The News Thread

[Dak]

Oh, absolutely. I'm not voting for Hillary because of her integrity or authenticity. Those are nearly worthless values in an office of the utmost national security (i.e. national security and international/geopolitical affairs are not necessarily concomitant with individualist interests).

I'm voting for her because I know she represents social interests that I happen to agree with on an ethical level. But ethics is a groundless system - there is no "meta-ethics" or ground from within any ethical system by which to substantiate it. Seeing as individualistic rhetoric and ideological positions are not attractive to me, I tend to gravitate toward more systematic and potentially alienating political programs/platforms.

Part of this undoubtedly stems from an ethical imperative to privilege the estranging at the expense of the familiar. I'm absolutely aware that this could spell disaster, and that this does nothing to bridge the gulf between the academically enfranchised and disenfranchised. But given the present political choice, I'm going with what I think complement my ethical tendencies.

So blowing up lots of Arabs/destroying their infrastructure is something you agree with on an ethical level? Because other than expanding some gimmedats domestically (which are pretty generous already), that's her track record. She's at least as much of a bumbling fool as Trump at best, outside of pandering to her base and sucking up to Wall St.

And not by Donald's horrible financial career? This is what confounds me. People say how even though Donald has no political experience, it's better than Hillary's because hers is horrible. But if his business experience tells us anything (and who's to say it even should), it's that he's only made it this far because he's cheated other people out of money and declared bankruptcy - what - four times?

Okay, so let's reframe: he has no reputable experience at anything other than getting a hell of a lot of people to flock to him; and those people aren't stupid or ignorant, and it's unfair to call them that (a position which, while not directly attributable to this discussion, has surfaced before). I'll agree with that much for argument's sake. But then it's okay to call the people who flock to Hillary stupid and ignorant? What is going on here...

What exactly is his horrible financial career? I already replied to this: Serial entrepreneurs have many failures - which matter little, as long as they hit on a few ideas. So far it's apparent that Trump - at least in business - needs to stick to large skyscrapers/hotels and stay out of food, games, and education.

http://www.internationalbusinessguide.org/trump-business-career/

Investors losing money is not automatically "cheating people". So far the only claims regarding cheating anyone that I can tell that may have some merit is with Trump University - but then that's par for the course for many universities, for profit or otherwise. If one wants to question his wisdom, one would do well to focus attention on the decision to get into the mortgage business right before the bubble burst. But of course Hillary didn't think there was a bubble either, and her husband's administration had some to do with its formation to begin with.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...Crash-Won-t-Do-Enough-To-Prevent-the-Next-One

 

[Einherjar86]

Dak, your weird apologetics for his business dealings can't really be taken at face value. There are multiple stories about him bailing on business deals, which you can decide to find disingenuous if you like. I won't debate veracity in matters like this as it's futile and also probably pointless.

As far as his success in business goes, he has no method or skill. He accumulated some money in real estate, and was not even listed as being in the top real estate moguls in the city despite being "the best" at everything. Considering he came into the business with a significant head start, he hasn't really done all that much with it other than plaster his name all over the place, which has been impressively effective.

And that's basically Trump's success story. Throw enough shit at the wall and see how much sticks. In this case, the shit is his name, and it sticks (according to your link) 42% of the time.

 

[arg]

Their stances on the issues matter more than the individual candidates

Trump had ups and downs in business but for the presidency he will assign competent people to carry out his vision

Hillary has a proven record of corruption and bad judgement; we KNOW what she will do and it will be terrible

 

[Dak]

Dak, your weird apologetics for his business dealings can't really be taken at face value. There are multiple stories about him bailing on business deals, which you can decide to find disingenuous if you like. I won't debate veracity in matters like this as it's futile and also probably pointless.

As far as his success in business goes, he has no method or skill. He accumulated some money in real estate, and was not even listed as being in the top real estate moguls in the city despite being "the best" at everything. Considering he came into the business with a significant head start, he hasn't really done all that much with it other than plaster his name all over the place, which has been impressively effective.

And that's basically Trump's success story. Throw enough shit at the wall and see how much sticks. In this case, the shit is his name, and it sticks (according to your link) 42% of the time.

Of course he's not the best. He did get a head start, but you can't say he hasn't done anything with it. If you look at a lot of successful entrepreneurs closely (and more broadly, companies in general), whether they were granted a head start or not, you could easily accuse them of "throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks". People laud all of these social media stars and starlets for "personal branding empires" but somehow it's a bad thing for Trump.

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/fail-to-succeed-billionaires/

Richard Branson is kind of a more successful Trump for the most obvious comparison.

 

[arg]

Oh, absolutely. I'm not voting for Hillary because of her integrity or authenticity. Those are nearly worthless values in an office of the utmost national security (i.e. national security and international/geopolitical affairs are not necessarily concomitant with individualist interests).

I'm voting for her because I know she represents social interests that I happen to agree with on an ethical level. But ethics is a groundless system - there is no "meta-ethics" or ground from within any ethical system by which to substantiate it. Seeing as individualistic rhetoric and ideological positions are not attractive to me, I tend to gravitate toward more systematic and potentially alienating political programs/platforms.

Part of this undoubtedly stems from an ethical imperative to privilege the estranging at the expense of the familiar. I'm absolutely aware that this could spell disaster, and that this does nothing to bridge the gulf between the academically enfranchised and disenfranchised. But given the present political choice, I'm going with what I think complement my ethical tendencies.



Personally, I won't be surprised if he backpedals or even does a full 180 on certain issues once he's in office. To this extent, I don't see him as even much of a person at all. He's a calculation machine, and in this regard does whatever to achieve the programmed goal (i.e. win the presidency).

Unfortunately, if this is the case, there's no way for us to know what he'll do once he's in office. If his primary directive is to win the election, then he ostensibly has no goals beyond winning. Obviously, if he does win, he'll pursue certain goals; but these are not available to us as a voting populace. Given that he could exponentially intensify some of his positions, and who the fuck knows which ones, I'm voting for Hillary.

What social/ethical issues do you agree with her on?

 

[Internally Deformed]

his vision

Lol

Disagree with that last comment. Flip-flopping isn't comparable to what Hillary has done.

It's the insane beliefs that have me worried; that they're both insane and contradictory is just an aggravating factor.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The Republicans want a white nationalist Christian theocracy. A Trump presidency would literary tear this country apart. Fuck that.

Clinton wants to continue the neocolonial neoliberal agenda that has plagued the world for the past few decades. Fuck that too. I can actually get on board with a lot of her domestic policy, but her foreign policy is terrible.

I'll be voting for Jill Stein, the only true progressive on the ballot and the only presidential candidate that shares my values. If I were in a swing state, I would probably vote for Clinton on strategic grounds.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Values
It's a presidential candidate, not a wife

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Values
It's a presidential candidate, not a wife

What the hell are you talking about? So much of what motivates political decisions is values. In fact, I would argue they are an essential and irreducible element of political decisions.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Well neither candidate has any, so it's an irrelevant segue.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

And yet it's Hillary vs Trump
Two assholes

 

[arg]

The Republicans want a white nationalist Christian theocracy. A Trump presidency would literary tear this country apart. Fuck that.

Clinton wants to continue the neocolonial neoliberal agenda that has plagued the world for the past few decades. Fuck that too. I can actually get on board with a lot of her domestic policy, but her foreign policy is terrible.

I'll be voting for Jill Stein, the only true progressive on the ballot and the only presidential candidate that shares my values. If I were in a swing state, I would probably vote for Clinton on strategic grounds.

What values? Mandatory redistribution of wealth?

 

[Internally Deformed]

Mandatory redistribution of wealth?

This I could get behind.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I love Trump for triggering SJWs. I also like protectionist nationalism, and wish a British Trump would rally behind it as an ideology. The die hard neocons and neoliberals would probably all leave if one got in power here, to spread their cancer elsewhere.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

What values? Mandatory redistribution of wealth?

I do believe in the redistribution of wealth. Billionaires shouldn't exist while children are starving and 15% of the population lives in poverty, and a system that fosters that is in my eyes, fundamentally corrupt. The existence of the super-elite is fundamentally unethical.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I love Trump for triggering SJWs. I also like protectionist nationalism, and wish a British Trump would rally behind it as an ideology. The die hard neocons and neoliberals would probably all leave if one got in power here, to spread their cancer elsewhere.

God save us.

Nigel Farrage is probably the closest thing we have to a British trump, although he's actually relatively reasonable.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

I do believe in the redistribution of wealth. Billionaires shouldn't exist while children are starving and 15% of the population lives in poverty, and a system that fosters that is in my eyes, fundamentally corrupt. The existence of the super-elite is fundamentally unethical.

How dare they make all that money!
They don't need all that!

 

[SentinelSlain]

@crimsonfloyd

do you think all women are equally beautiful?

 

[Einherjar86]

Of course he's not the best. He did get a head start, but you can't say he hasn't done anything with it. If you look at a lot of successful entrepreneurs closely (and more broadly, companies in general), whether they were granted a head start or not, you could easily accuse them of "throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks". People laud all of these social media stars and starlets for "personal branding empires" but somehow it's a bad thing for Trump.

This is definitely true; and if the election was between Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump, then I wouldn't fucking vote.

Hillary has a track record in politics. It isn't all good, but it isn't all bad either (as some people here insist). I'd rather take her, with a history of positions that, while uneven, can be studied and contextualized. I'm not a fan of Trump's barely comprehensible entropy.

It's almost as if he's the only politician with this course of action in mind, surely you're not this naive?

I think all politicians want to win, but (as I said above) I can actually study and consider the history of Clinton's positions. I can contextualize them. The record of her positions leads me to believe that she has a somewhat predictable set of goals, and that I probably agree with many of them. I honestly have no idea what kind of a president Trump will be, but I have a pretty good idea of what Clinton's will be.

Somewhere Dak mentioned carpet bombing innocent people in the Middle East. No, I don't find this ethically agreeable. But judging by our country's history since Reagan, I don't think any president will reel in that practice anytime soon.

Would you agree that Trump himself is ignorant? Choosing to elect somebody ignorant is in itself a qualification for ignorance in my opinion.

I agree that simply insulting Trump's fan base probably doesn't get one anywhere though. It's more likely to just piss them off and entrench them in their opinions, as is testified to by this thread.

I really can't say if I think Donald is ignorant, or of what. I simply have nothing to measure any such judgment with.

He makes comments that suggest a Mexican plane is flying overhead getting ready to bomb us. At first glance, this is sarcasm - right? But not to the people supporting him. Or, let me rephrase: even if it is sarcasm, it only flies (bad pun) with his crowd because they actually harbor a nationalistic resentment and skepticism toward Mexico. That's the way a "joke" like that functions.

So again, I have no idea what he means when he says things.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

How dare they make all that money!
They don't need all that!

Exactly. Especially when most of them are making it off the backs of brutally unethical and exploitive buisness practices. When you think of how many lives, communities, and ecosystems are destoryed so that your typical billionaire can get to where he/she is, it's not hyperbole to say they are some of the destructive, violent, and corrupt forces in the world. But they do it with a pen instead of a gun, so we act like its ok.

@crimsonfloyd

do you think all women are equally beautiful?

Talk to me when you have a real point to make.