Author Topic: 2016 Election  (Read 219471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28834
  • GREAT SCOTT!!
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1755 on: October 07, 2016, 05:03:21 am »
Well, we'll probably get the candidate we deserve.

Offline Inkling

  • S.T.U.N. Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1756 on: October 07, 2016, 09:49:43 pm »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

I don't know how much this will hurt Trump.  If you're surprised to hear him talking this way, if you're surprised by his non apology, you haven't been paying attention.  But it sure as hell doesn't help.  This kind of dirt would completely end the campaign and of a normal candidate.
Probably not a Goat, either.


Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28834
  • GREAT SCOTT!!
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1757 on: October 08, 2016, 04:53:36 am »
Well ****, if we're supporting just anyone.

www.PatMan33forPresident.net

Offline Rysworld

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4261
  • hhhhhhhh
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1758 on: October 08, 2016, 09:15:05 am »
I can see where he's coming from. I live in California, not Ohio, it's not as if my vote actually means anything.

Might as well vote for a third party so they can maybe get that federal funding, broaden the marketplace of ideas a bit.

Sometimes that's all you can do.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2016, 09:17:26 am by Rysworld »

Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24440
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1759 on: October 08, 2016, 10:09:15 am »
California will go for Hillary regardless.  If those preachy rich celebrities really thought the election mattered beyond their career enhancing virtue signaling, then they'd use a morsel of their fortunes and buy yet another home in a swing state and vote from there.

Is it really that unbelievable that celebrities may genuinely not like the prospect of the Donald Trump being president? They may not live the same lives as the majority of people in America but I don't think that stops them being repelled at the idea of that gob****e calling the shots. Also, clearly there would be an unbelievable amount of negative press if rich people started buying second homes in swing states in order to alter the outcome of the election.

Also the fact you constantly use terms like virtue signalling and coginitive dissonance is itself clearly a case of virtue signalling. :Y
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline eropS

  • Out Run Speedster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5117
  • That's right, I went there
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1760 on: October 08, 2016, 10:14:07 am »
What racist ****
No, no, he did. In the everything else section, at least. Officially, this makes him king.

Offline Inkling

  • S.T.U.N. Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1761 on: October 08, 2016, 10:35:55 am »
Today, I am wondering if Trump's "power grope" comments are something many of conservatives psychologically have to eternally condemn because they themselves are guilty of the same abuses.  Is it one of those "thou doth protest too much" sort of issues, where some righteous politicians are merely hiding from their own moral iniquity? #notallconservatives  ::)

Where the **** did you pull that from?  Outrage over a candidate bragging bout trying to bang a married woman and forcing himself onto others is just jealousy?  Is this like the argument that the more anti homosexuality someone is the more likely they're in the closet, but with even less to base it on?

Oh, and Jill Stein?  The Doctor from Harvard Medical School who thinks vaccines are dangerous and wifi rots children's brains?  That Jill Stein?
Probably not a Goat, either.


Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24440
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1762 on: October 08, 2016, 11:13:20 am »
Also the fact you constantly use terms like virtue signalling and coginitive dissonance is itself clearly a case of virtue signalling. :Y
You just used it to!  Your insistence on attacking me personally at every opportunity is clearly a case of virtue signalling. :Y

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your poor grasp of rhetoric.

Vote Hillary.
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline eropS

  • Out Run Speedster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5117
  • That's right, I went there
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1763 on: October 08, 2016, 11:17:18 am »
You mean Bernie "The Sand is still wet" Sanders?

Oh, and Jill Stein?  The Doctor from Harvard Medical School who thinks vaccines are dangerous and wifi rots children's brains?  That Jill Stein?

wasn't that mostly shown to be kinda hyperbolic and she just feels there should be more research into both fields since it's a pretty pervasive process/tech (vacine/wifi) thats long term effects are generally unstudied?

I mean ****, am I a loon for thinking we need more research on air freshener and how it interacts with our lungs/eyes/nostrils/throat that it has constant contact with as a foreign agent? It's not always crazy it depends on the spin. I'd like to see the recent sources on her 'crazy vaccine denying'
No, no, he did. In the everything else section, at least. Officially, this makes him king.

Offline Inkling

  • S.T.U.N. Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Probably not a Goat, either.


Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24440
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1765 on: October 08, 2016, 01:29:16 pm »
You don't even know what virtue signalling is. 

I study anthropology. I know what virtue signalling is, and even if I didn't the meaning is perfectly clear from context.

As to the rest. In that last response I engaged with the point you were making about celebrities. I disagreed, I gave a couple of reasons why I disagreed. Yeah, the dig about virtue signalling was a cheap shot. Sorry. I was on a hot mic and was engaging in locker room banter.

Fact is, you have a tendency to just post a bunch of opinions about stuff and then get mad when people disagree with you, or else, as has been remarked before, you always seem to shift in your position until it's not clear what you were advocating for in the first place. Nobody wants to play whatever game it is you're playing. Maybe instead of telling me to shut up every time I respond to your latest brainwave about the election you could cool your heels for a bit and observe how everyone else but you manages to have perfectly good dicussions about these topics that don't devolve into a bunch of confusing quote pyramids.

Vote Larry Sanders in the Witney By-Election.

Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24440
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1766 on: October 08, 2016, 03:20:51 pm »
The locker room thing was paraphrasing Trump. I should have bolded it to make it clear it was a ridiculous joke.
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline Gungnir

  • SunDog Pilot
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
  • Bbrrrraaaaaiiiiinnnnssss
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1767 on: October 08, 2016, 03:34:06 pm »
Right but if the key to swayiing the undecided voters was policy then they'd all be voting Clinton because Trump doesn't have any policies.

Clearly there is something the undecideds are waiting for. Some X factor that will decide the election. Something nobody has considered before...

In general undecided and converts aren't nearly as important as frightening/motivating supporters into going out and voting for the candidate. The US generally has such low voter turnout that changing minds is less effective for getting votes than convincing people that the candidate agrees with the voter's already set views.
They're collectible! Sorta...


Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24440
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1768 on: October 08, 2016, 03:36:03 pm »
Welp, they're sure doing a good job of frightening everyone. Including people who live thousands of miles away and can't vote.
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline Inkling

  • S.T.U.N. Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1769 on: October 08, 2016, 11:16:28 pm »
Saying that a celebrity should move in order to vote in a swing state, an inconvenience to their personal and work lives, seems very silly.  Saying that they should change their primary residence for the sole purpose of voting seems like some kind of fraud.  Issue advocacy by a famous person is likely to have significantly more impact than their single vote.  Putting their money where their mouth is is a legitimate point.

More importantly, I don't give a damn and I'm not sure why you do to such a degree.  There's more than enough issues, controversies, and scandals going on with the campaigns themselves.  I don't see the point in worrying about the actions of an actor or musician.
Probably not a Goat, either.