Earlier quoted context omitted.
And because people complain about the candidates each election, but never do anything about the system.
Voting for a third party presidential candidate does not count as "doing anything".
[deleted]
The 2016 Election
621–630 of 646 posts
Re: The 2016 Election
#622Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hillary's team states that she is still very opposed to gay marriage. She is simply lying now.
No she doesn't. The chain of emails you're referring to makes it clear that Hillary still believes her support of DOMA was justified to prevent a constitutional amendment, not that she still believes gay marriage is wrong. There is no evidence to suggest she opposes it now, and a little evidence to suggest she was lying in 2008.
Well that's a fantastic way of interpreting the email thread and flipping my comments.
During a debate in 2008, she said marriage was between a man and a woman. So no, she wasn't lying in 2008 -- nor did I ever imply such a thing -- that was likely her true sentiment.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2631#efmAdFAfY
At this point, you literally don't know who is putting what into her mouth, or what she will really do once in office. That's an absolutely scary thing.
Re: The 2016 Election
#623Earlier quoted context omitted.
And because people complain about the candidates each election, but never do anything about the system.
Voting for a third party presidential candidate does not count as "doing anything".
Except for demonstrating support for a third party candidate. You know, like voting is supposed to do.
Re: The 2016 Election
#624Earlier quoted context omitted.
And because people complain about the candidates each election, but never do anything about the system.
Voting for a third party presidential candidate does not count as "doing anything".
Right, it doesn't count as doing anything about the electoral system.
There are ways to do things about the electoral system, both within the parameters of partisan politics and outside of them (at least, in the latter case, in the states with direct citizen initiative.)
Re: The 2016 Election
#625Earlier quoted context omitted.
SNL writer Chris Kelly 'How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?'[0] Person thinks 40% of people are crazy, racist, hates women etc. Maybe the person who thinks that is the one not understanding the situation. Clinton: Read Wikileaks, study Clinton Foundation (Haiti) Trump: Read news from both sides msm and Breitbart & similar. Scott Adam…
Scott Adams blog has turned into sensless propaganda. From what I can gather by reading below[0] he does not like Clinton raising taxes. The rest of his points are such insightful gems as: "I don't know the best way to default ISIS .. negotiate trade policies .. neither do you but you probably think you do... Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am not smart enou…
Adams is very responsive on Twitter and he hosts daily Periscope streams where he takes questions. He disabled the comments on his blog because they were being swarmed with racism and spam. I'm sure if you write a counterpoint and tweet it at him, he'll at least see it.
Re: The 2016 Election
#626Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was 240 years ago. We recognize the value they added and understand them in their historical context.
That's a popular misconception, like "everyone thought the world was flat before Columbus reached America." The immorality of slavery was recognized hundreds of years before the founding of the US. It was abolished in France in the 1300s, in Sweden in 1335, etc. It was never really legal in England and that fact was recognized in 1706, about 40 years before Thomas Jefferson was born. The founders' condoning slavery w…
The founders were not "individually contemptible" because they couldn't destroy the institution of slavery at the same time they created an independent American nation. In fact, everyday slaveholders were not automatically "individually contemptible". Involvement in widespread cultural norms like slavery should not, in itself, be seen as a personal character indictment.
Re: The 2016 Election
#627Earlier quoted context omitted.
He also believes that Asians and Jews are on average the intellectual superiors of "white" people, so it's not clear to me how that's "white" supremacy. He's very clear that he separates the scientific question from the moral one. The belief that intelligence is largely genetic is fairly mainstream and supported by a large body of evidence. If he is committed to treating all groups of people with equal respect, that…
>He also believes that Asians and Jews are on average the intellectual superiors of "white" people, so it's not clear to me how that's "white" supremacy. but it is the literal definition of racism...
Is it also the definition of racism to acknowledge that some races may have higher incidences of certain diseases, like sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis? There are differences between the races. One of those differences is skin color. That doesn't mean it's the only difference.
The fact is that when you plot the results of IQ tests, the accepted measurement of intellectual capacity, along with race on a chart, a strong correlation is present. I don't think we should ostracize people who've performed this experiment and noted the results. It's not "racist" to perform this experiment, and it's not racist to acknowledge the widely-repeated results.
People usually say that the correlations demonstrate that the IQ test itself is racist. Maybe that's true. But just plotting race and IQ on the same graph and noting the outcome is not.
Re: The 2016 Election
#628> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying. Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalis…
I agree that this is not a good thing. No one should be fired for having controversial opinions or even being accused of a crime. I believe that "morality clause"-style firings should only occur when a) the employer is among the aggrieved parties (e.g., the employer accuses the employee of theft or other unlawful conduct); or b) the employee is convicted in a criminal court.
I've had way too much of people getting fired for petty personal disagreements or baseless accusations.
Re: The 2016 Election
#629Re: The 2016 Election
#630> His racist, isolationist policies ... Had to take a pause right there. (Disclosure: I am a Muslim, naturalized American citizen that emigrated to US in '79.) Critiques of Trump's positions are as exagerated as the candidate's own verbiage, perhaps even more so. I will not touch the "racist" item :) but as to "isolationist", this is false at face value. Non-aggression is not isolationism. Very clearly stating that U…
> Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. In that instance not racist since Islam isn't a race however that complete lack of nuance and the absolute torrent of shit he has said makes him incredibly dangerous.
As someone else noted above, "the media takes him literally, but not seriously and his supporters take him seriously, but not literally". Trump has since walked this position back to "extreme vetting" (though you can still find the original press release on his site).
Making exaggerated, hyperbolic statements that appeal to the emotional cortex is an intentional strategy employed by Trump to dog-whistle the media, and his masterful ability to bait the media is the only reason he's won anything up to this point. Showmanship is part of the game.
You need to look at the consistent elements in Trump's statements, which are abolishment of free trade, tight borders, and American protectionism. That's what he's serious about.