2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

5,701 to 5,750 of 7,079 << first < prev | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | next > last >>

Guy Humual wrote:
The right is fueled by outrage, if he can't generate outrage then he's not much use is he? I don't know, I just don't think he's got the staying power of a Rush or a Hanity. Heck even Beck might be done soon.

No. I don't think he does either. He's plays a different role though.

He's supposed to generate plausible evidence that can be used to do direct damage, rather than just firing up the base like Rush, et al.

As his credibility gets more damaged, he gets less useful.


All I know is Alex Jones makes the Lone Gunmen seem rational.

Silver Crusade

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

With Krump, I just filled a niche nobody else had wanted to tackle. And I felt like I should be the one to do it. ;P

I'd need a D&D monster race pun for Jones, unfortunately, and "pugwampi" doesn't fit in any good wordplay.

I'll get on that in the morning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave 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).

To answer your question, we have to look at the main issues that are being contested in this election. Not the sideshows and the smokescreens. The real fundamental issues which have been buried under “grab the p____” and just how sick Hillary may or may not be.

You may not agree that these are the main issues, or the premises as to where the billionaires stand on these issues. But raise objections as you see fit…

1) Nationalist vs Globalism
Billionaires are on the side of globalism, they want open borders and human migration.

2) Ordinary people’s savings vs Big banks
Billionaires are on the side of big corporation, especially big banks. When big banks suffer a major loss, they want to be reimbursed with ordinary people’s savings and tax payer dollars.

3) Political control
Billionaires want to control governments in order to maintain their financial advantage and preserve the status quo.

Not every member of the 1% wants this, but in general the 1% have these objectives. They fight among themselves as to who gets the best deals and who gets the most control, but they are in agreement on these objectives.

Donald Trump threatens them on each of these. He is a nationalist, and opposes open borders. He opposes bailing out the big banks. And by running for President, he threatens their political control. No one controls Donald Trump.

Re: the invitation to scrutinize whether or not these are the main issues important to billionaires, I'd certainly want to add at least one more, taxes. And that is one where the trump-vs-1% theory seems to fall down, since it's not necessarily traditional for a president to show his enmity towards the rich by cutting their taxes.

To the points that you did raise:

1) Globalization. I'm mostly OK with this one and not going to argue it. I can accept that the anti-trade platform he's run on is counter to the interests of, at least, large portions of the wealthy. Sure, put this in the W column if you're an anti-globalist.

2) Big banks. I'm not sure this one belongs on the list. I'm sure he's mentioned this stuff, but I haven't seen him make a big deal out of it and I'm not sure I'd expect much to change on this count under his administration one way or another. My understanding of his plans for being president is that he'll focus on a few high-profile, signature issues, and leave most everything else to others, and I haven't seen any sign that bailout policy is going to be at the top of his list. This pretty much means that it will stay in the hands of Congressmen, staffers, lobbyists, and the usual crowd, the people who implemented the stuff we've done in the past. Neutral/tie game here.

3) Political control. Far as I can tell this one belongs firmly in the L column. I'm not necessarily inclined to believe that Trump is personally not influenceable by the money of the 1% (which is his main argument on this count). If he wasn't eager for more money, he wouldn't have spent so much time this campaign pushing his products. But I also don't think that that is the most important factor. Billionaires don't get heard because they have the President on speed dial and direct deposit prearranged - which they don't. They get heard because they buy the people who influence the people who surround the President and work in the administration.

Or they serve in the administration directly. Now, the parade of non-policy-related scandals Trump has courted lately has been drowning out much talk of, say, who his cabinet will be, but last I heard (in the summer) fellow billionaires were prominent on his list (which again doesn't suggest he is crusading against them). I recall hearing of Icahn and several CEOs floated as cabinet picks.

Even if you grant that Trump himself is not corrupt (I don't, but for the sake of argument) - think U.S. Grant and his infamously corrupt administration without the suggestion of personal wrongdoing. If you aren't disciplined about managing your administration, you don't have to be personally accepting the cash in order to preside over a cesspool of corruption and influence peddling. Trump seems anything but disciplined when it comes to managing his campaign, so I don't see that changing if he ends up managing an administration. And in any case if you put other billionaires in your cabinet, then other billionaires is who you'll be hearing when you decide on policy.

That leaves it at 1-1-1 (if you're anti-globalization), or 1-1-2 if you add tax policy to the L column.

Overall, that doesn't seem to me to correspond to a crusade against the power of the wealthy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

With Krump, I just filled a niche nobody else had wanted to tackle. And I felt like I should be the one to do it. ;P

I'd need a D&D monster race pun for Jones, unfortunately, and "pugwampi" doesn't fit in any good wordplay.

{sits in corner forgotten, weeping into tiny hands}


*Makes tea*

In today's news, USA Today has a report on Trump's many pending lawsuits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

King in Yellow pretends to be me, but isn't as much, isn't nearly as great as me, the real Kobald Krump. SAD!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So many pretenders.

So sad.


Ice Bear's an American classic.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

In other news WTFery, Alex Jones says Billy Bush was a CIA deep mole to set up Trump.

Warning: If this is your first experience of Alex Jones, best not to look the Abyss head on, sorta observe in your peripheral vision until the SAN drain dulls your brain pain.

This election has provided some great Alex Jones memes/videos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spastic Puma wrote:
Just got (angrily) called a regressive leftist Marxist by a student while TAing at my university. Thought you might be pleased to hear that, Comrade.

Oh? Do tell.

As I understand it, and I may not, the term is one used by right-wing atheist Islamophobes.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is Alex Jones makes the Lone Gunmen seem rational.

Well, Lone Gunmen did totally call 9/11 five months before it happened. So at least they were right about that.

Young Turks has had some good commentary about Alex Jones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Trump supporter Newt Gingrich, who has been married three times and regularly left his wives for mistresses, has accused Fox News' Megyn Kelly of "being fascinated with sex".

You know, at this point, I'm pretty certain that the entire Trump campaign, including supporters, is focused on projecting their problems onto others...


Fergie,

Not sure I'd call it that way but okay.


I can't watch the young turks anymore. While Alex Jones is a disgusting lunatic that thinks reptilians are a real thing, TYT staff went too far in literally spitting in his face. Plus there was the whole thing with Cenk and Ruben.

Sovereign Court

Jaçinto wrote:
I can't watch the young turks anymore. While Alex Jones is a disgusting lunatic that thinks reptilians are a real thing, TYT staff went too far in literally spitting in his face.

Hey that was Jimmy Dore, great spit take by the way, and if you invade someone's live broadcast, bring along Roger Stone, being spat on is really the least thing you should expect. It's not something that I'd approve off normally, it's not something I'd do for example in the same situation, it's not how I expect civilized people to act, but it wasn't a normal situation and Alex isn't exactly civilized. He was looking to stir something up. He got what he was looking for.


It's criminal assault and it is disgusting. Sorry, but there is no excuse for that behaviour. Also, it doesn't matter who did it. A member of TYT did it while on duty. Every employee of a company must act as their representative. If their superiours take no action to correct them, then they accept that image upon the company. Therefore, TYT approves of spitting in people's faces which is, again, assault.

Then there was the hypocrisy of Ana Kasparian where, for quite some time, she has been actively opposed to body and fat shaming. Then she goes and does it to Alex Jones.

I despise Alex Jones but come on, that was a terribly unprofessional attitude they had. They should have acted better than him, rather than sink to his level. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was set up by both organizations to get more views.

I keep seeing so many small companies fail to understand what PR and a professional attitude is at all.

TYT isn't even News. It is News reaction. At times, they are also as bad as Fox News for how one sided their opinions tend to be and how they twist stories.

It somewhat makes me glad to live in Canada. I believe the law up here is that you can not say your broadcast is News unless it is actually factual and News. It's sort of why Fox News was rejected from opening a Canadian division and Sun News got shut down.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
It's criminal assault and it is disgusting. Sorry, but there is no excuse for that behaviour.

Getting spit on is one of the most rage inducing things that could happen to me.

That said the dumbass fully deserved it for what he did.


Just because someone deserves it, which yeah it was a long time coming, you don't actually do it. If he wanted to do so, he could have legally smashed in Jimmy's teeth.

Edit: Seriously though, people. I watched the election debate here in Canada, then I watched the ones in the USA. What the hell happened down there?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
Just because someone deserves it, which yeah it was a long time coming, you don't actually do it. If he wanted to do so, he could have legally smashed in Jimmy's teeth.

So physical violence and grievous harm of body is more preferable than spitting on them?


I am saying it is within his legal right. I didn't say it was better. Don't put words in my mouth. Also, I would rather a punch in the face than spit in the face, due to the risk of infectious diseases and what not being carried over.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I wasn't putting words into your mouth, I was asking. That was the whole point of that little ? at the end there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
I am saying it is within his legal right. I didn't say it was better. Don't put words in my mouth. Also, I would rather a punch in the face than spit in the face, due to the risk of infectious diseases and what not being carried over.

No, he wouldn't have been legally justified in punching Jimmy. For self-defense to be legitimate, you need to be facing an inescapable threat. Since Jimmy had turned his back and was walking away, Alex would himself face assault charges.

Two wrongs don't always make a right. Just because someone else did something wrong, doesn't mean you're necessarily justified in breaking rules yourself.

Spitting is considered assault, but it doesn't inflict actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, so responding to it with ABH or GBH would be difficult to defend. You'd have to show a continued threat that you're responding to.

Also, I'm going to point how two-faced your comment is. You talk about how distasteful it is for someone to have assaulted someone, and then glorify the inflicting of harm on the individual. You can't take the high road while advocating smashing someone's face in.


I was always told that in the USA, if someone performs any kind of assault, you can defend yourself in any way you deem appropriate. Otherwise, you can walk up to someone and punch them and immediately walk away and there is nothing they can do to you.

On the two-faced thing, I get where you're coming from. Lets see if I can explain clearly. I was not saying Alex should do it or it was right. I was under the assumption that the law in the USA simply allowed one to do so. I mean, you can shoot somebody in some states if you simply FEEL threatened under the "Stand your ground" law. So it seems that if Alex felt in danger at all from being spit on, he could go legally full force. I don't agree with it. I think he is a scum bag. But I don't accept just walking up to someone and spitting in their face as an act that should not be punished in some way. Personally, I would prefer legal action taken over physical action. Sorry if I am wrong about the law as that is what tends to be shown on how it works in the USA.

Alex is a laughable and shameful person, but would you agree that Jimmy went too far and deserves assault charges? Not an issue of morality, just talking about law here. It wasn't even in the heat of a fight or argument. Jimmy just walked up to him, beside him, and spit in his face, then left.

Really though, glorify? Re-read what I said. In what way am I saying it would be an admirable thing to do rather than just saying he COULD do it? You could say Guy Hummual glorified the spitting.

Sovereign Court

Jaçinto wrote:
It's criminal assault and it is disgusting. Sorry, but there is no excuse for that behaviour.

Of course you can justify spitting on someone, don't be silly, they can justify shooting people. The question is was it justified in this case?

Jaçinto wrote:
Also, it doesn't matter who did it. A member of TYT did it while on duty. Every employee of a company must act as their representative. If their superiours take no action to correct them, then they accept that image upon the company. Therefore, TYT approves of spitting in people's faces which is, again, assault.

This also seems a fairly ridiculous position. You can disapprove of someone's actions without correcting them. The police work on this assumption all the time and I'd think we shouldn't be holding a reaction based web show to a higher standard then the police. People with real power.

Jaçinto wrote:
Then there was the hypocrisy of Ana Kasparian where, for quite some time, she has been actively opposed to body and fat shaming. Then she goes and does it to Alex Jones.

Because when an atheist says "oh my god" when frustrated they're being hypocrites and not simply using common vernacular in situations where they've been conditioned to use them. Someone gets me mad enough I might call them a son of a b+&~$, but that doesn't mean I actually mean to insult their mother, most likely I've never met their mother, but it's a common expression and I might use it when I'm mad.

Jaçinto wrote:
I despise Alex Jones but come on, that was a terribly unprofessional attitude they had. They should have acted better than him, rather than sink to his level.

I do agree with this. I said so when it happened.

Jaçinto wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was set up by both organizations to get more views.

That would surprise me, I don't think the people at TyT are that good at acting, this does however seem to be what Alex Jones was interested in doing. He wanted a reaction and he got one.

Jaçinto wrote:
TYT isn't even News. It is News reaction. At times, they are also as bad as Fox News for how one sided their opinions tend to be and how they twist stories.

I usually use them to supplement my intake of US news. I'm not sure I'd classify them as bad as Faux, they tend to be as critical of the democrats as they are of the republicans, but they are more of a react channel then a news channel but they are changing that somewhat with some of their newer hires.

Jaçinto wrote:
It somewhat makes me glad to live in Canada. I believe the law up here is that you can not say your broadcast is News unless it is actually factual and News. It's sort of why Fox News was rejected from opening a Canadian division and Sun News got shut down.

Well we have tighter regulations, there's always going to be bias, it's kind of unavoidable, but I think the news media here isn't being directed as it appears to be in the states.


Jaçinto wrote:
I was always told that in the USA, if someone performs any kind of assault, you can defend yourself in any way you deem appropriate. Otherwise, you can walk up to someone and punch them and immediately walk away and there is nothing they can do to you

You heard wrong. Once the threat is gone, any further violence is considered criminal. This works in a few ways. If a person is defending themselves and they incapacitate the aggressor in some way or the threat has otherwise ended, then further violence is considered excessive force. For example, here in Texas I would be legally justified in shooting someone who was threatening me with what could reasonably be considered lethal force, however it would be illegal for me to shoot if they started running away and could no longer be reasonably assumed to pose an immediate threat. Essentially, once the threat has ended, violence is a no-no.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The sooner that you accept that everything is political and that there's no such thing as an objective position on an issue, the quicker you'll make peace with journalism. Those may be goals for the field to aim for (kind of like positivism in science or complete erasure of crime in law enforcement), but they're never truly attainable.


Newt Gingrich thinks Megyn Kelly is obsessed with sex.


Jaçinto wrote:
I was always told that in the USA, if someone performs any kind of assault, you can defend yourself in any way you deem appropriate. Otherwise, you can walk up to someone and punch them and immediately walk away and there is nothing they can do to you.

Er, they can call the cops. That's how you handle assault. You don't resort to violence unless you have to.

Unless you live in Florida, but I'm pretty sure someone living in Florida is considered to be perpetually "under threat".


Spastic Puma wrote:
The sooner that you accept that everything is political and that there's no such thing as an objective position on an issue, the quicker you'll make peace with journalism.

Yeah, right. Let's go down to the freeway. You can stand in front of a commuter bus and tell it you don't believe in it, and we'll see what kind of "peace" you make with it.


The truth lies somewhere in the middle—there is only half of a commuter bus coming towards you.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Er, they can call the cops. That's how you handle assault. You don't resort to violence unless you have to.

Unless you live in Florida, but I'm pretty sure someone living in Florida is considered to be perpetually "under threat".

Most states have self defense statutes.

Most states have equal force statutes: you can't normally stab or shoot someone for punching you.

Dark Archive

First off the employer pays that tax, not the employee.

Buy anything from my company (or Paizo, or Apple, or your internet carrier) and the taxes are built in. Who pays that tax? - you do every time.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.

About bloody time they stood up for themselves.. Only took about a quarter century.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
The sooner that you accept that everything is political and that there's no such thing as an objective position on an issue, the quicker you'll make peace with journalism.
Yeah, right. Let's go down to the freeway. You can stand in front of a commuter bus and tell it you don't believe in it, and we'll see what kind of "peace" you make with it.

Orfamay, I think you might want to re-read what Spastic Puma wrote, and adjust your response. I don't think you are discussing the same thing.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
The sooner that you accept that everything is political and that there's no such thing as an objective position on an issue, the quicker you'll make peace with journalism.
Yeah, right. Let's go down to the freeway. You can stand in front of a commuter bus and tell it you don't believe in it, and we'll see what kind of "peace" you make with it.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding me.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.

About bloody time they stood up for themselves.. Only took about a quarter century.

Of course right after voting to not endorse Trump they praised him as being the most LBGTQ friendly candidate in history. No idea how they manage to parse that cognitive dissonance.


Caineach wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.

About bloody time they stood up for themselves.. Only took about a quarter century.
Of course right after voting to not endorse Trump they praised him as being the most LBGTQ friendly candidate in history. No idea how they manage to parse that cognitive dissonance.

Actually, compared to the other Republicans in the Primary Clown Car, with the exception of Munchies Kaisch, he is. The party itself, remains downright hostile


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.

About bloody time they stood up for themselves.. Only took about a quarter century.
Of course right after voting to not endorse Trump they praised him as being the most LBGTQ friendly candidate in history. No idea how they manage to parse that cognitive dissonance.

Baby steps. You can't deprogram a cult member or get over a bad boyfriend/girlfriend breakup all in one day.


And hey, prospective Johnson/Weld 2016 ticket voters, Veep candidate Weld has a voting suggestion for you.

Also, Happy Birthday to Secretary Clinton today. :)


Good to know Weld is trying to keep Donald out.


I liked this part of Weld's statement best:

Bill Weld wrote:
Every citizen must be aware of the power and responsibility of each individual vote... This is not the time to cast a jocular or feel-good vote for a man whom you may have briefly found entertaining.

Maybe Weld was talking about more than just one candidate?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MeriDoc- wrote:


First off the employer pays that tax, not the employee.

Buy anything from my company (or Paizo, or Apple, or your internet carrier) and the taxes are built in. Who pays that tax? - you do every time.

By the same token, my employer pays all the taxes I do. And my employer's customers pays all its taxes (including mine). And so on.

So it's true in a sense that the companies will pass on their taxes to their customers, but they still need to produce a product I'm willing to pay for and charge (including the taxes they're "passing along") a price I'm willing to pay. If what I'm willing to pay won't cover the tax, they need to take less profit (so they're paying for it) or not make the sale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
No idea how they manage to parse that cognitive dissonance.

It's pretty easy really, our whole system of politics is based on cognitive dissonance. For starters, party platforms are completely meaningless. It's just propaganda for the voters, nothing more.

Also, all politicians adjust their brand depending on who they are appealing to. Traditionally, there is the candidates positions in whatever job they held before they ran for office. Often these are positions that appeal to the region they represent. Then they switch to "primary" positions that appeal to the hardcore base of the party, but might be objectionable to the general audience. Finally, they "pivot to the center" in order to appeal to the broadest audience.

That swapping of "beliefs" depending on who they are pandering to is so baked into American politics, that people hardly even notice it anymore.

Trump is a weird case, but look at where he came from, a rich NYC playboy who used to party at Studio 54. He has spent his life in one of the most LGBTQ accepting cities in the US, hob-nobbling with celebrities, designers, and media. Given his clear lack of religious faith, I suspect he is a socially liberal guy by US standards (I also suspect he is personally pro-choice). If Trump was running for mayor of NYC, I suspect he would have a very different set of public policies and opinions.

The bottom line is that political candidates, and the politicians they become, are actors/lawyers playing a character, like Steven Colbert did for many years. Their actual beliefs don't really matter much, and their stated beliefs and positions on issues change based on financial and political expediency.

EDIT: That fluidity-of-belief is what I was referring to in a previous post when I said that Hillary had no morality. "No morality" is incorrect hyperbole. I think most politicians public personas are not tied to a consistent morality the way most people are, but rather have a set of positions that are based on factors outside of standard thought processes. In essence, they have the morality of a fictional character who can be re-written from one day to the next.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.

About bloody time they stood up for themselves.. Only took about a quarter century.
Of course right after voting to not endorse Trump they praised him as being the most LBGTQ friendly candidate in history. No idea how they manage to parse that cognitive dissonance.
Actually, compared to the other Republicans in the Primary Clown Car, with the exception of Munchies Kaisch, he is. The party itself, remains downright hostile

They were including Democrats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Caineach wrote:
No idea how they manage to parse that cognitive dissonance.

It's pretty easy really, our whole system of politics is based on cognitive dissonance. For starters, party platforms are completely meaningless. It's just propaganda for the voters, nothing more.

Also, all politicians adjust their brand depending on who they are appealing to. Traditionally, there is the candidates positions in whatever job they held before they ran for office. Often these are positions that appeal to the region they represent. Then they switch to "primary" positions that appeal to the hardcore base of the party, but might be objectionable to the general audience. Finally, they "pivot to the center" in order to appeal to the broadest audience.

That swapping of "beliefs" depending on who they are pandering to is so baked into American politics, that people hardly even notice it anymore.

Trump is a weird case, but look at where he came from, a rich NYC playboy who used to party at Studio 54. He has spent his life in one of the most LGBTQ accepting cities in the US, hob-nobbling with celebrities, designers, and media. Given his clear lack of religious faith, I suspect he is a socially liberal guy by US standards (I also suspect he is personally pro-choice). If Trump was running for mayor of NYC, I suspect he would have a very different set of public policies and opinions.

The bottom line is that political candidates, and the politicians they become, are actors/lawyers playing a character, like Steven Colbert did for many years. Their actual beliefs don't really matter much, and their stated beliefs and positions on issues change based on financial and political expediency.

EDIT: That fluidity-of-belief is what I was referring to in a previous post when I said that Hillary had no morality. "No morality" is incorrect hyperbole. I think most politicians public personas are not tied to a consistent morality the way most people are, but rather have a set of positions that are based...

A huge dose of cynicism apparently helps too.

As for Trump being "socially liberal", that may be true when it comes to LGBTQ issues. It certainly isn't when it comes to racism and sexism. Unless you want to claim he's been faking that his whole life in preparation for a presidential run decades later.
Even when it comes to LGBTQ, as a matter of the kind of political opportunism you're talking about, he's tied himself to Pence who's an ardent culture warrior. I wouldn't take any comfort in Trump's "social liberalism".


Why downticket votes matter: WaPo "House Republicans are already preparing for ‘years’ of investigations of Clinton"


Interestingly, this cycle pretty much broke out of the "pivot to the center mode". Trump chose Pence likely in a move to reach out the nastier parts of the Christian Right and he did so after winning the primary. He's been pushed into several attempts to appear more Presidential by reading pre-written speeches from his teleprompter, but they've never stuck. I don't think Trump's playing a character. Too much of what we see goes back decades. He's a racist, sexist, egotistical jerk and he can't hide it for more than a few hours at a time.

Clinton is of course more of a traditional politician. She could be said to have chosen Kaine to placate the center, but other than that she hasn't really pivoted much if at all from the steps to the left she took in the primary. (I know, I know. Policies don't mean anything. She could just be lying about it all, but still, we haven't seen the pivot you talk about.)

Furthermore, it really does matter. Even if the appeals and policy positions don't really reflect their true inner selves, they can drive actions. If you win with the support of a group, you may well want them to back you again. You want to keep up that appeal. You have to do something to live up to the propaganda. I don't really care what Obama's actual deep feelings about LGBTQ people are. I know that things got better in Obama's terms in ways they certainly wouldn't have with anyone relying on the Republican base in office. Not as much or as fast as many would like, I'll admit, but still...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.

About bloody time they stood up for themselves.. Only took about a quarter century.
Of course right after voting to not endorse Trump they praised him as being the most LBGTQ friendly candidate in history. No idea how they manage to parse that cognitive dissonance.
Actually, compared to the other Republicans in the Primary Clown Car, with the exception of Munchies Kaisch, he is. The party itself, remains downright hostile
They were including Democrats.

Then they are blatantly wrong.

I mean...

Seriously...


Well, I still am not voting for Trump or Clinton.

HOWEVER...the more I find out about him the more I really like Tim Kaine.

If we could have Clinton simply resign as soon as she is elected and have him as President...I'd be all for it.

In fact, at this point, with some of the things Tim Kaine has stated recently, I might actually get over enthusiastic about Tim Kaine (then again, it may just be the candidates we have available this year, Tim Kaine might just appeal because he seems to be the most normal person out there!).

{edit: He's not as liberal as I might normally look at, and in fact seems VERY in the middle. If anyone could bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, it sounds like he would be one that might be able to do it. I feel he's definitely left of Clinton (despite me saying he's more in the middle than anything else), but has some very conservative views (and has allied with conservatives at times and they with him) and think that he could do a lot in getting people on board to stop this crazy opposite spectrum type thing we are seeing in the US right now.

He seems FAR more reasonable when he talks than I would have expected. Ironically, the thing that caught my attention on him is a speech he gave where there was very LOW attendance (I think around 30 people total showed up) recently. However, what he said sounded so reasonable compared to the stuff that's been tossed around by the various Presidential candidates recently...it was almost like a relief to me!]

5,701 to 5,750 of 7,079 << first < prev | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards