- 390
- United States
The 2018 US Mid-Term Elections Thread
- Thread starter Sanji Himura
- 277 comments
- 11,374 views
- 29,726
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
You seriously levied a personal attack against me?
"Even for me"? As though you're so privy to my doings as someone with an 11-day-old account?
And, really, just how is that "low"? It was your personal attack that prompted said action.
Can you present any evidence to show that my comments reflect such an assertion? I don't recall anyone calling you such, let alone condoning it.
Moreover, I see that you're fond of the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy, even if you're unable to utilize it properly.
Thanks!
Yeeeeaaahh...you lost me completely with that one.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I know, but somehow you chose to defend every critique I have about him. You claim one thing but act the other. You are not consistent at all. Every policy you seem to agree with are considered conservative, yet you do not like to be considered one.
Logic is where you lost me. I find a lot of your comparisons void of logic. But that is just my opinion.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 6,060
- Simcoeace
Well no ... not really. What I'm trying to establish is the threshold (actually originally for Joey) where you might decide not to vote Libertarian & instead vote strategically to head off the worse of two evils. It's hypothetical - kind of a philosophical exercise. Now you may have decided that that threshold may not have been reached with Trump/HRC, but surely you can agree that at some point voting to say what you want to say might have to take a backseat to trying to prevent a very bad outcome. I would suggest that the Nader/Gore situation was a good example of that bad outcome - rather than sending a message to the Democrats, the Nader voter opened the door for 8 years of increased environmental degradation, a pointless war, rampant corporatism & the eventual bill coming due with the financial collapse.
I think that corner is Committed Contrarian - kind of like Dotini, but with less "post-modernism" & less aliens.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Yet you defend trump as if you support him. Or are you really giving trump all the credit for the economic growth of late?
- 29,726
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
That's not how this works. In an appeal to hypocrisy, you accused me of being accepting of one personal attack but not another (odd considering "one" was directed at you and "another" was your own directed at me) and you were unable to provide anything to substantiate that accusation. These are goalposts you will not be moving and I will not be held hostage.
Cards. Table.
That wraps our business, as I've provided ample opportunity for you to substantiate your accusations of racism and hypocrisy and you have thus far failed to do so.
It should be noted that I've again reported the quoted post for content not quoted this time around [citation: "Harassment and a thinly-veiled threat of undefined action against me."] prior to my making use of the ignore function provided by this forum.
In parting, I'll suggest that you choose less abusive behavior when engaging others, or you may find your participation privilege here revoked. Though, having said that, the ease with which you managed to thrust yourself into discussion would suggest you've participated prior to creating your 11-day-old account, and your propensity to behave in such an abusive manner leads me to believe you have personal experience having said privilege revoked.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
How did you pick your wife/husband or boy/girlfriend? Solely on ethnic background or sex? You make the assumption that these supposed people who voted for these candidates solely voted for them based one sex and ethnic background. The right assumption is the candidates won despite their sexual orientation and ethnic background. I hardly think a majority will vote for someone just because he is of a certain color or just because he is gay. Those are breakthroughs that transcends discrimination and people can win based on their political agenda and not other factors. Remember no candidate can win with only votes from certain ethnic background or only votes from the gay community, can they?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
The economy is far larger than any one person, even the President. But to deny that Trump has had a positive effect would be incorrect IMO. I remember people laughing when Trump said he was going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the States and yet 2017 saw the most number of jobs added in the manufacturing sector in 20 years. Tax cuts have spurred economic growth if for no other reason than consumers and businesses have more income to spend. Doom and gloom was predicted when the trade war with China began and that has yet to materialize. The new NA free trade agreement gives the U.S. defacto control over Mexican and Canadian trade with China and other "non-market" nations. Lots of economic positives from the Trump administration while the world focuses on some meaningless tweets.
White people.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Danoff
Premium
- 34,005
- Mile High City
You're presuming an awful lot about a Gore presidency. I understand that you want to consider a philosophical exercise, and you gave me an example of what one side is doing. Now what's the other side doing, or what do they plan to do, and what do I expect them to do? Because after all, how can I tell you how I would choose without knowing that? It's an incomplete hypothetical.
Is our hypothetical democrat expected to end the hypothetical war in Iran? Or see it through? Is our hypothetical democrat going to drop the trade barriers? Or maintain them? Because tbh, protectionist fiscal policy is kinda their thing. What can they even do about the supreme court at that point? What's the actual plan for illegal immigrants?
And what other plans do they have? Raise taxes? Universal healthcare?
It's not so easy as just saying one side is being bad. You have to see it through the eyes of someone who is truly independent and sees how the other side is capable of evil as well.
- 11,638
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
You say voters don't vote based on demographics or gender, but didn't Hillary's campaign slogan address that her voters stood by women to the point where they'd specifically elect a woman for president?
Joey D
Premium
- 47,365
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I think my biggest issue is that I'm not so sure the other side would end up being any better. Take Obama for example. Many thought he'd end the pointless wars in the Middle East if he were elected. All he ended up doing was continue them and even ramped them up to some degree. He also came across during his campaign as more of a moderate, at least by American standards. However, over the course of his presidency, he ended up being more of an American leftist.
I don't hold a ton of trust in politicians. I just like to think that a libertarian candidate would at least follow the Constitution closer than a conservative or liberal candidate, which is one of the reasons I typically vote for them. I still wouldn't blindly trust them and probably take everything they say with a grain of salt.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
No I didnt say that. Everyone has their own taste and preferences. My point wasnt that people voted on someone solely on ehtnicity and sex. They also need to have proper policy and personality.
Hence I started with the question, "how do you pick your girldfriend/wife or boyfriend/husband" Solely on ethnicity and sex? Or also personality, compatibility, looks etc.
- 174
- Milwaukee
Obama was a conservative to the core, he did nothing about rescheduling cannabis, let states decide on the 2nd amendment after a bunch of young kids got murdered by a terrorist. He talked TPP as if was a good thing, reduced spending after bailing out POS banks & car manufacturers (since when was spending on corporate welfare a good, liberal thing?), the only liberal things he did was the ACA (Romneycare) and DACA, leftist my ass.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,005
- Mile High City
This part caught my eye. First of all, how could you do anything but reduce spending after those bailouts. Seriously, those were insane amounts of money. And corporate bailouts are more of a left-leaning thing than a right-leaning thing. Think of it as welfare applied to the corporate world. There's another version of this which is done with respect to large vs. small companies. Large companies get hit with more overhead than small ones for the same reasons high income people get hit with more overhead than low income people - socialism. The government deciding that certain entities should not go out of business/bankrupt/etc. is very much not a right leaning idea.
- 6,060
- Simcoeace
A lot of people think a philosophical exercise is "stupid".
I don't think I'm presuming all that much about a Gore presidency other than the things I already quoted. It's hard to see it any other way than a terrible decision for Green supporters to enable the election of W. Bush.
I agree that from a libertarian perspective, deciding between the negatives associated with the Democrats or the negatives associated with the traditional Republican party is a thankless task. However, Trump has elevated the negatives associated with the GOP to a whole new level. I am curious to know what the turnout for the Libertarian party was in the mid-terms? I would assume that Trump has crushed the hopes of many traditional libertarian-leaning Republicans. Has that led them to vote Libertarian ... or are they just sitting it all out?
It will be hard to know what a new Democratic presidential candidate might bring to the table, but I think we all have a pretty good idea about Trump now. The one positive is that, so far, Trump had avoided, more or less, any foreign military entanglements. However, picture some kind of 911 event, or even a much more minor provocation from a foreign adversary & I'd bet on Trump rushing to punch back in some over-the-top manner - we all know there's no point in pumping up your military if you don't get to wave in everyone's face at some point.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 24,614
- Anoka, MN
If their law is like Minnesota's, the consumer wouldn't face any penalty. However the store can face a large fine and have their liquor license revoked.
- 29,726
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
It's more likely a retailer would be penalized for the sale rather than the consumer for the purchase. And that penalty probably can't get any worse than having a liquor license revoked, which may be immediate or may come after a certain number of citations and fines.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
That would have seemed more likely however it was quoted as:
it seems the new law doesnot permit Georgia consumers to purchase alcohol before 12:30 p.m. from grocery or liquor stores.
I guess the quote mis represented the law in that grocerystores, restaurants etc. have been prohibited to sell alcohol during certain times.
Laws like this makes me better understand why a lot of americans call for less government. Perhaps this is an example of what some americans think socialism is like. Well its not ofcourse.
- 29,726
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Six of one or half a dozen of the other.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
