US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Let me stop you right there.

Government might have been responsible for far more death, destruction, suffering, and injustices than any private actor has, yes, but a powerful government has the ability to command far more resources to mobilize in order to change paradigms than a small sector of society does.

That's actually debatable. Most revolutions start with very small groups of idealists who want to change things. And look at the disruptive technologies and ideas of the twenty first century (to be fair gotta give govt some minimal props for developing tcp/ip that makes most of the internet possible), you want to talk about paradigm shift look at what corporations and small business have done. That is far more positive and transformative than government.

Most revolutions start with planting a government structure in place of the old one. Most revolutions start as a means of either creating a new government, or replacing the old members of government. Everyone who has made a revolution has gone after the government, and it's not because they feel like it. Corporations and small businesses do much, yes, but they can only do so much is the point.

Government has more ability to change power structures and paradigms than society does. One doesn't have to look further than anti-discrimination laws. If you truly think that anti-discrimination laws, and cases before the supreme court have not changed this country into what it is now, you live in lalaland.

[Llamalandia]

Well this Murica, there is a lot uninhabited land out there. It's not like you have to live in a society. <snip>.

I'm fairly certain that all the land in America is owned by individuals, corporations, the government, or the public (i.e, National Parks and such). I'm also fairly certain that it's nearly impossible to separate oneself from society in order to actually, y'know, function and thrive.

I would like to point out that when Soldati was saying that poor people can't always reject low-paying jobs, your response was "well, you don't have to live in a society, you can go into the wilderness" which seems pretty ludicrous.

Hey not saying it is super desirable (though plenty of people do choose to do so), just that it is possible. Plus as long as you aren't on land someone else is using they probably aren't going to notice or care about your presence in most cases.

[Marylandonia]

Yet you don't respect the judgement of the FBI Director on the matter who happens to be a Republican. So what does that really say about you and those in law enforcement at the highest level?
Maybe you don't respect them unless they do your political bidding. That's what it amounts to. Sick.

Didn't say I don't respect him. He clearly is confident the case can be won, but also seems to pretty clearly have indicated that she broke the law. Also his analysis is a bit loose, I don't think the law requires a specific intentionality on the part of the person violating it.

His analysis is a bit loose you say? And you are exactly whom that has all the evidence involved? Give us a break.

[Icamera]

While I really, really approve of Politifact's thoroughness and accuracy for individual analyses, I've never really been a fan of comparisons like these. After all, they're essentially free to play the gatekeeper and accept (or reject) any quotes they please, which makes it easy for cherrypicking to happen.

Basically, these comparisons show that Clinton is more truthful than Trump in statements analyzed by Politifact, but not necessarily in general. Granted, the pattern probably does hold true if we expand that set to all statements ever said by each candidate, but it's not like we're really reasonably capable of determining that.

Once you have better proof she really does lie an exceptional amount, you will be free to call her a liar. Until then, the accusation is meaningless.

Precisely, which is why I don't call her a liar. I'm saying that we can't really determine with much certainty whether either candidate is a liar in the "percentage of statements made that are false" sense because it's essentially impossible to analyze every single statement they make. I'm also arguing that the set of statements analyzed by Politifact isn't sufficient to declare either of them a liar or a truth-er (er, not that kind of truther...).

Do I think that Hillary is probably correct more often than Trump? Yeah. Can I say that for sure? Not really.

[Socialist Nordia]

I'm fairly certain that all the land in America is owned by individuals, corporations, the government, or the public (i.e, National Parks and such). I'm also fairly certain that it's nearly impossible to separate oneself from society in order to actually, y'know, function and thrive.

I would like to point out that when Soldati was saying that poor people can't always reject low-paying jobs, your response was "well, you don't have to live in a society, you can go into the wilderness" which seems pretty ludicrous.

Hey not saying it is super desirable (though plenty of people do choose to do so), just that it is possible. Plus as long as you aren't on land someone else is using they probably aren't going to notice or care about your presence in most cases.

"You can take this shitty exploitation job, or live on your own in the wilderness, separated from the entire rest of society. See? You're free." That logic sucks. That isn't freedom. That isn't justice. That isn't right.

[USS Monitor]

Depends what you mean by "exploiting." You can't force someone to work for you against their will. If you offer low wages and people take them, that's their decision to apply for the job despite the low wages.

If you have no other means to put food on the table, you will apply for the job despite the low wages.

You're thinking that the default condition of humans is to have their fridge full of food everyday. While I do have my fridge full of food every week, that doesn't mean that if I am starving I have the luxury to wait on a good job while everyone around me is offering job for shit wages.

If I am starving on the street, I don't have the luxury to think 5 dollars a day is too little.

If you take a job with shit wages because you need something to put food on the table RIGHT NOW, that doesn't mean you're not allowed to apply for other jobs.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm fairly certain that all the land in America is owned by individuals, corporations, the government, or the public (i.e, National Parks and such). I'm also fairly certain that it's nearly impossible to separate oneself from society in order to actually, y'know, function and thrive.

I would like to point out that when Soldati was saying that poor people can't always reject low-paying jobs, your response was "well, you don't have to live in a society, you can go into the wilderness" which seems pretty ludicrous.

Hey not saying it is super desirable (though plenty of people do choose to do so), just that it is possible. Plus as long as you aren't on land someone else is using they probably aren't going to notice or care about your presence in most cases.

It's possible, you say?

Yea, and then corporations and businesses claim land they own leaving the most destitute to live on municipal dumpsters.

No, thanks.

[Llamalandia]

That's actually debatable. Most revolutions start with very small groups of idealists who want to change things. And look at the disruptive technologies and ideas of the twenty first century (to be fair gotta give govt some minimal props for developing tcp/ip that makes most of the internet possible), you want to talk about paradigm shift look at what corporations and small business have done. That is far more positive and transformative than government.

Most revolutions start with planting a government structure in place of the old one. Most revolutions start as a means of either creating a new government, or replacing the old members of government. Everyone who has made a revolution has gone after the government, and it's not because they feel like it. Corporations and small businesses do much, yes, but they can only do so much is the point.

Government has more ability to change power structures and paradigms than society does. One doesn't have to look further than anti-discrimination laws. If you truly think that anti-discrimination laws, and cases before the supreme court have not changed this country into what it is now, you live in lalaland.

No they certainly have, but like Rand Paul, I tend to disagree with anti discrimination laws. Law and govt aren't the way to change society. If you don't like something you should normally persuade people of your position, not just use force to compel them to act, speak or think the way you want them to. Look at everybody's go to nonviolent revolutionary, Ghandi, he fought an Empire simply through noncompliance and peaceful action. Not saying he was perfect, but clearly he showed the power of an individual to achieve meaningful change without resorting to violence or force.

[Marylandonia]

Hey not saying it is super desirable (though plenty of people do choose to do so), just that it is possible. Plus as long as you aren't on land someone else is using they probably aren't going to notice or care about your presence in most cases.

"You can take this shitty exploitation job, or live on your own in the wilderness, separated from the entire rest of society. See? You're free." That logic sucks. That isn't freedom. That isn't justice. That isn't right.

It's a regurgitation of AM right wing talk radio yakitty-yak.

[Llamalandia]

Hey not saying it is super desirable (though plenty of people do choose to do so), just that it is possible. Plus as long as you aren't on land someone else is using they probably aren't going to notice or care about your presence in most cases.

It's possible, you say?

Yea, and then corporations and businesses claim land they own leaving the most destitute to live on municipal dumpsters.

No, thanks.

Actually, squatters rights tend to be a thing. Plus unless you find a vein of gold or oil deposit I doubt these ebul corporations will care much about your little log cabin.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If you have no other means to put food on the table, you will apply for the job despite the low wages.

You're thinking that the default condition of humans is to have their fridge full of food everyday. While I do have my fridge full of food every week, that doesn't mean that if I am starving I have the luxury to wait on a good job while everyone around me is offering job for shit wages.

If I am starving on the street, I don't have the luxury to think 5 dollars a day is too little.

If you take a job with shit wages because you need something to put food on the table RIGHT NOW, that doesn't mean you're not allowed to apply for other jobs.

That still doesn't mean you're going to get a job that will pay 5 dollars an hour.

Everyone knows you need money to survive in a capitalist society. Taking the government away from business transactions and leave businesses do as they wish will, in fact, not be helpful. Businesses will pay what they can get away with paying. That's how businesses work. If they can get away with paying workers 5 dollars a day, and people take it because they starve, you are basically providing an incentive for businesses to pay 5 dollars an hour for its workers.

That's how businesses work, that's how they have always worked. To assume businesses care about their human capital that much is naïve.

[Socialist Nordia]

Most revolutions start with planting a government structure in place of the old one. Most revolutions start as a means of either creating a new government, or replacing the old members of government. Everyone who has made a revolution has gone after the government, and it's not because they feel like it. Corporations and small businesses do much, yes, but they can only do so much is the point.

Government has more ability to change power structures and paradigms than society does. One doesn't have to look further than anti-discrimination laws. If you truly think that anti-discrimination laws, and cases before the supreme court have not changed this country into what it is now, you live in lalaland.

No they certainly have, but like Rand Paul, I tend to disagree with anti discrimination laws. Law and govt aren't the way to change society. If you don't like something you should normally persuade people of your position, not just use force to compel them to act, speak or think the way you want them to. Look at everybody's go to nonviolent revolutionary, Ghandi, he fought an Empire simply through noncompliance and peaceful action. Not saying he was perfect, but clearly he showed the power of an individual to achieve meaningful change without resorting to violence or force.

You disagree with discrimination laws? Well then, let's let schools go ahead and segregate again. Let's just screw over the lives of minorities, women, and the disabled, to name a few. How can you be against anti discrimination laws? I'm not one to go on about privilege, but yours just seems blinding.

[Marylandonia]

It's possible, you say?

Yea, and then corporations and businesses claim land they own leaving the most destitute to live on municipal dumpsters.

No, thanks.

Actually, squatters rights tend to be a thing. Plus unless you find a vein of gold or oil deposit I doubt these ebul corporations will care much about your little log cabin.

Sounds like a home built by the Unibomber. What the hell kind of life is that?

[Llamalandia]

Didn't say I don't respect him. He clearly is confident the case can be won, but also seems to pretty clearly have indicated that she broke the law. Also his analysis is a bit loose, I don't think the law requires a specific intentionality on the part of the person violating it.

His analysis is a bit loose you say? And you are exactly whom that has all the evidence involved? Give us a break.

He basically said she violated the law and policy, he just basically said, he wasn't recommending an indictment because there wasn't sufficient evidence that she did it deliberately.

[Socialist Nordia]

His analysis is a bit loose you say? And you are exactly whom that has all the evidence involved? Give us a break.

He basically said she violated the law and policy, he just basically said, he wasn't recommending an indictment because there wasn't sufficient evidence that she did it deliberately.

That's not even what he fucking said. He never said she broke the law. I want a direct quote saying she broke the law.

[Llamalandia]

No they certainly have, but like Rand Paul, I tend to disagree with anti discrimination laws. Law and govt aren't the way to change society. If you don't like something you should normally persuade people of your position, not just use force to compel them to act, speak or think the way you want them to. Look at everybody's go to nonviolent revolutionary, Ghandi, he fought an Empire simply through noncompliance and peaceful action. Not saying he was perfect, but clearly he showed the power of an individual to achieve meaningful change without resorting to violence or force.

You disagree with discrimination laws? Well then, let's let schools go ahead and segregate again. Let's just screw over the lives of minorities, women, and the disabled, to name a few. How can you be against anti discrimination laws? I'm not one to go on about privilege, but yours just seems blinding.

As long as they aren't govt run schools fine. Basically, things like racial discrimination are not in the interest of businesses and the invisible hand of the market will eventually eliminate them naturally.

[Marylandonia]

His analysis is a bit loose you say? And you are exactly whom that has all the evidence involved? Give us a break.

He basically said she violated the law and policy, he just basically said, he wasn't recommending an indictment because there wasn't sufficient evidence that she did it deliberately.

I know WTF he said. Now I asked you a question. Who the hell are you that has access? Why do you question the FBI director's judgement over yours?

[USS Monitor]

Well this Murica, there is a lot uninhabited land out there. It's not like you have to live in a society. <snip>.

I'm fairly certain that all the land in America is owned by individuals, corporations, the government, or the public (i.e, National Parks and such). I'm also fairly certain that it's nearly impossible to separate oneself from society in order to actually, y'know, function and thrive.

I would like to point out that when Soldati was saying that poor people can't always reject low-paying jobs, your response was "well, you don't have to live in a society, you can go into the wilderness" which seems pretty ludicrous.

Some of the land in Maine is so sparsely populated, they probably would not notice if you went up there and hid out in the woods, even though much of it is technically owned by logging companies.

Living in society is easier. Just pointing out the land is there.

[Llamalandia]

He basically said she violated the law and policy, he just basically said, he wasn't recommending an indictment because there wasn't sufficient evidence that she did it deliberately.

That's not even what he fucking said. He never said she broke the law. I want a direct quote saying she broke the law.

Then go find it yourself. I never said he said that verbatim. But that is clearly what he said in his testimony before congress and in his newsconference announcing the non-indictment. He also said, that had she still been sec of state she likely would have lost her security clearance.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Actually, squatters rights tend to be a thing. Plus unless you find a vein of gold or oil deposit I doubt these ebul corporations will care much about your little log cabin.

Sounds like a home built by the Unibomber. What the hell kind of life is that?

The kind of life illegal immigrants from Central America have been escaping from since the civil wars.

People have not just been immigrating for fun. Between living in a dumpster and dying of cholera, and taking the trip to the United States, there's not a lot to lose. One option is eating shit all your life, and the other is basically trying not to die for a week and then if you make it to the States, come and at least be able to live.

[Socialist Nordia]

You disagree with discrimination laws? Well then, let's let schools go ahead and segregate again. Let's just screw over the lives of minorities, women, and the disabled, to name a few. How can you be against anti discrimination laws? I'm not one to go on about privilege, but yours just seems blinding.

As long as they aren't govt run schools fine. Basically, things like racial discrimination are not in the interest of businesses and the invisible hand of the market will eventually eliminate them naturally.

Fuck that. Do you realise how bad life would be for, as an example, gay people in the south? Discrimination would be rampant. I'm not content with the all-powerful free market reaching anti discrimination slowly but surely. It's fucking cult like to think it can just solve all problems all on its own. All hail the holy free market! No, sometimes the government needs to tell people what to do, get over it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Most revolutions start with planting a government structure in place of the old one. Most revolutions start as a means of either creating a new government, or replacing the old members of government. Everyone who has made a revolution has gone after the government, and it's not because they feel like it. Corporations and small businesses do much, yes, but they can only do so much is the point.

Government has more ability to change power structures and paradigms than society does. One doesn't have to look further than anti-discrimination laws. If you truly think that anti-discrimination laws, and cases before the supreme court have not changed this country into what it is now, you live in lalaland.

No they certainly have, but like Rand Paul, I tend to disagree with anti discrimination laws. Law and govt aren't the way to change society. If you don't like something you should normally persuade people of your position, not just use force to compel them to act, speak or think the way you want them to. Look at everybody's go to nonviolent revolutionary, Ghandi, he fought an Empire simply through noncompliance and peaceful action. Not saying he was perfect, but clearly he showed the power of an individual to achieve meaningful change without resorting to violence or force.

How the hell are you going to change things if people aren't listening to you?

See, you come from a privileged bubble, so it's easy for you to say "oh, let's just not bother using the government to institute rights. Why should those niggers get any rights?" Do you honestly believe that slavery would have been gone from the U.S. were it not because of the reconstruction amendments?

[Llamalandia]

He basically said she violated the law and policy, he just basically said, he wasn't recommending an indictment because there wasn't sufficient evidence that she did it deliberately.

I know WTF he said. Now I asked you a question. Who the hell are you that has access? Why do you question the FBI director's judgement over yours?

For one thing as a libertarian I have a proper, patriotic distrust of government and authority in the first place. Secondly, based on the evidence that the director himself has shared it seems clear that he could have recommended an indictment, but that he chose not to based on how he was interpreting the law. I'm not arguing about what evidence there is or isn't for the fact that Clinton broke the law, rather I am arguing with how the Director is suggesting the violation has to be intentional. She herself has admitted using a private server and the director has said that she sent and received classified information on a private non govt server.

[Socialist Nordia]

That's not even what he fucking said. He never said she broke the law. I want a direct quote saying she broke the law.

Then go find it yourself. I never said he said that verbatim. But that is clearly what he said in his testimony before congress and in his newsconference announcing the non-indictment. He also said, that had she still been sec of state she likely would have lost her security clearance.

Look, I listened to him, and I'm calling bs on him saying she broke the law. I'm not wasting my time searching for a quote that doesn't exist to back up your claim. Your interpretation of what he said is meaningless to me. Until you can prove he said that, don't fucking say that that's what he said.

[Ashmoria]

Is there a minimum number of justices the supreme court has to have filled? I mean a divided govt, likely means we won't see any new appointments going through. Ginsberg can't live forever, neither can Thomas. I can easily see the court being reduced as low as five during a CLinton presidency.

if Clinton wins the senate is coming with her. if trump wins it stays republican.