| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not trolling, I am genuinely concerned, and I'm giving my actual opinions here. I'd also talk Canadian politics but almost nobody here would care.
You may want to look up "concern trolling".
I'm not sure what the proper term is for foreign nationals who try to sway voters in another country's elections with emotional tirades about the elections. But it's certainly useful to point out that they aren't actually citizens of the country.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I don't.
Too bad. I thought one round of out-of-context sniping deserved another.
The primary is over. Bernie lost. You can either help Clinton get elected -- even if just by voting got her -- or you can plug your ears, hold your breath, and do nothing. Which helps Trump get elected. Of course, it allows you to pat yourself on the back for ideological purity, which is easier (and safer!) than supporting something that has a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening (unlike, say, Communism in the United States).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There will be a lot of blame to go around if Trump wins the election but blaming the general public is like blaming sheep for voting in a lion when their other option was a wolf.
I'm not sure if Trump is a wolf or a lion, but in this metaphor, Clinton would be a corgi that sometimes overexuberantly herds the sheep when they'd prefer to be napping, eating grass, or standing on the edge of that intriguingly precipitous cliff. (Kaine is a pug or cairn terrier constantly distracted by all the horseys.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, abbreviated version of the story:
I was working with Surly Italian Teamster who is a vocal Trump supporter. He was trying to pin something, I forget, that Hillary had done on me ("Tim, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a communist" "What's the difference?" is a common refrain in our conversations) and I murmured, once again, that I wasn't voting for Hillary.
I'm guessing he's never heard of Jill Stein (nor Gloria La Riva, Monica Moorehead, Mimi Solstynik (sp? I forget), Jeff Mackler or any of the other commies running although, alas, not in NH), so he started telling me about the Gary Johnson clip above. "Oh yeah, I saw that, that was cool." "Cool? Are you out of your mind?" "Yeah, let them all in!" "Let them all in?!? Are you f$*%ing crazy?"
So we went at it. Him: What part of "illegal" don't you understand; insult to legal immigrants; immigrants cause wages to drop, etc., etc; Me: It's a racist law, workers of the world, unite!, organize the unorganized, etc., etc.
I got around to good ol' "We destroy their countries and they come here and pick tomatoes for your Big Macs and I don't give a f!%% if they 'broke the law'" when he interrupted with "We destroyed Mexico?" I should have gone into NAFTA, which he might have liked, but I was still a bit buzzed from the parking lot, so instead I said "The largest number of undocumented workers come from Honduras and Guatemala" (which isn't actually true, but they're growing fast). I then went into a pretty good, tearjerking description of the overthrow of the democratically-elected Manuel Zelaya presidency in Honduras, and the death squad reign of terror against indigenous, trade union and environmentalist activists since then and Hillary's role in the sad affair.
It was pretty good, too, because he shut up for a minute and said "Hillary did that?" "Yeah, she legitimized it when she was Secretary of State." "That f!$%ing b$~+@," he said (I decided I'd try working on his male chauvinism some other time), "Those poor people."
"Yeah, that's right. Todos somos ilegales!" I shouted giving the clenched fist salute. "What does that mean?" he asked. "Nobody Is Illegal!" I replied. (It doesn't.)
"You're f@~~ing crazy!" "Join us, Tim!" I yelled as I headed back to my work station, "Join La Raza!" "Get out of here!" "Vive le Galt!"
---
It was much better the first time I wrote it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going into a bargaining table and have two choices on who's going to represent you, tell me who you want: someone who's going to demand as much as they can get or someone who's going to ask for incremental change? Sanders says you should get $24 an hour and Clinton says $10 an hour is more reasonable. Maybe with Clinton you'll get $9 but with Sanders you could get $14.... or I could get $0, because they're simply going to say "no" to Mr. Sanders' unreasonable demands.
You can't win negotiations in the initial demand, but you can certainly lose them.
I'm not a politician, so no idea if this really applies to politics, but it's actually very hard to lose on the initial demand. In fact, unless the other person had no desire to talk with you in the first place, it's typically impossible unless you say something with a threat to kill or seriously hurt them (then it's possible as they'll either kill you or call the authorities on you).
In the middle east where I've been typically a LOT of stuff is bought by bartering. If you go to the markets that are not the mainstream international comms, you will barter and/or negotiate..
If you want jewelry, if you want games, if you want movies, if you want almost anything, you barter and negotiate with the other person. It is expected. If you buy it at the initial cost, you are going to be ripped off.
I'm not an expert at it, but typically they'll ask for something ridiculously HIGH, and you will request something ridiculously low.
The lower you ask, the better chance of getting a deal. The same with asking high. If you try to appease them towards the middle...well...you're going to edge towards the higher end and be ripped off.
So basically, take what you think it's worth and halve that amount. At least that's my approach.
They may laugh at you, or say that's a ridiculous price. And you then say they are asking waaay too much and you saw the vender three stalls over asking for much lower. It goes back and forth.
If you REALLY want something, and you can't get them low enough, sometimes it's good to simply walk out. However, that's all part of the negotiation...if they know you are really truly interested, they know you'll be back, and you know it as well. However, it's a tactic.
Or they can refuse to sell it below a certain price at one point because they can't possibly sell it at a loss.
Eventually, if you really want it, you'll come to a price that both of you can agree with no matter how ridiculous yours or theirs opening bid was.
It's understood the initial bid is going to be ridiculous typically. If you start with something reasonable...you've lost that deal already.
In that light, it's not unreasonable demands that lose the deal, it's trying to be reasonable from the start that will end up with you on the losing end. However, a deal still can be made, you just might be the one losing more than gaining.
*wonders if people think he *aka Thomas Seitz* is a troll*.
Cause it would be the second time I get called that today. On different sites.
No, I don't.Too bad. I thought one round of out-of-context sniping deserved another.
The primary is over. Bernie lost. You can either help Clinton get elected -- even if just by voting got her -- or you can plug your ears, hold your breath, and do nothing. Which helps Trump get elected. Of course, it allows you to pat yourself on the back for ideological purity, which is easier (and safer!) than supporting something that has a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening (unlike, say, Communism in the United States).
Yawn. I was talking to Scott, not you, but if you want to jump in:
How many anti-Trump demos did you participate in? How many non-Trump candidates did you help to get on the ballot? What have you done to participate in the political process this cycle, or are you just going to vote in November and then, maybe, in two years?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I don't know what the f#&$ you people are all worked up about.
Here we are in the dog days, before Hillary's even ramped up the campaigning, Trump's doing better than he has been for most of the election but, as of today, Hillary's still projected to kill Trump in the electoral college.
How to Tell Who’s Winning the Presidential Race
Bunch of Chicken Littles.
I do appreciate the running Batman theme, Citizen Seitz, but I never read DC Comics and can't contribute, alas.
Ah. Well I just thought it would lighten the mood if I mentioned something both relevant and funny.
Would using Marvel Comics be better choice Comrade? Because I can totally do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hitler also liked dogs, and he made the trains run on time.No comment to the first, but the second is actually false to my knowledge.
The trains ferrying hapless victims to the death camps caused frequent delays on normal services.
Guy,
Am I trolling? Or you think otherwise?
Who thinks Trump had Putin poison Clinton?
If he had... she'd be dead. Putin is fairly adept at long-range assasinations, provided that the assasins actually get to their targets.
I don't understand why democrats get blamed for republican obstructionism or how voting for someone with no chance to win is going to convince them to stop.
The Fox Narrative is that the Democrats are at fault for not caving into the Republican program.
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don't have a media empire that's doing spin for them for decades.
How is it my fault?
I explained that.
How about she comes after my vote rather then making me settle on her?
How about no.
If she doesn't get elected, well guess what, that's on her not on me.
It's on both of you, and on a lot of other people. You'll simply have earned your share of the blame.
It's her job to make us want to vote for her, if she can't do that she doesn't deserve to be elected it's that simple.
It's your job to make sure your vote is rational, and if you can't do that then you don't deserve to be governed by a capable leader.
See how easy it is to put all of the responsibility on the other party?
There will be a lot of blame to go around if Trump wins the election but blaming the general public is like blaming sheep for voting in a lion when their other option was a wolf.
Again, the false equivocation. It blows my mind how you think it's okay for you to act this way.
How many anti-Trump demos did you participate in? How many non-Trump candidates did you help to get on the ballot?
Of the candidates you helped get on the ballot, how many of them, through their candidacy, are capable of defeating Trump?
Or can we just acknowledge that your yardstick for validity of personal political action isn't so much a question in need of an answer as it is a Schwartz-measuring contest?
Guy,
Am I trolling? Or you think otherwise?
Honestly, someone who trolls in my mind is someone looking for negative responses, and so yes, I think you're trolling hard . . .
I kid. This is a political discussion, nobody here is going to agree on everything, adding some humor from time to time is a good break in my opinion. As long as we keep things civil I don't mind discussing any viewpoint.
Well I pretty much keep the angry killer Orcus voices in a box under my bed. So I figure I'd just inject stuff that is semi-relevant and not to mention easily agreed upon. Usually. I still don't think Death Battle and Screw Attack did right by having Kirby destroy Majin Buu.
Now if you think that's me being secretly for Trump and trying to get you all to vote for him then I don't know what to tell you. Seems like you got your opinions of me already ironed out.
I just wonder where you draw the line. Is it acceptable for Putin to try to change the outcome of the US election? Can citizens of other countries buy ads to change the outcome of the election?
Or is it ok as long as you limit yourself to internet forums and berating people one-on-one?
Do you want US skinheads working to elect far-right extremists in Canada? How far can they go?
Should US citizens get to participate in electioneering and get-out-the-vote activities in every country that they are interested in? Should the whole world have participated in the Brexit electioneering?
I'm truly interested in how intrusive you think foreigners should be in other countries' elections.
How many anti-Trump demos did you participate in? How many non-Trump candidates did you help to get on the ballot?Of the candidates you helped get on the ballot, how many of them, through their candidacy, are capable of defeating Trump?
Or can we just acknowledge that your yardstick for validity of personal political action isn't so much a question in need of an answer as it is a Schwartz-measuring contest?
And Scott jumps back into the breach!
That, Scott, was a response to Citizen Bugleyman who said, "The primary is over. Bernie lost. You can either help Clinton get elected -- even if just by voting got [sic] her -- or you can plug your ears, hold your breath, and do nothing."
As I've been doing quite a bit more than nothing, and, believe me, even the little bit of campaigning I did for Stein sullies my ideological purity, I thought it'd be a fair to rejoinder with the three questions that I asked. Why did you cut the third one?
Also, my dick is small.
I'm a goblin.
Now if you think that's me being secretly for Trump and trying to get you all to vote for him then I don't know what to tell you. Seems like you got your opinions of me already ironed out.I just wonder where you draw the line. Is it acceptable for Putin to try to change the outcome of the US election? Can citizens of other countries buy ads to change the outcome of the election?
Or is it ok as long as you limit yourself to internet forums and berating people one-on-one?
Do you want US skinheads working to elect far-right extremists in Canada? How far can they go?
Should US citizens get to participate in electioneering and get-out-the-vote activities in every country that they are interested in? Should the whole world have participated in the Brexit electioneering?
I'm truly interested in how intrusive you think foreigners should be in other countries' elections.
Citizen Humual, as an internationalist, I, for one, welcome you, and all other "foreigners," to participate in an online thread on a gaming site about the US elections. I am sure you'd extend the same invitation to us if there was enough interest to have a thread about the Canadian ones.
Ah. Well I just thought it would lighten the mood if I mentioned something both relevant and funny.
Would using Marvel Comics be better choice Comrade? Because I can totally do that.
After thinking about it, and admitting to not a very extensive knowledge of Marvel Comics, I'm going with Howard the Duck.
Hilary is the most likely to win but I'd like better options then "Not Trump", maybe single payer, maybe a ban on fracking, maybe a fight for higher wages? Something.
Let's be clear. Clinton isn't just "the most likely to win". She is the only one with any chance of winning, whatsoever. And sure, you may not get everything you want from her as a candidate. Welcome to democracy. If you think democracy is about a choice between getting exactly what you want or throwing a tantrum and refusing to participate meaningfully, you don't understand the concept. Democracy is about compromise, and learning to accept that it's more meaningful to give up some of the things you want in order to meaningfully increase the likelihood that you'll get the other things you want by banding together with others who are also giving up some of what they want so they can find common ground with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After thinking about it, and admitting to not a very extensive knowledge of Marvel Comics, I'm going with Howard the Duck.Ah. Well I just thought it would lighten the mood if I mentioned something both relevant and funny.
Would using Marvel Comics be better choice Comrade? Because I can totally do that.
Honestly? I don't think Howard is correct because at least some times, Howard helps.
Not always sure about Gary Johnson.
If we ARE going with someone, I'd say Willie Lumpkin. He does his job but some times the mail just doesn't get past the front door.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, of course, Scott gets to decide who's participating meaningfully.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After thinking about it, and admitting to not a very extensive knowledge of Marvel Comics, I'm going with Howard the Duck.Ah. Well I just thought it would lighten the mood if I mentioned something both relevant and funny.
Would using Marvel Comics be better choice Comrade? Because I can totally do that.
Honestly? I don't think Howard is correct because at least some times, Howard helps.
Not always sure about Gary Johnson.
If we ARE going with someone, I'd say Willie Lumpkin. He does his job but some times the mail just doesn't get past the front door.
That's a good one. I even get it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm only tangentially participating due to the fact I've decided this election cycle has become a farce that not even Monty Python could make more...farcical.
That's a good one. I even get it.After thinking about it, and admitting to not a very extensive knowledge of Marvel Comics, I'm going with Howard the Duck.Ah. Well I just thought it would lighten the mood if I mentioned something both relevant and funny.
Would using Marvel Comics be better choice Comrade? Because I can totally do that.
Honestly? I don't think Howard is correct because at least some times, Howard helps.
Not always sure about Gary Johnson.
If we ARE going with someone, I'd say Willie Lumpkin. He does his job but some times the mail just doesn't get past the front door.
I thought you'd appreciate the metaphorical use of Willie. He's kind of the guy you go "Aw shucks Mister Writer person! Let him do the mail!" Then you realize "Mail doesn't save the planet."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Guy: Personally, I'm blaming the media for that one. Trump's had basically free, 24/7 front page coverage for literally months now, in part because of a news system that thrives on controversy and will, in fact, create it if they have to. If they'd given his statements the criticism they deserve - which means fact-checking him and explaining how and when he's wrong - not only would they have little time for anything else, but he'd probably be much further behind than he is.
Obvious landslide races don't sell newspapers or get people to tune in for the evening news. They would probably do everything they could to make it a tight race regardless of who was running against Trump.
I don't think we've ever had as monumentally a bad choice as Trump, but the scary thing is that he seems like he has a chance of winning. That is not the fault of the electorate, that's the fault of whoever is running against him.
So the fact that Clinton has a chance to win is Trump's fault? Your logic fails.
Trump was nominated by the electorate. As was Clinton. To suddenly switch that to 'it's Clinton's fault if Trump is elected' bears no relationship to the actual political process that occurred/is occurring.
If Trump is elected it's because an amazingly large percentage of the US electorate shows up and casts their vote for him. It may be scary, but Clinton isn't forcing anyone to vote for Trump.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
If Trump is elected it's because an amazingly large percentage of the US electorate shows up and casts their vote for him. It may be scary, but Clinton isn't forcing anyone to vote for Trump.
What he's saying is that the democrats could have put a scarecrow waving a donkey banner on the ticket and it would be leading trump by 15 points.
.
If Trump is elected it's because an amazingly large percentage of the US electorate shows up and casts their vote for him. It may be scary, but Clinton isn't forcing anyone to vote for Trump.
What he's saying is that the democrats could have put a scarecrow waving a donkey banner on the ticket and it would be leading trump by 15 points.
I'd actually say if they had a scarecrow waving a donkey banner instead of Clinton, it wouldn't just be leading Trump by 15 points, it would be more like 25 points or MORE!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What he's saying is that the democrats could have put a scarecrow waving a donkey banner on the ticket and it would be leading trump by 15 points.
Here's what he's saying:
Clinton has to win people's votes, you can't just run on the "I'm not Trump" ticket
] What I'm trying to stress to you is that I have no excitement for Hilary, I might have dread for Trump, but if he gets elected that's Hilary's fault not mine. She has a chance to excite and inspire the electorate, I don't even care about all her supposed scandals, just give me something to vote for besides "not Trump"
What he's saying is that Hilary has to work harder to get his (totally imaginary) vote because she has to be likeable, and excite and inspire the electorate. And if she can't win the cheerleader competition, it's her fault that Trump is elected, not the fault of the people who actually voted for him.
If only she were a better cheerleader and smiled more.
Actually, it's probably Bernie Sanders fault if Trump wins. If he had just excited and inspired more people, giving them something more than "Not Hilary", then she wouldn't have won the nomination. He should have won more people's votes. He had a chance and he blew it.
Obviously, she only won because he wasn't a good enough cheerleader.
So now, if Trump wins, it's going to be her fault, because she didn't excite and inspire more people. But really that's because Bernie didn't excite and inspire more people, so really it's his fault
Not at all possible that voters actually voted for the person they wanted to see win.
she panders to anti-vaxxers. she has a tendency to waffle.Yeah, she's a politician. Pandering and waffling is what they do.
They just came off the endangered species list, so maybe panda and waffle restaurant, the two best things on earth in one place?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If only she were a better cheerleader and smiled more.
She's expected to smile more because she's a woman. Of course if she did, then she'd be "too fluffy". It's called a "can't win" scenario.
Whoever won the Democratic primary was going to face the similar problems a Clinton is facing.
There are problems that Clinton faces that Sanders would not have... because she's Clinton. Then again Sanders would have problems of his own with the minority vote.