2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

chris857
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:04 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby chris857 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:50 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I'm a Rockefeller Republican, which is more leftwing than the average Democrat at this point. We're still alive, we promise! Please let us back!

The Republicans need to get their heads out of their asses.

[*]Become lukewarmly in support of sex ed and gay rights. Because the Republicans lost those wars, they were on the wrong side, and it's time to move on already.

[*]Get back to what really matters; making it easier for small businesses to form, if for no other reason than Mom & Pop Shops historically having been overwhelming Republican. Get rid of the abuses of big businesses and the ultra-rich; sure they may be your biggest donors but seriously, they might as well all be Democrats because they are forcing everyone into the Dem's arms.

[*]Stop pissing off the religious, conservative and strong family values Hispanics; their skin may be brown but their blood is red. For the love of god, stop trying to stick Jesus up everyone else's ass. Creationism is junk science, come down hard against it.

[*]Then go after the Democrats for their anti-scientific bullshit such as DSHEA and OCCAM and NCCAM and Anti-vaxxers and virtually all other alternatives to medicine, because that's the Democrats' biggest weakness right now.

[*]And seriously, global warming is a thing, stop pretending it's not it's just making you look like idiots at this point. Get behind wind, but if you must, require that the plastic in the turbines be made from corn or something to get the farmers to agree to it. And get behind nuclear, which has the fewest deaths per petawatt of any significant form of energy, even including Chernobyl. If it makes you happy, just put the navy in charge of all the nuclear plants or something.


You know, if there were a party like this the above that was also pro-choice, I'd probably vote for them (unless it came with some weird new baggage). I've been moderately Democrat because they don't seem as inclined to force a narrow moral code on the whole country, but I also really like Michigan's Republican governor. Like, if it doesn't impact other people, you should probably be allowed to live how you like.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:51 pm UTC

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /91295020/

For the first time in 34 years, USA Today made an anti-endorsement in the Presidential Election. They don't recommend Clinton per se, but they definitely are anti-Trump.

chris857 wrote:You know, if there were a party like this the above that was also pro-choice, I'd probably vote for them (unless it came with some weird new baggage). I've been moderately Democrat because they don't seem as inclined to force a narrow moral code on the whole country, but I also really like Michigan's Republican governor. Like, if it doesn't impact other people, you should probably be allowed to live how you like.


Liberals want to enforce a moral code, just on people they see as subhumans (corporate entities, CEOs and the like). Because God forbid you have a little success in your life, that strips you of all morality.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against trickle-down economics and everything. But the entire point of politics is about enforcing moral codes on other people. Be it Glass-Steagall, Civil Rights issues, Police brutality rules, or forcing the entire country to buy Health Insurance or whatever.

But whatever. This election isn't about the issues this year. Its about preventing a dumbass from entering the Presidency. So I'm going to ignore the issues this year and vote for Clinton. Just don't fuck it up and remind me about the issues I grossly disagree with... and maybe my vote will last until November 8th or so.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:00 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:So... ironically, Trump is like Putin or any tin pot 3rd world dictator that the Far Left in this country seems to adore, or at least insists on hearing their side of the story.
By 'in this country', are you referring to the US? Because I am unaware of anyone on the left (far or otherwise) who supports Putin. He seems pretty universally loathed.
KnightExemplar wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

For the first time in 34 years, USA Today made an anti-endorsement in the Presidential Election. They don't recommend Clinton per se, but they definitely are anti-Trump.
That makes me feel a little better, at least.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:59 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm against trickle-down economics and everything. But the entire point of politics is about enforcing moral codes on other people. Be it Glass-Steagall, Civil Rights issues, Police brutality rules, or forcing the entire country to buy Health Insurance or whatever.


No, it definitely isn't. I mean, look at religious freedom. It's very much centered on permitting choice, not on enforcing a specific code. Yeah, sure, you could say that valuing freedom of choice is itself a moral value, but it's a different kind of thing entirely from fighting over which specific decision to enforce on people.

So, if we look at issues like being pro-choice, we see this same sort of contrast. One side wants to enforce a specific morality, whereas one side wants people to choose their own morality. They're not equal. My personal morality is that I dislike abortions quite a bit, and would not generally advise them, and will try to avoid ever being in a situation where the possibility arises. But it'd be kind of horrible to insist that everyone adhere to my personal morality.

I do, however, agree that this election provides fairly little opportunity to vote on issues, however. Trump gives basically zero fucks about issues, and will say whatever, and Clinton is Clinton. Either will cheerfully trample over your freedom if it's an obstacle to their ambitions. It's a rough choice, no two ways about it.

CorruptUser wrote:What is the best possible result of this election? I actually hope Trump wins... but then the Republicans lose every single other race, so that he can't do a damn thing. I don't think he'd be able to do as much damage as Hillary could where the Republicans lost every single other race; that woman is scary effective as a politician.


I do think that Clinton would be more effective in the face of determined opposition than Trump would be. But, your scenario is unlikely to come about. Down ticket votes are significantly affected by presidential votes. If Trump wins, it's probable that the senate stays red, for instance. Democrats have to pick up several seats, and while they probably would manage this if Clinton's blowing away Trump, it's just not likely in the opposite scenario because of all the straight ticket voters.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:04 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:If it makes you happy, just put the navy in charge of all the nuclear plants or something.
Yanno, that might not be such a bad idea.

@TheGreatHippo: Amen!

KnightExemplar wrote:Liberals want to enforce a moral code, just on people they see as subhumans (corporate entities, CEOs and the like).
[...]
But the entire point of politics is about enforcing moral codes on other people. Be it Glass-Steagall, Civil Rights issues, Police brutality rules, or forcing the entire country to buy Health Insurance or whatever.
Uh, corporate entites are not people, except in the artificial sense used as a term of art in law. They don't have any kind of independently developed morals; the morals they do have come from the actual human people running them.

And no, that's not the entire point of politics anyway. Politics is about enforcing laws, not morals. There's an important difference. It's the difference between "shall" and "should".

CorruptUser wrote:So... ironically, Trump is like Putin or any tin pot 3rd world dictator that the Far Left in this country seems to adore, or at least insists on hearing their side of the story.
Where's the irony? And who in the far left adores Putin? The far left may embrace communist ideals, but that's not the same at all.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm UTC

Actually, you've got to be charitable to Trump, because he won't be..

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:29 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Liberals want to enforce a moral code, just on people they see as subhumans (corporate entities, CEOs and the like).
[...]
But the entire point of politics is about enforcing moral codes on other people. Be it Glass-Steagall, Civil Rights issues, Police brutality rules, or forcing the entire country to buy Health Insurance or whatever.
Uh, corporate entites are not people, except in the artificial sense used as a term of art in law. They don't have any kind of independently developed morals; the morals they do have come from the actual human people running them.

And no, that's not the entire point of politics anyway. Politics is about enforcing laws, not morals. There's an important difference. It's the difference between "shall" and "should".


Politics is about writing laws, and the chief driver for laws is morality.

Glass-Steagall says that creating a singular corporate entity consisting of both an investment bank and a consumer bank is illegal, because we believe that combining the two entities leads to conflicts of interest. (AKA: Its immoral and leads to immoral decisions). So we create a law to prevent the immoral behavior.

Civil Rights says that discriminating against African Americans is illegal, because we believe that treating Black people poorly is a bad thing. Businesses that engage in discriminatory behavior are fined or otherwise penalized.

The murder / criminal laws say its illegal to murder people, because we all agree its wrong.

Abortion? Well, we haven't agreed as a country. But if the determination is made that Abortion is immoral, then it should be banned. Just like all of the other immoral behaviors we've deemed in this country. (Murder, Rape, DUIs, etc. etc.) That's the fundamentals of laws, we write laws to say what we agree is immoral.

Or perhaps it'd be easier if we used an example that I agreed with everyone else around here: Homosexual marriages. We can agree that they are fine from a moral standpoint. So we should stop writing laws against them.

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm against trickle-down economics and everything. But the entire point of politics is about enforcing moral codes on other people. Be it Glass-Steagall, Civil Rights issues, Police brutality rules, or forcing the entire country to buy Health Insurance or whatever.


No, it definitely isn't. I mean, look at religious freedom. It's very much centered on permitting choice, not on enforcing a specific code. Yeah, sure, you could say that valuing freedom of choice is itself a moral value, but it's a different kind of thing entirely from fighting over which specific decision to enforce on people.


There's no real religious freedom law aside from the 1st amendment, which is basically a law that says what is moral for the kinds of laws that Congress can write.

IE: It is immoral for Congress to write laws that hampers religious freedom. At least, that is how the 1st Amendment is written.

In contrast, its perfectly legal for say, Catholics to deny the Eucharist to non-Catholics, or create other such "Catholic-only" rituals.

In any case, the very point of laws is to codify our morals. X is good, Y is bad. Etc. etc. We disagree because we all have different moral codes, but that's why democracy exists, so that we can come together and attempt to write something anyway.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:46 pm UTC

Yes, yes, if you use a vague enough definition of morals, then literally everything is about morality.

But the traditional degree for getting into politics isn't studying ethics, but rather, law. I submit that the definition you use isn't traditional outside of philosophy classes, which emphasize how important morals are for everything.

In practice, a bunch of law is determined simply by what can reasonably be done. A great deal of the US's law and behavior with regards to other countries is determined not by careful moral introspection, but because we've got a giant pile of gunboats, and thus we can get away with rather a lot, so we do.

Many moral systems seek the spread of their ideology, and seek to use law as part of that, but law itself does not require any particular morality. Driving on the right side of the road is no more moral than driving on the left. It's simply useful to standardize.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Yes, yes, if you use a vague enough definition of morals, then literally everything is about morality.

But the traditional degree for getting into politics isn't studying ethics, but rather, law. I submit that the definition you use isn't traditional outside of philosophy classes, which emphasize how important morals are for everything.

In practice, a bunch of law is determined simply by what can reasonably be done. A great deal of the US's law and behavior with regards to other countries is determined not by careful moral introspection, but because we've got a giant pile of gunboats, and thus we can get away with rather a lot, so we do.

Many moral systems seek the spread of their ideology, and seek to use law as part of that, but law itself does not require any particular morality. Driving on the right side of the road is no more moral than driving on the left. It's simply useful to standardize.


Fair point. Although, my point was that the left certainly does like to enforce their morals on everybody else. Civil Rights being one that I hope everyone agrees with, but nonetheless is a "moral code" that is 100% being enforced by laws, pushed primarily by the left.

I'll agree the right tends to push moral codes that are more religious in nature.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:07 pm UTC

Oh, I certainly do agree that, in practice, the left pushes morals as well. In the US, it's usually a pretty straightforward choice between two different systems.

Normally, that seems kinda weak, but the current options almost make one long for a return to that.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:24 pm UTC

chris857 wrote:
You know, if there were a party like this the above that was also pro-choice, I'd probably vote for them (unless it came with some weird new baggage). I've been moderately Democrat because they don't seem as inclined to force a narrow moral code on the whole country, but I also really like Michigan's Republican governor. Like, if it doesn't impact other people, you should probably be allowed to live how you like.


Kind of off topic, delves into my views of abortion. (Short version, I personally don't like abortions, but pro-choice)

Spoiler:
Pro choice is kind of a weird thing for me. I'm personally sort of pro choice, but I'm an "evil sociopath"; I find that abortions are more unethical the later they happen, but if I won't pay up (i.e., take care of it myself) then I should shut up. Ends justifies the means and all, and the result is a better society.

The Left will start with the conclusion "I want abortions", and use all sorts of mental gymnastics to have a post hoc justification, usually of the form "it's justifiable homicide, because I have the right to evict people from my property by any means necessary, plus there's the damage to my body so 'life or limb' is in effect" or "it isn't really alive in the first place so there's no ethical issue anyway". Say what you want about the Right, but the argument "it's alive, therefore killing it is wrong" is more robust. if that actually was their argument, instead of "My pastor told me that Jesus told him that abortions are wrong, so burn in hellfire!", or more often "I had an abortion myself, so I need to get you NOT to have an abortion to cancel out the 'wrong' I did so that I still get to call myself a good person!". Yes the second argument is actually a very common thing, and fuck those people (but wear a condom).

Now, if we could get the Right to have a consistent life ethic, e.g., it's perfectly ok to tax the rich a little bit to provide basic shelter, food, and healthcare for the poor kids, especially considering that the Right went out of its way to make it so difficult not to have those kids, I'd be happier. Kind of why I'm in favor of abortion; I don't want my taxes going up because the guy down the block can't figure out how to use a condom, and since I'm not paying for it...


ucim wrote:Where's the irony? And who in the far left adores Putin? The far left may embrace communist ideals, but that's not the same at all.

Noam Chomsky takes Putin's side in its annexation of Crimea and the ongoing invasion of the Ukraine. Fuck Noam Chomsky (with a condom; guy's been around).


My own personal view of Putin, before 2008, was "This guy is an autocratic dick and incredible corrupt, stealing huge amounts of wealth for himself and his cronies (see Gazprom), but this is Russia, and Russia needs a strong leader to avoid a descent into civil war. Also, I kind of take Russia's side on Chechnya". After 2008, when he invaded Georgia and so on, it was "Ok, he's losing his marbles here, he's kind of dangerous and he's overstayed his welcome."

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:34 pm UTC

Corbyn is notoriously pro-Putin. It's a vice that afflicts the more conspiratorial elements of both the right and left.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:41 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Politics is about writing laws, and the chief driver for laws is morality.
No. Politics may be about writing laws, but there are many things besides morality that go into choosing which laws get written, and how. In fact, I'd venture that morality is rather low on the scale.

Politics is about how we agree to live together. I'd venture that it's about how we agree to live together even when we don't agree. Writing laws is part of that, and morality sometimes comes into play. But it's one thing to codify existing morality in law, and quite another thing to impose your morality on others who do not agree with it. For example, we pretty much all agree that stealing is wrong, and so we codify this into law. People steal not because they don't think it's wrong, but because they want the swag anyway.

So, where morality comes into play when writing laws, it's about existing, shared morality. This does not involve imposing morality on others, as they already share these ideas, even if they don't like their personal cost.

It's a whole different thing to say that politics is about enforcing one group's morality on another group; although politics is used in this manner, that is not its primary purpose. Examples of this are the attempted exportation of "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" to the rest of the world, the imposition of Bibical law and principles on athiests (and Hindus and Muslims, for that matter), and the supremacy of uneducated white American males over pretty much anyone else. Where politics (a source of power) is used as a club to achieve these "moral" goals, it is being misused. It is not what politics "is all about".

It also seems to me that you are using the word "moral" very loosely, broadly, and vaguely. To quote from WKRP in Cincinatti, "we're not talking about right and wrong, we're talking about the law".

Jose
Last edited by ucim on Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:42 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:41 pm UTC

It generally goes like this.

1) The mainstream is dumb.
2) Therefore, whatever the mainstream supports must be wrong.
3) Therefore, whatever the mainstream opposes is right.
4) I support things the mainstream opposes.
5) Therefore I support the right things.
6) People who support the right things are smart.
7) Therefore I am smart.

Really, this alone explains the bulk of the bullshit you will ever see in your life.

As for the Far Left, it's usually of the form "I'm smarter than the average American because unlike them I know the government does bad things, so I'm going to engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics starting with 'The US is always wrong' and work backwards to my worldview, then bandy it about and bludgeon everyone over the head with it in order to convince everyone else I am smarter than them". Then you have college kids doing the exact same thing, but lazier, and spouting off Chomsky quotes and basically sucking his dick because he keeps droning on about how much smarter he is by criticizing everything the US does.

There is literally nothing the US could do that would appease these people.

Support a dictator to promote stability? Oh, you are supporting oppressors! (Saudia Arabia and so many others)
Oppose a dictator via sanctions! Waaa Waaa, you are starving the poorest people the most! (Iraq during the 90's, North Korea)
Do nothing at all? How dare America not get involved argle bargle! (Darfour, Rwanda, etc)

This is a serious problem, because when you realize that the criticism is fueled by anti-american holier-than-thou bullshit, you forget that it doesn't mean the criticism is wrong. That's what happened to me during the build-up to the Iraq war (I was a teenager at the time). I remember every year, my teachers would bitch and moan about "oh, the poor Iraqi kids are starving, the kids are starving, sanctions are so horrible; why didn't we take him out in 1991, we could take him out at any time and we are monsters for not doing so!" Then Bush starts talking about taking him out, and those same exact teachers changed their arguments against the very thing they had been demanding until then. So I couldn't take the anti-War people seriously.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10338
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:52 pm UTC

If it can and did happen to me,
Then it can and does happen to others.

I recommend voters to re-check their voter status.
I was kicked off Voter Registration Rolls.

The national change of address registry was used to change my address
from the West Coast U.S. to North Carolina on the East Coast U.S.

I was made ineligible to vote in November.

I live in a very small town.
Therefore; It was easy to check and change back.
I hope to be re-registered by election day.

Cyber was used to drop me from Voter Rolls.
Cyber may be used to drop you, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKT6Gyn9-xw
They are NOT talking about what happened to me.
Fast forward to 1 min 50sec.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:54 pm UTC

Trump-baiting continues to be a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent: http://www.vox.com/2016/9/30/13120546/t ... ado-tweets
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:58 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:Trump-baiting continues to be a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent: http://www.vox.com/2016/9/30/13120546/t ... ado-tweets


My pessimistic cynicism is making me think that such actions are why people like Trump. Because he's clearly not a politician, while Clinton is. We shouldn't expect Trump to be not baited or... something.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:29 pm UTC

I would love if people could stop evoking a shitty horse shoe theory regarding the two candidates.

John Oliver did a good job looking at that.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:31 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
Diadem wrote:Another issue is that the next couple of years are quite crucial if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. Thus a Trump presidency could be disastrous on a global scale even if he does absolutely nothing.

If I had to be a single-issue voter, it would be for action on climate change.

Most people alive today set to witness dangerous global warming in their lifetime, scientists warn

{{ embedded auto-play video with noise }}

The world could hit two degrees Celsius of warming – the point at which many scientists believe climate change will become dangerous – as early as 2050, a group of leading experts has warned.

In a report called The Truth About Climate Change, they said many people seemed to think of global warming as “abstract, distant and even controversial”.

Droughts, floods, wildfires and storms are all set to increase as the world warms, threatening crops and causing the extinction of species.


On that last note, the Australian government has blamed the loss of power to much of southern Australia due to exceptionally intense storms trashing the power grid on southern Australia relying too heavily on the kind of power generation that doesn't contribute to global warming and increase droughts, floods, wildfires and storms.

Hominids.
Everywhere, hominids.
Billions of them!
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:36 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:In the last couple of decades, at least, it likely helped get us Blair, it probably got you Obama, and they did turn out Ok (at first, at least, in one of those cases).
Intervention in Sierra Leone: general's idea, and the media were all over it before Blair knew so he had to go along with it. Peace process in Northern Ireland: Bill Clinton's idea. Invading Iraq: Dubya's idea. Blair was "kinda okay-ish in some ways" while the name after "The PRESIDENT! Of the UNITED STATES! Of AMERICA!!! *fanfare*" was "Bill Clinton." Once it changed, so did all the parts of his behaviour that had been okay-ish.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:There is literally nothing the US could do that would appease these people.

Support a dictator to promote stability? Oh, you are supporting oppressors! (Saudia Arabia and so many others)
Oppose a dictator via sanctions! Waaa Waaa, you are starving the poorest people the most! (Iraq during the 90's, North Korea)
Do nothing at all? How dare America not get involved argle bargle! (Darfour, Rwanda, etc)

You'll probably find that it's different individuals complaining in each instance. The Left is a broad church just as is The Right.

It's like the issue of prostitution for feminists: Some think it's the very definition of feminism for a woman to determine when, where and with whom she has sex. Others think that selling your body for money is the very antithesis of empowerment.

Just as one can be socially liberal but economically conservative and vice versa, so interventionism/isolationism isn't really a left-right thing.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:47 pm UTC

No, it was literally the same people in many cases. The same people complaining that we were going into Iraq were the ones complaining about how we were NOT going into Darfur/Sudan. The exact same teachers who were complaining about the sanctions in Iraq were the ones complaining that we were going into Iraq in the first place.

Go ahead, don't use famous people. Ask yourself if you personally knew anyone that both was complaining that we weren't getting involved in Sudan and opposed the Iraq war at the start.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:51 pm UTC

@CorruptUser
May I suggest a bottle of really good liquor. You can't escape being human which makes you part of what your gong on about.
ahammel wrote:Trump-baiting continues to be a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent: http://www.vox.com/2016/9/30/13120546/t ... ado-tweets
Laugh at the end of November.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:57 pm UTC

Eh, I've just long ago made peace with the fact that humanity is bullshit. I'm a borderline Aspie (diagnosed, unlike most others on the 'net), so it was hard for me until I realized that

1) Humans are lazy and take mental shortcuts
2) much of what you think of as bullshit, actually has a quasi-valid reason for existing

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:00 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:If I were a Muslim-American, I would have already started making tentative plans to get myself and my family out of the States in case of a Trump victory. I'm not even joking.
I'd be registering a postal vote, sending it early and heading to Canada or Europe to wait for the result. Given the obvious parallel of a German Jew in 1938, would it be better to be home in Munich or on a hiking trip in Switzerland when you get the news?
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:02 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Eh, I've just long ago made peace with the fact that humanity is bullshit. I'm a borderline Aspie (diagnosed, unlike most others on the 'net), so it was hard for me until I realized that

1) Humans are lazy and take mental shortcuts
2) much of what you think of as bullshit, actually has a quasi-valid reason for existing


I think everybody has issues figuring those two facts out.

I'm not sure if it means that "humanity is bullshit", but certainly, a lot of people are.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:35 pm UTC

SO I didn't watch the debate live, and I find it took me much longer to watch in on YouTube because I keep pausing because I can't stand to listen to Trump for more than five minutes at a time.

So right off the bat, a big,fat, transparent lie:
Hillary Clinton wrote:It's good to be up here with you Donald.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:35 pm UTC

No, I mean all the things that you think of as a bunch of bullshit, really aren't. Above all else, Humans are social creatures.

Think standards of beauty are bullshit? No, no they are not; animals rely on signals to assess potential mates, and with social creatures like humans, these signals are anything that demonstrates A) Health and B) Social Status. Why B? Because when shit hits the fan, the most well connected are the ones choosing which part of the room to be standing in. Shut up about how "obesity used to be desirable 500 years ago", because this isn't 500 years ago; the wealthy aren't fat anymore, so it's not pretty.

Think it's so hard to find a job? If you have the skills, why won't the companies hire you? Well guess what, again, social creatures. If people are hiring, they want others they can get along with. If you don't have the social skills, nobody cares if you can do the job, because there's plenty of people with those skills that also have the social skills. It's you who has the problem fitting in to society, society isn't going to change itself to fit itself around you.

Complaining that hot women go with rich guys? It's perfectly fair; if you are dating for looks you have to right to complain about women dating for wealth.

You aren't nice if your nicest quality is "doesn't do anything evil". You are what you do, not merely what you think, and if you aren't actually doing nice things you aren't nice.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

@CorruptUser: fair enough.

Quizatzhaderac wrote:SO I didn't watch the debate live, and I find it took me much longer to watch in on YouTube because I keep pausing because I can't stand to listen to Trump for more than five minutes at a time.

So right off the bat, a big,fat, transparent lie:
Hillary Clinton wrote:It's good to be up here with you Donald.


I personally found the debate much easier to watch as soon as Trump started falling apart. It was easier to watch him and make fun of him, rather than pretend that he was actually the Republican Nominee. (Wait, he's really the nominee? Shit :-( )
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:37 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:So right off the bat, a big,fat, transparent lie:
Hillary Clinton wrote:It's good to be up here with you Donald.
Not a lie at all. Being up there with him was probably the best thing to happen to her campaign.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:51 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:(Wait, he's really the nominee? Shit :-( )
Remember that in The Land Of The Free, anyone1 can become President.

However it ends up, that truth might well be proven in an alarming way to many, many people... One lot or another.

1 Within certain parameters, that pre-exclude the likes of Schwarzenegger, but don't technically exclude anybody on grounds of race or sex or or creed or personal wealth. Only practically, and some of those barriers are certainly being visibly toppled, but not technically excluded.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:23 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:It was easier to watch him and make fun of him, rather than pretend that he was actually the Republican Nominee. (Wait, he's really the nominee? Shit :-( )

I find it equally depressing that Hillary is the Democratic nominee, especially when they could have selected Bernie. The US political system really done fucked up this time.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:52 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:It was easier to watch him and make fun of him, rather than pretend that he was actually the Republican Nominee. (Wait, he's really the nominee? Shit :-( )

I find it equally depressing that Hillary is the Democratic nominee, especially when they could have selected Bernie. The US political system really done fucked up this time.


I'd take Hillary over Bernie any day frankly. But then again, I'm neither a progressive nor a Democrat.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:11 pm UTC

If Bernie were the nominee, I'd be scared Trump would stand a better chance. Openly calling yourself socialist has got to be close to a death sentence for a good chunk of Americans. He's not even that socialist, but... yeah.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:22 pm UTC

Our Jeremy Corbyn bod has openly called himself one quite recently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 35771.html

It hasn't made a right lot of difference.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jer ... 22801.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jer ... 38136.html

He's still "unelectable," of course, because Supreme Leader Ayatollah Rupert Murdoch doesn't like him and won't allow him on the list of candidates in the next presidential election here, so if Labour actually want power they'll have to abandon Corbyn and all his principles and ideals and ideas and stuff and get in line with the Murdochian doctrine of corporatism. Maybe in a few generations, if the hardliners of the Guiding Council are gradually replaced with more moderate clerics, we can see a less Blairite candidate allowed on the shortlist, but as long as Murdoch is the Supreme Leader that's just not going to happen.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:36 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:So right off the bat, a big,fat, transparent lie:
Hillary Clinton wrote:It's good to be up here with you Donald.
Not a lie at all. Being up there with him was probably the best thing to happen to her campaign.

Jose


Agreed. It's hard to envision a WORSE person to match up against. And yet, she's still not doing overly good. Nor are third party candidates making much of the general dislike for these two. For better or worse, it seems we're all trapped in the pattern.

SDK wrote:If Bernie were the nominee, I'd be scared Trump would stand a better chance. Openly calling yourself socialist has got to be close to a death sentence for a good chunk of Americans. He's not even that socialist, but... yeah.


Bernie had some problems as well, electability-wise, but I think he'd fair better against Trump than Clinton. More contrast in character, I think. Whatever the oddities in Bernie's particular issues(and socialism is indeed a dirty word in US politics), you can't question that at least the fellow believes in them. That sort of faith provides a rather strong contrast to the person who believes only in himself.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:47 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Eh, I've just long ago made peace with the fact that humanity is bullshit. I'm a borderline Aspie (diagnosed, unlike most others on the 'net), so it was hard for me until I realized that

1) Humans are lazy and take mental shortcuts
2) much of what you think of as bullshit, actually has a quasi-valid reason for existing
Humanity is a genetic machine which believes that it is special. It's an artifact of intelligence. Humans can't help it. Animals and plants would be bullshit too, if you removed the brakes that holds them in check. Just look at Kudzu. Humans aren't lazy, the world comes at them faster then they can process. If they didn't take shortcuts they would still be looking at that bone and wondering if hitting something with it would help. My current anesthetic is Tequila.
KnightExemplar wrote:I'd take Hillary over Bernie any day frankly. But then again, I'm neither a progressive nor a Democrat.
I'd take Bozo the clown if I thought he would run. Oh wait he is running, evil Bozo. If Kasich had been the candidate I would have broke out of the Democratic mold and voted Republican.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:16 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I'd take Bozo the clown if I thought he would run. Oh wait he is running, evil Bozo. If Kasich had been the candidate I would have broke out of the Democratic mold and voted Republican.

Ehhhhhhh, I dunno. I don't trust his spine. Look at Pat McCrory in NC. Very moderate mayor of Charlotte. I almost voted for him because it was pretty clear he was going to win and I figured it would be the one time I felt at least "okay" voting for a Republican. But look what happened to North Carolina. We're a national and international laughing stock because of him and the GOP legislature.

It turned out he was only perceived as a "moderate" because he was working with a completely Democratic city council as mayor.

If we had a supermajority Democratic Congress, hey maybe Kasich would be passable. But we won't. Because hardly anyone does split-ticket voting any more.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:33 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:He's still "unelectable," of course, because Supreme Leader Ayatollah Rupert Murdoch doesn't like him and won't allow him on the list of candidates in the next presidential election here, so if Labour actually want power they'll have to abandon Corbyn and all his principles and ideals and ideas and stuff and get in line with the Murdochian doctrine of corporatism. Maybe in a few generations, if the hardliners of the Guiding Council are gradually replaced with more moderate clerics, we can see a less Blairite candidate allowed on the shortlist, but as long as Murdoch is the Supreme Leader that's just not going to happen.

No, he's unelectable because he's a master of own goals, remains mired in 70s/80s labor orthodoxy, never met a contrarian foreign policy position he didn't like, habitually associates with extremists and goons, and inspires confidence in no one outside his core of devoted fans. The evil Blairite media didn't make him do his useless national anthem protest, or pick a nonsensical fight with Branson over train seats, or stake his case on party unity after decades of sniping at that same party from the margins, or call for re-opening the old coal mines, or advocate a power-sharing deal in the Falklands over the will of the inhabitants, or oppose the Irish peace process while attending memorial services for IRA terrorists and editing a pro-IRA journal, or describe Hamas as "an organization that is dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people, and bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region", or call for abolishing NATO, or advocate abandoning Britain's nuclear deterrent while uselessly keeping the nuclear missile submarines in service, or whitewash Putin's invasion of Crimea, or praise RT for providing more "objective" views than the Western media, or accept multiple paid gigs from Iran's PressTV, or chair the insanely anti-Western, pro-Assad, pro-North Korean Stop the War Coalition which goes as far as to support violence against British soldiers, or take photo ops like this one, or utterly botch the optics of an anti-Semitism inquiry that shouldn't have even been that hard to deal with, or associate himself with John "bombs and bullets" McDonnell, or Seumas "spirit of resistance" Milne, or Ken "have I mentioned Hitler today?" Livingstone, or George Galloway, or Raed Salah. But no, it's all because he has the guts to call himself a socialist, just like Blair did.

There's a reason why polls consistently showed Bernie defeating the Republicans in God-and-guns America, and uniformly show Corbyn being clobbered by the Tories in a country that's far more receptive to socialism. Bernie would have been driven out of town on a rail if he had done or said a quarter of the ridiculous shit that Corbyn has, and honestly I'm sick of people acting as if they're twins. The most charitable assessment I can make of Corbyn is that he's a well-intentioned but utterly clueless naif who routinely makes himself the stooge of detestable people.
Last edited by Lazar on Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:21 am UTC, edited 9 times in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:47 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I'd take Bozo the clown if I thought he would run. Oh wait he is running, evil Bozo. If Kasich had been the candidate I would have broke out of the Democratic mold and voted Republican.

Ehhhhhhh, I dunno. I don't trust his spine. Look at Pat McCrory in NC. Very moderate mayor of Charlotte. I almost voted for him because it was pretty clear he was going to win and I figured it would be the one time I felt at least "okay" voting for a Republican. But look what happened to North Carolina. We're a national and international laughing stock because of him and the GOP legislature.

It turned out he was only perceived as a "moderate" because he was working with a completely Democratic city council as mayor.

If we had a supermajority Democratic Congress, hey maybe Kasich would be passable. But we won't. Because hardly anyone does split-ticket voting any more.


Kasich certainly ain't perfect, but I'd definitely pick him over our current options. Tossed him my primary vote, because he seemed the best remaining option at the time.

There's a scale where "best of the existing poor options" is reasonable, but as all of the options get crappier and crappier, well...you have to pick some point where you say enough is enough. Where that point is varies on perception, I suppose, but I'd feel a lot better if we weren't looking at two pretty rough picks right now. Any improvement at all in the candidates would have been nice, and Kasich, even with his flaws, still beats the hell outta Trump as a person.

Clinton would probably wipe the floor with Kasich, though. Just seems like the kind of matchup she's geared for. Too traditional, plays to her experience, harder for Republicans to really sell that outsider thing they're doing.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DaBigCheez and 21 guests