UPNetwork

UPNetwork (http://forums.upnetwork.net/index.php)
-   Debate (http://forums.upnetwork.net/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   American Politics (http://forums.upnetwork.net/showthread.php?t=4569)

deoxys 10-10-2016 12:52 PM

PSA: THIS IS A PSA
 
Before we jump on another topic here, I want to be open about this and give an update to everyone and make it very clear what's happening.

I issued Rangeet a final warning as seen here about two weeks ago. Today, Rangeet posted this. Therefore, Rangeet has received a two day ban from the Debate forum. It's that cut and dry.

Shuckle, consider this your final warning as well. I'm done with your shit. If you keep trolling, or say anything more intentionally provoking or insulting, to anyone, you're next. In fact, you should both probably be temp banned, but it's not entirely up to me. To be clear, this was all a decision made by myself, Jeri, and Kuno.

I want everyone to take note of this. These two are perfect examples of what not to do in the debate forum. We've all agreed that we're going to be much stricter with enacting the debate forum rules until the election is over, because quite frankly the laid back and lenient nature of the forum leaders has been taken advantage of for far too long. We're all friends here, and we always try to be cool about this shit and settle our differences without the need of any sort of mod intervention. It's a dumb thing, and it's even dumber that we're at the point where you guys finally got to the straw that broke the camel's back.

If you need a refresher, the rules are here. They're very simple to follow. While there is slightly more to it than this, they can basically be summed up with "Don't be an asshole, and don't say hateful shit".

I know it's a serious topic. Lord knows we all have strong feelings on the matter. But the truth is that the shitslinging is going to change nothing about the current state of politics, or the country, and all it can serve to do is hurt the relationships you've built here - and everyone can see you doing it, and they are judging you for it. I want you all to keep that in mind moving forward. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post them, or message me or Jeri privately. Like I said, we're all friends here - sometimes, people just need a good wake-up slap.


=======


To get back on topic, Talon made an excellent post that can definitely fuel some good discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talon87 (Post 771159)
Let's talk the Phillipines, as it relates to American interests (geopolitical, economic, other). There are several members whose thoughts and insights I want to read, and I'm sure there are others I'm unaware of who have much to share on the matter.

In case you haven't heard, Duterte is cutting ties with the U.S.


Concept 10-10-2016 12:57 PM

>Debate

Last nights debate won't persuade anyone who was already leaning one way or the other to change their mind. On the one hand Clinton will be fine with this because as it stands she'll win (both leading the polls and with the help of the inbuilt Democratic advantage conferred by the idiocy which is the electoral college system), but on the other hand it serves to remind us just how goddamn awful she is as both a candidate and a public speaker and just how fucked up the US electorate is in general that she continues to fail to finish off Trump despite him being unable to go a week without a new scandal large enough to sink any other recent candidate.

Escalion 10-10-2016 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talon87 (Post 771159)
Let's talk the Phillipines, as it relates to American interests (geopolitical, economic, other). There are several members whose thoughts and insights I want to read, and I'm sure there are others I'm unaware of who have much to share on the matter.

In case you haven't heard, Duterte is cutting ties with the U.S.


I've been following the Philippine news quite closely lately due to my own ties with the country and I can assure you no ties are being cut. Duterte aspires to have an independent foreign policy, in the sense they he does not want the Philippines to follow Washington in every thing they do. Cutting ties completely, which I know Duterte has threatened with, is extremely unlikely to happen from their side. I could see other countries cutting ties with the Philippines though if Duterte keeps talking like an idiot the way he does.

Cutting ties though would be an incredibly unpopular decision in the eyes of the people of the Philippines, who are very grateful for what the USA has done and still does for the country. And to add to that high ranking army officers would also be against any such decision.

That said, I hear more and more stories locals who are getting disappointed in Duterte because of the way he talks, my fiancée and other I know included (who all voted Duterte). They still do support his hard anti-drugs campaign, but they do not support the trash talking he does towards Obama for example. And the comparison he made with Hitler has shocked many Filipinos too.

His flirting with China is also something many Filipinos do not agree with. They see China as an aggressor in the region, and one that is out to claim Philippine territory and has cost plenty Filipinos their life. From what I gather through the news I read and stories I hear from the people I know most would like to increase the American presence in their country, including the return of permanent naval bases to help put a stop to China's ever increasing expansion drive.

Personally I think Duterte should just shut up and listen to the people who voted him into office when it comes to his foreign policy, and perhaps do something with the plans he laid out in his election campaign cause he did have some good plans that the country would surely benefit from.

Stealthy 10-10-2016 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Concept (Post 771171)
>Debate

Last nights debate won't persuade anyone who was already leaning one way or the other to change their mind.

Well, I wouldn't say that nobody made up their mind.

Spoiler: show
He's voting Ken Bone.

Emi 10-10-2016 02:05 PM

I can't really sympathize with Duterte or the people who try to defend him. Not only is his method completely unethical and has lead to a ton of bloodshed, but it doesn't actually solve the problem. It will just be a continual cycle of bloodshed, murder, and drug use. There are obviously underlying issues to this problem that need to be addressed, but it doesn't seem that Duterte actually wants to address them. He would just rather act like he's the Hitler of the Phillipines.

He's crossed a line in my opinion, especially as someone with a family history of drug abuse. If similar actions happened while my mother was a teenager, I literally wouldn't be born. It's scary to think about.

Escalion 10-10-2016 02:35 PM

I agree with you it doesn't solve all the problems, let alone the deeper issues, and I certainly don't agree with the needless killing. But apparently the general crime rate in the country, as measured by the national police, has dropped significantly to the tune of 30 up to 50% and the illegal drug supply is apparently down 80 to 90%, and reports of significantly lower crime rates come in from all over the country. Many thousands of criminals have been arrested, hundreds of thousands turned themselves in. So the policy does do something. And generally, whatever you think of it, he has achieved a lot in 100 days.

Again, I do not agree with needless killing and most Filipinos would prefer criminals be arrested alive and brought to justice too, but in a country where most of the population lives in poverty and (drugs related) crime is rampant and hurts WAY more people than Duterte's policy, I can understand that the people there think that, at the bottom line, the end justifies the means.

Doppleganger 10-10-2016 02:48 PM

That article's comment section is a thing of beauty. It's like "YouTube comments...translated". We're not so different after-all when we're all posting in English.

Duterte is going to make me rich. Rich I say!

But there is, perhaps, a haunting take away if his reforms do in fact improve the Philippines - violence works. This was something common sense in Antiquity but since the world became a lot more connected that message has been altered twice. First into "violence works, but it's unethical" and then "violence never works" post Vietnam.

I think the myth that "violence never works" may be broken pretty soon, if it is not wavering already. We've already seen such with Putin conquering Crimea. The Syrian Civil War ended the Arab Spring. Now all that's left is a US-lead military excursion that permanently settles a middle eastern problem.

Shuckle 10-10-2016 05:15 PM

I'm sorry to push the debate back here but I felt the need to defend a couple statements I said that were misinterpreted. I avoided the topics that led to disciplinary action and kept my post civil; I hope this is enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blastoise (Post 771137)

I watched. The debate.

CNN had people say the exact same thing you just said and they REPLAYED THE CLIP TWICE so that you could clearly say that he did not "threaten to jail his political opponent."

"If I become President, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation."

If your takeaway from Trump's claim that Clinton engaged in illegal activity is that Trump wants to jail his political opponent, I honestly don't know what to say. It's more nuanced than that. The only reason he's claiming that he wants to jail Hillary is because Hillary's supposedly criminal behavior while in office is the main and perhaps the only argument against her. If he does not loudly and constantly remind the nation of Clinton's missing emails, he loses horrifically without a single chance of recovery. (the Clinton team is responding by building an image for Hillary that does not rely on trustworthiness and building an image for Trump that relies on falsehoods. It's working - the public considers Trump to be less trustworthy than Clinton.*).

I do not agree with his words here. The President shouldn't and doesn't have the power to do that, regardless of whether or not Clinton should or should not be charged for mishandling classified information while Sec. of State. Even if he tries if he becomes president, the AG is going to Stump the Trump faster than you can say "33,000 missing emails." Executive branch powers simply don't extend to the judicial branch. The AG may be appointed by the President, but they are not beholden to the President.

*I don't actually care how trustworthy either candidate is, only how they are perceived by the public. Yes. It is absolutely true. Clinton is significantly more trustworthy than Trump because 72% of Trump's fact checked statements are lies but Clinton mostly tells the truth. I'm not trying to take away from that objective statement or imply in any way that it's wrong. I'm simply saying that, on the campaign trail, it's often not about the truth, but about who can convince the most people that their angle is the truth, and Hillary's team has done a much better job of it than Trump's (whose campaign team is honestly just garbage and has led me to wonder about his ability to choose an effective cabinet).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deebs
To suggest that Trump is better on policy when hearing anything vaguely resembling a solid plan in any of his debate answers is just @[email protected]

deebs bby I meant compared to the previous debate, not compared to Clinton.

Stealthy 10-10-2016 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shuckle (Post 771204)
deebs bby I meant compared to the previous debate, not compared to Clinton.

Yes well it's a good thing he didn't stub his toe on that bar you set.

Shuckle 10-10-2016 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealthy (Post 771206)
Yes well it's a good thing he didn't stub his toe on that bar you set.

I'm still gonna heap the blame for that down on the fact that he's running Republican. The RNC needed to seriously evaluate what they wanted, and they did! They decided they were the "FUCK THE DEMOCRATS" party. So that's what they are. Trump's weird statements are just in keeping with that concept.

To be fair to Trump, though, Hillary ended up being a much more formidable opponent than I originally thought. Her political positioning has been great, her attacks have been (For the most part) respectful and well-aimed, and she's stayed afloat and untouchable despite scandal after scandal over what she says and does in private. Barring actual legitimate criminal activity (I think the Clinton Foundation is the last bastion for desperate Republicans to find something illegal Clinton did), I think Clinton's going to breeze through the election pristine and clean.

Concept 10-10-2016 06:37 PM

Honestly, Clinton's not had to do much to avoid her chequered history and scandals dragging her down. Trumps constant media attention grabbing worked well for him in a crowded primary field when coverage was key in standing out from a pack of ~15; the same tactic is starving any Clinton scandals of airtime. "Basket of deplorables" is at least on the same level as Romney's "binders full of women" imo and should've seriously damaged if not sunk her campaign, but Trumps constant stream of saying outlandish things for media attention and/or just because he can means it doesn't even make the top ten gaffes of this election.

You're seeing competence here, I'm just seeing her many problems being dwarfed by Trumps apparent pathological need to alienate as many groups he can.

Shuckle 10-10-2016 06:47 PM

Romney didn't lose over "binders full of women" - if you're going to point to any one thing, try this little speech:

Quote:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Saying Romney lost over "binders full of women" is like saying Trump is losing because of Pepe the Frog. This is much more like the Clinton leaked speeches - which Trump's campaign team didn't process in time for the debate, meaning he wasn't prepared to attack her on them, which means she got away with it.

You could argue that Trump should have prepared himself, but...meh. I dunno. Somewhere along the line it was decided that nothing would be done.

Concept 10-10-2016 06:58 PM

The 47% comment then, whatever. That was just illustrative anyway - you're ignoring the point I was trying to make. "Basket full of deplorables", the wikileaks release of those speeches, the emails, Benghazi, etc; Clinton has enough scandals and unforced gaffes to sink any three candidates in a normal election cycle, and she has not defended them well. Trump keeps accidentally saving her bacon by saying such a high volume of outlandish and offensive things that none of Clintons scandals stay in the focus of the media cycle long enough to stick in peoples minds. At least not compared to Trumps*.

There's undoutedly a lot of behind the scenes strategising by both campaign teams because of course there is, but Trump seems to get a kick out of entirely ignoring his whilst Clinton simply lacks the PR talent to mask how generally pants she is as both a candidate and a human being. Clinton's winning at this point mostly by virtue of sitting back and letting Trump self-destruct, not from any degree of competence on her or her campaigns part.

*I imagine some "news" networks are focusing on almost nothing but Clinton's problems, but the sort of people who pay attention to Fox or Breibart were never going to vote for a Democrat or a woman in any significant number anyway.

phoopes 10-10-2016 08:09 PM

>Shuckle

To clarify, you're saying that Trump doesn't actually want to put Hillary Clinton in jail? That it's just a "political strategy" for him to say those things? I just want to be sure.

deoxys 10-10-2016 08:15 PM

I'm proud of you all. This is what I like to see.

Sorry, I just had to put that out there. I've nothing to really add right now I'm just enjoying the discussion.

Emi 10-10-2016 08:43 PM

ty deo-senpai

>Escalion

I don't know if the numbers really mean much to me. Even if its effective, its morally abhorrent. I don't know if I can ever agree with it because of that.

There's also other arguments, mainly that it opens up a slippery slope for Duterte to use this kind of power in other regards as well. What he's doing is something that should not be allowed in a civilized world, period.

Sparkbeat 10-10-2016 08:51 PM

I would say that Trump definitely wants to have Hillary Clinton stand trial for the whole scandal, but honestly, that's a believable and common enough position. I don't think you can claim Trump simply wants to lock up Clinton because "she's my opponent." And quite frankly, yeah, it's definitely political strategy. He can play the political outsider card very strongly. "Look at this. There is obviously reasonable suspicion regarding this scandal, but she doesn't have to stand trial like the rest of us because of her power in Washington. This is obvious corruption."

But then again, this is Trump, so it's also entirely likely he just wants to put his election opponent behind bars as a "You dare defy me" / "I told you so" statement.

Talon87 10-10-2016 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deoxys (Post 771223)
I'm just enjoying the discussion.

Really? :? I'm pretty sick of it by this point. All we're doing is driving in circles. Shuckle is too talkative. The rest of the community is quiet, decidedly anti-Trump, or both. (Put me in for "both", discounting replies like this one.) It's become a "the Circlejerk & Troll Show" affair at this point, with Shuckle filling the role of troll and numerous members trying different ways to get Shuckle to either admit he's trolling or else to admit that Trump cannot possibly win the electorate over at this point. But it doesn't matter what Shuckle thinks -- Donald Trump cannot win this election. Both he and Hillary would lose overnight if serious weight were lent to a third candidate that neither the media nor the public write off as a loon, but between Trump and Clinton it's Clinton, Clinton, Clinton all the way to the White House. Votes like mine (for a ceremonial write-in) won't matter. Votes for Trump won't matter. Clinton is going to win this election by a larger margin than Obama won re-election in 2012. And it's entirely possible that she'll win it by an even larger margin than Obama did over John McCain. Let that sink in for a second, those of you who were old enough to vote in 2008. Hillary Clinton could win by a larger margin than Barack Obama did in 2008.

I'm not a fan of railroading conversations. So if people don't want to discuss the Philippines, that's fine. Likewise, if you all are having fun discussing Trump vs. Clinton still, then fine, continue to go at it, I guess. -_-; But I for one am tired of it at this point. Nothing new is coming forward that is changing anyone's mind on this forum. I would much rather we either let the thread simmer for a couple weeks (rather than sickly bumping it every five minutes just to get our 2¢ in; and no, I realize, I am getting my own 2¢ in here but I've been sitting quiet for far too long and this is the only way I can express myself to you) or else that we continue to post here but that we discuss anything, anything else to do with American politics. There is no shortage of discussion topics:
  • U.S. relations with the Philippines (latest story: Duterte's demand)
  • U.S. relations with China (latest story: Duterte's demand)
  • U.S. relations with Vietnam (latest story: Duterte's demand)
  • U.S. relations with Russia (latest story: France's request)
  • U.S. 2nd space race, international (latest story: Chinese developments)
  • U.S. 2nd space race, intranationally (latest story: Elon Musk on Mars)
  • U.S. and energy (latest story: too many big ones this week alone to list)
  • U.S. and education (latest story: dunno, but a week or two ago I was reading about public universities experimenting with free tuition)
  • U.S. and the police (latest story: God only knows, too many to keep track of)
  • U.S. and the legal system (latest story: someone was saying O.J. Simpson might be up for parole in 2017, which returns our attention to the infamous criminal trial circa 1995)
  • U.S., job automation, and unemployment (no particular news story)
Some have clearer political tie-ins for a thread ostensibly named "American Politics" and not "American Issues" than others, but I listed these ones because I think all of them can be related to U.S. politics in one way or another.

"You made your bed. Now you have to sleep in it." As a bystander watching people get frustrated with Shuckle week in and week out, it's getting tiresome. If you guys are annoyed by his posts, cut him out of your conversation. If you're annoyed by the conversations he tries to start, then start your own (or maintain existing ones).

Snorby 10-10-2016 09:22 PM

I disagree that Trump cannot win. I think that, while Clinton is more likely to win, Trump could eek out a victory just as easily as Clinton could crush him in a landslide to end all landslides. From what I can tell, Electorally speaking, the tally is around 260 Clinton, 187 Trump right now, with Maine (barring CD2, which swings Trump), Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado still remaining up for grabs. So, if the election were held today, Trump would have to win Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Arizona for certain. To win the election, he'd have to Colorado and either Nevada or the rest of Maine. To TIE the election, he merely has to win either Colorado or Nevada and the rest of Maine. In a tie scenario, given the GOP's ungodly advantage in the House of Representatives, Trump wins the election.

Of course, things could get much, much worse for Trump in the aftermath of his most recent scandal. But things could get much, much better for him too if it's forgotten like all of his other scandals and then something like the Wikileaks takes front stage.

Regardless, I argue it's much too early to call the election, and I say this as someone who sees in Trump the embodiment of literally everything wrong with our country.

deoxys 10-10-2016 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talon87
Really? I'm pretty sick of it by this point.

I was specifically referring to the manner in which the discussion has been held since my last post. Within just a few posts discussion has already become more civil on this page than it's been for at least the last 10+. I wasn't necessarily referring to the actual discussion at hand, perhaps that should have been made more clear.

I definitely think a change of conversation would be nice as well, but it's a month from the election - you're sick of it, as are the majority of people, and understandably so. The October before an election is arguably peak argument time. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere until perhaps a few days to weeks after Election Day.

Any of the number of topics you suggested would be pretty good to talk about. I'd argue that maybe the first several would belong in the Global Politics thread, but everything else would hold enough conversation to last a while. In fact, I'm not really sure why we haven't been talking about Elon Musk's big Mars announcement from the other day. I watched that whole conference in awe, and we could definitely draw quite a bit of conversation out of that alone. As far as issues with Duterte, I don't have much to bring to that table. I've voiced my opinion, strongly, on the man before. Reading the article I did about him telling the US to pack up and leave (relatively speaking) received no more acknowledgement from me than a chuckle and shrug.

But yes, just about any of the topics you suggested would make for some good change of pace. I'm, unfortunately, just not the best at starting them.

By the way I'm going to have to agree with Snorby, making the assumption that Trump will win defacto is somewhat dangerous thinking. Just because the polls have Hillary up by significant margins doesn't mean she will win. Those sort of reports are what will keep people from going out and voting, thinking that she's already got it wrapped up in her favor - meanwhile Trump's basket of deplorables armada floods the voting booths either way.

Stealthy 10-10-2016 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snorby (Post 771234)
I disagree that Trump cannot win. I think that, while Clinton is more likely to win, Trump could eek out a victory just as easily as Clinton could crush him in a landslide to end all landslides. From what I can tell, Electorally speaking, the tally is around 260 Clinton, 187 Trump right now, with Maine (barring CD2, which swings Trump), Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado still remaining up for grabs. So, if the election were held today, Trump would have to win Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Arizona for certain. To win the election, he'd have to Colorado and either Nevada or the rest of Maine. To TIE the election, he merely has to win either Colorado or Nevada and the rest of Maine. In a tie scenario, given the GOP's ungodly advantage in the House of Representatives, Trump wins the election.

Of course, things could get much, much worse for Trump in the aftermath of his most recent scandal. But things could get much, much better for him too if it's forgotten like all of his other scandals and then something like the Wikileaks takes front stage.

Regardless, I argue it's much too early to call the election, and I say this as someone who sees in Trump the embodiment of literally everything wrong with our country.

538 NowCast gives Hillary ~337 electoral votes and a 6pt win overall. And it hasn't fully reacted to the tape or the second debate. Let alone what other October surprises Hillary's got up her sleeve. Because here's the deadly thing about October Surprises; undecided voters this late are either entirely disinterested our they're looking for an excuse. October Surprises are readily available excuses, and Trump's handing them out like crazy.

Trump's prospects are officially considered bad enough that the GOP is fleeing the ship. That alone should be a sufficient indicator of his chances. The tape is just an excuse. Sure, there's a nonzero chance of a bounceback... but the guy's been on a downslide since the first debate with no signs of slowing down, and he's only got 4 weeks left to turn things around.

Relatedly, here's George Will on the matter.

Shuckle 10-10-2016 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Concept (Post 771219)
There's undoutedly a lot of behind the scenes strategising by both campaign teams because of course there is, but Trump seems to get a kick out of entirely ignoring his whilst Clinton simply lacks the PR talent to mask how generally pants she is as both a candidate and a human being. Clinton's winning at this point mostly by virtue of sitting back and letting Trump self-destruct, not from any degree of competence on her or her campaigns part.

I disagree on the surface but I'll have to take a closer look to see if you're right or wrong about that.

My initial thought is actually that Clinton has more scandalous stuff in number but that they're pumping up the volume on Trump's baggage simply because it's a lot more shocking and therefore easier to direct people's attention to.

Had it gone the other way, we could easily, easily be seeing a national prevailing wind of "who even CARES about pussygate when we have these leaked emails?" I don't think it's fair to say "Trump is drowning out Clinton with the strength of the word pussy" because I think that both candidates have been working hard on both offense and defense to try and make it so that they downplay their own scandals while highlighting their opponents'.

Among rightwingers you would probably see a lot of "who cares about pussygate" - although the real strength of pussygate is that it damages Trump's reputation among the hard evangelical right. Which is why Clinton pushes it so hard which is why it's drowning out her scandals etc. etc. You may see this as conspiracy theory, but it's pretty much how things go in politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoopes (Post 771221)
>Shuckle

To clarify, you're saying that Trump doesn't actually want to put Hillary Clinton in jail? That it's just a "political strategy" for him to say those things? I just want to be sure.

Spark said it pretty eloquently (quoted below) but you aimed this at me so I figure I'll answer.

When you speak in a debate, you always want to stay mindful of the general election context. You are not trying to win the debate, you are trying to win the election. This is part of why Trump had such a poor showing in the first debate; he was arguably able to hold his own in the direct confrontation of the debate, but her broader strategy led to a victory in the polls because of her positioning, her use of time, and her fact-checker strategy that Trump still has not found an answer to. And if there's one thing that's unelectable, it's a liar.

When Trump said he would "appoint a special prosecutor" to bring the case to trial, he did 3 things:

1. Suggested that he was confident in Clinton's guilt
2. Suggested that he was confident about getting elected
3. reminded the country about Clinton's actions and their questionable morality

Even if Trump did it unintentionally, it's still an attack on Clinton's reputation and must be answered by the campaign team.

Their answer, which was done instantly after the debate, was to claim that Trump was "Threatening to jail his political opponent" and then compare him to Hitler (which is already a thing). This deflects the attention off of the actual message of the statement (that Hillary is a criminal) and onto the issuer of the statement (that Trump is threatening Hillary).

The alternative, which you are of course free to believe, is that Trump threatened Hillary with jail time because he legitimately hates her and wants to start his reign of terror in America with the looming threat of Democratic Forgetful Email-Losing Grandma, the only person who could possibly stand against him, safely quarantined in prison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparkbeat (Post 771226)
I would say that Trump definitely wants to have Hillary Clinton stand trial for the whole scandal, but honestly, that's a believable and common enough position. I don't think you can claim Trump simply wants to lock up Clinton because "she's my opponent." And quite frankly, yeah, it's definitely political strategy. He can play the political outsider card very strongly. "Look at this. There is obviously reasonable suspicion regarding this scandal, but she doesn't have to stand trial like the rest of us because of her power in Washington. This is obvious corruption."

But then again, this is Trump, so it's also entirely likely he just wants to put his election opponent behind bars as a "You dare defy me" / "I told you so" statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talon87 (Post 771227)
"You made your bed. Now you have to sleep in it." As a bystander watching people get frustrated with Shuckle week in and week out, it's getting tiresome. If you guys are annoyed by his posts, cut him out of your conversation. If you're annoyed by the conversations he tries to start, then start your own (or maintain existing ones).

They're annoyed by Trump and see me as a proxy for Trump. I'm not a liberal and never have been nor ever will be a liberal, and to many people on this forum (hi rangeet!) that makes me a conservative - which causes a lot of irritation because most of the forum is pretty solidly Blue Team.

I will admit to enjoying my role of "shit-stirrer" a little TOO much and I'm really making an attempt to keep things way more civil, but I would appreciate it if maybe it was a little less easy to send people into a boiling-hot rage because Shuckle said something that suggested that Trump might not be a total failure of a human being.

My posts are not going away anytime soon. Simply because I'm knee deep in politics day in and day out and you guys are not. It's a big interest of mine and that's not going to change just because some people on the internet were mean to me. And when I have an outlet to talk politics, I'll usually take it.

If you guys really don't want me to talk about my thoughts in this thread, I will be respectful and either not post or just not post about Trump. And it's looking more and more like I should do just that. But I still get the feeling that at least some of you sort of like that I go against the grain a little, and want to get my perspective on the whole thing. If I get proof that it's just not the case, then I guess I don't really have a leg to stand on anymore lol.

Blastoise 10-10-2016 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shuckle (Post 771204)
I watched. The debate.

CNN had people say the exact same thing you just said and they REPLAYED THE CLIP TWICE so that you could clearly say that he did not "threaten to jail his political opponent."

"If I become President, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation."

If your takeaway from Trump's claim that Clinton engaged in illegal activity is that Trump wants to jail his political opponent, I honestly don't know what to say.

Quote:

Clinton: It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.

Trump: Because you'd be in jail.
If this is the hill you really want to die on I'm not going to stop you, but when your entire argument is resting on pedantry I would suggest you reconsider. Even from a "strategy" perspective re:Emailgate talking about how you are going to sic Johnny Law on your political opponent in an already acrimonious election was quite possibly the worst conceivable approach to take and won't win over anyone who already wasn't an alt-right Koolaid drinker to begin with. It also doesn't speak well of Trump's self awareness to be talking about enacting victor's justice (because the FBI clearing Hillary of wrongdoing is really just guilty of wasting Trump's time) when the big question going into the debate was if Trump had used his money and celebrity to force himself on women who were less than willing.

EDIT BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE SHUCKLE'S ABOVE POST UNTIL AFTER SUBMITTING: At the end of the day the fundamental issue is that a presidential candidate is talking about launching a "special investigation" on an opponent where it is very clear which results he is expecting (and may use his power to try and get). People are treating this as a totalitarian stance because it fucking is, and it being a "strategy" is simply trying to dance around the issue and doesn't absolve it in any event.

In summary, never go full Ribbentrop:

Quote:

On the witness stand Ribbentrop flatly denied charges that he had bullied the Czechoslovakian government into letting the Wehrmacht march into Prague. "What further pressure could you put on the head of a country except to threaten him that your army would march in and your airforce would bomb his capital?" demanded the prosecutor. "War, for instance," Ribbentrop replied.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Talon87
Both he and Hillary would lose overnight if serious weight were lent to a third candidate that neither the media nor the public write off as a loon, but between Trump and Clinton it's Clinton, Clinton, Clinton all the way to the White House.

Yes, too bad our third party choices are Jill Stein, a woman who never heard a crackpot pseudoscience theory she didn't take at face value and Gary "what's an Aleppo" Johnson, with a healthy helping of the Libertarian convention ending with a man who should very much have kept his clothes on.

Also, Trump v Clinton is going to be the big topic until election day because, quite frankly, if I traveled two years into the past and told 2014 me that Donald Trump would have a non-zero chance of becoming leader of the free world my past self would have preemptively started looking for rehab clinics offering reasonable rates. Everyone loves a trainwreck, and this is the big'un.

Blastoise 10-10-2016 11:31 PM

Double post but whatever, I've already touched the poop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shuckle
My posts are not going away anytime soon. Simply because I'm knee deep in politics day in and day out and you guys are not. It's a big interest of mine and that's not going to change just because some people on the internet were mean to me. And when I have an outlet to talk politics, I'll usually take it.

The fundamental disconnect is that you're clearly in too deep: politics has become an outlet for you to discuss strategy and game theory and the like, much like the group of us bullshitting about the LoL championships or people talking about competitive 6v6 singles in Pokemon. The problem is that politics isn't competitive Pokemon, where there's no impending moral tragedy that will occur if your physical wall isn't properly statted to take a hit from a Jolly Garchomp and OHKO it back with Ice Beam or whatever the fuck: you're trying to divorce yourself from the impact the next potential PoTUS will have on actual IRL human beings because you're fascinated with the sixth dimensional chess match that is the presidential campaign for its own sake, and that is going to rankle anyone who wants to debate the impact of policy and not palace intrigue.

Talon87 10-11-2016 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blastoise (Post 771249)
Yes, too bad our third party choices are Jill Stein, a woman who never heard a crackpot pseudoscience theory she didn't take at face value and Gary "what's an Aleppo" Johnson, with a healthy helping of the Libertarian convention ending with a man who should very much have kept his clothes on.

To be clear, I already agree that Stein and Johnson are disqualified to lead this country. And evidence of that position can be found in this very thread. When I wrote the sentence you quoted, those words weren't my way of suggesting that the media and public ought to embrace Stein, Johnson, Ron Paul, etc, that they ought to give them a chance. No, what I was saying was, "If we had a third party candidate that wasn't wacko, then both Trump and Clinton would be dead in the water." The media part might be about how they frame the candidates' qualifications, but the general public part was meant to convey the honest truth about whether this person was or was not a nutjob, idiot, etc.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.