Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2016, 03:16 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(12-10-2016 01:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Wouldn't you want the Democrats to stonewall Trump if, God forbid, he ever became president? That's how I feel about Clinton and her hawkish foreign policy.

No. I want a government that moves against issues, and I'm willing to accept baby-steps.

Stonewalling invites sieges. Mobile warfare is what introduces change.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
12-10-2016, 03:21 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(12-10-2016 02:02 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I actually think it's dangerous to have one party simultaneously controlling all branches of government, because you don't get the checks and balances that are theoretically built in. So if Clinton wins the White House, I think it's a good thing (in theory, at least) to have at least one house of Congress controlled by the Republicans. But damn! They need to learn how to work together to get things done. They can't just stonewall each other forever.

This is why we should vote third-party. I don't care what your inclination is, the real message needing voice is that taking voters for granted by appealing to boilerplate rhetoric and party affiliation needs to stop.

There's a nation involved in this. Partisanship has no place in governance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
12-10-2016, 03:33 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(12-10-2016 03:14 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You're lending WL credence based on what, then? Be specific.

How do you know the emails etc aren't doctored?

As matters stand there's no evidence either way, and that means most folks -- and seemingly that includes you -- are pushing for the position which supports their own.

I'm agnostic on it, I don't know if they're doctored or not. But if you wish to assert that they're not, you'll need to demonstrate that.
All I have is the circumstantial evidence I mentioned in my response to skyking. There's no way for me to be completely certain, fair enough, but I also can't think of any reasons why the Clinton campaign wouldn't deny the validity of the leaks if they were fake. WikiLeaks has even bigger releases planned for the next couple of weeks so it would be extremely advantageous for the Clinton campaign to destroy their credibility before that happens.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 03:41 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(12-10-2016 03:33 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 03:14 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You're lending WL credence based on what, then? Be specific.

How do you know the emails etc aren't doctored?

As matters stand there's no evidence either way, and that means most folks -- and seemingly that includes you -- are pushing for the position which supports their own.

I'm agnostic on it, I don't know if they're doctored or not. But if you wish to assert that they're not, you'll need to demonstrate that.
All I have is the circumstantial evidence I mentioned in my response to skyking. There's no way for me to be completely certain, fair enough, but I also can't think of any reasons why the Clinton campaign wouldn't deny the validity of the leaks if they were fake. WikiLeaks has even bigger releases planned for the next couple of weeks so it would be extremely advantageous for the Clinton campaign to destroy their credibility before that happens.

It depends how you do the doctoring, it may be difficult. Change a few words in 1 email out of a hundred, make them say something slightly different to what was actually said. Meantime Clinton doesn't dare to repudiate the emails as a whole because they look legit, and if she tries to repudiate them and is caught out she'll look even worse. Then you whip out a particular email at a debate or something and hit her with it. Something outrageous, but only a modestly doctored version of an email that she actually sent. She has to read it on camera quickly, to try to recall if she actually did say that in the email - regardless if she says "that email is a lie" you've got an opening in which to make her look very bad.

Even if they've spoofed the whole thing - if *all* the leaked emails are made up, calling them fake may look bad for the Clinton campaign anyway - the default response will be "Well yeah, you *would* say that".

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
12-10-2016, 04:22 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(12-10-2016 03:33 PM)Vosur Wrote:  All I have is the circumstantial evidence I mentioned in my response to skyking. There's no way for me to be completely certain, fair enough, but I also can't think of any reasons why the Clinton campaign wouldn't deny the validity of the leaks if they were fake. WikiLeaks has even bigger releases planned for the next couple of weeks so it would be extremely advantageous for the Clinton campaign to destroy their credibility before that happens.

Ah, supposition, then. Thanks for clarifying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 04:50 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(12-10-2016 01:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Well, there sure as hell can be no compromise between the two ruling parties when their policies are on the extreme ends of the political spectrum respectively. Take, for instance, immigration. Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton promised not to deport illegal immigrants who didn't commit any crimes other than immigrating to the country illegally and to find a way for them to get a path to citizenship. Meanwhile the Republican candidates, most notably Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, promised to build a border wall between the US and Mexico and send virtually all illegal immigrants back to their home countries. Wouldn't you want the Democrats to stonewall Trump if, God forbid, he ever became president? That's how I feel about Clinton and her hawkish foreign policy.

It’s more nuanced than that, as Grasshopper said politics is the art of compromise. No matter what the issue there is a middle ground. Both sides have to give, it can’t be an all or nothing because then the country comes to a standstill. You don’t have to look very hard to see what gridlock does to the ability to govern.

Politicians first and foremost must be pragmatists. To use your example NO you aren’t building a fucking wall, YES many illegal immigrants are going to be made to leave and apply for citizenship through proper channels. Somewhere between the two is a compromise and dare I say a balanced and pragmatic answer.

I once read that you know if a deal was fair only when both sides leave the negotiating table feeling the same way, either both content or both unsatisfied.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Full Circle's post
12-10-2016, 04:53 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(12-10-2016 02:32 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Politics have become so 'radicalized' in the US that you've got people talking about imprisoning the other party's candidate and using their 2nd amendment rights to keep the other party in check.

All that is coming from only one side. Dodgy

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
12-10-2016, 07:13 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(12-10-2016 03:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 03:33 PM)Vosur Wrote:  All I have is the circumstantial evidence I mentioned in my response to skyking. There's no way for me to be completely certain, fair enough, but I also can't think of any reasons why the Clinton campaign wouldn't deny the validity of the leaks if they were fake. WikiLeaks has even bigger releases planned for the next couple of weeks so it would be extremely advantageous for the Clinton campaign to destroy their credibility before that happens.

It depends how you do the doctoring, it may be difficult. Change a few words in 1 email out of a hundred, make them say something slightly different to what was actually said. Meantime Clinton doesn't dare to repudiate the emails as a whole because they look legit, and if she tries to repudiate them and is caught out she'll look even worse. Then you whip out a particular email at a debate or something and hit her with it. Something outrageous, but only a modestly doctored version of an email that she actually sent. She has to read it on camera quickly, to try to recall if she actually did say that in the email - regardless if she says "that email is a lie" you've got an opening in which to make her look very bad.

Even if they've spoofed the whole thing - if *all* the leaked emails are made up, calling them fake may look bad for the Clinton campaign anyway - the default response will be "Well yeah, you *would* say that".

She should continue ignoring them. I think Wikileaks is seen as partisan and has failed to garner the trust of the electorate outside Trump's base as a result. And the leaks are frankly boring compared to Trump's locker room escapades.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
13-10-2016, 03:26 AM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(12-10-2016 04:53 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 02:32 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Politics have become so 'radicalized' in the US that you've got people talking about imprisoning the other party's candidate and using their 2nd amendment rights to keep the other party in check.

All that is coming from only one side. Dodgy

And we have ample evidence that one side is driven by the politics of personal power and religious zeal.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2016, 06:03 AM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(11-10-2016 09:25 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 06:53 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  More than 1/4 (25.9%) silly. And the rate since '93 is almost the same (23.2%) so it doesn't seem like there's any particular trend towards increased lone wolf Muslim attacks (but note that we are talking only about lone wolves). And I was busting Birdbrain's balls for 1) not understanding what a fucking majority means and 2) not bothering to even goggle his claims before posting. The latter being almost a given in his posts.


The Neo-nazis appear to be equally convincing and the the anti-abortion activists ain't far behind (granted the PP terrorists are also God slaves, think the neo-Nazis are just fucking racist).

Perhaps skinheads/neo-nazis are as dangerous on average, and I perceive them as less dangerous to me and mine because I am white, and less likely to be targeted. But, I do not think that is the case. Perhaps the media is brainwashing me? Again, I think not. What's more likely is that Muslim attackers are more effective at causing more damage and causing deaths. I am also unsure how you are calculating lone wolf vs organized attacks, but I imagine you would not include any attacks from skinheads as "organized", or else very few of them, because that doesn't seem to happen very often. No?

The skin-heads are not really much of a threat. They are usually white and male. The very thing that gets shut down or infiltrated by the government. Yet, we want those muslims to have all the privacy they need to plan attacks. Because we all know white males are naturally racist and if you have dark skin, you are not capable of racism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: