• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT8| No, Donald. You don't.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Goodstyle

Member
Why on Earth did Trump get a guy who voted for the Iraq war as his Veep? That was one of his best avenues of attack on Hillary.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
jMqx9qX.jpg


Leslie Stahl on TRUMPPENCE right now
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
Dammit, why did I agree to go out to dinner tonight?! It sounds like I'm missing something amazing.
 
OH MY GOD

"You're not known to be a humble man..."

ACTUALLY! I'm the most humble. Way more humble than you can understand.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
I'll respond in brief so that we don't suck all the oxygen out of this thread and because I think there's some kind mutual misunderstanding.

I mean, I think democracy's value is worth discussing.I think it's worth asking whether, if our democratic system elected a leader who would explicitly destroy most of its values, people would prioritize the democracy or the values.
That's fair.

Frankly, this seems like the kind of topic you should be interested in, since you are one of the most prominent people on the "democracy sucks" side of the argument.
My position is that democracy is paramount in western, secular countries, but

a) it is not always feasible in countries which have only recently begun experimenting with it
b) I sometimes value secularism over democracy
c) I also think if I have to consider many factors, like debilitating corruption in the Philippines, I might prefer the crazy socialist guy over the established gentry and
d) I am also willing to defend nations like China in some ways, some of the time, because their government makes sense in a historical and cultural context, and also because I'm not really fond of cultural imperialism in general.

None of those posts prove your argument at all.
I wasn't trying to make an argument as much as an observation. If I were to make an argument, it would be as follows:

While I support gun control (in an absolute, disarmament sense), I think its popularity as a policy position is mostly attributable to the preponderance of media stories about gun violence, and I think the public sentiment is disproportionate to the national impact any gun control measures would ostensibly have. I think the current story about the Dallas and Baton Rouge shootings have predictably brought the discussion to head once again, as people (myself included) make the case to others that there is a fundamental problem when citizens can effectively arm themselves against law enforcement. But ultimately I think it is actually irresponsible for the media to talk about such minute events like this the way they have because the attention is more productive in other places. There is, after all, a mass shooting in the United States every day.

Also I think the biggest cause of our misunderstanding was a typo in my original post. Where I said "the only reason we ever talk about...", I had meant to say "the only reason we are currently talking about". Which maybe you'll find more agreeable as a statement, even if you find it specious (because gun control is historically a liberal position and national news is not changing that).

Unlike many people in this thread, I don't think you are actively trolling. That's why I try to engage with your posts in general.
I'm not a troll, so that's kind of you :(

Leftists have been fighting for gun control for literally decades because of the epidemic of gun deaths, not because of the mass shootings that only became common in this millenium.
We've actually talked about this before, but I don't think there's a good, data backed argument that reducing gun deaths would significantly impact homicides in general (more than other approaches would). I think the most important effect gun control could have is reducing the emotional toll on the public every time a mass shooting of repute occurs.

Also, I'm sorry for the aggressive tone in my last post. I felt aggrandized, but maybe that was not appropriate.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
So seriously, when I was in DC, and I was reading the quotes inscribed in the Lincoln Memorial...and you listen to Obama speak...we cannot allow this idiot to become the leader of our country.

I now believe Pence thought he would surely lose in Indiana and did not want to sabotage future presidential aspirations. I think he chose poorly.
 
The killer might have been one of those guys who sold holistic medicine so this is an opportunity for the government to enact my idea of putting holistic medicine sellers on a watchlist.
 

Wilsongt

Member
I don't think I am going to waste my Monster Hunter and FFXIV time watching this dumpster fire of a covention that is just going to boil down to:

Repeal gay marriage
Repeal the ACA
Children need a mother and a father
Protect the second amendment
Cut taxes
Obama was terrible
Hillary is a crook and a liar
Ban Muslims
Radical Islamic terror!
Benghazi!
Build a wall!
Overturn Roe v Wade
Protect our cops
BLM are terrorists
 
The alleged killer sounds like one of those dickheads who spends 18 hours a day talking about suits. Not sure a suit person is the guy, but we'll see.

edit: Oh, yeah, it was him.

He's very pro-BLM so this blows, but his website for MRA pep talk and holistic medicine hawking was impressive:

http://convoswithcosmo.com/
 

thefro

Member
That interview was a Palin level of disaster but we've been through so much already it won't even make a blip

Eh, that "I think I'm a humble man. I'm more humble than you would understand." line will be used in ads. Plus there's going to be comedy sketches parodying that on the Late Night shows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom