• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

U.S. Politics 2017: So much for the tolerant SPPf

Mordent99

Banned
Okay. Let's get them into Congress, too, and not just the White House.



I'm pretty sure polygamy is, by definition, not adultery.
Sorry to double post, but my last one was long.

That's not what I meant, I meant they're okay with Trump's adultery. And Newt's, and that of most other of Clinton's detractors. (And btw, polygamy is illegal here, last I checked.)

I personally do not care what consenting adults do so long as they don't force their opinion on someone else or don't hurt anyone in the process. That's why I've always supported LGBT rights and oppose anyone who gives a song and dance about "sodomy", "fornicators", or what 3,000 year old books say. This is America, 2016.

Don't forget about polygamy as well.. and all that Jazz.. xD

*Seriously, I still can't see why the New Orleans Jazz went to Utah out of ALL places..
Same reason the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to LA: $$$
 
Last edited:

Locormus

Can we please get the older, old forum back?
Just wanna say that I'm late to the party that preaches whatever Ana Navarro says. Navarro4Prez. Cooper Anderson for runningmate.

That will be one hell of an election come 2020.. Navarro/Anderson vs. West/Swift.. WOW.. xD

I personally do not care what consenting adults do so long as they don't force their opinion on someone else or don't hurt anyone in the process. That's why I've always supported LGBT rights and oppose anyone who gives a song and dance about "sodomy", "fornicators", or what 3,000 year old books say. This is America, 2016.

Same reason the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to LA: $$$
Preach.. I only made the comment since Sister Wives was on just now.. xD

Yeah.. It's all about the bucks, but Saltlake was actually a smaller (but more devoted) market and they could've changed the name as many other franchises did, for instance the Charlotte Bobcats retaking the name Hornets in 2014, when the New Orleans Hornets named themselves the Pelicans after they returned from Oklahoma City.
 

chess-z

campy vampire
It's pretty clear that Hillary will win the 2016 election (or at least that's what FiveThirtyEight says), but how will the republican party deal with the aftermath of nominating Trump? He's the avatar of everything bad that the democrats have been saying about republicans for years, and he is redrawing the electoral map in a very bad way for him and his party. I hope that the years of gerrymandering by the right establishment can be undone by this election. I hope Trump destroys the republican party.
 

Mordent99

Banned
Not just FiveThirtyEight, Chess-Z. CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, most folks at Fox, and every major polling group favors Hillary.

The only guys I think claim otherwise is Breitbart and Alex Jones.

And trust me, bobjr, Trump would try to spin the Call of the Light Brigade so it sounded like a victory.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Over 50% of voters are motivated against a candidate, not for him or her.
Or so they say. Can you truly predict that this is the case and would make a marginable difference in a real election? Even your example of McMullin (not McMuffin.. lol) is still losing. All he's managing to do is sap Trump's strength.

"ranked based" elections would be overly complicated and I guarantee you most people would spend more time arguing over the complexity of the system rather than implementing one.
 

The Admiral

solid state survivor
It's pretty clear that Hillary will win the 2016 election (or at least that's what FiveThirtyEight says), but how will the republican party deal with the aftermath of nominating Trump? He's the avatar of everything bad that the democrats have been saying about republicans for years, and he is redrawing the electoral map in a very bad way for him and his party. I hope that the years of gerrymandering by the right establishment can be undone by this election. I hope Trump destroys the republican party.
They'd probably do exactly what we'd expect them to do: sweep this under the rug, switch back to subtler language about how they think people who aren't white, straight, cis, male and Christian are Literally Satan, pretend it never happened.
 

Navin

MALDREAD

U.N. Owen

In Brightest Day, In Blackest Night ...
Good grief, I know politics is taken personally by too many people but this is absurd. I don't like Clinton and I think this is another level of what on Earth are they snorting.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
Technically Hillary could recess appoint a Justice every year, leading to my fanfic where Obama becomes a temporary Supreme Court Justice, but this is the reason why even if you disagree with some of her stuff having her in the white house is crucial if only for an issue like this.
 

Pikachu52

Well-Known Member
I posted this time last week that the campaign was becoming a "tit-for-tat almost school-yard style exchange," after Trump took to twitter to attack GOP leaders distancing themselves from him and started running adds attacking Hillary over the debunked conspiracy over her health. He's now doubling down on the claim that the election is rigged by suggesting that "dead people are voting." He's basically reinvigorating the "voter fraud is widespread" claim that the GOP used to justify restrictive voter ID laws that have the effect of disenfranchising marginalised voters who are more likely to back democratic candidates. It's not just tit-for-tat anymore. It's as if Trump knows he's loosing but is determined to go out in a blaze of sour grapes, creating a ground on which to reject the legitimacy of his defeat and sow mistrust in the electoral system among his voters. The most sinister part of his rhetoric is that he's claiming undocumented migrants are fraudulently voting, a continuation of the racist narrative he's been running since he opened his campaign with the claim that Mexican migrants were "bringing drugs and crime." And already his supporters are staging "open carry" protests outside Democratic campaign offices and plan to stalk non-white voters. Election day could be very ugly.
 
Last edited:

Truly Deceptive

It is I: ME!
So, I just realized that even if Trump did propose flat-out de jure genocide, it'd never get past Congress.

Hillary, on the other hand, is an actual threat as capable of waging nuclear war with the Russians as she claims (and presumably intends).

I wouldn't trust her with the next 4 years of America's future (nor would I bet all our lives on the off chance of her not working on behalf of a monolithic, ruthless conspiracy—or any outside party with no regard for our well-being).

Looks like Trump's gaining his own accusations left and right, after he tried so hard to make Bill look bad over the same thing too.
That's all they are: accusations (and they say nothing about how his policies might actually affect us).
 
Last edited:

Mordent99

Banned
So, I just realized that even if Trump did propose flat-out de jure genocide, it'd never get past Congress.
His finger will be on the button. He's expressed a desire to use nukes. He questions why we haven't. Don't underestimate him.

Hillary, on the other hand, is an actual threat as capable of waging nuclear war with the Russians as she claims (and presumably intends).
Where'd you get that?

SoI wouldn't trust her with the next 4 years of America's future (nor would I bet all our lives on the off chance of her not working on behalf of a monolithic, ruthless conspiracy—or any outside party with no regard for our well-being).
Conspiracy, right. Please go away.

That's all they are: accusations (and they say nothing about how his policies might actually affect us).
Do you listen to anything she says?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/o...on-today&nlid=53370686&ref=headline&te=1&_r=2


Second to last paragraph.
 
Last edited:

yuoke

Treasure huntin'
So, I just realized that even if Trump did propose flat-out de jure genocide, it'd never get past Congress.

Hillary, on the other hand, is an actual threat as capable of waging nuclear war with the Russians as she claims (and presumably intends).

I wouldn't trust her with the next 4 years of America's future (nor would I bet all our lives on the off chance of her not working on behalf of a monolithic, ruthless conspiracy—or any outside party with no regard for our well-being).



That's all they are: accusations (and they say nothing about how his policies might actually affect us).
Lol so you say everything said about trump is accusations....and then come right back and say accusations about hillary are fact.
 

Pikachu52

Well-Known Member
Trump has also suggested that as president, he would enact new restrictions on the First Amendment’s guaranteed freedom of the press. “We're going to open up those libel laws,” Trump said in February. “So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace … we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected.” For more than 50 years, the Supreme Court has held that for a public figure to prove libel against a news outlet, they must show that the outlet acted with “‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” To seek to overturn this constitutional protection such that news organizations could be sued for publishing a story that gets some minor facts wrong but is not actually malicious would run contrary to our long-established understanding of the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press. In a constitutional democracy, it is essential that the press has broad freedom to investigate public officials so that voters have the information needed to hold them accountable.
Trump isn't the only one to oppose the "New York Times v Sullivan" standard. The late Justice Scalia has also voiced distaste for the precedent. In an interview with Charlie Rose he said:

One of the evolutionary provisions that I abhor is New York Times v. Sullivan. It made a very good system that you can libel public figures at will so long as somebody told you something — some reliable person — told you the lie that you then publicized to the whole world. That’s what New York Times v. Sullivan says. That may well be a good system and the people of New York state could have adopted that by law, but for the Supreme Court to say that the Constitution requires that — that’s not what the people understood when they ratified the First Amendment
While I have immensely dislike Donald Trump and strongly oppose what he stands for, I'm inclined to agree with him here. The view that the press having broad freedom to investigate public figures is, I believe misguided. The press, like all other money making corporation, are interested in selling papers. And finding scandals that embarrass public officials is often a better way of said selling papers than proper balanced discussion of policy issues. Other countries, including my own, have much more plaintiff friendly defamation laws including for public officials and still maintain a democratic system of governance. I also reject the view that freedom of the press is necessary to hold politicians accountable, believing personally that it is something of a supposed "trump card" shall we say journalists throw whenever media law reform is on the table. Singapore has very strict press controls and a relatively strong culture of censorship, but extremely limited levels of public corruption. This is probably largely because they have efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws by an independent and well financed body. The view that the press present "information" to voters is too simplistic a statement. Media outlets can be selective in what they report in order to benefit certain candidates or political positions, they can sensationalise matters and take material out of context and by getting facts wrong they can misrepresent and openly vilify marginalised people. While journalists can be responsible for very good investigatory journalism and commentary, the media reinforces structural inequalities so it's freedom is largely of benefit to the privileged and can in some cases harm the marginalised.
 
Last edited:

Mordent99

Banned
Are you saying that an unlawful and unconstitutional idea is okay because other politicians support it.

Think about this, Admiral, say someone didn't like the post you just made. If Trump had his way, you'd be perma-banned from here in an instant and EVERY post you made would be deleted. If you were lucky.

Doesn't seem so bad now, huh?

Btw, Vanity Fair just made the first political endorsement in its history, for Clinton. Why? Think about ti.
 

The Admiral

solid state survivor
So, I just realized that even if Trump did propose flat-out de jure genocide, it'd never get past Congress.

Hillary, on the other hand, is an actual threat as capable of waging nuclear war with the Russians as she claims (and presumably intends).

I wouldn't trust her with the next 4 years of America's future (nor would I bet all our lives on the off chance of her not working on behalf of a monolithic, ruthless conspiracy—or any outside party with no regard for our well-being).

That's all they are: accusations (and they say nothing about how his policies might actually affect us).
Wow, I didn't know it was possible to put this many wrong statements into one place. (Outside of Scott Adams calling whatever happened to him on Twitter "treason" jfc)

I also reject the view that freedom of the press is necessary to hold politicians accountable
Yeah, but be honest with us: how much of this belief is actually because journalism is dead?
 

Truly Deceptive

It is I: ME!
Lol so you say everything said about trump is accusations....and then come right back and say accusations about hillary are fact.
Not quite; I'm saying the accusations made against Hillary have dissuaded me from putting our future in her hands.

I'm not voting for either of them, though, cause I don't want to act like an offensive a**w1pe or a naïve pleb (mostly 'cause I have friends who'd look down on me for voting for either).
 
Top