|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The debt went from 10 trillion to almost 20 trillion under Obama. Who are you kidding. That's the debt of all prior presidential administrations combined.
You keep switching between debt and deficit. The debt is up; deficits are going down, but projected to rise under Trump (assuming he does what he has said he plans to do).
Neither major party can reasonably claim to be fiscally responsible at this point.
Turin the Mad wrote:
This could wind up 269-269.
...and then it goes to the House, where Trump wins.
The people have spoken. The election wasn't rigged. Trump didn't cheat. He won fair and square, and as much as I dislike it -- and boy, do I -- come January he's going to be our President. While I will never respect Donald Trump, it is imperative that we all respect the presidency and the legitimate authority granted thereby.
There will be times which we simply cannot compromise, but we can and must choose those battles carefully. We cannot allow ourselves to become a party of gridlock and knee-jerk opposition. When President Trump nominates a cabinet member or judge, we must provide a prompt hearing and vote. When president Trump speaks, we must listen respectfully. Let's not dwell endlessly on Trump University, or speak of impeaching the President without clear and convincing evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
We lost. That hurts. But if there is one thing America can't afford right now, it's a hundred and fifty million sore losers.
Now, now. Context is clearly a liberal mirror-universe construct!
John Woodford wrote:
Exactly. After all, what else would one expect from a Kenyan Muslim who kidnapped his daughters?
Norman Osborne wrote:
At best, that was Obama making a very nebulous statement. Combined with CNN leaking debate questions to Hilary, the "mirror dimension" is the one where liberals don't have to bend over backwards trying to ignore the corruption running through their midst.
Ah yes...the moving goalposts. It's not about what Obama said...it's about the debate questions. Or the e-mail. Or Benghazi. The problem is, any number of unsubstantiated allegations still add up to exactly zero.
In fairness, hammering on those allegations in an attempt to create the appearance of corruption does seem to be Trump's best hope at this point. After all, he certainly isn't going to win based on his qualifications.
Obama was clearly saying "if you -- as a citizen -- vote, there will be no repercussions for members of your household who may themselves be in the country illegally."
With Trump routinely saying actually crazy things, the temptation to feed the false equivalence narrative by twisting the president's words appears to be quite strong.
Spastic Puma wrote:
Bingo! She's out to DESTROY 'MURICA. Because...reasons. (Duh).
Seriously though, there is no shortage of really, really ugly stuff about HRC (and any who dare support her) out there. Misogyny is just the tip of the iceberg.
Whether more people actually voted for Gore or not is very far down the list of interesting results of the election.
Disagree. Of course most of us understand how the electoral college works, and yet we often still talk about the election as if the electoral college didn't exist. That's what I find interesting.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The thing I always find interesting about 2000 is that there is no debate that Gore got more votes than Bush, but both our electoral process and our judiciary ensured that the person who didn't get the most votes won. So...Democracy? :P
Clinton...and pretty much every other national politician ever.
What I'm saying is that the problem -- that the rich and powerful are treated differently -- is systemic, and not at all specific to Clinton. Yet somehow Clinton belongs in prison, while the people with an R next to their name...don't?
That's just a little more hypocrisy than I can stomach.
To some, Hillary Clinton is a criminal, period. It doesn't matter what she has or has not been convicted of...she's a criminal, period. If prompted, these people will often say that "others would have gone to jail if they did what she did."
Of course, that ignores the actual problem -- that the rich and powerful receive special treatment.
@UnArcane: Posted that in the main thread earlier. XD And the answer is... professionalism. Weird Al has been making this kind of thing for a VERY LONG TIME, and I believe the other group with him specifically focuses on translating debates into song as quickly as possible. They might have even recorded some of it beforehand, and done the special effects, then picked the parts that matched the questions the candidates got.
Weird Al has more talent AND skill than most of the artists he parodies. His whole band does. They are fantastic in concert.
If there is one complaint I could level at Weird Al, it would be at his undying love for the polka. :P
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
On the other hand, the Mormons continue to excommunicate women for advocating equal rights. They continue to hold anti-equality postions for women, they discrimminate according to sexual orientation, oppose the rights to LGBTQ marriage, and deny the right of choice in matters of abortion. There have been an increasing enough of mass exodus events because of the continued repressiveness of Mormon church doctrine.
Absolutely no argument here. The organization has some very hateful points-of-view. I actually think the mass exodus events speak well oft he people leaving.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
And I'm pretty much equally skeptical of the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity as well.
Oh hell yeah. I just often see them making fun of Mormon doctrine for being "crazy." Glass houses and all that.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Mormons tend to be better-educated, and they have a lot of experience with talk about religious bans (they used to be targeted by them). They're also twice as likely as evangelicals to say that immigration is good for the country. As I understand it, the bigotry Trump spouts makes them very uncomfortable—and unlike the majority of evangelicals, they don't tend to see that as an acceptable flaw in a candidate.
Agreed. The Mormons I've known have been friendly, respectful people.
And to be brutally honest, their beliefs are supported by exactly as much empirical evidence as are the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity.
Majik Mouf wrote:
Seeing all you people jump all over that guy, slamming him left and right for nothing at all is making me want to vote for Trump just to spite you all.
Sadly, as pointless as that would be (as we have no way of knowing how you voted, or why), that is far from the worst reason I've seen someone give to explain voting for Trump.
Which, if you think about it, is really kinda scary.
Majik Mouf wrote:
This is why Paizo is (rightly) perceived as an liberal echo chamber.
Hey, we don't all have an entertainment -- sorry, "news" -- network devoted entirely to being our echo chamber. Some of us have to make do.
Lots more on next page
As it happens, he tends to win among white men without a college degree, but lose among those with a college degree.
Take that for what you will.
And in what's probably the last of today's news, Trump didn't seem to do too well at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner (a common event for presidential candidates apparently involving a lot of roasting other people).
I'm 0% surprised...the man is a boor.
To me, the fundamental Libertarian point-of-view is "As few constraints on individual rights as possible." Which is sensible, but only with the caveat that "as possible" includes ensuring that the rights of others aren't violated.
As to whether the actual Libertarian party actually supports that idea, I cannot say. But nonsense about poisoning other people is just that: Nonsense. Murdering someone obviously violates their rights (hence my mention of "irrational extremes").
It is also possible my understanding of "Libertarian" is fundamentally flawed. :)
Orfamay Quest wrote:
To be fair (although this is probably inappropriately even-handed), Trump is a businessman, and he has an obligation to his partners (and arguably to himself) to maximize his profits to the extent the rules permit.
Then he's doing a terrible job.
But point taken. He could act dramatically differently as president than he did as a CEO. But then there goes the whole "run the country like a business" mantra.
I see that Trump is still saying he'll do (help the working class) the exact opposite of what he has actually done (screw the working class...e.g. use Chinese steel, offshore jobs, use dodgy visas to avoid hiring Americans). That isn't really surprising. What's more surprising is that the working class still appears to believe him.
Dear working class:
News flash: Trump is going to lose. Lucky for you, his impending loss is in your best interest...whether you realize it or not.
Quark Blast wrote:
They might be funded locally, but they have to buy all those shiny military surplus weapons and equipment somewhere.