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.
The Presidential Election is shocking. Be shocked!
Elki
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
It has been recently revealed that the candidate has done a terrible thing, and I heard it on twitter. Yes, yes, it's true, take my word for it. tsk tsk, how terrible, I am not at all surprised it's been has confirmed that what I've been saying all along is true. Truly awful.
Here's a thread to talk about it. Don't be a dick.
--
Here's a thread to talk about it. Don't be a dick.
--
- No twitter dumps.
- No image macros.
- No satire sites.
+6
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't rolling my eyes at the mass shootings (they are fucking awful), but at the idea that the President is so hurt by this phenomenon that it brought him to tears.
Which brings us back to the original point; do you believe that he is going to war for fun, and is somehow surprised when people die? It is just as possible that many more would have died as a result of his inaction.
Or do you think that politicians take the decision to go to war very seriously, often very much believe they are going to war for the right reasons, and are still saddened by the deaths that result from them?
What I'm driving at is a reversal of your accusations of naivete. Do you believe that if we never went to war, the whole world would be fine? And do you agree that having the power to act, but not doing so, is in itself a choice with consequences?
Steam: adamjnet
....he's the leader of the US, nominally in charge of this place, and because of the NRA he's not going to be able to do a damned thing to stop children from being murdered by mentally ill folks.
That you can't seem to understand why that would be upsetting shows a profound lack.
I'm preeeetty sure he's referring to the Obama Administration's roles in the conflicts in the Middle East.
If not, why should we assume that Clinton's rationale for militaristic foreign policy is any less sinister than, say, Cheney's?
You miiight want to slice that pie a little thinner.
You're proposing that Clinton and Cheney's motivations are the same?
I'd like to see your evidence for this.
I don't even need to add anything, dude makes my argument for me
He was brought to tears because he got his start doing community organizing on the streets of Chicago where gun violence is rampant. Of course that's going to be the sort of violence that brings home these issues for him; he has personally dealt directly with American families that were destroyed by gun violence.
Again, he is a human being, who relates most closely to that which he has experienced directly.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow you. Why wouldn't you assume that different people (from different political parties) have different motivations?
Steam: adamjnet
hahah
competent and speculative.
what an incredible argument
I get the first part but not understanding the difference in emotional stance between actions you knowingly take and the inability to stop random acts of violence from landing on the weakest innocents of the nation you're supposed to be running is just weird. There are a host of differences between the situations but there are so many very human reasons why one would emotionally move him while the other wouldn't it's a bit baffling to see it put forth as an argument.
Like, you really do have to look at what the policies that these people are pushing and why when considering what kind of person they are.
Your evidence is a quote from Dick Cheney?
So you're just being a silly goose and I don't have to pay attention anymore? Got it.
I also think it doesn't particularly matter. Who cares if Obama's tears are real or calculated, when what matters is what he tries to do politically and what he's capable of pulling off? Criticise Clinton, Obama, or anyone else really for what they do or fail to do, rather than second-guessing their tears and e-mails and ascribing nefarious motives to them. What's the point in doing the latter, other than being able to pat yourself on the shoulder for your world-weary cynicism?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
While it's no secret that Clinton is a fan and friend of Kissinger, and a lot of her foreign policy reflects that in a rat fucking sort of way, the lady is no Cheney. As near as I can tell she isn't personally enriching herself via warmongering in the transparent way Cheney did, which other crimes aside, is the thing that disgusts me the most about that man, because it turns all the other horrific things he did from misguided patriotism to craven psychopathic self interest.
what the fuck man
what the fuck is wrong with people
No just no. That was a release trying to push anti Obama sentiment among Clinton supporters to try and generate a primary challenge in 2012. When your argument requires Cheney to be completely honest and to ignore all actual context of why he would be saying it, your argument is weak
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Because they're different people! Look at their track records; look at the how they started their careers, how they grew up, what they've claimed as their motivations and how their actions do or do not reflect those things.
Obama has two kids. ANY good parent (and all accounts paint Obama as a great dad to Sasha and Malia), seeing that, would be fucking horrified and grieve for the parents of the dead children. Hell, I don't have any kids, and it horrifies me.
Get outta here with this "Obama doesn't care about dead kids" goosery. Being president doesn't make you a sociopath. It is a shit job that requires you to make life-or-death decisions, but the goal is to make the least bad decisions, so the fewest people have to die. I'm not about to false equivalence the war against terrorist organizations with school shootings.
Could be that our anonymous spook here is just another Curveball.
Or not.
No "may" about it. Your interpretation is cynical to the point of parody and ghoulish and speaks very unkind things about your thought processes.
That said, it's good that you can accept the possibility that maybe your cynicism may have a bit too much control over you.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Hillary at her worst is not equal to Cheney. The man who made W. look dignified on the world stage because he's a literal vampire.
Like, it's a mental disorder, not "Oh did they do something I think is bad? Must be a sociopath!" Harry S. Truman dropped the atom bomb - probably not a sociopath.
Different situations and decisions weigh on different people differently. No need to invoke a mental disorder and speculative internet diagnosis of same to explain foreign relations.
Except that story broke on Monday and it's gained zero traction.
There were plenty of Republicans who genuinely believed they were helping the Iraqi people. Just like there were people who honestly thought war in Vietnam was necessary to stop the spread of communism. Every war has supporters (and opponents) with unselfish and selfish reasons, and that has nothing to do with whether or not said war is "just."
As for your opinion of President Obama's grief, what? Are you really saying that logical incongruity (Obama has killed far more people than have died in mass shootings during his administration) renders emotional responses false? That's like saying Eisenhower faked being horrified by the Holocaust since his actions directly contributed to the deaths of millions. You can point out the irony or hypocrisy in that, but pretending that it's fake doesn't fit with how human beings tend to work. Internal logic isn't our strong suit.
It's also just an anonymous dude who mother jones is reporting on
So like, yeah, if I was another news organization I 100% would not publish anything unless I already basically already had a story
Bah; my feed just gave it to me, and even listed it as 'breaking'. :P
The hawkishness of Clinton in the Middle East aside, this is a poor fuckin example to get on a soapbox for. We can talk about the culturally entrenched abuse and rape of women and girls in the region too if you like, but I can hardly see how Clintons support of various US-backed or led aggressions in the region is related to her private desire to help out a girl who got brief international attention for an act of true bravery but still does not have access to an education, freedom or anything resembling a childhood.
NNID: Hakkekage
Eh, as someone who has been teetering on the edge of donning my tinfoil hat regarding Russia this whole election, I don't intend to believe a word that comes from this "anonymous spook" until it's been independently verified.
Though, I did have a conspiracy theory developing that Comey's letter to Republicans regarding the Clinton emails was actually a preemptive move to relieve pressure on him and throw off the KGB for when he turns around immediately after the election and drops the bomb regarding what the FBI had discovered about Trump/Russia connections. Given that such a reveal would probably decimate the GOP and, if Trump won and the evidence was damning enough, even straight-up invalidate the election, he's probably better off playing to the GOP before the election is over so that he comes off as less partisan when he reveals the results of the investigation.
This is, of course, total fantasy on my part, and in reality I assume that Comey's actions can be taken entirely at face value.
He's not saying anything about foreign policy, he's talking about how easy they are to work with. Clinton was well known for being easy to work with accross the aisle in washington even with those who hate her and were trying to impeach her husband a decade ago. Wheras Obama didn't make many friends because he apparently openly disdains a lot of people and lectures at them a lot.
I don't think Trump gives a shit about the troops but I have no actual evidence for that either.
well there's the fact that he has made big displays about supporting them and giving to veterans charities and then in actuality not actually given them a penny