2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

5,501 to 5,550 of 7,079 << first < prev | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

All I know is thanks to Weird Al, I feel better about my life.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is thanks to Weird Al, I feel better about my life.

...and not just because of this election, either. Weird Al is the man.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump's lawyers say it's unfair to judge Trump for the things he said

It's also apparently unfair to judge him on the things he's done as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


I only echo the chamber of my thoughts about being a 12th level paladin of Torm from 2nd edition stuck in this reality.

Also yes, bugley, Weird Al IS the man.


Wikileaks threatens surprise in store for Tim Kaine and dnc chairwoman Donna Brazille.


I wish they'd just give people birthday cakes instead of leaks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Tosses popcorn into mouth*

Given the fizzle of that promotional event, their claims of surprises don't really surprise (or interest) me anymore...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I... I've just run across a nightmare-inducing Zardoz-inspired photoshop on Twitter. NSFYourSanity, if you've seen Zardoz you receive an additional -2 penalty on your SAN check.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
I... I've just run across a nightmare-inducing Zardoz-inspired photoshop on Twitter. NSFYourSanity, if you've seen Zardoz you receive an additional -2 penalty on your SAN check.

... I know enough of that movie and it's characters... for that to be scarily f#+%ing accurate...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.
Majik Mouf wrote:
This is why Paizo is (rightly) perceived as an liberal echo chamber.

Yeah, come on people. We need to be nicer and try not to offend these rugged individualist conservatives just because they're supporting a sexist, racist Know Nothing. If they can't handle robust political debate, we can make this a safe space for them.


wizard . . . of . . . oz.

wizard . . . of . . . OZ.

wiZARD . . . OZ.

wiZARDOZ.

ZARDOZ!!

(Seriously, it was, like, Sean Connery's finest acting ever.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Um, Hunt For Red October, if there's someone else that can play a Scottish Russian Naval Commander better, I haven't seen it.

Sovereign Court

Majik Mouf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
"NPC Dave wrote:

Check his Twitter feed

So you support Trump because of his willingness to start a twitter war with the 1%?

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.

This is why Paizo is (rightly) perceived as an liberal echo chamber.

I think people may have been trying to understand his reasoning for voting for Trump. I don't like Hilary but if I were in a battle ground state I think I'd have to vote for her because I'm against Trump on almost every issue I've heard him talk about. If the Republicans had a normal-ish candidate this year I think this election would a lot harder. Also, there are a lot of self described conservatives on this site, and I respect a lot of them. It's a free election and you should be allowed to vote for anyone you want. Personally I'd go 3rd party of I were in a blue state, but it's just that when people say they're voting for someone like Trump people here are questioning why. I don't feel the answer he gave was a good one. That doesn't change the fact that you and he are free to vote for Trump if you want. Maybe you just like him? However Bush was elected as someone most Americans would like to have a beer with, but that didn't make him particularly good at running the country. Hilary maybe isn't the most charismatic of leaders but she does seem to be putting in the effort of knowing her stuff, and that's something that I look for in a leader.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


Yeah, come on people. We need to be nicer and try not to offend these rugged individualist conservatives just because they're supporting a sexist, racist Know Nothing. If they can't handle robust political debate, we can make this a safe space for them.

Come on, are you trying to trigger him? Can't this be a safe space?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Yeah, come on people. We need to be nicer and try not to offend these rugged individualist conservatives just because they're supporting a sexist, racist Know Nothing. If they can't handle robust political debate, we can make this a safe space for them.
Come on, are you trying to trigger him? Can't this be a safe space?

To a Trump supporter, simply reporting accurate facts about the man, would violate their requirements for a safe space.

The truth has a liberal bias.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:

All three are gay men. The first two are supporting Trump, the third is cheering him on.

None of them see this “gay conversion therapy” pink elephant. If they don’t see it, it isn’t there.

Top notch logic.

This is true.

Quote:

These three people who are all personally and financially invested in the success of this candidate

This is not, one definitely is, one is arguable, and one is not.

Now go and read about the third individual. And feel free to show him the pink elephant to convince me I am wrong. Take your time.

But you want more gays for Trump? Here you go

He didn’t see the pink elephant before or after he was hit in the head.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

And there were Jews who worked at the concentration camps burying the dead before it was their turn at the gas chambers.

Go right ahead and tell that to Peter, Milo and Justin. Let me know if they see the pink elephant.

Quote:

And I've seen decades of Log Cabin Republicans waiting to be acknowledged by the Republican Party, while the latter still puts anti-LGBTQ stumpers as nominees, speakers, and convocators.

Your analogy doesn’t hold because those Log Cabin guys would acknowledge they see what you see. There is no hallucination in your second example.

But like I said, go right ahead and ask Peter, Milo and Justin if they see the pink elephant.

Quote:


Pence's gay conversion isn't a a pink elephant.

Yes it is. And you even provided the proof the pink elephant does not exist.

Quote:


Conversion therapy is a controversial practice that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to to straight. It’s banned in five states including California, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont and New Jersey.
When asked about the claim, Newsom’s spokesman pointed to Pence’s own words. During his first successful run for Congress in 2000, Pence wrote on his campaign website, under a section called Strengthening the American Family:
"Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."
Also on the website, Pence wrote: "Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage." And "Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s [sic] as a 'discreet [sic] and insular minority' entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities."
...

Great, so let’s look at the statement you bolded, only I am going to turn on my reading magnification glasses…just a moment…

"Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to THOSE SEEKING TO CHANGE THEIR SEXUAL BEHAVIOR."

The pink elephant doesn't exist because one, Pence is not Trump, and two, lucky7 isn't volunteering to be Pence's guinea pig.

Question…are Peter, Milo and Justin seeking to change their sexual behavior? Answer : No. That is why they don’t see the pink elephant. You have to volunteer. Lucky7 has been brainwashed into worrying about something that doesn’t affect him whatsoever.

This Presidential election is about far more important topics than whether the government is going waste money on this dubious project.


thejeff wrote:
Threatening to prosecute your political opponents is hardly "the rule of law".

That is not what I said. Let me fix this statement.

Threatening to prosecute your political opponents when they break the law is the rule of law.

Quote:
It's standard third world dictatorship behavior

Standard third world dictatorship behavior is not prosecuting the elite when they break the law. Which unfortunately happens in the USA now.

Quote:
See him prosecute his allies when they break the law, that's the test.

I agree completely.

Quote:
It's not clear what your evidence of his war with the 1% is here, except that he's against Clinton - possibly just for political reasons.

Maybe it is for noble reasons, maybe it is for political reasons, maybe it is to feed his giant ego.

But again, I don’t care.

Rednal wrote:

My understanding is that his budget plan involves tax cuts for the very wealthy - i.e. himself, and people like him - while shifting that burden onto the middle class.

I fail to see how this is even remotely close to stabbing the 1% in the back.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
I'm still not seeing how Trump has "betrayed the 1%." Because he wrote a mean tweet? He probably doesn't even remember that tweet at this point. Honestly, in my opinion, you sound like you support him simply because he's an a#!!*+$.
bugleyman wrote:

Trump wants to stick it to the 1%...by lowering their taxes? How brave of him.

Fine, you guys want more evidence. Ok, let’s start with another member of the 1%, George Bush, president 41, the father, not the son.

I assume you already saw the link to the picture of him with Donald Trump. Those two travel in the same social circles, dine at the same restaurants, live in similar gated communities. At the 1988 Republican National Convention in New Orleans, Donald Trump was there in a private suite as George Bush’s personal guest. No doubt there was always a quid pro quo arrangement between the two of them, a nice campaign donation here in exchange for a pliable government favor there.

Now George Bush is about as aristocratic an American as you can get. World War 2 veteran, Congressman, US ambassador to the UN, chairman of the RNC, director of the CIA, vice-president under Reagan, and a one-term president. He is the second man in the history of the USA to serve as President and then have his son serve as President.

And this was supposed to be the year for his (supposedly) favored son Jeb Bush, to run for President. It was Jeb’s turn. Everything in the Republican party is geared around whose turn it is. Much of the billionaire money goes into the person whose turn it is. That person gets the biggest warchest.

And George Bush was about to see his son take a shot at making history. He had a decent shot to become the one man who served as President and then watch two of his sons serve as President. And maybe Jeb could fix some of his brother’s screw-ups. Supposedly Jeb was the smart one.

And then he watched Donald Trump personally HUMILIATE AND EMASCULATE his son on national television. Donald Trump single-handedly turned his son into a joke. Jeb Bush is now nothing but a punchline begging for claps.

You guys keep going on and on about tax cuts. How big of a tax cut do you think George Bush needs to get over Donald Trump taking a big, fat dump all over his son and his shot at a unique historical record? Do you guys have any understanding of the diminishing marginal utility of income and wealth?

The next person who complains to me about tax cuts better have a number ready to show me as to exactly how big a tax cut it will need to be to make George Bush the elder feel better about all this. You guys keep demanding more evidence from me, so let’s see some quid pro quo.

Now let’s go back to the Koch brothers. These are the guys who buy US Senators with their money. Senators like Ron Johnson.

You guys think I only have Twitter as evidence Trump is warring with the Koch brothers? Think again.

Now the article does tell you that the Koch brothers cut off Johnson’s monetary lifeline the day after he spoke at the Republican National Convention. What did he do there? He campaigned for Trump. Next day, the Koch brothers lowered the boom.

It was a warning to the rest of the Republicans on their payroll. Don’t support Trump, or else. Trump’s war with the Koch brothers is a lot more than what you see on Twitter.

Explain to me why the Koch brothers are so thrilled with Trump's tax cuts that they don't want their people supporting him and are refusing to spend any money on him.


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.

Slamming me? No, these are love taps. I am enjoying this conversation.

It is no big deal, I know I have fans reading these replies, and I already explained why I am voting for Trump.

It is just my way of sticking it to the man


...one lever pull at a time...


So...I was right?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

NPC Dave appears to believe that two families make up the top 1% of wealth in America.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I see conservative tokenism is alive and well. What does it matter that millions of LGBTQ people despise your candidate and your movement? Hah! You'll show them with your *four* (all male, 3/4 white + wealthy) gays! Relevant
Same thing is done with black people. "Sure we poll at less than 5% nationally with black Americans, but hey--Bill Cosby and Ben Carson like us!"

The main reason Trump is going to get crushed is because millions > four. So go wild, vote for Trump, have yourselves a big 'ol primal scream and pick a fight with a RINO defending a House seat. Cuddle up to dudes hollering about globalism & Jewish conspiracies and tell yourself whatever you need to to stay the course. Makes my job that much easier in '18.


Hitdice wrote:
Majik Mouf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
"NPC Dave wrote:

Check his Twitter feed

So you support Trump because of his willingness to start a twitter war with the 1%?

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.

This is why Paizo is (rightly) perceived as an liberal echo chamber.

Oh for crying out loud, perceived by whom? I am extremely skeptical that anyone with any political power whatsoever thinks they should stay away from the Paizo off topic message boards because our opinions are biased.

I probably am pretty liberal (maybe extreme sometimes, afterall, I was a Bernie fan)...but I actually would agree that Paizo is rather liberal and at times pretty strongly adamant against conservatives.

It isn't extreme liberal though, as there are ideas and opinions that I have that are actually decidedly left of what is normal on Paizo from what I gather.

(or maybe I'm just so far left I'm right? In otherwords I'm a FAAAAAR right conservative!!! Which would make sense why a lot of my ideas are seen as utterly ridiculous by some here. :P)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

It doesn't surprise me that Thiel and co are not making a big deal about conversion therapy. They are wealthy, independent adults. The real problem with conversion therapy is all those folks who don't fit into that category, especially teens who might get shipped off against their will and have to endure the sort of psychological abuse associated with conversion therapy.


Going back to an earlier conversation (because I was unavailable): I think that both libertarianism and communism is both are formed from a virtue.

Communism from altruism/generosity and libertarianism from Honesty/integrity.

And honestly this is why they both fail in practice so far, they don't address their associated vice; communism and sloth and libertarianism and greed.

Capitalism works because at it's core it is based on vice, so appeals to the lowest common denominator. This also allows us to dress it up over time to conform to societal tolerances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:
Explain to me why the Koch brothers are so thrilled with Trump's tax cuts that they don't want their people supporting him and are refusing to spend any money on him.

Trumps a sinking ship.

When trump goes, he's dragging the senate with him.

President + democratic senate= Bernie sanders on the supreme court if she wants.

Then there goes citizens united and the koch's brothers ability to overtly buy elections and KEEP getting those tax breaks.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:
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.

Slamming me? No, these are love taps. I am enjoying this conversation.

Also, just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean it's at all personal. People argue all the time, I consider myself on the left, but if someone claimed that Hilary is the best candidate I would take issue with that, and would argue with them. It doesn't mean that we don't agree on 50% to 90% of the issues.

Also, arguing isn't about having someone change their position completely, I don't think I've ever seen that happen, but it is about trying to get the other side to better understand your position and to understand theirs. Having someone challenge your ideas is a way to test your beliefs and positions. If you find something shaky then it also gives you the chance to try to hammer out those position. Sometimes you'll find a middle ground.

At this point I'm not sure I understand NPC Dave's position but that's why we're challenging him, to see if he can elaborate so we can understand his reasoning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

One of my best friends is a republican, we talk politics without taking it personal or getting upset with each other.

We both agree that Trump shouldn't be president though. :-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Explain to me why the Koch brothers are so thrilled with Trump's tax cuts that they don't want their people supporting him and are refusing to spend any money on him.

Trumps a sinking ship.

When trump goes, he's dragging the senate with him.

President + democratic senate= Bernie sanders on the supreme court if she wants.

Then there goes citizens united and the koch's brothers ability to overtly buy elections and KEEP getting those tax breaks.

Koch's not spending much money this election cycle is just practicality. a good chunk of major Republican donors consider this election a wash, and haven't contributed much, or as the situation worsened have withdrawn their support.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I thought this was interesting:

Trump hotels losing customers

The inherent problem of propagating a message that is distasteful or annoying to the people who are most likely to be able to afford your services.


In a completely predictable turn of events, Trump threatens to sue the women who have accused him of sexual assault.

1) As noted by the New York Times, I think it is, a Libel and/or Slander case would be pretty hard for him to prove, given that recording.

2) He often threatens lawsuits without actually making them. He seems to be one of the people who likes to use them as weapons against anyone he dislikes or disagrees with, so... *Shrugs*


Hi Dave.

I don't think your Bush anecdotes prove your point, or even necessarily support it. The argument you advanced was that Trump is an enemy of the 1%. That's a broad claim, that he'd oppose the power of that class in general.

The Bush anecdote is narrow. Even if we expand it beyond the Bushes individually and assume that he does this to other people too (and I won't argue, he does), it shows that he's against personal rivals of his within the 1%.

It doesn't show that he opposes the class itself.

I think in order to demonstrate the latter you need different evidence on a scale larger than this or that single one percenter.

Now, I'm not saying that nobody within the silver spoon brigade has ever sided against their class as a whole, some have - I'm just saying that I don't see how doing so necessarily follows from the type of individual rivalries that you cited.

Might as well say that, as Augustus was a bitter enemy of Antony, Augustus was anti-elite. We know how THAT turned out, don't we?

(I'm aware that I am not responding to your whole post - but since the majority of your post is Bush, and it seems to make up the foundation of your argument on this point, I'll focus on it).


Coriat wrote:

Hi Dave.

I don't think your Bush anecdotes prove your point, or even necessarily support it. The argument you advanced was that Trump is an enemy of the 1%. That's a broad claim, that he'd oppose the power of that class in general.

The Bush anecdote is narrow. Even if we expand it beyond the Bushes individually and assume that he does this to other people too (and I won't argue, he does), it shows that he's against personal rivals of his within the 1%.

It doesn't show that he opposes the class itself.

I think in order to demonstrate the latter you need different evidence on a scale larger than this or that single one percenter.

Now, I'm not saying that nobody within the silver spoon brigade has ever sided against their class as a whole, some have - I'm just saying that I don't see how doing so necessarily follows from the type of individual rivalries that you cited.

Might as well say that, as Augustus was a bitter enemy of Antony, Augustus was anti-elite. We know how THAT turned out, don't we?

(I'm aware that I am not responding to your whole post - but since the majority of your post is Bush, and it seems to make up the foundation of your argument on this point, I'll focus on it).

Until you tell me how handing the one percenters a massive tax cut is siding against them, that discussion is moot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My impression is that Milo just hates third wave feminism (or feminism of any contemporary kind, really), PC culture (whatever that is), Islam, and BLM. Because Trump is a shining beacon for antisocial behavior and the whole alt-right theme of "restoring rights to oppressed white males", Milo backs him. Sure, Pence has some pretty scary anti-LGBT things going on, but it seems more like Milo is more interested in the reactionary spirit of their campaign platform on those particular issues, a la "Shrieking feminist harpies are swooping down to take away free speech and artistic freedom; Islam is a hateful religion that can't coexist with modern cultures, Striving for equality is really being discriminatory against white males, etc."

It's all intolerant nonsense, and his arguments really don't hold up upon close scrutiny. However, he does have a following so I will say he's pretty good at making a name for himself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Spastic Puma wrote:

My impression is that Milo just hates third wave feminism (or feminism of any contemporary kind, really), PC culture (whatever that is), Islam, and BLM. Because Trump is a shining beacon for antisocial behavior and the whole alt-right theme of "restoring rights to oppressed white males", Milo backs him. Sure, Pence has some pretty scary anti-LGBT things going on, but it seems more like Milo is more interested in the reactionary spirit of their campaign platform on those particular issues, a la "Shrieking feminist harpies are swooping down to take away free speech and artistic freedom; Islam is a hateful religion that can't coexist with modern cultures, Striving for equality is really being discriminatory against white males, etc."

It's all intolerant nonsense, and his arguments really don't hold up upon close scrutiny. However, he does have a following so I will say he's pretty good at making a name for himself.

Yes, hating or bemoaning "PC" typically means hating other people's PC and being oblivious of one's own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Explain to me why the Koch brothers are so thrilled with Trump's tax cuts that they don't want their people supporting him and are refusing to spend any money on him.

Trumps a sinking ship.

When trump goes, he's dragging the senate with him.

President + democratic senate= Bernie sanders on the supreme court if she wants.

Then there goes citizens united and the koch's brothers ability to overtly buy elections and KEEP getting those tax breaks.

Koch's not spending much money this election cycle is just practicality. a good chunk of major Republican donors consider this election a wash, and haven't contributed much, or as the situation worsened have withdrawn their support.

As I understand it, the Koch Bro's (and others) are spending money this cycle, but they're spending it down ticket. Fighting for Senators and House seats.

And I don't think it's so much that they think it's a wash, but they think it's a lost cause and their efforts are better directed to controlling Congress and blocking Clinton that way.


This election looks like a complete garbage fire and I can't respect supporters of either side. If these two are really the best option, this is a dark time for the republic. Nothing but personal attacks and disgusting tactics on both sides. Trump's rhetoric has been just plain dumb and Hillary has been criminal, especially with the new videos out there with people in her campaign admitting to inciting violence and hostile actions at Trump rallies, and her corruption with accepting donations from corporate interest and thinking people believe that "they want nothing in return". They are both total trash bags but if I had to pick one, I would pick Trump just because he would be so bad, it would force a re-evaluation of the entire system rather than keeping the status quo. However, I know the vote doesn't matter one lick because the electoral college exists, so vote for whichever scumbag you want. Vote local, down the ticket, because the federal vote means absolutely nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

And where are these supposed videos.


Right here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY even if you don't accept the source, listen to what members of the campaign actually say and ask yourself if that is actually an okay thing to do, or a reprehensible act.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

No, that's okay, not my cup of tea.


Ask for the video, then don't watch it. Why bother even asking for evidence if you wont look at it? Just to see if I can provide it?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Exactly. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough, actually. People should always be willing to provide evidence.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

And thank you for providing it. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

RE: Trump advisors brag up a big speech about what he'd do in his first hundred days, and then spends at least fifteen minutes threatening to sue every woman that talks s@+& about him.

Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't consider anything from James O'Keefe as evidence.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
Right here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY even if you don't accept the source, listen to what members of the campaign actually say and ask yourself if that is actually an okay thing to do, or a reprehensible act.

O'Keefe hasn't released a video which wasn't fraudulently edited yet. I see no reason to believe this one is any different.

That being said, the people in the videos are also NOT "people in her campaign". Rather, a PAC which Clinton's campaign is legally prohibited from coordinating with hired a consulting firm which hired those people as outside contractors. We're not talking 'inner circle' here... rather way out on the barely related fringes.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Coriat wrote:

Hi Dave.

I don't think your Bush anecdotes prove your point, or even necessarily support it. The argument you advanced was that Trump is an enemy of the 1%. That's a broad claim, that he'd oppose the power of that class in general.

The Bush anecdote is narrow. Even if we expand it beyond the Bushes individually and assume that he does this to other people too (and I won't argue, he does), it shows that he's against personal rivals of his within the 1%.

It doesn't show that he opposes the class itself.

I think in order to demonstrate the latter you need different evidence on a scale larger than this or that single one percenter.

Now, I'm not saying that nobody within the silver spoon brigade has ever sided against their class as a whole, some have - I'm just saying that I don't see how doing so necessarily follows from the type of individual rivalries that you cited.

Might as well say that, as Augustus was a bitter enemy of Antony, Augustus was anti-elite. We know how THAT turned out, don't we?

(I'm aware that I am not responding to your whole post - but since the majority of your post is Bush, and it seems to make up the foundation of your argument on this point, I'll focus on it).

Until you tell me how handing the one percenters a massive tax cut is siding against them, that discussion is moot.

Don't forget his support for unlimited dark money for campaigning, too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"The key is initiating the conflict by having leading conversations with people who are naturally psychotic. I mean honestly, it's not hard to get some of these a@@holes to pop off."

OK, I watched the video, and was glad to finally see what Trump had been talking about during the last debate. Thank you for posting the link.

The problem is that despite the scary music and choppy editing, the big shocking reveal is: if you protest a Trump rally, you will be attacked by mentally unstable people. I hate to break it to you, but this is more damning to Trump then Hillary. And I say that as someone who is probably the most critical of her in this thread. I also say it as someone who has done a fair amount of protesting, and have personally faced some scary physical violence while engaging in 1st amendment activity.

The other thing clearly shown is how PACs and super PACs co-ordinate, in this case through intermediaries. The only surprise there is that they bother with the intermediaries. I think everyone with a brain knows that PACs work basically in tandem with the candidates and/or national parties. If your candidate does not have a PAC/super PAC, then they can claim the moral highground. Not only does Trump have PACs/super PACs, but he is offering absolutely nothing that would clean up this broken system. I don't think Hillary is really going to do anything about it, but at least she speaks against it, for what little that is worth.

Yeah, the tapes paint a picture of some sleazy-as-f@@k people doing the Parties dirty work, but the important revelation is that Trump supporters are quick to violence when presented with opposing views. That is bad for Trump, and the 1st Amendment, not Hillary. EDIT: Well, it is bad for Hillary as well, as she has been immersed in this stuff for decades. I think this shows the value of smaller, third-party candidates who don't do the super PAC thing. I give Trump credit for self funding in the primaries (it must be nice...) but really this just shows Sanders was the real human among a bunch of zombie clowns.

EDIT: Also, if simple bird dogging works against you, you have absolutely no business running for public office. [Inset dog catcher joke here]

5,501 to 5,550 of 7,079 << first < prev | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards