Off Topic - What if Hillary won the election??? - Forum

" 鬼殺し wrote: I still don't believe that dictatorship isn't ultimately his intention, BUT it should be a given that most if not all rulers would ultimately prefer a dictatorship if it meant getting the job done as effectively and efficiently as they'd like. I think Trump's ultimate intention is his likeness carved into statues scattered across the US (and, to a lesser extent, the world) being gazed upon in admiration by children who were never alive while he was. I also think he's smart enough to know dictatorship is not the means to achieve that end. I mean, yeah, he's a narcissist, but they say it like it's a bad thing. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Feb 19, 2017, 12:53:14 AM	Posted by ScrotieMcB on Feb 19, 2017, 12:51:19 AM Quote this Post
" 鬼殺し wrote: And I'm pretty sure Hitler felt the same way as regards the statues etched in gold. As did Mao Tze Tung and Stalin and fuck knows how many other rather misguided leaders. Yes, Scrotie. Narcissism in a world leader to the extent that Trump displays it is a very, very bad thing. So Hitler, Mao and Stalin were all narcissists? Got a source on that? I think it'd be rather odd to have a bunch of egoists wrapped up in socialist and communist movements. Or perhaps you've just bought into that line that the ego is the devil. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Feb 19, 2017, 1:03:07 AM	Posted by ScrotieMcB on Feb 19, 2017, 1:01:47 AM Quote this Post
" ScrotieMcB wrote: " Budget_player_cadet wrote: Would the argument be the same if it was a religious group demanding the right to discriminate against interracial couples? Mine would be. " Budget_player_cadet wrote: We've largely established that if you wish to own a public business in this country, you're not allowed to discriminate. You have to be open to the public. There's really no question when it comes to race; the Civil Rights Act is pretty clear on this one. I think individuals should be allowed to discriminate however they see fit. I don't think businesses should need to be open to The Public. Not so with the government; there should be a specific list of things, race and sexual orientation among them, which government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate for or against. But this shouldn't apply directly to individuals; as a cultural exemplar, perhaps, but only indirectly. Well, I'll say this to your credit: you're consistent. Personally, I don't think that a person's beliefs about race or sexuality are more important than preventing the existence of things like sundown towns. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect public businesses to not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or sexuality. More to the point, it's hardly a matter of a "first amendment" issue - if your religious belief demands that you discriminate against homosexuals or african-americans, then perhaps it is best that you don't open a public business. Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you! IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof	Posted by Budget_player_cadet on Feb 19, 2017, 1:11:42 AM Quote this Post
" ScrotieMcB wrote: " diablofdb wrote: " 鬼殺し wrote: And you want to pretend that's not a dictatorship? you really think Trump is Dictatorship? Seriously? I was going to ask the same thing. Do you guys follow Trump over a cliff if he jumps? It is dicatorship, attack on the media, pushing people out of the country, mass deportation, rise of white supremacy and right wing extremism, bullying and attacks on minorities, laws that attack the poor and help the elite and so on.	Posted by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017, 2:28:08 AM
" ScrotieMcB wrote: " 鬼殺し wrote: A ruler who has created and enforces their own idea of truth contrary to evidence and facts is a dictator. Um... no. A ruler who wields absolute power, who isn't restrained by court or legislature, is a dictator. The word for you are accusing Trump of being is "propagandist." I think what you're trying to say, however, is that propaganda, at the zenith of its power, is a subversion of democracy; disarmed of accurate information, voters are essentially disenfranchised, unable to vote intelligently in their own interest. I call this the Einstein problem, because Albert identified it as a systemic flaw of democratic capitalism in 1949: " The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. However, note the tools of rule-by-propaganda: corporatist control of media, the purchase of elected representatives (or, better yet, long-term unelected officials) in government, education as indoctrination. Do you really think we weren't completely in the grip of propagandists already? Weren't you conscious and watching the news during 2002? The reason it has become so noisy is that Trump is challenging the propagandists. He is wrestling with a corrupt media establishment for control of the narrative. For the moment, we have alternative narratives to choose from. What does Trump intend to do with the narrative if the old propagandists are defeated? Who knows? The spoils of war might just go to a group equally or more corrupt. But you're wearing some serious rose-colored glasses if you see the mainstream media as innocent victims of this barrage, as defenders of the people, as lightbringers. The media coverage of Wikileaks and Snowden should be proof enough of that. This isn't propaganda versus truth; veracity isn't obvious, its determination takes reason and scientific inquiry, it isn't just to be interpreted for you into bumper stickers by the priesthood of the news. This is propaganda versus propaganda, and it's on each person to decipher the truth for themselves — or, more likely, just believe whichever alternative fact is more comfortable to them. As an optimist, I see opportunity in the chaos of conflict; as I realist, I don't fool myself about how improbable it is that opportunity will be realized. Trump is trying to act without or around courts and legislature. Wow, the dicator denial is strong.	Posted by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017, 2:30:04 AM
" ScrotieMcB wrote: I think individuals should be allowed to discriminate however they see fit. I don't think businesses should need to be open to The Public. Not so with the government; there should be a specific list of things, race and sexual orientation among them, which government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate for or against. But this shouldn't apply directly to individuals; as a cultural exemplar, perhaps, but only indirectly. I think this is dumb, a group of people pay their taxes, contribute to the society in several ways, and yet would have to endure discrimination from another group because... because... reasons? If it start with business, how long until it extends to the government? Talking about business, what about for-profit hospitals? Would be okay for them to let a black or gay man/woman die because they refuse to attend them? That is wrong on a fundamental level. It's obvious that some people would be more impacted than others. "Your liberty ends where mine begins" <-- I believe this is true. - Btw, Narcissus drowned because he fell in love with his own image reflected on a lake, so I guess the term Narcissist is not meant to mean something good since it's inception. Loving yourself is good, loving yourself more than anything and everything else, is bad.	Posted by soneka101 on Feb 19, 2017, 2:31:37 AM Quote this Post
" Budget_player_cadet wrote: Well, I'll say this to your credit: you're consistent. Personally, I don't think that a person's beliefs about race or sexuality are more important than preventing the existence of things like sundown towns. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect public businesses to not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or sexuality. More to the point, it's hardly a matter of a "first amendment" issue - if your religious belief demands that you discriminate against homosexuals or african-americans, then perhaps it is best that you don't open a public business. Consider that the specifics of the bill of rights (the first ten amendments) was contentious enough that they didn't include them for fear of not having a Constitution (that all would agree on) at all. The first amendment was always intended to be part of the Constitution. It is part of the bedrock upon which the rest of our rights evolved. There would be no civil rights movement, there would be no equality in marriage movement, there would be no questioning allowed of Trump's positions or policies. Whether the 1st Amendment trumps the 14th amendment is a very good question, and one the Supreme Court has yet to clearly address. While latter amendments can and do change the way earlier parts of the Constitution are interpreted, there is nothing in the 14th amendment that suggest it restricts any individual rights. Instead, it expands individual rights and protects rights from being taken away arbitrarily. In the specific subject being discussed, is obtaining a service from a company a right? If it is, then companies become very restricted on why they can refuse service. Considering that freedom of speech is a guaranteed right - companies like Facebook and Twitter that ban people for offensive speech have violated both someone's 1st and 14th amendment rights. I agree in the principle that all people should be treated fairly. How that works out in practice is not always so clear cut. Let's say person X's religion allows them to only eat food with pork in it. If they walk into a neighborhood deli run by a Muslim who refuses to offer them pork are they being discriminated against? If a neonazi walked into a Jewish bakery and demanded a cake decorated with swastikas, would it be ok to deny that cake? If a Westboro Baptist fanatic walked into a small T-Sirt shop run by a gay couple and asked them to make 100 shirts that said any of their typical hate rants directed towards homosexuals, would the T shirt shop be OK rejecting them or not? The devil is in the details, not the broad strokes. PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 Last edited by DalaiLama on Feb 19, 2017, 3:10:18 AM	Posted by DalaiLama on Feb 19, 2017, 3:09:01 AM Quote this Post
" 鬼殺し wrote: Stick to trolling about harambe. It makes marginally more sense than anything else I see from you on the matter. --- I have actual friends in Canada railing against Trudeau and thus presenting as pro Trump and even they know not to waste my time or jeopardise the friendship by making clear neither side has the moral high ground right now. Everyone is just angry. The winners and the losers. Because for some reason even the winners are acting like they're the ones losing. There's a hell of a lot of passive-aggressive behaviour anytime Trump opens his mouth, as though he isn't the biggest man on campus now. He dwells on the past in the most vindictive, pointless way. The man does grudges big league even if he has won, which is...immature, really. He's angry and his mood, his style, shapes everything else going on right now, gives it tone and context. Again, sounds quite dictatorial to me. Only a fool would fail to see that a former reality TV overlord and chronic proliferator of his own name would be hellbent on having that much presence in the world, or that becoming POTUS was the best way to achieve it. You know.... insults are the arguements of ignorance If you look carefully at past history every single fascist group did the very same thing. They avoid conversation and debate and start labeling every single person who disagree with them. Biggots, Fascists, Nazis, sexist, racist those are the new buzzwords the liberals progressive have been using in the past 5-6 years. You cannot have a conversation with them at all. I do not agree with all of Trump's politics, but I can tell you, he's a better man than our prime minister and a better leader than Hillary would have been.	Posted by diablofdb on Feb 19, 2017, 8:12:07 AM Quote this Post
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/240797-syria-moderate-voices-peace-stability/ Article about the truth on Syria. Hillary would have made things even worse. Now how honest are Trump supporters? Dare they say anything bad about their supreme leader? I hope Tulsi Gabbard runs in 2020 and while her chances are slim, i hope she wins. She wants a anti terrorist funding and arming act.	Posted by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017, 8:51:40 AM
It would be Obama 3.0 just without Obamas charisma. I bet her approval ratings wouldn't be higher than Trump's (and his are abyssmal). GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.	Posted by Xavderion on Feb 19, 2017, 9:25:55 AM Quote this Post