Jump to content

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


all swedes are racist

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

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.

I agree with your statements regarding incitement.  In fact American law protects a lot of speech that might appear to incite others to commit crimes.  The determining doctrine is the Brandenburg Test:

Speech cannot be banned because of its dangerous tendencies unless it is (1) direct advocacy of (2) imminent lawless activity (3) which is likely to occur as a result of witnessing the expression.  For expression to illegally incite criminal activity, it must do all three thing listed above. Otherwise, it is protected speech.

This is why Trump's "2nd Amendment people" comment is protected by the 1st Amendment.  As I pointed out in an earlier thread, I think Trump walked dangerously close to crossing this line with his post-election tweets in 2012, and I fear that if he continues to go down the "election is rigged" line, that he may cross the line after he loses this election.  The possible results of Trumps post-election speeches/tweets really concern me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit concerning just how much attention the media is paying to Trump's non-apology apology last night; really goes to show how desperate they are for a normal, horserace campaign. If he can keep up even just this level of bare minimum competence*, I think a lot of the media really will try to make everyone forget everything that has happened thus far in the campaign. 

Hopefully most voters' preferences are baked-in too much for it too matter, but there are still almost 3 months left until election day.

*Obviously no guarantee of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Fez said:

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.

Have you ever done debate prep for an elected official? Because there is a substantial difference between being prepared for what your opponent is going to hit you with and actually having a strong response, and there are a number of issues that can hurt Clinton.

15 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

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

No clue, but that's not a bad idea. However, Trump's new campaign manager said yesterday that he will participate in all 3 debates. That said, what if Trump agrees to debate Clinton, but with ridiculous conditions. Say he'll only debate Clinton if Johnson and Stein are also included, or that he gets to pick the moderators. Then what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

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.

this is a weird thing, as the arguments against trump appear somewhat xenophobic, which is normally the position we'd expect him to advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Have you ever done debate prep for an elected official? Because there is a substantial difference between being prepared for what your opponent is going to hit you with and actually having a strong response, and there are a number of issues that can hurt Clinton.

I haven't, but I know what it goes into it. The candidate is surrounded by their top advisors and whomever is imitating the opponent is also surrounded by people who can think like the actual opponent would. With that many people and time in advance, it really isn't hard to come up with strong responses to absolutely anything. Because the thing is, those responses don't need to be responsible justifications, they can be counterattacks that suck the air out of the room for the first hit, or pivots that divert attention, or anything else. Its very easy to fight anything to a draw.

It all comes down to the candidate remembering on stage what was decided on in the prep and successfully executing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

 

Stupid quote system.

Looks like Paul Manafort is resigning from the Trump campaign. I imagine this is continuing development of Trump's decision to keep being an asshole all the time, but I also wonder if there's some heat to the scrutiny on his Ukrainian profiteering and the pretty explosive charge about him engineering protests against American troops in Crimea.

I hope Manafort's past catches up with him and he dies in grinding poverty and infamy, and sees everyone he loved turn against him. Too much to ask, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Looks like Paul Manafort is resigning from the Trump campaign. I imagine this is continuing development of Trump's decision to keep being an asshole all the time, but I also wonder if there's some heat to the scrutiny on his Ukrainian profiteering and the pretty explosive charge about him engineering protests against American troops in Crimea.

I hope Manafort's past catches up with him and he dies in grinding poverty and infamy, and sees everyone he loved turn against him. Too much to ask, I know.

But but but... I thought Trump is a great businessman who hires the best people possible for the role? Oh wait, that's the 2nd campaign manager who was essentially fired. Keep up the good work Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Mexal said:

But but but... I thought Trump is a great businessman who hires the best people possible for the role? Oh wait, that's the 2nd campaign manager who was essentially fired. Keep up the good work Trump.

On the plus side, he's really good at saying "you're fired".

 

/Also: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I haven't, but I know what it goes into it. The candidate is surrounded by their top advisors and whomever is imitating the opponent is also surrounded by people who can think like the actual opponent would. With that many people and time in advance, it really isn't hard to come up with strong responses to absolutely anything. Because the thing is, those responses don't need to be responsible justifications, they can be counterattacks that suck the air out of the room for the first hit, or pivots that divert attention, or anything else. Its very easy to fight anything to a draw.

It all comes down to the candidate remembering on stage what was decided on in the prep and successfully executing it.

That's more or less how the process works, but the bolded section is a rather large overstatement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can imagine any candidate salivating at the chance to debate Trump. Just needle him about the serial bankruptcies, the child rape allegations, his complete lack of knowledge of foreign affairs, and then just sit back while he explodes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, maarsen said:

I can imagine any candidate salivating at the chance to debate Trump. Just needle him about the serial bankruptcies, the child rape allegations, his complete lack of knowledge of foreign affairs, and then just sit back while he explodes.  

You are insane if you think that accusing someone of being a child rapist based upon nothing more than a preliminary civil Court filing is a good idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

You are insane if you think that accusing someone of being a child rapist based upon nothing more than a preliminary civil Court filing is a good idea. 

I dunno. If Trump tries bringing up something like Vince Foster, a pretty good Clinton response could be something like

"It would be very easy to talk like Donald does about conspiracy theories and outlandish ideas like the child rape allegations some people apparently believe about him, but I prefer to talk about meaningful policies for everyday Americans. For instance, [X]"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fez said:

I dunno. If Trump tries bringing up something like Vince Foster, a pretty good Clinton response could be something like

"It would be very easy to talk like Donald does about conspiracy theories and outlandish ideas like the child rape allegations some people apparently believe about him, but I prefer to talk about meaningful policies for everyday Americans. For instance, [X]"

What an odd way of thinking about this.

Clinton would do really well to avoid bringing up those conspiracy theories, particularly since the same theories are out there about Bill, not to mention the fact that I just don't think that;s a very good look.  it's certainly not very presidential.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

I dunno. If Trump tries bringing up something like Vince Foster, a pretty good Clinton response could be something like

"It would be very easy to talk like Donald does about conspiracy theories and outlandish ideas like the child rape allegations some people apparently believe about him, but I prefer to talk about meaningful policies for everyday Americans. For instance, [X]"

yeah, do it as apophasis, including the allegation rhetorically in order to exclude it conceptually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Fez said:

I dunno. If Trump tries bringing up something like Vince Foster, a pretty good Clinton response could be something like

"It would be very easy to talk like Donald does about conspiracy theories and outlandish ideas like the child rape allegations some people apparently believe about him, but I prefer to talk about meaningful policies for everyday Americans. For instance, [X]"

How is this a winner for Hillary? Now she's casting judgment on alleged child rape victims and calling their stories "outlandish" before they have a chance to be proven in Court?  Doesn't Hillary advocate that we should believe rape victims? 

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...