And I mean, that's a really good point! I am so sick of this woman telling me to vote for her because of her womanhood. That's her message right? I haven't actually looked at her platform, but I'm pretty sure that's the central idea. And even if it isn't I'm going to plant my flag on this rhetorical hill because I really want to talk about how minorities are doing something wrong.
Wow that is some thickly spread sarcasm. I'd say it's nearly too much sarcasm.
Do you disagree that some people will vote for her solely because she's a woman? Do you disagree that Clinton realises this, and she realises it makes sense to play the gender card to a degree?
Is it her central campaign narrative? No, and nobody suggested this. Does it factor in to some extent? Yeah, of course it does. Is this type of identity politics that we should be supporting or condemning? Well, we probably shouldn't support it, we should probably support more merit-based judgements.
That's all Bod was saying. I get your that actual beef with him is that he considers Trump more meritorious than Clinton. You should argue that point instead of this one.
#DNCLeaks.
How bad do you all think it really hurts Clinton with Bernie supporters?
I can't quite say for sure whether it'll significantly impact how Bernie supporters will vote come November.
I'm sure it'll push some of them away from Clinton because of her 'role' in all this, but where those voters go is yet to be seen, or what faction of Bernie supporters they'll come from. I can't imagine that there won't be polls conducted soon that will shed more light on the situation, but it's hard right now to really say much about who this will effect and how.
The one thing I can say for certain is that its bad for Clinton.
Although, it'll be interesting to see how the democratic party handles this. DWS has already issued a statement that she'll be resigning after the DNC, so I imagine that DWS will become the scapegoat of the entire thing and the media narrative will likely pass over Clinton, but it should be interesting to see if she or Bernie make any statements about it at the convention, and whether this will effect Bernie's support of Clinton.
EDIT: This is only round one of Hillary leaks, isn't it?
I've heard them tales of people mysteriously disappearing under the Clinton family rule, but it remains to see if it's something to this effect Julian will reveal.
Would be quite the killer if he did, pun extremely intended for
please laugh
To actually make a post here though..
I think I've got quite a different view on Trump. After quite the research, listening to his audiobook (art of the deal) and a bunch of argumentative vids on him/other candidates
I find the guy to be a great marketeer/salesman, manipulative genius, at times both ice cold or charitable, but always extremely successful in his goals.
Seems to me like he's played a cunning game of manipulation while speaking facts wrapped up to sound offensive to misrepresent his importance as an opponent.
Lots of explanations have been written about Trumps hidden salesman tactics, adding one example of his ruthless manipulation of media below
a
I don't buy for a second that he's racist, malevolent, an idiot, or winning by dumb luck.
Meanwhile he's up vs the most corrupt candidate ever, but yay bought protesters, yay social justice, yay first woman pres, yay.. etc.
What's the biggest argument for not voting Trump?
I think people think he's racist because he said he wants to get rid of illegal immigrants and he called them killers and rapists so maybe people think he's talking directly about Mexicans? Idk
I've heard them tales of people mysteriously disappearing under the Clinton family rule, but it remains to see if it's something to this effect Julian will reveal.
Would be quite the killer if he did, pun extremely intended for
please laugh
To actually make a post here though..
I think I've got quite a different view on Trump. After quite the research, listening to his audiobook (art of the deal) and a bunch of argumentative vids on him/other candidates
I find the guy to be a great marketeer/salesman, manipulative genius, at times both ice cold or charitable, but always extremely successful in his goals.
Seems to me like he's played a cunning game of manipulation while speaking facts wrapped up to sound offensive to misrepresent his importance as an opponent.
Lots of explanations have been written about Trumps hidden salesman tactics, adding one example of his ruthless manipulation of media below
a
I don't buy for a second that he's racist, malevolent, an idiot, or winning by dumb luck.
Meanwhile he's up vs the most corrupt candidate ever, but yay bought protesters, yay social justice, yay first woman pres, yay.. etc.
What's the biggest argument for not voting Trump?
Well, if we consider every assumption you've made about him to be true (playing the American people, still hiding his entire hand), then the biggest argument is that anyone who votes for him has no fucking clue what they're actually voting into office. They don't know what he believes in, what he actually stands for, or what he's going to do in office. They could be voting in a conservative, a theocrat, a liberal, the greatest ruler on earth, an absolute fucking madman, who fucking knows.
Rolling the dice like that when you're electing somebody to the most powerful position in the world is... well, stupid.
If you assume that what you say has a small egg of truth in it but overall we know what Trump looks like, then there are plenty of arguments against him.
He appears to be either incompetent, secretive or lazy, with secret plans to destroy ISIS and secret plans to enable jobs and secret plans to "Make America Great Again."
He's said he'd kill the families of terrorists. Newsflash: that's what terrorist organizations do. They target civilians. Donald fucking Trump wants the US to turn into a terrorist state in order to fight ISIS.
The other half of his rhetoric on foreign policy is isolationist, so I guess his actual plans for foreign policy are still 'secret' too.
He's said he'd basically default on US debt, which could crash the world economy harder than it did in 2008. "I'm the king of debt"
Trump is possibly the biggest threat to the 1st amendment that we currently have in our day and age. He's previously attempted to sue Bill Maher and the Onion for jokes they've made about him; He's said during his campaign that he'd open up the libel laws. (I've heard people compare him to Erdogan)
He looks like the typical fascist authoritarian in his speaking and rhetoric - many have noted that his speech at the RNC was more fitting for a dictator than a candidate for president. That's not an argument in and of itself, but it doesn't bode well for the way he may handle a country.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Illegal immigrants are illegal, if you don't want to get rid of them then you are actively saying you don't care about the law. Like saying you don't want shop lifters to be prosecuted. If you don't want them to be deported then you need to CHANGE THE LAW, not just say "oh no don't deport them!"...
He didn't call immigrants killers and rapists, he was talking about literal killers and rapists, which again, EVERYONE SHOULD WANT TO GET RID OF.
Yeah, absolutely, deport illegal immigrants that commit crimes (which we already do), but deporting 11 million immigrants would be catastrophic for the US economy.
Hillary Clinton has said she'd write & support immigration reform with a clear path to citizenship - all Trump has said is that he'd build a wall and destroy our economy.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Well, the FBI director already openly stated that she is guilty but won't be prosecuted, so there is no way there will ever be charges against her. Sorry, it's not going to happen!
If there's a different investigation over a different incident (which is what this would be were anything to come of it) then what he said about the server incident wouldn't be applicable.
And no it wouldn't, this argument that the US economy is propped up on ~3% of the population which consists of labourers below the minimum wage is just absurd! Does anyone really think this is true?
~3% of the population, but according to the population and labor force estimates of the article linked below, ~5% of the labor force (they have a far higher labor force participation rate than the average of the country, ~75% vs. ~63%). Even further, illegal/undocumented immigrants make up much higher percentages of the labor force the farther south you go. The article linked below states that they make up 10.2%, 9.4%, 8.9% of the labor force in Nevada, California, and Texas respectfully.
You think that, wage notwithstanding, the economies of those states wouldn't be hurt if 9% of their work force up and vanished?! What kind of madman are you!?!
Even further, they're seriously over represented in certain industries in those states, making them even more important to the function of the economy!!!
Yes, they do. Thanks for handing me a source you deem accurate.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
It's not doom and gloom and the crash of the economy if Americans replace aliens. And by the way, don't forget Clinton is saying she will raise minimum wage... How exactly can you claim that the USA is propped up by illegally underpaid immigrants whilst simultaneously claiming that raising minimum wage is good for the USA? Those are two contradictory ideas...
That's not what I'm saying at all, actually.
I'm saying illegal immigrants are grossly over represented in core industries in the US (agriculture, manufacturing), and cleaning those industries of all those workers will immediately harm the economy.
(Illegals are over represented in the first place because Americans don't actually want to work those jobs, so that could end up being quite the issue when looking at the recovery of those industries)
Raising the minimum wage is overdue.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Immediately stopping immigration while a solution can be formulated is the rational thing to do.
Not making any serious waves until after we've already formulated a solution is the real rational thing to do, but w/e.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
A wishy washy idea of "immigration reform with a clear path to citizenship" (hint: there is already a way for immigrants to become citizens, it's clear already...) shows that she has no idea what she is going to do, and even if she does come up with an idea it is likely to take decades if it can even be implemented. Not to mention you still have the problem of millions of former illegals now being paid proper wages, so THE ECONOMY WILL CRASH!!!
As soon as you make give illegals citizenship, all economic benefits of illegals vanishes.
As soon as you give [the most proportionally productive demographic in the country] [the protection of labor laws], all economic benefits of illegals vanishes.
Do you see the problem with this statement?
Currently, the path to citizenship is ridiculous. People like to joke that, "By the time you're done with it, you know more about American history than most Americans."
Reforming the path to citizenship and immigration laws is long overdue.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
I think you are missing the point. There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that she was grossly negligent and committed purgatory at the very least. And yet she will not be prosecuted. If she is not going to be prosecuted despite evidence, why do you think more evidence of some other issue will change that?
And I think you're putting words in my mouth. I made no implications about whether she'd face criminal charges, just that what Comey said doesn't change anything we didn't already know: It's extremely unlikely that anything will stick to her in a federal court (the court of public opinion is a very different issue).
Lots of good response and discussion, happy to see.
Will try to adress some arguments that wasn't responded too, then summarize my thoughts on what this election comes down to
sorry for the wall of text, made mexico pay for it
hope there are no typos
here we g0
Rolling the dice like that when you're electing somebody to the most powerful position in the world is... well, stupid.
Don't forget to keep the context of this election in mind
It'd be really hard to argue you're better off choosing a known evil over an arguable good, that being Clinton over Trump
There's always looking at a persons history over the course of his life to judge his character, in this case I find Trump to win lots, lose little, like america, and screw over individual people at times
He appears to be either incompetent, secretive or lazy, with secret plans to destroy ISIS and secret plans to enable jobs and secret plans to "Make America Great Again."
I think it's pretty clear that he's either pandering to votes, or keeping things secret to later negotiate with it.
This is something he's told people before when pushed to reveal his strategies. It's something he writes about in his book, just like how he explains why he's being so adamant by proposing that Mexico will pay for the wall.
The reasoning is that now he's set the frame for the negotiation WAY ahead of time. Making them pay for it may be a huge claim out of nowhere, but once you've clearly set the frame, then bring in arguments and other negotiating tactics, it's very likely he's going to come out of that ordeal with amazing results.
Remember USA is one of the worlds great superpowers, and Trump is absolutely putting worry in other world leaders as is, right now.
I tried finding the link for when he said this, but it seems like the media never wrote about it, besides it was a very brief point he made.
responding again to another point in the same quote
He appears to be either incompetent, secretive or lazy, with secret plans to destroy ISIS and secret plans to enable jobs and secret plans to "Make America Great Again."
If I'm not mistaken he was clear on this being for families knowingly hosting terrorists, or knowingly turning the other cheek.
Personally this isn't a big decider for Trump to me, it's one of his lesser supposed appeals, and certainly opposable
Either way, it wouldn't be any less evil than the various drone strikes of innocents "for the greater good" that go unnoticed, and it'd absolutely (imo) curve terrorism.
The other half of his rhetoric on foreign policy is isolationist, so I guess his actual plans for foreign policy are still 'secret' too.
He's said he'd basically default on US debt, which could crash the world economy harder than it did in 2008. "I'm the king of debt"
I'm not sure what your reasoning is on these two, yet alone what you're referring to, but either way I agree with Milo Yiannopoulos on this one; it's a cultural election this time, not necessarily about individual best policies, since we're faced with massive cultural issues right now and most presidential promises never fall true anyway.
Trump is possibly the biggest threat to the 1st amendment that we currently have in our day and age. He's previously attempted to sue Bill Maher and the Onion for jokes they've made about him; He's said during his campaign that he'd open up the libel laws. (I've heard people compare him to Erdogan)
I think these are just him banging his chest in form of lawsuits, but who knows.
One thing is for sure, the media knowingly lies to us on a daily basis, and better laws to prevent this wouldn't be a lot to ask for.
99% of journalism is an agenda driven joke right now.
I think this quote snippet is a good note for me personally to finish on.
Originally Posted by pouffywall
Well, if we consider every assumption you've made about him to be true (playing the American people, still hiding his entire hand), then the biggest argument is that anyone who votes for him has no fucking clue what they're actually voting into office. They don't know what he believes in, what he actually stands for, or what he's going to do in office. They could be voting in a conservative, a theocrat, a liberal, the greatest ruler on earth, an absolute fucking madman, who fucking knows.
I agree 100%, this is how I see it:
Bernie is uncapable but extremely well willing, certainly the heart in the right place but he cites outdated statistics and couldn't get a hold of the public as a politician
Seems like he's also split his votes in half by siding with Clinton in the end
Clinton is corrupt, without a doubt. She'd be the first female pres and she's joining arms with Bernie for votes and has probably promised him some leverage in return, so I think you could see that as the progressive candidate as of now. Personally I'd consider it a fair decision to vote for Clinton solely as a lesser evil, if you're set on Trump being bad.
Trump is a manipulative genius, certainly capable to wrap his head around the job, citing up to date statistics and managing the public extremely well, but there's really no certain way of knowing what his true intentions are.
Don't forget to keep the context of this election in mind
It'd be really hard to argue you're better off choosing a known evil over an arguable good, that being Clinton over Trump
There's always looking at a persons history over the course of his life to judge his character, in this case I find Trump to win lots, lose little, like america, and screw over individual people at times
Saying that he "screws over individual people at times" really underplays that part of his history. There's Trump U, there's the countless cases of him not paying people who've rendered him services, there's a history of him taking personal responsibility for every positive accomplishment he's made but him blaming all his failures on other people. Of course, there's the instances where 4 of his businesses filed for bankruptcy.
Not to mention his isn't anything sort of a vast accomplishment or rags to riches story. He inherited a grand fortune and turned it into a larger grand fortune (only arguably, nobody actually knows what he's worth. He's just a self proclaimed billionaire, there's no real evidence of it).
Clinton has a history of actually pushing boundaries, especially in her younger years. In school, and as a lawyer, she had a wide array of accomplishments. She was a very proactive first lady and one of the most productive first ladies in American history, and of course there is evidence of serious corruption especially once she became a congresswoman for New York and Secretary of State.
With Hillary Clinton, we know from her history that she fights for the American people - only absolutely secondary to her donors and big money interests, but there is still a history of it there.
Trump on the other hand, only has a history of fighting for Trump. There's no history of him ever going out of his way to serve the people (the fact that he rails against trade deals even though he outsources tons of jobs comes to mind).
Originally Posted by Hattersin
I think it's pretty clear that he's either pandering to votes, or keeping things secret to later negotiate with it.
This is something he's told people before when pushed to reveal his strategies. It's something he writes about in his book, just like how he explains why he's being so adamant by proposing that Mexico will pay for the wall.
The reasoning is that now he's set the frame for the negotiation WAY ahead of time. Making them pay for it may be a huge claim out of nowhere, but once you've clearly set the frame, then bring in arguments and other negotiating tactics, it's very likely he's going to come out of that ordeal with amazing results.
Remember USA is one of the worlds great superpowers, and Trump is absolutely putting worry in other world leaders as is, right now.
I tried finding the link for when he said this, but it seems like the media never wrote about it, besides it was a very brief point he made.
The point of what I said was that his plans are so vague we don't even know what his values are or what he'd fight for. They're so secret and vague it's like his entire candidacy is a rogue entity. Maybe that works in business, but that should NOT be something the American people should be comfortable voting for. I mean, c'mon.
i.e. (not an actual quote, just an example)
"What is this candidacy about?"
"Well, I'm going to make America great again."
"And how are you going to do that? What economic, social and foreign stances are you taking to accomplish that?"
"Look I'm just going to make America great again."
We simply don't know what he's about. He might push to half military spending and he privatize the VA, or he might push to double military spending and pour money into the VA, we just don't know.
Originally Posted by Hattersin
If I'm not mistaken he was clear on this being for families knowingly hosting terrorists, or knowingly turning the other cheek.
Personally this isn't a big decider for Trump to me, it's one of his lesser supposed appeals, and certainly opposable
Either way, it wouldn't be any less evil than the various drone strikes of innocents "for the greater good" that go unnoticed
Yeah, you're mistaken :<
You can see that he actually implied that the idea was to leverage the (lives of) family members in order to... idk, detain the terrorists? Manipulate them into a position where you can take them out? Of course those last bits are are speculation, but he's probably meaning to go somewhere along those lines with them.
Although, I have to give props on the drone strike thing, that slips the mind of a lot of people. I personally think specifically targeting unaffiliated civilians is worse by virtue than not minding hitting civilians as collateral, but Trump hasn't actually said anything about the drone program that I've heard of anyway. If he's saying obscene things like "target [civilians]" than I can't imagine he's against the drone program at all
Originally Posted by Hattersin
and it'd absolutely (imo) curve terrorism.
This is actually very false and isn't at all supported by the results of our actions in the region. History shows that every time we get more and more involved in the region, every time we take out civilians and bomb hospitals w/e, people turn around and call us their enemy. Obviously, if we're killing their family, their neighbors, we basically ARE their enemies.
These kinds of actions in the middle east just make us lose more and more potential allies and inflate the threat against the US.
Originally Posted by Hattersin
I think these are just him banging his chest in form of lawsuits, but who knows.
One thing is for sure, the media knowingly lies to us on a daily basis, and better laws to prevent this wouldn't be a lot to ask for.
99% of journalism is an agenda driven joke right now.
Journalism right now obviously isn't perfect (wikileaks collaborations between DNC and media to spin narratives about Bernie Sanders comes to mind), but violating the first amendment to give them greater accountability isn't the answer. That's a slippery slope that ultimately leaves the powerful with greater ability to control the media through fear. (Imagine if a news organization ran a story about some high caliber politician with a lot of influence - that politician could punish that news organization through lawsuits to no end and would crush any massive resistance against them)
Plus, it's a little harsh to say they outright lie, which is just the issue with holding them accountable. Most often they use one side or one aspect of the story to twist a narrative, which isn't lying per se but is instead simply being disingenuous. That makes it even scarier to imagine that Trump wants to punish them through suits, because that's an EXTREMELY blurry line.
Originally Posted by Hattersin
I'm not sure what your reasoning is on these two, yet alone what you're referring to, but either way I agree with Milo Yiannopoulos on this one; it's a cultural election this time, not necessarily about individual best policies, since we're faced with massive cultural issues right now and most presidential promises never fall true anyway.
I think Milo can put out some good quotes sometimes about free speech etc. etc. and I really respect that aspect about him, but I believe he's dead wrong when he says that Trump is the ideal defender of free speech or the final bastion of respectable culture or something like that.
Like I mentioned in my last post and covered your response to earlier in this one, Trump's history and rhetoric shows that he HATES free speech. He's one of the biggest threats to the 1st amendments we've ever faces, where he'll sue people who even make JOKES about him, and then says that we should open up the libel laws to potentially allow him to sue MORE people who say bad things about him. That's pretty counter to Milo's idea that Trump is a champion of free speech who says whatever he wants without worrying about PC (plus, even that is giving him way too much credit. His comments on the judge handling his Trump U case make it sound like he's actually racist. The election of a possible racist could potentially create an even stronger PC movement as a reactionary type response against him.
Either way, this isn't just an election about culture. Culture exists as a phenomenon on its own, it isn't decided by elections or by people who try to tell you "this is our culture now."
Not only that, but if Trump's (few) policies actually get passed, it could mean terrible things for the country, our international standing, and our current way of living.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
I wouldn't call <20% "far higher". You have to remember you are comparing a very small population to a very large one, and an unskilled to a skilled one at that.
Have you looked at the rates of labor participation for every other demographic in the country? They're totally outclassed by the labor participation rate of illegals.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Of course they would be hurt, but they would recover very quickly and even before recovery the damage would be so minor.
It is not the economic collapse that you suppose, it's some gardeners, builders, farmers, not turning up for work... How exactly do you extrapolate that into the apocalypse, pray tell?
"It's just potentially 25% of the agricultural industry being deported, there's no way that could be a bad thing. People wanting to join the labor force will come out of the woodwork anyway and those jobs will be quickly filled"
Try harder, this isn't good trolling.
The very idea of people not being in the labor force is that they AREN'T LOOKING TO FILL JOBS. So when illegals make up 9% of the labor force in some states, there are a lot of jobs there that won't get filled again any time soon if those illegals disappear.
In industries like agriculture, where the shelf life of products is fairly short and everybody needs to utilize the products of the industry, the potential impact of a supply shock would effect every household in the area. If (say) only 10% of the jobs just lost in the industry simply can't get refilled, then that's a significant permanent effect on that industry and the American people.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
They are over represented /because/ those industries can charge them wages below the minimum. That is literally the only advantage of utilising illegal immigrants.
And that said I can guarantee you that not every country in the USA is propped up by illegal labour. So what does that tell us? They are used because of convenience, not necessity.
Any industries can charge them below the minimum According to the article you link in your last post, more and more illegals are working the same management and service jobs whites prevalently are, so they must be a decently skilled population. Kinda leads you to believe the advantage to utilizing illegal immigrants is simply that illegal immigrants are willing to work jobs Americans aren't.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
So if someone is having a fit you don't restrain them because "lol lets not make waves until we've found a solution to the root problem"..? No of course not, restrain them and stop immediate harm, then find a solution.
How about if the water supply is contaminated: "lol let's just drink the water for now and later we can figure out how to purify it"..? Sounds stupid doesn't it? Don't drink the water, figure out how to purify it first!
And yet with illegal immigration you are saying "lol don't worry about all the negatives, let's just let it happen until we can figure something out". It's not rational, it's not logical, it's just pandering to the left and the misguided idea that "allowing criminals to break the law is tolerance!"
Again, try harder.
The economic positives of these illegal immigrants far outweighs the negatives currently. The only potential downside I can see, the virtue of their illegal'ness aside, is that they commit crimes at far higher rates than the rest of the population. So, every one of your scenarios is just dumb.
Yes, we should obviously think of a better solution before we deport 5% of our workforce and risk economic consequences to core industries like agriculture that we may not be able to quickly fix.
Luckily, that's exactly what it sounds like Hillary Clinton wants to do.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Yes, I see the problem, the assertions are false. Per person the economic benefit provided by illegal immigrants is far lower than legal immigrants.
I'll concede I should have pinpointed the industries they're major contributors to, but the sidestep from industrial productivity (production of real assets, implicit economic effects) to economic stimulus is misleading and disingenuous.
Think about what happens if a quarter of labor in agriculture kicks the bucket and some supply shock does occur. That's a larger proportion of citizens' paycheck going to groceries and less to other things, in a time when people already have stagnating wages and incomes.
The median income of an in illegal household is 36k vs 50k for citizens. Their total spending is around $150b compared to $10t for USA (lol), meaning that illegals generate less than half the stimulus of citizens per person.
10 trillion eh?
Again, the sidestep from the real assets they contribute to that also have economic repercussions to the financial stimulus tied with their households.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
What's more, yes if you were to enforce labour laws on immigrants, then there is absolutely no benefit in hiring them over citizens. They ONLY provide ANY benefit (and let's be clear, that benefit is "cheaper than robots") if illegals don't have to follow the law. If they were protected by labour law then normal citizens would be able to compete with them for jobs, making their entire class obsolete.
There's no benefit in hiring them over citizens in that case, but again, their significantly higher rate of labor force participation and propensity to manual labor jobs suggests they're harder working and more willing to work and work more physically stressful jobs that Americans are apparently above.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Yeah you are right, just lower the barrier, great plan.
Remind me again, what exactly is wrong with having to learn a little American history? Apologies to all the third world immigrants who just want to come and work their dead end labour job for $6/hr, but I don't see why it is so hard to learn a little history if you want to become a citizen...
It's a little subjective and value based to say we should lower the barrier for citizenship, and I'd much rather you call me out on that than try to be cheeky about "what's wrong with having to learn a little history."
hey is this about the size of trump's wall or is his supposed to be a little bigger
According to the article you link in your last post, more and more illegals are working the same management and service jobs whites prevalently are, so they must be a decently skilled population. Kinda leads you to believe the advantage to utilizing illegal immigrants is simply that illegal immigrants are willing to work jobs Americans aren't. 