All I see in this thread is people implying that Clinton will definitively win. With their "Will Trump accept the results of the election?" and "Clinton will draw the line with this guy when president." All I see is polling that is still dangerously close and millions of people who are still supporting/voting for Trump. Despite all the talk of "no ground game", alienating the republican base, and gaffes coming out of every orifice (alright, mostly one orifice), Trump still has at least 40% of the vote. That is likely at least 50,000,000 million people voting for Trump.
Not to sink the SS High Spirits.
ground game has exactly nothing to do with polls, though. so polls aren't high despite no ground game, they're high and we'll see if the ground game can help turn out that percentage.
I assure you not a single person in here is taking this for granted
Vandalism, violence, and encouraging violence are not things we should approve of. We can and should be better than that.
Destroying Trump's property is not a good way to protest against him, because it lets him immediately discredit you as just a vandal.
It is in a way, because what he values most is that name recognition. He spent money to draw attention to himself and that probably bothers him more than knowing that he is ripping apart the countries constitution in a bid to gain MORE recognition.
...and destroying the thing he paid money for to draw attention to himself somehow won't get him more attention? Like, we're talking about it so clearly getting him less attention isn't working.
I'd say Ground game is more important than Polls and one side actually has one, and the other cut funding to the org that could provide one. Like polls are good, they show you where you're at. Ground game literally converts voters to votes, its the most important part of your campaign.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
On top of Ted Cruz saying there is history for having sub 9 SCOTUS judges thereby truly signaling the GOP will block that going forward. Here we have a house member already talking about investigations before she's even elected.
“It’s a target-rich environment,” said Chaffetz in a interview in Salt Lake City’s suburbs. “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I generally think, with something like the star, the quick route to seeing if it's okay or not is to imagine it the other way around
if some fundamentalist destroyed an outspoken celebs star because they support abortion and gay marriage I'd think it was awful. I disagree with that fundamentalist but my problem would be with the way they make their argument.
similarly I don't hold the star to be anything special and I certainly don't like Trump but to commit vandalism, and on something as meaningless as a damn walk of fame star, is such a waste of time an energy against a dude who could be the next president... make some calls for hillary, drive a bus to the polls. really do anything meaningful and also preferably not illegal, rather than commit a crime that also accomplishes nothing to argue against trump.
Perhaps attention is the wrong word as its too broad.
But, to Trump the recognition is clearly more important than the reputation.
Someone brought up earlier about Mel brooks having his star defaced and how that would bother us. And it would. It'd really bother me. But this doesn't. It took me a minute to reconcile those two things, but i then realized its because Mel brooks has spent his life's work trying to bring joy into peoples life's and make them happy. And Trumps life work has been to take from anyone he can, swindle those who trust, and amass more material objects to justify his own warped ego. He has brought joy to nobody, and has not made this place a richer more vibrant place to be. Karma is a universal constant.
Mel brooks deserves a star, trump does not.
Now, i wouldnt have done that to the star. And if it was a friend of mine attempting the same stunt, i probably would have talked them out of it. But not because of the morality of taking away a little of Trumps idol to himself, but because of the legal consequences.
The best (worst) part of that cartoon story is that they both outsourced the pilot artwork to India and then stiffed them on payments. Trump in a nutshell
I generally think, with something like the star, the quick route to seeing if it's okay or not is to imagine it the other way around
if some fundamentalist destroyed an outspoken celebs star because they support abortion and gay marriage I'd think it was awful. I disagree with that fundamentalist but my problem would be with the way they make their argument.
On the other hand, be careful of that pesky moral relativism!
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
And if I find it perfectly acceptable to shoot your political opponents who threaten your fundamental right to own guns?
Yes, the most extreme situation is really a good way to have a discussion. I don't feel at any point I condoned murder. But hey, you be you.
Okay, so is the line property destruction? Like saying burning down certain types of churches? Or maybe just destroying the business of certain suspect groups?
I mean you clearly think fists are okay, but what about clubs? Or maybe shooting people with birdshot? Won't kill them most likely, just maim or blind them.
I'm just trying to figure out what degrees of violence are okay to undertake against the people I disagree with.
e: Also-when you punch people in the head they can die. People die from 1 sucker punch to the head.
Violence, historically, has been used both by the oppressed and the oppressor. It has been wielded by people who felt it necessary, to have an action that demands to be heard and be responded to. To remove violence as a response removes something I feel that has been necessary to enact change and progress. You can disagree on the methodology, but I'm not particularly fond of equating punching a violence racist who would sooner drag you behind his truck to burning down a church simply because you don't like black people, or Christians or any other group that doesn't have violent tendencies as an MO.
It's pretty obvious that you're attempting to springboard a single statement into making it as extreme and horrific as possible to prove a point. So just get to your point, unless you just want to keep going with examples that anyone here clearly would have a problem with.
Your reasoning, such that it is, is the same reasoning shared by all the people at Trump rallies that assault the protesters. These people are bad, let's do violence against them.
Also, Who do you think makes up the KKK? They aren't "illuminating" giant wooden Shivas.
All I see in this thread is people implying that Clinton will definitively win. With their "Will Trump accept the results of the election?" and "Clinton will draw the line with this guy when president." All I see is polling that is still dangerously close and millions of people who are still supporting/voting for Trump. Despite all the talk of "no ground game", alienating the republican base, and gaffes coming out of every orifice (alright, mostly one orifice), Trump still has at least 40% of the vote. That is likely at least 50,000,000 million people voting for Trump.
Not to sink the SS High Spirits.
The polls are not dangerously close. Hillary is going to win. She had an electoral advantage against any Republican. That it is Trump clinches it barring some unprecedented turnout that his ground game simply cannot accomplish.
The prevailing sentiment around here is that if David Duke were on the Republican ticket he'd still floor out around 35-40% against Clinton. That he has roughly 40% is troubling but not at all surprising.
I'm going to say they're dangerously close if Trump has any twinkle of an inkling of a fraction of a chance of winning. He's a candidate that should never have been in my eyes. His mere candidacy is basically a confirmation that 2 out of every 5 people you pass on the street are terrible at making decisions (or actively support protofascist tendencies (or crazy)). I can understand supporting a Bush or a Kasich or a Romney or even a Cruz; I do not understand how a literate population can actually pick and support Trump (regardless of his eventual status as a 'spoiler' pick for the GOP nomination).
There are still a bunch of polls that have meager margins for the presidential election and I think it's premature to believe in an assured victory for Clinton. Ignoring weird outliers like IBD/TIPP and their nebulous, arcane methodology, a decent number of polls are still within margin of error (putting aside anecdotal things like people lying to pollsters). There's still two weeks left before the election and, based on the malice towards Clinton, I think that leaves plenty of room for a Clinton downswing (particularly with stuff like the walk of fame star, which is the kind of thing that people like to blame on a candidate through their constituency).
She had the electoral advantage either way even though there was supposed to be a republican edge to the election, but I don't think that should breed complacency (for the same reason that democrats were furious at the 2000 election with Gore winning the popular vote). I don't have much faith in the American electorate or the ultimate accuracy of modern polling (and poll aggregators).
Which is why I'm still going to carry around my "Get informed. Go Vote." sign on my way to work on election day. And still prepared to be disappointed by the American public and their choice to elect His Royal Absolute Magnificence President Trump in two weeks. But I may be a pessimist.
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
And if I find it perfectly acceptable to shoot your political opponents who threaten your fundamental right to own guns?
Yes, the most extreme situation is really a good way to have a discussion. I don't feel at any point I condoned murder. But hey, you be you.
Okay, so is the line property destruction? Like saying burning down certain types of churches? Or maybe just destroying the business of certain suspect groups?
I mean you clearly think fists are okay, but what about clubs? Or maybe shooting people with birdshot? Won't kill them most likely, just maim or blind them.
I'm just trying to figure out what degrees of violence are okay to undertake against the people I disagree with.
e: Also-when you punch people in the head they can die. People die from 1 sucker punch to the head.
Violence, historically, has been used both by the oppressed and the oppressor. It has been wielded by people who felt it necessary, to have an action that demands to be heard and be responded to. To remove violence as a response removes something I feel that has been necessary to enact change and progress. You can disagree on the methodology, but I'm not particularly fond of equating punching a violence racist who would sooner drag you behind his truck to burning down a church simply because you don't like black people, or Christians or any other group that doesn't have violent tendencies as an MO.
It's pretty obvious that you're attempting to springboard a single statement into making it as extreme and horrific as possible to prove a point. So just get to your point, unless you just want to keep going with examples that anyone here clearly would have a problem with.
Your reasoning, such that it is, is the same reasoning shared by all the people at Trump rallies that assault the protesters. These people are bad, let's do violence against them.
Also, Who do you think makes up the KKK? They aren't "illuminating" giant wooden Shivas.
I think its a sense of karma. Spew hate and, as it turns out, you might get popped in the mouth for doing so. Put hate out there, and that's what you'll get back.
Put good stuff out in the world and 9 times out of 10 you'll get the good vibes back.
All I see in this thread is people implying that Clinton will definitively win. With their "Will Trump accept the results of the election?" and "Clinton will draw the line with this guy when president." All I see is polling that is still dangerously close and millions of people who are still supporting/voting for Trump. Despite all the talk of "no ground game", alienating the republican base, and gaffes coming out of every orifice (alright, mostly one orifice), Trump still has at least 40% of the vote. That is likely at least 50,000,000 million people voting for Trump.
Not to sink the SS High Spirits.
The polls are not dangerously close. Hillary is going to win. She had an electoral advantage against any Republican. That it is Trump clinches it barring some unprecedented turnout that his ground game simply cannot accomplish.
The prevailing sentiment around here is that if David Duke were on the Republican ticket he'd still floor out around 35-40% against Clinton. That he has roughly 40% is troubling but not at all surprising.
I'm going to say they're dangerously close if Trump has any twinkle of an inkling of a fraction of a chance of winning. He's a candidate that should never have been in my eyes. His mere candidacy is basically a confirmation that 2 out of every 5 people you pass on the street are terrible at making decisions (or actively support protofascist tendencies (or crazy)). I can understand supporting a Bush or a Kasich or a Romney or even a Cruz; I do not understand how a literate population can actually pick and support Trump (regardless of his eventual status as a 'spoiler' pick for the GOP nomination).
There are still a bunch of polls that have meager margins for the presidential election and I think it's premature to believe in an assured victory for Clinton. Ignoring weird outliers like IBD/TIPP and their nebulous, arcane methodology, a decent number of polls are still within margin of error (putting aside anecdotal things like people lying to pollsters). There's still two weeks left before the election and, based on the malice towards Clinton, I think that leaves plenty of room for a Clinton downswing (particularly with stuff like the walk of fame star, which is the kind of thing that people like to blame on a candidate through their constituency).
She had the electoral advantage either way even though there was supposed to be a republican edge to the election, but I don't think that should breed complacency (for the same reason that democrats were furious at the 2000 election with Gore winning the popular vote). I don't have much faith in the American electorate or the ultimate accuracy of modern polling (and poll aggregators).
Which is why I'm still going to carry around my "Get informed. Go Vote." sign on my way to work on election day. And still prepared to be disappointed by the American public and their choice to elect His Royal Absolute Magnificence President Trump in two weeks. But I may be a pessimist.
Keep in mind those poll numbers are the percentage of people that are likely to vote. So 40% doesnt mean 40% of Americans, it means 40% of the people likely to vote. Which is a (scarily) small number of total Americans.
TPM has the national poll average at 7.6%. Because she has an actual campaign and not a traveling racism circus, I bet she'll out perform that by 2-5.
There's literally no way to lose the electoral college with margins that high.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+6
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
The last thing I'll say on the topic. Do I actively condone violence? Nope. Do I view it as a necessary tool when all options have been depleted? Yep. There are moments where you have to make an active choice of saying "no more" when a member of the Aryan Brotherhood is in your face and you're standing between him and a group of black teens participating in a protest. Yep. I'd do it again. Every single one of us on that line would have done it again and again and again. There was satisfaction in the swing, and I don't feel remotely guilty for that. I believe in participatory non violent approaches, and I also feel that when the lines break down you have a choice to make. I'd make the choice not a lot of you like, that's fine. We believe in two fundamental differences in what is necessary. To equate punching a representation of all that is vile who is pushing his way to attack others to some belief that I condone murder, or burning down a church, or punching someone who is non-threatening is absurd. I view violence as a potential necessity, do I actively seek it out? Never. It's the last check box in a long list of responses.
To equate that necessity to being cool with shooting someone for merely having a difference of opinion...I don't even know how to properly respond to that.
And this is all I'll say on the matter.
+10
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I generally think, with something like the star, the quick route to seeing if it's okay or not is to imagine it the other way around
if some fundamentalist destroyed an outspoken celebs star because they support abortion and gay marriage I'd think it was awful. I disagree with that fundamentalist but my problem would be with the way they make their argument.
Meanwhile I'd be equally non-caring about that case as I am about the star being Trump's. It's a big nothing and I don't give a toss.
I can think of so many things that I'd actually find alarming if they were done response to Trump. Any sort of physical attack on him, including just spitting on him? Worrisome. Someone hacking his facebook and defacing it? Not cool. Would feel like a definite personal violation and might even be considered a freedom of speech issue. Going into Trump's deviantart page and deleting all his Sonic OCs? Yeah even that is pretty bad! Just because you don't like sonic, maybe that's the only place he stored those! They mean something to him or he wouldn't have drawn them.
I can't work up any sympathy about the walk of fame. Sorry.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
The last thing I'll say on the topic. Do I actively condone violence? Nope. Do I view it as a necessary tool when all options have been depleted? Yep. There are moments where you have to make an active choice of saying "no more" when a member of the Aryan Brotherhood is in your face and you're standing between him and a group of black teens participating in a protest. Yep. I'd do it again. Every single one of us on that line would have done it again and again and again. There was satisfaction in the swing, and I don't feel remotely guilty for that. I believe in participatory non violent approaches, and I also feel that when the lines break down you have a choice to make. I'd make the choice not a lot of you like, that's fine. We believe in two fundamental differences in what is necessary. To equate punching a representation of all that is vile who is pushing his way to attack others to some belief that I condone murder, or burning down a church, or punching someone who is non-threatening is absurd. I view violence as a potential necessity, do I actively seek it out? Never. It's the last check box in a long list of responses.
To equate that necessity to being cool with shooting someone for merely having a difference of opinion...I don't even know how to properly respond to that.
And this is all I'll say on the matter.
Unpopular as it may be around here, I'm with ya and say "good job man".
Racist jerks lose their right to being treated like equals when they attempt to take that right from everyone else.
+3
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I generally think, with something like the star, the quick route to seeing if it's okay or not is to imagine it the other way around
if some fundamentalist destroyed an outspoken celebs star because they support abortion and gay marriage I'd think it was awful. I disagree with that fundamentalist but my problem would be with the way they make their argument.
Meanwhile I'd be equally non-caring about that case as I am about the star being Trump's. It's a big nothing and I don't give a toss.
I can think of so many things that I'd actually find alarming if they were done response to Trump. Any sort of physical attack on him, including just spitting on him? Worrisome. Someone hacking his facebook and defacing it? Not cool. Would feel like a definite personal violation and might even be considered a freedom of speech issue. Going into Trump's deviantart page and deleting all his Sonic OCs? Yeah even that is pretty bad! Just because you don't like sonic, maybe that's the only place he stored those! They mean something to him or he wouldn't have drawn them.
I can't work up any sympathy about the walk of fame. Sorry.
that's fine, I am more concerned with people who seem super happy about it and think it's totally fine.
to be clear, idk if I am 'worked up' about it, and I don't feel particularly sympathetic either. I simply don't think it's a good thing and would rather it didn't happen.
For eight years, nearly every decision made by Republican lawmakers has been motivated by a paralyzing fear of a base whose news diet has become completely detached from reality. The right-wing media didn’t make an argument that the Affordable Care Act contained too many regulations, they said it contained grandparent-murdering death panels. They didn’t argue that climate change legislation was too costly for businesses, they said that climate change was a hoax. The debate about immigration reform devolved into talk of hordes of brown criminals pouring over the border. The push for background checks was reduced to warnings that Barack Obama planned to confiscate the guns of all law-abiding Americans.
Former speaker John Boehner wanted to pursue a “grand bargain” with the president on taxes and spending. But his base wanted to him to shut down the government and threaten to default on our debt — the one move that may have been more reckless than endorsing Trump. Boehner chose the base. In return, the base pushed him out of his job a few years later. ...
A Hillary Clinton victory will save us from the existential threat of a Donald Trump presidency. But let’s not kid ourselves: There is almost no evidence to suggest that four more years of a Republican Congress will result in any kind of productivity, no matter how hard Hillary tries to reach across the aisle, or how much Republican leaders want to work with her. Radicals rule the GOP, and an embarrassing Trump defeat will only embolden them to push for more shutdowns, more default threats, more repeal votes, more obstruction, more investigations, and probably impeachment. The sane Republicans who oppose these tactics will be threatened with primary challengers in 2018 (a year when the map heavily favors the GOP anyway) — and if the past is any guide, most of them will simply give in.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
For eight years, nearly every decision made by Republican lawmakers has been motivated by a paralyzing fear of a base whose news diet has become completely detached from reality. The right-wing media didn’t make an argument that the Affordable Care Act contained too many regulations, they said it contained grandparent-murdering death panels. They didn’t argue that climate change legislation was too costly for businesses, they said that climate change was a hoax. The debate about immigration reform devolved into talk of hordes of brown criminals pouring over the border. The push for background checks was reduced to warnings that Barack Obama planned to confiscate the guns of all law-abiding Americans.
Former speaker John Boehner wanted to pursue a “grand bargain” with the president on taxes and spending. But his base wanted to him to shut down the government and threaten to default on our debt — the one move that may have been more reckless than endorsing Trump. Boehner chose the base. In return, the base pushed him out of his job a few years later. ...
A Hillary Clinton victory will save us from the existential threat of a Donald Trump presidency. But let’s not kid ourselves: There is almost no evidence to suggest that four more years of a Republican Congress will result in any kind of productivity, no matter how hard Hillary tries to reach across the aisle, or how much Republican leaders want to work with her. Radicals rule the GOP, and an embarrassing Trump defeat will only embolden them to push for more shutdowns, more default threats, more repeal votes, more obstruction, more investigations, and probably impeachment. The sane Republicans who oppose these tactics will be threatened with primary challengers in 2018 (a year when the map heavily favors the GOP anyway) — and if the past is any guide, most of them will simply give in.
And this kind of thing combined, with Cruz and the like signalling they will oppose Hillary's SCOTUS picks before she even makes them, have me laughing about opposition being good for our country.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'd say Ground game is more important than Polls and one side actually has one, and the other cut funding to the org that could provide one. Like polls are good, they show you where you're at. Ground game literally converts voters to votes, its the most important part of your campaign.
This election should be a pretty good demonstration of exactly how useful the ground game is. One has a good ground game and one basically has none so this is probably about the clearest demonstration of overall impact they can have. Generally they are said to give you an extra 2-3% and if that is the case that could swing a lot of states to hillary.
+3
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
For eight years, nearly every decision made by Republican lawmakers has been motivated by a paralyzing fear of a base whose news diet has become completely detached from reality. The right-wing media didn’t make an argument that the Affordable Care Act contained too many regulations, they said it contained grandparent-murdering death panels. They didn’t argue that climate change legislation was too costly for businesses, they said that climate change was a hoax. The debate about immigration reform devolved into talk of hordes of brown criminals pouring over the border. The push for background checks was reduced to warnings that Barack Obama planned to confiscate the guns of all law-abiding Americans.
Former speaker John Boehner wanted to pursue a “grand bargain” with the president on taxes and spending. But his base wanted to him to shut down the government and threaten to default on our debt — the one move that may have been more reckless than endorsing Trump. Boehner chose the base. In return, the base pushed him out of his job a few years later. ...
A Hillary Clinton victory will save us from the existential threat of a Donald Trump presidency. But let’s not kid ourselves: There is almost no evidence to suggest that four more years of a Republican Congress will result in any kind of productivity, no matter how hard Hillary tries to reach across the aisle, or how much Republican leaders want to work with her. Radicals rule the GOP, and an embarrassing Trump defeat will only embolden them to push for more shutdowns, more default threats, more repeal votes, more obstruction, more investigations, and probably impeachment. The sane Republicans who oppose these tactics will be threatened with primary challengers in 2018 (a year when the map heavily favors the GOP anyway) — and if the past is any guide, most of them will simply give in.
And this kind of thing combined, with Cruz and the like signalling they will oppose Hillary's SCOTUS picks before she even makes them, have me laughing about opposition being good for our country.
yup, and if a single person said that this type of opposition was good you'd have a point
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
Get some perspective man.
Also, the fact that we are talking about Benedict Arnold proves that historical erasure did not actually take place.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
Get some perspective man.
Also, the fact that we are talking about Benedict Arnold proves that historical erasure did not actually take place.
So.
You know.
His name is quite literally synonymous with being a traitor. He's one of the most remembered people of all time.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
Get some perspective man.
Also, the fact that we are talking about Benedict Arnold proves that historical erasure did not actually take place.
So.
You know.
There are monuments to Benedict Arnold's achievements, but none of them bear his name or his likeness.
Also, it should be considered that our sole example of historical erasure occurred like, right at the beginning of our nation, and we haven't done it again despite having other folks commit treasonous acts against the country. Y'know, like the seceding from and declaring war on us.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
Get some perspective man.
Also, the fact that we are talking about Benedict Arnold proves that historical erasure did not actually take place.
So.
You know.
His name is quite literally synonymous with being a traitor. He's one of the most remembered people of all time.
Maybe in your house. In mine we call traitors loghains. JUSTICE FOR MERRICK NEVAR FORGET!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
What did they do? Only poll the norther half of Florida?
It oversampled hispanic voters and he's still winning?!
Isn't that really bad?
No. Oversampling minority populations is done-for among other reasons- to make sure the sample you have is actually representative of that group. In Florida for example, you might want to over sample Latinos, so that you get a representative cross section of them rather than a small sample that is say disproportionately Cuban Latinos. The overall poll is(should) still be weighted against the actual demographics.
So if Florida is 60% white, 25% Latino, 10% black, and 5% other. And I sample 1000 people, I might actually sample 400 White People, 300 Latinos and 200 blacks and 100 "others". But if every white person went Trump, and every non white person went Clinton the final results would be Trump 60: Clinton 40.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
Get some perspective man.
Also, the fact that we are talking about Benedict Arnold proves that historical erasure did not actually take place.
So.
You know.
His name is quite literally synonymous with being a traitor. He's one of the most remembered people of all time.
Maybe in your house. In mine we call traitors loghains. JUSTICE FOR MERRICK NEVAR FORGET!
*pushes up glasses* Do you mean King Maric? Maric didn't get betrayed by Loghain. Cailin did. And Cailin had it coming! Down with hereditary monarchies!
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+7
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
Get some perspective man.
Also, the fact that we are talking about Benedict Arnold proves that historical erasure did not actually take place.
So.
You know.
His name is quite literally synonymous with being a traitor. He's one of the most remembered people of all time.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
Get some perspective man.
Also, the fact that we are talking about Benedict Arnold proves that historical erasure did not actually take place.
So.
You know.
His name is quite literally synonymous with being a traitor. He's one of the most remembered people of all time.
Maybe in your house. In mine we call traitors loghains. JUSTICE FOR MERRICK NEVAR FORGET!
*pushes up glasses* Do you mean King Maric? Maric didn't get betrayed by Loghain. Cailin did. And Cailin had it coming! Down with hereditary monarchies!
You have your facts, I have mine!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
Get some perspective man.
Yeah, and even then that's a disservice to history.
Benedict Arnold also was a super interesting guy who had a very complicated situation. His life is really a great example of how not everything in the founding narrative was sunshine and rainbows, in fact it was mired in corruption and fairly dirty politics. Arnold was a good man, taken advantage of, and finally pushed to the breaking point by the pride, graft, and (what he saw) as folly of his fellow officers. Continental Congress essentially robbed him blind and then forgave their debt to him, stealing his entire life savings he had invested in the war. His victories and heroism were claimed by officers who didn't even take the field, the same officers who would then joke about the painful injuries he took in those battles saving and leading the men from the front. In the end, when Continental Congress was offered what they had sought originally, the right of self governance under the crown, and refused it that was the last straw (especially as at the time was largely seen as publicly as French influence to keep the war going as our revolution was part of a much, much larger war between England and France that we in the US ignore for the glory of our own personal telling). Benedict saw France as using good english citizens as tools to fight against themselves while they advanced their own goals, and having seen the corruption of Continental Congress first hand, he decided things had gone too far.
History was not kind as his side did not win the day in the end, but the actual accounts of his history leave him as an unfortunate but largely understandable representation of a large amount of folk living in US during the revolution. Many felt the revolution was merely a means for France to stab Great Britain's second largest asset, and plenty were wanting self governance but not full on independence (as the complications to trade and livelihoods were considerable). Hindsight is 20/20, and we can now look on the revolution as the start of something pretty great, but that was far from clear at the time and certainly, even 20 to 50 years after independence there was a lot of concern over corruption in the early government.
History is pretty cool.
Anyhow, Benedict Arnold is about the opposite of Trump there can be, in that he did what he felt was moral even at great personal risk to himself and his family. He was willing to throw his name in the mud and lose everything he had left to do what he felt was best for his country. Trump isn't willing to put anything over himself, ever.
Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed Wednesday morning by a man purporting to be a construction worker. Trump's name and the TV logo once emblazoned on the star are no longer visible.
That's really fucking not okay. Damnatio memorae is not something we should be doing.
Oh look! He knows a Latin word!
I don't disagree with you that this dude probably should not have done this, but I disagree that it is not something we should do in principle.
Sometimes there are people in history who create terribleness, and while it is important to remember those people, it is not important to honor them. If you view destroying Trump's star as in the same category as pulling down statues of Stalin (that's a bit hyperbole, but insert whichever analogy you like), then it's not such a terrible thing.
Refusing to bestow honor upon tyrants is not necessarily equal to erasing history.
The only person in American history who earned historical erasure is Benedict Arnold. So unless you have a case that Donald Trump is a traitor, then yes, this went too far.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
Get some perspective man.
Also, the fact that we are talking about Benedict Arnold proves that historical erasure did not actually take place.
So.
You know.
His name is quite literally synonymous with being a traitor. He's one of the most remembered people of all time.
Maybe in your house. In mine we call traitors loghains. JUSTICE FOR MERRICK NEVAR FORGET!
*pushes up glasses* Do you mean King Maric? Maric didn't get betrayed by Loghain. Cailin did. And Cailin had it coming! Down with hereditary monarchies!
This kind of attitude is exactly why the disaster at Ostagar happened.
Now Playing:
Dragon Ball FighterZ [PC] - Sure is a lot of not killing Goku going on right now.
Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...
Posts
ground game has exactly nothing to do with polls, though. so polls aren't high despite no ground game, they're high and we'll see if the ground game can help turn out that percentage.
I assure you not a single person in here is taking this for granted
...and destroying the thing he paid money for to draw attention to himself somehow won't get him more attention? Like, we're talking about it so clearly getting him less attention isn't working.
pleasepaypreacher.net
On top of Ted Cruz saying there is history for having sub 9 SCOTUS judges thereby truly signaling the GOP will block that going forward. Here we have a house member already talking about investigations before she's even elected.
pleasepaypreacher.net
if some fundamentalist destroyed an outspoken celebs star because they support abortion and gay marriage I'd think it was awful. I disagree with that fundamentalist but my problem would be with the way they make their argument.
similarly I don't hold the star to be anything special and I certainly don't like Trump but to commit vandalism, and on something as meaningless as a damn walk of fame star, is such a waste of time an energy against a dude who could be the next president... make some calls for hillary, drive a bus to the polls. really do anything meaningful and also preferably not illegal, rather than commit a crime that also accomplishes nothing to argue against trump.
But, to Trump the recognition is clearly more important than the reputation.
Someone brought up earlier about Mel brooks having his star defaced and how that would bother us. And it would. It'd really bother me. But this doesn't. It took me a minute to reconcile those two things, but i then realized its because Mel brooks has spent his life's work trying to bring joy into peoples life's and make them happy. And Trumps life work has been to take from anyone he can, swindle those who trust, and amass more material objects to justify his own warped ego. He has brought joy to nobody, and has not made this place a richer more vibrant place to be. Karma is a universal constant.
Mel brooks deserves a star, trump does not.
Now, i wouldnt have done that to the star. And if it was a friend of mine attempting the same stunt, i probably would have talked them out of it. But not because of the morality of taking away a little of Trumps idol to himself, but because of the legal consequences.
On the other hand, be careful of that pesky moral relativism!
Your reasoning, such that it is, is the same reasoning shared by all the people at Trump rallies that assault the protesters. These people are bad, let's do violence against them.
Also, Who do you think makes up the KKK? They aren't "illuminating" giant wooden Shivas.
I'm going to say they're dangerously close if Trump has any twinkle of an inkling of a fraction of a chance of winning. He's a candidate that should never have been in my eyes. His mere candidacy is basically a confirmation that 2 out of every 5 people you pass on the street are terrible at making decisions (or actively support protofascist tendencies (or crazy)). I can understand supporting a Bush or a Kasich or a Romney or even a Cruz; I do not understand how a literate population can actually pick and support Trump (regardless of his eventual status as a 'spoiler' pick for the GOP nomination).
There are still a bunch of polls that have meager margins for the presidential election and I think it's premature to believe in an assured victory for Clinton. Ignoring weird outliers like IBD/TIPP and their nebulous, arcane methodology, a decent number of polls are still within margin of error (putting aside anecdotal things like people lying to pollsters). There's still two weeks left before the election and, based on the malice towards Clinton, I think that leaves plenty of room for a Clinton downswing (particularly with stuff like the walk of fame star, which is the kind of thing that people like to blame on a candidate through their constituency).
She had the electoral advantage either way even though there was supposed to be a republican edge to the election, but I don't think that should breed complacency (for the same reason that democrats were furious at the 2000 election with Gore winning the popular vote). I don't have much faith in the American electorate or the ultimate accuracy of modern polling (and poll aggregators).
Which is why I'm still going to carry around my "Get informed. Go Vote." sign on my way to work on election day. And still prepared to be disappointed by the American public and their choice to elect His Royal Absolute Magnificence President Trump in two weeks. But I may be a pessimist.
I think its a sense of karma. Spew hate and, as it turns out, you might get popped in the mouth for doing so. Put hate out there, and that's what you'll get back.
Put good stuff out in the world and 9 times out of 10 you'll get the good vibes back.
Keep in mind those poll numbers are the percentage of people that are likely to vote. So 40% doesnt mean 40% of Americans, it means 40% of the people likely to vote. Which is a (scarily) small number of total Americans.
There's literally no way to lose the electoral college with margins that high.
To equate that necessity to being cool with shooting someone for merely having a difference of opinion...I don't even know how to properly respond to that.
And this is all I'll say on the matter.
Meanwhile I'd be equally non-caring about that case as I am about the star being Trump's. It's a big nothing and I don't give a toss.
I can think of so many things that I'd actually find alarming if they were done response to Trump. Any sort of physical attack on him, including just spitting on him? Worrisome. Someone hacking his facebook and defacing it? Not cool. Would feel like a definite personal violation and might even be considered a freedom of speech issue. Going into Trump's deviantart page and deleting all his Sonic OCs? Yeah even that is pretty bad! Just because you don't like sonic, maybe that's the only place he stored those! They mean something to him or he wouldn't have drawn them.
I can't work up any sympathy about the walk of fame. Sorry.
Sssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh
Unpopular as it may be around here, I'm with ya and say "good job man".
Racist jerks lose their right to being treated like equals when they attempt to take that right from everyone else.
that's fine, I am more concerned with people who seem super happy about it and think it's totally fine.
to be clear, idk if I am 'worked up' about it, and I don't feel particularly sympathetic either. I simply don't think it's a good thing and would rather it didn't happen.
This is a joke right?
Benedict Arnold is like a guy who tried to turn over a fort during the American Revolution over being continually snubbed by the chain of command. Trump has done this life 100x worse this election alone.
A little perspective here man.
And this kind of thing combined, with Cruz and the like signalling they will oppose Hillary's SCOTUS picks before she even makes them, have me laughing about opposition being good for our country.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This election should be a pretty good demonstration of exactly how useful the ground game is. One has a good ground game and one basically has none so this is probably about the clearest demonstration of overall impact they can have. Generally they are said to give you an extra 2-3% and if that is the case that could swing a lot of states to hillary.
yup, and if a single person said that this type of opposition was good you'd have a point
http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/10/poll-trump-clinton-florida-230322
What did they do? Only poll the norther half of Florida?
Also, the fact that we are talking about Benedict Arnold proves that historical erasure did not actually take place.
So.
You know.
It oversampled hispanic voters and he's still winning?!
Isn't that really bad?
His name is quite literally synonymous with being a traitor. He's one of the most remembered people of all time.
There are monuments to Benedict Arnold's achievements, but none of them bear his name or his likeness.
Also, it should be considered that our sole example of historical erasure occurred like, right at the beginning of our nation, and we haven't done it again despite having other folks commit treasonous acts against the country. Y'know, like the seceding from and declaring war on us.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Maybe in your house. In mine we call traitors loghains. JUSTICE FOR MERRICK NEVAR FORGET!
pleasepaypreacher.net
No. Oversampling minority populations is done-for among other reasons- to make sure the sample you have is actually representative of that group. In Florida for example, you might want to over sample Latinos, so that you get a representative cross section of them rather than a small sample that is say disproportionately Cuban Latinos. The overall poll is(should) still be weighted against the actual demographics.
So if Florida is 60% white, 25% Latino, 10% black, and 5% other. And I sample 1000 people, I might actually sample 400 White People, 300 Latinos and 200 blacks and 100 "others". But if every white person went Trump, and every non white person went Clinton the final results would be Trump 60: Clinton 40.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
*pushes up glasses* Do you mean King Maric? Maric didn't get betrayed by Loghain. Cailin did. And Cailin had it coming! Down with hereditary monarchies!
Plus he's got that breakfast dish.
You have your facts, I have mine!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, and even then that's a disservice to history.
Benedict Arnold also was a super interesting guy who had a very complicated situation. His life is really a great example of how not everything in the founding narrative was sunshine and rainbows, in fact it was mired in corruption and fairly dirty politics. Arnold was a good man, taken advantage of, and finally pushed to the breaking point by the pride, graft, and (what he saw) as folly of his fellow officers. Continental Congress essentially robbed him blind and then forgave their debt to him, stealing his entire life savings he had invested in the war. His victories and heroism were claimed by officers who didn't even take the field, the same officers who would then joke about the painful injuries he took in those battles saving and leading the men from the front. In the end, when Continental Congress was offered what they had sought originally, the right of self governance under the crown, and refused it that was the last straw (especially as at the time was largely seen as publicly as French influence to keep the war going as our revolution was part of a much, much larger war between England and France that we in the US ignore for the glory of our own personal telling). Benedict saw France as using good english citizens as tools to fight against themselves while they advanced their own goals, and having seen the corruption of Continental Congress first hand, he decided things had gone too far.
History was not kind as his side did not win the day in the end, but the actual accounts of his history leave him as an unfortunate but largely understandable representation of a large amount of folk living in US during the revolution. Many felt the revolution was merely a means for France to stab Great Britain's second largest asset, and plenty were wanting self governance but not full on independence (as the complications to trade and livelihoods were considerable). Hindsight is 20/20, and we can now look on the revolution as the start of something pretty great, but that was far from clear at the time and certainly, even 20 to 50 years after independence there was a lot of concern over corruption in the early government.
History is pretty cool.
Anyhow, Benedict Arnold is about the opposite of Trump there can be, in that he did what he felt was moral even at great personal risk to himself and his family. He was willing to throw his name in the mud and lose everything he had left to do what he felt was best for his country. Trump isn't willing to put anything over himself, ever.
This kind of attitude is exactly why the disaster at Ostagar happened.
Dragon Ball FighterZ [PC] - Sure is a lot of not killing Goku going on right now.
Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...