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.
US Presidential Election: Wave Riders
Elki
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
Don't act like assholes. If there's a certain view point that you can't bring yourself to argue against, then simply don't. If the current topic of the thread is not to your liking then talk about something else, but refrain from making "can we not []? posts. Feel free to not by yourself, and use the report button for rule-breaking posts. And don't be a gross asshole about politicians you don't like.
This is not a general politics thread. If it doesn't have anything to do with the general presidential election, don't post it.
This is not a general politics thread. If it doesn't have anything to do with the general presidential election, don't post it.
- No twitter dumps.
- No image macros.
- No satire sites.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
sorry to be cold about it but people were talking about it last thread and I just don't know that it's actually true, especially considering it's Trump and not a standard republican. Who would flock to that dude in times of fear?
His policies in any area amount to little more than a promise to fix things once he's in charge, so any new problem is another thing he will promise to fix. Some bombs go off? He will fix that lickety split, don't you worry. He might gain some traction by painting Hilary as a continuation of Obama, who is in charge now, and thus nominally responsible for everything, and claiming that if Trump was in charge obviously this would never happen.
I mean, I would expect this to convince no one at all except the very, very stupid or fearful, but it's not like everyone is treating Trump's claims with due care and attention.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I guarantee the issue of "calling it terrorism" by name will be an issue of overwrought wailing and gnashing of teeth
Esp. With an additional pipe bomb now having been found in Elizabeth and the news reporting that FBI is looking into a possible terror cell, and Christie going right ahead and calling it "Clearly an act of terrorism"--expect to hear mocking fury and moral outrage that pussy footed liberals like noted lily livered Mayor DeBlasio did not immediately call it terrorism and instead called it an "intentional act".
NNID: Hakkekage
I can see this being discovered to be done by a white guy they'll scramble over themselves to say it wasn't terrorism. No, sir. That goes double if they're a Trump supporter. Then it's a false flag operation and/or a "lone wolf."
With a sad, tragic case of mental illness.
EDIT: Sorry, re-considered, decided my addition did not in fact anything to the conversation.
He says that like it's a good thing, and what we have have seen Trump do isn't exactly positive leadership material.
Clinton +1 in FL, phone poll, English/Spanish, conducted Sept 10-14.
I'd consider this to be relatively good news, given the time conducted.
Meanwhile Trump has banned members of specific publications from attending events. Whatever, Assange...
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
Of course! It's not like you'd be expected to correct yourself later, and if even if that expectation were there, it's perfectly fine to ignore it, or even state you knew it was a prank all along. You won't be called on it.
Unless your name is Hillary.
Also, I guarantee that Trump will get a bump in NJ over this nonsense.
Added the hidden third option.
Weird coincidence.
That seems too specific to be a coincidence.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Maybe it's viral marketing gone wrong...?
There's a topic that SHOULD be discussed there, one that's gone on forever in the US, with varied problems resulting. Immigrants are disliked, causing them to ghettoize, which causes them to culturally integrate more slowly, which inevitably causes some sort of friction. In this case, refugees from a region that we've destabilized are showing up and not finding a great situation here due to being ostracized, which sometimes results in them radicalizing.
We don't have to concede the subject to Trump. Isn't it a better debate to talk about how we can BETTER unite our communities to stop these sorts of things, rather than just abandon the topic to his position of "lock 'em out?"
Until this morning it was not clear that he was an immigrant from afghanistan using AQ bombs. Without that knowledge, jumping to terrorism is the kind of thing that Trump does to look like he "called it" and push a narrative
Ugh, you just hit it on the head. It's the political equivalent of posting "FIRST" in a comment section. You haven't added anything, or shown any particular insight. You leaped to say the thing and then take credit for saying the thing, probably before even bothering to look into the matter.
It's obnoxious on forums and even less sensible/dignified coming from adults in positions of power.
Calling something what it is once verified information is available is entirely reasonable. It's not reasonable to call things what you think they might be and then find out if the facts back you up on that. Though people are right, in that Trump could call Hillary's breakfast an act of terrorism and most news networks wouldn't call him out on it.
Not really. NYC is a hugely popular setting for games, shows, movies, all sorts of things. Odds are good that something will happen in that city in real life that happened in a work of fiction previously.
Agreed, I'm talking about the people still this morning insisting we stay away from the T word.
Not a suspected act of islamic terrorism right off the bat without evidence, but bombings are usually acts of some kind of terrorism
The problem is that the word "terrorist" has effectively just become a shorthand dogwhistle for "bad brown/Muslim person," the same way "welfare queen" is a dogwhistle for "bad black woman." Hard to have a rational discussion when half the audience is smiling and nodding that they understand what you "really meant."
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
I feel like we've empowered that dogwhistle by going too far the other direction and having "terrorist" be a word only one side uses, when we actually do have a growing problem with domestic terrorism threats.
A city block in NYC is a very small area overall though. Its like an 1/8 of a mile long. A bomb going off in a popular video game in the exact same block, and then in real life when its a completely illogical location for a terrorist attack suggests to me a connection.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Wasn't there more than one bomb? Does the second device correspond to anything?
This is a good appeal to the younger left. But "Millennial" could be find+replaced with "liberal" with the arguable exception of high college costs (really, a lot of older people are heading back to college now too, since entry-level work requires a Bachelor's now because :rotate:)
As someone born in '82, I'm not sure how well overtures like this connect with self-described Millennials. I certainly don't consider myself a Millennial so I have no idea.
I thought it was Anarchists Quarterly. Which made me giggle thinking about anarchists having a regular magazine.
It's a good pitch full of good policy, though nothing new really that hasn't been on her website for all to read for ten months. That said, I'm consistently amazed at how frequently people find themselves turning around a bit on Clinton when I slap them in the face with her Actual Platform, so whatever helps get that out there.
To be fair, her eggs were a little overcooked and why hasn't she disclosed how crispy she likes her bacon? What is Hillary hiding?
Not necessarily, it depends on motive. Using government resources to solve collective action problems is a very liberal thing to do, it's just in this case that it's solving other countries' collective action problems.
There was a series of posts I saw on reddit a few days ago that highlighted that.
Someone was saying "both sides are the same, I want this, this, this and this, neither side is promising what I want so I'm voting Trump." And someone did a point by point response, with links to Clinton's platform, interviews, and her personal history to show how Clinton actually did support all of the points that the first person was for. That if Clinton has been just saying and doing things in order to get elected, then she's been playing the long con since 1970 or so.
There is plenty of good information out there. Ten minutes of reading Trump and Clinton's platforms on their websites and checking where they stand on Politifact really should make it clear that there's a substantial difference. And that's keeping in mind that Politifact gives "Mostly True" evaluations on statements like this one, on the strength of the "mixed messages" from the Trump/Pence campaign with regards to LGBT rights.
Based on large part on that, only Mostly True! It's a mixed message to be against gay marriage and to create laws designed to prevent LGBT people from being served, so long as you say that you'll also protect LGBT people. There's benefit of the doubt and there's what Politifact does. But still, even with that, Politifact makes it clear that Clinton is a far, far more truthful than Trump.
As an 82, you're just barely a millenial by the most aggressive by the most aggressive standard. Kids from 78 to 82 are the remnants of a tiny mini generation which was going to be defined by the end of the cold war, but then the millenials came and stole our demographics with all their Internet nonsense. It's an odd time to have been born, as I know I'm not X and I'm definately not a millenial.