US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[narad]

There is a huge difference between seeing the ugliness of the world as it is and fighting against it for virtue (the Cynic's approach) and being passive because of helplessness because you deem that corruption is overwhelming.

Ah, the dualism of traditional philosophy.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

Copy/Paste my first answer. BTW, you contradict yourself in just one post by saying that she "doesn't see any political power" and admitting that it is a "bargaining chip for political influence".

Sorry to be mean to some people here (this includes the Trump supporters, not just the left) but most of you seem to be desperately trying to defend some of the most corrupt people on the face of the planet. I understand hating one candidate more than the other and feeling that your country would be better off with someone else, but they do not need your help to survive, nor were you appointed their lawyer, they have the money and the influence to carry on with their careers just fine.
!

I chose to participate in a political discussion. To the promptly get offended at someone's opinion when I'm passing mine around like candy isn't rational. I don't expect us all to think the same shit. I'm here FOR the different opinions. That said, my response was meant to speak in terms of possibility. Not a belief. I didn't support Clinton in the last election, up until who I did support was no longer an option. I voted from the perspective of, "she's not that guy." When you have two candidates that you detest, that's generally what it comes down to. I absolutely think Hilary is corrupt. I just don't believe she did anything illegal. I also don't think that the Clintons need money for favors. I think that their political careers have afforded them a level of power beyond that. I think it would make a lot more sense for them to just trade social influence at this point. One talk at a university covered by the press is all it would take for them to alter public perception enough to start change happening on a lot of things. But unless I'm mistaken, that is exactly the process of politics. Influencing opinion and asking others to join their voices with your's. For people like that, literally everything they do has a political impact because we as Americans are so obsessed with the Us vs Them political war we have going on. Also, people can, and often do hold contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time. Think about it in the terms of the Card Paradox. No logic exists where any possibility can be fully explained, you are left in a situation where there are no certainties and only possibilities. I'd argue that this is the state most of us make most of our decisions about perception and worldview. TL ; DR, I don't mind contradictions and don't find them to necessarily be irrational. Difficult to become comfortable with sometimes, but ultimately unavoidable.

 

[Drew]

I never claimed that what the Clinton foundation does is illegal, if you re-read my posts. I simply underline the ethical gap of presenting yourself as a defender of the gay community (for example) and taking money from people who implement laws against it in their own country. Kind of like a Jewish person having business dealings with a Nazi CEO of a company.
...
Copy/paste my above answer. Once more, I never claimed that Hillary is so stupid, as to use the money of a foundation which has so much spotlight on it for her campaign. Such a gaffe would be more in line with Trump's clumsy way of handling things.

I'm sorry, but I gotta call foul here. You may have quickly backtracked to matters of policy, but you started here:

This whole Trump and Russia issue is very funny. All politicians have allies abroad in friendly or hostile nations to their own. Hillary received funds from Saudi Arabia and several politicians (prime ministers of England and Greece come to mind) openly rooted for her during the election process. Isn't this meddling in the election of another country? Of course it is and Russia is happy to be in the epicentre of such a ruckus.

Claiming that Hillary getting money from Saudi Arabia was equivalent to Trump getting help from Russia. As we've been explaining ever since, that's not actually the case, since the Clinton Foundation, which cannot donate to Clinton or help her campain, received donatiopns from Saudi Arabia to help the Foundation's charitable work.

If you want to argue that it's hypocritical to take donations from the Saudis while pushing policy goals that are at odds to some of the Saudi government's own policies, that's fine, and frankly that's a worthwile subject to discuss. But it clearly has fuck-all to do with claiming that pointing to the Russian government's attempts to bolster Trump's chances and sow political discord is hypocritical, because the Saudis donated to the Clinton Foundation. You don't even need to put that in context, you verbatim said that this is proof they were "openly rooting for her during the election process," and "is the same as meddling in the election of another country." And that's not the same.

So, yeah. You kinda DID claim that Clinton had done the same thing Trump was accused of, pretty explicitly. If somehow that wasn't the case, then potential hypocricy on the part of the Saud family has zero to do with this conversation, so why even mention it?

 

[StevenC]

Edit: wrong thread

 

[777timesgod]

Ah, the dualism of traditional philosophy.

Different people interpret the same philosophy differently. As a result one philosophy may have many branches/schools/students which may be at odds with one another.
Nothing traditional about that, we even see it in this forum when people of the same side argue over the implementation of a policy or their way of doing things musically or in other aspects.

I chose to participate in a political discussion. To the promptly get offended at someone's opinion when I'm passing mine around like candy isn't rational. I don't expect us all to think the same shit. I'm here FOR the different opinions. That said, my response was meant to speak in terms of possibility. Not a belief. I didn't support Clinton in the last election, up until who I did support was no longer an option. I voted from the perspective of, "she's not that guy." When you have two candidates that you detest, that's generally what it comes down to. I absolutely think Hilary is corrupt. I just don't believe she did anything illegal. I also don't think that the Clintons need money for favors. I think that their political careers have afforded them a level of power beyond that. I think it would make a lot more sense for them to just trade social influence at this point. One talk at a university covered by the press is all it would take for them to alter public perception enough to start change happening on a lot of things. But unless I'm mistaken, that is exactly the process of politics. Influencing opinion and asking others to join their voices with your's. For people like that, literally everything they do has a political impact because we as Americans are so obsessed with the Us vs Them political war we have going on. Also, people can, and often do hold contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time. Think about it in the terms of the Card Paradox. No logic exists where any possibility can be fully explained, you are left in a situation where there are no certainties and only possibilities. I'd argue that this is the state most of us make most of our decisions about perception and worldview. TL ; DR, I don't mind contradictions and don't find them to necessarily be irrational. Difficult to become comfortable with sometimes, but ultimately unavoidable.

So you think that Hillary is corrupt but you do not think that she did anything illegal? How can you be corrupt while being a state official for so long and not do anything illegal? Maybe I am not understanding your post.

The notion of voting for the candidate that you hate the least is very dangerous. It is what has lead our societies, which are 100 more informed on the unethicality of politicians/governments, than our grandparents, and more vocal on this online to still be partisan (at least the people who bother to go to vote, the European elections of this May will see more than half the people in my country not showing up to vote as protest for the EU).
What I am trying to say with my posts is that we can do better, we can find someone else than Trump or Hillary and if we keep playing the game of left Vs. right we are still trapped in their little glass cup.

I'm sorry, but I gotta call foul here. You may have quickly backtracked to matters of policy, but you started here:

Claiming that Hillary getting money from Saudi Arabia was equivalent to Trump getting help from Russia. As we've been explaining ever since, that's not actually the case, since the Clinton Foundation, which cannot donate to Clinton or help her campain, received donatiopns from Saudi Arabia to help the Foundation's charitable work.

If you want to argue that it's hypocritical to take donations from the Saudis while pushing policy goals that are at odds to some of the Saudi government's own policies, that's fine, and frankly that's a worthwile subject to discuss. But it clearly has fuck-all to do with claiming that pointing to the Russian government's attempts to bolster Trump's chances and sow political discord is hypocritical, because the Saudis donated to the Clinton Foundation. You don't even need to put that in context, you verbatim said that this is proof they were "openly rooting for her during the election process," and "is the same as meddling in the election of another country." And that's not the same.

So, yeah. You kinda DID claim that Clinton had done the same thing Trump was accused of, pretty explicitly. If somehow that wasn't the case, then potential hypocricy on the part of the Saud family has zero to do with this conversation, so why even mention it?

I do not imply that the unethicality of Clinton's relations with foreign dictators is the exact same thing (from a legal perspective - individuals may fell differently about it) as asking the Russians for dirt on your opposing candidate but I make it very clear that Hillary would have loved to do the same to Trump but him not being a seasoned politican left her with no opening there. I am stating the irony of the left accusing the right of a practise they share in common. This is commonplace worldwide and not the U.S.A. of course.

Do you think that the Saudi government has any love for the U.S.A.? They serve their agenda in the crudest way possible and have no ethical advantage over the Russians/Americans/*insert superpower country's name* when it comes to ruining peoples lives, as the recent abhorring massacre at Yemen reflects.

Everything is connected and every country pushes their interests in the USA election game, we need to make a stand against all of these people and not just the ones we despise the most. I am afraid thought that 2020 will be the same story over again but maybe its none of my business and I should let the American members here tear each other apart.

 

[BlackSG91]

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/23/why-is-trump-fixated-on-women-who-remind-him-of-his-daughter/

;>)/

 

[G_3_3_k_]

So you think that Hillary is corrupt but you do not think that she did anything illegal? How can you be corrupt while being a state official for so long and not do anything illegal? Maybe I am not understanding your post.

The notion of voting for the candidate that you hate the least is very dangerous. It is what has lead our societies, which are 100 more informed on the unethicality of politicians/governments, than our grandparents, and more vocal on this online to still be partisan (at least the people who bother to go to vote, the European elections of this May will see more than half the people in my country not showing up to vote as protest for the EU).
What I am trying to say with my posts is that we can do better, we can find someone else than Trump or Hillary and if we keep playing the game of left Vs. right we are still trapped in their little glass cup.



I do not imply that the unethicality of Clinton's relations with foreign dictators is the exact same thing (from a legal perspective - individuals may fell differently about it) as asking the Russians for dirt on your opposing candidate but I make it very clear that Hillary would have loved to do the same to Trump but him not being a seasoned politican left her with no opening there. I am stating the irony of the left accusing the right of a practise they share in common. This is commonplace worldwide and not the U.S.A. of course..

I am not aware of her doing anything illegal. Stupid yes. Against policy. Yes. But not necessarily illegal. I tend to separate ethical concerns from legal ones. They don't always line up. Right now the question about Trump is whether or not he broke the law. That needs to be addressed first as there are consequences to that. Then we can address the ethical implications of the situation, which are quite different. This is going to be overlap. But the law doesn't always precisely address ethics. Especially since ethics can vary from person to person. For instance, some believe that involuntary taxation is unethical, however it is very legal and in fact mandatory in most nations. Some find that grey hat hackers are unethical even though most are focused on improving the security of our technology, and/or, whistleblowing. Is it ethical to do something in a legal grey area in order to expose unethical or even illegal practices that are very black and white? I'm not suggesting that Clinton is doing this. I'm just making a point. Corruption just means of questionable ethics. We have to decide if the ends justified the means as a culture. In Clinton's case the majority of people don't think its a big enough deal to look at. In Trump's case, with Russia being involved with Trump's business interests, as well as putting direct social pressure on American culture in Trump's support, there is a difference. Clinton doesn't make a financial profit from her foundation. Trump is getting richer because of his presidency. He's openly leveraging his presidency to make profit in his businesses. Which we have actual laws against. Its a conflict of interests. He literally won't make/approve policy that is going to hinder the profits of his businesses, unless it profits his businesses in another way. His refusal to divest in said companies and keeping his children in charge who also hold office is a huge problem. You know that when you get a security clearance, it isn't as much about what you've done, it's about whether or not someone can find something in your past or present situations that they can use to leverage information from you with. Do you have crazy debt that's out of control? Did you do something you could have been prosecuted for? Or something they could use to split up your family? How controllable are you based on said thing? Well, apply that logic to Trump and ask yourself how easily you could manipulate him? Russian business interests is a HUGE no no. Profiteering on visiting foreign dignitaries is also a huge no no. Based on how he has spoken in the past, and how he speaks currently, Trump appears to only have loyalty to himself and to whoever is going to make him the most profit. So yes, I may dislike Clinton, but I actually FEAR Trump's affect on the country.

 

[Drew]

I do not imply that the unethicality of Clinton's relations with foreign dictators is the exact same thing (from a legal perspective - individuals may fell differently about it) as asking the Russians for dirt on your opposing candidate but I make it very clear that Hillary would have loved to do the same to Trump but him not being a seasoned politican left her with no opening there. I am stating the irony of the left accusing the right of a practise they share in common. This is commonplace worldwide and not the U.S.A. of course.

You are literally doing it again in this post.

 

[BlackSG91]

;>)/

 

[MaxOfMetal]

https://www.advocate.com/transgende...ally-moves-bar-over-13700-transgender-members

Almost 14,000 service members are affected.

Tell me again how much the GOP supports our troops.

 

[Demiurge]

The willingness to lay down one's life for their country should never be taken for granted. It must take a lot of character to have that willingness even though the government seeks to discriminate against you.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

The willingness to lay down one's life for their country should never be taken for granted. It must take a lot of character to have that willingness even though the government seeks to discriminate against you.

It's worse than being taken for granted, the GOP and their enablers are actively destroying the lives and careers of active duty military personnel.

And for what? To save the cost of a couple [outdated and unneeded] tanks? To help politicians get elected?

But sure, some dude taking a knee is disrespectful.

The GOP should be reminded of this at every turn.

 

[JSanta]

It's worse than being taken for granted, the GOP and their enablers are actively destroying the lives and careers of active duty military personnel.

And for what? To save the cost of a couple [outdated and unneeded] tanks? To help politicians get elected?

But sure, some dude taking a knee is disrespectful.

The GOP should be reminded of this at every turn.

As someone that served, the actions of the administration disgust me. If you're both willing and able, there must be room for you in the ranks. I was an infantryman, and right as I was getting out, women were starting to be allowed to join combat arms. If you can meet the standards, there should be no question whether or not you're allowed to do it.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

The stories of folks who have served for years, career service members, who are looking at the prospect of being removed or dead-ended are absolutely heartbreaking.

Grab a bottle of bourbon and read some if you feel like being really sad and then really angry for the evening.

 

[MetalHex]

An average of 40% +/- teen males who are "non-binary" have attempted suicide. Thats just males.
https://www.hrc.org/blog/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933817318357
https://www.livescience.com/11208-high-suicide-risk-prejudice-plague-transgender-people.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/

On average, between 10-30% of war veterans suffer from PTSD
http://veteransandptsd.com/PTSD-statistics.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nearly-30-of-vets-treated-by-va-have-ptsd
https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/winter09/articles/winter09pg10-14.html

Iraqi/Afghanistan veterans serving between 2001-2007
317,000 deployed = 21% death by suicide
960,000 non deployed = 20% death by suicide
this number was calculated through and up to 2009 post-war service
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/epidemiology/studies/suicide-risk-death-risk-recent-veterans.asp
Its hard to find a concrete number of suicide rate among veterans since the number grows every year. So lets just say a generous 20%

So a biological male, who became transgender/non-binary person, who joins the military and comes out alive as a veteran, who developes PTSD later in their life has effectively (40+20+20=80) an 80 percent chance of commiting suicide with all aforementioned reasons combined!

I would say that alone is a good reason on its own to not let them join the military.

But here are 5 more legitimate reasons
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/07...odations-arent-compatible-military-realities/

 

[MaxOfMetal]

"legitimate"



It's pretty sad that "because we're so awful to LGBT people, and all soldiers regardless of such" is being used as an excuse here. Shame.

 

[narad]

So a biological male, who became transgender/non-binary person, who joins the military and comes out alive as a veteran, who developes PTSD later in their life has effectively (40+20+20=80) an 80 percent chance of commiting suicide with all aforementioned reasons combined!

I would say that alone is a good reason on its own to not let them join the military.

Not how math works, dude.

 

[StevenC]

An average of 40% +/- teen males who are "non-binary" have attempted suicide. Thats just males.
https://www.hrc.org/blog/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933817318357
https://www.livescience.com/11208-high-suicide-risk-prejudice-plague-transgender-people.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/

On average, between 10-30% of war veterans suffer from PTSD
http://veteransandptsd.com/PTSD-statistics.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nearly-30-of-vets-treated-by-va-have-ptsd
https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/winter09/articles/winter09pg10-14.html

Iraqi/Afghanistan veterans serving between 2001-2007
317,000 deployed = 21% death by suicide
960,000 non deployed = 20% death by suicide
this number was calculated through and up to 2009 post-war service
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/epidemiology/studies/suicide-risk-death-risk-recent-veterans.asp
Its hard to find a concrete number of suicide rate among veterans since the number grows every year. So lets just say a generous 20%

So a biological male, who became transgender/non-binary person, who joins the military and comes out alive as a veteran, who developes PTSD later in their life has effectively (40+20+20=80) an 80 percent chance of commiting suicide with all aforementioned reasons combined!

I would say that alone is a good reason on its own to not let them join the military.

But here are 5 more legitimate reasons
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/07...odations-arent-compatible-military-realities/

This makes your president sound intelligent

 

[spudmunkey]

Not how math works, dude.

No, see, but those $100 shoes on the 50% off rack should be free with my "additional 50% off" coupon. What do you mean they are $25?

 

[MetalHex]

This makes your president sound intelligent

Please define "your".

I'm assuming "your president" = Metalhex's president. And by "president" you're referring to Donald Trump. Well technically, you could view it that way since the United States is a company and he is the President of said company. Although I dont work directly for the United States's Federal Government, I do work within the United States district, and my tax dollars do go to said Federal Government...

But how could you know that? That he is my President? (If that is what you mean..)

And since he is (using your logic) my president, then does that mean that he is not your (StevenC's) President? And if not, who is your (Steven C's) President?

On the other hand, you could mean that he is "my" president in the sense that he represents everything that I stand for. You would be wrong to assume that. You would also be wrong to assume that I voted for him.