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

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

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.

  

"Which pole?"

"All of them" 

[DanteGabriel]

47 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

  

"Which pole?"

"All of them" 

Hiring the best people!

[Martell Spy]

The Era of 'The Bitch' Is Coming
A Hillary Clinton presidential victory promises to usher in a new age of public misogyny.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-era-of-the-bitch-is-coming/496154/

[Happy Ent]

3 hours ago, lokisnow said:

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.

Indeed. 

The very existence of entire Misc subforum is validated by this single play on words. Were it not for this board’s obsession with futile and superficial political debate and R Scott Bakker, this would not have come swirling down. 

Have we merely walked conditioned ground, or did salvation come from our choices?

For when the dread aliens land and demand arguments for the continuation of our species, we will submit the B Minor mass of J S Bach and this thread title.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Stop reminding me that I haven't read the book yet. I'd normally have gotten it the week it came came out.

 

Trump's campaign reminds me of how shitty sports franchises will go back and forth between a no nonsense disciplinarian and a affable player's coach every few seasons.

Except the Trump campaign has already switched to the 'disciplinarian' and gone back to the 'players' coach' within a matter of months.

He's probably going to put Karl Rove in charge in September, but switch to Alex Jones a few weeks later.

 

[LongRider]

"You're down in the polls."

 

Clack...Clack...Clack...

 

"Which polls?"

 

"All of them."

 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Manafort's week keeps getting worse:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-aide-paul-manafort-scrutinized-russian-business-ties-n631241

[SpaceChampion]

2 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Except the Trump campaign has already switched to the 'disciplinarian' and gone back to the 'players' coach' within a matter of months.

He's probably going to put Karl Rove in charge in September, but switch to Alex Jones a few weeks later.

Is Turd Blossom suppose to be the disciplinarian, or the coach? 

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

9 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

Is Turd Blossom suppose to be the disciplinarian, or the coach? 

 

Karl Rove is going to want Trump to be a more disciplined and one message, while Alex Jones will want Trump to jsut say whatever the fuck he wants.

[Ormond]

23 hours ago, sologdin said:

kids, the INA excludes people for matters of belief already.  nestor's position is the very mild suggestion that the act be amended to exclude three further classes of person.  as FGM, stoning people, and marital rape are crimes of violence under the act, persons who have been convicted thereof are already excluded. nestor's amendments would prevent those who think such acts are not criminal from entering the US, and thereby proscribe persons likely to commit those offenses and vote to amend statutes that render them criminal.  

the rationale is similar to statutes that outlaw pornography involving juveniles, as the existence of such materials is assumed to incite further acts of violence against minors; will there be a demand to protect same on the basis of freedom of expression?

I'm sorry, I do NOT think that is the only rationale for outlawing pornography involving juveniles. Trying to reduce the incentive to create it in the first place so that the children depicted in it will not be harmed is as much or more of a rationale for that, IMHO. And I would disagree with preventing someone from entering the US because they believed outlawing child pornography was wrong. That's not the same thing as producing or even consuming it. 

[Ormond]

18 hours ago, mormont said:

 

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

Oh, gosh, thanks for that.   I don't think any American under the age of 40 ever writes "cut and dried" any more, unfortunately. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

34 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I'm sorry, I do NOT think that is the only rationale for outlawing pornography involving juveniles. Trying to reduce the incentive to create it in the first place so that the children depicted in it will not be harmed is as much or more of a rationale for that, IMHO. And I would disagree with preventing someone from entering the US because they believed outlawing child pornography was wrong. That's not the same thing as producing or even consuming it. 

But is the rationale for banning animated child pornography, isn't it?

[drawkcabi]

9 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

The Era of 'The Bitch' Is Coming
A Hillary Clinton presidential victory promises to usher in a new age of public misogyny.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-era-of-the-bitch-is-coming/496154/

This site is calling her (and Obama) much worse. Right in the thread titles, albeit it's mostly 1, maybe 2, losers trying to get attention.

http://forum.literotica.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 8/17/2016 at 1:50 PM, IheartIheartTesla said:

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.

Clinton should certainly be the favorite going into the debates, but I wouldn't go so far as to say she can handle anything Trump throws at her. There are plenty of issues that he can use to hurt her. The thing I'm really curious about is how will he perform with a silent audience. He was a pretty bad debater during the primary, but the one thing he really took advantage of was playing to the crowd. And let's not forget, Trump's biggest advantage is the expectations game. Republicans will argue that he won the debate by simply not being a complete and utter disaster. 

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Clinton should certainly be the favorite going into the debates, but I wouldn't go so far as to say she can handle anything Trump throws at her. There are plenty of issues that he can use to hurt her. The thing I'm really curious about is how will he perform with a silent audience. He was a pretty bad debater during the primary, but the one thing he really took advantage of was playing to the crowd. And let's not forget, Trump's biggest advantage is the expectations game. Republicans will argue that he won the debate by simply not being a complete and utter disaster. 

But all of those issues should be known quantities. It would be almost criminally incompetent if her debate prep didn't include figuring out responses for if he brings up Lewinsky, Whitewater, Benghazi, the Iraq War, her personal health, or anything else that he thinks his base would like him to attack her on.

[Crazydog7]

I’m getting a little long in the tooth I can remember when you at least had to have a coherent argument whatever side of the political fence you were on.  First election I can really remember is 2000 Gore was seen as an ivory tower idealist whereas Bush was the down to earth everyman you could have a beer with.  All bullshit of course.  I guess that is to cerebral an argument to have in the current political climate. 

Much like the irrational Obama hatred I don’t get where all the anti Hilary stuff is coming from her polices are actually fairly bland and difficult to get excited about.  I guess the Republicans have been shouting the sky is falling for so long that they don’t even believe it anymore.     

[Jaxom 1974]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Clinton should certainly be the favorite going into the debates, but I wouldn't go so far as to say she can handle anything Trump throws at her. There are plenty of issues that he can use to hurt her. The thing I'm really curious about is how will he perform with a silent audience. He was a pretty bad debater during the primary, but the one thing he really took advantage of was playing to the crowd. And let's not forget, Trump's biggest advantage is the expectations game. Republicans will argue that he won the debate by simply not being a complete and utter disaster. 

And if Trump backs out of the debates?  How does she handle that?  I hope she shows anyway and turns them into town halls...

[Stannistician]

6 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

But is the rationale for banning animated child pornography, isn't it?

The Supreme Court held that banning simulated child pornography (written, animated, adult actor playing a minor, etc.) is unconstitutional: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.  One of the rationales being that no children are actually harmed during the making of it.  Although I think that you are probably correct in that those that would like to ban simulated child porn use the incitement argument.   

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Stannistician said:

The Supreme Court held that banning simulated child pornography (written, animated, adult actor playing a minor, etc.) is unconstitutional: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.  One of the rationales being that no children are actually harmed during the making of it.  Although I think that you are probably correct in that those that would like to ban simulated child porn use the incitement argument.   

Incitement is a very slippery slope on censorship. There are plenty of people claiming incitement for trying to ban violent video games, rape and brutal violence scenes in movies/TV (movies in general, not just rape porn) and all sorts of other morally reprehensible behaviours that are depicted from time to time in visual entertainments.

It's very hard to ban the production of animated or simulated material that depicts one moral crime without making a crack for banning the animated or simulated depictions of other moral crimes. 

Live action child pornography is banned because sex with a minor is itself illegal. Are snuff movies banned? I presume so, because like sex with a child, murder is illegal.

I think only the ignorantly delusional truly believe a person who desires to have sex with children would only act on that desire if they see child pornography. The argument often goes the other way. If a person gets to experience their deranged sexual fantasy vicariously by watching it on screen they may be less likely to do it for real (mostly because of the legal consequences of being caught doing it for real). That's not of course an argument for allowing child porn to be produced and distributed, but is does somewhat counter the argument that the main reason to ban child pornography is because of potential incitement.

On the election, and the Russian connection. I think there's an argument to be made that being more friendly with Russia is geopolitically a good thing. If Trump is more well disposed towards Russia and more liked by Russia than Clinton, then cooperation from and influence on Russia is a more likely outcome. In terms of solving some of the issues in the region, as long as US policies don't substantially change, this could be more achievable with Trump than with Clinton...maybe.

I get that trump and associates ties to Russia are more about the association with corruption and organised crime, and that is problematic and a reason to be concerned. But the USA needs to engage with Russia and doing it on more friendly terms is desirable.

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 8/15/2016 at 10:17 PM, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

As you were, zaudunyani

*Slow clap*