Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hanspur Symbol

Fergie's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,589 posts (2,618 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 4 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,589 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
I just can't see how anyone can believe that Trump is "for the little guy."

I agree 100%. Actions speak louder then words, and clearly his actions show he only cares about Donald Trump.

I don't see how anyone can think that any major party candidate for president in the last 30+ years is "for the little guy."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought it was very odd that Clinton would go after Trump for using Chinese steel.

Clinton Grants China MFN, Reversing Campaign Pledge

That article is so full of gems, it is hard to not repost the whole thing. Here is a highlight or two:
"President Clinton Thursday reversed course on China and renewed its trade privileges despite what he said was Beijing's lack of significant progress on human rights.

Echoing the case made by George Bush when he was president, Clinton said he was convinced the Chinese would take more steps to improve human rights if the issue were separated from the threat of trade sanctions."
"Clinton had been the subject of heavy lobbying by American business interests and his economic advisers to continue China's trade privileges. With China now the world's fastest growing economy, the United States exports $8 billion a year there, which sustains up to 150,000 American jobs. Many major American businesses see even greater potential in Chinese markets, expecting China to become a massive purchaser over the next decade of the phones, electronic gadgets and thousands of other products made in America."

"...At one point, the president was leaning toward extending the trade privileges, but putting sanctions on a range of military-made products. The Treasury and Defense departments vehemently objected, and from the outset the president's economic advisers argued that trade and human rights should not be linked."

[bold added by Fergie]
Just think about how Wal Mart benefited from this arrangement. Hillary was on their board of directors back in the 80's when she was First Lady of Arkansas.

Dear "College Educated America", please take the pompous attitude and neo-liberalism that has been pucking over the vast majority for decades, and shove it where the sun don't shine.

You're welcome.

People who work for a living.

[Just kidding around Bugleyman. No offense intended]


I am reminded of the Jim Hightower quote:
"The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity"

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Guys, remember, Fox hates Trump, too. Fox wants to control the GOP. Trump is challenging their authority, and has openly insulted them. They might just try to tear everyone down.

The Debate of Long Knives then. I would be happy to see something like that!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

If this is a battle ground state, than Clinton is no doubt keeping in mind that Ralph Nader pulled 100,000 votes in another key state that Bob Gore lost by only 500. And that loss decided the election.

Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush.

Democrats got Bush elected in Florida. Nader didn't force any democrats to vote for Bush, they did it themselves. If the democratic party actually took responsibility, rather then make up myths about Nader "spoiling" the election, they not be in such a sorry state.

EDIT: That is all I will say about the whole Bush/Gore Florida thing. It is ancient history, and there have been enough internet arguments about it already.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't help but get a little nervous hearing everyone call this the "Final" or "Last" debate. I know they mean of this election, but I can't help but feel like we will be looking back on these times wondering what the hell happened, as we cook mutant dog parts over a burning pair of sneakers...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Alright, everyone, commence Operation: S!!$post. Deploy all Paizonians. A score of us might get stopped by security, a hundred might get stopped by the mods, but if just one of us can make it to the podium, it'll all be worth it to say that one magical word:


Yo! Bum Rush the Show! Debate!

Chuck D minces no words of his political leanings, describing his fellow New Yorker and presidential candidate Donald Trump as “something that cannot happen.”

“You want to be the voice of voiceless and the vibration for the vote,” he said. “For us to not say anything about the ridiculousness of what the RNC was would be a glaring omission."

Chuck D for President 2020!

BigDTBone wrote:
Nothing says the CoPD is the "official" debate coordinators. Only convention keeps the commission around, and if they put in something like that likely both candidates would chose to arrange their own debates.

There is more to it then convention.

League Refuses to "Help Perpetrate a Fraud"
""It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.""

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Quote the Bells: Time marches on.

That wasn't The Bells, that was Metallica.

Captain Battletoad wrote:

having no real value or use

Having no value = having 0 value. Both are allegedly worthless => both have 0 value. 0 == 0 --> true. You're directly implying that they are equivalent.

Are you implying that Trump (or Hillary) can't be worth less then zero?

Also, seriously? Do we really need to provide a criticism ratio whenever we mention one of these clowns?

captain yesterday wrote:

Just seems pointlessly contrary to me.

Oh boo hoo! My guy lost so I'm taking my vote and going home!

How very Cartman of you.

Would it be anymore pointless then me voting for Clinton? I live in NY, where the 29 electoral votes are all going to Clinton, regardless of how I vote.

Yet somehow, if I were to announce I was voting for Clinton, people would not point out how useless it is, and compare me to Cartman. Most peoples votes are going to be pointless, why criticize some but not others?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Off Topic is easy. You just give your two coins to the ferryman, and then enjoy the ride down. Sorry about all the sulfur and brimstone, but you get used to it after a while.

KingOfAnything wrote:

What do you think the implications are of the racial breakdown between approval/disapproval ratings of the candidates?

Specifically, a majority of minority respondents rated Clinton favorably, but white respondents put her over 50% disapproval.

I'm a white guy from a white town in a fairly white, or at least segregated state. If you want the minority view, ask Cornel West, Kshama Sawant, or Tavis Smiley, not me.

I would say that many, many white people are racist. This is true for all income brackets and regions. Racism has been driving democratic and republican politics for decades. The "war on drugs", and "getting tough on crime" are just dog whistles for throwing black and brown people in jail. I give the democrats credit for adopting a more inclusive public approach among us citizens since around 2000, while the republicans have done the opposite. Both parties love to turn the screws on immigrants, and bomb black and brown people overseas. I don't think either party has minority voters interests in the policy they accomplish, but democrats reach out to minorities and unions and other traditional "Democrat" groups when they need votes, while republicans attack them consistently.
My main impression is that most voters are voting against the other candidate, not for their candidate.

Finally, I think religion generally plays a larger roll in how minorities vote, so that is two things that I'm not really qualified to speak about.

EDIT: ^^^ MMCJawa ^^^
Please note that the 52% is not approval rating, it is DISAPPROVAL rating. Trump is at something like 60% I think these are pathetic numbers for a so called democracy.
I think Clinton's approval rate is somewhere in the 40-45% range, and Trumps is somewhere around 30-35%. People know these candidates well, it isn't some media bias. The majority of people don't approve of either candidate.

The Raven Black wrote:

They very strongly avocate championing the little people, the working class against the cosmopolitan Establishment

Sounds familiar ?

Sounds like virtually every single US Politician from Reagan to Clinton & Trump.

It is my understanding that terms like Populist and "Far Left" might be a little different in the US then they are in Europe and probably the rest of the world. I think the most "Far Left" candidate in national politics was probably... uh... FDR? Carter? I honestly can't think of anyone.

For example, "Americas #1 Populist" is Jim Hightower.
Europe's most prominent populist is probably Marine Le Pen.
VERY VERY different!

Snowblind wrote:

So what? If Comrade Anklebiter and Co. succeed at pulling of a revolution, they are just going to start gunning for a second revolution straight after?

I should probably let my dear Comrade speak for himself, but...

I was merely pointing out that Revolutionary Socialism specifically seeks to overthrow the current system, not co-opt it or slowly reform it.

"More specifically, it is the view that revolution is a necessary precondition for a transition from capitalism to socialism. Revolution is not necessarily defined as a violent insurrection; it is defined as seizure of political power by mass movements of the working class so that the state is directly controlled by the working class as opposed to the capitalist class and its interests.[1] Revolutionary socialists believe such a state of affairs is a precondition for establishing socialism."
"Revolutionary socialism also exists in contrast to the concept of small revolutionary groups seizing power without first achieving mass support, termed Blanquism."

Once you have the revolution part, then you can implement a variety of different types of Socialism. I'm partial to a Democracy at Work type of Socialism. I will allow Anklebiter to fill you in on his specific beliefs.

Post removed by Fergie, so as not to create extra work for the moderators.

The Raven Black wrote:
Extreme movements (both Far Right and Far Left) tap into the same wellspring of angry desperate people.

That sounds insightful, but isn't really true at all. You could argue that people being desperate pushes them to the extremes, but even that often is not true.

Snowblind wrote:
Yeah, this is totally reasonable - frankly, I don't see Comrade Anklebiter's political beliefs becoming acceptable in mainstream politics for a long time (if ever).

I think the point of Revolutionary Socialism is that it is NOT supposed to be accepted by mainstream politics, but rather by the citizens, especially workers. Given that the majority of people "disapprove" of both candidates, and have approval rates in the teens for the legislative branch and federal government as a whole - I'm not sure what popular has to do with politics anymore. A candidate with a 52% "unfavorable" rating has a 90% chance of winning the election. For all our big willy talk, our country really sucks at the whole "democracy" thing.

If you want Socialism that is acceptable to the political mainstream, that would be Democratic Socialism. It is incredibly popular in the US, although most people don't like the term - "socialist". In the last 50 years, propaganda has falsely taught us that being a socialist is the same as being a Maoist or Stalinist. Only since Sanders has it become acceptable to be a socialist by the mainstream. I've talked to hundreds of people in NY and the mid-west, and Bernie Sanders was hands down the most popular candidate.

The million dollar question is where people with socialist values are going to go when it comes to voting. Socialist values are completely against the current leaders of the Democrat and Republican parties, so it remains to be seen how that is going to shake out, especially as the new generations of young voters replace the old.


snowblind wrote:
On the other hand, I would imagine (and hope) that Comrade Anklebiter will be willing to settle for a "merely" moderate party for a couple of election cycles.

Squints and scowls - Y'all aint frum round ere, are ye?

More seriously, I like that Comrade Anklebiter is the benchmark of Leftyism around here. High praise!

Squeakmaan wrote:
Also, the whole NAFTA bit is nonsense, as has been pointed out by others.

Oh man, listening to Clinton voters justify NAFTA... that brings me back...

Puts on oversized flannel and slides Depeche Mode CD into Discman Velcroed to bicep.

thejeff wrote:

You know, I was going to debate some of those points, but if you really believe that last bit, what's the point.

If our entire government is just a conspiracy against us, then none of this matters. It's all a sideshow. What's the answer? If that's really what's going on, what do you think we should do? Join the militias and start blowing up government offices? Short of violent rebellion (which would likely just be coopted by the elites anyway) is there anything to be done?

I think the quote BigNorseWolf brought up was perfect:


While the quote is frequently listed as, "“Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex," I could find no primary source. It appears to contradict the actual quote from a 1987 interview with Keyboard magazine where he is decidedly pro-government but anti-b%#&+*#@ politics.:

Question: Perhaps many musicians simply aren't concerned with political issues.

Frank: Well, I think it behooves them to have political thoughts, but let me make a definition clarification here. I say politics is the entertainment branch of industry, and government is what we need. We have a diverse population in the United States, with all kinds of different needs that have to be taken care of. That is the righteous function of government. Politics is bullsh*t (sic), basically. Politics is involved with salesmanship. Government is involved with statesmanship. And I do make a distinction between these things. If you are making a political statement remember, you are not addressing the real needs of government. You're just talking about the Madison Avenue aspect. So think about that difference. Just a friendly reminder, in case somebody does decide to speak up.

[emphasis added]

He expanded in his autobiography:

"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Politics Is The Entertainment Branch of Industry. C-SPAN's coverage of governmental proceedings is wonderful. Caution! Buffoons on the Hill! Wallowing in blabber and spew, regiments of ex-lawyers and used-car salesman attempt to distract us from the naughty little surprises served up by deregulated corporate America."

Has it become impossible to govern the U.S. by reason or logic? America under Reagan saw the rise of governance by trickery, fear, disinformation and superstition. Oh Jesus! Here comes those f%#+ing balloons again."
[emphasis in original]

The point is to tell the difference between s@+! and Shinola. Once you do that, you may still decide that it is your best option to vote for Hillary, or anyone else. That is fine. Do what you gotta do. Vote your conscience, vote your interests. Just don't expect it to be anything more then it is. One candidate isn't objectively improved, just because another is worse.

You are welcome to join a militia, but it is not okay to blow up federal buildings.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Wow is that misleading.
First off the employer pays that tax, not the employee.

"Payroll taxes are federal, state and local taxes withheld from an employee's paycheck by the employer."

It is my understanding that the employer collects that tax for the government out of your wages, but is not the one who pays it. I could be wrong, I have been a freelancer for a long time, so it isn't my bag. Perhaps the employer has to match your payments?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Farael the Fallen wrote:
I am still mostly human,...

If you eat enough potatoes, you could probably get rid of that flaw.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
...I don't think "half-hearted opposition" is the right way to describe what a Republican Congress is going to be like if Hillary's elected.

Depends on the issue. I hear a lot of whining from the republicans, but did anyone try to stop Obama from deporting millions of people? Raising taxes on working people? Supporting a "stimulus package" that dramatically transferred wealth to the very top?

Is there going to be meaningful opposition to the TPP when Hillary pushes for it?

It's good cop/bad cop. They are in brutal opposition over issues that don't matter, or strongly motivate the voting base, but when it comes to really serious stuff like invading Iraq, or some trade deal that ships jobs overseas, well... somehow these manage to pass. Funny how that works... It's almost as if they are serving their wealthy donors, and all this politics stuff is a side show to fool the rubes.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Hillary is as "tough on crime" as most Republicans. She has a long history of brutalizing criminals, and supporting police state policies including mass incarceration. Look at what democratic superstar Rahm Emanuel has done in Chicago -...

Lets assume that's true.

Do you think she will push those policies AS far as trump would?

I think that a democrat would have more success pushing something like that (with half-hearted republican opposition), then a Republican would with hopefully serious democratic opposition. Bill Clinton's legacy was one of kicking people off welfare, and getting tough on crime, that most republicans would probably not have gotten away with.

Same goes for foreign policy. Clinton is going to have a field day kicking over small countries like she did in Libya, and there is going to be no meaningful opposition. Arms dealing and military adventurism is going to be the hallmarks of her administrations foreign policy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Keep up the good work!

I once lost 15 pounds in a few days, but I kind of cheated - my jaw was wired shut. Having my jaw wired for two months taught me that food is for survival, not entertainment. Like you said, it is a mental thing.

You CAN do it!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

The gulf between the investing class and the other 99.9% of america will continue to increase. He IS the investing class. His listed, stated, on his website plan is to cut corporate taxes further. We have TRIED this. Trickle down economics does not work.

Citizens united will remain law if not get stronger: his campaign manager is the lawyer that got citizens united made law. With this in place the investing class will have more money to keep the investing class making more money.

More militarization of the police He outright said he wants to EXPAND the illegal stop and frisk operations but only for THOSE PEOPLE. [stage whisper]you know. Minorities [/stage whisper]

Ignore the problems of global warming: He's called it a plot by china and said we need to keep looking into it before deciding how to procede... which pretty much means never doing anything about it if the evidence and 99% of climate scientists isn't already swaying you.

Obama and Hillary are also the investing class, as are the people paying for their campaigns. The gap between rich and poor got worse under Clinton, Obama, and the same will happen under Hillary, despite her pandering to the middle and lower class voters. She is the poster girl for neo liberal, trickle-down economics. Has been for something like 30 years. Hillary is going to deregulate industry, especially the financial sector. There will be a bubble, and things will seem OK, but when it bursts, the wealthy will have much more, and the poor will have much less. Just like happened under Bill, who Hillary has promised to "put in charge of the economy".

Citizens United isn't going anywhere.
Hillary is as "tough on crime" as most Republicans. She has a long history of brutalizing criminals, and supporting police state policies including mass incarceration. Look at what democratic superstar Rahm Emanuel has done in Chicago - (covered up a murder by his police force).
Hillary (and Obama) are "All of the above" energy types. They love "clean coal", fracking, nuclear, etc. She isn't going to do anything meaningful for the environment, just like Obama.

I don't disagree with most of your other points in your post, but Hillary has a long record of doing the opposite of the above points you brought up. Maybe she will go against her record, and against her top funders, but I see virtually no reason to believe she is going to suddenly have a huge change of heart. Obama didn't, and people are still flocking to vote in another 4 years of the same. Don't be fooled!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
No insult to any nut-jobs reading this.

None taken.

Hitdice wrote:
Average americans have different rights than the rest of us? :P

"You Don't Have Rights, You Have Privileges"

-George Carlin

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

To say "No matter who wins, we lose" does strongly imply that who wins the election does not matter.

I disagree. I think it acknowledges that both Clinton and Trump are crappy choices. Despite both of their words, the majority of Americans, and the world in general, are likely to suffer in similar ways. If Johnson or Stein won, I think it would be a much better outcome for the vast majority of the world - maybe. Obviously, it is pretty much unknowable what that would really look like, as it is difficult to predict what Trump opposed by democrats, or Clinton opposed by republicans would really look like. I have seen that when it comes to the real major f+@&-ups in history such as the Patriot Act/Police State or the invasion of Iraq in 2003, they have strong bipartisan support.

I will be the first to say that Trump is a radioactive dumpster fire, while Clinton is just a regular dumpster fire, but I would not say one is a good candidate and the other is bad.

EDIT: I don't have a problem with, "they're both bad, go vote for the least bad option, sorry". The problem I have is with "Ah, great. Another too-hip-to-care, too-lazy-to-read exercise in false equivalence." {I don't mean to single you out Orfamay, as there are several other posters who have expressed similar statements and your posts are often liked by several people.} Furthermore, due to the electoral college, New York State's 27 "electors" are going to Clinton regardless of how I vote. So why should I vote in the presidential election at all?

I agree completely BigNorseWolf. But saying they are both bad is not a failure of logic. Comparisons are almost always going to be asymmetrical because Trump and Clinton have very different backgrounds, and very difficult to predict futures.

I would say it is a far more grievous assault on logic and discourse to require a ratio of quality between the candidates every time one is praised or criticized.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wallsingham wrote:

Haven't read all these posts but I just want to say...

Just like Alien Vs Predator on Earth... No matter who wins, we lose.
Ah, great. Another too-hip-to-care, too-lazy-to-read exercise in false equivalence. If you actually read the posts you skipped over, this particular fallacy is dealt with in detail.

Except that it hasn't been a false equivalence fallacy, you are just dismissing others who don't value the candidates the way you do, with accusations of logical failure, when it is just your opinion. It is great to express opinions, and I enjoy opinions I agree and disagree with. But it is just your opinion, not some sort of truism.

the google wrote:
"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."

The republican and democratic candidates are crap. They both have disapproval ratings over 50%.The process that selected them is, at best, highly flawed democracy. You might prefer one crappy candidate over another, but pointing out that they are both awful isn't a fallacy. Also, I don't know why you would expect voters to be anything but antipathetic about either candidate.

You are more then welcome to speak weal or woe about either candidate, but since we have nothing but their highly flawed records, and their words (both are known liars) this is more reading tea leaves or chicken guts then mathematical logic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The conditions that produced Trump are not going away anytime soon. There are many indications that the recession that officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009 was and is going strong for most of the people in the US. Over a decade of watching the gains of the economy go almost entirely to the rich under Democratic presidents is going to become very difficult to justify. She is already VERY unpopular, and a president who pushes neo liberal economics and austerity while the super rich become super ultra rich will make her approval ratings drop to the teens.

In 2020, Hillery is going to be almost as old as Reagan did in '84, and she is going to seem like a snake oil salesman from the 1800's to anyone under 30 years old. A charismatic young republican who makes a bunch of empty promises - "Its morning in America!" would destroy her in an election.

NOTE: You can take all of my political predictions, and their 0% accuracy, to the bank! It's a total lock!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Not all the emails are legitimate.

The link details how an email from Sydney Blumenthal has been altered. The original content has been changed to a Newsweek article (the email may have contained the article as a link/attachment originally).

I think you need to read the article you posted again. I could be wrong, (I only read it once) but it seem the reporting about the email was bad, not the email produced by wikileaks.

EDIT: "The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000-word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article. The Russians had carefully selected the “of course” paragraph, which mentions there were legitimate points of criticism regarding Clinton and Benghazi, all of which had been acknowledged in nine reports about the attack and by the former secretary of state herself."
The issue here seems to be that Blumenthal was quoting someone, and they edited it and said that it was Blumenthal's statement. I would love to blame this on the Evil Russia, but it happens ALL the time in US press and politics.

I think the Republican party will do just fine. There is way too much money riding on maintaining the two party illusion of democracy. The democrats need it, the Republicans need it, and the people with money need it. It isn't going anywhere because the people with power don't give it up.

I strongly suspect Hillary will be a one term president, and it will be a similar situation to when George HW Bush extended Reagan's two terms by 4 years.

Rand Paul has an unusual outlook on Israel.
Shrug. Seem that just about every politician is willing to get on their knees for Israel and Netanyahu. Remember Ryan and Biden bragging about who "Bebe" loved more? That was really sickening. It very clearly shows what prostitutes they are for that sweet arms money and AIPAC support, and don't care about human rights.
I was sad that even Sanders sucked up to Israel to a shameful degree.

Did Trump call Hillary "the Devil"?

Trump falls for the classic Say-My-Name fallacy.

[Does a shot]

I predict Trump is escorted out by security in the second half...

CBDunkerson wrote:

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

I don't have time to dig all the links/quotes at the moment, but you do realize that the above quote is 100% Hard Core neoliberalism? How do you think open trade and open borders works out for the vast majority of American workers?

In her speeches, I hear a lot of talk about "perceptions" of wrongdoing, and "misunderstandings", and "politicizing" being the problem. Here is a quick sample:

Podesta Emails wrote:

"“Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us.”

*Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”*

*Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For The Crisis “Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really Politicizing What Happened.”*

*Clinton: As Senator, “I Represented And Worked With” So Many On Wall Street And “Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper” But Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole. *

*Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade. *

*Clinton Said Financial Reform “Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself.” *
*Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said “The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry.”*

Note: Quotes copied and pasted quickly, sorry if I missed or messed up something.

Do you see the neo liberalism now?

Guy Humual wrote:

So, apparently Trump wanted to execute the Central Park Five, now that DNA evidence has proven their innocence he still thinks they should be executed.


I just wanted to repost this because I think it is really important. This is a case of four black and one Hispanic teenagers who were severely mistreated by the police and prosecutors, and falsely imprisoned for many, many years. Donald trump had a major role in ruining their lives, and even though they have been proven innocent of the rape by DNA evidence, he continues to be on the wrong side of this issue.

Trump has been a consistently racist, pro-police brutality a-hole for decades.

Rednal wrote:

I don't think she's necessarily wrong on the positions thing - or even unusual. Take the fact that the President has the nuclear launch codes, for example. Even if she personally has no desire to ever launch them (her private position), as President, she'd probably be obligated to uphold the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction in order to discourage others from using them (the public position). If a President felt this way, would it be wrong of them?

Similarly, part of negotiating is not letting others know how much you're actually willing to give up, usually in the interests of getting the best deal for the people you represent. Again... is having a public stance for your political opponents, and a private stance with your allies, inherently a bad thing?

If your opponents are voters, and your allies are wealthy special interests, then yes, it is a bad thing, at least for the voters. Obviously, it works out great for the wealthy!

The issue is not one of private/public beliefs, it is one of private/public policy. For example, in public, Hillary is against neoliberal policy. When speaking to the .01% who can afford her speeches, she is very pro neoliberal policy - to an almost text book, John Birch conspiracy level of neoliberalism that would make Reagan embarrassed. The problem is that the voters get the false words, and the .01% get the dollars. This is f!@%ing AMAZING for the .01%, and an economic disaster for the rest of the country.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

EDIT: You may have missed it, but earlier, I did say that some groups probably donated to the Clinton Foundation expecting to get political favors from it. My point is that they didn't get nearly the access or support they probably thought they would. Clinton may have been Secretary of State, but it's not like her decisions were made in a void, especially when they dealt with foreign powers and likely needed approval from many different people in the US Government.

If they didn't get the favors they wanted, they just didn't give enough money.

I would also point out that many of these donors didn't give exclusively to the Clinton Foundation. Many also donated to the parties themselves (often both) individual candidates and politicians, as well as super pacs, think tanks, etc. And of course, just straight up bribery. Not surprisingly, it has resulted in the EXACT policies that benefit the richest donors. Is that just a coincidence?

I am genuinely baffled by how people can see this stuff going on in other countries, and easily recognize it as pay-to-play bribery, yet handwave the exact same stuff going on here. Why the disconnect? Why is it obvious and bad over there, but different here? Do you really think that these people believe the best way to help people is by giving to politicians charities? The Saudis take a break from stoning women and chopping the heads off of heretics, to help other heretics out of the kindness of their hearts?

Not to mention the whole idea of a legal construct giving out of the goodness of its non-existent corporate heart...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there is only one plausible explanation for the current state of our political and financial systems.

They Live

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Glad that everyone in the US seems to be making it through considering the circumstances. Really horrible how much death the storm caused in Haiti. That country really needs a break from tragedy!
I hope the Greenteagamer's hotel experience was bad by hotel standards, and not surviving a hurricane standards.

As Tacticslion said, prayers for everyone affected by the storm.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"You keep whipping out that Mexican Thing!"

Oh dear god that is hilarious!

EDIT: Jeopardy question: What did Mike Pence say to Carlos Danger?

CBDunkerson wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I'm not making a false equivalence at all,

That's true. False equivalence relies on equating vastly different things. You aren't doing that. Rather, you are saying things that are just plain false.

I'm simply pointing out that Hillary Clinton has pushed trickle down economic policies
Based on your subsequent post you are apparently defining 'trickle down' as 'anything which does not end wealth inequality'. By that measure EVERYONE has pushed trickle down economic policies... even the socialists. However, if we are talking about more usual definitions of the term (i.e. 'supply side economics') then no... Hilary has not pushed such nonsense.

I define trickle-down economics as, "if the wealthy get more, then that extra wealth will boost the economy for everyone."

As mentioned in the link I posted, several of the laws Bill and Hillary were pushing very predictably made the rich richer, with little benefit for the vast majority of Americans. This is indisputable. The only thing in question is if there was any thought of how it would affect the poor and middle class. I would like to think that the Clinton's thought "a rising tide lifts all boats" even if that turned out not to be true, because the only other option is that they just didn't care about the poor and middle class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.
Umm... no. Trickle down economics is solely limited to the stupider segment of the GOP. Hilary has never supported it.

The Clinton and Obama administrations disprove your opinion.

"Neoliberalism gained prominence in the United States in 1981 with policies put into place by the Reagan Administration which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion. Congress followed Reagan's basic proposal and cut federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[61][62]

During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration also embraced neoliberalism by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[62][63][64] The neoliberalism of the Clinton Administration differs from that of Reagan as the former purged it of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues."

If you still think I am wrong, please find a different theory to explain this graph. If it isn't deliberate, it is one of the worst economic policy f*~!-ups of all time.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Except that the Democratic platform (and Clinton's speeches) have specifically included planks about addressing Citizens United. And on economic redistribution (e.g., changing trickle-down economics).

Basically, what you're saying is that if you ignore all the ways in which we know the two candidates to be different, they're exactly the same. Similarly, if you ignore the actual score, the Steelers-Chiefs game was a tie last night.

False equivalence is not just a fallacy, but it's a particularly stupid argument.

I'm not making a false equivalence at all, nor am I ignoring the differences between the candidates. I'm simply pointing out that Hillary Clinton has pushed trickle down economic policies, and general neoliberalism, for decades.

I don't really care what either candidate says or what planks they have in their platforms. Both of those things are absolutely worthless. Both are simply propaganda to sucker people into voting for them. Politicians lie during elections to get votes. Just look at Obama's promises to fix NAFTA when he was a candidate - lies to fool people who should have known better. Did Obama even put forward a supreme court nominee who will overturn the Citizens United ruling?

You are welcome to believe that either candidate is going to suddenly change completely, and go against everything that got them to where they are now, but... how did you end your post... it would be "particularly stupid" to do so.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

If donald trump becomes president, the political system will become more gerrymandered towards republicans, citizens united will remain law, the rich will still dodge taxes, and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I should point out:

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, the political system will become more gerrymandered towards democrats, citizens united will remain law, the rich will still dodge taxes, and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.

Meh. If you don't want more trickle-down economics, don't vote for either of them!

These are the police in NYC that have spoken out:
100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care
100 out of 30,000 is a start...

1 to 50 of 2,589 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.