Trump v Clinton: who do you support?

[vivalarevolución]

And this discussion really took off in the past couple. Hoosiers were honored to give the nomination to Trump!
Populism is back in America, baby!

God(s) help us all.

[chuckdee]

More shitty attacks on the person and no counter arguments on the issue. Are you gonna edit too?

No reason to. This is a counter to your ad hominem statement, as you use it incorrectly, and try to justify yourself by that incorrect usage.

[webwit]

Weak. Let me know when you are done diverting and ready to return to the arguments.

[vivalarevolución]

Let me know when the children are done bickering about ad hominem and we can return to the fun discussion.

[fohat]

At this point in life, a person might be less enthusiastic to raise taxes on X group or throw tax money in certain directions.
The 18-25 demographic may not be aware of these aspects of the flow of earned, taxed, and spent money.

I grew up in a time when 21 was the delimiting age for most things, but during the Vietnam era the argument:

"if you are old enough to be sent to the other side of the world and given a gun and ordered to kill people, then you are old enough to vote and to buy a beer"

was convincing enough to see the voting age and drinking age lowered to 18.
(Reagan quickly raised the drinking age back up, but voting was destined to stay at 18.)

While it is true that the life experiences of most teenagers are "incomplete" to say the least, the concept of making voting universal for adults and removing barriers is the right thing to do. You cannot reasonably say that people can start careers, marry, reproduce, enter into any legal contract, etc, at a certain age yet deny them the right to vote (or drink) at that same age. It simply defies logic and reason, even if they are not yet mature enough to make consistently "good" decisions for themselves. Change the "legal age" if you want, but whatever it is needs to sweep consistently across the board.

[vivalarevolución]

At this point in life, a person might be less enthusiastic to raise taxes on X group or throw tax money in certain directions.
The 18-25 demographic may not be aware of these aspects of the flow of earned, taxed, and spent money.

I grew up in a time when 21 was the delimiting age for most things, but during the Vietnam era the argument:

"if you are old enough to be sent to the other side of the world and given a gun and ordered to kill people, then you are old enough to vote and to buy a beer"

was convincing enough to see the voting age and drinking age lowered to 18.
(Reagan quickly raised the drinking age back up, but voting was destined to stay at 18.)

While it is true that the life experiences of most teenagers are "incomplete" to say the least, the concept of making voting universal for adults and removing barriers is the right thing to do. You cannot reasonably say that people can start careers, marry, reproduce, enter into any legal contract, etc, at a certain age yet deny them the right to vote (or drink) at that same age. It simply defies logic and reason, even if they are not yet mature enough to make consistently "good" decisions for themselves. Change the "legal age" if you want, but whatever it is needs to sweep consistently across the board.

Good point. I am convinced. My argument is moot.

[chuckdee]

While it is true that the life experiences of most teenagers are "incomplete" to say the least, the concept of making voting universal for adults and removing barriers is the right thing to do. You cannot reasonably say that people can start careers, marry, reproduce, enter into any legal contract, etc, at a certain age yet deny them the right to vote (or drink) at that same age. It simply defies logic and reason, even if they are not yet mature enough to make consistently "good" decisions for themselves. Change the "legal age" if you want, but whatever it is needs to sweep consistently across the board.

While I do agree that there needs to be a reason behind it, I don't agree that it needs to be universal, just that there needs to be a rational reason behind the differentiation. Currently, I don't think that there is a rational reason behind the differentiation; the drinking and driving justification (which is the most commonly used differentiation) isn't enough, in my opinion.

A good break down on the pros and cons:

http://drinkingage.procon.org/

[webwit]

Your previous "rational" reason here was that Email-gate was nothing more but a republican smear, and when someone pointed out the fantasy factor of that, you had no reply and attacked the person repeatedly.

[seebart]

I don't get this thread anymore, it's starting to get silly. Everyone knows that Clintons Email-gate is real! Is anyone denying this? What's the friggin' point?

[Muirium]

Give it time. I'm sure it gets better.

Spoiler:

Figure 1: Voters.

[webwit]

@seebart That's what I said after the exchange below where two supporters created a fantasy that it was nothing and others are at fault, and started to slap each other on the back about it. After which I was a very bad person of course. It is on the level where someones favorite football player made a bad foul and then the supporter creates a fantasy so it was not a foul and the people who point it out must be attacked. Then same person ironically continues to address rationality.

(b) Because the e-mail controversy is rather underreported,

It was the main story in the US press for weeks, and keeps coming back up months later. It has been dramatically over-reported, by media outlets grasping at straws to invent a scandal. The scandal here, such as there is one, is that the state department and NSA were both too incompetent / lazy to get the secretary of state a modern option for a secure communications device, something which the white house and NSA apparently did manage to accomplish for the president.

Very much this. The e-mail scandal is on the same level as the birther scandal, i.e. they can't find a real scandal to pin on them, so resort to this. Very much like the whole Lewinsky waste of time, money, and resources.

[seebart]

OK I get it now webwit, makes me wonder harder now...

Give it time. I'm sure it gets better.

Not with this thread it won't get better. Those don't look like Scottish voters to me.

These on the other hand look real to me...

election.jpg (81.98 KiB) Viewed 4405 times

[chuckdee]

Give it time. I'm sure it gets better.

Spoiler:

Figure 1: Voters.

\

Hmmm. Anyone else see anything entirely wrong with this image?

[Muirium]

@Seebart: According to many (unionist) politicians in these parts, violent/intimidating "street nationalism", is a real thing and no one can feel safe to disagree with the SNP in public. As so clearly demonstrated in that shot…

When will someone please teach us barbarian Jocks some manners!

[seebart]

Errr those people don't exactly look like they are going on a rampage Mu. This is what it looks like here on May 1st:

polizeibeamte-versuchen-bei-der-demonstration-link_201605012246_full.jpg (89.85 KiB) Viewed 4389 times

urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-160502-99-796389_201605031111_full.jpg (102.3 KiB) Viewed 4389 times

Vorabenddemonstration-zum-1.jpg (52.47 KiB) Viewed 4386 times

[chuckdee]

@seebart That's what I said after the exchange below where two supporters created a fantasy that it was nothing and others are at fault, and started to slap each other on the back about it. After which I was a very bad person of course. It is on the level where someones favorite football player made a bad foul and then the supporter creates a fantasy so it was not a foul and the people who point it out must be attacked. Then same person ironically continues to address rationality.

It was the main story in the US press for weeks, and keeps coming back up months later. It has been dramatically over-reported, by media outlets grasping at straws to invent a scandal. The scandal here, such as there is one, is that the state department and NSA were both too incompetent / lazy to get the secretary of state a modern option for a secure communications device, something which the white house and NSA apparently did manage to accomplish for the president.

Very much this. The e-mail scandal is on the same level as the birther scandal, i.e. they can't find a real scandal to pin on them, so resort to this. Very much like the whole Lewinsky waste of time, money, and resources.

Thats your first fallacy. As I said several times above, I don't support Clinton, nor do I support Trump. But in your drive forward, you haven't seen it and/or haven't paid attention to that point. Some might say it's perhaps because that doesn't jive with your narrative, but I couldn't possibly comment.

[webwit]

You claimed Email-gate was invented as a scandal by the media, I argued that this is a fantasy. It seems you have a very hard time coping with that, as you never provided a counter argument, and you never will. Above you're once again diverting. But don't let that stop you providing us with your "rational" insights/fantasies/whatever they are.

[Muirium]

Errr those people don't exactly look like they are going on a rampage Mu.

Yeah, I should have used sarcastic brownfont. Many politicians and pundits here really do say that, but it's obvious horseshit. I've never seen such a bunch of sore winners. Must be all this losing they're facing now…

[chuckdee]

You claimed Email-gate was invented as a scandal by the media, I argued that this is a fantasy. It seems you have a very hard time coping with that, as you never provided a counter argument, and you never will. Above you're once again diverting. But don't let that stop you providing us with your "rational" insights/fantasies/whatever they are.

Your quotes are incorrect, which might be leading you to your second fallacy. Why not click the link where you attributed it to me, and see that your attribution is incorrect?

You seem not to want to be called out on your foibles. In a discussion, such things are the diverting ones.

For example, I asked you what you'd like to see done. And you said google. If that's not a diversion, I don't know what is.

[webwit]

Your first quote is this, separated from phpBB quoting level mess:

Very much this. The e-mail scandal is on the same level as the birther scandal, i.e. they can't find a real scandal to pin on them, so resort to this. Very much like the whole Lewinsky waste of time, money, and resources.

Of course it is only a coincidence you compare it with another Clinton scandal and in no way suggests your opinion is partisan, you were just helping that nice lady out and protect here against the evil forces of the media and (while not being partisan) republicans.

Here's the second quote you address:

How would you want it to be addressed, and more importantly, why?

Try the Internet to learn why in a healthy democracy the Secretary of State shouldn't work from a private email server.

You wanted me to explain how I wanted it to be addressed (I already addressed it, she should have been fired) and why it is important. And indeed, if you need that explained to you beyond my summary about accountability and state security, I am not going to do it. Maybe you can find one of those youtube videos which explains it with cartoons. Actually if you ask "Why", what you were saying is "it is not important, stop pestering the nice lady".

[chuckdee]

As I said, I don't like Clinton. I don't think that a Bush vs. Clinton ticket would have been good for the country, nor a good representation of the electorate. I personally don't think that either is the candidate this country needed. Thankfully, Bush had the good grace to flame out. Clinton, unfortunately did not.

That said, as an IT professional, I think that the e-mail scandal is not as large as people make it out to be. It wasn't a private relay, and no national security disclosures were violated. And while you are condescending to me in your statement, and dare I say it, attacking me, perhaps you want to google when her tenure was, and when this scandal occurred, and why your firing of her is a moot point, and that might inform why the question was raised.

Or perhaps not, as I can be nice in my discussions, and link the relevant facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_C ... ail_server

In case that's a bit much, her tenure was from 2009 to 2013, and the 'scandal' was brought up in 2015. How could she be fired from a post she no longer holds?

So, let's take it down a notch, shall we? When I ask questions, they are out of a genuine curiosity, not out of a partisan stance, nor in order to make a point. If you don't want to discuss on those merits, let me know, and I'll promptly ignore your contributions to the thread, in order to make the discussion a bit more civil.

[webwit]

I like your tone. It's very adult and civil.

She should have been fired from any government position. I.e. if you do this in a company, you are fired, whatever position you're now holding. You violated the trust. You cannot run for the CEO position.

[chuckdee]

I like your tone. It's very adult and civil.

She should have been fired from any government position. I.e. if you do this in a company, you are fired, whatever position you're now holding. You violated the trust. You cannot run for the CEO position.

But that's not a condition set forth by the electorate, and she holds no government position. So the only real choices are to change the rules, or to convict her of a crime. It's doubtful that the rules are going to be changed at this point, and there has been no real movement to convict her, and indeed the weight of the burden of proof would probably fall somewhere near H.RES.1345, i.e. the impeachment of Bush, which also had no real teeth.

So, what should be done in that case? Waste more taxpayer dollars on something that has no real return on investment? Or move on? Other than personal or political gain (i.e. derailing Clinton as a candidate, and dragging her campaign through the mud), the answer would seem to me to be obvious. But I'd like someone who is a detractor to lay out the reasons behind such a massive outlay of funds, and what we could expect to gain as a collective by it.

[webwit]

derailing Clinton as a candidate, and dragging her campaign through the mud

Yes!

Point out she cannot be trusted and is unfit as a candidate. Because she has proved that's the case.

Instead people promote her and give her a free pass, because the other guy is deemed a lesser candidate. I find the fantasies they create to support, and then start to believe in funny. Why can't they both suck?

[chuckdee]

derailing Clinton as a candidate, and dragging her campaign through the mud

Yes!

Point out she cannot be trusted and is unfit as a candidate. Because she has proved that's the case.

Instead people promote her and give her a free pass, because the other guy is deemed a lesser candidate. I find the fantasies they create to support, and then start to believe in funny. Why can't they both suck?

They all suck. It's just which degree of suckage and at what cost. I don't think that derailing a candidate is enough to justify how much this would cost. At least, not unless they're paying me.

[seebart]

Of course they all suck, but the guy with the funky hair is politically a complete unknown. It's like the ultimate joker with the highest possible stakes. I bet he doesn't even himself know what he's going to do if he gets elected.

This is fun:

http://gawker.com/republicans-on-donald ... 1774931147

[scottc]

Of course they all suck

You've somehow managed to describe the entire American political system in five monosyllabic words.

[0100010]

Trump vs Hillary is a game of Russian Roulette where you can pick either a revolver with all chambers loaded, or a semi-auto pistol with a full mag and one in the chamber.

[Muirium]

Hillary: no World War 3.
Trump: maybe.

We've been at worse crossroads.

[seebart]

Of course they all suck

You've somehow managed to describe the entire American political system in five monosyllabic words.

That's not limited to the American political system, we have a different but no less shitty situation here in Germany with two large self-over-administrative behemoth parties in a anaesthesised grand coalition with a almost non existent opposition and no change in sight except super right wing semi-Nazis that call themselfs "Alternative for Germany". And since Merkels refugee managment was and is about as successful as Donald Trumps PR stunts the shit will hit the fan in a huge way come the next election.

Hillary: same shit as usual.
Trump: unknown crazy shit.