Y'know, for those of us talking about whether or not the Republican party is finished, we should bear in mind that we're talking about this in a post-Ronald Reagan world. Ronald Reagan being the guy that won with the highest electoral college total ever after having won every state except Minnesota. You will notice the Democrats are still around.
So yeah, I think to speculate the Republican party is finished is a little premature to say the least. Clinton won't win by a landslide victory, even if she won every battleground state.
I wish I felt I could make that kind of stand. If I were a republican, I'd probably do similar. But, I honestly do feel I have to vote against Trump and there's only one legitimate option for that
Y'know, for those of us talking about whether or not the Republican party is finished, we should bear in mind that we're talking about this in a post-Ronald Reagan world. Ronald Reagan being the guy that won with the highest electoral college total ever after having won every state except Minnesota. You will notice the Democrats are still around.
So yeah, I think to speculate the Republican party is finished is a little premature to say the least. Clinton won't win by a landslide victory, even if she won every battleground state.
Right, but the Democratic Party didn't have a series of primaries and other events showing a great divide between the actual party elites and those that said elites thought were a big part of their base during that election either.
And neither did you have the Democratic Presidential nominee proclaim to his die-hard loyalists that, if he lost, then it would be the fault of the elites and the DNC itself for not supporting him hard enough.
I lost a relatively long response I don't feel like retyping up. Here's a summary of what I wrote I can expand on if needed.
1. Yes. I agree its similar.
2. I actually don't like Clinton much and have hunted for reasons not to vote for her. I have a long list of things I dislike. Some of these things make me wander if the Democratic party would be better served by losing this race and Hillary not being allowed to run the party. But, that voice is tempered by the next point.
3. When I go down the list and try to objectively analyze each claim I find I don't like either person; but there's on the whole a greater sum of substantiated illegal, unethical and immoral behavior from Trump. Trump on the face of it all feels like a greater threat to our democracy based on the values that I hold and the wrongs I'm sure he's committed (which do not include the allegations of rape).
4. Innocent until proven guilty is only a mandate for the way our justice system should work. It is not something we require citizens to live by, though there are cases where certain types of discrimination which we say is ok for not working with felons is not ok for people you perceive as being guilty of a felony.
5. This doesn't ultimately get down to the fact that both I and people of the right have constructed a circumstantial and unproven case against our opponents and we're willing to vote based on that perceived construction. But, since I'm asked to vote, and I feel I've done my due-diligence in researching both candidates full sum of positions, strengths, and faults I am ultimately allowed to vote for whatever reasons I want to, and so is everyone else.
6. Raping Children is definitely awful and I can't convince myself that Donald Trump hasn't done it. I couldn't say that if I was on a jury right now that I could say he did it and needed to go to jail with my current set of data. But, I can withhold any vote I would potentially cast for him due to this and feel justified in that decision. It's not at odds with my world view. And I'd argue, it's not at odds with the American system.
7. Conservatives can and do use this logic when they chose not to vote for Clinton. But I think there's a mountain of evidence that they aren't apply the same sort of logic to Trump. And I think I have been willing to apply the standards I'm holding Trump to to the Clintons.
8. The big unresolved question mark that people have brought up to my response to this historically is whether Bill is guilty of some of the same types of behavior and whether that should disqualify Hillary in some manner. It's possible. I don't deny it. But, there's a part of me that thinks that's on Bill and not on Hillary. I think Hillary should have dumped his butt in the 90s, but she didn't. I'm not convinced that voting for her is voting for him, but I can see how others make that leap when she says things like "I'm going to put Bill to work on fixing the economy". She clearly thinks he'll be an active part of her administration. But, while I think it may be that Bill has violated many of the things I think Trump has violated, he's not the one running for office and my choice is between Hillary & Trump. Bill is part of that calculation, but he's not on the ballot.
9. I really am in many ways voting for the lesser of 2 evils. But I voted for Sanders in the Primary and I didn't vote for the lesser of 2 evils when I voted for Obama. If I'd been given a viable candidate (Jill Stein is not this and neither are the libertarian or conservative 3rd party candidates) I would not be voting for Clinton. I don't feel like I'm being a hypocrite here, but I have been accused of it.
There appears to be a caching issue; I've got 9 points in my edit, but only 6 display. If you're quoting this you may find I've said more than you've read.
I don't think it was necessary for you to justify why you feel so.
I wanted to address this largely because I am of the opinion that there can be no objective-minded individual, and actually believe that the very phrase can be an oxymoron!
(I am fully aware that this post doesn't address anything you wrote above =D )
Y'know, for those of us talking about whether or not the Republican party is finished, we should bear in mind that we're talking about this in a post-Ronald Reagan world. Ronald Reagan being the guy that won with the highest electoral college total ever after having won every state except Minnesota. You will notice the Democrats are still around.
So yeah, I think to speculate the Republican party is finished is a little premature to say the least. Clinton won't win by a landslide victory, even if she won every battleground state.
Right, but the Democratic Party didn't have a series of primaries and other events showing a great divide between the actual party elites and those that said elites thought were a big part of their base during that election either.
And neither did you have the Democratic Presidential nominee proclaim to his die-hard loyalists that, if he lost, then it would be the fault of the elites and the DNC itself for not supporting him hard enough.
It was something a bit different. During the Reagan years there existed a very large faction of Democrats that split their tickets by voting Reagan for president and then voting Democrat down the rest of the ballot. This is why Democrats still were able to have a very tight grip of the House despite Reagan winning in a landslide. So many of these people existed they got the term Reagan Democrats coined after them, and they were a key cog in both of Reagan's wins in 1980 and 1984. You have to keep in mind that the country was FAR less polarized back then and people were far more likely to split their tickets. Nowadays people just do straight-line party voting.
Because in the general they have no hope of beating Trump if I vote for them.
Why does that make them illegitimate candidates?
As for why I can't vote for a libertarian: I believe their government objectives are moronic (their social policy is fine, but not uniquely libertarian). As for why I can't vote for the green party: It's clear they can't run a party at the moment, I don't don't think they'd be good stewards of our government and their dog whistling to anti-science factions I'm very uncomfortable with.
Ok, "I don't think they'd do a good job" is a reason for illegitimacy.
I could write someone in, but it'd be equivalent to not voting at all
Yo, the Toronto Star has a sourced list of (probably) everything Donald Trump has lied about on the campaign trail between September 15th and now. There are quite a few of them, but to be fair the list is automatic so there are a few repeats. [link]
For people who see literally no difference in severe consequences between Trump & Clinton I can understand doing anything else, but I can't personally understand anyone who actually thinks the two are equivalently bad or that Trump has any positive attributes that would make him a good president to begin with.
I don't want the U.S. to function as the world police anymore. Oddly enough, Trump is the slightly better choice here as he's the only one of the two that hasn't led the U.S. to war (because he hasn't had the chance) and he's at least asking the rest of NATO to pay its fair share for once.
I want an end to the drug war and mass incarceration. Neither helps here... like, at all.
I want Guantanamo closed, warrantless wiretapping ended and an end to the surveillance state. Neither helps here.
I want government to stay out of my pocketbook and bedroom. Neither helps here.
I want to see an end to the PC madness. Trump is better here.
I want to see a return to civility and rational discourse. Hillary is better here.
I want politicians to stop being above the law. Neither helps here.
None of these things are allowed to matter to me, though, because Joss Whedon says so.
For people who see literally no difference in severe consequences between Trump & Clinton I can understand doing anything else, but I can't personally understand anyone who actually thinks the two are equivalently bad or that Trump has any positive attributes that would make him a good president to begin with.
I want to see an end to the PC madness. Trump is better here.
By ending the PC madness, do you mean causing a new wave of bigotry madness? One extreme does not cancel out the other. I guess politics doesn't see it that way though.
For people who see literally no difference in severe consequences between Trump & Clinton I can understand doing anything else, but I can't personally understand anyone who actually thinks the two are equivalently bad or that Trump has any positive attributes that would make him a good president to begin with.
I don't want the U.S. to function as the world police anymore. Oddly enough, Trump is the slightly better choice here as he's the only one of the two that hasn't led the U.S. to war (because he hasn't had the chance) and he's at least asking the rest of NATO to pay its fair share for once.
What do you mean for once? We have been paying our fair share since the Second World War. Both in terms of cold hard cash and the rather large number of American millitary bases that are scattered across the continent that you don't pay market value for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
By ending the PC madness, do you mean causing a new wave of bigotry madness? One extreme does not cancel out the other. I guess politics doesn't see it that way though.
We do have a right to offend.
It's an accepted, dare I say integral, part of freedom of speech.
It's probably why abortion, gay marriage, and other formerly "frowned-upon" social issues are legal now. Because, even though the society at large may have considered them wrong in many ways, they weren't legally allowed to silence those who voiced those opinions.
I don't want the U.S. to function as the world police anymore. Oddly enough, Trump is the slightly better choice here as he's the only one of the two that hasn't led the U.S. to war (because he hasn't had the chance) and he's at least asking the rest of NATO to pay its fair share for once.
Mathematically, 0 out of 0 is not better or worse than any M out of N, where M and N > 0. This feels pretty intuitive to me as well.
Although, you could argue that an unknown is better than a sufficiently bad known. I would just claim that Trump is not really an unknown in this regard.
I want to see an end to the PC madness. Trump is better here.
I strongly disagree. The answer to demagoguery of the left has to be a measured, rational response, not the (even worse) demagoguery of the right. Do you think the PC police will just accept defeat if Trump is elected? You even go on to say that Hillary is better for rational discourse... don't you see that as completely contradictory?
Practically speaking, it means unshackle Mike Pence and let him go back to electrocuting "the gays", among other things.
If that's something you can live with, vote with your conscience, I guess.
For people who see literally no difference in severe consequences between Trump & Clinton I can understand doing anything else, but I can't personally understand anyone who actually thinks the two are equivalently bad or that Trump has any positive attributes that would make him a good president to begin with.
I don't want the U.S. to function as the world police anymore. Oddly enough, Trump is the slightly better choice here as he's the only one of the two that hasn't led the U.S. to war (because he hasn't had the chance) and he's at least asking the rest of NATO to pay its fair share for once.
What do you mean for once? We have been paying our fair share since the Second World War. Both in terms of cold hard cash and the rather large number of American millitary bases that are scattered across the continent that you don't pay market value for.
I'd rather the U.S. not be a part of NATO. But as long as the it is going to be, it's ridiculous that it continues to allow most of its fellow member states to continually fail to meet their obligations.
Many European members -- including big economies like France and Germany -- spend less than the amount called for by NATO guidelines.
Even NATO itself admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare.
Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the target.
Quote from Highroller »
Define what this means, exactly.
Magickware has this covered pretty well. People should be able to speak their minds on matters of civic importance, even if their ideas are unpopular. If they are false, if they are hateful (and many of Trump's ideas could be classified as at least one of the two) then expose them. But what has been happening on college campuses for years now, and what is happening in many other venues and what is happening to Trump - being chased from major cities by threats and violence - these things I do not accept.
Quote from Pouncing Kavu »
I strongly disagree. The answer to demagoguery of the left has to be a measured, rational response, not the (even worse) demagoguery of the right.
But unfortunately, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. They are winning.
Do you think the PC police will just accept defeat if Trump is elected?
No, I don't. But for once, the fight has been joined.
You even go on to say that Hillary is better for rational discourse... don't you see that as completely contradictory?
No, I don't. She rather obviously speaks more soberly, civilly and that is good. But she does so within the pre-defined boxes of politically correct expectation.
Quote from Gum0nshoe »
I'm not sure that this is true. Yeah, Clinton still wants to be World Police Chief; you'll brook no argument here. But, Trump has gone on record saying he wants to bomb the families of terrorists, which is a strict no-no even in the libertarian play book since it crosses a line from defense to offense.
FWIW, I think "especially" could replace "even" in that sentence. I don't disagree.
I think if we really look at Trump, who is instigatory at his core; we can see a great capacity for warfare and a likely unpredictable cause of conflict. I'm really unsure as to how "hasn't had the chance to start wars" yet is ... safer?
I think (and expect most here will agree) that he is a tremendous demagogue. Not just in the sense that most politicians are, but way beyond that. He's made hay by being a rabblerouser. But insulated within the Presidential office, being removed from the pressures of an election, I do believe he'll be more restrained.
We're guessing about him. Educated guesses, perhaps. But Hillary can be judged by the fact that she's already been hawkish in office and that's a very well educated guess.
I can understand why this would offer little comfort to you or others and don't blame you if you think Hillary is the preferable candidate in this respect. But what I do oppose strenuously is the idea that the anti-war choice is clear.
NATO members do pay into the system, not maybe in the amounts we do;
No one expects them to pay into the system to the degree that the U.S. does. They do not have the same resources.
but, NATO exists because we were filling a void and we had the power to prop the system up. I don't think that pulling back on NATO is likely to change our role in the world or our interests in it. And it's worth noting that Trump supported an expansion of NATO powers into investigating terrorism, which is world police goal #1. If you're a libertarian isolationist, I can see how any pull back looks good; but, I just don't see Trump discarding a tool at his disposal that lets him flex his ego. "We're going to bomb ... <fill in the blank>" is a common rhetorical piece of language in his speeches. I think it's worth taking the man at his word.
I'm saying that a NATO "pullback"(in the sense that member states are expected to meet the obligations that they agreed to) would be a good thing from my perspective because it would reduce U.S. expenditure and further decentralize defense, giving the local member states more power within their own spheres.
I expect we'd go to war under both presidents. But I'd expect a Clinton war to be relatively well ordered and defined. I'd expect one under Trump to be massively scaring, unpredictable and likely to escalate without anyone to hold the breaks. You know, a Bush like war, but without any belief in a god or human compassion. So, ill thought out, ill planned, executed poorly, major ramifications, potentially started on a lie or a wag-the-dog type situation.
But the Bush wars and the Clinton wars are the same ones.
I understand/respect your fears, though.
I think you're voting for World Police or Unfettered Rage Monster. And I don't think that that's surprising.
I'm not saying you don't have that right, it's just electing the avatar of hate speech isn't going to silence the SJWs at all. Rather it will probably enrage them even more.
I'm not saying you don't have that right, it's just electing the avatar of hate speech isn't going to silence the SJWs at all. Rather it will probably enrage them even more.
Like how electing a black president enraged the racists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm still not entirely sure we've solved what SJW practically means, at least not well enough to use it here?
Like, MTGS has users on here who use SJW to mean (judging by context) anything from the entire academic world, to a global near-terrorist organization, to whiny kids on social media, to media critics who point out racism and/or sexism, to dedicated left-wing protesters, to lazy/ineffectual left-wing protesters, to a multi-purpose insult like "cuck"...I mean, I'm pretty sure I got called an SJW for pointing out how quoting a white supremacist organization seemed like a bad idea that made the quoter sound racist so it's like, whateverman.
@spirit: honestly, the racists are pretty good at enraging themselves.
I'm still not entirely sure we've solved what SJW practically means, at least not well enough to use it here?
I don't use it, but I understand what it means in this context perfectly well. Let's not start playing the semantics game about the term (again) in an effort to pretend there's absolutely no troubling behavior at all among progressives.
honestly, the racists are pretty good at enraging themselves.
Glibness not helping. I'm pointing out a well-documented phenomenon here. The alt-right has exploded in the past eight years. We need to look at the sources and triggers for right-wing extremism the same way we do so for any other form of extremism. When you think of American racists as just randomly evil, you're doing exactly the same thing as an Islamophobic conservative thinking of Muslim terrorists as just randomly evil. They are evil, but they're evil in ways that respond predictably to external stimuli: extremism is, by and large, an overreaction to sociopolitical setbacks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
When you think of American racists as just randomly evil, you're doing exactly the same thing as an Islamophobic conservative thinking of Muslim terrorists as just randomly evil. They are evil, but they're evil in ways that respond predictably to external stimuli: extremism is, by and large, an overreaction to sociopolitical setbacks.
Yeah, I agree with you about that, but in this case the sociopolitical setback largely isn't being poor, it's being racist, and being scared of living in a world that contains brown people.
At least, that's what this report is telling me. [link]
The press has gotten extremely comfortable with describing a Trump electorate that simply doesn’t exist. Cottle describes his supporters as “white voters living on the edges of the economy.” This is, in nearly every particular, wrong.
There is absolutely no evidence that Trump’s supporters, either in the primary or the general election, are disproportionately poor or working class. Exit polling from the primaries found that Trump voters made about as much as Ted Cruz voters, and significantly more than supporters of either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Trump voters, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver found, had a median household income of $72,000, a fair bit higher than the $62,000 median household income for non-Hispanic whites in America.
A major study from Gallup's Jonathan Rothwell confirmed this. Trump support was correlated with higher, not lower, income, both among the population as a whole and among white people. Trump supporters were less likely to be unemployed or to have dropped out of the labor force. Areas with more manufacturing, or higher exposure to imports from China, were less likely to think favorably of Trump.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
When I look at Trump, I see a bundle of emotions that he uses to make decisions with. The idea that a man baby has the nuclear codes as well as the largest military in the world is terrifying. Say whatever you want about the alternative in Hillary Clinton, but she has at least proven to have control of her emotions over her entire time in public office. As well as the experience whereas Trump has never served in any government office in his lifetime. The idea that people can support that fully cements my belief that people are stupid and nothing will ever change that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
insulated within the Presidential office, being removed from the pressures of an election, I do believe he'll be more restrained.
His positions during the race have not been very far removed from his positions prior to joining it, and many of the attacks against him (as is the case with many presidential nominees) have been pointing at things he's done before the race began. If you think Trump's personality problems are the result of the stresses of the presidential race, I think you're fooling yourself.
I would happily vote for any republican despite any other issue as Obamacare is garbage and will destroy all of our small businesses. So far they have had things in place to delay and mitigate the problem by 2017 it will cost them nearly twice what it does now even if they were not avoiding it until now which soon they wont be able to read the codes... and for what? bad healthcare... The entire democratic economic plan makes business want to ship itself overseas. Every idea they have to help the unfortunate is simply doomed to backfire in a capitalist system. Raise minimum wage ? Ok fire employees make a computer do their job. Make obamacare suck hundreds of thousands from small business with no extra revenue pulling them out of the black? fire employees or liquidate the business instead. Force high taxes on profits coming in from overseas? well now they wont send the money back they will invest it in another plant in those foreign countries instead. I found it so funny when Hillary Clinton tried to act like it was a character flaw to use tax law to pay the government less money by using their own laws..trump can avoid paying federal tax? If can legally do that and did not that he would be idiotic. Lets be honest that what EVERY smart business or person thinks this way... You see its not their fault your "system" fails its the fact that your system is horrible and only makes business owners want to close up shop and sit on what they have or ship the jobs to other countries who are not going to try and take so much off the top. The republican candidate could be a admitted Satan worshiper and I would still vote for them when the way the democrats approach our financial problems is so incredibly stupid.
When you think of American racists as just randomly evil, you're doing exactly the same thing as an Islamophobic conservative thinking of Muslim terrorists as just randomly evil. They are evil, but they're evil in ways that respond predictably to external stimuli: extremism is, by and large, an overreaction to sociopolitical setbacks.
Yeah, I agree with you about that, but in this case the sociopolitical setback largely isn't being poor, it's being racist, and being scared of living in a world that contains brown people.
He never mentioned a specific sociopolitical setback, so I don't know where the being poor comes from.
The dominating factor that motivates the Trump supporters appears to be that the U.S. is no longer the same, both demographically and socially, what it used to be just 20 years ago, and that they're no longer living in the country that they thought they were living in.
I feel that this is a legitimate fear to have, and to simply hand-wave them all off as racists is overly simplifying the issue.
insulated within the Presidential office, being removed from the pressures of an election, I do believe he'll be more restrained.
His positions during the race have not been very far removed from his positions prior to joining it, and many of the attacks against him (as is the case with many presidential nominees) have been pointing at things he's done before the race began. If you think Trump's personality problems are the result of the stresses of the presidential race, I think you're fooling yourself.
The man supported abortion before he decided to run for office.
About the only thing we reasonably be sure of regarding Trump is-
1- The man has little to no ethics regarding business practices.
2- He's a sleazeball.
3- Given his actions this election run, he runs mostly on his pride.
As far as policy is concerned; we know next to nothing about his true intentions, since they go against a good bit of what he said previously in such a dramatic fashion. For all I know he's just trying to win over the conservatives by saying the right sound-bytes.
That's why I find it pretty amazing that conservatives can actually fool themselves into thinking that Trump is with them, and it seems self-evident to me that the mainstream conservatives are fighting on the basis of "never Clinton" moreso than "yay Trump".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So yeah, I think to speculate the Republican party is finished is a little premature to say the least. Clinton won't win by a landslide victory, even if she won every battleground state.
Why are the others illegitimate?
Right, but the Democratic Party didn't have a series of primaries and other events showing a great divide between the actual party elites and those that said elites thought were a big part of their base during that election either.
And neither did you have the Democratic Presidential nominee proclaim to his die-hard loyalists that, if he lost, then it would be the fault of the elites and the DNC itself for not supporting him hard enough.
I don't think it was necessary for you to justify why you feel so.
I wanted to address this largely because I am of the opinion that there can be no objective-minded individual, and actually believe that the very phrase can be an oxymoron!
(I am fully aware that this post doesn't address anything you wrote above =D )
It was something a bit different. During the Reagan years there existed a very large faction of Democrats that split their tickets by voting Reagan for president and then voting Democrat down the rest of the ballot. This is why Democrats still were able to have a very tight grip of the House despite Reagan winning in a landslide. So many of these people existed they got the term Reagan Democrats coined after them, and they were a key cog in both of Reagan's wins in 1980 and 1984. You have to keep in mind that the country was FAR less polarized back then and people were far more likely to split their tickets. Nowadays people just do straight-line party voting.
Ok, "I don't think they'd do a good job" is a reason for illegitimacy.
Why?
Art is life itself.
I don't want the U.S. to function as the world police anymore. Oddly enough, Trump is the slightly better choice here as he's the only one of the two that hasn't led the U.S. to war (because he hasn't had the chance) and he's at least asking the rest of NATO to pay its fair share for once.
I want an end to the drug war and mass incarceration. Neither helps here... like, at all.
I want Guantanamo closed, warrantless wiretapping ended and an end to the surveillance state. Neither helps here.
I want government to stay out of my pocketbook and bedroom. Neither helps here.
I want to see an end to the PC madness. Trump is better here.
I want to see a return to civility and rational discourse. Hillary is better here.
I want politicians to stop being above the law. Neither helps here.
None of these things are allowed to matter to me, though, because Joss Whedon says so.
By ending the PC madness, do you mean causing a new wave of bigotry madness? One extreme does not cancel out the other. I guess politics doesn't see it that way though.
Sexy Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios
EDH
G Isao
What do you mean for once? We have been paying our fair share since the Second World War. Both in terms of cold hard cash and the rather large number of American millitary bases that are scattered across the continent that you don't pay market value for.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
We do have a right to offend.
It's an accepted, dare I say integral, part of freedom of speech.
It's probably why abortion, gay marriage, and other formerly "frowned-upon" social issues are legal now. Because, even though the society at large may have considered them wrong in many ways, they weren't legally allowed to silence those who voiced those opinions.
Mathematically, 0 out of 0 is not better or worse than any M out of N, where M and N > 0. This feels pretty intuitive to me as well.
Although, you could argue that an unknown is better than a sufficiently bad known. I would just claim that Trump is not really an unknown in this regard.
I strongly disagree. The answer to demagoguery of the left has to be a measured, rational response, not the (even worse) demagoguery of the right. Do you think the PC police will just accept defeat if Trump is elected? You even go on to say that Hillary is better for rational discourse... don't you see that as completely contradictory?
If that's something you can live with, vote with your conscience, I guess.
Art is life itself.
I'd rather the U.S. not be a part of NATO. But as long as the it is going to be, it's ridiculous that it continues to allow most of its fellow member states to continually fail to meet their obligations.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/
Magickware has this covered pretty well. People should be able to speak their minds on matters of civic importance, even if their ideas are unpopular. If they are false, if they are hateful (and many of Trump's ideas could be classified as at least one of the two) then expose them. But what has been happening on college campuses for years now, and what is happening in many other venues and what is happening to Trump - being chased from major cities by threats and violence - these things I do not accept.
But unfortunately, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. They are winning.
No, I don't. But for once, the fight has been joined.
No, I don't. She rather obviously speaks more soberly, civilly and that is good. But she does so within the pre-defined boxes of politically correct expectation.
FWIW, I think "especially" could replace "even" in that sentence. I don't disagree.
I think (and expect most here will agree) that he is a tremendous demagogue. Not just in the sense that most politicians are, but way beyond that. He's made hay by being a rabblerouser. But insulated within the Presidential office, being removed from the pressures of an election, I do believe he'll be more restrained.
We're guessing about him. Educated guesses, perhaps. But Hillary can be judged by the fact that she's already been hawkish in office and that's a very well educated guess.
I can understand why this would offer little comfort to you or others and don't blame you if you think Hillary is the preferable candidate in this respect. But what I do oppose strenuously is the idea that the anti-war choice is clear.
No one expects them to pay into the system to the degree that the U.S. does. They do not have the same resources.
I'm saying that a NATO "pullback"(in the sense that member states are expected to meet the obligations that they agreed to) would be a good thing from my perspective because it would reduce U.S. expenditure and further decentralize defense, giving the local member states more power within their own spheres.
But the Bush wars and the Clinton wars are the same ones.
I understand/respect your fears, though.
Option C please?
Sexy Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios
EDH
G Isao
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Like, MTGS has users on here who use SJW to mean (judging by context) anything from the entire academic world, to a global near-terrorist organization, to whiny kids on social media, to media critics who point out racism and/or sexism, to dedicated left-wing protesters, to lazy/ineffectual left-wing protesters, to a multi-purpose insult like "cuck"...I mean, I'm pretty sure I got called an SJW for pointing out how quoting a white supremacist organization seemed like a bad idea that made the quoter sound racist so it's like, whateverman.
@spirit: honestly, the racists are pretty good at enraging themselves.
Art is life itself.
Glibness not helping. I'm pointing out a well-documented phenomenon here. The alt-right has exploded in the past eight years. We need to look at the sources and triggers for right-wing extremism the same way we do so for any other form of extremism. When you think of American racists as just randomly evil, you're doing exactly the same thing as an Islamophobic conservative thinking of Muslim terrorists as just randomly evil. They are evil, but they're evil in ways that respond predictably to external stimuli: extremism is, by and large, an overreaction to sociopolitical setbacks.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
At least, that's what this report is telling me. [link]
Art is life itself.
Currently Playing:
Retired
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
He never mentioned a specific sociopolitical setback, so I don't know where the being poor comes from.
The dominating factor that motivates the Trump supporters appears to be that the U.S. is no longer the same, both demographically and socially, what it used to be just 20 years ago, and that they're no longer living in the country that they thought they were living in.
I feel that this is a legitimate fear to have, and to simply hand-wave them all off as racists is overly simplifying the issue.
The man supported abortion before he decided to run for office.
About the only thing we reasonably be sure of regarding Trump is-
1- The man has little to no ethics regarding business practices.
2- He's a sleazeball.
3- Given his actions this election run, he runs mostly on his pride.
As far as policy is concerned; we know next to nothing about his true intentions, since they go against a good bit of what he said previously in such a dramatic fashion. For all I know he's just trying to win over the conservatives by saying the right sound-bytes.
I mean...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/donald-trump-donations-democrats-hillary-clinton-119071
That's why I find it pretty amazing that conservatives can actually fool themselves into thinking that Trump is with them, and it seems self-evident to me that the mainstream conservatives are fighting on the basis of "never Clinton" moreso than "yay Trump".