah, I'm voting Hillary, sure 

And that's why the polls failed, people were too afraid of being yelled at, lol. Hence the silent majority.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

Viri said:


> Hi, we're calling to do a poll, and we would like to know who you're voting for?! Hillary or Trump?
> 
> Uhhh, shit, I don't want to be called Hitler and a Women hater, uhh... yeah, I'm voting Hillary, sure
> 
> And that's why the polls failed, people were too afraid of being yelled at, lol. Hence the silent majority.



Yeah, and that's precisely why I'm not going to say who I voted for, because of fear of retaliation, people saying we're wrong, they're right, etc etc.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 9, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> They already campaign here because we caucus first


And your caucus would mean exactly what when there aren't enough votes in your state to affect an election?


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

Heh


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2016)

Ayyy lmao
[spoiler="Monster, Hate, have heard this all before.]



 
[/spoiler]


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

CONGRATS Trump! We all knew you would do it. Brexit 2.0.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 9, 2016)

VinLark said:


> Ayyy lmao
> [spoiler="Monster, Hate, have heard this all before.]
> View attachment 68326
> [/spoiler]



Wonder if he knew what Hillary advocated for?


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 9, 2016)

I voted for sanders.
I then voted for hillary.
I'm now voting for marriage proposals and job openings.


----------



## Arkansaw (Nov 9, 2016)

Nightwish said:


> Isis has bombers now?
> If I were in the US I'd be much more worried about the weekly random killings, including by the police, than by a statistical anomaly once in a while that is unstoppable no matter how many trillions keeps getting wasted on it, not to mention all the innocents you kill to even try.



911 and Holocaust can be regarded as statistical anomalies too, but Americans and Jews care enough to stop them.


----------



## emigre (Nov 9, 2016)

Anyone else think it's ironic the guy who claimed the election was rigged ended up winning despite not getting the most votes?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

emigre said:


> Anyone else think it's ironic the guy who claimed the election was rigged ended up winning despite not getting the most votes?



I hate the voting system over here, it's a joke, a farce, I wish we had better candidates.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 9, 2016)

emigre said:


> Anyone else think it's ironic the guy who claimed the election was rigged ended up winning despite not getting the most votes?


well if the reports are to believed they were busing around minorities who were casting more than 1 ballot in multiple polling places
what they didnt account for was the shy trump voters (silent majority) and rural america

anyway I'm just enjoying all the salty posts on social media
all the feminists, sjw's, lbgt, and minorities full on salt mine right now


----------



## DeoNaught (Nov 9, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> well if the reports are to believed they were busing around minorities who were casting more than 1 ballot in multiple polling places
> what they didnt account for was the shy trump voters (silent majority) and rural america
> 
> anyway I'm just enjoying all the salty posts on social media
> all the feminists, sjw's, lbgt, and minorities full on salt mine right now


 we got salt for days


----------



## Thirty3Three (Nov 9, 2016)

Guys ready to move to Canada? (America Lite)?


----------



## Glyptofane (Nov 9, 2016)

Thirty3Three said:


> Guys ready to move to Canada? (America Lite)?


There's a novel solution... move to an even whiter nation. Besides, I'm pretty sure they don't want any of us.


----------



## vincentx77 (Nov 9, 2016)

Chary said:


> You...do know the wall was mostly hyperbole, and was only hyped up to get reactions from voters? He's surely not going to create a giant Great Wall, but Mexico will have to inevitably do something about their borders with us.



Your sarcasm detection mechanism is almost as impressive as Trump's Great Wall will be. Keep fighting, soldier.


----------



## Chary (Nov 9, 2016)

vincentx77 said:


> Your sarcasm detection mechanism is almost as impressive as Trump's Great Wall will be. Keep fighting, soldier.


Thanks! I will!


----------



## Thirty3Three (Nov 9, 2016)

clownb said:


> There's a novel solution... move to an even whiter nation. Besides, I'm pretty sure they don't want any of us.


No, shh. It's okay.
We're stuck with Beiber. It's a fair trade.


----------



## Lord M (Nov 9, 2016)

Well well well... if I remember someone here has accused me of being a visionary because i've said that in The Simpson long time ago there was a clear message of the election of Donald Trump.
Now I look and demand an apology.
This is further proof that everything is decided practically forever by the past, although the dull who accused me keep saying "coincidences"
The New World Order it is about to begin...
     ... and this is the only reality


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

I am just so glad I voted for Johnson this year and am not ashamed of it as either way 3rd parties would wrongly get blamed for the outcome.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 9, 2016)

People who voted third party are getting blamed because they could have prevented this by voting for clinton is their argument


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> People who voted third party are getting blamed because they could have prevented this by voting for clinton is their argument


And the opposite would be said by Trump people if HRC would of won. Either way the only person who made Hillary lose was her and her campaign people.


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2016)

Blame everyone but the DNC for rigging and turning off a shit ton of their voter base and Hillary for being a fucking awful candidate who lost states that were Democrat strong holds since the 80's.

Nope, it's all da racist hitler peoplez faults, and those evil third party voters!


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 9, 2016)

It's time people. Anyone who said they're leaving the US, please deliver.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 9, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> And your caucus would mean exactly what when there aren't enough votes in your state to affect an election?


"Free"* publicity and starting off on the right foot for the primaries

*heavy air quotes because yes, campaigning costs money


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> "Free"* publicity and starting off on the right foot for the primaries
> 
> *heavy air quotes because yes, campaigning costs money


regardless of course the issue with the national vote is that the system would basically move it from swing states to the deep red/blue states. But regardless by nature it would help the Democrats overwhelmingly


----------



## chaosrunner (Nov 9, 2016)

aye trump wins rip america i dont really care cuz i am canadian


----------



## AlanJohn (Nov 9, 2016)

My brain still can't fully comprehend this. It's like I'm in a meme dimension, a reality that isn't supposed to exist.
Well, to be honest, 2016 in a whole was like that.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 9, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> But regardless by nature it would help the Democrats overwhelmingly


Clinton won the popular vote by what... 200,000 votes? In the grand scheme of things, I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly"


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Clinton won the popular vote by what... 200,000 votes? In the grand scheme of things, I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly"


Well the issue is that regardless the GOP will have issues winning the popular vote since the changing demographics (although I feel they could make it competitive for the Latino vote with people like Rubio or maybe Cruz), the fact that even solid red states have large liberal hubs (Atlanta for example), and that regardless the country leans a tad bit to the left in politics more or less. Regardless the EC is easier for the GOP than the Democrats but still I doubt Trump will be re-elected.


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 9, 2016)

These liberal tears are delicious. I have never felt such a strong sense of satisfaction, coupled with hope for America's future.


Spoiler











#MAGA


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 9, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> These liberal tears are delicious. I have never felt such a strong sense of satisfaction


Glad you've got your priorities in check


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 9, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Glad you've got your priorities in check



Would you like some cheese to go with that whine?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 9, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Would you like some cheese to go with that whine?


I'm not whining, I just wish that for once people would understand that elections aren't about your "team" winning, it's about progressing your home country in the direction you want to take it


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/11/martin-shkreli-new-wu-tang-clan-music-trump-victory/

Best thing about the Trump win


----------



## Demifiend (Nov 9, 2016)

Thank you Trump!, now I can finally see news everyday, I can't wait to see the amount of shitpost and memes I will get from him in the future, my stress days are long gone, thank you murica for choosing this candidate, now I won't ever worry about long faces anymore...

But I wonder if he'll keep his promise about the wall?.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Would you like some cheese to go with that whine?



ahahaha -high five


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 9, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm not whining, I just wish that for once people would understand that elections aren't about your "team" winning, it's about progressing your home country in the direction you want to take it



Fair enough, but it all starts with the media, they set this example and they fuel this hatred. You have CNN's Van Jones calling this vote a "whitelash" on national television? Come the hell on, that's an insult to half the country.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Fair enough, but it all starts with the media, they set this example and they fuel this hatred. You have CNN's Van Jones calling this vote a "whitelash" on national television? Come the hell on, that's an insult to half the country.



Whats a whitelash? im going to guess though... is it a racist remark you can get away with if you are not white?


----------



## VinsCool (Nov 9, 2016)

To be honest, I am not a big Trump fan, but if he proves that he could indeed make America great again, or at least, to make it stay like it currently is, _maybe_ he has the potential to run the place without (hopefully) starting WW3.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> Whats a whitelash? im going to guess though... is it a racist remark you can get away with if you are not white?



Yes, he basically combined white and backlash to create the term describing it as white voters having a backlash to changing country and a black president.

There is 1 reason we are here today:
1) Obama has failed to live up to the promise he made to the rust belt states (PA, MI, WI). He forgot about all those hard working Americans, and they showed the response in the polls.

Bravo!

This is not on Hillary, we saw Obama campaign fiercely for her in the past month or so. He could not convince those people the democratic party had their backs after the crap he's pulled over the last 8 years. Period.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Yes, he basically combined white and backlash to create the term describing it as white voters having a backlash to changing country and a black president.
> 
> There is 1 reason we are here today:
> 1) Obama has failed to live up to the promise he made to the rust belt states (PA, MI, WI). He forgot about all those hard working Americans, and they showed the response in the polls.
> ...




LOL and Trump voters are suppose to be the racist ones?  That shit has got to really sting. lololol


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm not whining, I just wish that for once people would understand that elections aren't about your "team" winning, it's about progressing your home country in the direction you want to take it


You are truly the greatest person on this thread.

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

Also @raulpica better lock this thread too before people shitpost.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You are truly the greatest person on this thread.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Also @raulpica better lock this thread too before people shitpost.



Better get used to not getting your own way there buddy.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 9, 2016)

"I don't agree with people here so the thread should be locked"


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

mech said:


> Better get used to not getting your own way there buddy.


Okay then?

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



Joe88 said:


> "I don't agree with people here so the thread should be locked"


No thats not what I meant, just look at the other thread, pretty much turned into a shit hole if ever I saw one.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Okay then?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



With opposing political views, is it any wonder it did? People can't agree to disagree it seems.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 9, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> With opposing political views, is it any wonder it did? People can't agree to disagree it seems.


yeah basically. Plus it does not help that the site gives people anonymity to say this shit.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 9, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> yeah basically. Plus it does not help that the site gives people anonymity to say this shit.


True what you gonna do i guess. I need sleep see you guys later.


----------



## Condarkness (Nov 9, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> well if the reports are to believed they were busing around minorities who were casting more than 1 ballot in multiple polling places
> what they didnt account for was the shy trump voters (silent majority) and rural america
> 
> anyway I'm just enjoying all the salty posts on social media
> all the feminists, sjw's, lbgt, and minorities full on salt mine right now



Despite having mixed emotions about this presidency, I have to admit that I like to laugh at them in the face.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 9, 2016)

Mmmmmm salty tears.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 9, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/11/martin-shkreli-new-wu-tang-clan-music-trump-victory/
> 
> Best thing about the Trump win


I thought that piece of shit was in jail.


----------



## DeoNaught (Nov 10, 2016)

We should give Canada Trump since they gave us bieber


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 10, 2016)

Don't be so pessimistic. 
I bet the racism and homophobia were only acted to get attention during campaign. He even said he would protect the lgbt community during his triumph speech, almost seems like the most liberal republican already.
Trump will probably be an Ok-ish president, it's not the end of the world, there won't be a ww3. 
The world keeps spinning so just move on.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 10, 2016)




----------



## Viri (Nov 10, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Fair enough, but it all starts with the media, they set this example and they fuel this hatred. You have CNN's Van Jones calling this vote a "whitelash" on national television? Come the hell on, that's an insult to half the country.


The media helped Trump a lot just by being so damn negative Trump. A lot of people already did distrust the media, and they were kinda proving Trump right by being super negative Trump. This election kinda proved how little faith people have in the MSM, which makes me happy. Maybe we can finally see some less bias media.


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 10, 2016)

For all those who want to leave the country, do it 
We'll gladly accept those job openings.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 10, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> For all those who want to leave the country, do it
> We'll gladly accept those job openings.


I want to move in, does it also work? /s
(actually I'm very happy in Germany already, so no chance, perhaps just visiting on holidays)


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 10, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> I want to move in, does it also work? /s
> (actually I'm very happy in Germany already, so no chance, perhaps just visiting on holidays)


xD
Totally, there will be enough job openings for you! /s


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 10, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> Don't be so pessimistic.
> I bet the racism and homophobia were only acted to get attention during campaign. He even said he would protect the lgbt community during his triumph speech, almost seems like the most liberal republican already.
> Trump will probably be an Ok-ish president, it's not the end of the world, there won't be a ww3.
> The world keeps spinning so just move on.



Why can't there be more levelheaded comments like this? There have been worst POTUS out there, subjectively, FDR, Jimmy Carter, Nixon, list goes on.


----------



## Viri (Nov 10, 2016)

If the DNC wants a shot at the presidency, they better start purging a lot of people from their party. First one on the chopping block is her.
https://twitter.com/donnabrazile


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 10, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm not whining, I just wish that for once people would understand that elections aren't about your "team" winning, it's about progressing your home country in the direction you want to take it


My team had to win in order for that to happen, and we did :^)


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 10, 2016)

Sheesh, the salt here is deafening.
https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula
That feels like a joke account. The bio is comedy gold


----------



## I pwned U! (Nov 10, 2016)

VinLark said:


> Sheesh, the salt here is deafening.
> https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula
> That feels like a joke account. The bio is comedy gold


According to that user, I must be making a lot of money right now! 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796360164458647552
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796360967261143040
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796363868637368320
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796359734286839808


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 10, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> According to that user, I must be making a lot of money right now!
> https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796360164458647552
> https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796360967261143040
> https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796363868637368320


What the hell is he going on about? He's ranting about nothing. "HE MADE MONEY OFF THE ELECTION"? How? 

Some people just need to _go_


----------



## Engert (Nov 10, 2016)

The liberal meltdown has been hilarious to watch this election. They are so much more tolerant than us, aren't they? Hahahah


----------



## Nightwish (Nov 10, 2016)

Ok, after the shock...
It's not the first or the last clown to be elected and the world moved on. It's not the first or last populist to be elected with no defined proposal whatsoever, so I think the world will be fine. It can't really be that much worse than any other republican or Hillary, because he's not going to be king.
I'm more worried about what happens after Americans get disillusioned again after 4 more years of more of the same bullshit making people poorer and politics more of a joke. 
The social rights loss will be kind of bad, I feel sorry for you guys. Sure, idiots like Sarkesian are unbearable, but one can just ignore them, and it still doesn't even remotely compare to the effects of real discrimination of women and minorities - which will get worse, like in Europe.


----------



## cracker (Nov 10, 2016)

Let's see how much the Republicans can benefit the poor folks now that they hold everything.


----------



## Pachee (Nov 10, 2016)

Engert said:


> The liberal meltdown has been hilarious to watch this election. They are so much more tolerant than us, aren't they? Hahahah


I have seen liberals being _this tolerant_ in other countries when they don't get what they want, but it goes mostly unnoticed....

Now watching it happens on the world's most important economy, with the whole globe keeping an close eye at it.... is just amazing! All this hypocrisy and real intolerance finally being exposed. lmao


----------



## noctis90210 (Nov 10, 2016)

trumph hate muslims... and we all know that most of the oil product comes to middle east, and people live on middle east are mostly muslims, so how can they import oil product on these countries?


----------



## Viri (Nov 10, 2016)

Guys stop spamming Lacius' Twitter account, it's not nice.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Nov 10, 2016)

well America picked the lesser of the 2 evils so time to sit back and watch(this should be amusing)


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 10, 2016)

Some guys seem to be really enjoying this, after whining for 8 years. I'm sure liberals or similar only have so much tolerance for intolerance, especially since this
affects their lives so directly.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 10, 2016)

lcie nimbus said:


> well America picked the lesser of the 2 evils so time to sit back and watch(this should be amusing)



As future emperor and keeper of walls Trump has said in the past, WRONG.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Nov 10, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> As future emperor and keeper of walls Trump has said in the past, WRONG.


I'm Canadian I can watch you crazy americaners from across your walls with my binoculars while sipping a martini

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



DeoNaught said:


> We should give Canada Trump since they gave us bieber


hell flipping NO you can keep beiber


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 10, 2016)

lcie nimbus said:


> I'm Canadian I can watch you crazy americaners from across your walls with my binoculars while sipping a martini



I'm not American either, I'm just currently living here. But even if I wasn't living here, the election's gonna have a decent amount of impact on many countries outside of the US.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Nov 10, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I'm not American either, I'm just currently living here. But even if I wasn't living here, the election's gonna have a decent amount of impact on many countries outside of the US.


would you believe canadas immigration website crashed when they announced that trump won(no B.S)


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 10, 2016)

lcie nimbus said:


> would you believe canadas immigration website crashed when they announced that trump won(no B.S)


I saw that myself, it made me chuckle.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Nov 10, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I saw that myself, it made me chuckle.


seems like a whole lotta people a desperate to get out of the us right now . but what makes em think life with trudeu is going to be any better?


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 10, 2016)

lcie nimbus said:


> seems like a whole lotta people a desperate to get out of the us right now . but what makes em think life with trudeu is going to be any better?



A lot of people don't really understand Canada beyond its stereotypes, which basically say they're that level-headed country up north where everyone says sorry all of the time. I can't really say I know a lot about it either, but Im guessing that even good guy Canada isn't as picture perfect as Americans think it is.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Nov 10, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> A lot of people don't really understand Canada beyond its stereotypes, which basically say they're that level-headed country up north where everyone says sorry all of the time. I can't really say I know a lot about it either, but Im guessing that even good guy Canada isn't as picture perfect as Americans think it is.


the country itself is a pretty nice place to live . it the intellectual lightweight whos calling the shots that's the problem.

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

how would you react when the province you live is in a pretty bad economic state aaannndd he gos and announces the last damn thing we need ..a carbon tax


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 10, 2016)

lcie nimbus said:


> the country itself is a pretty nice place to live . it the intellectual lightweight whos calling the shots that's the problem.


Ah, I see. Has it become prone to slowing down because of the current rulers being too lightweight?


Edit: Yeah, that doesn't sound great. Measures like those really can shake up a country even if they're necessary for the environment in the long term. It can be a struggle, I guess, to implement them fairly and gradually in a way that hurts the people it affects the least, and in order to do so a great connection to the people and an understanding of what these taxes might cause is absolutely necessary.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> I thought that piece of shit was in jail.



I have had pm discussion with the dude on twitter and he actually is pretty funny in a weird sort of way. I will show if anyone wants to see.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

Hey folks, I like science, ensuring human rights, education, and "don't-be-a-jerk" laws. I'm told this makes me a progressive liberal? So does this mean I should seek a country that aligns itself more with who I am? Or try and make my country more like me?


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Nov 10, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Ah, I see. Has it become prone to slowing down because of the current rulers being too lightweight?


yep he blindly follows every political trend out there . sending millions to useless orginisations and such . going on and on about helping the poor in other countrys while not giving a damn about the homeless and the people starving in his own country

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


sure . I'm willing to change my views on him ifff he starts focusing on his own country . I'm no hater but lately all I see in the news is him making stupid decsisions.

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

sorry @RevPokemon thought you were talkin bout someone else


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 10, 2016)

lcie nimbus said:


> yep he blindly follows every political trend out there . sending millions to useless orginisations and such . going on and on about helping the poor in other countrys while not giving a damn about the homeless and the people starving in his own country
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


That sounds pretty rough. If he doesn't get better, hopefully Canada won't swing too far the other way when he's out and mess up like we did.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Nov 10, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That sounds pretty rough. If he doesn't get better, hopefully Canada won't swing too far the other way when he's out and mess up like we did.


I could cry right now . they out Stephen harper . the best damn prime minister Canada ever had . for this idiot where is your common sense people?


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Hey folks, I like science, ensuring human rights, education, and "don't-be-a-jerk" laws. I'm told this makes me a progressive liberal? So does this mean I should seek a country that aligns itself more with who I am? Or try and make my country more like me?


As a libertarian I think about that daily but ultimately I think it is best for libertarians and progressives to both use whatever they can do in order to make their version for the place they are at come true. It could be campaigning, volunteering, getting involved with political groups but ultimately it is better to try to bring change to where you are at through action such as what the Free State Project has done.


----------



## DeoNaught (Nov 10, 2016)

lcie nimbus said:


> I'm Canadian I can watch you crazy americaners from across your walls with my binoculars while sipping a martini


Tom, peeking, is that you


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Hey folks, I like science, ensuring human rights, education, and "don't-be-a-jerk" laws. I'm told this makes me a progressive liberal? So does this mean I should seek a country that aligns itself more with who I am? Or try and make my country more like me?


If you're being serious, do what you can in your community to get the ball rolling but if you feel like you aren't getting anywhere then move

This isn't the greatest year to be getting into adult life, unfortunately. I couldn't vote this round (I turn 18 in July) but everything that happens these next four years will directly affect me and my friends and relatives. I will try to see how things pan out, but if things go south (pun semi-intended) I'm bailing to Germany, assuming the AfD hasn't been elected in at that point


----------



## cracker (Nov 10, 2016)




----------



## Viri (Nov 10, 2016)

Trump's wall is gonna be so yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge!


----------



## Pachee (Nov 10, 2016)

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Jenn_Abrams/status/796637421454630912

No wonder liberals, _no matter the country_, always protect criminals and keep then out of the jails.


----------



## cracker (Nov 10, 2016)

No matter what affiliation, people always (try to) protect "their own". It just happens to be that "Conservatives" (both politicians and supporters) tend to protect whites — especially those with big $$$ — or good ol' boys (see Bundy standoff). Whereas, Liberals (moreover, supporters) protect minorities. Most "Liberal" politicians are not much different behind closed doors when it comes to protecting those who have vs. those who have not. All politicians get corrupted (some more, some less) via soft money and it will stay that way until there is somehow a change that can occur that will make the US system more like the UK's so 3rd Parties have as much of a chance to get the popular vote and the amount of outside money isn't a factor in popularity. Only then will there be substance in elections and not just mud-slinging and empty promises. It is projected that by 2050, the minorities will become the majority, so there is some hope for diversity.

 If you look at the government as a business (which it is) then you will see that the lack of diversity means a bad outcome for everyone. I dare to wager that, truly, many policies that politicians create/enforce fly in the faces of their supporters when it matters — when it happens to them.


----------



## netovsk (Nov 10, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Clinton won the popular vote by what... 200,000 votes? In the grand scheme of things, I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly"



As a reminder, in california it was roughly 5,5 million votes to Hillary and 3 million to trump.

If it were to be decided by popular vote only, how democratic would it be for California alone to decide?


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

@Pachee

I could show you plenty of videos of trump supporters beating people up, it proves nothing.

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

and laughing at young girls crying because their ideals have been crushed says a lot more about you than them. (not you pachee, just those that are)


----------



## Condarkness (Nov 10, 2016)

Viri said:


> The media helped Trump a lot just by being so damn negative Trump. A lot of people already did distrust the media, and they were kinda proving Trump right by being super negative Trump. This election kinda proved how little faith people have in the MSM, which makes me happy. Maybe we can finally see some less bias media.



That's how I saw it. It seemed like they were going backwards. Like what the republicans used to do several years ago only it was the liberals who did it this time. Really, really strange to see the other side defending us too. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but I do hope that Trump does well for the country. I don't think that he will be a total loose cannon, I think that he does intend to put in place policies that do work, but at the same time I can't help but feel a little dazed at all of the crap that has been pulled. Why can't either side, be honest and make an attempt to get people what they needs instead of trying to implement garbage? I just don't understand, there are real problems in the country and last thing these two can do is insult each other over stuff I frankly don't give a flying rat's ass about. WHAT THEEE FUCK!

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



I pwned U! said:


> According to that user, I must be making a lot of money right now!
> https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796360164458647552
> https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796360967261143040
> https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796363868637368320
> https://twitter.com/FuzzaMajumula/status/796359734286839808



Wow, just wow. The hypocrisy is high with these people.


----------



## Pachee (Nov 10, 2016)

That utopia of an "equal" world will never happen. People tend to flock with others of their same views/social class/race/religion/whatever. It is our nature.

What we see today is an minority trying to force their views over the majority, and we all know beliefs can't forced over other people. Look at the liberals itself, enforcing socialism views despite history showing everybody how it always failed miserably. You end up creating an extreme pressure bubble, and then one day it explodes.
Boom, Trump is the new president.

What i think this generation of special snowflakes should consider a priority for the future, of both sides, is respecting laws we already have.
Racism is illegal, paying a drugdealer to cross the border and enter a country without authorization is illegal, assaulting/touching women is illegal. Don't people think we have more than enough rules for a proper, working society already? Do we really need this witch hunting being promoted by these people?

I don't even live in the US, but i would have voted Trump, because i have seen all this extremism just getting worse since i was a teen in the 90's. I was a fat kid, 4 friends and videogames/bikes almost all day with them, never had a girlfriend until late in my 17's when i finally managed to lose weight. People made mean jokes, nicknames yeah, i got over them, and now decades later i see myself a society where i am scared that in a not long future i could see myself getting jailed because i refused to go out with a fat girl.

If i am this worried, think about that old, less enlightened rural people and their kids who go to Sunday School watching on TV people scream obscenities, flip cars, beat others, burn flags, piss on Church idols, endorse religions that don't accept the existence of theirs, demand open borders for everyone, even criminals?


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

No-one is going to arrest you for not going out with a fat girl...


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 10, 2016)

Condarkness said:


> That's how I saw it. It seemed like they were going backwards. Like what the republicans used to do several years ago only it was the liberals who did it this time. Really, really strange to see the other side defending us too. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but I do hope that Trump does well for the country. I don't think that he will be a total loose cannon, I think that he does intend to put in place policies that do work, but at the same time I can't help but feel a little dazed at all of the crap that has been pulled. Why can't either side, be honest and make an attempt to get people what they needs instead of trying to implement garbage? I just don't understand, there are real problems in the country and last thing these two can do is insult each other over stuff I frankly don't give a flying rat's ass about. WHAT THEEE FUCK!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



So just who is that loser on Twitter, he doesn't have the dignity to accept that things don't always  go the way we want to. Life isn't always fair, life isn't always what we expect to happen. There are times we have to pick ourselves up, dust off our pants and try to accept things.  I still don't feel right, but I'm trying to take it one day at a time, you know?

What irks me though, is one group trying to force their views on another group, and vice versa, that's not how it should be, we should just learn to agree to disagree, accept that one group won't accept the views of another, etc.  Forcing views is not the way to go about it, at least, that's how I see it.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> Don't be so pessimistic.
> I bet the racism and homophobia were only acted to get attention during campaign. He even said he would protect the lgbt community during his triumph speech, almost seems like the most liberal republican already.
> Trump will probably be an Ok-ish president, it's not the end of the world, there won't be a ww3.
> The world keeps spinning so just move on.


True, he wont ever have the ability to do it anyways, UN will never give a go-ahead for a nuclear war


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> True, he wont ever have the ability to do it anyways, UN will never give a go-ahead for a nuclear war



They didn't give the go-ahead towards the Iraq war and we all know what happened there.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> So just who is that loser on Twitter, he doesn't have the dignity to accept that things don't always  go the way we want to. Life isn't always fair, life isn't always what we expect to happen. There are times we have to pick ourselves up, dust off our pants and try to accept things.  I still don't feel right, but I'm trying to take it one day at a time, you know?
> 
> What irks me though, is one group trying to force their views on another group, and vice versa, that's not how it should be, we should just learn to agree to disagree, accept that one group won't accept the views of another, etc.  Forcing views is not the way to go about it, at least, that's how I see it.


Forcing views is what leads to an authoritarian government.


----------



## Condarkness (Nov 10, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> So just who is that loser on Twitter, he doesn't have the dignity to accept that things don't always  go the way we want to. Life isn't always fair, life isn't always what we expect to happen. There are times we have to pick ourselves up, dust off our pants and try to accept things.  I still don't feel right, but I'm trying to take it one day at a time, you know?
> 
> What irks me though, is one group trying to force their views on another group, and vice versa, that's not how it should be, we should just learn to agree to disagree, accept that one group won't accept the views of another, etc.  Forcing views is not the way to go about it, at least, that's how I see it.



Not really sure about the twitter person (I don't really use twitter). The rest of what you said I agree with you whole heartedly.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

Viri said:


> The media helped Trump a lot just by being so damn negative Trump. A lot of people already did distrust the media, and they were kinda proving Trump right by being super negative Trump. This election kinda proved how little faith people have in the MSM, which makes me happy. Maybe we can finally see some less bias media.


From my perspective, they were negative, but weren't negative about the right things. They made him to be a joke. It was fun to laugh about trump, because he wasn't a "real" candidate. They didn't press the real issues, they didn't press into the important things. It wasn't necessary, because he'd just fade away. They seemed to focus on single instances of things people were more than apt to just hand-wave away.

Then they constantly talked about hillary's emails. And yeah, definitely should have talked about them and kept people updated, but not 24-7, not acting like it was the end of the world. Don't act surprised that a politician gets treated like a politician. The difference between the coverage of the two is they treated hillary like a real candidate, like she was already president, and this was the big scandal that they could follow throughout her candidacy. Why didn't they focus on literally anything else about hillary? Why didn't they compare her to him about issues, about stances, about statements? Honest, thorough, researched journalism?

The big names in media don't seem to be doing their job. They try and avoid controversy, try and avoid asking the tough questions and making comparisons unless it's asinine and not going to get them sued or in trouble. "You decide" is meant to be a way of saying that proper information was provided about both sides, and you think through the quality information provided. It shouldn't mean that you have to wade through crappy information like: "I dunno, I heard this from the bloke down on the street. could be true, maybe it's not, you decide. I can't be bothered to find out." that's not how this works. that's now how any of this works.

Some news anchors do try. But it's hardly enough when the #1 goal is ratings and not integrity reporting :'(

/rant


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> They didn't give the go-ahead towards the Iraq war and we all know what happened there.


Yes, but im sure america has learnt its lesson. As well as the fact that the UN would never accept this remember the UN is both China and Russia being two of the most powerful, once America starts a nuclear war, China will most definitely cut all ties.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Forcing views is what leads to an authoritarian government.



Which I don't agree with, no views should be forced on anyone regardless of their political views; that's what irks me the most about politics, I don't mind hearing others' views, different perspectives or what have you.  But when either side of the spectrum tries to force views on the other, trying to say that "you're wrong and we're right", it rubs me the wrong way. We don't always have to agree or disagree, but being mature, civil, just being calm, cool and collected, but unfortunately, it doesn't always go swimmingly.

What also irks me is how biased and one-sided the  lamestream media is about focusing on issues and non-issues, focusing on the things that don't matter when they should've focused on the issues and debates that do matter.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> From my perspective, they were negative, but weren't negative about the right things. They made him to be a joke. It was fun to laugh about trump, because he wasn't a "real" candidate. They didn't press the real issues, they didn't press into the important things. It wasn't necessary, because he'd just fade away. They seemed to focus on single instances of things people were more than apt to just hand-wave away.
> 
> Then they constantly talked about hillary's emails. And yeah, definitely should have talked about them and kept people updated, but not 24-7, not acting like it was the end of the world. Don't act surprised that a politician gets treated like a politician. The difference between the coverage of the two is they treated hillary like a real candidate, like she was already president, and this was the big scandal that they could follow throughout her candidacy. Why didn't they focus on literally anything else about hillary? Why didn't they compare her to him about issues, about stances, about statements? Honest, thorough, researched journalism.
> 
> ...


Regardless of whatever happens in politics the media will be blamed by either side of the election.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Nov 10, 2016)




----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Regardless of whatever happens in politics the media will be blamed by either side of the election.


That's because they're terrible at their job and are getting only more terrible. Good reporters have to constantly struggle for support, rather than naturally rising to the top. The ratings game, I swear.

You should watch the movie "network". It's extremely dramatized, but it's not wrong. It's a good movie. Be warned, it is from the 70s


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

American and Chinese relations are sure going to be interesting these next few years then, what with Trumps proposed tax tariff! lol


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Which I don't agree with, no views should be forced on anyone regardless of their political views; that's what irks me the most about politics, I don't mind hearing others' views, different perspectives or what have you.  But when either side of the spectrum tries to force views on the other, trying to say that "you're wrong and we're right", it rubs me the wrong way. We don't always have to agree or disagree, but being mature, civil, just being calm, cool and collected, but unfortunately, it doesn't always go swimmingly.
> 
> What also irks me is how biased and one-sided the  lamestream media is about focusing on issues and non-issues, focusing on the things that don't matter when they should've focused on the issues and debates that do matter.


I  agree, but this is how politics has worked for the past decade, discourse makes votes. 
That leads me on to the next thing I want to say, through this discourse Trump tapped into what one would call the "Silent Majority", Millions of people who feel that America was better a long time ago (1920-1960) they see Trump and they see a man who could let them be publicly misogynistic, publicly racist, publicly xenophobic. They knew that if he could become president and say things like that everyone should have the ability. This silent majority, in this case, is most definitely a large portion of the white, uneducated, working-class American. I understand the hatred of the system, its the very reason these people who shied away from the polls came out and voted to make sure Trump wanted, they wanted that nostalgic feeling of an America they once knew. That America, however, was long in the past something to be ashamed of not proud. 
I'll end with this, when was America truly great? I think America will become great, it was never great in my opinion.

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



SVNate9 said:


> American and Chinese relations are sure going to be interesting these next few years then, what with Trumps proposed tax tariff! lol


That will never pass, pretty much everything America imports is from China.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> That's because they're terrible at their job and are getting only more terrible. Good reporters have to constantly struggle for support, rather than naturally rising to the top. The ratings game, I swear.


I would have to agree but regardless the right and left both claim the media is turned against them.
But I do have to say that the MSM does basically do shit to get rattings and also the fact that people like John Oliver are considered "news" is fucking awful.


----------



## Pachee (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> No-one is going to arrest you for not going out with a fat girl...


Back in 1993 kids making jokes about others kids appearance or weight was a kids thing. Now it is called Bullying, and the parents can get jailed or fined.
Back then parents could use food, room, belts punishments. Now it is considered children abuse.
So how do we avoid future generations of revolutionary special snowflakes now without resorting to even more laws?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I would have to agree but regardless the right and left both claim the media is turned against them.
> But I do have to say that the MSM does basically do shit to get rattings and also the fact that people like John Oliver are considered "news" is fucking awful.



Of course john oliver isnt news.  Anyone who thinks that is stupid.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I would have to agree but regardless the right and left both claim the media is turned against them.
> But I do have to say that the MSM does basically do shit to get rattings and also the fact that people like John Oliver are considered "news" is fucking awful.


It's the best we've got. He does more research than the major news folks, and does his best to actually try to be as open and honest as possible. You don't really get that elsewhere. It's less "news" and more "why the heck doesn't this topic get talked about on the news? This is the details and research on it. We did our best to find out as much about this topic as humanly possible and this is what we found that's relevant and important".


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

Pachee said:


> Back in 1993 kids making jokes about others kids appearance or weight was a kids thing. Now it is called Bullying, and the parents can get jailed or fined.
> Back then parents could use food, room, belts punishments. Now it is considered children abuse.
> So how do we avoid future generations of revolutionary special snowflakes now without resorting to even more laws?


Rather than make laws we should be making sure theyre not fat in the first place. However, making fun if people who arent the norm isnt the right way of going about things, prevention rather than shaming someone into suicide.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I  agree, but this is how politics has worked for the past decade, discourse makes votes.
> That leads me on to the next thing I want to say, through this discourse Trump tapped into what one would call the "Silent Majority", Millions of people who feel that America was better a long time ago (1920-1960) they see Trump and they see a man who could let them be publicly misogynistic, publicly racist, publicly xenophobic. They knew that if he could become president and say things like that everyone should have the ability. This silent majority, in this case, is most definitely a large portion of the white, uneducated, working-class American. I understand the hatred of the system, its the very reason these people who shied away from the polls came out and voted to make sure Trump wanted, they wanted that nostalgic feeling of an America they once knew. That America, however, was long in the past something to be ashamed of not proud.
> I'll end with this, when was America truly great? I think America will become great, it was never great in my opinion.
> 
> ...



America isn't perfect, it never really was. Are there worse countries to live in, absolutely, but I don't have a choice in where I live or where I was raised in, obviously. I hope for the best, I hope for a day where us citizens aren't ashamed of who we are. Right now, I wish I was living in Japan, Sweden or Canada, mostly because I have a lot of friends that live in those countries and because it would give me a fresh start. But now, I don't know.  I don't like our current government, at all.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

I think people refer to the reagan era but "make america great again" has been the slogan of conservatives used all around the world.

edit:make (insert country) great again


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Of course john oliver isnt news.  Anyone who thinks that is stupid.


I agree but it is sad how many people think that anyway despite the fact that he claims he does not.


osaka35 said:


> It's the best we've got. He does more research than the major news folks, and does his best to actually try to be as open and honest as possible. You don't really get that elsewhere. It's less "news" and more "why the heck doesn't this topic get talked about on the news? This is the skinny on it."


But he is not a news reporter at all and even claims it. He is a satirist which is fine but he is not news or anything close. I understand the idea about how shit major news is but watch Democracy Now or other outlets like that which unlike Oliver are actual news.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> America isn't perfect, it never really was. Are there worse countries to live in, absolutely, but I don't have a choice in where I live or where I was raised in, obviously. I hope for the best, I hope for a day where us citizens aren't ashamed of who we are. Right now, I wish I was living in Japan, Sweden or Canada, mostly because I have a lot of friends that live in those countries and because it would give me a fresh start. But now, I don't know.  I don't like our current government, at all.


I get what you mean, its never a choice, I didnt like the UK leaving the EU, it was just stupid imo. You just have to accept it and move on, there is no point hating someone who voted differently. We're just lucky we live in the first world.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I agree but it is sad how many people think that anyway despite the fact that he claims he does not.
> 
> But he is not a news reporter at all and even claims it. He is a satirist which is fine but he is not news or anything close. I understand the idea about how shit major news is but watch Democracy Now or other outlets like that which unlike Oliver are actual news.


No, he's not a news reporter. But he is applying highly journalistic principles to a topic, with a focus on integrity and accuracy. You can call that whatever you'd like, but I call it quality  And at the very least, an ideal to be promoted.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> No, he's not a news reporter. But he is applying highly journalistic principles to a topic, with a focus on integrity and accuracy. You can call that whatever you'd like, but I call it quality  And at the very least, an ideal to be promoted.


Definitely, I'm quite a fan of The Daily Show but these satirists always have a bias as much as you'd like to think they are objective.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> No, he's not a news reporter.


I know and understand but the problem is people act as if he is although that is not his fault.



osaka35 said:


> But he is applying highly journalistic principles to a topic, with a focus on integrity and accuracy.


I would have to disagree since he is satire which ultimately is not objective reporting since that is not it's true ultimate goal. That is not to say that he just says shit or does not make good points but still it is not his goal. News sources and commentary like Democracy Now are still largely better.


----------



## Pachee (Nov 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> *Democracy Now *or other outlets like that which unlike Oliver are actual news.


I invite anyone to open that site now an dare to say it is actual news. There is only 1 story about the actions of the Democratic Party that let Trump jumps ahead while the rest is basically "Trump is the devil and the end of the world is coming" religious like bs.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

> Back in 1993 kids making jokes about others kids appearance or weight was a kids thing. Now it is called Bullying, and the parents can get jailed or fined.
> Back then parents could use food, room, belts punishments. Now it is considered children abuse.
> So how do we avoid future generations of revolutionary special snowflakes now without resorting to even more laws?



What law is that? Consistent harassment over someones appearance or weight has always been bullying.
and belting a child is abuse (my dad did it) when a simple explanation of why it's wrong would have sufficed. Instead of enlightening, belting merely puts fear into the kid. I don't see anything wrong with sending a child up to it's room to reflect on what he/she has done however but i've never heard of anyone getting arrested or fined over it?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

Pachee said:


> That utopia of an "equal" world will never happen. People tend to flock with others of their same views/social class/race/religion/whatever. It is our nature.
> 
> What we see today is an minority trying to force their views over the majority, and we all know beliefs can't forced over other people. Look at the liberals itself, enforcing socialism views despite history showing everybody how it always failed miserably. You end up creating an extreme pressure bubble, and then one day it explodes.
> Boom, Trump is the new president.
> ...


Yes, but its worth endeavouring to do. We as humans should look past our nature to reach common ground, there's no way a global society will last with your thought proccess.  extremism getting worse? You should as yourself why it's happening in the first place. In terms of socialism it hasn't failed, rather in the time's countries have tried to implement it, it went horribly. But we look on the other side, fascism isn't the way either, you don't create common ground by attacking others for the differences to you. As for open borders, its the only way to a cohesive society (a global one of course) while I would say that they should be closed if a crisis was ever to come up.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

> I invite anyone to open that site now an dare to say it is actual news. There is only 1 story about the actions of the Democratic Party that let Trump jumps ahead while the rest is basically "Trump is the devil and the end of the world is coming" religious like bs.



So it's like a left-wing FOX news?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Of course john oliver isnt news.  Anyone who thinks that is stupid.









People who get their political views from comedians shouldn't be allowed to vote


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

king_leo said:


> People who get their political views from comedians shouldn't be allowed to vote



God dont make me laugh man was drinking my soup 

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



SVNate9 said:


> So it's like a left-wing FOX news?


Pretty much. The only reliable British news outlet is the Guardian imo, although CNN is pretty good too.

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

middle is the best, taking a side is just dumb.


----------



## Viri (Nov 10, 2016)

king_leo said:


> People who get their political views from comedians shouldn't be allowed to vote


Did he make a video about Trump's victory yet? I want some salt.


----------



## Viri (Nov 10, 2016)

.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> God dont make me laugh man was drinking my soup
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Yeah, the Guardian never seems to try and deceive its readers, although it can be a bit melodramatic at times


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 10, 2016)

Viri said:


> Did he make a video about Trump's victory yet? I want some salt.


I don't think so, he's probably on suicide watch


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> Yeah, the Guardian never seems to try and deceive its readers, although it can be a bit melodramatic at times


hell yeah they always go with the worst case scenario


----------



## Pachee (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Yes, but its worth endeavouring to do. We as humans should look past our nature to reach common ground, there's no way a global society will last with your thought proccess.  extremism getting worse? You should as yourself why it's happening in the first place. In terms of socialism it hasn't failed, rather in the time's countries have tried to implement it, it went horribly. But we look on the other side, fascism isn't the way either, you don't create common ground by attacking others for the differences to you. As for open borders, its the only way to a cohesive society (a global one of course) while I would say that they should be closed if a crisis was ever to come up.


How many more millions of lives will need to be lost and countries ruined so we can finally reach an conclusion in such endeavoring?
See? This is the problem with Liberals, they deem everything Facism/*ism. This isn't even a matter of attacking, it is today a matter of a generation being labeled and punished by what people did centuries ago. Look at how many people still label Germans as cold nazi people.
Open borders is at beast the fastest way of a Nation losing its identity, generating internal fights and having its whole society falling apart over excessive State Control trying to reach the Utopia of keeping everyone happy.

Look at the middle East, we got a living example of what happens when people with different beliefs, be them religious or political, get forcibly packed together: 3~4000 years of wars and hate. Meanwhile in South and Central America, all that European multiculturalism left those countries rotting in poverty and corruption for more than 500 years.
Now lets take a look at Japan, yeah closed themselves to the world after war and quite a bunch of Xenophobes there, but we can't deny they achieved a nice society where any foreign can walk down their streets without getting attacked by some angry Japanese mob. Why? Because they learned to respect their laws, each other, even people they don't like.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 10, 2016)

netovsk said:


> As a reminder, in california it was roughly 5,5 million votes to Hillary and 3 million to trump.
> 
> If it were to be decided by popular vote only, how democratic would it be for California alone to decide?


Why does it matter what region votes what? It's still the majority deciding. With the Electoral College it's literally worse for Cali, considering it's 55 whole votes that will invariably go democratic


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

Racism did not stop when slavery was abolished, just like sexism when women got the right to work.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Why does it matter what region votes what? It's still the majority deciding. With the Electoral College it's literally worse for Cali, considering it's 55 whole votes that will invariably go democratic


Because of the fact that you can make an argument the popular vote does not really reflect the actual ways people think since it will most likely be heavily influenced largely by large blue or red states like Cali or Texas. Although I must say that the electoral college is still/was very much in favor for the democrats.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

The countries with the least amount of inequality are also the ones that are most happy, funny that. It's a shame Bernie got pushed over, he would have truly made America great again imo.


----------



## Condarkness (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> So it's like a left-wing FOX news?



Essentially. They are just as full of shit as the others are.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> American and Chinese relations are sure going to be interesting these next few years then, what with Trumps proposed tax tariff! lol



Im worried about that. Good bye, cheap Android devices and decently priced game consoles.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

Pachee said:


> How many more millions of lives will need to be lost and countries ruined so we can finally reach an conclusion in such endeavoring?
> See? This is the problem with Liberals, they deem everything Facism/*ism. This isn't even a matter of attacking, it is today a matter of a generation being labeled and punished by what people did centuries ago. Look at how many people still label Germans as cold nazi people.
> Open borders is at beast the fastest way of a Nation losing its identity, generating internal fights and having its whole society falling apart over excessive State Control trying to reach the Utopia of keeping everyone happy.
> 
> ...


Im not a liberal although i do lean more left than right. No lives have yet to be lost for this endeavour as no one has correctly worked with other countries. You bring up cold nazis but youre digressing from the point how about not using straw men in your argument? Losing an identity of self and having one global identity  is better than thousands of different identities, you shouldnt care about your country or sovereignty, patriotism leads to idiocy. One must work with others and accept them into a society to create a healthy atmosphere for all. Youre wrong about the middle east, it seems you do not understand it well enough to create a conclusion that doesnt sound ridiculous. The middle east hasnt had any issues with other belief systems of political views up until about 500 years ago. If you count the crusades as wars of beliefs then yes these nations have had issues but both sides were losers, this was one of a few times this has happened. If you look into things like the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties you can see that different political spectrums and religions can coexist if properly implemented. Also i ask this what lives have been lost in the first place? 
You bring up Japan but their societies culture has a basis of respect, one that is very unique. You seemed to have diverted from the question, how can an open peaceful world hate each other if the very basis of this ideal is acceptance? You say state control but you dont need to keep everyone happy rather you look into why they are unhappy and you see if its valid, now you need to give examples about keeping everyone happy because right now I cant just assume things.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Im worried about that. Good bye, cheap Android devices and decently priced game consoles.


and the wonderful bargain bin toys from walmart


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> and the wonderful bargain bin toys from walmart


what a comeuppance


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> and the wonderful bargain bin toys from walmart


Yeah, kiss dollar stores, Five Below and Wal-Mart prices good bye and the middle class and poor will suffer.


----------



## Pachee (Nov 10, 2016)

Economical equality is one thing. Multiculturalism? Swedistan? France? Germany? Rip future.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Im not a liberal although i do lean more left than right.


If you do lean to one side then it is hard to discuss anything because no matter how history show left failed everywhere, some people will still defend it.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

Pachee said:


> Economical equality is one thing. Multiculturalism? Swedistan? France? Germany? Rip future.


It seems you have an issue with people different to you.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

Pachee said:


> Economical equality is one thing. Multiculturalism? Swedistan? France? Germany? Rip future.


There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. I swear, humanity is going to get a rude awakening once our interstellar neighbors arrive. -then what? Fools are gonna try to teach aliens about "the love of Jesus"? Ptth! People need to realize that there is more to life then their stupid ass bubble. The planet would be better off and less racist.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Yeah, kiss dollar stores... good bye and the middle class and poor will suffer.


Actually no DG sounds like it is good for America.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. I swear, humanity is going to get a rude awakening once our interstellar neighbors arrive. -then what? Fools are gonna try to teach aliens about "the love of Jesus"? Ptth! People need to realize that there is more to life then their stupid ass bubble. The planet would be better off and less racist.


While its unlikely humans will ever make contact with aliens, I agree.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. I swear, humanity is going to get a rude awakening once our interstellar neighbors arrive. -then what? Fools are gonna try to teach aliens about "the love of Jesus"? Ptth! People need to realize that there is more to life then their stupid ass bubble. The planet would be better off and less racist.


Than all us humans will be racist to the x39fub people of planet qwu48ff[0*


----------



## Demifiend (Nov 10, 2016)

Pachee said:


> How many more millions of lives will need to be lost and countries ruined so we can finally reach an conclusion in such endeavoring?
> See? This is the problem with Liberals, they deem everything Facism/*ism. This isn't even a matter of attacking, it is today a matter of a generation being labeled and punished by what people did centuries ago. Look at how many people still label Germans as cold nazi people.
> Open borders is at beast the fastest way of a Nation losing its identity, generating internal fights and having its whole society falling apart over excessive State Control trying to reach the Utopia of keeping everyone happy.
> 
> ...




I do admit that Japanese people learned to behave and properly respect the laws, but for what cause?, they were constantly threatened during WWII and even before then, they were known to invade regions of China, Indonesia and essentially all of South-East Asia, and now that they aren't the same invaders as before, they've finally compromised to accept peace for both their country and its neighbors, but now they are facing a sudden problem of decreased birth rates, which can compromise its entire population as it will go down, and down, and down as years go on. 

Like it or not, if you want to sustain a population, specially one that needs to keep a "First World Country" happy, you need people, people to work with, the ratio of demand is higher than the ratio of offer, and sooner or later a society will fall by its own weight, Japan is not perfect nor any country in the world, but at the very least, you can't expect all societies to behave or work like Japan, since each country has its own identity and methods of working, the history of a country is made by people willing to see something new or different each time or the same thing altogether, depending on the country.

I guess you're right about Central and South America taking a toll after all the European damage left in those countries, but you'll be surprised once you open a history book and you see how much some of these countries have changed over time, for example, Chile was facing a dictatorship (Pinochet) during the mid-70's and yet, they've managed to produce positive results through out the years, and what about Brazil?, one of the biggest countries in the world possessing most of the Amazon Rainforest with one of the bigger cultures around the world. Yes, you can admit that there is poverty and corruption in some of those countries, but that doesn't mean that is just a "place with poverty or corruption with nothing else to offer, unlike Japan", that's just a very misguided view you have, I must say.

And as for Middle East?, while different beliefs and religions do matter in this say, remember that most of these were the countries where humankind saw its first steps, some of the oldest history recorded were in those countries, if it wasn't by the Middle East, Europe wouldn't be nearly the state it is as now. That those countries are suffering war and poverty?, that's correct, but that doesn't mean that is gonna remain like that forever, may someday the countries in ME will rise again, as they have offered the tools for humanity to advance now. 

P.D: I'm not a Liberal, a Democrat, or a Republican, I don't care about those labels, I guess I'm just one of those "Hispanics" that comment over here once in a while.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

@Pachee you seem to not ask enough questions and take things at face value. not good.  You used the middle east in your argument and you have to ask why they are the way they are. These nations are in the worst of times simply because none of them can agree with each other. You use third world countries on your arguments but that's just dumb because third world countries will obviously have issues why else would they be third world? If this were to happen in europe or america you'd have a point.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

king_leo said:


> People who get their political views from comedians shouldn't be allowed to vote


What about those who understand the limits of their perspective, but still appreciate the quality of the argument presented? 




RevPokemon said:


> I would have to disagree since he is satire which ultimately is not objective reporting since that is not it's true ultimate goal. That is not to say that he just says shit or does not make good points but still it is not his goal. News sources and commentary like Democracy Now are still largely better.


Journalism is hard. Really, really hard. It requires not only highly skilled critical thinking, focused meta-cognition, and intense skepticism, but also an understanding of the burden of proof, of responsibility, of understanding the limits of one's information, of individual rights, and the importance of individual perspectives.

The bar is set extremely high, and while his goal is not to be even-handed and present every side of the argument, he does try to separate the "need-to-know" from the "unnecessary". He tries to ensure his data is accurate by including as many sources as possible. He actively tracks down the origin of an assertion or story and presents what he did. He also tries to create data by doing something himself (creating this, emailing someone, calling folks up). He explains everything he does and presents it in a funny presentation.

Now, his bias may influence how he interprets what he finds, but he's at least applying the proper journalistic rules. He's being open and honest about what he's doing and what he found. He just uses what he finds to satire folks  I would respect a right-wing version of his show if the same principles of journalistic integrity were applied. I may not agree with it, but I'd appreciate the effort put into it to stay open, honest, and accurate.

oh, and I say "he", but I mean him and his entire crew.



LightyKD said:


> There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. I swear, humanity is going to get a rude awakening once our interstellar neighbors arrive. -then what? Fools are gonna try to teach aliens about "the love of Jesus"? Ptth! People need to realize that there is more to life then their stupid ass bubble. The planet would be better off and less racist.


I'm hoping all our Star Trek: The Next Generation training will kick in.


----------



## Demifiend (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> @Pachee you seem to not ask enough questions and take things at face value. not good.  You used the middle east in your argument and you have to ask why they are the way they are. These nations are in the worst of times simply because none of them can agree with each other. You use third world countries on your arguments but that's just dumb because third world countries will obviously have issues why else would they be third world? If this were to happen in europe or america you'd have a point.



They are third world countries because they didn't align neither with the NATO and its allies nor the Communist Bloc during the Cold War, which are respectably called the First and Second World, but that doesn't mean that those of the second nor the first world doesn't face issues, just to put it this way, Cuba is a second world country by the virtue of allying with the Communist Bloc and yet it faced horrible issues through out its history, same thing with Laos and Vietnam, or to put it this simply, there are first world countries like Zimbabwe and Belize, not because of its economy but, because they aligned with the US, and they are facing troubles.

Countries like Sweden or Finland are Third world countries, yet, they don't look like the "typical" third  world country, right?, so in short, all countries in the world face problems, some bigger than others, but once time has passed, a new country will take the lead differently than before and it will succeed, and others will follow up as well, as that is the history of humanity itself.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

Demifiend said:


> They are third world countries because they didn't align neither with the NATO and its allies nor the Communist Bloc during the Cold War, which are respectably called the First and Second World, but that doesn't mean that those of the second nor the first world doesn't face issues, just to put it this way, Cuba is a second world country by the virtue of allying with the Communist Bloc and yet it faced horrible issues through out its history, same thing with Laos and Vietnam, or to put it this simply, there are first world countries like Zimbabwe and Belize, not because of its economy but, because they aligned with the US, and they are facing troubles.
> 
> Countries like Sweden or Finland are Third world countries, yet, they don't look like the "typical" third  world country, right?, so in short, all countries in the world face problems, some bigger than others, but once time has passed, a new country will take the lead differently than before and it will succeed, and others will follow up as well, as that is the history of humanity itself.


So your definition of what a third or second or first world country is does not rely on the standard Quality of Life (QoL) criteria?


----------



## Pachee (Nov 10, 2016)

Hard to quote everyone, but regarding the examples, if i had to choose one i would take the middle east because it shows our nature. No matter the country, even people from different races/religions/etc when they move to another country they tend to create communities. If we had aliens arriving at Earth today? Same thing would happen.

Now let me ask it, if our newly arrived Aliens from Andromeda deemed eating other animals bad and a practice that should be banned but they also deemed completely normal to piss in public from their back most tentacle, what would you all do? Respect our fellow space visitants beliefs and abide by them, or fight to keep yours?
What if our feminists started another fight now at them for grabbing their females reproductive organ in public to express love? This leads to a never ending cycle on unhappy people, with a never ending cycle of govs taking away rights trying to please every single snowflake.

Back to reality, look at the censorship and drama we have to hear nowadays on games, movies, whatever media because somebody sjw/black/feminist/muslin/religious/conservative somewhere deemed it offensive to their special flock.


----------



## Demifiend (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> So your definition of what a third or second or first world country is does not rely on the standard Quality of Life (QoL) criteria?



No, because that term was originally used as a politic term to describe countries that ally with one side or the other, and there's no QoL criteria that relies on here, if you want something like that, there's the HDI or Gini, which is also kinda rigged as some places of a country will certainly be better than others, but the HDI takes ALL the places of the country, no matter how undeveloped they are, every single place is summed up to a single cipher, so countries that do have a "Medium" HDI such as China or India have places that are really developed and constantly used, and others that are not as used nor as developed, and let me remind you that China is a superpower when it comes to economic affairs.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

Pachee said:


> Hard to quote everyone, but regarding the examples, if i had to choose one i would take the middle east because it shows our nature. No matter the country, even people from different races/religions/etc when they move to another country the tend to create communities. I we had aliens arriving at Earth today? Same thing would happen.
> 
> Now let me ask it, if our newly arrived Aliens from Andromeda deemed eating other animals bad and a practice that should be banned but they also deemed completely normal to piss in public from their back most tentacle, what would you all do? Respect our fellow space visitants beliefs and abide by them, or fight to keep yours?
> What if our feminists started another fight now at them for grabbing their females reproductive organ in public to express love? This leads to a never ending cycle on unhappy people, with a never ending cycle of govs taking away rights trying to please every single snowflake.
> ...


Respect is a two-way street. If it only flows one way, it is a lop-sided notion. Which, come to think of it, is probably why there's a lot of tension between the different branches of feminism, including those who are not familiar with feminism. 

If the aliens couldn't respect someone else's boundaries, folk who do not wish to participate, then they are not being very respectful. If someone actively allows to embrace that alien culture and the intent behind it, sure, whatever, that's all them. And hey, we have nudist colonies, so it's not like it'd be a completely new situation for the peeing wherever thing XD we'd try and figure something out so individual rights were respected.

You should watch star trek (mainly The Next Generation). It mainly deals with stuff like this and constitutes most of the plots and stories.

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



Demifiend said:


> No, because that term was originally used as a politic term to describe countries that ally with one side or the other, and there's no QoL criteria that relies on here, if you want something like that, there's the HDI or Gini, which is also kinda rigged as some places of a country will certainly be better than others, but the HDI takes ALL the places of the country, no matter how undeveloped they are, every single place is summed up to a single cipher, so countries that do have a "Medium" HDI such as China or India have places that are really developed and constantly used, and others that are not as used nor as developed, and let me remind you that China is a superpower when it comes to economic affairs.


Yeah, generalizations based on a range of numbers when it comes to humans is tricky at best, deadly stupid at worst. When you have people living crappily and people living amazing, you can't just lump the two together and say everyone is generally doing okay, I agree with you.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

Pachee said:


> Hard to quote everyone, but regarding the examples, if i had to choose one i would take the middle east because it shows our nature. No matter the country, even people from different races/religions/etc when they move to another country the tend to create communities. I we had aliens arriving at Earth today? Same thing would happen.
> 
> Now let me ask it, if our newly arrived Aliens from Andromeda deemed eating other animals bad and a practice that should be banned but they also deemed completely normal to piss in public from their back most tentacle, what would you all do? Respect our fellow space visitants beliefs and abide by them, or fight to keep yours?
> What if our feminists started another fight now at them for grabbing their females reproductive organ in public to express love? This leads to a never ending cycle on unhappy people, with a never ending cycle of govs taking away rights trying to please every single snowflake.
> ...


No, as for aliens we'd agree to do the way we wanted, we should respect theirs but they should respect ours. As for the feminist thing please talk realistically hypotheticals dont make sense. Also on the middle east, did you not read anything I wrote?

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



Demifiend said:


> They are third world countries because they didn't align neither with the NATO and its allies nor the Communist Bloc during the Cold War, which are respectably called the First and Second World, but that doesn't mean that those of the second nor the first world doesn't face issues, just to put it this way, Cuba is a second world country by the virtue of allying with the Communist Bloc and yet it faced horrible issues through out its history, same thing with Laos and Vietnam, or to put it this simply, there are first world countries like Zimbabwe and Belize, not because of its economy but, because they aligned with the US, and they are facing troubles.
> 
> Countries like Sweden or Finland are Third world countries, yet, they don't look like the "typical" third  world country, right?, so in short, all countries in the world face problems, some bigger than others, but once time has passed, a new country will take the lead differently than before and it will succeed, and others will follow up as well, as that is the history of humanity itself.


I was talking about QoL not allyship.

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



Pachee said:


> Hard to quote everyone, but regarding the examples, if i had to choose one i would take the middle east because it shows our nature. No matter the country, even people from different races/religions/etc when they move to another country the tend to create communities. I we had aliens arriving at Earth today? Same thing would happen.
> 
> Now let me ask it, if our newly arrived Aliens from Andromeda deemed eating other animals bad and a practice that should be banned but they also deemed completely normal to piss in public from their back most tentacle, what would you all do? Respect our fellow space visitants beliefs and abide by them, or fight to keep yours?
> What if our feminists started another fight now at them for grabbing their females reproductive organ in public to express love? This leads to a never ending cycle on unhappy people, with a never ending cycle of govs taking away rights trying to please every single snowflake.
> ...


Censorship is evil, Im not saying no freedom but rather the contrary.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

Anyone know whats happening with California?


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Anyone know whats happening with California?


Yeah, idiotic things.
I'm ashamed to call myself Californian.
Riots will only make matters worse. They're hypocrites. They want to stop hate by creating hate? Lol.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> Yeah, idiotic things.
> I'm ashamed to call myself Californian.
> Riots will only make matters worse. They're hypocrites. They want to stop hate by creating hate? Lol.


Hmm, definitely not the way to do things. Although im sure it'll hurt for silicon valley.


----------



## Condarkness (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Anyone know whats happening with California?



Meltdowns,  suicides, random bitching, pissing their pants, did I miss anything??


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

Condarkness said:


> Meltdowns,  suicides, random bitching, pissing their pants, did I miss anything??


Nope. didnt hillary win the popular vote?
edit: seems she did, a lot of people just got fucked over by the electoral college.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Anyone know whats happening with California?


Nothing where I'm at. A lot of people seemed gloomy at my University, but nothing crazy.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 10, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Nothing where I'm at. A lot of people seemed gloomy at my University, but nothing crazy.


It was just i was reading up on the guardian site that inverstors wanted California to become its own separate state. I doubt there have been any major riots?


----------



## Condarkness (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Nope. didnt hillary win the popular vote?
> edit: seems she did, a lot of people just got fucked over by the electoral college.



I hope you understand my statement was sarcasm. I don't understand why you said nope or about with winning the popular vote. I was only answering the question you asked: anyone know what's happening with California? Perhaps your question was part of another question that I didn't get? 

Either way I have heard that there have been two days worth of protests I California outside of Trump tower. You can either search Google or I can provide the link.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Nope. didnt hillary win the popular vote?
> edit: seems she did, a lot of people just got fucked over by the electoral college.



I personally couldn't give a damn that she didn't win, there, I said my piece. I don't agree with her, I don't like the way she handles things, people need to just accept the fact she lost; now they know how so many felt back in 2008 and in 2012.


Upset people: Yes, let's start up violent "peaceful" protests to prove a point, boy, that'll sure show them!


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

CNN projects Trump to win the popular vote over Clinton

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results Currently only 93% in.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

We're fucked... the entire world is fucked and everyone is going backwards. Guess I better sit back and watch the world burn...


----------



## ComeTurismO (Nov 10, 2016)

It's only been a day and look what's going on in the States... Violence, racist attacks, vandalism, protests... I wonder what else is coming..


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> We're fucked... the entire world is fucked and everyone is going backwards. Guess I better sit back and watch the world burn...



Still dont get that the world was backwards previously lol, time for it to go forwards again.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

ComeTurismO said:


> It's only been a day and look what's going on in the States... Violence, racist attacks, vandalism, protests... I wonder what else is coming..



Civil War and not of the Marvel variety


----------



## netovsk (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Civil War and not of the Marvel variety



For a moment there I thought rioters were hillary puppets in denial.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Civil War and not of the Marvel variety



That's what happens when all these liberals protesters are empowered by the media to attack the "whitelash" that elected trump. CNN is the worse than Fox News and Van Jones should be ashamed of himself.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 10, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> That's what happens when all these liberals protesters are empowered by the media to attack the "whitelash" that elected trump. CNN is the worse than Fox News and Van Jones should be ashamed of himself.



the "whitelash" are still laughing their ass off at the stupidity, and the gullible morons.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> That's what happens when all these liberals protesters are empowered by the media to attack the "whitelash" that elected trump. CNN is the worse than Fox News and Van Jones should be ashamed of himself.



You know that? I'm damned tired of the liberal bashing. I AM A PROUD LIBERAL! There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. We actually CARE about people, the environment and making the world a better place. We understand that the world is part of a bigger picture and i will gladly die as a socialist liberal. I will NOT nor should other liberals be ashamed of who we are. We exist and conservatives SHARE this world with us and if they don't like it, tough titty! We're not going anywhere!


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0

Looks like the largest percentage of folks who voted for trump were (+60%):
-Those who serve the military
-White without a college degree
-small city or rural folk
-Republican
-Conservative
-White evangelical or white born-again christians


----------



## netovsk (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> You know that? I'm damned tired of the liberal bashing. I AM A PROUD LIBERAL! There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. We actually CARE about people, the environment and making the world a better place. We understand that the world is part of a bigger picture and i will gladly die as a socialist liberal. I will NOT nor should other liberals be ashamed of who we are. We exist and conservatives SHARE this world with us and if they don't like it, tough titty! We're not going anywhere!



If you're so loving warm hearted and caring why do you hate openly on working class citizens whose only "wrongdoing" is disagreeing on your views? You wanted a warmonger in office how loving is that?


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0
> 
> Looks like the largest percentage of folks who voted for trump were (+60%):
> -Those who serve the military
> ...




And thats an issue because?


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0
> 
> Looks like the largest percentage of folks who voted for trump were (+60%):
> -Those who serve the military
> ...



Not surprised and sadly I didn't see many people at the polls. I have this nagging feeling that people tossed their hands up and said "fuck it" or got cocky and thought that Hillary instantly had it.


----------



## DKB (Nov 10, 2016)

mech said:


> And thats an issue because?



Their just listing the type of people that voted for Trump. Are you offended or something?


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 10, 2016)

DKB said:


> Their just listing the type of people that voted for Trump. Are you offended or something?



Missed Latinos from that list there buddy.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> You know that? I'm damned tired of the liberal bashing. I AM A PROUD LIBERAL! There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. We actually CARE about people, the environment and making the world a better place. We understand that the world is part of a bigger picture and i will gladly die as a socialist liberal. I will NOT nor should other liberals be ashamed of who we are. We exist and conservatives SHARE this world with us and if they don't like it, tough titty! We're not going anywhere!





el_gonz87 said:


> That's what happens when all these *liberals protesters* are empowered by the media to attack the "whitelash" that elected trump. CNN is the worse than Fox News and Van Jones should be ashamed of himself.



Once again you see through a glass that suits you. I clearly stated protesters FFS, and it's people like Van Jones and his comments that encite this kind of violence. You stand by these radicals, that's a sign of true progress...


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

netovsk said:


> If you're so loving warm hearted and caring why do you hate openly on working class citizens whose only "wrongdoing" is disagreeing on your views? You wanted a warmonger in office how loving is that?



First off, don't assume

1) I voted for Jill Stein. Read earlier pages and you'd know that. My candidate is far from a war mongerer
2) I an NOT a Fan of Hillary and was firmly behind Bernie till he dropped out
3) I am not against the working class, Hell I'm working class and bust my ass daily to provide for my family
4) What I AM against are stupid voters, uninformed voters, people who vote out of fear. 

We had FOUR choices and most people only knew about two. When I told people that I voted for Stein, I instantly got "who is that?" -it's as if they didn't even read the damn sample ballot that was mailed to them and it pisses me off. Hatred? I don't like people who make business off of dividing people. I don't like people who use fear to control but I wont hate the confused, sad fucks that voted for Trump. I would much rather have them vote for Gary Johnson than the racist, homophobic, greedy son of a bitch that is Trump.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 10, 2016)

Here we go with the 'Fear' again, people voted because they are tired of the bullshit.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Once again you see through a glass that suits you. I clearly stated protesters FFS, and it's people like Van Jones and his comments that encite this kind of violence. You stand by these radicals, that's a sign of true progress...




Sorry but Van Jones IS right and until deniers get off their ass, take the wax out of their ears and prepare themselves for real dialogue, nothing will change. Lets be blunt, old folks and racist got scared about their eventual downfall and loss of power and saw a Trump vote as some kind of revenge vote. Deny that all you want but the truth will always be the truth.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> First off, don't assume
> 
> 1) I voted for Jill Stein. Read earlier pages and you'd know that. My candidate is far from a war mongerer
> 2) I an NOT a Fan of Hillary and was firmly behind Bernie till he dropped out
> ...


I voted Johnson (and love Stein also although I disagree) and can say a large issue is not necesarilly the conservatives and liberals of this country but the DNC and GOP for what they have done such as not upholding thier promises and acting as if liberals HAVE to vote D and conservatives HAVE to vote R. If these republicans and democrats actually focused about putting the best people forward rather than increasing their power than America probably would not be so fucked.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> First off, don't assume
> 
> 1) *I voted for Jill Stein.* Read earlier pages and you'd know that. My candidate is far from a war mongerer
> 2) I an NOT a Fan of Hillary and was firmly behind Bernie till he dropped out
> ...


People like you are one of the reasons why Trump got elected. I'd say category #1 puts you into category #4.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

mech said:


> Missed Latinos from that list there buddy.


?
Hispanic/Latino voted about 29% for trump it would seem. Unless you're talking about the education by "race", in which case I would have liked to have seen that broken down into more categories as well. I am curious why they didn't. any thoughts?

by the by, to the right of the bars, they show the change of voting pattern as compared to the previous election.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0
> 
> Looks like the largest percentage of folks who voted for trump were (+60%):
> -Those who serve the military
> ...


And for what it is worth it is surprising he beat Obama when it came to the Catholic vote.

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



Lacius said:


> People like you are one of the reasons why Trump got elected. I'd say category #1 puts you into category #4.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-exit-polls-how-donald-trump-won-the-us-presidency/

So that assumption is wrong.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 10, 2016)

https://twitter.com/kmscodi/status/796554667748716545

ahhh yes, whitelash voters are the assholes?


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Sorry but Van Jones IS right and until deniers get off their ass, take the wax out of their ears and prepare themselves for real dialogue, nothing will change. Lets be blunt, old folks and racist got scared about their eventual downfall and loss of power and saw a Trump vote as some kind of revenge vote. Deny that all you want but the truth will always be the truth.



Once again you are assuming something about people you know nothing about. Have you been to the counties in Michigan or Pennsylvania that Trump won by a landslide? No.
This would be as stupid as me saying all blacks are on welfare. Both are some of the stupides comments I've heard and stand against.

The mid-west was hurting and it spoke in the ballots. Obama has failed to protect the small businesses and manufacturing jobs in this area.

We have Trump as president because of the idiots you idolize. Congrats, thanks for being part of #MAGA.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> So that assumption is wrong.


We already know those voters are stupid and/or don't care who wins the election because they voted third-party. Regardless of whether or not they would have voted at all if Stein/Johnson weren't on the ballot is irrelevant to whether or not they helped throw the election to Donald Trump (they did).


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I voted Johnson (and love Stein also although I disagree) and can say a large issue is not necesarilly the conservatives and liberals of this country but the DNC and GOP for what they have done such as not upholding thier promises and acting as if liberals HAVE to vote D and conservatives HAVE to vote R. If these republicans and democrats actually focused about putting the best people forward rather than increasing their power than America probably would not be so fucked.



Agreed! We need to get rid of the two party crap that got us in this mess.

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



Lacius said:


> People like you are one of the reasons why Trump got elected. I'd say category #1 puts you into category #4.




LMAO You again. We talked about this weeks ago and you knew I was voting on principal.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Agreed! We need to get rid of the two party crap that got us in this mess.


If by _this mess_ you mean the impending Donald Trump presidency, then you can look at the third-party crap that in part got us into _this mess_.



LightyKD said:


> LMAO You again. We talked about this weeks ago and you knew I was voting on principal.


You say that like it makes your vote any less of a throwaway that is in part to blame for Trump.

Edit: In other words, a principled vote can still be idiotic.


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 10, 2016)

The mentality of calling out people who voted 3rd party is stupid.
Is there a problem that they didn't want Hillary to win? Is there a problem that those same people don't like Trump?
You guys are acting like children.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If by _this mess_ you mean the impending Donald Trump presidency, then you can look at the third-party crap that in part got us into _this mess_.



You cant blame third parties for this one. Third parties have a right to exist. You CAN blame the cockyness of the Democratic party and their ability to push away many of us who used to vote for Democrats. Emails are a muthafucka, aren't they?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 10, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> The mentality of calling out people who voted 3rd party is stupid.
> Is there a problem that they didn't want Hillary to win? Is there a problem that those same people don't like Trump?
> You guys are acting like children.





LightyKD said:


> You cant blame third parties for this one. Third parties have a right to exist. You CAN blame the cockyness of the Democratic party and their ability to push away many of us who used to vote for Democrats. Emails are a muthafucka, aren't they?


It wasn't exclusively people who voted third-party who caused this mess. I was very clear that third-party voters were only in part to blame. But a third-party voter does not get to complain about the election results one bit if his or her vote was for someone who could not win. You are in fact in part to blame when your vote was in practice as good as not voting.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Nov 10, 2016)

The people rioting and beating people up are just idiots that want to make a fuss. Who knows if they're even really liberals. It's silly to generalize because of them. Plenty of Trump supporters did the the same type of stuff.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You are in fact in part to blame when your vote was in practice as good as not voting.



How is that their fault? lol

edit: sp


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We already know those voters are stupid and/or don't care who wins the election because they voted third-party.


For what it is worth when it comes to economics professors Libertarians and Greens vastly have higher ratios compared to the public IIRC. But to say that you are stupid beceause you voted 3rd party is a joke. Plus considering the fact that a lot of people literally thought that there was only 2 choices says a lot.



Lacius said:


> Regardless of whether or not they would have voted at all if Stein/Johnson weren't on the ballot is irrelevant to whether or not they helped throw the election to Donald Trump.


Ultimately they are more Perots than Naders



Lacius said:


> If by _this mess_ you mean the impending Donald Trump presidency, then you can look at the third-party crap that in part got us into _this mess_.


Hillary doing bad in the Midwestern states where she was favored and losing the places Obama won is what did it.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 10, 2016)

#MAGA'd


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It wasn't exclusively people who voted third-party who caused this mess. I was very clear that third-party voters were only in part to blame. But a third-party voter does not get to complain about the election results one bit if his or her vote was for someone who could not win. You are in fact in part to blame when your vote was in practice as good as not voting.


People would have complained if Hillary won. Nothing would have changed. It's just people being salty. Happens every 4 years.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

To go from Obama to Trump is incredible really, Clinton must have been awful.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> It wasn't exclusively people who voted third-party who caused this mess. I was very clear that third-party voters were only in part to blame. But a third-party voter does not get to complain about the election results one bit if his or her vote was for someone who could not win. You are in fact in part to blame when your vote was in practice as good as not voting.


Yes 3rd parties get to complain since they had used there privileges to vote to show that they were upset with the situation being put forth. Heck for what it is worth *YOU* can also be blamed since you did not encourage enough people to vote HRC. Plus as the math shows, without the 3rd parties the result would have been the same. The only person we can blame is the Democrats for losing since they failed to get the votes.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> You cant blame third parties for this one. Third parties have a right to exist. You CAN blame the cockyness of the Democratic party and their ability to push away many of us who used to vote for Democrats. Emails are a muthafucka, aren't they?


Voting for third party is an act of conscience, it is not an act of picking the president. It is a comment, not a solution.

Third parties completely have a right to exist, but under our current voting structure, cannot be elected president. If you want to change that, then we need to change the voting system from first past the post (fptp), and winner take all, to something less silly. I'd like to see this change at all levels, as we need a more accurate level of representation than what we have today.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> The people rioting and beating people up are just idiots that want to make a fuss. Who knows if they're even really liberals. It's silly to generalize because of them. Plenty of Trump supporters did the the same type of stuff.



Thank you for pointing this out! There are riots and idiots on both sides. Let's not forget the YouTube video posted today of college students chanting "Build the Wall" while their Latino classmates cry. No "Whitelash" my ass!


----------



## Lacius (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> How is that their fault? lol
> 
> edit: sp


See my link above about the margins of victory.



RevPokemon said:


> But to say that you are stupid beceause you voted 3rd party is a joke.


A third-party vote is objectively stupid if one cares who wins. Voting for a candidate who cannot win by definition means you're a.) making a stupid decision, or b.) don't care who wins. This is clear, and I have nothing left to say on the topic.



RevPokemon said:


> Plus considering the fact that a lot of people literally thought that there was only 2 choices says a lot.


I know what you're getting at, but in practice, there were only two real candidates.



RevPokemon said:


> Ultimately they are more Perots than Naders


That doesn't appear to be the case according to the numbers.



RevPokemon said:


> Hillary doing bad in the Midwestern states where she was favored and losing the places Obama won is what did it.


That and about twenty other reasons, including the third-party votes.



RevPokemon said:


> Yes 3rd parties get to complain since they had used there privileges to vote to show that they were upset with the situation being put forth. Heck for what it is worth *YOU* can also be blamed since you did not encourage enough people to vote HRC. Plus as the math shows, without the 3rd parties the result would have been the same. The only person we can blame is the Democrats for losing since they failed to get the votes.





osaka35 said:


> Voting for third party is an act of conscience, it is not an act of picking the president. It is a comment, not a solution.
> 
> Third parties completely have a right to exist, but under our current voting structure, cannot be elected president. If you want to change that, then we need to change the voting system from first past the post (fptp), and winner take all, to something less silly. I'd like to see this change at all levels, as we need a more accurate level of representation than what was needed.


Nobody said third-parties don't have a right to exist. A person even has the right not to vote at all if they so choose. However, when it comes to the situation of stopping a Donald Trump presidency, don't act like the two situations are at all distinguishable. If you cared who won this election between Trump and Hillary, and you didn't vote for Hillary, you don't get to complain that Trump won.

Edit: Forgot to respond with the fact that the math does show that third-parties very likely did spoil the election. This idea that third-party votes didn't influence the election is untrue.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

All hail lord Trump, may he make America great again. Maybe lord Gaben will join him.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 10, 2016)

The RNC will hold:
Senate Majority
House Majority
Supreme Justice Majority
President of The United States

America has spoken. #MAGA'd

We're tired of the liberal gov't and liberal media!


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Third parties completely have a right to exist, but under our current voting structure, cannot be elected president. If you want to change that, then we need to change the voting system from first past the post (fptp), and winner take all, to something less silly. I'd like to see this change at all levels, as we need a more accurate level of representation than what was needed.


Well nothing is stopping them from winning since FPTP countries like India and so forth do actually have multiparty systems.




Lacius said:


> That doesn't appear to be the case according to the numbers.


https://progressiveperspectivesblog...ty-voters-arent-to-blame-for-trumps-election/



Lacius said:


> That and about twenty other reasons, including the third-party votes.


But mostly due to her own doing.

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



el_gonz87 said:


> Supreme Justice Majority


It will be the same as before Scalia died for now though


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> The RNC will hold:
> Senate Majority
> House Majority
> Supreme Justice Majority
> ...



Woo FOX NEWS! the pinnacle of journalism!

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

Does this mean no more CNN?


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> Woo FOX NEWS! the pinnacle of journalism!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Does this mean no more CNN?



Haha as stated in one of my posts earlier CNN is worse than Fox News, aka Fox sucks as well.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

For people thinking "How dare Lighty go and vote Green", seriously, what were our choices?!

Hillary = War with Russia and most likely World War 3 -lets not forget more spying and lack of digital freedoms

Trump = War with China, fascist America, the destruction of the middle class

Johnson =  Republican lite but maybe someone not so bad

Stein  = Someone similar to Bernie Sanders

What choice do you think I'm going to make. Many of you arent parents but some of us DO have to explain to our children the state of the world. Some of us DO have to live with how our votes effect the lives of our children. I REFUSE to have blood on by hands because a vote for Trump and Clinton are votes for war, period!

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



el_gonz87 said:


> Haha as stated in one of my posts earlier CNN is worse than Fox News, aka Fox sucks as well.



I watch RT America. That's right, the Russians are doing American news better than the Americans, go figure...


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> For people thinking "How dare Lighty go and vote Green", seriously, what were our choices?!
> 
> Hillary = War with Russia and most likely World War 3 -lets not forget more spying and lack of digital freedoms
> 
> ...


AT least Trump won, and not that Back stabbing lair, and cheater.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

He was just a pussy grabbing liar instead lol


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> AT least Trump won, and not that Back stabbing lair, and cheater.



and yet the lesser of two evils is still evil...


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> and yet the lesser of two evils is still evil...


How is he evil, I don't see it? If so, please, show me!


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> How is he evil, I don't see it? If so, please, show me!



You're telling me that a racist, xenophobic, sexist and greedy guy is supposed to be the best of humanity?!?! The guy has dictator tendencies and will turn America into another Nazi Germany soon.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> You're telling me that a racist, xenophobic, sexist and greedy guy is supposed to be the best of humanity?!?! The guy has dictator tendencies and will turn America into another Nazi Germany soon.


How's he racist, and why are you jumping to conclusions? Seems like you're just another keyboard spammer, just spouting nonsense; yet, you haven't fully answered my question, provide evidence of such things.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 10, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> https://progressiveperspectivesblog...ty-voters-arent-to-blame-for-trumps-election/


It cites the exact same numbers you already posted, which is a single set of polls in a sea of data we have that suggests many more third-party voters would have gone to Clinton than a mere 25% regardless of the third-party candidate. 



RevPokemon said:


> But mostly due to her own doing.


Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that third-party votes are still worthy of blame and condemnation. At the very least, they cannot complain if they cared who would win between Clinton and Trump.



LightyKD said:


> Hillary = War with Russia and most likely World War 3 -lets not forget more spying and lack of digital freedoms


None of that is even true, with the possible exception of spying, depending on what you're referring to. Clinton, Stein, and Sanders are roughly in 95-99% alignment on policy.



LightyKD said:


> and yet the lesser of two evils is still evil...


The lesser of two evils is still less evil. A vote for someone who cannot win increases the odds of a win by the more evil candidate. Good job.

I'm done with the debate over whether or not third-party voters are to blame for the election results. It looks more likely than not that third-party voters did spoil the election, but we will never know for sure without a time machine. I've said all that can be said on the topic.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> You're telling me that a racist, xenophobic, sexist and greedy guy is supposed to be the best of humanity?!?! The guy has dictator tendencies and will turn America into another Nazi Germany soon.


More buzzwords please.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

Also, Nazi Germany was bad, but not nearly as bad as what America is now, or will ever be. Do your research kids, before you start spamming shit, without providing evidence or anything to back up your claims (with valid sources).


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

LOL some of you are seriously going to excuse Trump's actions. Then again I guess the same people have no ideal what it feels like to ever have to deal with racism or being hated because your religious views are different than then norm. Figures... These same people are disingenuous and are too afraid of dialogue because they know they will never have to deal with these issues.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> LOL some of you are seriously going to excuse Trump's actions. Then again I guess the same people have no ideal what it feels like to ever have to deal with racism or being hated because your religious views are different than then norm. Figures... These same people are disingenuous and are too afraid of dialogue because they know they will never have to deal with these issues.


Racism is a part of this world, nor will it go away. I don't care what color you are, and I respect your race. Yet, you sad ass' can't stop wining about it, and just continue on with your life. Slavery happened over 100 years ago, and it was way worse then! So stop crying about it, and live your damn lives. Why can't we just stop saying bullshit about eachother, and except who we are or whom others are!?

EDIT: 

They're issues, because we can't just damn move on, and except who we or what others are, and respect that!


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

Completely oblivious lol


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> Completely oblivious lol


Are you referring to me, or have you never heard of the quote button?


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

SI was referring to your obliviousness to what goes on around you, I mean, why should you care when it does not happen to you right?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> SI was referring to your obliviousness to what goes on around you, I mean, why should you care when it does not happen to you right?


lmao where did you get that he didn't care? Stop putting words in people's mouth, that's not really nice.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> SI was referring to your obliviousness to what goes on around you, I mean, why should you care when it does not happen to you right?


I'm sorry but I am not oblivious; I'm very well educated, and I care very much about others. Have you not really heard of the quote button.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 10, 2016)

Oh, look, somebody's throwing a tantrum in here because people chose not to vote for his candidate.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

#notmypresident


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> #notmypresident


He isn't in office right now and you are in England. He's isn't your president you numskull.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

Such wit!


----------



## insidexdeath (Nov 10, 2016)

#StillTeamBernie #DontLikeTrumpOrClinton #FeelTheBern.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Racism is a part of this world, nor will it go away. I don't care what color you are, and I respect your race. Yet, you sad ass' can't stop wining about it, and just continue on with your life. Slavery happened over 100 years ago, and it was way worse then! So stop crying about it, and live your damn lives. Why can't we just stop saying bullshit about eachother, and except who we are or whom others are!?
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> They're issues, because we can't just damn move on, and except who we or what others are, and respect that!



Racism will go away. Nothing stays with Humanity forever. Things get better with each generation but the issue we have today is that people live much longer than maybe the past five generations of humans. Wile it's awesome that humans are living longer BUT we currently have a fight between old world views and new LIBERAL views that can and eventually will move humanity forward. Old people are afraid to lose their power and at the same time trying to suck up every resource, leaving future generations with nothing and younger people are taking that shit without a fight.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 10, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Racism is a part of this world, nor will it go away. I don't care what color you are, and I respect your race. Yet, you sad ass' can't stop wining about it, and just continue on with your life. Slavery happened over 100 years ago, and it was way worse then! So stop crying about it, and live your damn lives. Why can't we just stop saying bullshit about eachother, and except who we are or whom others are!?
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> They're issues, because we can't just damn move on, and except who we or what others are, and respect that!


Fact: people get discriminated for their gender, sexuality and race. This doesn't just encompass insults and "jokes", but also actual discrimination on the workplace (finding jobs which pay you less, less probabilities of getting hired etc.).
And no, they "can't move on" because they're people like you, and deserve equal treatment. They have every right to "whine".
If you have to take it out against someone, do so with people who discriminate: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656 and not with those who "whine".
"Slavery happened over 100 years ago, and it was way worse then!" -> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
"If you can't complain about X just because there exists another problem, Y, that's worse than X, then the only person who has any right to complain at all is the person who objectively has it worst in every way possible. The other 7 billion people's problems are meaningless by this reasoning."


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

It's the apathy that's the problem "slavery was over 100 years ago get over it!" "stop whining" "racism will always be a thing"

It does not have to be a part of the world if you free those from ignorance and show compassion to your fellow man.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Nov 10, 2016)

insidexdeath said:


> #StillTeamBernie #DontLikeTrumpOrClinton #FeelTheBern.


I cried when he had to get out of the race and support Hillary. He spent his whole life helping America and he was thrown out. I cried when Trump won too, I don't get this emotional often.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Racism will go away. Nothing stays with Humanity forever. Things get better with each generation but the issue we have today is that people live much longer than maybe the past five generations of humans. Wile it's awesome that humans are living longer BUT we currently have a fight between old world views and new LIBERAL views that can and eventually will move humanity forward. Old people are afraid to lose their power and at the same time trying to suck up every resource, leaving future generations with nothing and younger people are taking that shit without a fight.



Thanks so much for your Information, and for backing it up! I respect it, and I must agree with it. You have a valid point; so, fight!



Aurora Wright said:


> Fact: people get discriminated for their gender, sexuality and race. This doesn't just encompass insults and "jokes", but also actual discrimination on the workplace (finding jobs which pay you less, less probabilities of getting hired etc.).
> And no, they "can't move on" because they're people like you, and deserve equal treatment. They have every right to "whine".
> If you have to take it out against someone, do so with people who discriminate: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656 and not with those who "whine".
> "Slavery happened over 100 years ago, and it was way worse then!" -> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
> "If you can't complain about X just because there exists another problem, Y, that's worse than X, then the only person who has any right to complain at all is the person who objectively has it worst in every way possible. The other 7 billion people's problems are meaningless by this reasoning."



Sheesh, I was only stating my thoughts, no need to bash me into the ground. Maybe whine is a mis-understandment, but some do seem to be doing so. Looks rather pathetic, than taking action.

EDIT:

Instead of assuming that I 'discriminate' people, is rather narrow minded; A: You don't know me, and B: I have nothing that I have said to do so, nor do I wish to do so!

EDIT2: 

Also, how's this thread gone from Presidents to Racial Discussions?


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

They did but then people got fed up with the liberals didn't they? lol

it's a crazy old world


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> They did but then people got fed up with the liberals didn't they? lol
> 
> it's a crazy old world


Really, us Americans got fed up with Obama, and all the shitty Presidents over the years. So, we voted for Trump. Even the Christian community stood up and voted, for trump that is.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

He didn't start any wars i guess, got to give him that.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> He didn't start any wars i guess, got to give him that.


My question to you, Mr. Banana man, who's from the UK; why are you even concerned about what the US is doing, hell, even the election. It's not like you can vote.

EDIT:

Your lack of proper grammar skills, along with your age is concerning enough for me.
**Cough** There's a Quote Button **Cough**


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 10, 2016)

We're having a similar uprising here in the UK, so it kind of feels mutual at this point.

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

I don't care.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 10, 2016)

You may just be looking at the majority, but the country is basically split in 1/2 right now. More divided than ever, just because some people don't want other people to live a different life.
I think most "liberals" just want to live the life they want without being oppressed. Not to control other peoples lives. If you don't like liberals ideals, don't practice them. I do think censorship has gone too far and there are extremist, but you can't claim you care and then oppress and vote completely against the way people want to live their lives. 

While I understand why we can't keep accepting illegal immigrates regardless of their intentions and there are ,once again, extremist, but that doesn't mean throwing immigrates or people in general under a bus. 

I thought the world in general was coming closer together, but things like this keeps breaking us apart once again.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 10, 2016)

Since  no one addressed this


Lacius said:


> It cites the exact same numbers you already posted, which is a single set of polls in a sea of data we have that suggests many more third-party voters would have gone to Clinton than a mere 25% regardless of the third-party candidate.


I am not aware of any post-election data that supports the notion that had 3rd voters not have had Johnson or Stein they would have given Clinton a victory as the Maddow numbers are bullshit. But if you find exit polls or anything that suggests this than please show me.



Lacius said:


> _Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that third-party votes are still worthy of blame and condemnation._ At the very least, they cannot complain if they cared who would win between Clinton and Trump.


I strongly disagree with the first part (highlighted) but with the included second I would be mostly ok except it should not include 3rd party voters in states that overwhelmingly went one way.



Lacius said:


> None of that is even true, with the possible exception of spying, depending on what you're referring to. Clinton, Stein, and Sanders are roughly in 95-99% alignment on policy.


I believe he was referring to her more hawkish military past in addition to her to bluntly put it awful views on encryption.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 10, 2016)

Has anyone not heard of Hillary wiping most of her devices, which contained information about her case on the whole Email thing. That in itself is illegal, and that's only the beginning!


----------



## Pachee (Nov 11, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0
> 
> Looks like the largest percentage of folks who voted for trump were (+60%):
> -Those who serve the military
> ...


I wonder how would be the results regarding Education if we slashed out those social degrees.


el_gonz87 said:


> #MAGA'd


I doubt these people were even working. Most must be just over dramatic kids still studying and being socialists of their parents money.


LightyKD said:


> Hillary = War with Russia and most likely World War 3 -lets not forget more spying and lack of digital freedoms
> Trump = War with China, fascist America, the destruction of the middle class


Geez people, lets stop being stupid. Both US and Russia are screwed with their economics, internal problems, debts. Hilary or Trump, at best we would get a more aggressive digital/info war. Also China has a estate bubble about to explode, they have to sort that before thinking about wars.
Please enlighten me how a pro business guy like Trump would destroy the middle class by promoting something they love like bussiness and money?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 11, 2016)

Also, I keep seeing people blame Obama for Hillary, but he would have more likely made a third term, if he could have ran again.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> Also, I keep seeing people blame Obama for Hillary, but he would have more likely made a third term, if he could have ran again.



The PA, Mich, and Wisconsin vote spoke loudly. They are tired of the DNC. Trump won states that the RNC has not won since Reagan.


----------



## netovsk (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> First off, don't assume
> 
> 1) I voted for Jill Stein. Read earlier pages and you'd know that. My candidate is far from a war mongerer
> 2) I an NOT a Fan of Hillary and was firmly behind Bernie till he dropped out
> ...




My bad for assuming you were pro hillary, I wish 3rd party candidates made their way too. Peace.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> The PA, Mich, and Wisconsin vote spoke loudly. They are tired of the DNC. Trump won states that the RNC has not won since Reagan.


All that says that they spoke loudly against Hillary not DNC or Obama. Not to mention, all those were close to 50/50.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> All that says that they spoke loudly against Hillary not DNC or Obama. Not to mention, all those was close to 50/50.



Haha sure, he won narrowly in states he was never supposed to win in. That's like a college basketball team barely beating an NBA team, "well it was a small margin of victory there Van Pelt".

He won in states that haven't been republican since the 1980s, but hey it's all because of Hillary


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Instead of assuming that I 'discriminate' people, is rather narrow minded; A: You don't know me, and B: I have nothing that I have said to do so, nor do I wish to do so!


I never said that though, I said that if you should take it out against someone, do it with people who discriminate and not those who are discriminated and "whine" (sic).


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> I never said that though, I said that if you should take it out against someone, do it with people who discriminate and not those who are discriminated and "whine" (sic).


Why are you using that comment, that was forever ago. Plus, 'whine' was only refereeing to the people who can't or won't move on from the past. But, if people want to fight for their rights so be it, but stop crying about it and take action.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

> The forgotten men and women 'forgotten no longer'
> 
> - Donald J Trump



Proud to be an American today. Proud that our founding fathers were wiser than their time and crafted the electoral college.

Thank you Trump, the Midwest has spoken and we stand with you! We are tired of the oppression from the liberal agenda!

#MAGA'd2016


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Proud to be an American today. Proud that in our country, people in certain states have literally more voting power than others.


FTFY


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> FTFY


It's not because they have more people or the states are bigger? Nahhh, it's just random. Like a coin flip.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> FTFY



Haha really? Trump won in democratic states. If you firmly believe what you wrote then you don't understand America. The electoral college was written to protect the smaller states from the larger city centers from being the sole democracy in this country. Why would anyone work for the Midwest if all they have to do is please NY, CA, TX, FL???

I live in the Midwest and the DNC has failed us, the polls show this. Period. This could not be emphasized more than the election results.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Proud to be an American today. Proud that our founding fathers were wiser than their time and crafted the electoral college.
> 
> Thank you Trump, the Midwest has spoken and we stand with you! We are tired of the oppression from the liberal agenda!
> 
> #MAGA'd2016


You don't seem very knowledgeable about US history. The electoral college was implemented to keep the presidential vote away from the people, because initially the electors voted without input from a state vote. They very certainly did not do it to give some states' citizens a heavier hand in the voting process. Please, consider and fact-check what you say, not for yourself but for the educated folks out there who take issue with erroneous statements like these.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> You don't seem very knowledgeable about US history. The electoral college was implemented to keep the presidential vote away from the people, because initially the electors voted without input from a state vote. They very certainly did not do it to give some states' citizens a heavier hand in the voting process. Please, consider and fact-check what you say, not for yourself but for the educated folks out there who take issue with erroneous statements like these.



Actually the whole basis of it was to find a balance between state and federal interest. You should have stayed awake through US government history.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Actually the whole basis of it was to find a balance between state and federal interest. You should have stayed awake through US government history.


That's the basis for the federal system, not specifically the electoral college. The college was to counteract the complications of the popular vote due to issues like slavery in the south and some Founding Fathers' fear of unbridled democracy.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Nov 11, 2016)

VinLark said:


> It's not because they have more people or the states are bigger? Nahhh, it's just random. Like a coin flip.


Pretty sure she meant individual voting power. One person's vote might have more power than another person's vote depending on where they live. 

Not everybody's vote is equal under the current system. Every individual person's vote should be worth the same. Hillary got more votes, but Trump won.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Proud to be an American today. Proud that our founding fathers were wiser than their time and crafted the electoral college.
> 
> Thank you Trump, the Midwest has spoken and we stand with you! We are tired of the oppression from the liberal agenda!
> 
> #MAGA'd2016




What liberal agenda??? As if conservatives don't have an agenda?! At least liberals want to make things better for everone.

The conservatie agenda
- force everyone to be Christian
- continue to use spy programs on the citizens
- nix the first amendment
- destroy the environment
- let corporations have free reign, eliminating consumer rights
-continue to let the police brutalize and bully the very people they are supposed to protect
- put all brown people in jail (because let's not forget that the 13 amendment allows for the slavery of prisoners. Gotta have more slaves for the private prisons and corporations)
- put the citizens deeper in debt
- eliminate LGBT rights
- get rid of women's rights
- cut all social programs
- screw the poor

Seriously you conservatives are a "me first" club. No wonder this country is going to shit. Can't be a UNITED states if everyone is so damn busy thinking about themselves.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 11, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Pretty sure she meant individual voting power. One person's vote might have more power than another person's vote depending on where they live.
> 
> Not everybody's vote is equal under the current system. Every individual person's vote should be worth the same. Hillary got more votes, but Trump won.


This is certainly true, and I wholeheartedly agree. The issue there, unfortunately, is that many states like the current system because it grants them power than others, and those states won't approve a change.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Haha really? Trump won in democratic states. If you firmly believe what you wrote then you don't understand America. The electoral college was written to protect the smaller states from the larger city centers from being the sole democracy in this country. Why would anyone work for the Midwest if all they have to do is please NY, CA, TX, FL???
> 
> I live in the Midwest and the DNC has failed us, the polls show this. Period. This could not be emphasized more than the election results.



Please read James Madison's view: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp

Ffs


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> What liberal agenda??? As if conservatives don't have an agenda?! At least liberals want to make things better for everone.
> 
> The conservatie agenda
> - force everyone to be Christian
> ...


You forgot "get rid of immigration".


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> What liberal agenda??? As if conservatives don't have an agenda?! At least liberals want to make things better for everone.
> 
> The conservatie agenda
> - force everyone to be Christian
> ...


Holy shit,where do you get this stuff. This is some funny stuff you got here. "Put all brown people in jail", "Eliminate women's right's". 

Christ man, if I didn't know better I was to say you were talking out of your ass.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 11, 2016)

VinLark said:


> Holy shit,where do you get this stuff. This is some funny stuff you got here. "Put all brown people in jail", "Eliminate women's right's".
> 
> Christ man, if I didn't know better I was to say you were talking out of your ass.


It's an extreme view of things and it's certainly not mostly accurate, but the election has revealed the horror that both sides really are. And there certainly are many current leaders who hold many views that should be impossible for someone dedicated to American values.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 11, 2016)

VinLark said:


> Holy shit,where do you get this stuff. This is some funny stuff you got here. "Put all brown people in jail", "Eliminate women's right's".
> 
> Christ man, if I didn't know better I was to say you were talking out of your ass.



Where do I get this stuff? What bubble have you been in? Do you not watch any news? Maybe listen to the shit that comes out of the mouths of Republican politicians. These fuckers talk about their god and their constitution but do the total opposite. Now that they're running the show, its game over for anyone in the country that doesn't fit their good ol boys club. The 99% will be fucked royally.


----------



## Pachee (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> What liberal agenda??? As if conservatives don't have an agenda?! At least liberals want to make things better for everone.
> 
> The conservatie agenda
> - force everyone to be Christian
> ...


 One more reason why people are feed up with lefties, they take everything to extreme.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Where do I get this stuff? What bubble have you been in? Do you not watch any news? Maybe listen to the shit that comes out of the mouths of Republican politicians. These fuckers talk about their god and their constitution but do the total opposite. Now that they're running the show, its game over for anyone in the country that doesn't fit their good ol boys club. The 99% will be fucked royally.


The key will be a coalition of all the Democrats plus the centrist republicans like Susan Collins. But one issue is that a lot of democratic politicians agree with the stuff you listed.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> You forgot "get rid of *illegal immigration*".



FTFY


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

Pachee said:


> One more reason why people are feed up with lefties, they take everything to extreme.


Yeah they take things to the extreme... Republicans don't want to remove all rights, just some. As an example they wouldn't remove women's right to exist, but just their right to abortion and gender equality on the workplace... same for LGBT people, they should be grateful that they'll be allowed to live, they would just lose the right to marry their partners and not be harassed and discriminated!!1!! /s


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

can we just nuke mike pence


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> Yeah they take things to the extreme... Republicans don't want to remove all rights, just some. As an example they wouldn't remove women's right to exist, but just their right to abortion and gender equality on the workplace... same for LGBT people, they should be grateful that they'll be allowed to live, they would just lose the right to marry their partners and not be harassed and discriminated!!1!!



Actually this is painting a party with a broad brush... Not surprising this is what the liberal media spoon feeds you.

I am fully against women being told what to do with their bodies and I voiced this in my state polls (we elect some of the issues by state here in America, and I would vote fiercely against this 100000 times).

I am happy for Trump because I've seen too many fathers having to foreclose on their home and explain to their kids he/SHE lost their job. I'm for Trump because the policies the US politicians have supported has hurt manufacturing industries and small business owners in the mid west (WE ARE THE FORGOTTEN PEOPLE TRUMP SPEAKS ABOUT).

So you from Italy who knows nothing about Kansas, Missouri, Iowa can feel free to judge from the comfort of your keyboard. I'm just happy America has spoken.

I quoted that statement because we will be forgotten no longer.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> FTFY


And H1-B visas


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> FTFY



It isn't just illegal immigration. Many GOP leaders have fought arduously against expansion of legal immigration, and, on the other hand, have favored measures to restrict it. 

I will say, though, that Trump interestingly does not appear to favor limiting legal immigration as much as other GOP officials, so what he will do as President for legal immigration will only be revealed as time passes. 



el_gonz87 said:


> Please read James Madison's view: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp
> 
> Ffs


That only has one sentence on the electoral college, saying that the President is to be chosen indirectly by the people. What that meant was that eligible voters would vote for their electors, and send them on their way to vote in their place. Madison certainly did not and would not go for the current system we have now where voters in states choose a President instead and have their entire block of state electors pledge votes in their favor. If you maybe instead read other Federalist Papers like #10, you would see what Madison had to say on the dangers of popular passions and, by extension, direct democracy. Madison was not as against giving smaller states a proportionally smaller influence as you might think; he thought states should all have as much power as they had people. 

This means he thought two things. First, people should not directly vote for the president (which is why he wanted people to vote for electors instead) and second, all states should have a more or less equal footing as long as they had the people to match. You might think this means Madison would approve of the current shape of the electoral map, where all states can have their voices heard, but the two party system and the concept of swing states, which very much have given states and regions that are either generally unaffiliated or swing their affiliation undue power above those of other states, would have made Madison ask what went wrong. 

Not to mention, that the type of leader Madison wanted to safeguard our government from, the type who gets majority groups whipped up in a frenzy at the expense of minorities, sounds eerily like Trump.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Actually this is painting a party with a broad brush... Not surprising this is what the liberal media spoon feeds you.
> 
> I am fully against women being told what to do with their bodies and I voiced this in my state polls (we elect some of the issues by state here in America, and I would vote fiercely against this 100000 times).
> 
> ...


or you could just realize their joking/sarcastic tone bruh
didn't need to write a whole paragraph


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> It isn't just illegal immigration. Many GOP leaders have fought arduously against expansion of legal immigration, and, on the other hand, have favored measures to restrict it.
> 
> I will say, though, that Trump interestingly does not appear to favor limiting legal immigration as much as other GOP officials, so what he will do as President for legal immigration will only be revealed as time passes.
> 
> ...



Please read this gosh darn paragraph:

"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

And yes he was trying not to protect the minority from an oppressive ruler. In the national vote the minority was Trump supporters. He won more states because more states feel like they've been forgotten.

We are the gosh darn minority, the press and the government until now has just forgotten about us.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Please read this gosh darn paragraph:
> 
> "That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."
> 
> ...


That act talks about the ratification of the Constitution, not the election of the President. It would, after all, be pretty darn difficult for a President to obtain election unanimously from the states.

And the manufacturing workers of America are in trouble, and it honestly is heartbreaking, but isolationism is not the answer in my opinion. If we implement it like Trump wants to do, the workers of America won't just have manufacturing jobs again, because the economy itself will suffer. In fact, there isn't many measures that I, at least, can think of, besides make them comparatively competitive by reducing many of the rights they have that other countries don't provide, like a cheap minimum wage.

But back to the process of Presidential election. even if you did want to argue that Madison and others like Hamilton designed it to give minorities their fair share, that isn't the deformed shadow we have now, where swings like these decide the election. (not to mention the fact that their primary way of protecting minorities was to stop their perceived foolishness of the people and prevent a direct vote in the first place, not to allow all state citizens to vote directly for the President and then have the influence of said vote be determined by the state they live in).

Edit: And even in the context of minorities, Trump's election very much threatens more minorities/groups than it hurts, like Muslims, the LGBTQ community, women, and, indirectly, the immigrants whose surroundings have suddenly become more hostile.


----------



## I pwned U! (Nov 11, 2016)

Yet another example of how some of these protests are just the usual corporate-funded smoke and mirrors...
When they go low, we go lower!https://t.co/AH6TgR62wb#TrumpProtest #Trump #NotMyPresident #Rigged #Corruption #HillaryForPrison2016 pic.twitter.com/9mSXui1vdJ— I pwned U! (@IpwnedU123) November 10, 2016

https://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/crg/5867976079.html


----------



## Chary (Nov 11, 2016)

Pretty accurate representation of the media right now.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That act talks about the ratification of the Constitution, not the election of the President. It would, after all, be pretty darn difficult for a President to obtain election unanimously from the states.
> 
> And the manufacturing workers of America are in trouble, and it honestly is heartbreaking, but isolationism is not the answer in my opinion. If we implement it like Trump wants to do, the workers of America won't just have manufacturing jobs again, because the economy itself will suffer. In fact, there isn't many measures that I, at least, can think of, besides make them comparatively competitive by reducing many of the rights they have that other countries don't provide, like a cheap minimum wage.
> 
> ...



Pfizer had a merger blocked by the Obama administration earlier this year because Ireland was offering a tax cut incentive over a 5 year period that would be tied to a creation of a number of jobs in that region. Many people I know where freighted to death that this is the direction the company is taken, because they would have to explain to their kids that they just lost their jobs. I know two owners of small business who had to shut their doors because they did not have the funds to support the premiums Obama care was about to impose on them and 15 close people lose jobs that put food on their table because the government told them what should have been a priority to them.

I sit here and ask how our government can sit here and drive these companies out. Again you know nothing about these areas and are outraged that people voted for a "racist"? Taking this stupid simplistic view that the liberal media spoon feeds you. No! I know a lot of good people with families and of all races and religious views who lost their hopes and dreams because of some of the policies the DNC pushed around.

Again America has spoken and we're tired of being beat over the head by the same agenda. Period.

This is what the country looked like on Nov 9:






And I'm darn proud of it!

To quote Verizon, "*Can you hear us now?*"


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 11, 2016)

Chary said:


> View attachment 68488
> 
> Pretty accurate representation of the media right now.


Yeah Dec 19th Ted Cruz will win in an Electoral College landslide due to faithless voters and turn America into South Canada.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 11, 2016)

o


el_gonz87 said:


> Pfizer had a merger blocked by the Obama administration earlier this year because Ireland was offering a tax cut incentive over a 5 year period that would be tied to a creation of a number of jobs in that region. Many people I know where freighted to death that this is the direction the company is taken, because they would have to explain to their kids that they just lost their jobs. I know two owners of small business who had to shut their doors because they did not have the funds to support the premiums Obama care was about to impose on them and 15 close people lose jobs that put food on their table because the government told them what should have been a priority to them.
> 
> I sit here and ask how our government can sit here and drive these companies out. Again you know nothing about these areas and are outraged that people voted for a "racist"? Taking this stupid simplistic view that the liberal media spoon feeds you. No! I know a lot of good people with families and of all races and religious views who lost their hopes and dreams because of some of the policies the DNC pushed around.
> 
> ...


I know lots of good folks who are very much not racist who have supported Trump. They think much along the lines of what you hsve outlined here. The reason I would not have voted for Trump had I had the chance to vote is not simply that he's a "racist". Part of the reason why is that I do not believe he will be helpful to the economy. He's just too insolationist and I don't think he understands that it's impossible to "win" in a deal. A deal is by definition a compromise. In fact, the majority of the reason I would have voted against him is that his refusal to cooperate with the rest of the world through isolationism and unbridled tax cuts for corporations could prove disastrous (not against tax cuts here, but not a fan of Trump's). To provide a memorable portrayal of the unintended consequences of Trump's economic plan, I would remind you that Chris Wallace cited in the third debate that Trump would raise the national debt to 103% of our national debt compared to either 78 or 87 for Clinton's economic policies. I honestly think that with his economic plan, we all lose and take the rest of the world down with us. 

I'll cede here that I have no definite way to prove which of is right. Should I prove to be wrong and see the economy improve for all classes under a Trump presidency, I'll say I was wrong about Trump's economics. But I truly don't think he's going to help the little guy here.


----------



## Chary (Nov 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Yeah Dec 19th Ted Cruz will win in an Electoral College landslide due to faithless voters and turn America into South Canada.


I'd vote for him if he could bring Canada's cold weather to his state ;O;


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> o
> 
> I know lots of good folks who are very much not racist who have supported Trump. They think much along the lines of what you hsve outlined here. The reason I would not have voted for Trump had I had the chance to vote is not simply that he's a "racist". Part of the reason why is that I do not believe he will be helpful to the economy. He's just too insolationist and I don't think he understands that it's impossible to "win" in a deal. A deal is by definition a compromise. In fact, the majority of the reason I would have voted against him is that his refusal to cooperate with the rest of the world through isolationism and unbridled tax cuts for corporations could prove disastrous (not against tax cuts here, but not a fan of Trump's). To provide a memorable portrayal of the unintended consequences of Trump's economic plan, I would remind you that Chris Wallace cited in the third debate that Trump would raise the national debt to 103% of our national debt compared to either 78 or 87 for Clinton's economic policies. I honestly think that with his economic plan, we all lose and take the rest of the world down with us.
> 
> I'll cede here that I have no definite way to prove which of is right. Should I prove to be wrong and see the economy improve for all classes under a Trump presidency, I'll say I was wrong about Trump's economics. But I truly don't think he's going to help the little guy here.



We could not agree more that this task is very difficult and does not have a simple answer like both extremist believe. I'm rooting for him to succeed and truly at least retain jobs in this area. Time will tell whether he holds true to his promise, I do believe some tax incentives however unfair for the business will at least help this area. If he doesn't deliver, I will completely stand against his re-election, but I could not stand by the same policies that have ignored a lot of these states.

You seem like someone with an open mind and willing to discuss these issues that may not seem that important to other areas, we need more of this in our country AND we in the mid west need to seriously fight and reject people who support any racist/xenophobic agenda because it's not us, we voted for Trump in the hope he will not forget this part of the country, but the large majority of us should and I believe will fight against unjust hatred in our country.


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> People like you are one of the reasons why Trump got elected. I'd say category #1 puts you into category #4.


Aww, you deleted my comment on your profile, so I'll remind you here. Say it with me! *President Donald J. Trump!*

Also, it looks like the voters of GBAtemp poll were right!


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

i can't believe america didn't elect joe exotic


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> i can't believe america didn't elect joe exotic


Trump grabbed America by the pussy, and America loved it!


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> Trump grabbed America by the pussy, and America loved it!


joe exotic is a true champion of LGBT rights


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 11, 2016)

_*>Meme Magic is real!*_​


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> We could not agree more that this task is very difficult and does not have a simple answer like both extremist believe. I'm rooting for him to succeed and truly at least retain jobs in this area. Time will tell whether he holds true to his promise, I do believe some tax incentives however unfair for the business will at least help this area. If he doesn't deliver, I will completely stand against his re-election, but I could not stand by the same policies that have ignored a lot of these states.
> 
> You seem like someone with an open mind and willing to discuss these issues that may not seem that important to other areas, we need more of this in our country AND we in the mid west need to seriously fight and reject people who support any racist/xenophobic agenda because it's not us, we voted for Trump in the hope he will not forget this part of the country, but the large majority of us should and I believe will fight against unjust hatred in our country.



Yeah, this certainly is a complex topic, and I'll certainly stay willing to listen to the struggle of those outside my region. And should Trump prove to be the solution, I'll be more than happy. 

And I truly do thank you for your stance against discrimination in America.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)




----------



## LightyKD (Nov 11, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> View attachment 68492
> 
> _*>Meme Magic is real!*_​



LMFAO! Is that supposed to be Trump's Hip Hop album? Remember the R-Money memes for Mitt Romney?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 11, 2016)

_tfw liberal cucks are saying we elected hate and a monster while inciting violent and hateful protests  
_
Such progressive much wow


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

VinLark said:


> _tfw liberal cucks are saying we elected hate and a monster while inciting violent and hateful protests
> _
> Such progressive much wow


i don't even dislike trump as much as i dislike mike pence's views tbh


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 11, 2016)

VinLark said:


> _tfw liberal cucks are saying we elected hate and a monster while inciting violent and hateful protests
> _
> Such progressive much wow


I think I can easily say all of the decent people in both sides know those protests just make things worse.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I think I can easily say all of the decent people in both sides know those protests just make things worse.


pretty much


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> LMFAO! Is that supposed to be Trump's Hip Hop album? Remember the R-Money memes for Mitt Romney?


It's just a timely Beatles meme made by some Trump supporting Meme Mastur, not an attempt to be "cool" or "def."


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 11, 2016)

Why is anyone taking into consideration anything Lacius says after this result? Someone needs to make a montage of everything he got wrong.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 11, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> Why is anyone taking into consideration anything Lacius says after this result? Someone needs to make a montage of everything he got wrong.


I think nobody is doing it because they know almost everything we said he got wrong. His twitter and on here included. 

It wouldn't be worth it. His tweets are top-meme quality tho


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


>



Pretty much sums up why I went from the left to the right.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> Pretty much sums up why I went from the left to the right.


personally i wouldn't vote for trump, but i'd feel pretty fucking terrible about voting for clinton


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 11, 2016)

Agree. These protests will only make the division worse. Not sure how these 4 years are going to go, but could be leading to something very terrible and not just inside the USA.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 11, 2016)

These are relevant songs about the liberal half of the nation!

​


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> personally i wouldn't vote for trump, but i'd feel pretty fucking terrible about voting for clinton


She was a shit candidate, and her supporters telling me why I should support her, and if I don't support her that I am evil, sure doesn't help. They don't even try to debate you, they just YELL OVER YOUR VOICE. 

Her having Jay Z concerts and having celebrity endorsements also soured my opinion on her too, da fuck do I care if a rich famous person is voting for her. Also, it really annoyed the hell out of me when Obama was campaigning for her, he was using our tax dollars flying Air Force One to do speeches for her, instead of running the damn country. Syria is gone to shit, and he's out telling us why to vote for Hillary. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on that Obama thing. A sitting President should never campaign for someone running, I don't care what party they're from.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> She was a shit candidate, and her supporters telling me why I should support her, and if I don't support her that I am evil, sure doesn't help. They don't even try to debate you, they just YELL OVER YOUR VOICE.
> 
> Her having Jay Z concerts and having celebrity endorsements also soured my opinion on her too, da fuck do I care if a rich famous person is voting for her. Also, it really annoyed the hell out of me when Obama was campaigning for her, he was using our tax dollars flying Air Force One to do speeches for her, instead of running the damn country. Syria is gone to shit, and he's out telling us why to vote for Hillary. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on that Obama thing. A sitting President should never campaign for someone running, I don't care what party they're from.


not all of them. vocal minority, obviously. same case with trump supporters, only the loud ass retards are racists/bigots


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> not all of them. vocal minority, obviously. same case with trump supporters, only the loud ass retards are racists/bigots


The ones I met seemed to always be like that, maybe I had bad luck. The only Clinton supporters that would try to debate me and not yell over my voice were my sisters and their BFs. I asked them to give me some reasons on why I should vote for her, and all their reason seemed to be that she wasn't Trump. Nobody wins the White House running on "I'm not the other guy".


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> The ones I met seemed to always be like that, maybe I had bad luck. The only Clinton supporters that would try to debate me and not yell over my voice were my sisters and their BFs. I asked them to give me some reasons on why I should vote for her, and all their reason seemed to be that she wasn't Trump. Nobody wins the White House running on "I'm not the other guy".


same case with me and trump supporters


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> same case with me and trump supporters


I guess both sides are infested with those types. I live in a liberal city, so I guess I'm bound to meet more vocal left supporters.

Heh, I just remembered what started pushing me to the right, and it's those damn SJWs, and them wanting to censor my vidya games and trying to make me as the ultimate evil for being a white straight male! Da fuck? I'm not even a racist or sexist person. Part of me thinks SJWs did push a lot of people from the left to the right.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> I guess both sides are infested with those types. I live in a liberal city, so I guess I'm bound to meet more vocal left supporters.
> 
> Heh, I just remembered what started pushing me to the right, and it's those damn SJWs, and them wanting to censor my vidya games and trying to make me as the ultimate evil for being a white straight male! Da fuck? I'm not even a racist or sexist person. Part of me thinks SJWs did push a lot of people from the left to the right.


i'm on the left mainly because of more liberal civil rights and LGBT views, personally


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> i'm on the left mainly because of more liberal civil rights and LGBT views, personally


I still don't get why people think Trump is gonna kill gay marriage. Trump never hated gay people, he's from NYC, waved the gay pride flag around, and allowed trans people to his w/e bathroom they wanted in his hotels. He wants to protect gays by stopping radical Islam from hitting the country, you know, the same people who toss gays off buildings, and ya know, Saudi Arabia's tolerance? Trump is probably one of the more liberal Republican presidents when it comes to this stuff, to the point where his own damn party tried to sabotage him

How in the fuck is Hillary progay? She flip flopped on gay marriage, takes money from Saudi Arabia, and no, they didn't donate to her charity, because they were super charitable. Do you think she'll return their donations? She had the fucking Orlando shooters dad in her rally's audience.

How can you run a campaign on empowering women, when fucking Saudi Arabia is donating to you?! A place where a women can't even drive.



Spoiler













Also, some funny stuff.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> I still don't get why people think Trump is gonna kill gay marriage. Trump never hated gay people, he's from NYC, waved the gay pride flag around, and allowed trans people to his w/e bathroom they wanted in his hotels. He wants to protect gays by stopping radical Islam from hitting the country, you know, the same people who toss gays off buildings, and ya know, Saudi Arabia's tolerance? Trump is probably one of the more liberal Republican presidents when it comes to this stuff, to the point where his own damn party tried to sabotage him
> 
> How in the fuck is Hillary progay? She flip flopped on gay marriage, takes money from Saudi Arabia, and no, they didn't donate to her charity, because they were super charitable. Do you think she'll return their donations? She had the fucking Orlando shooters dad in her rally's audience.
> 
> ...


hillary is shit too, but trump sure flip flops as well, hell, his VP is mike fucking pence


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 11, 2016)

Anyone remember when California was Republican?


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> hillary is shit too, but trump sure flip flops as well, hell, his VP is mike fucking pence


I actually never really read up on Mike Pence, I doubt he's gonna do a whole lot. Vice President is pretty useless. I guess I can see why people fear the vice President, but I wish they'd stop claiming Trump him self is anti gay rights, he's not. The only thing Trump would be in favor for when it came to gay rights, would be for the states to decide, not have it forced onto them. Trump is very pro state rights. He said the same about weed, he has no issues with it, and wants to leave it up to the states. If the supreme court didn't vote on gay rights on everyone, states would still be voting for it, and Trump would have no problem with it.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> I actually never really read up on Mike Pence, I doubt he's gonna do a whole lot. Vice President is pretty useless. I guess I can see why people fear the vice President, but I wish they'd stop claiming Trump him self is anti gay rights, he's not. The only thing Trump would be in favor for when it came to gay rights, would be for the states to decide, not have it forced onto them. Trump is very pro state rights. He said the same about weed, he has no issues with it, and wants to leave it up to the states. If the supreme court didn't vote on gay rights on everyone, states would still be voting for it, and Trump would have no problem with it.


i would prefer having states not voting on it, see pence in indiana


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> i would prefer having states not voting on it, see pence in indiana


Forcing stuff onto states will piss them off, and cause people to reject it. It's better to leave it up to the states and slowly let them vote it in them selves. Indiana would have eventually voted for gay marriage rights.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> Forcing stuff onto states will piss them off, and cause people to reject it. It's better to leave it up to the states and slowly let them vote it in them selves. Indiana would have eventually voted for gay marriage rights.


yeah, eventually. but i wouldn't want some uptight rednecks saying that i can't marry the person i love.

edit: also who gives a damn if it pisses them off tbh


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> yeah, eventually. but i wouldn't want some uptight rednecks saying that i can't marry the person i love.


I live in a state filled with the most Amish people in the country, and tons of hill billies, yet my state voted for gay marriage a few months before it was forced onto the country. I'm sure if my state, the one that is finally removing dumb fuck alcohol laws can vote for gay marriage, then Indiana would have too. Forcing stuff onto states will cause more rejection and more hate towards gays.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> I live in a state filled with the most Amish people in the country, and tons of hill billies, yet my state voted for gay marriage a few months before it was forced onto the country. I'm sure if my state, the one that is finally removing dumb fuck alcohol laws can vote for gay marriage, then Indiana would have too. Forcing stuff onto states will cause more rejection and more hate towards gays.


rejection and hate would've happened anyway. sitting around waiting for people to grow the hell up when they've had it pounded into them their entire lives that gay people are sinners and will be sent to hell won't improve anything


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> I live in a state filled with the most Amish people in the country, and tons of hill billies, yet my state voted for gay marriage a few months before it was forced onto the country. I'm sure if my state, the one that is finally removing dumb fuck alcohol laws can vote for gay marriage, then Indiana would have too. Forcing stuff onto states will cause more rejection and more hate towards gays.


Idaho doesn't have that many Amish, do they??


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 11, 2016)

The only bright side I see, is maybe they will finally turn down the censorship. That was getting out of hand. 

That said, some people tend to forget to put themselves into other people shoes. I don't think things like gay marriage should be something that should be banned. This the stuff I'm talking about. Gay people were oppress for so long. It is no surprise they were pushing so hard. Yeah, some people are mad about gay marriage, but this ultimately doesn't affect their lives. They can still talk about how gay marriage is wrong and tell people their ideals, but they shouldn't have the right to block that option for people who thinks otherwise.


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Idaho doesn't have that many Amish, do they??


Nah, PA. PA is probably the state with the most Amish people in the US. We also had that dip shit alcohol law, where you could only buy alcohol(except beer) at a special state store, a store that was hard to find, closed early, and you couldn't buy individual canned beers. Thankfully, we finally got rid of that dumb law just this year.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> The only bright side I see, is maybe they will finally turn down the censorship. That was getting out of hand.
> 
> That said, some people tend to forget to put themselves into other people shoes. I don't think things like gay marriage should be something that should be banned. This the stuff I'm talking about. Gay people were oppress for so long. It is no surprise they were pushing so hard. Yeah, some people are mad about gay marriage, but this ultimately doesn't affect their lives. They can still talk about how gay marriage is wrong and tell people their ideals, but they shouldn't have the right to block that option for people who thinks otherwise.


same sex marriage has been legal here since 2013, iirc. it's about time people realized that marriage isn't a natural thing in itself, but love is.


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> The only bright side I see, is maybe they will finally turn down the censorship. That was getting out of hand.
> 
> That said, some people tend to forget to put themselves into other people shoes. I don't think things like gay marriage should be something that should be banned. This the stuff I'm talking about. Gay people were oppress for so long. It is no surprise they were pushing so hard. Yeah, some people are mad about gay marriage, but this ultimately doesn't affect their lives. They can still talk about how gay marriage is wrong and tell people their ideals, but they shouldn't have the right to block that option for people who thinks otherwise.


If they tried to strike down gay marriage, I can honestly see Trump fighting for it. I believe Trump does really believe in gay rights, he's pretty liberal when it comes to this stuff, and he doesn't want to divide the country anymore, so he'll try and stop it.


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 11, 2016)

Marriage is something that shouldn't be recognized by the state - sanitize it and have the only legal institution be the civil union.

Let the individual religions/centers of worship decide on their own about ceremonial participation.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> If they tried to strike down gay marriage, I can honestly see Trump fighting for it. I believe Trump does really believe in gay rights, he's pretty liberal when it comes to this stuff, and he doesn't want to divide the country anymore, so he'll try and stop it.


we'll see, but i don't trust a fully republican house and senate + mike pence in all honesty


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> we'll see, but i don't trust a fully republican house and senate + mike pence in all honesty


Mike Pence will do fuck all. Trump would veto any tries at killing gay marriage. Trump doesn't want to divide the country any harder, and I can see the senate/congress feeling the same way.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> Mike Pence will do fuck all. Trump would veto any tries at killing gay marriage. Trump doesn't want to divide the country any harder, and I can see the senate/congress feeling the same way.


i definitely don't see them passing any new anti discrimination legislation, though


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 11, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> Marriage is something that shouldn't be recognized by the state - sanitize it and have the only legal institution be the civil union.
> 
> Let the individual religions/centers of worship decide on their own about ceremonial participation.


The word marriage, isn't just religious thing. Religious or not, people like the word marriage. Considering civil union would just be marriage by another name, it all semantics at that point.


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> i definitely don't see them passing any new anti discrimination legislation, though


What else is there to give? They got their marriage. They're not getting the noose and hung daily.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> What else is there to give? They got their marriage. They're not getting the noose and hung daily.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States
"As of June 26, 2015, all states license and recognize marriage between same-sex couples on account of the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. However, the United States still lacks a federal law outlawing discrimination nationwide, leaving many states without any protections from discrimination, other than from federal executive orders which are more limited in scope than from protections through federal legislation."


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 11, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> The word marriage, isn't just religious thing. Religious or not, people like the word marriage. Considering civil union would just be marriage by another name, it all semantics at that point.



No, it's not exclusively religious - but it carries enough connotation with it that it's not entirely semantic to change at all.


----------



## vayanui8 (Nov 11, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> Marriage is something that shouldn't be recognized by the state - sanitize it and have the only legal institution be the civil union.
> 
> Let the individual religions/centers of worship decide on their own about ceremonial participation.


^This. Using the term marriage for both religious and government purposes just creates unnecessary conflict. Just relabel the union recognized by the government and nobody would have anything to complain about.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> No, it's not exclusively religious - but it carries enough connotation with it that it's not entirely semantic to change at all.


brb establishing the satanic church of gay marriage


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States
> "As of June 26, 2015, all states license and recognize marriage between same-sex couples on account of the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. However, the United States still lacks a federal law outlawing discrimination nationwide, leaving many states without any protections from discrimination, other than from federal executive orders which are more limited in scope than from protections through federal legislation."


Outlawing discrimination?


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> brb establishing the satanic church of gay marriage



Go for it.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> Outlawing discrimination?


yes, much like NZ already did back in 1993.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 11, 2016)

People would just complain about the word marriage no longer being recognized by the government.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> I guess both sides are infested with those types. I live in a liberal city, so I guess I'm bound to meet more vocal left supporters.
> 
> Heh, I just remembered what started pushing me to the right, and it's those damn SJWs, and them wanting to censor my vidya games and trying to make me as the ultimate evil for being a white straight male! Da fuck? I'm not even a racist or sexist person. Part of me thinks SJWs did push a lot of people from the left to the right.




I can see your point with that. I got tired of the Clinton camp playing the damn feminist card. Like seriously, stop reminding us about how fucked up men have been as if women have never had fucked up moments in the history of human kind. I just wanted an issues oriented candidate and Bernie as well as Jill were those people. I saw an interview today and some idiot had the nerve to say that Bernie didn't have the cajonies to go against Hillary. Bullshit! The guy was obviously uninformed and towed the party line because that is what's expected of a person of his race, which is damned sad. Most Democrats only supported Hillary for the sake of popularity and towing the party line and this is where it got them. I no longer consider myself a Democrat and even refused to render my party membership this year and that was months before the conventions.


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 11, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> People would just complain about the word marriage no longer being recognized by the government.



Perhaps - but in my experience most religious people would prefer less government involvement in their practices.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> Perhaps - but in my experience most religious people would prefer less government involvement in their practices.


imo if they're going to deny someone the right of marriage because of the gender of the person they wish to marry, that's too bloody bad


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 11, 2016)




----------



## KingVamp (Nov 11, 2016)

Other than general discrimination, I think the last thing that some people are fighting for are transgender general rights and bathroom rights.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> Other than general discrimination, I think the last thing that some people are fighting for are transgender general rights and bathroom rights.


bathroom rights are probably lower on the list than overall rights and discrimination


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> imo if they're going to deny someone the right of marriage because of the gender of the person they wish to marry, that's too bloody bad



Why are you so invested in a religious ceremony where two people make a union in front of a god I'm going to assume you don't even believe in?

Not exactly religious myself and don't have opposition to gay rights either.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> Why are you so invested in a religious ceremony where two people make a union in front of a god I'm going to assume you don't even believe in?
> 
> Not exactly religious myself and don't have opposition to gay rights either.


since when does marriage have to be about god and religion?


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> since when does marriage have to be about god and religion?



I think the word itself has intrinsically religious connotations - hence why I'd prefer that government didn't recognize the institution at all.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> I think the word itself has intrinsically religious connotations - hence why I'd prefer that government didn't recognize the institution at all.


no matter the word, it still carries the same meaning.


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> no matter the word, it still carries the same meaning.



I don't think you will find many religious people who would agree with you.


----------



## sdtg34520 (Nov 11, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> I don't think you will find many religious people who would agree with you.


-shrug- simply changing the word doesn't help anybody


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 11, 2016)

Sans-Serif said:


> -shrug- simply changing the word doesn't help anybody



I think we will just have to disagree at this point.


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


>


Holy shit? Ben Carson? What did Trump make him? I fucking love that guy!


----------



## Chary (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> Holy shit? Ben Carson? What did Trump make him? I fucking love that guy!


I'm not sure anything's in stone, but it looks like Carson is in the front running of choices for Trump's cabinet. If he's picked, he'll be for Health and Human Services, looks like, to help Trump find a better alternative to/to repeal Obamacare.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Actually this is painting a party with a broad brush... Not surprising this is what the liberal media spoon feeds you.
> 
> I am fully against women being told what to do with their bodies and I voiced this in my state polls (we elect some of the issues by state here in America, and I would vote fiercely against this 100000 times).
> 
> ...


Are you part of the government? We were talking about Republican _politicians._ And a big majority of them are for banning abortion, including Trump himself, or homophobes/transphobes (see all the bathroom bills crap, the "right to refuse service" to LGBT people, etc.).


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> Are you part of the government? We were talking about Republican _politicians._ And a big majority of them are for banning abortion, including Trump himself, or homophobes/transphobes (see all the bathroom bills crap, the "right to refuse service" to LGBT people, etc.).



All of this is done on a state by state basis and in my state polls showed approval to continue state funding for planned parenthood. Again this isn't your country, you don't understand our laws or the system that we work in. California has gay marriage, Texas does not, this was under a Democratic president. All these major issues have been handled at the state and the republicans don't have the "supermajority" in the senate to make crazy changes. People who think that Trump will walk in and immediately be able to cut obamacare or planned parenthood really don't understand our judicial system, he would need to convince 8 democratic senators.

But please tell me all the way from Italy what's wrong with my country. FFS!


----------



## TuxSH (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> California has gay marriage, Texas does not


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

TuxSH said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges


But he knows his country better than us foreigners! /s


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TuxSH said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges



As I stated these were examples of state rulings under a democratic president. IF Trump appoints a justice that overturns this decision, it will merely be sent back to the state courts.

Again you people who think Trump is a totalitarian and will run amok are like the exact same conservatives who are fear mongering around the Republican Party.

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



Aurora Wright said:


> But he knows his country better than us foreigners! /s



Yes I do, I live here, I work here, I pay taxes here, I voted here. This is my country not yours.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 11, 2016)

barronwaffles said:


> I think the word itself has intrinsically religious connotations - hence why I'd prefer that government didn't recognize the institution at all.


Religion has no claim on marriage. It started as something secular, and what we're talking about when we talk about marriage rights is something secular. This false meme that marriage is inherently religious needs to die. We're talking about the governmental recognition of marriage that bestows certain practical rights and obligations, so to say you want to divorce government from marriage is just silly. That's the literal destruction of marriage, since all we're talking about are those rights and obligations.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Bahahahaha:


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> But he knows his country better than us foreigners! /s


The irony of this statement is baffling.


----------



## Pachee (Nov 11, 2016)

Spoiler


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 11, 2016)

Viri said:


> What else is there to give? They got their marriage. They're not getting the noose and hung daily.


LGBT people can still be refused service based on sexual orientation. LGBT people can still be fired based on their sexual orientation. LGBT people can still be refused a job based on their sexual orientation. It is not uncommon for an LGBT person to be harassed in public for being with their partner. Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Wrong.


At the federal level and in most states, everything that was said about LGBT discrimination is true. Sorry if the truth is inconvenient for you.


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> LGBT people can still be refused service based on sexual orientation. LGBT people can still be fired based on their sexual orientation. LGBT people can still be refused a job based on their sexual orientation. It is not uncommon for an LGBT person to be harassed in public for being with their partner. Etc., etc., etc.


Remember that guy who refused to bake a gay couples marriage cake? Ya, me too http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/2...ver-refusal-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding.html

If you get refused service for any reason, go some place else, and don't give them your money. 

How will you stop people from firing/hiring you based on your sexual orientation? Let's say I hated gays, and I could get in trouble for hiring/firing a gay guy, I'd do it anyway, and come up with some bs reason. I'd also throw your job application away. How will you stop me? How will you prove I fired you over you being gay?

Harassment is illegal already for all kinds of reasons.


----------



## Pachee (Nov 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> At the federal level and in most states, everything that was said about LGBT discrimination is true. Sorry if the truth is inconvenient for you.


I don't know much about US job laws, but what i heard is that it is pretty easy to hire and fire anyone, since your company is your company.

I think that argument is pretty low since it applies to any worker.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> At the federal level and in most states, everything that was said about LGBT discrimination is true. Sorry if the truth is inconvenient for you.



I think you are falling for the same witch hunt pushed by the liberal media. Here is my position on the matter:


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


>


I don't really care that much.
I don't really think the Trump government will be _very_ harmful for the LGBT community, as I said (and I realize this may be wishful thinking) I think all the homophobia was a publicity stunt during campaign, and I even think he is one of the most liberal republicans.
But, I want to remark anyway that your post is against the rules of the GBATemp Forum (no replies with just a picture or a word rule).


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 11, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


>



You know, I was expecting a cheezy bar joke from your post


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Soon we will have a president that will fix all the issues the Obama administration failed to address. The forgotten people will rise again! #MAGA'd


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 11, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> It's the best we've got. He does more research than the major news folks, and does his best to actually try to be as open and honest as possible. You don't really get that elsewhere. It's less "news" and more "why the heck doesn't this topic get talked about on the news? This is the details and research on it. We did our best to find out as much about this topic as humanly possible and this is what we found that's relevant and important".


A man who was colluding with the clinton campaign was open and honest?
http://dcleaks.com/emails/cApR/html/Clinton_Foundation/00001237.EML.html


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Movie stars: "Trump is racist for all those comments about Mexico, we stand by Mexico"
Trump Wins...
Movie stars: "Screw this, I'm taking my millions of dollars and going to Canada"


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)




----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> I personally couldn't give a damn that she didn't win, there, I said my piece. I don't agree with her, I don't like the way she handles things, people need to just accept the fact she lost; now they know how so many felt back in 2008 and in 2012.
> 
> 
> Upset people: Yes, let's start up violent "peaceful" protests to prove a point, boy, that'll sure show them!



Sorry for the late reply, but they really do have a reason to be upset, romney didnt lose because of the electoral college.


----------



## DeoNaught (Nov 11, 2016)

How many people do you think who voted for trump, protested against him?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

@mech  Obama a pussy?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Sorry for the late reply, but they really do have a reason to be upset, romney didnt lose because of the electoral college.



It's one thing to be upset, it's okay and normal to express anger and disappointment. What isn't okay is for people to be all stupid and cause violent rioting. It's one thing to have peaceful rallies and protests, but setting things ablaze, vandalizing property, that is not how to get one's point across, at all, displays of violence for not getting your way is never the answer.  If humans rights are violated, sure, but just because something doesn't go your way? BFD I say.


Again, being angry, scared, disappointed is okay, but letting those get so powerful to the point of controlling people to the point of starting violent riots and destruction just because it didn't go their way, is utterly immature and just stupid.  There are far better ways of expressing disappointment.


Edit: Fixing grammatical errors


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> It's one thing to be upset, it's okay and normal to express anger and disappointment. What isn't okay is for people to be all stupid and cause violent rioting. It's one thing to have peaceful rallies and protests, but setting things ablaze, vandalizing property, that is not how to get one's point across, at all, displays of violence for not getting your way is never the answer.  If humans riots are violated, sure, but just because something doesn't go your way? BFD I say.


I agree.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> You know, I was expecting a cheezy bar joke from your post


Peter, KellyAnne, and Benjamin walk into a bar to get some drinks.
Peter than says "You look very nice! Do you want to go on a date sometime?"
KellyAnne replies "Well Peter I am busy but maybe some other time"
Peter than states "No I was talking about Ben"
Ben smiles an tells Peter "Thanks"


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Soon we will have a president that will fix all the issues the Obama administration failed to address. The forgotten people will rise again! #MAGA'd


Could you explain?

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



Chary said:


> I'm not sure anything's in stone, but it looks like Carson is in the front running of choices for Trump's cabinet. If he's picked, he'll be for Health and Human Services, looks like, to help Trump find a better alternative to/to repeal Obamacare.


Rather than repeal it, Trump should improve it, make it cheaper etc.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I agree.



Like, again, i don't care that people are upset, a lot of people do that when things don't go their way, it's life and it sucks from time to time. But come on people, stop with the BS violent "protests" when things don't get your way. And those who had classes cancelled and had to be consoled in school?  Really? I would think that classes would've continued and people not be let out and so despondent to the point where they couldn't attend college courses, this is going too far.  Why the deuce can't people just grieve for as long as they need to, but not let it occupy 100% of their lives 100% of the time?



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Could you explain?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Reform is what it needs, not the whole "increase-premiums-by-X-percent-every-year" BS.


I would love to see another's side to it, on what they see in Clinton and why they are so determined on letting the popular vote overtake the electoral vote.  I just want to see their points and their side of things for once, just to gain perspective.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Like, again, i don't care that people are upset, a lot of people do that when things don't go their way, it's life and it sucks from time to time. But come on people, stop with the BS violent "protests" when things don't get your way. And those who had classes cancelled and had to be consoled in school?  Really? I would think that classes would've continued and people not be let out and so despondent to the point where they couldn't attend college courses, this is going too far.


Jheez seems rough in America. I will say this after watching Trumps victory speech, he seems much more of the presidential type, hell, he said thank you to Hillary! Man, if this is the trend for the next four years I think it wont be too bad.

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



hobbledehoy899 said:


>


Thats some dumbass logic, I could have a gay worker but if I were to say, attack gay people that would me make me a homophobe, just because I have a gay worker doesnt change that.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Thats some dumbass logic, I could have a gay worker but if I were to say, attack gay people that would me make me a homophobe, just because I have a gay worker doesnt change that.


And when did Trump do any of that? Do tell.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Could you explain?



I've explained time and time again that Obama has failed to take care of jobs and businesses in the mid-west through legislation such as Obama Care, failure to keep up with the rest of the world on tax incentives for larger corporations (Pfizer is an example). His failure to address the damage that some of the trade deals have caused to the manufacturing jobs in these states, shipping Iran $400 million, etc, etc... ETC....

His administration cared about:
LGBT Rights
Healthcare for all (at whatever cost)
Planned Parenthood
Iran deal
Prevented Deportation of Illegal Immigrants
Climate Change

All great things and some of which I support (obviously not obama care, Iran deal, and I think his immigration policy has been shoddy).

BUT you know what he forgot and where Hillary lost in the polls? The white working class people in this region.
News stations like CNN keeps talking about this "voice no one else heard", well it's us. We are the forgotten people Trump spoke about in his victory speech.

I want peace and prosperity for all corners of the world, but my first duty as an American is to make sure ALL of my country men and women are taken care of by our government (not just select groups).

He focused solely on the issues that the liberal media and liberal agenda keep pushing down people throats. For the next 4 years THANK GOD, we will be forgotten no longer.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> And when did Trump do any of that? Do tell.


nope definitely not, http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/...nts-donald-trump-has-made-about-lgbtq-people/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83
And did we just forget pussygate?


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Like, again, i don't care that people are upset, a lot of people do that when things don't go their way, it's life and it sucks from time to time. But come on people, stop with the BS violent "protests" when things don't get your way. And those who had classes cancelled and had to be consoled in school?  Really? I would think that classes would've continued and people not be let out and so despondent to the point where they couldn't attend college courses, this is going too far.  Why the deuce can't people just grieve for as long as they need to, but not let it occupy 100% of their lives 100% of the time?


This is the result of the precious snowflakes mentality, people who always got participation awards and don't even know what its like to lose. It also didn't help that they were strung along and brainwashed by the media the whole time, many of them being first time voters. Many of these protesters are college students who probably only took a pol 100 class and have no clue how a presidential election works, and think by kicking, screaming, crying, causing violence, damaging property of others will change the outcome. Peaceful protests are fine but these are not peaceful. These kiddies need to grow up and learn not everything in life will go your way. There was even a report of high school walkout because they were upset over election results (people who didn't/couldn't vote mind you). These are the people who mocked trump for being single minded, bigoted, and couldn't accept the election results when it reality it was them the whole time.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I've explained time and time again that Obama has failed to take care of jobs and businesses in the mid-west through legislation such as Obama Care, failure to keep up with the rest of the world on tax incentives for larger corporations (Pfizer is an example). His failure to address the damage that some of the trade deals have caused to the manufacturing jobs in these states, shipping Iran $400 million, etc, etc... ETC....
> 
> His administration cared about:
> LGBT Rights
> ...


Well not all, just you man, as much as I like your honesty, Trump wont be helping everyone, he has issues with pretty much everyone that isnt white/caucasian. Those issues he focussed on were not just for liberals, they were for the future of the world, dude you need to look outside your bubble of America, patriotism leads to ignorance. Climate Change for example, this is something that will affect us within the next 15 years, Trump thinks its as fictitious as a fairy tale. I dont want the leader of the free world thinking like that.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 11, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> A man who was colluding with the clinton campaign was open and honest?
> http://dcleaks.com/emails/cApR/html/Clinton_Foundation/00001237.EML.html


I'm not sure what that's suppose to show other than the clinton foundation got a response about something from john oliver's folk. Could be john oliver was wanting an interview? or they're responding to a critique john made or whatnot? I dunno, seems normal to me.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Joe88 said:


> This is the result of the precious snowflakes mentality, people who always got participation awards and don't even know what its like to lose. It also didn't help that they were strung along and brainwashed by the media the whole time, many of them being first time voters. Many of these protesters are college students who probably only took a pol 100 class and have no clue how a presidential election works, and think by kicking, screaming, crying, causing violence, damaging property of others will change the outcome. Peaceful protests are fine but these are not peaceful. These kiddies need to grow up and learn not everything in life will go your way. There was even a report of high school walkout because they were upset over election results (people who didn't/couldn't vote mind you). These are the people who mocked trump for being single minded, bigoted, and couldn't accept the election results when it reality it was them the whole time.


Jheez shit IS rough.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Well not all, just you man, as much as I like your honesty, Trump wont be helping everyone, he has issues with pretty much everyone that isnt white/caucasian. Those issues he focussed on were not just for liberals, they were for the future of the world, dude you need to look outside your bubble of America, patriotism leads to ignorance. Climate Change for example, this is something that will affect us within the next 15 years, Trump thinks its as fictitious as a fairy tale. I dont want the leader of the free world thinking like that.



Please explain how? How can the good people in these areas think about things like climate change when people are foreclosing on their homes and don't have jobs to put food on the table for their kids?

It's easy for you and I who are privileged enough to sit here on GBATemp and write that.

That's like me telling someone who's gay to not worry about their right to marry, there are more important issues in this world.

I get Obama could have achieved some great things with climate change and still helped this part of the region. Look at the electoral map, this area has spoken, we are tired of the same crap in DC.

And people aren't ignorant up here some of the smartest business men I know are farmers, plumbers, engineers, all from this region. I myself am very fortunate to be in the position I am, I have a great career and am able to take care of my family, I'm very educated and have a masters degree. But don't sit here and tell me to ignore my neighbor any longer.

We need change here now and luckily the election granted us an opportunity for it. I'm not a patriot and I don't support anything being taken from the minorities, but I support my neighbors and the truth is government has forgotten about them until now.

Underprivileged people come in all races, colors, and religions, not just what the media contrainst that box to be.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Please explain how? How can the good people in these areas think about things like climate change when people are foreclosing on their homes and don't have jobs to put food on the table?
> 
> That's like me telling someone who's gay to not worry about their right to marry, there are more important issues in this world.
> 
> ...


Sorry I missed out on the unemployment bit, however, unemployment has indeed gone down thanks to Obama but I'm guessing where you live (the south?) there hasn't been much of a change hmm? Im not telling you to ignore your neighbour but I am telling you to think about the bigger picture.
Edit: just noticed you were from washington, hasnt unemployment always been high there?


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Sorry I missed out on the unemployment bit, however, unemployment has indeed gone down thanks to Obama but I'm guessing where you live (the south?) there hasn't been much of a change hmm? Im not telling you to ignore your neighbour but I am telling you to think about the bigger picture.
> Edit: just noticed you were from washington, hasnt unemployment always been high there?



No I'm from Kansas, and a lot of businesses shut down due to Obama Care. I want to see the big picture but it's hard, I get people should be allowed affordable care (turns out not so affordable now). We had a 13% increase in healthcare premiums. I saw many people lose jobs because the government told them health insurance was more important than putting food on the table.

I get it everyone should be allowed health insurance and I'm disgusted people with pre-existing conditions were not able to do so. BUT in order to achieve that we shut down a lot of small businesses in this area and put a lot of good people out of work.

I want the minorities to benefit whole heatedly, but it would not hurt to swing the pendulum a little back this way and see people here have issues that are just as important as anyone else.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I've explained time and time again that Obama has failed to take care of jobs and businesses in the mid-west through legislation such as Obama Care, failure to keep up with the rest of the world on tax incentives for larger corporations (Pfizer is an example). His failure to address the damage that some of the trade deals have caused to the manufacturing jobs in these states, shipping Iran $400 million, etc, etc... ETC....
> 
> His administration cared about:
> LGBT Rights
> ...



The only thing that pisses me off is that  Obamacare, while a good idea in practice, is a bad idea in execution, as there are things that anger me about it:


- High penalties for those who don't enroll
- Gradually increasing premiums from year to year
- What if people like me can't afford it due to lousy job situations? What if we don't make enough to even get the minimum coverage per month? Does this mean we have to pay $600 dollars one year and $1000 the next for not being able to sign up.Don't get me wrong, I agree everyone should have healthcare, and should be a basic human right, but increasing the costs per year and penalizing people for it is not the most efficacious way to go about it. That's the one thing that has truly angered me about Obama's administration, most other things haven't really bothered me as much.


I seem to recall Obama releasing a statement saying premiums would go down. Ha! So much for that.
Gimme a freaking break.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> The only thing that pisses me off is that  Obamacare, while a good idea in practice, is a bad idea in execution, as there are things that anger me about it:
> 
> 
> - High penalties for those who don't enroll
> ...



Agreed, this is exactly what my post right above is trying to get at!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> No I'm from Kansas, and a lot of businesses shut down due to Obama Care. I want to see the big picture but it's hard, I get people should be allowed affordable care (turns out not so affordable now). We had a 13% increase in healthcare premiums. I saw many people lose jobs because the government told them health insurance was more important than putting food on the table.
> 
> I get it everyone should be allowed health insurance and I'm disgusted people with pre-existing conditions were not able to do so. BUT in order to achieve that we shut down a lot of small businesses in this area and put a lot of good people out of work.
> 
> I want the minorities to benefit whole heatedly, but it would not hurt to swing the pendulum a little back this way and see people here have issues that are just as important as anyone else.



really sucks man, I really think America does need reform, but do you think Trump will achieve this feat?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> really sucks man, I really think America does need reform, but do you think Trump will achieve this feat?



Clinton sure as hell wouldn't reform, it would only get worse I'm sure. But no longer forcing people to sign up by penalizing them. There should be incentive, not punishment, for not signing up.  The argument people like to make with Obamacare is, "But people have cares, so car insurance is mandatory." To which I reply, "But in the United States, owning a car isn't mandatory by law, so neither should being forced to get Obamacare."

Negating the penalty for not signing up would be a great start. 800 trillion-dollars my ass.



el_gonz87 said:


> Agreed, this is exactly what my post right above is trying to get at!



Exactly, it should be optional and available to anyone and everyone, regardless of their income, you know, instead of getting screwed over in my situation.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> Clinton sure as hell wouldn't reform, it would only get worse I'm sure. But no longer forcing people to sign up by penalizing them. There should be incentive, not punishment, for not signing up.  The argument people like to make with Obamacare is, "But people have cares, so car insurance is mandatory." To which I reply, "But in the United States, owning a car isn't mandatory by law, so neither should being forced to get Obamacare."
> 
> Negating the penalty for not signing up would be a great start. 800 trillion-dollars my ass.
> 
> ...



Thats the thing, Im sure Hillary wouldve changed things, didnt she say she would at least lower the cost?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Thats the thing, Im sure Hillary wouldve changed things, didnt she say she would at least lower the cost?



I don't know for sure, but given that she's a democrat, things likely wouldn't have changed, but don't quote me on that. I will say that I don't go after people who voted for either party, I want that established, but I will say that I'm not a fan of either Trump nor Clinton, for various reasons. There are policies that both have that I do and don't agree on, so, I'm trying to be neutral.


As long as one of them would've reduced the premiums and removing penalties, stopped the TPP to protect our digital rights, and helped somehow with the deficit, then really, I would be fine personally.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Neutrality is a great thing.



It sure as hell isn't easy though >.>


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> I don't know for sure, but given that she's a democrat, things likely wouldn't have changed, but don't quote me on that. I will say that I don't go after people who voted for either party, I want that established, but I will say that I'm not a fan of either Trump nor Clinton, for various reasons. There are policies that both have that I do and don't agree on, so, I'm trying to be neutral.


Neutrality is a great thing.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> really sucks man, I really think America does need reform, but do you think Trump will achieve this feat?



I think because of the DNC and RNC interest we were faced with a tough choice. Clinton and the DNC have been really bad for this area, and I would not trust her for a minute based on the e-mails and so much crap her hands have gotten into, not to mention the "deplorables" comment.

I do not agree with everything Trump has said or done, but I could not stand by a 3rd Obama term.

I genuinely believe Trump will sit at the table with some of these big corporations (who aren't saints) and be able to leverage his knowledge about running a large and complex infrastructure like some are and his connections he has with some of these people to provide incentives that will restore jobs in this area.

I think he will be able to work with Russia to hopefully provide stability so that we can get out of the region.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> I would love to see another's side to it, on what they see in Clinton and why they are so determined on letting the popular vote overtake the electoral vote.  I just want to see their points and their side of things for once, just to gain perspective.


The way I see it it's undemocratic and irrelevant in the modern day. Look at the last post on my profile for why unless you want me to copypasta it here


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

the_randomizer said:


> The only thing that pisses me off is that  Obamacare, while a good idea in practice, is a bad idea in execution, as there are things that anger me about it:
> 
> - What if people like me can't afford it due to lousy job situations? What if we don't make enough to even get the minimum coverage per month? Does this mean we have to pay $600 dollars one year and $1000 the next for not being able to sign up.Don't get me wrong, I agree everyone should have healthcare, and should be a basic human right, but increasing the costs per year and penalizing people for it is not the most efficacious way to go about it. That's the one thing that has truly angered me about Obama's administration, most other things haven't really bothered me as much.
> 
> ...



Why does America not implement a universal healthcare that provides everyone the treatment they need through taxation?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I think because of the DNC and RNC interest we were faced with a tough choice. Clinton and the DNC have been really bad for this area, and I would not trust her for a minute based on the e-mails and so much crap her hands have gotten into, not to mention the "deplorables" comment.
> 
> I do not agree with everything Trump has said or done, but I could not stand by a 3rd Obama term.
> 
> ...


Trump is a failure when it comes to business, he shouldnt even be working with putin because right now what putin wants is discourse.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 11, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The way I see it it's undemocratic and irrelevant in the modern day. Look at the last post on my profile for why unless you want me to copypasta it here



Fair enough, the thing though that makes me the saddest, is people losing friendships over differences in political views and stances, that's the last thing I want to have to go through, and I'm trying to see it from both sides, you know?


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The way I see it it's undemocratic and irrelevant in the modern day. Look at the last post on my profile for why unless you want me to copypasta it here



How would you like to live in Minnesota or Idaho and not have an electoral college? Those states would completely be ignored and a president would basically have to win NY, CA, FL, and TX to get elected.

It's to strike a balance between federal and state interests.

Please go watch this video:


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> Why does America not implement a universal healthcare that provides everyone the treatment they need through taxation?


IDK seems republicans dont want that. NHS is a great system.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> nope definitely not, http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/...nts-donald-trump-has-made-about-lgbtq-people/
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83
> And did we just forget pussygate?


While most everything there is valid, please for our sake don't use Huffington Post when debating. It's ultra left-leaning and has a history of skewing information to their liking (similar to another news site on the opposite side of the spectrum *cough theBlaze cough*


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> How would you like to live in Minnesota or Idaho and not have an electoral college? Those states would completely be ignored and a president would basically have to win NY, CA, FL, and TX to get elected.
> 
> It's to strike a balance between federal and state interests.
> 
> Please go watch this video:



PragerU? This channel is like the most biased right channel on earth.

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



TotalInsanity4 said:


> While most everything there is valid, please for our sake don't use Huffington Post when debating. It's ultra left-leaning and has a history of skewing information to their liking (similar to another news site on the opposite side of the spectrum *cough theBlaze cough*


Used huffpost simply because after research all of those comments were correct. Although normally I'd use the guardian but i couldnt be bothered.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> PragerU? This channel is like the most biased right channel on earth.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



It makes compelling arguments, again the smaller states would be worthless for a campaign if all the president had to do was win NY, CA, FL, TX.

Again why would they campaign at the smaller states?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> How would you like to live in Minnesota or Idaho and not have an electoral college? Those states would completely be ignored and a president would basically have to win NY, CA, FL, and TX to get elected.
> 
> It's to strike a balance between federal and state interests.
> 
> Please go watch this video:



Clearly every vote counts as the popular vote was won by less than 1% this year. Without the electoral college, one vote equals one vote, not the bullshit "depending on where you live your vote is worth slightly more" thing we have going now. Votes shouldn't need to be separated by borders anyway


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> It makes compelling arguments, again the smaller states would be worthless for a campaign if all the president had to do was win NY, CA, FL, TX.
> 
> Again why would they campaign at the smaller states?


Most of this would be averted if the electoral college was just removed.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Clearly every vote counts as the popular vote was won by less than 1% this year. Without the electoral college, one vote equals one vote, not the bullshit "depending on where you live your vote is worth slightly more" thing we have going now. Votes shouldn't need to be separated by borders anyway



They should because otherwise the battle would be done in the aforementioned states, again if all you had to do was win the majority of those 4 states with the most people, why the hell would you go anywhere else?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> They should because otherwise the battle would be done in the aforementioned states, again if all you had to do was win the majority of those 4 states with the most people, why the hell would you go anywhere else?


Becuase those 4 states wont vote 100% for just one person. Look at brexit the reason we became independent is because those smaller populations all voted out. London voted in.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Becuase those 4 states wont vote 100% for just one person



You just have to get a large enough margin, 10% in California would be > %200 in Idaho. You tell me which one seems more feasible?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> You just have to get a large enough margin, 10% in California would be > %200 in Idaho. You tell me which one seems more feasible?


You should stop looking at things from a state by state basis, thats not how a proper democracy works.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You should stop looking at things from a state by state basis, thats not how a proper democracy works.



Hahahaha sure #brexit

Meanwhile riots are going on and where is Hillary and Obama? The outrage there would be if Trump did not "condemn" these actions...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Hahahaha sure #brexit


Ridicule isnt as good as an answer man.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Ridicule isnt as good as an answer man.



No ridicule, just pointing out one of the last wonders of "pure" democracy.

The laws of this country were, are, and will be founded on the balance between state and federal government.


----------



## vayanui8 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You should stop looking at things from a state by state basis, thats not how a proper democracy works.


America is not a direct democracy, nor was it ever intended to be. It is stated directly in our constitution that we use the electoral college so that the minority don't have to bow down completely to the will of the majority. Its supposed to strike a balance and keep a variety of candidates flowing through the whitehouse, which it has been very successful at so far.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> No ridicule, just pointing out one of the last wonders of "pure" democracy.
> 
> The laws of this country were, are, and will be founded on the balance between state and federal government.


Brexit was what the people wanted, whether or not it is a bad idea we will have to see, i personally was against it and voted as such.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

Roll on March 2017 #brexit


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> America is not a direct democracy, nor was it ever intended to be. It is stated directly in our constitution that we use the electoral college so that the minority don't have to bow down completely to the will of the majority. Its supposed to strike a balance and keep a variety of candidates flowing through the whitehouse, which it has been very successful at so far.


As great as the idea of a minority not being discriminated is, it hasnt worked well in practice and it should be what the majority wants, obviously the minorities shouldnt be discriminated against and that should be a fundamental law not something that goes against what the people want.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Brexit was what the people wanted, whether or not it is a bad idea we will have to see, i personally was against it and voted as such.



Bravo I'm not advocating that you view your democracy any different. I'm happy that brother England functions accordingly, and I'm happy America does as well with our own laws.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> Roll on March 2017 #brexit


Its not like the UK leaving was ever a good thing, its funny immigration is nowhere near as bad an issue as UKIP would have you believe.

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



el_gonz87 said:


> Bravo I'm not advocating that you view your democracy any different. I'm happy that brother England functions accordingly, and I'm happy America does as well with our own laws.


Read my comment above.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

> "All of it began the first time some of you who know better and are old enough to know better let young people think they had the right to choose the laws they would obey, as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest!"
> 
> - Ronald Reagan



He said it best! We have to much of this in our country!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> He said it best! We have to much of this in our country!


In the end young people are the future of a country, (IDK if you would call me young being aged 24 buuut) if they wanted something made into and felt it would help their country move forward, they ARE the future and the future usually wants to fix what the past left them with.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> In the end young people are the future of a country, (IDK if you would call me young being aged 24 buuut) if they wanted something made into and felt it would help their country move forward, they ARE the future and the future usually wants to fix what the past left them with.



He was speaking about the riots when he got elected. Young people should change, but there is an avenue for change and rioting or claiming lives will be lost on CNN is not the way to go about it.

I'm 29, and I think even people in my generation need to learn to lose with dignity. You don't like the outcome then fight it with all your heart but the right way: go campaign, run for office, start petitions, write letters to representatives. Don't just sit here and cry about it like the liberals are doing these days.

I'm actually glad they have this weak mentality, because it means they are weak and can be defeated as Nov 9 showed.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> He was speaking about the riots when he got elected. Young people should change, but there is an avenue for change and rioting or claiming lives will be lost on CNN is not the way to go about it.
> 
> I'm 29, and I think even people in my generation need to learn to lose with dignity. You don't like the outcome then fight, go campaign, run for office, start petitions, write letters to representatives. Don't just sit here and cry about it like the liberals are doing these days.
> 
> I'm actually glad they have this weak mentality, because it means they are weak and can be defeated as Nov 9 showed.


You seem quite close minded, you say fight but thats what rioting is, Liberals seem to always campaign thats what liberals are, you seem blind to this fact.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You seem quite close minded, you say fight but thats what rioting is, Liberals seem to always campaign thats what liberals are, you seem blind to this fact.



Fight the right way, what good comes out of going out and vandalizing cars and businesses? Is that really the way to get things done? I just suggested multiple ways to get better results rather than continue the violence.

You seem close minded to the other side of the fence. The shoe fits both was my British brotha.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Fight the right way, what good comes out of going out and vandalizing cars and businesses? Is that really the way to get things done? I just suggested multiple ways to get better results rather than continue the violence.
> 
> You seem close minded to the other side of the fence. The shoe fits both was my British brotha.


Hell you can call me left but i know that I am not. The only reason I'm defending the left is the fact that you seem oblivious to the facts. i agree that violence isnt the answer.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Hell you can call me left but i know that I am not. The only reason I'm defending the left is the fact that you seem oblivious to the opinions. i agree that violence isnt the answer.



FTFY


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> FTFY


They are facts, liberals do campaign, more so than their conservative counterparts. Liberals are by far more open minded. Liberals are more multicultural. Liberals are more tolerant. Im not a liberal but i am one who likes facts not fiction.


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> nope definitely not, http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/...nts-donald-trump-has-made-about-lgbtq-people/
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83
> And did we just forget pussygate?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 11, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


>


The media really loves to spin things. I mean, they try to claim these things, yet if you were to actually go back into many of the different sectors of this man's life, you'd see something different. For instance, this video.....

Do I think Trump is *the* best person for President? No, but we have to consider the choices we were given.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> They are facts, liberals do campaign, more so than their conservative counterparts. Liberals are by far more open minded. Liberals are more multicultural. Liberals are more tolerant. Im not a liberal but i am one who likes facts not fiction.



Haha facts? Alright there #brexit no need to get upset. You believe what you want to believe. It's a shame the liberals didn't prove "campaign advantage" on this election, oh wait not its not a shame!

#MAGA'd


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Supster131 said:


>



yes he said it once, but did you even read my links?


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> yes he said it once, but did you even read my links?


Your links are old, they're from February.
That speech is from July.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> yes he said it once, but did you even read my links?



Yawn... Like it or not he is #POTUS


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Yawn... Like it or not he is #POTUS


Ok that doesnt mean that I can criticise him...


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Ok that doesnt mean that I can criticise him...



You can whine about it all you want, I'm actually getting some amusement out of the liberal panic.... The shoe fits nicely on the left foot for a change. #MAGA'd


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Haha facts? Alright there #brexit no need to get upset. You believe what you want to believe. It's a shame the liberals didn't prove "campaign advantage" on this election, oh wait not its not a shame!
> 
> #MAGA'd


You seem to be angry, maybe calm down, why are your feelings hurt by a simple argument? The fact you cant argue without getting personally attached is worrying, but whats even more worrying is the fact you cant accept facts. Campaign advantage? She did have a campaign advantage but it was this silent majority that pulled it for Trump.

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



Supster131 said:


> Your links are old, they're from February.
> That speech is from July.


That doesnt mean much, he doesnt even want to admit he even said things like this but if he really does change, then no there are no negatives.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> You can whine about it all you want, I'm actually getting some amusement out of the liberal panic.... The shoe fits nicely on the left foot for a change. #MAGA'd



Its like talking to a brick wall isnt it? We are still lauging at the lefties months and months later over our brexit win.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> You can whine about it all you want, I'm actually getting some amusement out of the liberal panic.... The shoe fits nicely on the left foot for a change. #MAGA'd


Im not whining if anything im ok with Trump becoming president but i do want to make evident his flaws.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You seem to be angry, maybe calm down, why are your feelings hurt by a simple argument? The fact you cant argue without getting personally attached is worrying, but whats even more worrying is the fact you cant accept facts. Campaign advantage? She did have a campaign advantage but it was this silent majority that pulled it for Trump.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Hahahaha easy #brexit I'm not angry at all, look at my posts. The silent majority is that Trump visited Wiscounsin and Michigan and Clinton did not because she thought that was a "blue wall" LOL. But please tell me more about these facts...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> Its like talking to a brick wall isnt it? We are still lauging at the lefties months and months later over our brexit win.


The fact that you talk about me indirectly is pretty disrespectful. And can you please stop calling me left.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> The fact that you talk about me indirectly is pretty disrespectful. And can you please stop calling me left.



Why should i have any respect for your type who doesn't respect our win?


----------



## HomebrewJay (Nov 11, 2016)

Spoiler



I'd vote for Harambe


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> Why should i have any respect for your type who doesn't respect our win?


I do respect your win, never said I did. Congratulate you even, Trump did quite an impressive thing. Respect goes both ways.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> Why should i have any respect for your type who doesn't respect our win?



Its funny the people against anger and hate seem to get angrier and more hateful by the day. LOL


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Its funny the people against anger and hate seem to get angrier and more hateful by the day. LOL



Its because the lefties are full of shit.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Hahahaha easy #brexit I'm not angry at all, look at my posts. The silent majority is that Trump visited Wiscounsin and Michigan and Clinton did not because she thought that was a "blue wall" LOL. But please tell me more about these facts...


So im brexit now? yeah, youre definitely not angry.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Nov 11, 2016)

This is getting annoying. It fucking ended already. Gratz to the winner, better luck next time, loser. It was legal, was it not? No complaints now, please.

Sent from my cave of despair where I collect souls


----------



## HomebrewJay (Nov 11, 2016)

Let"s all be friends now, shall we?


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> So im brexit now? yeah, youre definitely not angry.



It's just a nickname without any negative connotation? Jesus, call me #MAGA'd, actually I'd quite like that LOL


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> It's just a nickname without any negative connotation? Jesus, call me #MAGA'd, actually I'd quite like that LOL


Well no, we're not friends nicknaming me just to make me annoyed doesnt make you seem to have the stronger argument.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

HomebrewJay said:


> Let"s all be friends now, shall we?



 (Conservatives) + (Lefties) =  (America)


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> Its because the lefties are full of shit.


Yep, you just ignored my entire post.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Well no, we're not friends nicknaming me just to make me annoyed doesnt make you seem to have the stronger argument.



yes it does.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> yes it does.




No, it just makes you an asshole.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 11, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> This is getting annoying. It fucking ended already. Gratz to the winner, better luck next time, loser. *It was legal, was it not?* No complaints now, please.
> 
> Sent from my cave of despair where I collect souls


I was almost expecting a recount in Pennsylvania, considering how it was typically considered Democrat territory for the past number of decades.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> yes it does.


Jeez did you ever go to school? If you use ad hominem in an argument you totally weaken your entire argument because it no longer is a level playing field. You dont attack the man, you attack his views.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Well no, we're not friends nicknaming me just to make me annoyed doesnt make you seem to have the stronger argument.



I'm not assuming we're friends and I'm not assuming it makes my argument stronger... There is no argument Trump is #POTUS and I'm quite happy and civilized (no rioting here!)

Now can we just calm down... #BREXIT


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-pence-transgender-students-aa32ee93cdb7
July? This is more recent.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> No, it just makes you an asshole.


in simpler terms, pretty much.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Jeez did you ever go to school? If you use ad hominem in an argument you totally weaken your entire argument because it no longer is a level playing field. You dont attack the man, you attack his views.




There is no argument? you Lost get over it.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I'm not assuming we're friends and I'm not assuming it makes my argument stronger... There is no argument Trump is #POTUS and I'm quite happy and civilized (no rioting here!)
> 
> Now can we just calm down... #BREXIT


Yeah youre definitely trying to get to me. Im not denying anything, stop trying to make it like I am, just because I disagree with you doesnt make me an idiot, political views are subjective as can be.

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



mech said:


> There is no argument? you Lost get over it.


I didnt lose anything. Im not personally attached to politics unlike you, it seems youre a little too emotionally attached.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Yeah youre definitely trying to get to me. Im not denying anything, stop trying to make it like I am, just because I disagree with you doesnt make me an idiot, political views are *subjective as can be*.



Ahh now that we can agree on. No need to get salty and idiot was never in one of my posts, if you view #brexit as idiot then that's your problem.

I'm sincerely using it as a term of endearment. Ok? #brexit


----------



## HomebrewJay (Nov 11, 2016)

How about actually, *waiting* to see what Trump will do for the country? 

As people say, there's both sides to a story; and the media keeps commenting on certain things and what's right or wrong, but in reality, there isn't really a true answer because everyone has their own perspective for different categories and topics. That's what makes us have different and unique discussions and ideals. We just have to embrace other people's opinions and hope that the equal change we want comes forth. If people don't like Donald, they'll just have to get used to it. It's kind of like the Common Core around the United States. Everyone complains  at first, but embraced it since there was no other choice; and that's what that certain department thought would be great. It's a different change that they're trying. It's like this now. Just wait and see what happens.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Ahh now that we can agree on. No need to get salty and idiot was never in one of my posts, if you view #brexit as idiot then that's your problem.
> 
> I'm sincerely using it as a term of endearment. Ok? #brexit


 sure. Can you just stop? Im not salty can you just please stop putting things in  my mouth? Are all conservatives this insanely oblivious to anyone who doesn't agree with them?

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



HomebrewJay said:


> How about actually, *waiting* to see what Trump will do for the country?
> 
> As people say, there's both sides to a story; and the media keeps commenting on certain things and what's right or wrong, but in reality, there isn't really a true answer because everyone has their own perspective for different categories and topics. That's what makes us have different and unique discussions and ideals. We just have to embrace other people's opinions and hope that the equal change we want comes forth. If people don't like Donald, they'll just have to get used to it. It's kind of like the Common Core around the United States. Everyone complains  at first, but embraced it since there was no other choice; and that's what that certain department thought would be great. It's a different change that they're trying. It's like this now. Just wait and see what happens.


Indeed, we'll have to wait and see.

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



TheDarkGreninja said:


> I do respect your win, never said I did. Congratulate you even, Trump did quite an impressive thing. Respect goes both ways.


Fucking done with this.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> https://thinkprogress.org/trump-pence-transgender-students-aa32ee93cdb7
> July? This is more recent.



End the world right here. Trump + Pence are a dictatorship and they will desimate the LGBT community. Oh boy.

Here is the statement I read loud and clear:
_According to CP, Pence explains that both he and Donald Trump believe that concerns about which bathrooms transgender students should use can be “resolved” at the local level_



TheDarkGreninja said:


> sure. Can you just stop? Im not salty can you just please stop putting things in  my mouth? Are all conservatives this insanely oblivious to anyone who doesn't agree with them?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



How did I put things in your mouth, your post suggested I was insinuating you were an idiot for not agreeing with me. I wanted to make sure you understood I have nothing but love and respect for my #brexit brothers.


----------



## HomebrewJay (Nov 11, 2016)

Let's stop for a second:

*HARAMBE GOT 16,000 VOTES MY DUDES!! *


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> End the world right here. Trump + Pence are a dictatorship and they will desimate the LGBT community. Oh boy.
> 
> 
> 
> How did I put things in your mouth, your post suggested I was insinuating you were an idiot for not agreeing with me. I wanted to make sure you understood I have nothing but love and respect for my #brexit brothers.


Well end of the world for anyone who is lgbt. You made me look like I was salty however I am not.

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



HomebrewJay said:


> Let's stop for a second:
> 
> *HARAMBE GOT 16,000 VOTES MY DUDES!! *


Serious?


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Well end of the world for anyone who is lgbt. You made me look like I was salty however I am not.



Please I encourage you, read the article. Learn about the laws the senate can pass without a "super" majority.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> End the world right here. Trump + Pence are a dictatorship and they will desimate the LGBT community. Oh boy.
> 
> Here is the statement I read loud and clear:
> _According to CP, Pence explains that both he and Donald Trump believe that concerns about which bathrooms transgender students should use can be “resolved” at the local level_
> ...



Republicans are not exactly renown for their pro-lgbt stance are they and where does it say they're a dictatorship?


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> Republicans are not exactly renown for their pro-lgbt stance are they and where does it say they're a dictatorship?



People think they will lose all their rights? Pence stance was it should be resolved at the state level. How is that radical?

My point is that the lefties are in full panic like Trump is going to do atrocities...


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> People think they will lose all their rights? Pence stance was it should be resolved at the state level. How is that radical?
> 
> My point is that the lefties are in full panic like Trump is going to do atrocities...



They like to be a pain in the ass and think the world is out to get them for some attention, it will all wear off and they will move onto the next 'thing'.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> They like to be a pain in the ass and think the world is out to get them for some attention, it will all wear off and they will move onto the next 'thing'.



You're talking out of your ass, much like your beloved Nigel Farage.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> You're talking out of your ass, much like your beloved Nigel Farage.


you have the guts to say what i cannot


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

So the states have to decide through a democratic process the bathroom case... Lefties "It's oppression!"


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> You're talking out of your ass, much like your beloved Nigel Farage.



Ahhh another assumption from another loser in denial.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> They like to be a pain in the ass and think the world is out to get them for some attention, it will all wear off and they will move onto the next 'thing'.





mech said:


> Ahhh another assumption from another loser in denial.



Hmmm.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> End the world right here. Trump + Pence are a dictatorship and they will desimate the LGBT community. Oh boy.
> 
> Here is the statement I read loud and clear:
> _According to CP, Pence explains that both he and Donald Trump believe that concerns about which bathrooms transgender students should use can be “resolved” at the local level_


AKA "fuck the trans people who live in conservative states ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" (or you're going to tell me that being forced to use the opposite gender's bathrooms won't cause you a lot of harassment and discrimination?)


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> People think they will lose all their rights? Pence stance was it should be resolved at the state level. How is that radical?
> 
> My point is that the lefties are in full panic like Trump is going to do atrocities...



I think the reason people are worried on both sides of the political spectrum is that he's way too unpredictable and a complete hypocrite. He gives different answers depending on what will make him popular so it's very hard to know what he truly stands for.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> Ahhh another assumption from another loser in denial.



They don't understand.. Conservatives are simply trying to balance federal government and state government. They want less federal in what they view as state affairs. But this is a sign that they want to oppress people...


----------



## Dav_Dabz (Nov 11, 2016)

I voted Trump, i'm registered as a African America. I'm not a Liberal nor am I a democrat.
Fight me mate. 

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



SVNate9 said:


> I think the reason people are worried on both sides of the political spectrum is that he's way too unpredictable and a complete hypocrite. He gives different answers depending on what will make him popular so it's very hard to know what he truly stands for.



Isn't that what Hilary did the whole election?


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

Dav_Dabz said:


> I voted Trump, i'm registered as a African America. I'm not a Liberal nor am I a democrat.
> Fight me mate.



This should be entertaining.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> Ahhh another assumption from another loser in denial.


Someones feelings are hurt!


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> They don't understand.. Conservatives are simply trying to balance federal government and state government. They want less federal in what they view as state affairs. But this is a sign that they want to oppress people...



An yet people will still bitch and moan and show their stupidity by inciting violent riots, SMDH.  Yes, because that will *totally *undo anything already done


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Dav_Dabz said:


> I voted Trump, i'm registered as a African America. I'm not a Liberal nor am I a democrat.
> Fight me mate.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


Its your vote IDC what you do with it.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Someones feelings are hurt!



Whats that got to do with the price of fish?


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Its your vote IDC what you do with it.


Someone that's not salty that someone else voted for Trump? 
You deserve a medal. We need more people that think like you.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> AKA "fuck the trans people who live in conservative states ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" (or you're going to tell me that being forced to use the opposite gender's bathrooms won't cause you a lot of harassment and discrimination?)



Ay Harambe... Let me start off by saying I'm a big fan of you Aurora, and I respect you and your opinion, you seem like a nice and talented girl/woman (how old are you? just curiosity and no judgement or malice intended).

I think the issue is much more complex than people feel and either side of the fence will be hurt and offended with any decision made. I personally believe that LGBT should have the right to choose a bathroom, in fact I wouldn't be opposed to a "gender neutral" bathroom. But I do believe the states opinion should matter in this and it should not be solely decided by those few in Washington.

xoxo


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Its your vote IDC what you do with it.



Liar, if you believed this you wouldn't be spouting useless bullshit all over this forum about the election.


----------



## Dav_Dabz (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Its your vote IDC what you do with it.



Kek. Good on you mate. As long as you're not salty and rioting because people think differently. Then we can be friends


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Someones feelings are hurt!



No need to try and get a rise out of someone #brexit, let's stick to the facts!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> Liar, if you believed this you wouldn't be spouting useless bullshit all over this forum about the election.


Like? Im saying that i dont like Trump but if you voted for him im ok with it, if trump turns out to be a decent president that'd be great its not doom and gloom as how liberals see it.

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



el_gonz87 said:


> No need to try and get a rise out of someone #brexit, let's stick to the facts!


indeed how about it?



el_gonz87 said:


> No need to try and get a rise out of someone #brexit, let's stick to the facts!


Hell thought I'd have some fun, now that ive done it myself i can agree its pretty enjoyable.
Before i get called a libtard again I voted conservative in the 2010 and 2015 general election


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

We can at least agree that America and Britain have spoken!

#BREXIT + #MAGA'd = New World Order BABY! (At least for the next few years)


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> We can at least agree that America and Britain have spoken!
> 
> #BREXIT + #MAGA'd = New World Order BABY! (At least for the next few years)


different political outlooks become more prominent in different times so we'll wait and see. If brexit and trump are as bad as people dreaded, this will give the left the upper hand. I'd rather an independent won than a conservative or a liberal.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 11, 2016)

Dav_Dabz said:


> I voted Trump, i'm registered as a African America. I'm not a Liberal nor am I a democrat.
> Fight me mate.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


Good on you man. I'm a Latino in Los Angeles and I voted for Trump.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> different political outlooks become more prominent in different times so we'll wait and see. If brexit and trump are as bad as people dreaded, this will give the left the upper hand. I'd rather an independent won than a conservative or a liberal.



I just hope they can get back up! 

That was two right hooks from a suped-up boxer, they are in full panic mode right now and I must admit it is interesting to see them in a place they aren't used to being....

Like I said those that voted against "anger" and "hate" are a getting angrier and more hateful by the day!

Britain and America needed and deserved this change! #BREXIT #MAGA'd


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I just hope they can get back up!
> 
> That was two right hooks from a suped-up boxer, they are in full panic mode right now and I must admit it is interesting to see them in a place they aren't used to being....
> 
> ...



https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

All i can hear is 'Give me your tears lefties' in Borats accent


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656



Everyone has called conservatives radical and hateful... How about you libbies?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/people-have-to-die-anti-trump-protester-calls-for-violence-on-cnn/


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 11, 2016)




----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I just hope they can get back up!
> 
> That was two right hooks from a suped-up boxer, they are in full panic mode right now and I must admit it is interesting to see them in a place they aren't used to being....
> 
> ...


Hell brexit caused britains economic downfall, idk how thats a good thing.

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



el_gonz87 said:


> Everyone has called conservatives radical and hateful... How about you libbies?
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/people-have-to-die-anti-trump-protester-calls-for-violence-on-cnn/


Both are, conservatives are no better than liberals in America.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Everyone has called conservatives radical and hateful... How about you libbies?
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/people-have-to-die-anti-trump-protester-calls-for-violence-on-cnn/



Who did she kill then?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> All i can hear is 'Give me your tears lefties' in Borats accent


All you do is mock how about being actually useful?


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Ay Harambe... Let me start off by saying I'm a big fan of you Aurora, and I respect you and your opinion, you seem like a nice and talented girl/woman (how old are you? just curiosity and no judgement or malice intended).


Thank you, I'm 24.


el_gonz87 said:


> I think the issue is much more complex than people feel and either side of the fence will be hurt and offended with any decision made. I personally believe that LGBT should have the right to choose a bathroom, in fact I wouldn't be opposed to a "gender neutral" bathroom. But I do believe the states opinion should matter in this and it should not be solely decided by those few in Washington.
> 
> xoxo


The issue isn't complex at all: it's based on faulty premises (assumes that some transwomen are actually men trying to assault girls in bathrooms, or that men would fake being trans to do it, but as a matter of fact there are no reports of this "phenomenon" occurring anywhere - and in most western countries you can use the bathroom you want). Conversely, this greatly harms trans people (imagine someone who effectively looks like a woman or a man, and goes to the men/women's bathroom... it's basically an automatic coming out and exposes you to discrimination and harassment on the spot).
A society should protect its citizens and here it's outright discrimination for no advantage. There's no reason why a state should be allowed to do it.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> All you do is mock how about being actually useful?



Stop trying to tell people what to do, your type tried that once and look where it got you.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> Thank you, I'm 24.
> 
> The issue isn't complex at all: it's based on faulty premises (assumes that some transwomen are actually men trying to assault girls in bathrooms, or that men would fake being trans to do it, but as a matter of fact there are no reports of this "phenomenon" occurring anywhere - and in most western countries you can use the bathroom you want). Conversely, this greatly harms trans people (imagine someone who effectively looks like a woman or a man, and goes to the men/women's bathroom... it's basically an automatic coming out and exposes you to discrimination and harassment on the spot).
> A society should protect its citizens and here it's outright discrimination for no advantage. There's no reason why a state should be allowed to do it.


Indeed, are you LGBTQ  by any chance? If so im hoping youre not American. I really couldnt have said that better myself.

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



mech said:


> Stop trying to tell people what to do, your type tried that once and look where it got you.


Honestly what are you talking about? Be useful and put up arguments or at least something to discuss rather than mock anyone who disagrees with you. You literally haven't matured yet have you, write like a pre-pubescent child.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> Stop trying to tell people what to do,* your type* tried that once and look where it got you.





mech said:


> Why should i have any respect for *your type* who doesn't respect our win?


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Indeed, are you LGBTQ  by any chance? If so im hoping youre not American. I really couldnt have said that better myself.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Ahhh the true butthurt is shining through


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


>


Yep, lets not consider people humans, just base them as disgusting monsters because of their political outlook... now that i just wrote that, i dont know if @mech could be more irrational 

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



mech said:


> Ahhh the true butthurt is shining through


Yep we have a troll here (actually i think trolls are more respectable than you), cant come up with arguments so the farage ass licker takes part in ad hominem (as I had just did if IT doesnt know what it means.)


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Yep, lets not consider people humans, just base them as disgusting monsters because of their political outlook... now that i just wrote that, i dont know if @mech could be more irrational
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...




Nice to know we/I won this one too.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Indeed, are you LGBTQ  by any chance? If so im hoping youre not American. I really couldnt have said that better myself.


Yeah, I recently made a post on coming out day. And I'm Italian (Italy isn't any better on these things, sadly) but I have friends there so I'm concerned.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 11, 2016)

"I'm a centrist I see both sides of the argument. Trump is a racist he hates gays!!!!!!!!" When you say these things together, it shows that you have some sort of bias and are only looking from one side and not both.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> Yeah, I recently made a post on coming out day.


Im guessing seeing trump win hurts huh?


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)




----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> "I'm a centrist I see both sides of the argument. Trump is a racist he hates gays!!!!!!!!" When you say these things together, it shows that you have some sort of bias and are only looking from one side and not both.


Well there is evidence for both sides more so one side. I didnt comment on the other side but if that REALLY is him then im not worried for America.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> Thank you, I'm 24.
> 
> The issue isn't complex at all: it's based on faulty premises (assumes that some transwomen are actually men trying to assault girls in bathrooms, or that men would fake being trans to do it, but as a matter of fact there are no reports of this "phenomenon" occurring anywhere - and in most western countries you can use the bathroom you want). Conversely, this greatly harms trans people (imagine someone who effectively looks like a woman or a man, and goes to the men/women's bathroom... it's basically an automatic coming out and exposes you to discrimination and harassment on the spot).
> A society should protect its citizens and here it's outright discrimination for no advantage. There's no reason why a state should be allowed to do it.



I think there is multiple issues most of which are harmful to people of the LGBTQ community, I'll concede here. But Religion is another big issues which plagues this issue, there are religious people who would have to transfer schools or be home schooled if the federal government imposed a law on them. They would also be ridiculed and viewed as extremists because the beliefs which they firmly believe and fight their whole life to live would be ridiculed "if they weren't allowed to use the bathroom".

I believe in LGBTQ rights but there should be considerations taken for example I think a solution is a "gender" neutral bathroom. Something that will provide people with a choice and not force 1 group into the will of another.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> Nice to know we/I won this one too.


Yup, someone is just salty someone has the nerve to not agree with them, im sure you would never say these things in public.


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


>


Eh.. as a person who has family in Mexico and visits them once or twice a year, I don't really think it's racism. The peso is REALLY bad right now.
Sure, things might be cheap for us there, but once you start living in Mexico after a while, things will be quite expensive.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Yup, someone is just salty someone has the nerve to not agree with them, im sure you would never say these things in public.


 You are forgetting our side is the majority, id quite happily view my opinion in public with the other 17+ million people who voted brexit.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I think there is multiple issues most of which are harmful to people of the LGBTQ community, I'll concede here. But Religion is another big issues which plagues this issue, there are religious people who would have to transfer schools or be home schooled if the federal government imposed a law on them. They would also be ridiculed and viewed as extremists because the beliefs which they firmly believe and fight their whole life to live would be ridiculed "if they weren't allowed to use the bathroom".
> 
> I believe in LGBTQ rights but there should be considerations taken for example I think a solution is a "gender" neutral bathroom. Something that will provide people with a choice and not force 1 group into the will of another.


52% of britons arent educated on these matters, people like me (university students, middle class) voted in.

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



mech said:


> You are forgetting our side is the majority, id quite happily view my opinion in public with the other 17+ million people who voted brexit.


Yep the other 17 million who have no understanding of economics.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 11, 2016)

Pachee said:


> I don't know much about US job laws, but what i heard is that it is pretty easy to hire and fire anyone, since your company is your company.
> 
> I think that argument is pretty low since it applies to any worker.


We decided a long time ago that a company that serves the public cannot discriminate in their hiring practices. That puts an undue burden on certain populations who then have a much harder time finding a job compared to the rest of society. In other words, a person's right to not be refused a job because of an immutable characteristic outweighs the right of the company to arbitrarily have bigoted hiring practices.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> 52% of britons arent educated on these matters, people like me (university students, middle class) voted in.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Ah so you are calling them un-educated, so their point of view does not matter.... Maybe they view the issue different than you MATE!


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> 52% of britons arent educated on these matters, people like me (university students, middle class) voted in.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



No understanding? AHAAHA listen to your self, in fact don't..... that's what lost you the vote.  ohhhhhhhh that shits got to sting like a bitch, enjoy living by our rules now kiddo.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Ah so you are calling them un-educated, so their point of view does not matter.... Maybe they view the issue different than you MATE!


Yes based on statistics, yes they might but as i had said they are unable to see the bigger picture.  To me the economy matters most, then everything else, its why i voted conservative twice.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I think there is multiple issues most of which are harmful to people of the LGBTQ community, I'll concede here. But Religion is another big issues which plagues this issue, there are religious people who would have to transfer schools or be home schooled if the federal government imposed a law on them. They would also be ridiculed and viewed as extremists because the beliefs which they firmly believe and fight their whole life to live would be ridiculed "if they weren't allowed to use the bathroom".


This doesn't really make sense. Religious people can practice their religion all they want but can't impose their religion on others by limiting their freedom, especially if their religion orders suffering to these other people.
If a religion said you need to sacrifice animals (as they did in the past) we wouldn't allow people to start killing animals for this, and it's not an imposition, they should just respect the laws and people around them.


el_gonz87 said:


> I believe in LGBTQ rights but there should be considerations taken for example I think a solution is a "gender" neutral bathroom. Something that will provide people with a choice and not force 1 group into the will of another.


Rebuilding all the bathrooms in the country to unisex ones won't happen anytime soon, people can't be made to suffer in the meantime.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> No understanding? AHAAHA listen to your self, in fact don't..... that's what lost you the vote.  ohhhhhhhh that shits got to sting like a bitch, enjoy living by our rules now kiddo.


Nope i dont think you do. We havent seen the FTSE plateau for quite the while. It was on the rise but now its dipped 1%. (which is quite large)


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> 52% of britons *arent* *educated* *on these matters,* *people* *like* *me* (*university students*, middle class) *voted in*.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


There it is folks. He's superior.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> No understanding? AHAAHA listen to your self, in fact don't..... that's what lost you the vote.  ohhhhhhhh that shits got to sting like a bitch, enjoy living by our rules now kiddo.



To be fair, i'm still waiting on the positives that Brexit will bring apart from "no more foreigners"


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> There it is folks. He's superior.


Its true though statistics show that the uneducated voted out and the middle class as well as students voted in.

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



SVNate9 said:


> To be fair, i'm still waiting on the positives that Brexit will bring apart from "no more foreigners"


Wonder how northern Ireland is gonna cope.

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



Gingerbread Crumb said:


> There it is folks. He's superior.


Never said I was superior youre just making assumptions


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Its true though statistics show that the uneducated voted out and the middle class as well as students voted in.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


It looks like you haven't learned anything from University because you say you look at both sides of the argument and you don't even know why Trump or the brexit won. You really can't see that the left has been tainted and is now ruled by the corporations you guys were fighting against.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> There it is folks. He's superior.




You hit the nail on the head there man, hes just another self entitled and delusional knobend.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> This doesn't really make sense. Religious people can practice their religion all they want but can't impose their religion on others by limiting their freedom, especially if their religion orders suffering to these other people.
> If a religion said you need to sacrifice animals (as they did in the past) we wouldn't allow people to start killing animals for this, and it's not an imposition, they should just respect the laws and people around them.
> 
> Rebuilding all the bathrooms in the country to unisex ones won't happen anytime soon, people can't be made to suffer in the meantime.



I think some religions do, I have both LGBTQ friends and friends who are let's say Mormons. According to their interpretation of their particular religion would not allow them to use the same rest room as someone who is LGBTQ, same goes for my Muslim friends. Honestly I wish the world would have been born with the awareness we have today, but the reality is we are not and I feel bad both groups would feel excluded in some way, one of the main things I think is messed up with the world.

However I do not believe Clinton was a good choice or a person who would bring the best for this country because there is a bunch of issues I did not agree with her. I wish we had more moderate republicans and I think you will see the trend continue (hopefully).

At least know you have a friend in me and I support the rights of the LGBTQ and would be the first to campaign and start petitions if injustices are done.

Much love and good vibes sent to you from Kansas!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 11, 2016)

.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> It looks like you haven't learned anything from University because you say you look at both sides of the argument and you don't even know why Trump or the brexit won. You really can't see that the left has been tainted and is now ruled by the corporations you guys were fighting against.


Yeah sure show me evidence, its funny youre trying to look objective but you are quite biased, you and @mech.

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



mech said:


> You hit the nail on the head there man, hes just another self entitled and delusional knobend.


Sure...sure. Believe what you want child.




TotalInsanity4 said:


> .


You and me both.
Edit: just noticed ive jumped from 800 messages to 931, need to stop arguing such stupid arguments.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Yeah sure show me evidence, its funny youre trying to look objective but you are quite biased, you and @mech.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



LOL it's funny, but so are you, you call them un-educated because they don't agree with your view but fail to understand what was important to them that drove them to their vote.

As soon as liberals and conservatives understand both sides make assumptions about the other (mostly negative), we may get to a better place.

FACT is, #BREXIT and #MAGA'd are happening


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> You hit the nail on the head there man, hes just another self entitled and delusional knobend.


Say that to me directly. Now FarageAssLick show me evidence that brexit has done Britain any good?

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



el_gonz87 said:


> LOL it's funny, but so are you, you call them un-educated because they don't agree with your view but fail to understand what was important to them that drove them to their vote.
> 
> As soon as liberals and conservatives understand both sides make assumptions about the other (mostly negative), we may get to a better place.
> 
> FACT is, #BREXIT and #MAGA'd are happening


Look, im saying statistics and it was that the uneducated working class who voted out, what that means is up for debate. Once again conservatards putting things into peoples mouths. America was never a great country.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Say that to me directly. Now FarageAssLick show me evidence that brexit has done Britain any good?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



lol #triggered


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Say that to me directly. Now FarageAssLick show me evidence that brexit has done Britain any good?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



FTFY, the best way to bring people in for a discussion is not to call them "uneducated".



mech said:


> lol #triggered



LOL


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> lol #triggered


Hell yeah im angry im done with your indirect stupidity. now, you have yet to show me evidence so I say youre full of shit.

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



el_gonz87 said:


> FTFY, the best way to bring people in for a discussion is not to call them "uneducated".


Thats what they are though, if youre hurt by that, tough luck. Also its the uneducated and working class. or they might just be both.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Yeah sure show me evidence, its funny youre trying to look objective but you are quite biased, you and @mech.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Are you really that blind. It really makes me sad that you're older than me and you can't see what these people are doing behind our backs. You want proof read all the stuff wikileaks has put up. That's why I'm not left anymore. I've realised that both parties were a ruse until Trump showed up and took over the Republican party and made them lose their shit.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Hell yeah im angry im done with your indirect stupidity. now, you have yet to show me evidence so I say youre full of shit.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


>


http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Hell yeah im angry im done with your indirect stupidity. now, you have yet to show me evidence so I say youre full of shit.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



LOL easy there #brexit, I'm not hurt, and I'm very educated and voted conservative. Look at the breakdown of education. 

For example Trump won on college educated people making >50k. Those are probably some of the smartest people you will mean, but people making <50k are some of the smartest people too.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Are you really that blind. It really makes me sad that you're older than me and you can't see what these people are doing behind our backs. You want proof read all the stuff wikileaks has put up. That's why I'm not left anymore. I've realised that both parties were a ruse until Trump showed up and took over the Republican party and made them lose their shit.


Wikileaks has an agenda i wouldnt trust them.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Wikileaks has an agenda i wouldnt trust them.



LOL Clinton has an agenda, any State Secretary that hosts a private server and then has her attorneys plead the fifth while bleaching 30k e-mails?.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> LOL easy there #brexit, I'm not hurt, and I'm very educated and voted conservative. Look at the breakdown of education.
> 
> For example Trump won on college educated people making >50k. Those are probably some of the smartest people you will mean, but people making <50k are some of the smartest people too.


50k? Thats very little in the grand scheme of things, im guessing Hillary got more? As for brexit, http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> There it is folks. He's superior.


I wouldn't say all brexiters are bad people, for sure some of them have racist prejudices (those who voted to stop immigration because they think it disrupts the economy, which is false and it's actually the opposite), some others are gullible because they believed the "EU steals money we could use for the NHS" crap which was a blatant lie (and it was admitted by the very same people who made it up).


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Wikileaks has an agenda i wouldnt trust them.


Did you really just say that after putting a huffpost link and saying you read te guardian. I'm done you're a fool. No hay peor ciego que el que no quire mirar.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> LOL Clinton has an agenda, any State Secretary that hosts a private server and then has her attorneys plead the fifth while bleaching 30k e-mails?.


And how many of those emails were actually threatening? Also i never said i liked Clinton but I would still choose her over Trump. Its quite ironic Trump won by using the very thing he despises, the electoral college.

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



Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Did you really just say that after putting a huffpost link and saying you read te guardian. I'm done you're a fool. No hay peor ciego que el que no quire mirar.


The guardian is pretty objective, you mustve never read my reasoning for the huffpost link.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> Did you really just say that after putting a huffpost link and saying you read te guardian. I'm done you're a fool. No hay peor ciego que el que no quire mirar.



LOL ^5 high five man.... owned.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> 50k? Thats very little in the grand scheme of things, im guessing Hillary got more? As for brexit, http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/



I meant income. And he won by a pretty good majority, these are people who have been in the workforce for an average of about 15 years... There is some motivation behind college students wanting Clinton you know... She was offering to repay back college debt.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> And how many of those emails were actually threatening? Also i never said i liked Clinton but I would still choose her over Trump. Its quite ironic Trump won by using the very thing he despises, the electoral college..



We will never know what the 30k e-mails contain... FACT

#BREXIT #MAGA'd


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> I meant income. And he won by a pretty good majority, these are people who have been in the workforce for an average of about 15 years... There is some motivation behind college students wanting Clinton you know... She was offering to repay back college debt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Theres no way those emails are 100% gone.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Nov 11, 2016)

mech said:


> LOL ^5 high five man.... owned.


^5 I really wanted him to be open minded like he said he is, he's a lost cause though.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Theres no way those emails are 100% gone.



IF Trump holds true to his word and has a special prosecutor that doesn't meet with Bill for an hour before a decision is made.... We may just find out.

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> ^5 I really wanted him to be open minded like he said he is, he's a lost cause though.


yep keep talking indirect, blocked. Did you not read my reasoning for my huffpost link?


----------



## Pachee (Nov 11, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> To be fair, i'm still waiting on the positives that Brexit will bring apart from "no more foreigners"


Seems that food will get cheaper and will benefit some poorer countries that will now be able to export to UK.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Pachee said:


> Seems that food will get cheaper and will benefit some poorer countries that will now be able to export to UK.



Its not a valid point until a libbie says it....


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Its not a valid point until a libbie says it....


Well, it is.

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



Pachee said:


> Seems that food will get cheaper and will benefit some poorer countries that will now be able to export to UK.


Food cheaper for Britons? i doubt it. Definitely will benefit the EU in terms of export.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Nov 11, 2016)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Also, Nazi Germany was bad, but not nearly as bad as what America is now, or will ever be. Do your research kids, before you start spamming shit, without providing evidence or anything to back up your claims (with valid sources).


Are you trolling? Compared to Nazi Germany, america as it is now or will be in the next four years is pure paradise.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Its not a valid point until a libbie says it....


lefties this, lefties that. *yawn*



Pachee said:


> Seems that food will get cheaper and will benefit some poorer countries that will now be able to export to UK.



I hope you're right as my shopping bill has gone up, people are recommending to shop at Aldi & Lidl which is just lol considering it's a German supermarket.

edit. sp


----------



## Futurdreamz (Nov 11, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> Are you trolling? Compared to Nazi Germany, america as it is now or will be in the next four years is pure paradise.


Tbh it's kind of a tossup. Nazi Germany didn't have mass shootings or most of the nasty shit that is happening to the states now. The government was brutal, but efficient at ensuring the people behaved. Compared to the US now? If I'm in the wrong place in USA I could be killed on the spot.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> lefties this, lefties that. *yawn*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It seems to be quite an us vs them situation when it isnt all that clear cut.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> Are you trolling? Compared to Nazi Germany, america as it is now or will be in the next four years is pure paradise.



Not surprised one bit by these posts when you have CNN saying Trump will be like a dictator after the "you'd be in jail" comment.

DNC has taken the panic level to never before seen heights, heck this is as bad as the republicans trying to ban refugees saying all are terrorist, but people compare Trump to Hitler LOL!


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 11, 2016)

Probably be a lot of 180s in this thread, if Hillary or another democrat won instead. Then again, not to throw all conservatives under a bus, but a lot of them seem to mock rather they win or lose.

Obama has got similar comments, such as being a dictator. So, that is on both sides. 

As for transgenders, while they shouldn't be discriminated against, I don't think the bathroom issue is as black and white.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Not surprised one bit by these posts when you have CNN saying Trump will be like a dictator after the "you'd be in jail" comment.
> 
> DNC has taken the panic level to never before seen heights, heck this is as bad as the republicans trying to ban refugees saying all are terrorist, but people compare Trump to Hitler LOL!



Silvio Berlusconi is perhaps the more apt comparison


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

The value of the pound crumbled, it's worth less than euro at the moment (by a large margin). How is a weaker currency supposed to make food get cheaper? People's buying power diminished a lot, imports are more expensive.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Not surprised one bit by these posts when you have CNN saying Trump will be like a dictator after the "you'd be in jail" comment.
> 
> DNC has taken the panic level to never before seen heights, heck this is as bad as the republicans trying to ban refugees saying all are terrorist, but people compare Trump to Hitler LOL!


Hitler is a monster. Trump is just a bully.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> The value of the pound crumbled, it's worth less than euro at the moment (by a large margin). How is a weaker currency supposed to make food get cheaper? People's buying power diminished a lot, imports are more expensive.


hell yeah, it is recovering though.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> Silvio Berlusconi is perhaps the more apt comparison


This, lol. Sexist jokes, xenophobia, failed businessman who promises to make you wealthier (who got super rich after almost 20 years in power thanks to ad personam laws and stuff, we'll see if it has the same effect on Trump XD).


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> This, lol. Sexist jokes, xenophobia, failed businessman who promises to make you wealthier (who got super rich after almost 20 years in power thanks to ad personam laws and stuff, we'll see if it has the same effect on Trump XD).





Aurora Wright said:


> The value of the pound crumbled, it's worth less than euro at the moment (by a large margin). How is a weaker currency supposed to make food get cheaper? People's buying power diminished a lot, imports are more expensive.



Give it time, give it time, we will see where this new direction takes Britain. The good thing is nothing lasts forever so if it was a bad choice people will have a chance to make amends...

Same goes for America, right now I'm excited and hopeful of our future and pray we made the right choice.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Give it time, give it time, we will see where this new direction takes Britain. The good thing is nothing lasts forever so if it was a bad choice people will have a chance to make amends...
> 
> Same goes for America, right now I'm excited and hopeful of our future and pray we made the right choice.


its been on on the up and down for the past 5 months, mostly down.


----------



## Pachee (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> The value of the pound crumbled, it's worth less than euro at the moment (by a large margin). How is a weaker currency supposed to make food get cheaper? People's buying power diminished a lot, imports are more expensive.





TheDarkGreninja said:


> hell yeah, it is recovering though.



Weaker or not, both currencies are extremely overvalued. You guys can buy anything from any country for dirty cheap.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Pachee said:


> Weaker or not, both currencies are extremely overvalued. You guys can buy anything from any country for dirty cheap.


Not really, we have to pay import tax so its not as cheap as you make it out to be and once we leave the EU import tax will be even higher.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> pray we made the right choice.


That is pretty much all we can do now.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

KingVamp said:


> That is pretty much all we can do now.


yup, uncertainty sucks, taking chances sucks. But humans are stubborn and we like gambling so we'll see.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

Let's all take a minute and applaud the glass ceiling finally being broken in this election!

Let me introduce Kellyanne Conway, First Woman To Run A Successful Presidential Campaign:






*A true, honest, and hardworking champion for all women!!! Congrats to you Kelyanne, equality suits you well! BRAVO! 

#MAGA'D*


----------



## Pachee (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Not really, we have to pay import tax so its not as cheap as you make it out to be and once we leave the EU import tax will be even higher.


https://www.dutycalculator.com/coun...taxes-when-importing-into-the-United-Kingdom/
Using this as base, lets pretend it goes to 80%. Even if it is that high, the British pound is usually 2 to 5 (or more in extreme cases) times more valued than most third world country's currency.



el_gonz87 said:


> Let me introduce Kellyanne Conway, First Woman To Run A Successful Presidential Campaign:
> *A true, honest, and hardworking champion for all women!!! Congrats to you Kelyyanne, equality suits you well! BRAVO!*


She deserves a medal for electing the most publicity unstable, unlikable candidate even after the Liberal media played their rape card.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Pachee said:


> https://www.dutycalculator.com/coun...taxes-when-importing-into-the-United-Kingdom/
> Using this as base, lets pretend it goes to 80%. Even if it is that high, the British pound is usually 2 to 5 (or more in extreme cases) times more valued than most third world country's currency.


but why compare it to the third world? most of the things we import come from Europe, Japan or China.


----------



## Dav_Dabz (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> but why compare it to the third world? most of the things we import come from Europe, Japan or China.


Because most produce i'm assuming comes from the third world Countries like the Caribbean.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> but why compare it to the third world? most of the things we import come from Europe, Japan or China.


There's always a way to say something bad differently to make it look good.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Aurora Wright said:


> There's always a way to say something bad differently to make it look good.


pretty much yeah xD

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



Dav_Dabz said:


> Because most produce i'm assuming comes from the third world Countries like the Caribbean.


The only thing i can think of is pineapples. They usually come from a third world country, apples and oranges are usually not imported, grapes will come from poland or spain.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

In the spirit of solidarity with my libs, I will admit Hillary made a big contribution to children:


Spoiler: Hillary Helps Kids!











There fixed it for your Brittish humor, she made a loit of Children in London happy!


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 11, 2016)

I appreciate the mods not closing this thread, even though it's mainly just back and forth arguing. It's fun to learn about why people think the way they do. Even if it consist of really bad logic, knowing that logic exist helps.

That said, I'm not sure if Trump's vice president is worse than him or not. Whereas trump says whatever he thinks would be received well in that given moment, Pence is just...well, he's umm...consistent is the only positive thing I can say about that human.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> In the spirit of solidarity with my libs, I will admit Hillary made a big contribution to children:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Hillary Helps Kids!


yeah... thats not funny.

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



osaka35 said:


> I appreciate the mods not closing this thread, even though it's mainly just back and forth arguing. It's fun to learn about why people think the way they do. Even if it consist of really bad logic, knowing that logic exist helps.
> 
> That said, I'm not sure if Trump's vice president is worse than him or not. Whereas trump says whatever he thinks would be received well in that given moment, Pence is just...well, he's umm...consistent is the only positive thing I can say about that human.


Pence is much better than trump at least we know where he stands on every concept conceivable.... even if he hates gays and says evolution is bullshit.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 11, 2016)

For the love of god, will everybody please stop using hashtags?! This is not twitter.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> For the love of god, will everybody please stop using hashtags?! This is not twitter.


IKR xD so useless indeed.

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

Was thinking about this, if trump really does become insanely protective in terms of trade, it wont help America too much but itll be great for everyone else since thats a massive market losing a lot of market share for other countries to make use of.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 11, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> And when did Trump do any of that? Do tell.



Having Pence as his VP basically does that but yeah, just saying.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> Having Pence as his VP basically does that but yeah, just saying.


Pence is a mediocre guy if he really is pulling the strings, generally things wont be bad buuut LGBTQ people and other minorities will have to bare the brunt of the trump train


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> yeah... thats not funny.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Fixed it for ya. Are you from Liverpool?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Fixed it for ya. Are you from Liverpool?


Nope born in London and have lived here 24 years.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Pence is a mediocre guy if he really is pulling the strings, generally things wont be bad buuut LGBTQ people and other minorities will have to bare the brunt of the trump train



That statement alone is a bunch of bullshit! Why should innocent people of non cis white groups have to deal with the wrath of bigoted people?? We are like every other good citizen in this damn country. We wake up, work hard, take are of our families, respect our neighbors and repeat. We are tired of being shitted on because a vocal minority is so damn scared of people who don't look, act or believe in the zombie Jesus in the way that they do.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> That statement alone is a bunch of bullshit! Why should innocent people of non cis white groups have to deal with the wrath of bigoted people. We are like every other good citizen in this damn country. We wake up, work hard, take are of our families, respect our neighbors and repeat. We are tired of being shitted on because a vocal minority is so damn scared of people who don't look, act or believe in the zombie Jesus in the way that they do.


Sorry man its life. Not that I agree with it.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> That statement alone is a bunch of bullshit! Why should innocent people of non cis white groups have to deal with the wrath of bigoted people. We are like every other good citizen in this damn country. We wake up, work hard, take are of our families, respect our neighbors and repeat. We are tired of being shitted on because a vocal minority is so damn scared of people who don't look, act or believe in the zombie Jesus in the way that they do.



Hahahaha now we are calling Pence racist??? I'll cede that his christian values (however misinterpreted) does not agree with LGBTQ marriage and bathroom rights. In reality he just wants to send it back to the states but not part of this discussion. Please show me a racist comment of his?


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Sorry man its life. Not that I agree with it.



It DOESN'T have to be life. People keept accepting bullshit and that is why we can't make progress.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Hahahaha now we are calling Pence racist??? I'll cede that his christian values (however misinterpreted) does not agree with LGBTQ marriage and bathroom rights. In reality he just wants to send it back to the states but not part of this discussion. Please show me a racist comment of his?


hes not saying Pence is racist rather he doesnt allow minorities to live the way they want to.

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



LightyKD said:


> It DOESN'T have to be life. People meet accepting bullshit and that is why we can't make progress.


You are a kind of person that I like, people like you make me hopeful about this pessimistic world.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Hahahaha now we are calling Pence racist??? I'll cede that his christian values (however misinterpreted) does not agree with LGBTQ marriage and bathroom rights. In reality he just wants to send it back to the states but not part of this discussion. Please show me a racist comment of his?


That statent wasn't solely on Pence. I don't pretend to know his views on racial issues. That being said, what I said is a true statement and needs to be asked of people too damn afraid to see things from the view of others.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> hes not saying Pence is racist rather he doesnt allow minorities to live the way they want to.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



He's implying by this statement "Why should innocent people of non cis white groups have to deal with the wrath of bigoted people", Pence will have wrath on non-whites.



LightyKD said:


> That statent wasn't solely on Pence. I don't pretend to know his views on racial issues. That being said, what I said is a true statement and needs to be asked of people too damn afraid to see things from the view of others.



Fair enough there is bigoted people in RNC. But the majority are good people who want what's best for the country. This notion that we are going back to the civil rights days is a bit extreme, if that was a bad assumption of your post, then my apologies.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> He's implying by this statement "Why should innocent people of non cis white groups have to deal with the wrath of bigoted people", Pence will have wrath on non-whites.


well tbh he will. He doesnt agree with anything modern.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

LightyKD said:


> That statent wasn't solely on Pence. I don't pretend to know his views on racial issues. That being said, what I said is a true statement and needs to be asked of people too damn afraid to see things from the view of others.





TheDarkGreninja said:


> well tbh he will. He doesnt agree with anything modern.




One of the many reasons I'm glad we have a constitution and a judicial system that will prevent outrageous things from happening. The worst I see is the following and I don't think likely:

1) Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage will be reverse and shipped back to the states
2) Obamacare gutted till the point an alternate solution is found
3) The US reducing the refugee numbers and implementing extreme vetting

The #3 is extreme, but again without a super majority it is prob not gonna happen. 1-2 prob will over time, but again does that make them fascists? Yikes!

Edit: I guess you could add cutting fund to planned parenthood to that list, but again this will prob go down to the state legislature to keep the programs in their state going.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> One of the many reasons I'm glad we have a constitution and a judicial system that will prevent outrageous things from happening. The worst I see is the following and I don't think likely:
> 
> 1) Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage will be reverse and shipped back to the states
> 2) Obamacare gutted till the point an alternate solution is found
> ...


Well trump has done things that would go under fascism a few times like "lets ban muslims!" or "Lets build a wall!", the wall is just objectively stupid


----------



## emigre (Nov 11, 2016)

I've spent some time reading about the electoral college electoral system. And wow, that is a laughably illogical electoral system. I don't understand why no one has seriously proposed a switch to something like the Alternative Vote. AV makes much more sense for a presidential system.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> We will never know what the 30k e-mails contain... FACT


But... they're there... on WikiLeaks...


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Well trump has done things that would go under fascism a few times like "lets ban muslims!" or "Lets build a wall!", the wall is just objectively stupid



again, both hard to pass without a "super" majority in congress. The only thing in jeopardy is the Obama legacy, he will prob spend most his time un-doing some of his bad decisions.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> again, both hard to pass without a "super" majority in congress. The only thing in jeopardy is the Obama legacy, he will prob spend most his time un-doing some of his bad decisions.


Obamacare needs fixing not removal. Or you guys do what we brits have done..


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> But... they're there... on WikiLeaks...



Nah, Crooked Hillary did a good job of bleaching those. You know what she did LOL



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Obamacare needs *replacement* not removal. Or you guys do what we brits have done..



FTFY


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Nah, Crooked Hillary did a good job of bleaching those. You know what she did LOL


I... can't say I do?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Nah, Crooked Hillary did a good job of bleaching those. You know what she did LOL


As much as you hate hillary you have to admit some of her achievements are unprecedented for example, a ceasefire between palestine and Israel? Thats like making oil and water mix.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> As much as you hate hillary you have to admit some of her achievements are unprecedented for example, a ceasefire between palestine and Israel? Thats like making oil and water mix.



She's had her moments, but she had no business running this country, and I could not be more glad she's not my president.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 11, 2016)

emigre said:


> I've spent some time reading about the electoral college electoral system. And wow, that is a laughably illogical electoral system. I don't understand why no one has seriously proposed a switch to something like the Alternative Vote. AV makes much more sense for a presidential system.


Because of the fact that 


Normally the popular vote winner is the EC winner
Most of the supporters of the movement currently are Left leaning
It would lower the impact of states like Florida and Ohio while making Texas and California key


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> She's had her moments, but she had no business running this country, and I could not be more glad she's not my president.


i honestly have no clue why people have issues with her.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> i honestly have no clue why people have issues with her.



Because of the e-mail scandal, because of Benghazi, because of the Clinton foundation ties and how she leveraged that in office, because she called Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", because she called Bernie supporters "children of the Great ... And they are living in their parents' basement", because of how her campaign treated Bernie dirty, etc......... ETC....

Look around and you shall see.


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> i honestly have no clue why people have issues with her.





Spoiler: Pictures














I dunno, I kinda don't want a corrupt government running the place.


Spoiler: Videos








Edit: Say all you want about these not being reliable sources, all these things have been proven fact. Just do some research.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> Spoiler: Pictures
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Credible evidence please


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

Shes as bent as they come.


----------



## emigre (Nov 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Because of the fact that
> 
> 
> Normally the popular vote winner is the EC winner
> ...



1. An electoral system which can allow someone who does not have at least the popular vote to 'win' is flawed particularly in a presidential. Presidential elections are usually hard to fuck up. You usually get this issue in pariliamentary systems which uses majoritarian systems.
2. Don;t mean shit. A bad electoral system is a bad electoral systems regardless of political affiliation. Though it is understandable to for Dems to feel that way as the Democrats have won the popular vote in every Presidential election since 92 apart from Bush's reelection. 
3. All votes would become equal in importance. If you live in a deep red/blue state and vote the other way, than your votes really counts for shit.


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Credible evidence please


*sighs* Someone didn't read my edit. Is it really the difficult to use Google? The first result you'll get when you start typing "Hillary" is: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Anyways, here's some credible sources:
http://louderwithcrowder.com/7-undeniable-reasons-you-can-not-vote-hillary-clinton/
http://theweek.com/articles/659581/hillary-clinton-terrible-horrible-no-good-bad-president
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/6/hillary-clintons-worst-ideas-on-the-economy/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/o...illary-clintons-bad-promise-on-debt.html?_r=0

I'm not really pro-Trump, I was just anti-Hillary. Especially after she and the DNC rigged the primaries to make Bernie Sanders lose. Someone who rigged our only chance for a better future will not get my support.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

@el_gonz87 I wanted to talk about this with you but it seemed that topics kept changing so by the time i wanted to as it became quite off topic, so what do you think about younger voters (18-24) being more liberal than conservative? Do you think the future of the free world is fucked because by the time these young people grow up and take power the country will be left? Because I am without a doubt sure the left will be the future for a lot of nations.

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



Supster131 said:


> *sighs* Someone didn't read my edit. Is it really the difficult to use Google? The first result you'll get when you start typing "Hillary" is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hell yeah, I really liked Sanders, had a great economical plan and a great social plan. But it wasnt really rigged.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> @el_gonz87 I wanted to talk about this with you but it seemed that topics kept changing so by the time i wanted to as it became quite off topic, so what do you think about younger voters (18-24) being more liberal than conservative? Do you think the future of the free world is fucked because by the time these young people grow up and take power the country will be left? Because I am without a doubt sure the left will be the future for a lot of nations.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Nah when they get to the when their brains develop fully and understand the real world they will change their views and vote accordingly.


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Hell yeah, I really liked Sanders, had a great economical plan and a great social plan. But it wasnt really rigged.


I loved the guy, but they were rigged. Once again, please do your research:
http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/
http://leecamp.net/breaking-dnc-lawyers-admit-the-dnc-rigged-the-primary-against-bernie-sanders/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...inton-democrats-primary-results-a7408451.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/h...-sham-meetings-make-primary-look-less-rigged/


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> @el_gonz87 I wanted to talk about this with you but it seemed that topics kept changing so by the time i wanted to as it became quite off topic, so what do you think about younger voters (18-24) being more liberal than conservative? Do you think the future of the free world is fucked because by the time these young people grow up and take power the country will be left? Because I am without a doubt sure the left will be the future for a lot of nations.



Hmmm now that is tough to answer. Similar results happened in 2004 and 2008 where the younger demographic was swaying left. We are now 12 and 8 years removed from that and you have seen a bit of a conservative shift in that same demographic of those times. I think as people get older and accumulate wealth and families, we as humans have an element of "protectionism" for whatever wrong or right reasons.

The RNC is more appealing as one accumulates wealth because they are more fiscally conservative and provide incentives to big business which in some instances trickles down to employees.

I think there will be a shift in younger people as they get out of school and accumulate wealth and families. Also in the states most schools are liberal arts schools, so they do introduce a bit of bias, once people leave that environment they will follow their own path and we will regress to the mean.

I fully expect the RNC to drop in 8 years, and we will be on the left side again, that is part of the beauty of this country.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> I loved the guy, but they were rigged. Once again, please do your research:
> http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/
> http://leecamp.net/breaking-dnc-lawyers-admit-the-dnc-rigged-the-primary-against-bernie-sanders/
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...inton-democrats-primary-results-a7408451.html
> http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/h...-sham-meetings-make-primary-look-less-rigged/


but have you read them? They seem to show definite dislike but no evidence of rigging.

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



mech said:


> Nah when they get to the when their brains develop fully and understand the real world they will change their views and vote accordingly.


Wow you seriously think they arent intelligent? Well pretty much anyone from18-30 sways left in the UK

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



el_gonz87 said:


> Hmmm now that is tough to answer. Similar results happened in 2004 and 2008 where the younger demographic was swaying left. We are now 12 and 8 years removed from that and you have seen a bit of a conservative shift in that same demographic of those times. I think as people get older and accumulate wealth and families, we as humans have an element of "protectionism" for whatever wrong or right reasons.
> 
> The RNC is more appealing as one accumulates wealth because they are more fiscally conservative and provide incentives to big business which in some instances trickles down to employees.
> 
> ...


The shift to left is definitely increasing a 10% increase year on year for young people, remember younger people arent all that traditionalist, I sure as hell am not.


----------



## Supster131 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> but have you read them? They seem to show definite dislike but no evidence of rigging.


What the hell do you mean no evidence '_>'
Also wow, you read them *quite* fast.

Anyways, feel free to do your own research since it seems like the proof I have provided isn't suffice. If you still can't accept the facts, then I think I'll be done here.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> but have you read them? They seem to show definite dislike but no evidence of rigging.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...




Wont make a difference to brexit, that's here to stay


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> but have you read them? They seem to show definite dislike but no evidence of rigging.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Yeah I think it's a pendulum, and it's a shame because this election was negative to the extreme even in the primaries. My side won this time and I think/hope they will again in 4 years, after that I fully expect a swing back to a democratic president.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> What the hell do you mean no evidence '_>'
> Also wow, you read them *quite* fast.
> 
> Anyways, feel free to do your own research since it seems like the proof I have provided wont suffice. If you still can't accept the facts, then I think I'll be done here.


Oh no, i read them quite a while back. rigging wasnt as direct as you imply it to be, quite indirect but yes there was suppression 

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



mech said:


> Wont make a difference to brexit, that's here to stay


nope it wont, but it will make a difference to the future of our country.

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



el_gonz87 said:


> Yeah I think it's a pendulum, and it's a shame because this election was negative to the extreme even in the primaries. My side won this time and I think/hope they will again in 4 years, after that I fully expect a swing back to a democratic president.


Right now i see a move to right for the next 6 years and a shift back to left after.


----------



## RevPokemon (Nov 11, 2016)

emigre said:


> 1. An electoral system which can allow someone who does not have at least the popular vote to 'win' is flawed particularly in a presidential. Presidential elections are usually hard to fuck up. You usually get this issue in pariliamentary systems which uses majoritarian systems.


Before I respond I must say that I agree that the EC is a flawed system.

I do agree but the fact that it is something that rarely occurs makes it something that most people do not feel the overwhelming need to change. Although I agrre with you



emigre said:


> 2. Don;t mean shit. A bad electoral system is a bad electoral systems regardless of political affiliation. Though it is understandable to for Dems to feel that way as the Democrats have won the popular vote in every Presidential election since 92 apart from Bush's reelection.


It actually does matter since the only way that we could get rid of the electoral college would be through bipartisan support that currently does not exist.



emigre said:


> 3. All votes would become equal in importance. If you live in a deep red/blue state and vote the other way, than your votes really counts for shit.


The issues for the states is that they would lose power and instead campaigns would be more likely to encourage deep red/blue areas to vote rather than focus on places where they could not get the votes in the amounts they need.

That being said I have to say that I agree with you but am just playing devil's advocate.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Before I respond I must say that I agree that the EC is a flawed system.
> 
> I do agree but the fact that it is something that rarely occurs makes it something that most people do not feel the overwhelming need to change. Although I agrre with you
> 
> ...



It would require much more than a bipartisan support, getting rid of it requires a constitutional amendment:
1) Two-thirds vote in Senate
2) Two-thirds vote in House
3) Ratification of three-fourths (38) of the 50 states.

Good luck getting 3 to happen!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> It would require much more than a bipartisan support, getting rid of it requires a constitutional amendment:
> 1) Two-thirds vote in Senate
> 2) Two-thirds vote in House
> 3) Ratification of three-fourths (38) of the 50 states.
> ...


jheez so to fix irrational ideas you have to do the most illogical things


----------



## Viri (Nov 11, 2016)

Spoiler












Thank god we live in a republic.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> jheez so to fix irrational ideas you have to do the most illogical things



Not sure why you think it's illogical, our constitution was specifically designed to be very very difficult to change. It would prevent people like you presume of Trump from removing someone's right to free speech per say.

As stated earlier the college was designed to balance state and federal power, all the while keeping the parties revolving in and out of power so 1 rule doesn't' overwhelm the minority.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Not sure why you think it's irrational, our constitution was specifically designed to be very very difficult to change. It would prevent people like you presume of Trump from removing someone's right to free speech per say.
> 
> As stated earlier the college was designed to balance state and federal power, all the while keeping the parties revolving in and out of power so 1 rule doesn't' overwhelm the minority.



I'd much rather have one good party than multiple bad ones and like one good one


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'd much rather have one good party than multiple bad ones and like one good one



Our forefathers, and I fully agree with them, understood that "good" is a point a view in time and not generalize-able to a whole population.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Our forefathers, and I fully agree with them, understood that "good" is a point a view in time and not generalize-able to a whole population.


well it is if its the majority including minority support.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> well it is if its the majority including minority support.



If 47.4% of the population thought a govt is "bad", is it healthy and fair for them to be ruled in perpetuity?

I don't think that would be best for the country regardless of who it was.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> If 47.4% of the population thought a govt is "bad", is it healthy and fair for them to be ruled in perpetuity?


No, thats why campaigning exists you persuade people, it makes parties want to persuade and compete rather than stagnate.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> No, thats why campaigning exists you persuade people, it makes parties want to persuade and compete rather than stagnate.



Why campaign to the minority when one already holds the support of the majority? trust me it would be much easier to just focus on keeping 51% of the country happy.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Why campaign to the minority when one already holds the support of the majority? trust me it would be much easier to just focus on keeping 51% of the country happy.


Nope, it would be other parties getting the minorities as well as the main vote or at least 15% of it. This works well in the UK so i see no issues.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Nope, it would be other parties getting the minorities as well as the main vote or at least 15% of it. This works well in the UK so i see no issues.



Well this works well in the US, so I don't see why it should change. Obama lost the primaries to Hillary in 08 and yet here we are...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'd much rather have one good party than multiple bad ones and like one good one


Careful, that's actually a fascist ideal


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 11, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Careful, that's actually a fascist ideal


So what you're saying is that the Soviet Union was actually fascist?


----------



## ground (Nov 11, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Well this works well in the US, so I don't see why it should change. Obama lost the primaries to Hillary in 08 and yet here we are...


I am not attacking you in any way, but if i see the reactions to this elections and the fact that NEITHER of the cadidates got over 50% of the total votes (so whoever it would have been, the majority of the usa would not have supporrted him/her), i think their might be room for inprovement.

That being sad i have been living in the usa for a couple of years now. Both parties fought a disgusting and awfull campaign (where a lot of money is simply lost on shaming each other and making the public afraid). The way the democratic candidate was "choosen" was rigged and the corruption in it was enormous. This is all agains democracy what america values so much, so Hillary simply had to go down to prevent such practices and worse in the future. And the history of hillary did not help neither (She bought all the media, she had the current president with her, she had all the money, and she still lost from trump...if that happens you really have to be a bad candidate)

Trump on the other hand is not the answer, it is simply awfull that people need to be afraid and feel unequal because of their sexual preference, sex, wanna be sex or skin color and if a single person can create these feelings within people he/she seriously has to ask himself if he is a good fit for presidency.

All that being said i hope that Trump is not a bad as a president as people say now (dont forgot they spend millions on terrifying the public for trump, even wikileaks now leaked all the media involved with it), and if he is that bad the DNC has 2 years to fix itself (starting by getting rid of everybody involved in the hillary campaing) and present a good candidate who actually represents the people, and then kick trump out of the white house.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 12, 2016)

ground said:


> I am not attacking you in any way, but if i see the reactions to this elections and the fact that NEITHER of the cadidates got over 50% of the total votes (so whoever it would have been, the majority of the usa would not have supporrted him/her), i think their might be room for inprovement.
> 
> That being sad i have been living in the usa for a couple of years now. Both parties fought a disgusting and awfull campaign (where a lot of money is simply lost on shaming each other and making the public afraid). The way the democratic candidate was "choosen" was rigged and the corruption in it was enormous. This is all agains democracy what america values so much, so Hillary simply had to go down to prevent such practices and worse in the future. And the history of hillary did not help neither (She bought all the media, she had the current president with her, she had all the money, and she still lost from trump...if that happens you really have to be a bad candidate)
> 
> ...



I agree with most of what you said, but I do believe the "fear" has been media induced and blown out of proportion. Trump is not a King, not a Dictator, and we don't live in a totalitarian government as much as CNN likes to make us think we do. The MOST he will be able to do is repeal some laws that have granted people at the federal level certain rights and send those back to state and circuit courts.


----------



## Engert (Nov 12, 2016)

The oceans levels have risen 3 feet from liberal's tears alone in the last two days. 
We expect america to sink in a month. 

Rip.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 12, 2016)

Engert said:


> The oceans levels have risen 3 feet from liberal's tears alone in the last two days.
> We expect america to sink in a month.
> 
> Rip.



The global climate change deniers that exist in droves within the Republican Party will no doubt play their part too.


----------



## Engert (Nov 12, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> The global climate change deniers that exist in droves within the Republican Party will no doubt play their part too.



This post rose the level another half an inch. 

Rip.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 12, 2016)

#notmypresident


----------



## Engert (Nov 12, 2016)

^ hahaha
You guys are great.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 12, 2016)




----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 12, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> #notmypresident


You're in the UK, he wouldn't be anyway.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 12, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> You're in the UK, he wouldn't be anyway.



Exactly, it's meant to be ironic.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 12, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> Exactly, it's meant to be ironic.


"Ironically" posting something is still posting something, especially when there's no joking context given to the post.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Nov 12, 2016)

emigre said:


> 1. An electoral system which can allow someone who does not have at least the popular vote to 'win' is flawed particularly in a presidential. Presidential elections are usually hard to fuck up. You usually get this issue in pariliamentary systems which uses majoritarian systems.
> 2. Don;t mean shit. A bad electoral system is a bad electoral systems regardless of political affiliation. Though it is understandable to for Dems to feel that way as the Democrats have won the popular vote in every Presidential election since 92 apart from Bush's reelection.
> 3. All votes would become equal in importance. If you live in a deep red/blue state and vote the other way, than your votes really counts for shit.


I like how any system you personally disagree with is automatically 'bad' or 'flawed'. It's almost like you have no idea of the point of non-proportional voting systems in the first place. 

In Australia, each of our states has an equal number of Senators, which are elected proportionally on a per-state basis (as opposed to proportionally on a national level), so that if the more populous states like Victoria or NSW vote a certain way, their interests won't overrule those who live in WA, Tasmania or Queensland just because there are fewer people in those states. 

It sounds like you want a system that allows 51% of the population to rule over the other 49% on every issue, as opposed to different interests and ways of life (which often have a geographical basis) being respected and defended. I don't want farmers and our agricultural sector to be screwed over just because there are more people in Melbourne and Sydney, and those people happen to have no idea how farmers live. Just because farmers are fewer in number than urbanites doesn't mean they should be denied their voice. 

This applies to the US Presidential Election as well: US States are culturally, historically and politically distinct, far more so than Australian states, and the states with smaller populations shouldn't be denied their voice either. 

I agree that the Electoral College isn't a perfect system (though Electoral College votes are somewhat normalised by population anyway), and I believe that we should cut out the 'middle men' that are the Electors themselves, but the notion of having a system based on voters by state rather than a nationally proportional one is a good thing, in my view.

So to all those people whining about "muh popular vote", remember that Shillary won the popular vote to Obama in the 2008 primary but got fewer delegates.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 12, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> "Ironically" posting something is still posting something.



You don't say


----------



## Engert (Nov 12, 2016)

Hey serious question, what happened to Lacious?

I hope he didn't slit his wrists because we always need the village idiot/troll to play the role of the all-knowing king.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 12, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> #notmypresident


You know, if your going to write stupid posts like this, atleast try to make them funnier. I've seen better


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 12, 2016)

VinLark said:


> You know, if your going to write stupid posts like this, atleast try to make them funnier. I've seen better




.
lol


----------



## Viri (Nov 12, 2016)

Engert said:


> Hey serious question, what happened to Lacious?
> 
> I hope he didn't slit his wrists because we always need the village idiot/troll to play the role of the all-knowing king.


He's grieving, he won't show or admit it. He deleted my post on his profile, which made me laugh pretty damn hard.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 12, 2016)

Viri said:


> He's grieving, he won't show or admit it. He deleted my post on his profile, which made me laugh pretty damn hard.


Yeah, I posted "Can't stump the trump" and he deleted it like 10 minutes late lmao. 

Trump's Salt Mining Inc.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 12, 2016)

I think i'm just going to leave before saying something I might regret... 

Adios GBAtemp


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 12, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> Adios GBAtemp


We won't miss you.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 12, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> I think i'm just going to leave before saying something I might regret...
> 
> Adios GBAtemp


You can stop being so passive aggressive and say what you might regret lmao. 

Byebye, I don't like shitposters like you.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 12, 2016)

Ban my account Admin, byebye


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 12, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> You and what army?


I don't think you're old enough to be here. I said stop being so passive aggressive and say "what you might regret"

And on the third line I said I don't like shitposters like you so byebye.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 12, 2016)

VinLark said:


> I don't think you're mentally old enough to be here.


Fixed with clarification~


----------



## Viri (Nov 12, 2016)

Spoiler












You can tell he's fucking ass mad as hell. It's partly his fault she lost too.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 12, 2016)

Viri said:


> You can tell he's fucking ass mad as hell. It's partly his fault she lost too.


Ironically, people who are politically "progressive" seem to have made the least progress in mental development compared to differently thinking people within the same age-range.


----------



## SVNate9 (Nov 12, 2016)

lol


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 12, 2016)

SVNate9 said:


> lol


Stop just posting nothing and leave. Or post something related to this thread?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Careful, that's actually a fascist ideal


never said i was liberal . But its quite true, would you rather have a political party that advances your country or have multiple that just remove what the others did and stagnate.

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



SVNate9 said:


> .
> lol


jheez seems people are that dead serious my god.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> never said i was liberal . But its quite true, would you rather have a political party that advances your country or have multiple that just remove what the others did and stagnate.


Because your view isn't the only one that matters. People may have different ideas of 'good', 'advance', and 'stagnate'.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

VinLark said:


> Stop just posting nothing and leave. Or post something related to this thread?


Its this thread, either youre a liberal or a nice person, @SVNate9 was pretty much disscussing for the past while and im pretty sure hes just tired of people trolling him and having nothing more to say other than "you lost suck it" when if you think like that, you have no sympathetic bone in your body.



Xiphiidae said:


> Because your view isn't the only one that matters. People may have different ideas of 'good', 'advance', and 'stagnate'.



Yes many people do but I dont want a country that goes off and removes everything the opponent had done.

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



VinLark said:


> I don't think you're old enough to be here. I said stop being so passive aggressive and say "what you might regret"
> 
> And on the third line I said I don't like shitposters like you so byebye.


Someone has a bias here, you seem to have not taken noticed to @Engert or @mech whove been doing pretty much the same, they both will call the opposing side salty or stupid for just disagreeing with them, rather than pick on @SVNate9 how about we see how this occurred.


hobbledehoy899 said:


> "Ironically" posting something is still posting something, especially when there's no joking context given to the post.





SVNate9 said:


> You don't say





Engert said:


> Hey serious question, what happened to Lacious?
> 
> I hope he didn't slit his wrists because we always need the village idiot/troll to play the role of the all-knowing king.


this last one you liked, seems you literally hate anyone who disagrees with you so you have no ground to talk on.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Its this thread, either youre a liberal or a nice person, @SVNate9 was pretty much disscussing for the past while and im pretty sure hes just tired of people trolling him and having nothing more to say other than "you lost suck it" when if you think like that, you have no sympathetic bone in your body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you still here? Get a life lolol.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

@VinLark 
Yep was totally SVnate who started it


Engert said:


> The oceans levels have risen 3 feet from liberal's tears alone in the last two days.
> We expect america to sink in a month.
> 
> Rip.





SVNate9 said:


> The global climate change deniers that exist in droves within the Republican Party will no doubt play their part too.





Engert said:


> This post rose the level another half an inch.
> 
> Rip.





SVNate9 said:


> #notmypresident



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



mech said:


> Are you still here? Get a life lolol.


I do have a life, I work for a bussiness firm and am getting married next month, rather thought I'd me more active. (I would rather not say how much I am paid) Also just more evidence of @mech shit posting.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 12, 2016)

So hillary is still lying (courtesy of /pol/)
she staged a photo of her walking through the park, and one of her supporters randomly bumping into her
bunch of shit how she was so upset about the election results and she glad to finally meet her
turns out she already knows hillary as per her facebook page, I guess this little publicity stunt was supposed to humanize her or something






and another cnn story
cnn interviews a cnn camerman pretending to be an angry anti-trump protester
they found the guys resume and he works for cnn, cnn anchor even admitted he traveled with the person as a cameraman
http://www.infowars.com/cnn-interviews-outraged-cameraman-during-trump-protests/


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> @VinLark
> Yep was totally SVnate who started it
> 
> 
> ...



Normal people get paid enough so they don't have to works weekends, I suppose you need to pay off that Mickey Mouse uni degree that you won't ever use. 

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



Joe88 said:


> So hillary is still lying (courtesy of /pol/)
> she staged a photo of her walking through the park, and one of her supporters randomly bumping into her
> bunch of shit how she was so upset about the election results and she glad to finally meet her
> turns out she already knows hillary as per her facebook page, I guess this little publicity stunt was supposed to humanize her or something
> ...



Haha and these voters who lost are suppose to be the 'educated and better' side according to them. Pathetic.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

mech said:


> Normal people get paid enough so they don't have to works weekends, I suppose you need to pay off that Mickey Mouse uni degree that you won't ever use.


I have a masters in physics, a degree thats of high worth in todays society. Im not working weekends if you'd really like to know i get paid 47890 a month


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I have a masters in physics, a degree thats of high worth in todays society. Im not working weekends if you'd really like to know i get paid 47890 a month




You do realise these spam adverts that say 'make $66655 a hour doing next to nothing' all over the internet are not real, right? 

Plus I don't care what you wasted 3 years of your life doing, I fact most don't which I'm sure you will learn sooner or later 'special one'.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

mech said:


> You do realise these spam adverts that say 'make $66655 a hour doing next to nothing' all over the internet are not real, right?
> 
> Plus I don't care what you wasted 3 years of your life doing, I fact most don't which I'm sure you will learn sooner or later 'special one'.


IDC what you think of me because i know "me". I do earn 47k and if you can accept that, not my issue. Also youve obviously never went to university, no wonder you have a hatred for people who have gone through higher education. Jealousy burns.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> IDC what you think of me because i know "me". I do earn 47k and if you can accept that, not my issue.



So why are you trying to prove to me what you do and is worth it? For one of the 'educated voters' you are really showing why your side lost. I will let that sink in.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

mech said:


> So why are you trying to prove to me what you do and is worth it? For one of the 'educated voters' you are really showing why your side lost. I will let that sink in.



I havent tried to, show me where. Youre the one who attacked me for going to university and then saying I have no life.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I havent tried to, show me where. Youre the one who attacked me for going to university and then saying I have no life.



Now you are playing dumb, make your mind up. Sea levels still rising #saltytears


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

mech said:


> Now you are playing dumb, make your mind up. Sea levels still rising #saltytears


all I hear is shitposting see ya later farages personal ass lick


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> all I hear is shitposting see ya later farages personal ass lick



Cya Tim nice but dim.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

mech said:


> Cya Tim nice but dim.


thanks for calling me nice, although dim isnt as nice... but i did just call you an asslick, progress is progress i guess.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> thanks for calling me nice, although dim isnt as nice... but i did just call you an asslick, progress is progress i guess.


 I guess you are too young to remember who Tim nice but dim is.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

mech said:


> I guess you are too young to remember who Tim nice but dim is.


Ill take that as a compliment


----------



## ploggy (Nov 12, 2016)

Laughed my ass off


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

ploggy said:


> Laughed my ass off



lol


----------



## Engert (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> this last one you liked, seems you literally hate anyone who disagrees with you so you have no ground to talk on.



Here's some ground: Trump won.  Hillary lost. 
Grab a handkerchief for your tears. 

Lmao.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

Engert said:


> Here's some ground: Trump won.  Hillary lost.
> Grab a handkerchief for your tears.
> 
> Lmao.



Im not happy about Trump winning, yes. But im OK with it. He seems to be a lot more respectable the past few days. How immature can people on this thread get. The fact you think winning is that great shows how sad your life is. You didnt win a political election, Trump did.  Also im a centrist not a liberal or conservative (just as evidence i voted conservative twice the past two elections here in the UK)


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 12, 2016)

New world order baby!!! The DOW got a big bump and America has renewed optimism in the working class economy and a move away from the liberal bias we've lived under the last 8 years!!!

Meanwhile Obama and Hillary are still mute on the riots and CNN makes no comment.... The mind of a liberal is scary bewildering....

America Won 2016! USA USA USA!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> New world order baby!!! The DOW got a big bump and America has renewed optimism in the working class economy and a move away from the liberal bias we've lived under the last 8 years!!!
> 
> Meanwhile Obama and Hillary are still mute on the riots and CNN makes no comment.... The mind of a liberal is scary bewildering....
> 
> America Won 2016! USA USA USA!


Im guessing theyll talk about it soon, wait for it to die down rather than accidentally start more riots.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Im guessing theyll talk about it soon, wait for it to die down rather than accidentally start more riots.



They should be calling for calm right now and "condemning" these stupid actions with people burning our flag who need to GTFO out of our country. The outrage CNN, MSNBC showed when Trump supporters were the "violent" ones and how Trump did not immediately come out and "condemn" these actions.

There is a liberal disease, a liberal machine here in the American and I'm just glad the people got tired of their bull @#[email protected] agenda and spoke at the polls!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> They should be calling for calm right now and "condemning" these stupid actions with people burning our flag who need to GTFO out of our country. The outrage CNN, MSNBC showed when Trump supporters were the "violent" ones and how Trump did not immediately come out and "condemn" these actions.
> 
> There is a liberal disease, a liberal machine, here in the American and I'm just glad the people got tired of their agenda and spoke at the polls!


Thats rude, people born and bred in America to leave your country? Whats this about freedom of expression?


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Thats rude, people born and bred in America to leave your country? Whats this about freedom of expression?



If they don't like or love this country enough to respect our flag and not burn something so special on veterans day FFS, then they can get out as far as I'm concerned. Leave, move to Canada/Mexico/England.

But hey I'm the rude one! This is the liberal machine I'm talking about, no outrage on CNN/MSNBC. But if someone said "get out of my country", their freedom of speech is rude and crossing the line. Oh the irony!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> If they don't like or love this country enough to respect our flag and not burn something so special on veterans day FFS, then they can get out as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> But hey I'm the rude one! This is the liberal machine I'm talking about, no outrage on CNN/MSNBC. The irony!


Im not talking about what the media think, thats a totally different discussion. Respect your flag? jheez patriotism at its finest, you should never become emotionally attached to something as simple as a flag, its irrational, if they burn it theyre trying to make a statement, i condemn the riots but they have the right to freedom of speech but they shouldnt be using it for hate. They might love a country as much as you (im not telling you not to love your country everything is good in moderation except a few things...) but they want to show the world that the country they once loved is gone, and as such they burn the flag.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Thats rude, people born and bred in America to leave your country? Whats this about freedom of expression?


I didn't know that destructive vandalism was "freedom of expression." In that case I guess Osama bin Laden just helped some people out with a modern-art project...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> I didn't know that destructive vandalism was "freedom of expression." In that case I guess Osama bin Laden just helped some people out with a modern-art project...


No i wasnt talking about its destructive nature, that was just dumb. I was talking about them burning the flag.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Im not talking about what the media think, thats a totally different discussion. Respect your flag? jheez patriotism at its finest, you should never become emotionally attached to something as simple as a flag, its irrational, if they burn it theyre trying to make a statement, i condemn the riots but they have the right to freedom of speech but they shouldnt be using it for hate. They might love a country as much as you (im not telling you not to love your country everything is good in moderation except a few things...) but they want to show the world that the country they once loved is gone, and as such they burn the flag.



Haha sure then I can say "get out of our country". That flag means something to the people who fought in wars and have done much more for this country than any of those liberal rioters. Yes I can be attached to that symbol, because people have died defending it and yesterday was a day to honor them. No surprise here as Obama has let the Veterans Association suffer, therefore of course he won't "condemn" this act of disrespect.

The liberal media has made people view "patriotism" as a negative connotation. Well it's not and the silent majority is tired of that old rhetoric fed by the libbies!

America will be made great again, with or without anyone who leaves this country because its "gone".


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Nov 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> No i wasnt talking about its destructive nature, that was just dumb. I was talking about them burning the flag.


The Westboro Baptist Church has also burned the flag, yet I don't see people arguing for their freedom of expression. Also, burning things in public in general is destructive behavior.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

el_gonz87 said:


> Haha sure then I can say "get out of our country". That flag means something to the people who fought in wars and have done much more for this country than any of those liberal rioters. Yes I can be attached to that symbol, because people have died defending it and yesterday was a day to honor them. No surprise here as Obama has let the Veterans Association suffer, therefore of course he won't "condemn" this act of disrespect.
> 
> The liberal media has made people view "patriotism" as a negative connotation. Well it's not and the silent majority is tired of that old rhetoric fed by the libbies!
> 
> America will be made great again, with or without anyone who leaves this country because its "gone".


When was America ever great? Answer that and youll earn my respect.

Did you go and fight for your country? no? Then you shouldnt care, go ask the veterans themselves what they think because i sure as hell am sure they arent pissed because they understand the cause. Reminds me of the Colin Kaepernik story, Veterans werent pissed off there.


----------



## el_gonz87 (Nov 12, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> The Westboro Baptist Church has also burned the flag, yet I don't see people arguing for their freedom of expression. Also, burning things in public in general is destructive behavior.



Its funny these liberal people fighting against "hate" and "anger" were out burning flags, breaking shop windows on the anniversary of _Kristallnacht. 
_
HAHAHA IDIOTS.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Nov 12, 2016)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> The Westboro Baptist Church has also burned the flag, yet I don't see people arguing for their freedom of expression. Also, burning things in public in general is destructive behavior.


It really isnt if its not damaging personal belongings or hurting anyone.


----------

