Never understood this repeated TTH argument. Why must he be either / or? Why not both / and?Originally Posted by Boydy
@mokbull Then my apologies, did not see that part of your argument, but most American exceptionalism arguments are so devoid of their original context as to be meaningless.
Look, I'm just trying to belittle him for fun. Take your serious points about identity elsewhere.
Fair enough, I'll leave them to the high minded, logical, model of probity that was the national Brexit debate.
I'm not claiming 'we're' any better.
Brexceptionalism.
Speak for yourself.
You had Ricardo arguing comparative advantage at one point in time. Peak democracy.
In other news, Bill Clinton paid for Hillary's private email server with taxpayer money. This election could have been so easy...
When MokBull first turned up here it was under the guise of a fully Czech future tennis professional, and he posted a load of pictures of some other guy on a bus trip pretending it was him. He then signed up with his current persona but using the name 'Koba', and for a while he'd carry on arguments with himself using the two accounts. Presumably that's clouded the issue in Boydy's mind.
It's only really Mert who that argument comes up with anyway, and there it's just to lol at him. When he's Turkish he'll defend stabbings all day long but when he's American he wants them wiped from the crime stats because those nasty black gang members just can't be controlled.
To be fair i did get my first kiss under a moonlight sky at a tennis tournament in Croatia
Donald paid for his wife with tax payers' money.
Executive summary: Cable news needs a horserace. It’s the only way cable news knows how to fill all the time in the 24 hour cycle, and keep its advertisers happy.
https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinto...990#.ra8ic5jvh
Image (spoiler for size):
Toggle Spoiler
Mike Schur posted a load of tweets in that format last week after Trump was a twat when Dwayne Wade's cousin copped it.
I enjoyed that.
Where's the part where he's an elected official engaging in corruption? His whole platform is 'I engaged in this corruption, I was a special interest, this is why I need to be put in charge because I know how to fix it.'Executive summary: Cable news needs a horserace. It’s the only way cable news knows how to fill all the time in the 24 hour cycle, and keep its advertisers happy.
https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinto...990#.ra8ic5jvh
Image (spoiler for size):
Toggle Spoiler
Surely you understanding the distinction?
CNN Poll w/Trump leading 45-43:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8913/h...st-ben-shapiro
That is a very odd idea in general.
"I used to be an axe-murderer (I did all the best axe murders), so if you give me an axe, I promise I can stop all the axe murders."
EDIT: "Also, don't vote for my opponent. She used to be an axe-murderer."
It takes an astonishing amount of credulity to convince yourself that only someone proven to act corruptly can stop corruption.
Mental. There's basically some kind of mass Stockholm Syndrome now.
No. Who else would know how the corruption works? If you haven't been on both sides of the equation, you have no understanding of the means in which it can be stopped. It is 100% rational.
Trump hasn't been on both sides of the equation so that's that one laid to rest.
It's also utter shit, and if true would make him a terrible candidate for president.
The Dallas Morning News supporting Clinton - the first time they've supported a Democrat since FDR at the height of WWII - is good fun. Not that it'll swap many, if any, voters - but it shows not everybody in Texas is a mental.
But if he was President he would be...
Hillary Clinton destroyed her phones with a hammer after they were used so that the emails on them could not be retrieved and then claimed that she, as the Secretary of State, did not know that (c) referred to classified material.
And yes, not voting for her is mental.
As they note in their editorial, her misjudgements pale in comparison to Trump's complete ill-preparedness for the job.
You might want to read it, assuming you don't only focus on the propaganda coming from Trump Tower.
Yeah but Trump will have advisers who do most of the heavy lifting who are conservative and probably overall pretty reasonable. Clinton is a guarantee to just further entrench corruption and incompetence with absolutely no alternative outcome.
Considering he keeps firing his advisers and getting even more mental ones by the week. Nah.
But guys, they probably might be overall pretty reasonable.
Better than guaranteed treasonous and corrupt.
It's America, mate. It's all corrupt. Even you.
Treasonous you could argue but him being corrupt was the centrepiece of your argument not half a page ago.
This is a patently ludicrous justification for voting Trump. When you're having to cite that he's effectively a prop, or mouthpiece, for unelected 'advisers' to circumvent justified charges that he is himself ill-prepared, you're into seriously choppy waters.
The logical next step, of course, is whether Trump would have the necessary understanding, or indeed willingness, to challenge the view of these invisible, supposedly reasonable advisers in the way that he should. The answer, based on all available evidence thus far, is no. He doesn't do detail, or sensible thought-out policy. He's had over a year in the public eye as part of this process, and that's a more than reasonable timeframe in which to judge that it represents a huge weakness.
You know this, of course. Clinton is an appalling candidate, and a sensible, safe Democratic pick would be sweeping the board. Her misjudgements rightly give people pause, but given the clear alternative here it seems entirely reasonable to support her irrespective of those failings.
Still, Donald Trump. We shouldn't worry about voting for him because a number of invisible, unnamed, shadowy and unelected special advisers will actually do all the heavy lifting and he'll just articulate what they tell him to. Great. It'll be like when the Nazis set up Petain at Vichy and told him what his country's policies were going to be from now on.
1. Vote for Trump, because of his history of unrepentant corruption and bribery.
2. Vote for Trump, because he's not actually going to make decisions (except when he wants to).
The state of that.
Yeah but those advisors are principled patriots known to the Republican base with extensive track records, the sort of people that won't just sell 20% of US uranium reserves in return for a few million dollars in speaking fees. I'll take my chances.
So you're prepared to allow unelected advisors to run the country without any participation, check or challenge by the elected politician, with said elected politician acting solely as a conduit for their decisions to be implemented.
The fucking state of you.
That will be the result regardless.
Recent polls are actually pretty worrying. Most of the battleground states still seem to be in Clinton's favor, but that can still change. Debates are going to be really intense
Perhaps, but one assumes that the holder of elected office should have the competence to challenge advice, actually proffer a different idea, have some developed policies in mind etc. It's not like you're voting for Mayor of Wasilla, you're voting for the fucking President. Not only that, but ultimately if President Trump decides to do something stupid then it's not as if his advisers can stop him, even if they are 'patriots'.
If you accept that Trump is too ill-prepared to do any of that and he's just going to wave everything through, then we might as well impose a technocratic government and be done with it. A Mario Monti for the new American century.
He's not going to win. I wouldn't worry.
Today's political news in a nutshell:
Trump calls Clinton a warmonger while pitching military expansion
Just a reminder that the Republicans aren't victims here, but really, truly have the leader they deserve.
It's like a party populated by six-year olds. And not "reading at or above grade level" six-year olds, either.A bill to fund efforts against the Zika virus collapses, after the GOP tries to include provisions defunding Planned Parenthood, and overturning a ban on the Confederate flag at veterans' cemeteries.
...the President is always largely a figurehead, it's his broad platform that receives a mandate from the people.
What planet do you live on where democracy doesn't work exactly how I just described it anyways?
He's 100% going to win, as I've been saying for months now. You don't know America.
You realize both parties do that all the time right? It's called democracy, when you have more of your allies in Congress, you get to pass legislation that your constituents want to see implemented.
He's down 4 in New Jersey (Obama won by 18) and down 3 in Rhode Island (Obama won by 27) and is winning one of the Congressional districts in Maine (Obama won by 15; no Republican has won a delegate since the 80s).
https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/p...ngland-states/
Recent battleground state polls in the critical states all have Trump either winning or within the margin of error. Effective performances in the debate and Hillary is done, the media has shot itself in the foot, any halfway decent performance will be perceived as an incredible triumph by a public who has been told incessantly that Trump is a cartoon character monster.
I would have assumed that they'd recognise the importance of a public health bill to counter a serious (and already global) health risk, and let it through without infecting it with political hack stuff. Like real grownup politicians manage to do in real functional democracies every day.
It shouldn't bother you really though. I think we both agree with the thesis statement - the Republicans have the leader they deserve. Why we feel that way might be slightly different, of course.
Current odds have Hilary 2/5 with Trumpo at 7/4.
Ted Cruz at 500/1....
Democrats do the exact same shit. Welcome to politics. Why can't Democrats put aside their political differences and take the loss for the greater good? It goes both ways as difficult as that is to comprehend for someone consumed by their own dazzling lack of perspective and awareness.I would have assumed that they'd recognise the importance of a public health bill to counter a serious (and already global) health risk, and let it through without infecting it with political hack stuff. Like real grownup politicians manage to do in real functional democracies every day.
It shouldn't bother you really though. I think we both agree with the thesis statement - the Republicans have the leader they deserve. Why we feel that way might be slightly different, of course.
If the Republicans wanted to put forward the Zika, Abortion and Celebrating Slavery bill, they should have done so. Or, like proper grownups in other countries, you don't try and wedge irrelevant shit into actually important necessary bills.
They sunk a vital public health measure by making it unviable. They did that. And not that I think it to be deeply relevant (the Democratic Party can be childish, but nowhere near "sink a critical public health bill to get slave flags flying in military cemeteries" childish), but as far as stopped clocks go:
I'm not defending what the Republicans did, I'm exposing you for the ignorant hypocrite you are. Democrats could save lives, but they'd rather not 'cave' politically. There is just as much blood on their hands as there is on the Republicans.
Of course you don't see this because you have a pathological inability (you have serious psychological issues, probably stemming from your entire self worth being derived from your high conception of your own intelligence, which makes you incapable of accepting alternative points of views) to find Democrats at fault for anything.
Reply With Quote
