The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Pounded Right in the [Presidential Election Thread]
Atomika
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Okay here we go. No goosery. Be cool, like Fonzie.
And let's start with this tidbit:
Trump donates $100k to Louisiana anti-LGBT group for "flood relief"
And let's start with this tidbit:
Trump donates $100k to Louisiana anti-LGBT group for "flood relief"
The church, Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, is working to coordinate volunteers and help victims of the August 2016 catastrophic floods caused by prolonged rainfall. Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council (FRC), an anti-gay lobbying group, is serving as the interim pastor of that church.
Some web sites, including the LGBT-oriented publication The Advocate and the New Civil Rights Movement, linked Trump's church donation with Perkins' anti-gay political activity and pointed to the church's Statement on Marriage and Sexuality, which calls homosexuality a "form of sexual immorality." The church, according to its constitution, makes all employees and volunteers sign a statement to that effect.
It remains unclear whether Donald Trump has yet made the reported donation. On 21 August 2016 the church posted on their Facebook page to say that Trump is "sending a financial contribution" to them.
+11
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Tingleriffic.
Hillary SuperPAC ad:
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Not uncool, like Chachi.
Why not both?
Yes.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
RedOakStrategic (B+ according to 538) - apparently this is a Google Survey.
18th-19th, national
Clinton 55
Trump 45
Clinton 37
Trump 30
Johnson 10
Other/don't know 21
(Results among those with a preference)
Clinton: 48%
Trump: 39%
Johnson: 13%
She's basically the sort of "well meaning" do-gooder that flatly refuses to even try to grasp principles of group dynamics and coalition building because it would clash with her model of how the world should be.
See also: Lessig, Laurence.
The programme comes to a somewhat unsurprising conclusion, Donald Trump would indeed be a dangerous president. The conclusion is that whilst he would most likely be an entirely lame duck president, his words alone would trigger instability in the world through worried allies and emboldened autocrats. Worth a listen, and the podcast in general is very interesting.
Her model of how the world should be also seems kinda dumb.
The pledge of allegiance always seems so weird to me.
I have never, ever, pledged allegiance to my country.
It simply never seemed like a thing i would, or should, need to do.
Clearly why the Communists won.[/American Public Education]
If Trump goes back on a donation to an anti-gay group, can we still bash him for it?
Indoctrination is an important part of education. The ritualized nature of the pledge of allegiance is a way to cement that indoctrination.
Edit: Whether it should be an important part of education is another story, but currently a good portion of the way our education is structured is based around indoctrination of children.
Like, pledging support to the LGBT community and then days later donating to one of the nation's most ardent anti-gay bigots is pretty bad optics.
I mean, he has the superpower to turn invisible when no one's watching
Not really, his followers will write it off or ignore it. It'll hurt him with everybody else, of course.
With how public his life has been....how would he know?
Woa.
I don't really see how people keep coming to this conclusion. If Trump wins it will also likely mean that Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, and would walk into the Oval Office with a vacancy already in the Supreme Court and the ability to confirm pretty much whoever they want.
They would effectively have control over all three branches of government, how this translates to Trump being a "lame duck" I do not comprehend.
he has the best superpowers, everyone is always telling him how great his superpowers are, nobody has better powers
American Nationalism is a strange and very deeply ingrained thing. We have a different relationship to it than Europeans do.
The numbers with leaners makes a bit more sense. I think Johnson will fade both due to normal 3rd party stuff and as his actual platform gets out (repeal of income tax, no regulations to combat climate change, and massive social welfare cuts on one side, essentially full amnesty for undocumented immigrants, social issues and pro-choice on the other, plus completely unfettered free trade for populist wings on both sides).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It only makes sense if you ignore that the "establishment" GOP doesn't control things in any real way even in Congress. And certainly wouldn't with a President Trump
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
European nationalism remains largely ethnic in foundation, while American nationalism largely relies on what Lincoln called "political religion." The Pledge is related to that.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yep.
The Nib ran a longform piece about one artist's time on the trail with Stein and the Greens. And the point that caught my eye was the scene where a long time Green Party activist, in order to describe how the Green Party will succeed, brings up Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
It is among some of the most unaware things I've read. The activist had no idea of the Faustian bargain that MADD made to achieve their goals, or how the organization has become a neo-temperance movement rejected by the original founders.
In short, she was completely unaware of the actual politics that went on with MADD.
Which sums up the Green Party.
The article is trying to be party-neutral. So not "Republicans are bad so Trump would be bad" (which looking at it from a party neutral point of view you can't say), but "Trump as a President- would he personally cause issues/corruption/the end of times or not?"
I happen to agree with you that Republicans in charge of all 3 branches of government is absolutely terrifying, but that's not what they're trying to measure here.
I think it's best to chalk that up as a wash.
Steam: pazython
The author should stop doing goosey things like false equivalence between the parties. A large part of why Trump would be a horrible President is because he would happily enable the GOP's id.
You cannot separate the President from their party, because organization is the force multiplier.
That's fine, I understand that they are trying to be neutral. But even trying to take an even handed approach you should still be able to see what the consequences of a Trump victory would be for the other branches. Even then he wouldn't be a lame duck. That's the conclusion that I have trouble with.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I used to roll my eyes hardcore at "american nationalism" but seriously the DNC this year made me understand. I thought it was an extremely positive example of nationalism, which previously I had only thought of with negative connotations.
edit: and I think the pledge can fit into that.
Yeah, my eyebrows nearly shot through the roof when he was mentioned as a potential VP candidate. Eek.