UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-17-2016, 07:13 AM   #2551
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
>Trump blames Clinton for NC bombing with absolutely zero evidence

Reichstag fire, anyone?
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 07:47 AM   #2552
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Trump is almost certainly not responsible for it, though.

This is closer in spirit to "Jews did WTC".
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 12:06 PM   #2553
Mozz
Golden Wang of Justice
 
Mozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeet View Post
>Trump blames Clinton for NC bombing with absolutely zero evidence

Reichstag fire, anyone?
"Animals representing HRC" doesn't mean that they are her direct operatives, just people who want her to win. Unless he said something else?
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website.
Mozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 12:20 PM   #2554
deh74
Noted homosexual
 
deh74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozz View Post
"Animals representing HRC" doesn't mean that they are her direct operatives, just people who want her to win. Unless he said something else?
Well, he said that they're "representing" her, which brings the direct implication that in Trump's mind at least, these terrible people have at least the tacit support of Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party. This is an effort to paint Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party as being at least indirectly responsible for the attack.

Needless to say, of course, Donald has no business injecting himself into this case in such a manner by flinging baseless accusations around on Twitter. So who's to say that when a bomb goes off in Berlin, a hypothetical President Trump wouldn't immediately take to Twitter and say something like "It was the ragheads who done went and did this, we gots to bomb Mecka to show them that #MAGA"?
__________________




PASBL
The Whistling Sound of Impending Doom.

deh74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 12:27 PM   #2555
Stealthy
A New and Original Person
 
Stealthy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
Relatedly, Trump said the reason they blew up the office is because he's winning. Yeah. This level of delusion would be a lot more funny if it wasn't for the terrifying prospect that Trump is drinking so much of his own Koolaid that he enters 100% denial after losing and refuses to concede the election, and fights the results.
Stealthy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 12:45 PM   #2556
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
I agree with Mozz on this one tbh, think you have to be really trying to read that as Trump saying Clinton had anything to do with it (even to the level of tacit support). Still highly irresponsible to start saying these things before we get any official word on it of course, even if he's almost certainly right on this one.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 12:46 PM   #2557
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Trump trying to pander to fundamentalist Christians. Just after a huge Hindus-for-Trump event. In which he said "I love Hindu!"

It's like a "Find everything wrong with this image!"
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 01:37 PM   #2558
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Trump, being hypocritical and contradictory? Like saying how he'll try to protect LGBT people but then supports passing the FADA (First Amendment Defense Act) which will make LGBT discrimination legal?

Yeah, who would have thought.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 02:00 PM   #2559
Escalion
Getting married! :D
 
Escalion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,158
Send a message via Skype™ to Escalion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi View Post
Trump, being hypocritical and contradictory?
Hypocritical and contradictory?
Surely he must be talking about Krishna.
__________________
Escalion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 04:13 PM   #2560
deh74
Noted homosexual
 
deh74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
I shouldn't have used the word "ragheads" in referring to a hypothetical Trump tweet and I apologize for doing so.

While I can easily see it being the case that Trump himself doesn't think that Secretary Clinton had anything to do with the bombing, tacit or otherwise, I still believe that what he said will have the effect of planting that idea in the minds of his supporters.
__________________




PASBL
The Whistling Sound of Impending Doom.

deh74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 07:52 AM   #2561
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi View Post
Trump, being hypocritical and contradictory? Like saying how he'll try to protect LGBT people but then supports passing the FADA (First Amendment Defense Act) which will make LGBT discrimination legal?

Yeah, who would have thought.
Leave the damn FADA alone. It does NOT allow for discrimination against LGBT people. Trump currently needs the support of the religious Right so he'll say pretty much anything to keep em happy, and "Yes I will protect your rights" is a great way to pull people over to your side.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/2802/text

The bill is actually quite short compared to some others I've read, and is written in accessible language (probably so that Republican lawmakers can read it :^)). It's...3 pages at most, imo, there's really no excuse to go and read through it yourself.

The concern laid out in the bill is that something like a Catholic school, in taking a public political stance against gay marriage, will receive government backlash. The Act is designed to prevent such action from happening, which will protect both their right to practice their religion and their right to peaceful protest.

At worst it does nothing, since those rights are constitutionally protected. At best, it prevents a lengthy government process and massive court pain-in-the-ass to declare each type of government action individually unconstitutional. Trust me, LGBT rights does NOT want this; that leads to some really unpleasant rulings that could expand the power of the religious Right to protest against or even prevent gay marriage on religious grounds.

Please don't be suckered into the propaganda that says that the FADA is some kind of anti-LGBT hate bill. It's not even an anti-LGBT bill. Specifically:

Quote:
Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed.
tl;dr: The FADA ONLY addresses these conflicts between religious organizations and gay marriage, and allows these organizations to protest gay marriage peacefully without fear of government backlash. Actions being taken against these organizations would already be illegal, but they could happen anyway which would lead to a huge judicial nightmare.

The FADA does not allow religious organizations to discriminate against LGBT individuals in any way, shape, or form. While that discrimination is (arguably) not unconstitutional, it is illegal in most of the cases that this bill addresses.

As a Catholic I do support the passage of this bill. As an LGBT person, I am totally indifferent. If half the country would be happier with this bill in place, and I would remain completely unaffected, then why am I complaining?
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 10:18 AM   #2562
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Shuckle I did read through it. Let's take a look at some other parts, shall we?

Quote:
SEC. 3. Protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions.

(a) In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.
It's not just limited to beliefs, its also extended to actions. Essentially, what the bill is saying, is that a person can act according to their religious beliefs on marriage and not receive any backlash from it, even when that person does it in a way which is discriminatory. If a federally funded business fires or doesn't hire a person because of their sexual orientation, quite frankly the government would have no power to stop them.

There is a reason why bills keep coming up to amend the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender alignment, and its because our discrimination is, as you say, technically not unconstitutional. Passing this bill essentially doubles down on that and will serve as a barrier to legislation protecting LGBT people for years to come, because, again, we really don't have any protection that isn't in state laws. By its own definition, this law could supersede those laws because they don't offer equal or greater protection in the virtue of its own language.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 03:41 PM   #2563
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi View Post
Shuckle I did read through it. Let's take a look at some other parts, shall we?

It's not just limited to beliefs, its also extended to actions. Essentially, what the bill is saying, is that a person can act according to their religious beliefs on marriage and not receive any backlash from it, even when that person does it in a way which is discriminatory. If a federally funded business fires or doesn't hire a person because of their sexual orientation, quite frankly the government would have no power to stop them.

There is a reason why bills keep coming up to amend the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender alignment, and its because our discrimination is, as you say, technically not unconstitutional. Passing this bill essentially doubles down on that and will serve as a barrier to legislation protecting LGBT people for years to come, because, again, we really don't have any protection that isn't in state laws. By its own definition, this law could supersede those laws because they don't offer equal or greater protection in the virtue of its own language.
Not a strong enough argument, Emi. That language would be necessary to protect a church from engaging in peaceful protest against gay marriage by, for example, refusing to perform a gay wedding. Which we both agree, regardless of our personal beliefs on gay marriage, is something that churches are legally and constitutionally allowed to do.

What the FADA says is basically, "Removal of government benefits is the same thing as legal punishment."

Think of it through the lens of discrimination against black people or LGBT people.

If you tell your doctor you're trans, and let's say, idk, it goes on a record somewhere and the government knows about it. And let's say you were entitled to government benefits before this due to your life situation (pretend you're disabled and receiving disability SS), but the government removes your access to those benefits after your "registration" as a trans person.

Is this government discrimination?

FADA legislates that removal of benefits is government discrimination in the specific case of holding controversial religious beliefs.

Honestly I'm glad that our country might consider needing FADA because it means we've moved so far in the right direction that churches and other traditional institutions are afraid that the government is going to punish them for holding views that finally go against the grain for the first time ever.

Now, if you wanna see an anti-LGBT hate bill that was actually passed:

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/doc...9/HB1523SG.htm

Laws are tricky business, and while a few words in a law CAN mean a lot, in this case it's just a CYA for churches so that the government can't bend 'em over and give 'em the fiscal cane just because they forgot to specify that they can act according to their religious beliefs too instead of just holding those beliefs quietly.

Can you see how HB1523 has extremely strong discriminatory language compared to the FADA?

Quote:
(b) Makes any employment-related decision including, but not limited to, the decision whether or not to hire, terminate or discipline an individual whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of the religious organization, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act; or
Like, jesus H. christ

Quote:
(c) Makes any decision concerning the sale, rental, occupancy of, or terms and conditions of occupying a dwelling or other housing under its control, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act.
THIS is the kind of shit you should be afraid of. THIS PASSED.

If you read through the text of the bill, some of it really isn't objectionable. I'm whatever with allowing people like disc jockeys to say "No I don't feel comfortable doing a gay wedding" and I think everyone rational agrees that people have at least some control over who their clients are. I wouldn't feel comfortable playing music for a couple's wedding who constantly fights, or is abusive or cruel to me.

But as you sort of piece the whole thing together...

It doesn't just include gays and lesbians. Oh no. That would be too small in scale. No, if you get pregnant as a single woman, you could find yourself out on the streets without any kind of government assistance or any kind of job. And it's aaaaall protected under good ol' HB1523

Quote:
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
Do you REALLY think this is going to hurt any straight white men who sleep around?

Nope!

It's going to hurt the people who have proof of having had sex outside of the confines of marriage. Which pretty much means "women who get pregnant."

But Shuckle, just because that's a hate bill doesn't mean the FADA isn't also a hate bill!

In order for a bill to allow discriminatory action, it has to be way more specific about it. "Can act in accordance with religious beliefs" would have to specify "Can discriminate according to religious beliefs," and the bill might even need to specify what kinds of discrimination would be allowed.

Instead "Acting" is limited to the expression of those religious beliefs ex. protesting, refusal of religious services like marriage, public condemnation of gay marriage, etc. In order for it to have any reach beyond that scope, it would have to have real and specific teeth like "Acting, for example: denying charitable services, denying religious services." Since that's not specified, "Acting" can only mean "Acting in a manner consistent with the religious belief that gay marriage shouldn't happen" which pretty much is limited to denying marriage ceremonies to gay couples and peaceful public protest. I can't really think of any more examples off the top of my head but it's all tame shit, you can't come up with anything crazy that this bill would led churches or Catholic schools do.

They can't even kick out gay kids from Catholic school since the kid's not actually getting married so no religious beliefs are being violated :^)
__________________

Last edited by Shuckle; 10-18-2016 at 03:47 PM.
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 03:49 PM   #2564
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
And I'm so sorry for nerding out on you all.

I...

I just really like laws
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 04:13 PM   #2565
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
They can't even kick out gay kids from Catholic school since the kid's not actually getting married so no religious beliefs are being violated :^)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post

no religious beliefs are being violated :^)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post

violated :^)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post

:^)


deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 04:18 PM   #2566
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
But Shuckle, just because that's a hate bill doesn't mean the FADA isn't also a hate bill!

In order for a bill to allow discriminatory action, it has to be way more specific about it. "Can act in accordance with religious beliefs" would have to specify "Can discriminate according to religious beliefs," and the bill might even need to specify what kinds of discrimination would be allowed.

Instead "Acting" is limited to the expression of those religious beliefs ex. protesting, refusal of religious services like marriage, public condemnation of gay marriage, etc. In order for it to have any reach beyond that scope, it would have to have real and specific teeth like "Acting, for example: denying charitable services, denying religious services." Since that's not specified, "Acting" can only mean "Acting in a manner consistent with the religious belief that gay marriage shouldn't happen" which pretty much is limited to denying marriage ceremonies to gay couples and peaceful public protest. I can't really think of any more examples off the top of my head but it's all tame shit, you can't come up with anything crazy that this bill would led churches or Catholic schools do.

They can't even kick out gay kids from Catholic school since the kid's not actually getting married so no religious beliefs are being violated :^)
So I don't think there really is anything to debate in the rest of the post (except it being a poor argument, its clearly not :p), but I disagree with this.

There is, in fact, no real specific protection ever listed in FADA. It doesn't say "the right to peaceful protest" or anything as such. By your argument, because it only lists one specific example, saying "we dun like this", that's the only thing protected. It wouldn't cover denying marriage ceremonies, because that's never mentioned. Even beyond the one example, nothing is ever actually listed as something that shouldn't be discriminated against.

Now, this could mean the law is literally toothless and so will do absolutely nothing. It could also mean, depending on what happens this election and in the coming Supreme Court nomination, that the law gets massively abused to cover any sort of discriminatory action, because it doesn't mention anything specific. After all, where is the wording that says "this does not cover denying employment or terminating employment based on blah blah blah"? Obviously you can't make a blacklist, because the different ways one could be discriminatory is sort of endless.

I'd like to bring your attention to one more part of the law, the really concerning part to me.

Quote:
(a) Broad construction.—This Act shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act and the Constitution.
This, imo, is really deviously written, because the Act itself and the Constitution do not in any way shape or form say that active discrimination is not okay. It's not meant to be limited to just peaceful protests and denying to perform marriage ceremonies, it says as much. The combination of this, and the lack of any specific language makes me really worried that its going to be used to justify LGBT discrimination; especially at local levels.

Quote:
:^)
[TRIVERR'D]
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 06:45 PM   #2567
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emi View Post
So I don't think there really is anything to debate in the rest of the post (except it being a poor argument, its clearly not :p), but I disagree with this.

There is, in fact, no real specific protection ever listed in FADA. It doesn't say "the right to peaceful protest" or anything as such. By your argument, because it only lists one specific example, saying "we dun like this", that's the only thing protected. It wouldn't cover denying marriage ceremonies, because that's never mentioned. Even beyond the one example, nothing is ever actually listed as something that shouldn't be discriminated against.
It's the FADA so it defends the free exercise of religion. Anything outside of those bounds would be off limits to the FADA.

I agree it could stand to be more specific - and it would relieve a lot of the headache of explaining the law!!! - but it could always get amended between now and passing, especially if it wants support from the Democrats who look poised to take Congress atm.

Quote:
Now, this could mean the law is literally toothless and so will do absolutely nothing. It could also mean, depending on what happens this election and in the coming Supreme Court nomination, that the law gets massively abused to cover any sort of discriminatory action, because it doesn't mention anything specific. After all, where is the wording that says "this does not cover denying employment or terminating employment based on blah blah blah"? Obviously you can't make a blacklist, because the different ways one could be discriminatory is sort of endless.

I'd like to bring your attention to one more part of the law, the really concerning part to me.
It's not meant to punish, but to prevent. It's a law that governs governments and protects religious organizations from the inevitable backlash they're going to receive from opposing gay marriage.

The stuff in this Act would happen anyway, just slower and more agonizingly and with way more liberal outrage. If you like being outraged I guess??? I know I don't.

Quote:
This, imo, is really deviously written, because the Act itself and the Constitution do not in any way shape or form say that active discrimination is not okay. It's not meant to be limited to just peaceful protests and denying to perform marriage ceremonies, it says as much. The combination of this, and the lack of any specific language makes me really worried that its going to be used to justify LGBT discrimination; especially at local levels.
Quote:
(b) No preemption, repeal, or narrow construction.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt State law, or repeal Federal law, that is equally or more protective of free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions.
Very easy to argue that this also protects religious beliefs (or lack of belief, Rangeet, that counts under "religious beliefs" because you have a belief about religion, and this is why - so that atheism has equal protection under the law. Otherwise christianity can and will walk all over you with the first amendment rights it enjoys) and moral convictions that support LGBT individuals. If it indeed was written with LGBT discrimination in mind, the lawmakers missed the easy argument and people who try to abuse it as "intended" will eat the lawsuits over it.

TBH the only reason it will probably get abused at least a few times is because leftwingers like you guys are really trumping (lol) up the significance and the danger of this specific law. Many people are going to make the connection of FADA = It's legal to beat up trans people if you say it was religiously motivated, and that isn't actually related to the direct text of the law. See also: "Obamacare is socialized healthcare! It's going to ruin this country! Affordable Care Act? Yeah I'm okay with that."

tl;dr: law does not grant the protections you think it does, despite its vague wording. Will be abused, but the abuse will not actually be legal or covered by the law.

I'm not saying you don't make good points, because those are important thoughts to make when considering the law. Buuuuut your good points basically boil down to "Someone could abuse the word "Act" to do whatever they want!" and that just won't be true no matter what.

Quote:
[TRIVERR'D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Spoiler: show
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 09:44 PM   #2568
Heather
Naga's Voice
 
Heather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
I mean the part about not superseding state laws is a small and practically irrelevant comfort because if those state laws go away or are never instated (red states are not going to want to implement such laws let's be honest) then that clause is entirely unarmed for those states. Either way I simply do not trust this. To me, it reeks of attempted ass-covering and if we give that the inch it will spring up and take the ell. As someone who is trans and whose future lies ahead of them in a field with several jobs lying with government contractors, I'd rather stay safe and not give the inch.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy View Post
Quoth the Honchkrow (nevermore!).
Fizzy Member Post: Catherine Park
Heather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 10:45 PM   #2569
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Shuckle, please never use ":^)" again.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 11:24 PM   #2570
Stealthy
A New and Original Person
 
Stealthy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Shuckle, please never use ":^)" again.
Hey Deo, wanna do us all a favor and make this emote a bannable offense?
Stealthy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 11:42 PM   #2571
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealthy View Post
Hey Deo, wanna do us all a favor and make this emote a bannable offense?
I will second this, but, and I say this emphatically, don't quote me on that.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 12:05 AM   #2572
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
I don't know about a ban, but we could always look into using vBulletin's word censorship feature to auto-replace all instances of ":^)" with "Vote for Hillary Clinton! #ImWithHer"

Something tells me that would put a stop to it faster than Trump can say "rigged" :>
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 12:40 AM   #2573
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Vote for Hillary Clinton! #ImWithHer

Trump managed to effectively go back on all the things I was going to vote for him over (moderate political stance, effective strategy, image/PR control, persuasive ability, ability to find/hire a competent cabinet, ability to choose the correct people to assist him).

I'm still not going to talk about him like he's the antichrist but yeah he lost my moderate vote.

Trump started out with an excellent strategy but completely failed to account for the Democrat's ability to respond and utterly frustrate the strategy he had prepared. He won the Republican primaries in an outright landslide but failed against a prepared opponent. I'm not sure where the entire forum is objecting to this idea because he really did have a great strategy in primaries:

1. Get the initiative on all media attention, sucking time and energy away from the other candidates
2. Mock the inevitable missteps of the Republican candidates
3. Use general demagoguery to appeal to the wide voter base and get people to agree with him by "saying what needs to be said"

None of this applies to Hillary. She:

1. Practically has the media in her pocket, and even if she doesn't it's hard to argue that news sources wouldn't favor her over even someone like Kasich or Carson
2. Is made of fucking iron and doesn't make those mistakes - and in fact is taking advantage of Trump's mistakes to draw fire away from her own gaffes like the leaked emails
3. Is reaching out to specific demographics and shutting Trump out of those areas, limiting his ability to reach communities like the black or Hispanic voting blocs. Was it easy? Yes. Did it happen intentionally? Also yes. Did it stump the Trump? Three for three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Shuckle, please never use ":^)" again.
Oh come on it was funny and you know it. It's like homophobes are rationalizing why they oppose gay marriage and then suddenly they realize that their own rules keep them from doing anything about actual gays.

"If only we had found something that let us kick that one flamboyantly gay boy out of school," moans the headmaster before draining another shot of whiskey. "L-Lazbons? What are those? No no no, the Bible only forbids dude-on-dude anal, and that's exactly what that little boy is going to do in like a year, but we're powerless to stop it. Another sinner, down the drain." Another shot. "If only we could still beat the kids."

The priest sitting next to him looks up, suddenly bright eyed. "I have an idea I think you're gonna LOVE."
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 12:53 AM   #2574
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 12:58 AM   #2575
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Oh come on it was funny and you know it. It's like homophobes are rationalizing why they oppose gay marriage and then suddenly they realize that their own rules keep them from doing anything about actual gays.
I have no idea what it means to you, but I associate it with Reddit, obnoxiousness, and trolling.

I never felt you were a troll, but using that emote is self admission of trolling. So in your case it's discrediting of almost everything you said.

To me this is comparable to advocating an anti-zionist view then dropping a anti-semetic joke.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.