-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)
- Thread starter Bughouse
- Start date
- Status
If anyone starts a nuclear war, it will be a dick move, and because of the Russian oligarchy throwing a temper tantrum because they don't get their way. And cyberattack counters will likely consist of counter cyberattacks or helping any rebels in Crimea and Ukraine, not an actual bombardment strike on Russian soil. The Kremlin is not going to declare war on the U.S. because of that, let alone start a nuclear war, unless they are dicks. If she or the military did something so foolish, you and your fellow Trump supporters would have to wait in line, because me and other anti-war progressives would want wring her neck or the generals responsible, since we sure as hell don't want a war!
Trump is showing clear signs that he'd be more of a dictator than a President. He is not becoming President, and he is not getting his little hands on the nuclear codes, end of story, not if I have anything to say of it.
"grab them by the pussy" words to live by
I am absolutely baffled as to how people can see an erratic person who boasts about as a better leader than military generals and primarily listens to their own world views than the actual experts as more fit to be the commander-in-chief compared to someone who has an extensive list of foreign policy experience and has a team of hundreds of experts to give her information to help her make decisions. No one person knows everything, so you should be skeptical when you see someone who has a completely inner locus of control and uses that purely to make their decisions. It's even more amazing when people keep repeating the narrative perpetrated by a spite-filled GOP for the past 30 years about Hillary's corruption, when in reality she is at worst no more corrupt than Donald Trump. Business and politics are also extremely closely intertwined, and anyone who excuses Donald Trump's behavior of the past of bullying people to get the best deals for his own pocket as him not being a politician and expecting him to turn a new leaf is being ignorant at best or intellectually dishonest at worse.
it was ecuador because Assange is under investigation for exploiting an 8 year old child from the embassy
1. Defcon.com isn't real, lmafo and 2. Anthony Weiner is not running for president so I don't see how quoting a speech of him makes anybody a hypocrite regarding current candidates and as hilarious as the Great Carlos Danger is, all the sexting he's done has been consensual, between adults. The exception would be the one case where he was chatting with a 15 year old (lol, get some help carlos), but that's a legal gray area because the girl said he never sent her any pictures.
Can't believe I'm "defending" "pedophilia" here but the actual point was that voting is good, not voting is bad, not about sexting scandals heh
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...rganizations_to_beat_up_trump_supporters.html
Inciting domestic terrorism to win an election. The DNC is awful. We know that the left makes race relations bad on purpose to try to win votes, and here's more proof. How can anyone vote for Hillary in good conscience? Vote third party.
Oh yeah and the NC firebombing too. And they say trump supporters are violent LMAO
Inciting domestic terrorism to win an election. The DNC is awful. We know that the left makes race relations bad on purpose to try to win votes, and here's more proof. How can anyone vote for Hillary in good conscience? Vote third party.
Oh yeah and the NC firebombing too. And they say trump supporters are violent LMAO
The practice of bird-dogging involves asking Trump questions in front of reporters. Domestic terrorism? We say Trump supporters are violent because they are the ones beating up the bird-doggers. Do you even the read the articles you post? Do you read anything?
The dnc raised $13000 (already) to help them reopen a field office in North Carolina (on phone so can't link article). Blaming the dnc for one persons action and insinuating democrats are more violent because of this one incident is kind of like saying we should ban Muslims because of the Orlando shooting. Illogical and reactionary.
Yes, it's definitely the US setting up the man who is fleeing from rape charge allegations who is no more than a figurehead at this point. It is definitely in the US' interest to risk activating the dead man's switch he has which will release everything he is withholding at once apparently (totally doesn't have an agenda by withholding documents btw).
Seriously? The dude has a predatory history.
Why didn't the DNC give $13,000 to literally anyone else other than people who will try to continue to discriminate against LGBTQ people and persons of color?
Also: Assange is a fucking prick and literally 100% of his relevance is thanks to Chelsea Manning who he recently used as a publicity stunt. Good on ya mate.
Also: Assange is a fucking prick and literally 100% of his relevance is thanks to Chelsea Manning who he recently used as a publicity stunt. Good on ya mate.
I assume you are being facetious, but politics. As of right now the Democrats are polling slightly ahead in both the presidential election and the North Carolina Governors election (mostly due businesses are pulling out of NC cause the discriminatory bathroom laws / other anti-LGBT stuff that was in the same bill but got very little media attention), and the NC Senator race is essentially a 50/50 right now (republican incumbent is polling slightly ahead). Throwing $13,000 to the republicans to show "we don't condone violence", rather than just say it mitigates any public backlash against the democratic candidates while also making them look like not dicks, which is a pretty important distinction to make when the person at the top of the opposing party's ticket has managed to convince everyone he is a huge dick (by being one).
Which is part of why thesecondbest's post is so bad, not only did he post an article describing how Trump supporters react violently at the smallest provocation (and somehow say it proves democrats are violent?), but he also implied that the DNC would encourage a firebombing in North Carolina. A state in which they are already winning the presidential elections (in the polls) (and they literally don't need to win to get the presidency, all they have to do is hold onto Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Hampshire which is incredibly likely at this point), probably gain a governors seat in (deservedly, politicians shouldn't be putting religious beliefs over the well being of their state), and potentially a senators seat, which is really important in this election given democrats are set to gain 3-7 seats in the senate and need to gain 4 or 5 for a senate majority (4 with Clinton win, 5 with Trump win). I know I already called out that post for being awful, but given that the majority of shits I've taken in my life contain infinitely more substance than that post while simultaneously stinking less I really feel the need to point out once again how garbage it truly was.
Going to try a shift in tone and talk a little bit about moderation in the politics room on PS (#scholastic).
Regardless of which side or which election you talk about, polarization has gotten significantly worse for American politics in this decade, and I think that has had a large part to due with all of the hate that's coming out in this election. IMO at the end of the day your political opinions should never be about hating someone or some idea, because then you cross a line and become the problem (this goes out to everyone regardless of who you are or aren't voting for). Generally speaking, if someone gets banned from scholastic, it's because they were a troll, or because they weren't interested in finding common ground with anyone else and cared more about getting into fights (happens on both sides).
also,
I'm worried about this happening regardless of who wins. There are actually a lot of parallels between infrastructure attacks and bio-war, where the state actors who can undoubtedly do so have refrained from it for fear of retaliation, and terrorist groups who can conceivably do so are considered a similar or bigger threat because they don't have anything to lose.
Regardless of which side or which election you talk about, polarization has gotten significantly worse for American politics in this decade, and I think that has had a large part to due with all of the hate that's coming out in this election. IMO at the end of the day your political opinions should never be about hating someone or some idea, because then you cross a line and become the problem (this goes out to everyone regardless of who you are or aren't voting for). Generally speaking, if someone gets banned from scholastic, it's because they were a troll, or because they weren't interested in finding common ground with anyone else and cared more about getting into fights (happens on both sides).
also,
I'm worried about this happening regardless of who wins. There are actually a lot of parallels between infrastructure attacks and bio-war, where the state actors who can undoubtedly do so have refrained from it for fear of retaliation, and terrorist groups who can conceivably do so are considered a similar or bigger threat because they don't have anything to lose.
Last edited:
The DNC raising money to rebuild the office could just as easily be reinterpreted as an apology and a pay off rather than trying to state that violence isn't cool. Questioning of the motives of disavowal goes back to your earlier analogy of ongoing islamophobia taking the form of "well more Muslims should disavow terrorist acts". Money isn't an apology and speaking of which if it's totally okay to stop trafficking business in the state because of the Republican party's platform therefore costing real financial problems to it's people, then WHY in the FUCK would you then turn around and donate to that self same party.
The ONLY thing to gain in this pr move is self congratulation and a rhetorical token of superiority. It does not do anything to win people over who were going to hate the DNC regardless and is actively beneficial to those who wish to do and have done large swaths of people tangible harm. It's a disgusting charade.
Tangentially but not unrelated: "common ground" tends to be a myth of false equivalency that contends that two arguments are of equal merit and should be treated equally. This is how we get to where we are now where blatant fascist white nationalism is the representative brand of the GOP and we're sitting here talking about it like "there's a lot of animosity here we should try to treat each other with respect and intellectually debate why black people arent subhuman and how trans people are in fact not disgusting corruptions of morality."
The ONLY thing to gain in this pr move is self congratulation and a rhetorical token of superiority. It does not do anything to win people over who were going to hate the DNC regardless and is actively beneficial to those who wish to do and have done large swaths of people tangible harm. It's a disgusting charade.
Tangentially but not unrelated: "common ground" tends to be a myth of false equivalency that contends that two arguments are of equal merit and should be treated equally. This is how we get to where we are now where blatant fascist white nationalism is the representative brand of the GOP and we're sitting here talking about it like "there's a lot of animosity here we should try to treat each other with respect and intellectually debate why black people arent subhuman and how trans people are in fact not disgusting corruptions of morality."
You can disagree without reverting to "I hate you", which just encourages people to stonewall and retreat even further into their opinions. At the end of the day everyone does have common ground in that the care about the outcome of this election. You can say "X is wrong because Y and Z" without starting a flame war.
Also I'd like to think that no one in this thread would adopt either of those examples. The Bell Curve was burned to the ground before most people in this thread were born, thankfully.
I could ask the same of Trump supporters. If most Trump supporters would just jump ship, me and every other independent who doesn't like Hillary would have that option.
You know what, you're right - why would the DNC raise money to rebuild the North Carolina GOP field office? Gee, I dunno... Maybe it's because they're HUMAN BEINGS?
See, this is why llamas (and almost certainly others) assumed you were being facetious with your initial post. Going back to llama's point about how it makes the Dems look like not dicks, this shouldn't need any explanation, but it's because helping others who have been struck by tragedy shows basic human decency. If your irrational hatred of the entirety of the GOP (and I'll get to why it's irrational in a second) genuinely makes you feel justified in not treating them with any degree of decency, then I don't know what to say other than ask you if you even see the irony here.
Re: GOP - Your entire point on this reeks of guilt by association. I could point out the painful obviousness of how HB-2 and many other policies are not representative of the beliefs of the entirety of the GOP and there have been plenty of Republicans condemning these, but I won't bother because you'll probably use a poison M&M analogy or something.
Why would you raise money for the GOP who will use those funds to actively harm what you're allegedly supporting rather than giving the money to people you actually claim to support. A good way to phrase it I saw earlier was you shouldn't "conflate human empathy for victims of violence with tangible financial support for a platform". You can be sorry for what happened to the office you can have genuine empathy with them because of what happened but THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD RAISE MONEY TO AID THEM IN DOING THE VILE SHIT THEY PROMISE TO DO ALL THE TIME. And it is not guilt by "association" these people ARE DEMONSTRABLY FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING THEM. It's not a stipend earmarked only for the rebuilding of the office it's $13,000 to the GOP of North Carolina. It is not DECENCY to financially contribute to their campaign. Like how is this hard to grasp? I mean look how quickly they raised 13k for the republicans and then think on the last time they raised money for impoverished communities or hell how about how much money they raised for the firebombings of multiple Black Baptist Churches in the south within the past year. "I don't support you so here is some financial support to show that even though I don't support you I really demonstrably support you" as opposed to "I support you please vote for me and not the republicans who don't support you so I can support you in office, but will not in any way go out on a limb and fundraise for you only my personal campaign and sometimes the campaign of those who would do you harm." LIKE??!?!?!?!?!?
And again the only people who come out of this thinking "wow dems aren't dicks" are people who didn't really think they were dicks to begin with.
And no it's not an irrational hatred of the NC GOP who are precisely the ones who created HB2, let alone the fact that the GOP as a whole has a platform that advocates Conversion therapy which is literal torture for LGBT folks, and still argue in rhetoric that is repugnant down the line on gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, class.
'Man, the white nationalists might be bad but you're being to harsh on them they had a rough time we should help them get back on their feet and start spreading their platform of hatred and cultural purity some more. That's just the decent thing to do!'
And again the only people who come out of this thinking "wow dems aren't dicks" are people who didn't really think they were dicks to begin with.
And no it's not an irrational hatred of the NC GOP who are precisely the ones who created HB2, let alone the fact that the GOP as a whole has a platform that advocates Conversion therapy which is literal torture for LGBT folks, and still argue in rhetoric that is repugnant down the line on gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, class.
'Man, the white nationalists might be bad but you're being to harsh on them they had a rough time we should help them get back on their feet and start spreading their platform of hatred and cultural purity some more. That's just the decent thing to do!'
- Status