The 2016 US American Election Thread

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

"Freedom of speech" is a principle. It is distinct from, and broader than, the first amendment in the USA or s.2(b) of the Charter up here.

Suggesting that being a male feminist is the only position that's "tolerable" in society is nakedly authoritarian, particularly when no one can define what "feminist" means anymore, and if they attempt to it's usually a motte and bailey position.

Illuminaughty is pretty obviously a nut, and for that reason, is far less eyebrow-raising to me than some of the positions articulated in here by otherwise ostensibly sane people.

Nakedly authoritarian? I totally disagree. If anyone disagrees with that statement, they are more than welcome to explain why other positions are as valid or indeed even more valid than "being a male feminist" (whatever that might mean). Making statements like "being a male feminist is the only position that's tolerable" is not an attack on free speech, its an invitation/opportunity to exercise it.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by Drak

FYI, you came in guns blazing with conspiracy theories to start yourself off. Then you became very defensive.

If there was a more moderate candidate running on the GOP side I'm sure you'd see a more reasonable and fair debate between both sides. There are many conservatives on this board. Unfortunately we're dealing with an extreme unprecedented ridiculous candidate that is completely unfit for office in Donald Trump. Makes it difficult for a level headed poster to lay down what some might deem fair.

Forget the whole Mena issue, there are many other instances that show the Clintons out to be very shady people at the very least. My initial statement had to do with how everybody was just piling on Trump for allegations of his past, while ignoring Hillary's. What was I defensive of? Not sharing your viewpoint and being called crazy because of it? Wow

As bad as Trump is, Hillary is much worse. Her history involved in politics is proof of that. Everybody seems to be fearful of what Trump might do, he might not do any of what he says, who knows? He certainly wouldn't be the first leader to say things to get elected and do the opposite. I already stated I'm a Paul supporter if I was forced to chose.

When it comes to political issues I look at them all separately and free of holding some party line. My beliefs just happen to be pretty right wing.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by photon

Lol, Pence saying that he and Trump will accept the results of the election. Does Pence even listen to what Trump says?

"As Donald Trump said in that first debate, I’ll say to you again today, we’re going to accept the will of the American people"

Pence also said that there is more and more evidence that implicates Russia in the hacking, which goes against Trump's stance.

Trump should fire Pence.,that would be awesome, stick Bannon in there.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Nakedly authoritarian? I totally disagree. If anyone disagrees with that statement, they are more than welcome to explain why other positions are as valid or indeed even more valid than "being a male feminist" (whatever that might mean). Making statements like "being a male feminist is the only position that's tolerable" is not an attack on free speech, its an invitation/opportunity to exercise it.

Yeah... nice try, but I'm absolutely not buying it for a second. Saying that one's position is the "only tolerable position" is the antithesis of an invitation to others to express different positions. The only thing it "invites" is conformity.

One might be "welcome" to disagree, in the sense that one won't be arrested for it, but the conclusion has already been declared final before any "conversation" begins. As explicitly stated, dissent of any kind will be considered "intolerable".

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

It's funny how upset the left get by Trump and he's not afraid to say things even if they are wrong. Hillary on the other hand just lies and says whatever to get elected, then caters to her corporate handlers and is never held accountable.

so Trumps lies are brave and Hillarys lies are despicable? Wow.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Yes im in a union the last 4 years. But ive worked in a few places over the years. Service, clerical, day, night, union, non-union. Ive left places for more money. Ive never thought i was being held back because of race and gender.

Is it different elsewhere?

Thank you for that post. That's the reality, it comes down to the persons ability to do the job they are hired for. All this other stuff is just false appeals to victimhood.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Thank you for that post. That's the reality, it comes down to the persons ability to do the job they are hired for. All this other stuff is just false appeals to victimhood.

no no, i'm just asking if it's different in the states or even here in Alberta. Maybe there are obstacles that I personally haven't faced but others do. I'm mid 30s.. maybe people older, younger, in different stages or their career face something different.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by devo22

so Trumps lies are brave and Hillarys lies are despicable? Wow.

No all lies are bad and shouldn't be tolerated by politicians. Where did I say that? That's a bit of reach don't you think. Why isn't everyone talking about all of Hillary's lies and just Trumps? Maybe there is a bias.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

no no, i'm just asking if it's different in the states or even here in Alberta. Maybe there are obstacles that I personally haven't faced but others do. I'm mid 30s.. maybe people older, younger, in different stages or their career face something different.

It's not any different anywhere in the western world. The civil suits would be out of control and it would be corrected. The problem is people don't understand the difference between wages and earnings, or have some political motive they are pandering.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah... nice try, but I'm absolutely not buying it for a second. Saying that one's position is the "only tolerable position" is the antithesis of an invitation to others to express different positions. The only thing it "invites" is conformity.

One might be "welcome" to disagree, in the sense that one won't be arrested for it, but the conclusion has already been declared final before any "conversation" begins. As explicitly stated, dissent of any kind will be considered "intolerable".

Well, again, I disagree. You're "absolutely not buying (my argument) for a second." You think my view on freedom of speach is authoritarian (perhaps). You might even tell me that my views on freedom of speech are intolerable. Fair enough. I don't think that you have infringed on my freedom of speech in any way. I'm happy to defend my position. If I can't defend it well, kudos to you. I ought to then reconsider it carefully.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

At no point have I said that your position is intolerable or in any way implied that my views on the limits of free expression are the only views that should exist in our society. Don't try to paint me with a false equivalence like that, that sort of tactic should be beneath you.

Frankly, it's possible that there is some speech that simply shouldn't be allowed. To take the most obvious example, if you happen to know how to build a nuclear bomb out of easily acquired materials, I think I'm okay with you being silenced on that one rather than publishing it on facebook...

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

At no point have I said that your position is intolerable or in any way implied that my views on the limits of free expression are the only views that should exist in our society. Don't try to paint me with a false equivalence like that, that sort of tactic should be beneath you.

Not trying to imply it. Meant it more as a hypothetical (why I put "perhaps" in parentheses): if you did say that, I don't think it would infringe on my rights whatsoever.

Sorry for the confusion.

My point is this: why isn't it legitimate to argue which views or positions are intolerable? I suspect most people agree that some views are morally intolerable, no? Why shouldn't we argue about which is which?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Oh. That's fair, though I would prefer that if you're going to make hypothetical positions, that you not also make a hypothetical alternate "me" who subscribes to them. You can see how that might get someone's back up. "Suppose Makarov was a fervent supporter of NAMBLA..."

Anyway, I'm perfectly happy to have a discussion on what speech should be curtailed for the good of everyone. But if you start by saying "here's what I subscribe to, and no alternatives are tolerable", there's no discussion to be had there. I think I'm probably being too hard on Photon, who might in retrospect have preferred if he'd worded his post differently. And he also pointed out that different people define the term in different ways. I'm just saying that opposition to free speech comes in much broader flavours than the government coming to arrest you. That's not really an issue in Canada or the USA (though HR tribunals always enter my mind when I say that).

[GirlySports]

I think in this election some Americans are just mad. So they are supporting Trump. It can be something simple as technology leaving them behind.

For example, people struggling in the current economy where you need to have a college degree OR find service-oriented jobs where you have to suck it up and just do the work. These people are from families in towns that were mostly manufacturing-based, so the steel mill or the car plant or whatever. It was their birth right to just graduate high school (or not) and go work at the factory on the edge of town. But that job is gone. They sit at home and listen to Republican talk radio hammer the point home that the Democrats are the devil, your job was given away.

Then they get grouped as 'the uneducated' and we mock them. it's not really their fault they're uneducated, that's how the small town is. So as I mentioned before, I get very wary when the Liberal media goes on the 'Trump people are uneducated' rampage. I can see where these people are coming from.

[RougeUnderoos]

This is an election in which, for the first time in the 240 year history of the United States, a woman has a chance to become the president, and we're talking about the myths of feminism.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I love that a Trump supporter is complaining about people playing the victim. Does anyone live in perpetual victimhood more than Trump supporters? Literally everything to them is the fault of someone else, generally those perpetuating mass conspiracies. Illiminaughty is actually pretty funny if you think about it.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

As bad as Trump is, Hillary is much worse. Her history involved in politics is proof of that.

Once again, this argument that these two candidates are equally bad, or that Hillary is somehow worse than Trump, is completely absurd to any normal, intelligent, sensible human being. Do your homework, dude. Her list of political accomplishments is pretty damn extensive. And for the record, I'm not even a big Clinton supporter. Like most people, I would have much preferred Bernie. Like most folks in this thread, I'm simply anti-Trump. The guy is a childish, bigoted, sexist assclown who has zero grasp of the real world, and would likely set that country back 50 years.

Has Hillary made mistakes over the years? Definitely. No politician has a spot free resume, especially when you've been in the game as long as she has. Is she qualified to be President? Absolutely. And when comparing these two candidates, she's clearly the best option for the U.S. moving forward.

[2Stonedbirds]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/new...108627627.html

Republican headquarters in Orange County North Carolina firebombed.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/new...108627627.html

Republican headquarters in Orange County North Carolina firebombed.

Man, this election is seriously out of control. Fire bombings, people threatening to intimidate minority voters on election day, Trump supporters promising violent revolution if Clinton wins... what a s--- show.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

She lies about everything for starters. She is just virtue pandering and smearing Trump. Her actual policies won't work, and will just make things worse. She'll just pick up the ball where Obama left it and continue making more blunders.

The recording of her laughing about getting that child rapist off, should be concerning too.

She lies about everything. -- that is a false exaggeration. You need to show she lies more than the typical Washington politician or at least lies more than Trump for that to be a reason Hillary shouldn't serve as president. Polo fact puts Trump at 70% lies and Hillary at 30%.

You say her policies won't work. Which one of her policies won't work and how would Trumps policies be better.

Please provide in context the full tape about getting the child rapist off. Listen to the entire uncut tape and she does not laugh at getting him off. Also are you aware why she was defending a child rapist?

What do you see as the alternative that his better than 4 more years of Obama?

I don't think anyone in this thread believes that Hillary is a great choice for president. However, I don't believe it is debatable that she is a superior choice to Trump.