The News Thread

[crimsonfloyd]

By definition then you'd also be arguing from ignorance. You make me lol.

No I wouldn't. My basic premise is that because Trump has no experience in the field, he is likely to do a terrible job at the most difficult job within the field. That is not an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who had never coached at even the high school level to step in and be a successful NFL head coach? Would you expect someone with zero military experience at any level to come in and successfully lead an army to war? Of course you wouldn't. Is it possible that they would have success? Sure. Probable? Definitely not. Saying "we just don't know, so I'll stick my head up my ass" is an appeal to ignorance because it flies in the face of common sense.

Her core supporters are middle Americans? I guess that's why electoral maps of middle America look like this:

(btw that's from an article from yesterday)

My bad on this point. I read middle class. That said, I haven't heard her say anything anti-middle America, unless you're referring to the very accurate (though politically unwise) "basket of deplorablea" comment. (Edit: Although I would add that this comment wasn't targeted at middle America specifically, but Trump supporters in general. While there may be a disproportionate number in middle America, there are also Trump supporters on the coasts and many people in middle America who are do not fall into said category. That leads me to wonder what is this supposed "anti-middle America" comment Clinton made?)

Depression of wages from the offshoring of jobs and illegal immigration. It's simple supply and demand, not rocket science.

As I've said before, I am opposed to Clinton's trade policies. That said, shipping jobs overseas is not the same as not paying someone for work they did. The former could result in lay off or as you mentioned, wage depression. However, the workers are presumably paid for the work they were contracted to do. The basic economic contract is not broken. Trump literally just didn't pay people for their work and then used the legally system to deflect them. The two cases aren't equivocal at all.

Carpet bombing did far more damage in both material and human tolls to Japan than the nukes did, but no one mentions that.

This is a profoundly stupid argument. A nuke COULD do far more damage than carpet bombing, which is why there is such reservation about using them in the first place. Which leads to....

Drones get used, nukes do not.

You are assuming that what happened in the past will happen in the future. However, if we have a radically different type of leader, who openly says nukes should be on the table, on what grounds do you assume that what happened in the past will continue to happen in the future?

Also, it must be looked at who did Trump support getting nuke access? I'm not saying nuclear proliferation is a good thing, but it's not exactly cutting edge at this point, and MAD is a real thing that has pragmatically worked.

Why on earth would you assume that MAD would continue under a Trump regime when he's openly promoted other nations getting nukes?

Hell no. I don't have the requisite level of narcissism...

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Coming from the guy who thinks Voter ID laws are racist

So pivot away from your dumbass nosedive into some internet B.S. pseudo-leak. I'm not interested in rehashing the Voter ID laws with you. The evidence was clearly laid out and you were either too stupid or too close-minded to properly evaluate said evidence. There's no reason to expect different results a second time.

 

[Dak]

No I wouldn't. My basic premise is that because Trump has no experience in the field, he is likely to do a terrible job at the most difficult job within the field. That is not an argument from ignorance.

The counter-argument is that those with "experience" are too beholding to special interests, other politicians, etc. to do a good job (which is demonstrable). I'm not saying Trump will be better, I'm saying it would be extremely difficult to be worse, particularly because we are talking about Hillary as competition. She is literally the worst possible candidate from a corruption standpoint, which a Berniebro such as yourself should recognize.

My bad on this point. I read middle class. That said, I haven't heard her say anything anti-middle America, unless you're referring to the very accurate (though politically unwise) "basket of deplorablea" comment. (Edit: Although I would add that this comment wasn't targeted at middle America specifically, but Trump supporters in general. While there may be a disproportionate number in middle America, there are also Trump supporters on the coasts and many people in middle America who are do not fall into said category. That leads me to wonder what is this supposed "anti-middle America" comment Clinton made?)

She hasn't made the explicit statement, it's more of a wonk label. But yes, basket of deplorables was one of the comments that captures the general disdain of coastal elites for the people populating "flyover country" (another related derogatory term).

As I've said before, I am opposed to Clinton's trade policies. That said, shipping jobs overseas is not the same as not paying someone for work they did. The former could result in lay off or as you mentioned, wage depression. However, the workers are presumably paid for the work they were contracted to do. The basic economic contract is not broken. Trump literally just didn't pay people for their work and then used the legally system to deflect them. The two cases aren't equivocal at all.

I'm not sure what you're referring too about Trump beyond bankruptcies, but I'll just assume it happened. You are correct, the two cases aren't really equivocal. The trade policies that Hillary supports and has supported are far worse. Trump has hurt a handful, those trade policies have devastated the economic prospects of millions.

This is a profoundly stupid argument. A nuke COULD do far more damage than carpet bombing, which is why there is such reservation about using them in the first place. Which leads to....

You are assuming that what happened in the past will happen in the future. However, if we have a radically different type of leader, who openly says nukes should be on the table, on what grounds do you assume that what happened in the past will continue to happen in the future?

Why on earth would you assume that MAD would continue under a Trump regime when he's openly promoted other nations getting nukes?

This is where your ignorance of geopolitics/warfare comes into play. Nukes are always "on the table". That's how MAD works. Trump's comments about nuclear weapon usage is in line with both US and Russian nuclear doctrines:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/27/first-strike-nuclear-doctrine-wont-change-carter.html

https://www.frstrategie.org/publica...nuclear-doctrine-and-its-implications-2016-01
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/1...-weapons-against-isis-hopes-theyll-never.html

Why on earth would you assume that MAD would continue under a Trump regime when he's openly promoted other nations getting nukes?

Because of MAD......

 

[Einherjar86]

Real classy.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/repeal-the-19th?utm_term=.jowRmwe3o#.cjxJE0NVK

According to Silver, if only women voted, Hillary Clinton would win by a landslide. However, if only men voted, Donald Trump would dominate.

Trump’s son Eric later sent out the male map in a fundraising email in a bid to inspire supporters, but neglected to mention the map only showed men voting. He was subsequently mocked online.

But for some Trump supporters the solution to the map was simple. Why not take away women’s right to vote?

So, they began to tweet about repealing the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, using the hashtag #RepealThe19th.

 

[rms]

Buzzfeed making a living out of finding random troll twitter tweets and displaying feminist tweets to counter them

zzz

 

[Einherjar86]

I chose to link Buzzfeed because it's actually a decent window on internet phenomena. Google "repeal the 19th"; it isn't only Buzzfeed reporting on it.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Real classy.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/repeal-the-19th?utm_term=.jowRmwe3o#.cjxJE0NVK

I chortled

 

[rms]

I chose to link Buzzfeed because it's actually a decent window on internet phenomena. Google "repeal the 19th"; it isn't only Buzzfeed reporting on it.

oooo Salon, you say? Doesn't matter who reports it, it is literally meaningless, clickbait drivel

This tweet is probably more dangerous, impactful, powerful etc but won't write no articles like this;

This is why @HillaryClinton will win - sorry, too late to #repealthe19th. Soon we'll be running the country! #ImWithHer

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts

 

[Einherjar86]

Your definition of "literally" is literally incorrect.

 

[rms]

be mad you enjoy drivel

 

[Dak]

The more the franchise is reduced probably the better, so repealing the 19th is a healthy start. But I'm also against half measures so let's repeal the Constitution and be done with it.

 

[Einherjar86]

be mad you enjoy drivel

I wouldn't say I'm enjoying it...

The more the franchise is reduced probably the better, so repealing the 19th is a healthy start. But I'm also against half measures so let's repeal the Constitution and be done with it.

Well, I know where you're coming from. But these same idiots keep talking about how Obama and Clinton have dismissed the Constitution while promoting the repealing of amendments. It's a gross inconsistency.

I'll criticize the Constitution's legitimacy until sun goes dark, but I'm not ready to reject it wholesale. I'm more for productively adapting and altering it, rather than erasing it or sanctifying it.

 

[arg]

We need to get rid of the electoral college and go by popular vote

 

[Dak]

Well, I know where you're coming from. But these same idiots keep talking about how Obama and Clinton have dismissed the Constitution while promoting the repealing of amendments. It's a gross inconsistency.

I'll criticize the Constitution's legitimacy until sun goes dark, but I'm not ready to reject it wholesale. I'm more for productively adapting and altering it, rather than erasing it or sanctifying it.

Well dismissing it is quite different from working within its confines for alteration. The gross inconsistency is in that Republican presidents, and very very likely Trump if he were president, wouldn't stay within the confines either. They just in some ways differently exceed it.

I can't think of any "productive changes" one could make to the Constitution by most peoples standards, and if one could truly be made, it would ultimately not be followed either.

 

[Einherjar86]

My feeling is that adding to it in general is a productive thing, although not every amendment is necessarily going to stick. I think that having some kind of national document there reflects a general sense of cohesion and political discourse.

Repealing it entirely would, to be, signal a lack of cohesion and political discourse. Obviously I'm assuming the value of cohesion and political discourse.

 

[Dak]

My feeling is that adding to it in general is a productive thing, although not every amendment is necessarily going to stick. I think that having some kind of national document there reflects a general sense of cohesion and political discourse.

Repealing it entirely would, to be, signal a lack of cohesion and political discourse. Obviously I'm assuming the value of cohesion and political discourse.

Oh sure, repealing it would be effective dissolution of the country and/or the placing of power specifically within a particular person or bureaucracy. The former would be the better option. Let fifty flowers bloom!

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

We need to get rid of the electoral college and go by popular vote

You actually said something that makes sense.

 

[arg]

Yea that shit is fucking un-democratic

 

[Dak]

And democracy is great. It doesn't matter how uneducated or mentally handicapped you are, you get a seat at the table. Which perfectly aligns arg's values.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Democracy is pretty much meaningless. There are successful one-party authoritarian systems and kingdoms (Southeast Asia), there are completely garbage democracies (most of South America). The electoral college has only diverged from the popular vote a couple of times in the nation's history, so while we can all fantasize "Oh but if only Gore was president", it wouldn't change much in the long run.