2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIV: May This Entertainment Never End

[LuckyNumber7]

How do we know it was someone from the 'radical left'? Of course, it's fairly likely, but we don't know for sure.

Yeah, look, and you'll have to define what you mean by the 'moderate left' too.

The "moderate left" was just an analogy. You know, my lazy analogies that are... lazy.

The 'radical left'/'moderate left' against 'radical Muslim'/'moderate Muslim' is a pretty lazy comparison too.

I don't know why it's lazy, but ok.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

They absolutely do not and your previous posts about Muslims was super weird. They absolutely should have no obligation whatsoever to come out and say "I don't stand for this" when something bad is done in their name.

Fucking enlighten me as to what I've said is "super weird." Was it when I had a view that was slightly different than yours? Sorry.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

How do we know they were of the left?

I mean the more you ask that, it's just arguing semantics. Are they truly "from the left?" At what point does perception matter more than definition? The way people in this country view it, especially on the right, yes, that person is from the left.

 

[PhilsFan]

[tweet]788031185859379200[/tweet]

 

[Axver]

I mean the more you ask that, it's just arguing semantics. Are they truly "from the left?" At what point does perception matter more than definition? The way people in this country view it, especially on the right, yes, that person is from the left.

I'm saying we don't know the culprit, so why assume it is somebody from the left? I've seen people speculate it could have been a disaffected Republican - which I find unlikely, but let's not go attributing the act to anyone without proof. Hell, in the absence of a known culprit, there's a chance - admittedly also unlikely - that this was not even political, but an act of violence by some unstable or deranged individual. It's not as if there's never before been an event that's appeared political but subsequently turned out to not be so.

And yes, your comments about Muslims needing to condemn terrorists are fucking weird. I thought we had long since moved on from the idea of people possessing collective responsibility for the acts of random individuals with whom they have only the vaguest of things in common. Do I need to denounce every New Zealander, every atheist, every Australian citizen, every rugby or cricket or Aussie Rules fan, every university graduate, every historian, every twenty-something, and every man who commits a crime because in the loosest sense we share something in common?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm saying we don't know the culprit, so why assume it is somebody from the left? I've seen people speculate it could have been a disaffected Republican - which I find unlikely, but let's not go attributing the act to anyone without proof. Hell, in the absence of a known culprit, there's a chance - admittedly also unlikely - that this was not even political, but an act of violence by some unstable or deranged individual. It's not as if there's never before been an event that's appeared political but subsequently turned out to not be so.

Ok, I'll give you that. There are some odd chances that it could be someone very specific. But at that point, you're starting to talk about "was aid given too soon?" The matter of the fact is that right now, this is what it looks like. And perception filtered through media is how society will chew it up. And if, as the left, you don't make enough noise, you're perceived as turning a blind eye.

And yes, your comments about Muslims needing to condemn terrorists are fucking weird. I thought we had long since moved on from the idea of people possessing collective responsibility for the acts of random individuals with whom they have only the vaguest of things in common. Do I need to denounce every New Zealander, every atheist, every Australian citizen, every rugby or cricket or Aussie Rules fan, every university graduate, every historian, every twenty-something, and every man who commits a crime because in the loosest sense we share something in common?

First, I'm not sure that was what he was referring to.

Second, it's insulting that you think I'm suggesting muslims are responsible for acts that people who subscribe to a twisted view of their religion commit. Very simply put, I believe the Muslim community (as a community, not just any random Muslim) has a role in educating people as to who they are and what they stand for. To suggest this isn't true is like saying black people have no role in fighting for equality and fair treatment. Women have no role in fighting for their rights to equal pay or to combat sexism. Gay people have no role in fighting for their right to wed. This is the exact same point you're making when you say muslims have no obligation to do anything at all. As an individual gay male I have no responsibility or obligation to do anything, that's true. But the community as a whole absolutely does. Whether or not I want to partake is my decision as an individual. The same applies to anyone who wants their position to be understood. From the individual perspective, and from the community's perspective.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm not an anarchist by any means and do not support property damage as a practical means of systemic change.

That said, not only do I feel no moral obligation whatsoever to monetarily right someone else's wrong, I'm not sure that I care for the idea of being lumped in with another group because I possess a common enemy with them. Broadly generalizing people into factions of "left" and "right," broken down into smaller subgroups of "radical left," "moderate left," "radical right" and "moderate right" also seems misguided to me.

For what it's worth, I was merely using the term "radical left" and "moderate left" as analogies. Hence why I stuck to the quotation marks.

 

[gump]

Second, it's insulting that you think I'm suggesting muslims are responsible for acts that people who subscribe to a twisted view of their religion commit. Very simply put, I believe the Muslim community (as a community, not just any random Muslim) has a role in educating people as to who they are and what they stand for. To suggest this isn't true is like saying black people have no role in fighting for equality and fair treatment. Women have no role in fighting for their rights to equal pay or to combat sexism. Gay people have no role in fighting for their right to wed. This is the exact same point you're making when you say muslims have no obligation to do anything at all. As an individual gay male I have no responsibility or obligation to do anything, that's true. But the community as a whole absolutely does. Whether or not I want to partake is my decision as an individual. The same applies to anyone who wants their position to be understood. From the individual perspective, and from the community's perspective.

This is such a twisted view. Showing solidarity to victims of a crime is quite different from inferring an obligation for a group to take responsibility for the actions of an individual who simply shares a certain trait with that group. This is not too far away from the #Muslimsreportstuff argument.

In truth, these statements are more often than not used to blame minorities for the isolated actions of certain individuals, and reinforce prejudices and bisases against them. You often hear that blacks need to denounce attacks against the police, that Muslims need to denounce terrorism, or that legal migrants need to denounce illegal immigration. And yet, you never hear such calls when white supremacists attack minorities, religious conservatives attack abortion clinics, or vigilates attack migrants. People should denounce these acts on the basis of their human decency, not because they are members of such and such groups. There's no special responsibility here.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It's like you quoted me, but you didn't read what was written in the quote.

You literally quote the part where I say..

you think I'm suggesting muslims are responsible for acts that people who subscribe to a twisted view of their religion commit. Very simply put, I believe the Muslim community (as a community, not just any random Muslim) has a role in educating people as to who they are and what they stand for

And you follow it up by saying ...

inferring an obligation for a group to take responsibility for the actions of an individual who simply shares a certain trait with that group.

Blows my mind.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The great thing about donations? They're optional.

If somebody feels that they should donate to help right a wrong? Go nuts.

If you don't? Don't.

Why the fuck are we arguing about it for five pages?

 

[anitram]

^

Seriously. Like I said, to each his own.

I saw a psychologist on CNN discussing "election-related anxiety" and how she has to, on a daily basis, "decatastrophize" people. Is that a word?? Anyway, she suggested turning off media. If only.

 

[Hewson]

Why the fuck are we arguing about it for five pages?

Cause Orange Donnie has been a bit quiet (for him) for a couple of days and next debate isn't till tomorrow.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Cause Orange Donnie has been a bit quiet (for him) for a couple of days and next debate isn't till tomorrow.

Winner.

 

[the iron horse]

I’ve been searching this thread on Hillary Clinton and corruption and have not found any discussions going on. Maybe I missed it somewhere.

For the first time since Ronald Reagan I will be voting for the Republican candidate for president. I agree Donald Trump has flaws. He is far from perfect but compared to Hillary Clinton, he appears almost like a saint.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I thought you were a republican the whole time.

 

[BVS]

I’ve been searching this thread on Hillary Clinton and corruption and have not found any discussions going on. Maybe I missed it somewhere.

We've had several threads, so yeah, you missed it.

For the first time since Ronald Reagan I will be voting for the Republican candidate for president. I agree Donald Trump has flaws. He is far from perfect but compared to Hillary Clinton, he appears almost like a saint.

This is so sad, on so many levels. I mean I know where it comes from, and a Mack truck full of facts could hit you and you still wouldn't see it, but it's just sad.

Yeah Hillary is flawed, but Trump is dangerous.

A serial fabricator
An authoritarian
An assailant
He won't take nuking Europe off the table
He wants to remove bases from countries unless they pay him
He wants to track people of certain religions


But oh yeah Benghazi and the 13 Republican lead investigations that couldn't come up with anything


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Diemen]

If corruption worries you, try a search on Donald Trump.

 

[gump]

It's like you quoted me, but you didn't read what was written in the quote.

You figuratively quote the part where I say..

And you follow it up by saying ...

Blows my mind.

Come on, this is not too hard. You are subsuming individuals into groups, and by doing this you essentially overlook their own individuality identity.

Very simply put, I believe the Muslim community (as a community, not just any random Muslim) has a role in educating people as to who they are and what they stand for.

You presume that there is such a thing as the "Muslim community" that is and stands as one entity. Or a unified gay community that stands and thinks as one. Bias and discrimination - particularly of the subconscious kind - usually start by a process of deindividualization. Which is why you hear people asking the [insert minority here] community to act as one, whereas the very idea of a "white community" doesn't even make sense. Because the latter is treated as a collection of individuals with their own views, emotions and motivations, not as a unified group that needs to take a "stand" vis-a-vis others.

 

[BEAL]

We've had several threads, so yeah, you missed it.


But oh yeah Benghazi and the 13 Republican lead investigations that couldn't come up with anything


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Well, that's because those investigations were rigged. We need another panel to investigate, but this one will be different. We'll go back to Salem trials, and if she floats, she's a witch!

Make America Great Again

 

[gump]

Trump sounds like a nice guy, part 1562:

A People’s History of Donald Trump's Business Busts and Countless Victims

Trump regularly cheats at golf, even revising his scorecard after a match to transform defeat into victory, according to two people who have played with him. He persuaded an elderly couple who ran a Florida antique store to let him “try out” two valuable pieces, then refused to return or pay for them, according to someone close to the Trump family. He bought expensive jewelry at Bulgari on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue, then colluded with the store to have empty boxes supposedly containing his purchase shipped out of state so he could dodge New York sales tax, court records show. After dragging a buddy through years of litigation, Trump told the man he had filed the suit only because he was angry the friend had not given him enough public credit for his success, according to a person who witnessed the conversation.

When business executives came to his office, Trump bragged about his current wife, Melania, and showed them nude photographs from her modeling days, two bankers say. Trump encourages staff at the Trump Organization to tell him the faults of co-workers who are standing there, creating a vicious corporate environment, a former executive says. His niece and nephew sued him, alleging Trump used his influence over his then-demented father to rewrite his will and cut out his brother’s side of the family. Enraged by the suit, Trump reneged on a family commitment to pay the medical bills for his nephew’s sick baby. (They settled under confidential terms.)

...
Another example emerged the following year. Trump purchased an old hotel and adjacent apartment building for redevelopment on Central Park South, one of the toniest streets in Manhattan. A little more than 100 tenants occupied the rent-controlled apartments, but Trump launched a campaign to drive them out, according to court documents filed by city and state officials. He filed a barrage of what the city called “nuisance suits” against the residents. He cut off their heat and hot water. He tried to move homeless people into empty apartments to annoy or even frighten the residents. He decreased security for the building, and over those 18 months, the number of burglaries in the building skyrocketed.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Come on, this is not too hard. You are subsuming individuals into groups, and by doing this you essentially overlook their own individuality identity.



You presume that there is such a thing as the "Muslim community" that is and stands as one entity. Or a unified gay community that stands and thinks as one. Bias and discrimination - particularly of the subconscious kind - usually start by a process of deindividualization. Which is why you hear people asking the [insert minority here] community to act as one, whereas the very idea of a "white community" doesn't even make sense. Because the latter is treated as a collection of individuals with their own views, emotions and motivations, not as a unified group that needs to take a "stand" vis-a-vis others.

Come on? You just basically accused me of effectively blaming muslims for jihadist actions. Are you serious?


Whether you like it or not, [insert minority here] will be perceived as a group. And perception is all that's relevant when it comes to higher order actions like this. You can cross your arms and demand individuality, but that doesn't help fix anything. Are you a minority of any sort? Maybe you think I think "the Muslim community" refers to a gathering of everyone Muslim. Maybe you think I think "the gay community" refers to everyone who shows up to a pride parade. Maybe you don't fundamentally understand what "community" means in this context. Using "community" in this context isn't "overlooking individual identity." Community in this context very literally encompasses the diverse cultures and subcultures from within a very broad group of people. I've in no way implied that one speaks for all, whatsoever. This is the very point of the use of the "Muslim community" term. Muslims of all sorts and all kinds don't want to have terrorists and jihadists incorporated into their collective "community." Just like liberals don't want someone who fucking bombed a political institution for being racist in their "community."


And please don't ever fucking tell me about the gay community.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I’ve been searching this thread on Hillary Clinton and corruption and have not found any discussions going on. Maybe I missed it somewhere.

For the first time since Ronald Reagan I will be voting for the Republican candidate for president. I agree Donald Trump has flaws. He is far from perfect but compared to Hillary Clinton, he appears almost like a saint.

That's because nobody from the Trump side of things has shown their face in here since before the Billy Bush tapes...

But there has been plenty of talk of Hillary corruption from non Republicans.

There are plenty of people who plan to vote for Hillary based solely on her being the lesser of two (or four) evils. I count myself in that category.

But there hasn't been anyone to actually defend Trump's actions and words and present an argument on why he's the lesser of two evils in a while... so please, by all means, step right up.

Reality is this is an election in which the Republicans could have walked to victory. The only way they could lose is to put forth a candidate so vile, so unbelievably and obviously unqualified for the job that there'd be no choice but to overlook Clinton's many flaws and vote for her.

And low and behold, that's exactly what they did.

If the GOP hadn't become a clown car in a dumpster fire, they'd be looking at a distinct possibility of owning all three branches, what with the potential restructuring of the supreme court over the next couple of years.

Instead, they're looking at extinction.

 

[LemonMelon]

There are plenty of people who plan to vote for Hillary based solely on her being the lesser of two (or four) evils. I count myself in that category.

Being a citizen of what is shaking out to be a particularly blue state this time around, I want to exercise my right to vote for a third party, but it's just not happening. Ganja Gary has fallen off the deep end and the more I read about Jill Stein, the less enthused I am about her.

I may vote for Hillary just to really nail home that I didn't vote for Trump.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If there was a viable third option I would easily cast my vote in that direction. A well funded independent who could speak to moderates on both sides could have made things very interesting.


I wonder if Mike Bloomberg sometimes looks at what has become of this election and regrets his decision not to run. He may have been able to deny either candidate the ability to obtain 270, and things could have gotten very interesting in the House with all of the Republican defectors from Trump.

Ultimately though if it came to it the NRA would threaten Republican senators and Trump would have won in the House after all, so it's likely he made the correct call by sitting this one out.

 

[anitram]

For the first time since Ronald Reagan I will be voting for the Republican candidate for president. I agree Donald Trump has flaws. He is far from perfect but compared to Hillary Clinton, he appears almost like a saint.

Sure, when you read the sorts of sources that you do regularly.

 

[BVS]

Sure, when you read the sorts of sources that you do regularly.

THIS


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Diemen]

(Post deleted. Please refrain from personal attacks.)

 

[BEAL]

If there was a viable third option I would easily cast my vote in that direction. A well funded independent who could speak to moderates on both sides could have made things very interesting.


I wonder if Mike Bloomberg sometimes looks at what has become of this election and regrets his decision not to run. He may have been able to deny either candidate the ability to obtain 270, and things could have gotten very interesting in the House with all of the Republican defectors from Trump.

Ultimately though if it came to it the NRA would threaten Republican senators and Trump would have won in the House after all, so it's likely he made the correct call by sitting this one out.

Just wait and see what happens to the GOP after this election. I think you'll start getting more "outsiders" coming into the party, a la Tea Party years ago. They'll fracture even more, and eventually there may become a 3rd Party of old school GOP lawmakers.

Not sure if something like that will happen with the Dems, as in will more socialist/Bernie type candidates start running under the D label, continuing this "movement" that Bernie started?

I think it's less likely

 

[LemonMelon]

Wow, Trump's average has dropped below 40% again.

Time for some scorched earth goodness in debate #3.

 

[Hewson]

Should make for some entertaining viewing.