Jump to content

US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you


all swedes are racist

Recommended Posts

nono, seriously.  they buy domain names with the other side's names, publish misleading and outrageous things thereon in order to suppress voter turnout, say.  HRC would have to waste time deflating all of the false claims.  classic 'black propaganda.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sologdin said:

nono, seriously.  they buy domain names with the other side's names, publish misleading and outrageous things thereon in order to suppress voter turnout, say.  HRC would have to waste time deflating all of the false claims.  classic 'black propaganda.'

Ah, okay, that makes sense. Interesting tact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Notone said:

You saw him onstage against little Marco and lying Ted talking about the size of his dick for crying out loud. And I somewhat dread the things to come on the big stage. With words coming out of Default Donald's whatever.

The Presidential debates place a premium on acting...Presidential. I think if he refers to his yooge hands in a Presidential debate it will do nothing to move non-partisan voters to his column. Apart from that, Clinton can handle whatever Trump wants to throw at her.

It's just that Trump lacks the discipline and patience over 90 minutes to not run his mouth. It will be glorious, if a bit cringe worthy and awkward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The problem though is that you only agree with the proposal because the proposal seeks to weed out people who have ideas that you find objectionable. If thought policing for immigration is established as a precedent then it opens the door to weeding out people who have ideas that you support. 

 

Um... Those types of questions are already part of the screening process.  So whatever lies behind that big scary door you are talking about is about to devour us all, because it's already open.

Maybe we could arrange for a sit in on the house floor or something.

In general though, i agree with you. While i would certainly shed no tears over restricting access to people who believe that homosexuals should be stoned, thought policing and limitation of freedom of speech through statute and policy is a bad idea, even if that thought and/or speech is hate speech and/or thought. 

 

 

6 hours ago, LongRider said:

No way should she give these Repugs anything, not with all the shit they have given the Clintons, and her specifically for YEARS!  No center left/right coalition, no no no!  Hil, listen to Paul and Bernie, they are there to help you.

 

 

True.  This is the time for score settling and acting on personal vendettas.  That's what true governance is all about!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Um... Those types of questions are already part of the screening process. 

Again, no, they're not. The questions that are already part of the screening process are about things that people have done, not things they believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, mormont said:

Again, no, they're not. The questions that are already part of the screening process are about things that people have done, not things they believe.

That this line keeps being casually blurred by so many is freaking scary. It's like we're time travelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, mormont said:

Again, no, they're not. The questions that are already part of the screening process are about things that people have done, not things they believe.

Sort of, but not really.

 

For example:

Quote

Have you ever been a member of, or in any way associated (directly or indirectly) with:

  • The Communist Party?
  • Any other totalitarian party?

 

I suppose strictly speaking, being a member of the communist party is an action, but it's hard to argue this question is not about political beliefs.

Quote

Do you support the Constitution and form of Government of the United states?

Pretty cut and dry on this one.  Direct question about beliefs.

 

 

And that's not even getting into the kind of stuff they ask in the interviews,..............

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Sort of, but not really.

No, really.

Yes, being a member of a political party is something you've done, not a belief you hold.

16 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Pretty cut and dry on this one.  Direct question about beliefs.

That's a better example, but it's about a very general, positive support of something: it's not specific and exclusionary.

It's cut and dried, btw. The past tense is critical to the sense of the phrase: something that has been settled. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

No, really.Yes, being a member of a political party is something you've done, not a belief you hold.

Sure.  Like I said, that's technically correct,  but the intent of the question is pretty clearly to identify political beliefs.

 

Quote

It's cut and dried, btw. The past tense is critical to the sense of the phrase: something that has been settled. :)

 

Is it?  Dang, that's embarrassing.  I've been saying that wrong for years!  Thanks for the correction!

In retrospect, it makes perfect sense, but I've legit never really thought about it.  Stoopid brain.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[mod hat]

 

The thread on immigration standards is really getting far afield from election politics. Unless it's related to what one of the candidates or one of the parties are propose, let's please direct it to a new thread. Thank you.

 

[/mod hat]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen on CNN a little while ago. Wow.

"You guys are down"

"Says who?"

"Polls"

"Says who?"

"Most of them...all of them?"

(long uncomfortable silence)

"Says who?"

"POLLS"

:P

eta: On a more serious note, Trump was asked earlier today if he "trusts U.S. Intelligence"...

Quote

“Not so much from the people that have been doing it for our country,” Trump responded. “I mean, look what’s happened over the last 10 years. … It’s been catastrophic.

“Very easy to use them, but I won't use them, because they’ve made such bad decisions,”

 

He's making friends everywhere, it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

[mod hat]

 

The thread on immigration standards is really getting far afield from election politics. Unless it's related to what one of the candidates or one of the parties are propose, let's please direct it to a new thread. Thank you.

 

[/mod hat]

I thought this discussion was because of a proposal from Trump about changing criteria for immigration.

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

 

 

Quote

Do you support the Constitution and form of Government of the United states?

 

Pretty cut and dry on this one.  Direct question about beliefs.

 

 

My last word on the matter. I guess it depends on what exactly is meant by "form of government", but one interpretation of that would require me to answer "no" because I don't support the US version of democracy. I support a fundamentally different form of democracy as necessary for the creation of a better world. If I'm ever faced with that question as an accept/reject criteria for entry into the USA am I allowed to interpret the question in a way that I would not be lying if I answer yes? So I have a bit of a problem with that question. If the INS knows my religion and they really understand the teachings of my religion on the form and structure of democracy they could easily decide that my "yes" answer to that question is a lie, even though I've interpreted in a way that I feel I can truthfully answer yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trebla said:

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen on CNN a little while ago. Wow.

"You guys are down"

"Says who?"

"Polls"

"Says who?"

"Most of them...all of them?"

(long uncomfortable silence)

"Says who?"

"POLLS"

:P

eta: On a more serious note, Trump was asked earlier today if he "trusts U.S. Intelligence"...

 

He's making friends everywhere, it seems.

On one hand, there have been indications that superforcasters who only have publicly available information predict major world events with better accuracy than CIA analysts with all of the classified data. On the other hand, that is still really, really stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trebla said:

"You guys are down"

"Says who?"

"Polls"

"Says who?"

"Most of them...all of them?"

(long uncomfortable silence)

"Says who?"

"POLLS"

Poor little feller, sent into that bastion of ultra-liberal lamestream media cesspool of CNN and some girl...girl!...was mean to him right off!!  What's a poor little lawyer to do?  Who knew politics could be so difficult.     :crying:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Triskan said:

All praise to RRL for the thread title.  What a world.

Haha thanks, pretty happy with this one (though admittedly this election --and he of the soggomant-colored skin in particular-- have provided ample material for a humble punsmith to work with).

Definitely had you guys in mind when I came up with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

Haha thanks, pretty happy with this one (though admittedly this election --and he of the soggomantic skin in particular-- have provided ample material for a humble punsmith to work with).

Definitely had you guys in mind when I came up with it.

Not to be a quibbler (or to further derail an already derailed thread) but I think Trump is the very antithesis of soggomantic, considering how easy it is to poke and prod him and injure his pride. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Not to be a quibbler (or to further derail an already derailed thread) but I think Trump is the very antithesis of soggomantic, considering how easy it is to poke and prod him and injure his pride. :)

true enough. will amend the post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread title is so good. Not only is it a masterful play on words and you don't even need to get the reference to appreciate it but it works conceptually as well.

Because the infamous "there is a head on a pole behind you" scene describes a literal descent into hell complete with detailed descriptions of our inescapable damnnation and we are in an election that is figuratively descending into hell with detailed descriptions of our inescapable damnation under trump.

And to cap it off, "says who" just fits beautifully with the title as well. Nice bit of precognition there.

 

Well done. Love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...