Trump is going to deport all the Mexicans, build a giant wall, and ban all Muslims from the country. And through all of this, I'm supposed to tell my son to not hate people because of the color of their skin...sad times.
He's going to deport people with American citizenship? How does that work?
David Duke: received 3.4% of the vote in Louisiana. Because racism is worse than ever and Trump is literally Hitler.
So basically it's a hair above Libertarianism?
Slightly above the Libertarian Party candidate for POTUS. Because the Libertarian Party, like white nationalism is totally a force to be reckoned with.
Like I said, he's a demagogue. There's not as much need for the demagoguery once he's in the White House. Further, he's going to have certain Republicans that are going to join the Democrats to fight him every step of the way. Not too worried - not that much more than usual at least.
Let's ignore the obvious fact that Donald Trump is a narcissist that cannot take the slightest amount of negative criticism toward himself - because you certainly already have ignored this - and focus on the fact that your argument is Donald Trump will change his behavior after you have rewarded his behavior through positive reinforcement by giving him exactly what he wanted.
And you're sitting there thinking, "Yup! That definitely makes sense in my mind!"
Astounding.
Dude, I still don't understand if you realize that he was running against Hillary Clinton. How is that scenario any better? This has restored my faith in America.
Also, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I don't think I've ever been, though my position is nuanced.
Because Hillary is at least a half decent candidate.
We've been through this before: just as bad + not funny + works for the establishment.
Like I said, he's a demagogue. There's not as much need for the demagoguery once he's in the White House. Further, he's going to have certain Republicans that are going to join the Democrats to fight him every step of the way. Not too worried - not that much more than usual at least.
Let's ignore the obvious fact that Donald Trump is a narcissist that cannot take the slightest amount of negative criticism toward himself - because you certainly already have ignored this - and focus on the fact that your argument is Donald Trump will change his behavior after you have rewarded his behavior through positive reinforcement by giving him exactly what he wanted.
And you're sitting there thinking, "Yup! That definitely makes sense in my mind!"
Astounding.
Dude, I still don't understand if you realize that he was running against Hillary Clinton. How is that scenario any better? This has restored my faith in America.
Also, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I don't think I've ever been, though my position is nuanced.
But insulated within the Presidential office, being removed from the pressures of an election, I do believe he'll be more restrained.
HOW? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE THIS?
How much denial do you have to be in?
Hopefully less than it took to think Hillary was an electable candidate.
Like I said, he's a demagogue. There's not as much need for the demagoguery once he's in the White House. Further, he's going to have certain Republicans that are going to join the Democrats to fight him every step of the way. Not too worried - not that much more than usual at least.
Very disappointed in Gary Johnson's results so far.
Nice to see that Crooked Hillary will not have any kind of mandate, though. Trump voters are sending a big middle finger to the corrupt establishment, the status quo and the phony scumbags in Hollywood.
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.
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.
Anyone mind giving the layman's cribnotes on identity? An example, in particular, would be useful. Here it seems to be separated from both (biological) sex and (cultural) expression and so I'm not sure what's left. I do have an example below but that is more mental illness than anything IMO.
So I could be biologically a male, dress and act in a feminine way and 'identify' as some other thing? What would be my impetus for doing so? Can I wake up one day and just 'identify' as a Lord Admiral and make up some definition of that and then insist that everyone refer to me as a Lord Admiral under penalty of law? By no means am I suggesting that such a silly example represents all or even most of those who have another identity that they hold deeply to, but I suppose that's the question: what is a legitimate identity that needs to be recognized, what's not and how do you determine the difference?
When I was in my teens, there was this guy that showed up to play MTG with us one night. I'm not sure where he came from or who invited him but this guy was, as far as I could tell, genuinely convinced that he was a Werewolf. I mean genuinely convinced, not joking around or trolling or anything. Being the immature jerks that we were at the time, we really let him have it behind his back. I'm not proud of that because clearly he had a mental illness and probably wasn't responsible for his weird behavior. Again, I recognize that this is a wacky example but I'm curious as to whether this law would have actually required us to acknowledge his Werewolf-ness. It was definitely part of who he thought he was as a being, both physically and culturally/socially.
Now I'm not sure about, in that above example, what the correct attitude is in dealing with such people. Maybe it's best to just pretend that they are a Werewolf and just go along to get along. But I could also see the point of view of someone who suggested not feeding into his delusions. And, either way, it certainly seems like an area around which there is legitimate room for disagreement and discussion (i.e., not a question for the law.)
Flavorwise: at first I was thinking K&T represented a step forward as far as putting homosexual relationships on an equal footing with hetero ones. But come to think of it, while I believe there have been hetero relationships depicted, I can't remember one coming in the form of a legendary creature. Pia and Kiran Nalaar for example and Gisa and Geralf are each brother and sister pairs, right? Interesting.
Anyway, Ludevic doesn't look too good and K&T aren't really competitive but I still think it'd be fun to run them as a commander for those of us not using Zedruu the Greathearted
already.
While the double standards surrounding violence and the sabotage of the democratic system are certainly more important, let's not forget the way the left-wing power structure uses the media to harp on the mistakes of 3rd party candidates as well, while ignoring items like Hillary's Mosul Moment. You're probably not going to see the Times making a big deal out of that.
As for the Russians, curious that they are suddenly viewed as a terrifying menace! Ooh.. the Russians, how scary! We could have used your support ~40 years ago when you were employed as useful idiots for the Soviet regime.
He's going to deport people with American citizenship? How does that work?
I'd be livid if a Klansman were just elected to the office of President. I'm not as concerned about an alleged super secret racist.
Slightly above the Libertarian Party candidate for POTUS. Because the Libertarian Party, like white nationalism is totally a force to be reckoned with.
David Duke: received 3.4% of the vote in Louisiana. Because racism is worse than ever and Trump is literally Hitler.
We've been through this before: just as bad + not funny + works for the establishment.
Dude, I still don't understand if you realize that he was running against Hillary Clinton. How is that scenario any better? This has restored my faith in America.
Also, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I don't think I've ever been, though my position is nuanced.
Winners: Donald J. Trump
IMO: a total disaster, but a more entertaining one than it would have been if Hillary was elected.
Hopefully less than it took to think Hillary was an electable candidate.
Like I said, he's a demagogue. There's not as much need for the demagoguery once he's in the White House. Further, he's going to have certain Republicans that are going to join the Democrats to fight him every step of the way. Not too worried - not that much more than usual at least.
Nice to see that Crooked Hillary will not have any kind of mandate, though. Trump voters are sending a big middle finger to the corrupt establishment, the status quo and the phony scumbags in Hollywood.
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?
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.
So I could be biologically a male, dress and act in a feminine way and 'identify' as some other thing? What would be my impetus for doing so? Can I wake up one day and just 'identify' as a Lord Admiral and make up some definition of that and then insist that everyone refer to me as a Lord Admiral under penalty of law? By no means am I suggesting that such a silly example represents all or even most of those who have another identity that they hold deeply to, but I suppose that's the question: what is a legitimate identity that needs to be recognized, what's not and how do you determine the difference?
When I was in my teens, there was this guy that showed up to play MTG with us one night. I'm not sure where he came from or who invited him but this guy was, as far as I could tell, genuinely convinced that he was a Werewolf. I mean genuinely convinced, not joking around or trolling or anything. Being the immature jerks that we were at the time, we really let him have it behind his back. I'm not proud of that because clearly he had a mental illness and probably wasn't responsible for his weird behavior. Again, I recognize that this is a wacky example but I'm curious as to whether this law would have actually required us to acknowledge his Werewolf-ness. It was definitely part of who he thought he was as a being, both physically and culturally/socially.
Now I'm not sure about, in that above example, what the correct attitude is in dealing with such people. Maybe it's best to just pretend that they are a Werewolf and just go along to get along. But I could also see the point of view of someone who suggested not feeding into his delusions. And, either way, it certainly seems like an area around which there is legitimate room for disagreement and discussion (i.e., not a question for the law.)
Anyway, Ludevic doesn't look too good and K&T aren't really competitive but I still think it'd be fun to run them as a commander for those of us not using Zedruu the Greathearted
already.
Edit: Nvm. Pia and Kiran were married...
As for the Russians, curious that they are suddenly viewed as a terrifying menace! Ooh.. the Russians, how scary! We could have used your support ~40 years ago when you were employed as useful idiots for the Soviet regime.