TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
143. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.18%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    50 34.97%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.97%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.80%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.09%
Page 14 of 554 FirstFirst ... 4910111213141516171819242934394449545964114264514 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 13829

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #326
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Ah, sorry, I guess I'm so used to hearing these things said in a derogatory fashion, I defaulted to being argumentative.

    My example with North African migrants was a hypothetical scenario though, not a presumption of reality - hence the "if".

  2. #327
    Also keep in mind that there's an extremely difficult conversation that will have to be had as a result. Even mainstream Islam is far less progressive than any non-mainstream Christians so there is a culture clash between longstanding French on the new arrivals. There is this bizarre aspect to Islamic culture where homosexuality is to be viciously condemned and oppressed in public, while they're all fucking little boys behind closed doors.


    Besides homosexuality there's a lot of other issues that clash with the dominant French attitudes. As a whole they abhor divorce, have strong anti-vaccination sentiment (they're made with "unclean" ingredients),advocate female subservience to males within marriage, and on in that vein. You're getting a huge dose of all the same values that most members of this board find abhorrent when they come from conservative Christians.

  3. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post

    But with this whole antivaxxer trend kicking off lately, I might not have that luxury anymore. People are opting out of giving their kids their shots because of blah blah blah, and so and so, which means we're now fielding a fairly large population of people who can act as carriers of this disease I have no immunity for. If one of these kids catches it from one of those people from the ass end of the earth, it'll spread, and I'll find myself at risk.
    The logic required to arrive at the term "anti vaxxer" is the exact same logic required to complain about how the people of Flint, Michigan "are opposed to the idea of drinking water".

    Does anyone here even know what kicked off this "anti vaxxer" thing? Dubious studies on both sides of the issue led to people were lobbying for stricter safety controls about what goes into vaccines. Nobody is "against vaccines", they want the safety standards brought up to par with the rest of the industry.

  4. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    I

    Your counter-arguments are ridiculous, but not for the reason you think. If two homosexual guys have sex, they are doing so knowing the risks if they don't use protection. A kid being denied a safe way to avoid dangerous disease is not equivalent in any meaningful way, because the outcome of this is that my kid has a higher risk of contracting a disease which could kill her or leave her disabled simply because someone else has decide to make their kid a part of their lifestyle choice. Likewise with your abortion argument - it doesn't affect society as a whole (unless abortions are contagious somehow), it's a personal right which doesn't emanate out into society (other than offending the tender sensibilities of religious folks who can't keep their beliefs to themselves).

    You're missing the point entirely.

    YOU find those arguments ridiculous. Under a socialist system the government might not.What Faetal thinks wouldn't matter because Faetal doesn't get to make those calls, the elite head of state makes that decision. You don't get a vote, you certainly don't get to appeal the laws, and you may not even be allowed to voice your dissenting opinion.

    Let me put it this way: how would you feel about "socialism" with Ted Cruz or Donald Trump in power? Because every single socialist system of government that has ever existed eventually ends up with someone much crazier than either of those two in charge.

    In fact you're here comparing Trump to Hitler for claiming power far less than what any socialist government would have.

    That's why the entire concept of "checks and balances" is important. Nobody in the government at all should be able to make those sweeping decisions without someone having the ability to counter them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Tony, if I'm following you correctly, you believe the government has no right to enforce anything that could benefit the whole, because even a destructive exercise of solipsistic personal freedoms is still a protected right?
    How would you feel about your position if instead of "mandating vaccines", the subject matter was "ban Muslims"? That's exactly what Donald Trump is doing: he advocated curbing "solpsistic personal freedoms" because it "could benefit the whole".

    Here's something where regional differences come into play: It's unnecessary to do so on a FEDERAL level. States and cities all have fully functioning legislative and regulatory authorities within their own territories that are fully capable of drafting and enforcing statutes as is best for their own needs. Given that the US is far less homogenous in terms of culture, climate, and economic activity than any European country this approach has clear advantages that the Federal government isn't able to address without specifically discriminating towards people.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 1st May 2016 at 12:46.

  5. #330
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Maybe from your perspective, but I've delved deep enough into the Antivax movement to know it's less about general concerns, and more of a "you can't tell me what to do AUTISM" type of kneejerk reactionary response, forwarded to crazy by a bunch of people who want to be skeptics for the simple sake of skepticism.

    As for your argument against "socialism", this is why most societies have a defined set of regulations and restrictions, enforced by rule of law. And honestly, a "socialist" government, as implemented by all the western nations isn't much different than what we've all been enjoying for the last 240 odd years.

  6. #331
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    There is this bizarre aspect to Islamic culture where homosexuality is to be viciously condemned and oppressed in public, while they're all fucking little boys behind closed doors.

    Besides homosexuality there's a lot of other issues that clash with the dominant French attitudes. As a whole they abhor divorce, have strong anti-vaccination sentiment (they're made with "unclean" ingredients),advocate female subservience to males within marriage, and on in that vein. You're getting a huge dose of all the same values that most members of this board find abhorrent when they come from conservative Christians.
    Prejudiced much? I don't know a single Muslim person who is fucking young boys behind closed doors, or isn't vaccinated. I thought you were mister worked-with-people-from-diverse-backgrounds-so-can-lecture-people-on-diversity? Seems you're at least a closeted Islamophobe.

  7. #332
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Also, wow your ideas about socialism are pretty fucked. You're all about the false equivalences and slippery slope arguments. Also, the safety of vaccines is beyond dispute. The ridiculous anti-vax argument that they aren't shown to be safe on the same level as drugs is risible if you consider the amount of epidemiology which has factored in. I'm not sure why I'm debating that with you though as you don't seem to have much idea of what science is about generally based on some of your previous posts - the most memorable being your "smoking gun" Italian court case which cited adverse events of autism during a vaccine trial as somehow being causally linked to the vaccine. This is the problem with people who stake themselves to ideology - they clamber across a mound of information which ignores their views looking fora scrap of anything which will.

  8. #333
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Seems like we're confusing socialism with totalitarianism and libertarianism with anarchism.

    Not every libertarian believes in abolishing government, raw survival of the fittest, every man and woman for themselves. Not every socialist believes in nationalizing every industry, a planned economy, and big government making all the important decisions for everybody. Most of the politicians who actually espouse these political philosophies are more sophisticated than that. Two American examples are Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, who in some ways are more alike than different.

    To me, a libertarian is one who places high value on individual liberty. When participating in the collective decision making process, a libertarian will demand that any policies which would reduce individual liberty are strongly justified, i.e. necessary for a normal functioning society. Also, a true libertarian should advocate for policies that maximize overall liberty. By that I mean the most liberty for the the most people, not maximum liberty for a few elite and hardly any for the rest. That's not a libertarian utopia.

    There is some common ground between libertarianism, as I see it, and market socialism. Market socialism is based on collective ownership, but not state ownership. Collective ownership is accomplished through various models such as publicly traded corporations, employee owned collectives, co-ops, etc. One key difference between the ideal of market socialism and what we have now is the share of ownership needs to be broadly equitable and not highly concentrated like it is now. Also, we exercise collective ownership mainly through investment funds which are managed by a fairly small number of people in the financial services industry who manage things in a way that primarily benefits themselves. So currently, only a small percentage of people are economically empowered.

    In a market economy, people who are not economically empowered and lack economic opportunity are not really free actors. A large percentage of the population are basically slaves to subsistence wages and/or debt. The government isn't telling them where to live and what to do, but it doesn't matter because they effectively have no freedom aside from trivial consumer choices like McDonalds vs. Burger King or wearing the number of their favorite athlete. That is where libertarians and market socialists can find some common ground. In our system, maximizing liberty across the population is equivalent to maximizing economic opportunity & empowerment across the population.

    Going by the current definition, Bernie Sanders is not really a democratic socialist because he's not advocating for state ownership of the economy. As I understand him, he's more of a social democrat, advocating for more redistribution and wealth equality, and regulation to prevent exploitation of the working class by the ownership class. Sanders would push things more in the direction of market socialism than non-market socialism. As such, his policies are more likely to increase overall liberty than Ted Cruz's policies. I think that explains Sanders' appeal to a lot of former Ron Paul supporters.

  9. #334
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I count on the fingers of one foot the number of self-termed libertarians who aren't for complete de-regulation / self-regulation of markets.

  10. #335
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    You're confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. There are various branches of libertarianism which share the end goal of maximizing individual liberty across society, but differ in what they think is the best approach to get there. Anarcho-capitalism is just one extreme form. In the US, the term libertarianism is too often associated with Randian objectivism, which is popular among university students, but people tend to grow out of it by their mid-20s since absolutist political philosophies mainly appeal to the young. Within the umbrella of libertarianism, you also have left-leaning branches like libertarian socialists and Georgists.

    Within the US, and particularly in the state I live in, there are libertarian populists who cross party lines. So called "Blue Republicans". They are anti-authoritarian, broadly distrustful of the federal government and its crony capitalist policies. They don't like getting fucked by monopolistic corporations or being told what to do by a nanny state. A lot of them are fans of Teddy Roosevelt and would like to elect a modern equivalent. They confuse the hell out of the media because they don't fit neatly in the party dichotomy, coming out for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 and now for Bernie Sanders.

  11. #336
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Quote Originally Posted by Manwe View Post
    I wasn't trolling and I wasn't making an argument for immigration. I'm actually opposed to immigration and I agree with you on the humanitarian crises: it's tragic for everyone involved. I was talking about second or third generation immigrants. I don't know how it works in the US but here in France we have a lot of those. They are French because they were born in France from French parents. The fact that they're Muslims or dark skinned is meaningless. However, there's a certain fringe of the population that simply doesn't understand this and that wants these "immigrants" to be sent back to wherever. To these people I say there are only three realistic solutions to your "problem": mass deportation, mass sterilization, or mass murder. But they don't want to admit that because that would be too extreme even for them.

    Now some people will say "oh but we just need to close the border to solve the problem". But even if you do close the border and don't let a single new immigrant in (which will never happen) they'll still outnumber whites in a few years. Why? Because of their ridiculously high birth rate. A birth rate that has nothing to do with their customs, religion, or skin colour, and everything to do with the fact that they're poor. And poor people make a shit ton of babies. Now I don't have any numbers to back that up but I'm pretty sure that's a universal rule (I come from a very poor family if that helps, although there was just my brother and me).
    In the US, the difference in birth rates is partly cultural. Poor whites have low birth rates. Wealthy hispanics have higher birth rates. In many Latin American countries, family size is equated to social status. Also, Latin America is predominantly Catholic, and the church has traditionally encouraged people to have as big a family as possible. When they emigrate to the US, they bring those values with them and tend to have large families in the first generation. Subsequent generations seem to have fewer children. The same thing happened with the wave of Irish immigration to the US in the middle of the 19th century, and the wave of Italian immigration to the US in early 20th century. Once assimilated, their birth rate declines.

    I suspect the same will be true of Muslim immigrants to Europe. First generation Muslim immigrants will reproduce at a higher rate, but that should decline in subsequently generations.

    The projections you mentioned are interesting in that they're completely different from what I learned in my US civilization classes. I seem to remember clearly whites being outnumbered by blacks/hispanics by the year 2050, or did I get that wrong? I don't have the numbers on hand so maybe I did.

    As far as France is concerned, uh, you literally have to be blind to not see what's going on. To put it bluntly: there are a lot more dark skinned people than there used to be. And you know what? That's fine with me. Because, you see, unlike what Krush is saying they're not "North African Muslims", they're European Muslims. Yes, Islam is the main religion in France, and yes Arabic is the unofficial second language of the country. At least in big city centres like where I live. That's not true of the rural parts of the country of course. So you either make peace with that, or you're headed for civil war (which is a strong possibility here).
    Personally, I like multiculturalism. But I think that immigrants who enter a country should expect and want to live by the common values of the country, e.g. secularism and liberalism. And I expect them to assimilate to a certain degree by learning the language and important customs and traditions. I don't expect them to abandon their culture, just adapt it to fit within their new environment. If an immigrant group is coming in to live in mono-cultural enclaves where they follow their own rules and don't interact with other groups, that's a problem.

  12. #337
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    If an immigrant group is coming in to live in mono-cultural enclaves where they follow their own rules and don't interact with other groups, that's a problem.
    Immigrants in general and financially successful immigrants in particular almost always settle into "enclaves". These enclaves often have various issues, but they also provide crucial support and aid in adjustment. Immigrants that arrive into utter culture shock tend to crash into abject poverty in comparison.

  13. #338
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    A final symbolic gesture for the Cruz campaign...



    Looks like she fell through a trap door, Scooby Doo style...Either that, or her soul left her body when she gazed upon Cruz.

    Notice how Ted glances at her on the ground, then goes back to shaking hands...What a guy!
    Last edited by Vae; 3rd May 2016 at 02:40.

  14. #339
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Personally, I like multiculturalism. But I think that immigrants who enter a country should expect and want to live by the common values of the country, e.g. secularism and liberalism. And I expect them to assimilate to a certain degree by learning the language and important customs and traditions. I don't expect them to abandon their culture, just adapt it to fit within their new environment. If an immigrant group is coming in to live in mono-cultural enclaves where they follow their own rules and don't interact with other groups, that's a problem.
    I can see why people who live somewhere want their idea of that somewhere preserved, but this rests on the notion that the current occupants own the country right down to its "ways" and I don't think it is that simple. Human migration is what it is and does what it does. The face of many countries has been changed forever many times during history. I think there is a tendency to think of history as being where all the change happens and right now is when things need to stay the same forever, or at least change as little as possible, but today is just tomorrow's history and we aren't immune to the same degrees of change. Nor should we be.

  15. #340
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Heywood - interesting stuff about the degrees of liberalism - I can see I need to do some reading. However, it isn't me who is mistaking it for anarcho-capitalism, it's the swathes of self-labelled libertarians I've encountered over the years - I'm just repeating their words essentially.

  16. #341
    Buddy dug up this old clip of Christopher Hitchens quotes about Hillary. More or less sums up why the USA is fucked.


  17. #342
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    On Trump he was equally telling but considerably more concise:


  18. #343
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Looks like Cruz is out of the race! It's looking like Trump vs. Hillary becoming the most likely duo to face off in the general election, with Bernie still holding onto a distance, but still possible chance of taking the nomination for the Democrats.

    ...and there's even the possibility of Sanders going Bull Moose on everyone if he loses the Democrat nomination.

    This has been one hell of an election season. It's even more exciting than Obama's run for his first term, because instead of merely making an historic mark, it feels like there's actually something at stake.

  19. #344
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Got to love Hitch. His views on Islam and conflation with terrorism were pretty awful, but past that, he was a damn fine thinker and wasn't afraid to ruffle feathers. He even has his own razor (though essentially paraphrasing on older latin one).

    Cruz was certainly the most awful option of the bunch, so I guess it's a small mercy that he's out.

  20. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Got to love Hitch. His views on Islam and conflation with terrorism were pretty awful, but past that, he was a damn fine thinker and wasn't afraid to ruffle feathers. He even has his own razor (though essentially paraphrasing on older latin one).

    Cruz was certainly the most awful option of the bunch, so I guess it's a small mercy that he's out.
    Re Islam: There are two important factors that very few people understand. The first is that there are multiple sects, and trying to claim all are wahhabist radicals is like claiming that your average mainstream Catholic is just like Westboro Baptist. The two sects share very little doctrine in common and no practice other than attending church weekly.


    For Cruz I get very suspicious when any career politician shifts from talking about how they have a belief in God(doesn't really bother me, they could be a flipping Wiccan or Satanist for all I care) to talking about how God has a belief in them.

  21. #346
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Looks like Cruz is out of the race! It's looking like Trump vs. Hillary becoming the most likely duo to face off in the general election, with Bernie still holding onto a distance, but still possible chance of taking the nomination for the Democrats.

    ...and there's even the possibility of Sanders going Bull Moose on everyone if he loses the Democrat nomination.

    This has been one hell of an election season. It's even more exciting than Obama's run for his first term, because instead of merely making an historic mark, it feels like there's actually something at stake.
    So Clinton is the next president as expected, how is that exciting? This is politics, not a Netflix show or sports event... You were all played like fools and you're happy about it. Yeah, nothing's changed but it sure was entertaining to watch!

  22. #347
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Re Islam: There are two important factors that very few people understand. The first is that there are multiple sects, and trying to claim all are wahhabist radicals is like claiming that your average mainstream Catholic is just like Westboro Baptist. The two sects share very little doctrine in common and no practice other than attending church weekly.
    Hitch made some very sweeping statements about how the West had some obligation to control the spread of Islam from the middle east etc... He was very "public school" (meaning private school in the UK for whatever reason) in that respect.


    For Cruz I get very suspicious when any career politician shifts from talking about how they have a belief in God(doesn't really bother me, they could be a flipping Wiccan or Satanist for all I care) to talking about how God has a belief in them.
    Tony Blair jumped the shark pretty badly when he mentioned God talking to him. Bush was fond of name-dropping in that sense too.
    Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a large number of US politicians are closeted atheists who cynically God up knowing that they don't stand a chance of election without it.

  23. #348
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Immigrants in general and financially successful immigrants in particular almost always settle into "enclaves". These enclaves often have various issues, but they also provide crucial support and aid in adjustment. Immigrants that arrive into utter culture shock tend to crash into abject poverty in comparison.
    Regarding enclaves, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about ethnic neighborhoods. What I was thinking of is groups who don't want to live by the laws and customs where they live and avoid interacting with anyone outside their ethnic group. The best examples I've come across in the US are Haredi Jews and cults. In Europe, today's concern would be those who want to live under Sharia and who are trying to establish Islamic courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Heywood - interesting stuff about the degrees of liberalism - I can see I need to do some reading. However, it isn't me who is mistaking it for anarcho-capitalism, it's the swathes of self-labelled libertarians I've encountered over the years - I'm just repeating their words essentially.
    I've talked to libertarians that fit your description, but they are generally university age or early 20s. I've noticed that a lot of young guys are into anarchist political philosophies, especially following Ayn Rand or Noam Chomsky. Most pick it up at a university where they are first exposed to political philosophy. I think these philosophies offer an appealing mix of anti-authoritarianism, simplicity, and certainty. They are easy to argue. If you accept their basic premises, then it only takes simple logic to determine what policy is best. But it seems that anarchism is a phase that people grow out of. Same with communism. I'll be damned if I know anyone over the age of 30 who doesn't think that some form of mixed economy is necessary. Once people have been out in the real world for a while they realize that the assumptions and premises behind most political philosophies are either just wrong or gross oversimplifications of reality.

    Another thing I've noticed is that debating political philosophy online tends to be a waste of time because of the endless exchange of strawman arguments. People are less apt to stereotype each other when debating face to face.

    I'm probably biased since I live in a state whose state motto is "Live free or die" (New Hampshire) and we're proud to display it on our number plates. There are a lot of people here who either call themselves libertarians or say they are libertarian leaning, but hardly any of them are hardcore anarcho-capitalist types. In fact, this state is probably as purple as they come. The voters here tend to reject ideologues.

    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a large number of US politicians are closeted atheists who cynically God up knowing that they don't stand a chance of election without it.
    Me neither. You might be interested in this poll:

    http://www.pewforum.org/2016/01/27/f...s-overview-11/

    Pretty sad.

  24. #349
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I've seen similar polls - it's the reason I suspect many are just using it as a veneer for people to feel devout over.

  25. #350
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Manwe View Post
    So Clinton is the next president as expected, how is that exciting?
    That is very exciting.
    It is very exciting if only for one reason: Clinton is not another Bush kid.

    Yeah, nothing's changed but it sure was entertaining to watch!
    I believe the Republican establishment took it for granted that Jeb Bush was gonna win the nomination. And that they had a fair shot grabbing the presidency with Jeb. And then they would continue fucking up the USA and the rest of the world for another 8 years. We would have a war with Iran. No end to the war in Syria (because Saudi-Arabia, and the fact that the Bushes are in bed with the royal family).

    Thank God that plan fell completely through.
    I'd rather seen Sanders as president. But Hillary is still 100x better than any other Republican. And 1000x better than Jeb Bush.

    Now the yanks just have to make sure Trump doesn't win the elections. I don't expect Trump to win, but you never know. There are enough braindead yanks to make for a surprise.

Page 14 of 554 FirstFirst ... 4910111213141516171819242934394449545964114264514 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •