2016 Presidencial Race

Originally posted by Time Immemorial

The resemblance is striking. Needless to say, there's no way I'll ever be convinced to vote for her now. I've said it before that even Mickey Mouse would be preferable to her being the C-in-C. Even more convinced now. Thanks, TI.

Edit: Yeah, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but as Americans we have individual liberties that should never be tampered with even it's under the guise of "it's for the greater good of the many". Like our right to bear arms, for example.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial

If Hillary is as warmongering as Hitler then the Republican weapons lobby will back her up 👆

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I am, since I am from here, since you are not, are you?

Well, believe it or not, other countries do have elections as well.

Which is why I'm curious about what you're implying here.

Seems like you're averse to the rule of the majority.

You do know that's how decisions are made in democracies, right?

Originally posted by Star428
The resemblance is striking. Needless to say, there's no way I'll ever be convinced to vote for her now. I've said it before that even Mickey Mouse would be preferable to her being the C-in-C. Even more convinced now. Thanks, TI.

Edit: Yeah, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but as Americans we have individual liberties that should never be tampered with even it's under the guise of "it's for the greater good of the many". Like our right to bear arms, for example.

Or our right to individual privacy. Obviously though, this one is already being trampled on somewhat but don't want to make it much worse by electing someone who clearly has even more extreme socialistic views than Obama does.

Originally posted by Star428
Or our right to individual privacy. Obviously though, this one is already being trampled on somewhat but don't want to make it much worse by electing someone who clearly has even more extreme socialistic views than Obama does.

😆

read a book

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I am, since I am from here, since you are not, are you?

You could be an American and be absolutely ignorant of all things pertaining to America. Not that that describes you or anything. stoned

Oh, and another thing... The United States is most certainly NOT a democracy. I hate it when people make that mistaken assumption. It's actually a constitutional republic. Always has been. That's a significant difference from being a democracy. Our founding fathers made damn sure that the word "democracy" was used nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

Originally posted by SayWhat
Got no problem with those making over a million a year being taxed at 80% for every dollar over a million made from any source of revenue. No problem with it all. And keep the rest of the income tax in place too.

If I made that much, I'd be okay with that, too.

However, I'd prefer a flat tax. A very simple one. That'd generate more revenue, as well (no more tax loopholes for the rich).

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/its-good-to-be-rich-you-get-a-lower-tax-rate/

I'm positive I'm paying more taxes than the rich because I fall into the category of "middle class professional." Guess how much I paid in taxes in 2014? ~$17,000.

😐

😐

😐

😐

I could really really use that money, right now. I cannot afford to pay that much in taxes.

So if a presidential candidate espouses an excise tax (preferred option: something similar to what Texas does, which is awesome) or flat tax (my second choice), I like it. I suppose I could vote for a GOP or Dem that gave me a tax reform that fits my two choices. Maybe that's how I'll choose to vote.

As for Hillary, I decided she's not a person I'd ever vote for when she said she'd blow Iran up if they attacked Israel. That type of immature warmongering attitude is why I didn't like Bush. Also, the obvious, it's not very Christian-like.

Originally posted by Star428
Oh, and another thing... The United States is most certainly [b]NOT a democracy. I hate it when people make that mistaken assumption. It's actually a constitutional republic. Always has been. That's a significant difference from being a democracy. Our founding fathers made damn sure that the word "democracy" was used nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html [/B]

No nation is just "a democracy".

Norway, like Canada, is a constitutional monarchy.

However, like the united states, they are all representative democracies where the majority rule. Which was my point, that it's ridiculous to try and demonize someone for saying they want to put importance of the needs of the majority over the needs of individuals, which is what happens in literally any demoratic process.

Edit: And like most nations in the first world they all run on the "separation of powers" princible, and its leaders are elected through a democratic process.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of a more social based approach to government, that Hilary Clinton quote is unsourced. As ever, remember to apply your critical faculties to such things- the internet is a place worth being sceptical about.

I'd say there is an irony here in people saying others should wake up and stop believing lies when they make no effort to check facts themselves, but it's far too boring an example of people simply believing what aligns with their views and doubting what does not for it have any proper ironic value. It's pretty much just humanity all over.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's a fallacious line of reasoning. Argumentum ad locus or something.

You could be an American and be absolutely ignorant of all things pertaining to America. Not that that describes you or anything. stoned

Whats fallacious is when you love to parade the constitution in your arguements when it suits you, then disregard and toss it to the wind when it does not.

Originally posted by Star428
Oh, and another thing... The United States is most certainly [b]NOT a democracy. I hate it when people make that mistaken assumption. It's actually a constitutional republic. Always has been. That's a significant difference from being a democracy. Our founding fathers made damn sure that the word "democracy" was used nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html [/B]

Man, this was a topic we argued about and discussed quite thoroughly in one of my political science classes. It is not-so cut and dry. Among political scientists (lol), they argue about this. One thing that is not really in dispute is this:

The United States of America is a Constitutional Democratic Federal Republic.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html

The United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.

When you get pedantic about something, there's someone that will come along and one-up you. This is why I try to avoid pedantry.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of a more social based approach to government, that Hilary Clinton quote is unsourced. As ever, remember to apply your critical faculties to such things- the internet is a place worth being sceptical about.

I'd say there is an irony here in people saying others should wake up and stop believing lies when they make no effort to check facts themselves, but it's far too boring an example of people simply believing what aligns with their views and doubting what does not for it have any proper ironic value. It's pretty much just humanity all over.

You're right. This needs to be sourced before it can be paraded about as another political talking point. Anyone can slap some text on an image and pretend it is true.

Brainyquote lists it as a quote from her:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hillarycli385982.html

Snopes says this quote of hers is so pervasive that it has even shown up in several books. But, they conclude that no one has been able to really produce a strong source for this. They say it may have been stated by her in 1993:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/societyquote.asp

Regardless, the quote is silly. It is a logical fallacy. It is a form of ad hominem. Here is how this logical fallacy (this is not directed at you as you already are aware of how this works) works:

Hitler said it therefore it must be bad. Hillary said the same as Hitler, therefore, Hillary must be bad because she has the same idea as Hitler.

However, the fallacy in that statement is the notion that the entire set of utterances and writings from Hitler are ALL bad. This is absurdly stupid. If Hitler said, "Eating healthy and exercising regularly is good for you", we cannot just abandon eating healthy and exercising just because "Hitler said it."

If we put the image quote in likely context, Hillary has always espoused a Universal Healthcare solution similar to our Western European counterparts. She wants to move away from an individualistic healthcare system to a social one.* Duh. Both the Clintons have always been vocal about wanting to do that. And, based on real research by multiple organizations, our Western European healthcare systems are doing better than the US'. So it's not a "Hitlerism": it's just Hillary pushing a decent (or even good) political idea.

*This was Snopes conclusion: that her phrase was referring to healthcare reform.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Whats fallacious is when you love to parade the constitution in your arguements when it suits you, then disregard and toss it to the wind when it does not.

I don't know if OV is doing that but many people do exactly as you state. They like the constitution when it suits them but disregard it when it doesn't align with their political agenda.

For example: one of the worst, draconian, and evil pieces of legislation to ever hit the American People is the Patriot Act. It's unconstitutional. It's not even debatable how unconstitutional it is. Yet, it was upheld as constitutional when challenged. I mean...how? It's very cut and dry, the 4th Amendment, about warrants and search and seizure. Un-warranted search and seizure is not allowed by the US Constitution via the 4th amendment.

What I recommend is that any candidate that supports the Patriot Act, SOPA, or CISPA (or any incarnations of those 3), no one vote for the candidates. Regardless of any of their other platforms, those positions should immediately bar all of the American people for voting for them. It's extremely difficult to convince humans to make hard-line stances and to vote for candidates based on their actual political positions. This is the most frustrating thing about voting in America: they vote on people they like rather than political positions that they agree with. inimalist called this the "Person you'd like to have a beer with" property. Speaking of him, these threads need that motherf*****. uhuh

He was doing it here, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=611311&pagenumber=2#post15166667

Waving the constitution in my face but has disregarded it any basically every other thread that mattered, like Immigration, Iran deal.

Then when I called him out on it, he ignored it.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
He was doing it here, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=611311&pagenumber=2#post15166667

Waving the constitution in my face but has disregarded it any basically every other thread that mattered, like Immigration, Iran deal.

Then when I called him out on it, he ignored it.

I'll leave that particular feud between you two, alone. I can't follow it or even understand it that well so I'll not comment on it, further. I'll keep my comments about that in general, basically.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
He was doing it here, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=611311&pagenumber=2#post15166667

Waving the constitution in my face but has disregarded it any basically every other thread that mattered, like Immigration, Iran deal.

Also, the thread dealing with gun ownership rights.

Originally posted by Star428
Also, the thread dealing with gun ownership rights.

Oh yea, its so often he throws it out the window, its hard to recall all the times, but damn when he wants to use it to win a debate, he is an ALL AMERICAN constitutional lawyer.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
He was doing it here, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=611311&pagenumber=2#post15166667

Waving the constitution in my face but has disregarded it any basically every other thread that mattered, like Immigration, Iran deal.

Then when I called him out on it, he ignored it.

And there's nothing in the Iran thread that had to do with Constitutional law. As I recall, you just got frustrated because you weren't able to articulate a real argument beyond accusing me of "wanting Iran to have a bomb."

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dude, I asked you to show what law forbids American troops from operating on public land on US soil and you straight up admitted there isn't a law to this effect. How is that ignoring the Constitution?

And there's nothing in the Iran thread that had to do with Constitutional law. As I recall, you just got frustrated because you weren't able to articulate a real argument beyond accusing me of "wanting Iran to have a bomb."

You know what you are doing, don't play dumb.