Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

or an entirely capitalistic one with some serious government intervention to prevent the hilarious premium hikes the assholes who work in insurance love performing.

So... like Obamacare?

[Lord Shonus]

The Islamic state literally did reopen a hotel, he just got the location wrong, it's in Iraq, not Syria.:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-islamic-state-is-now-in-the-hotel-business-2015-5?IR=T

The hotel that the Islamic State "reopened" is being used as a luxury barracks for  ISIS VIPs, not a for-profit hotel that is competing in any way with any actual hotel. The only way in which it qualifies as a hotel is that it used to be one.

Having lived in Japan before, I can state that his quote about Chevrolets not being common there is at least "Mostly True" rather than "Mostly False" - I was in Tokyo and I saw zero U.S. made cars other than Fords, and even they weren't common.

Trump claimed that there was not a single Chevrolet in Japan. This was false.

If anything, politifact was far, far to generous to Trump.

[FearfulJesuit]

"In poll after poll of Republicans, Mr. Trump...leads among evangelical Christians, despite saying he had never had a reason to ask God for forgiveness."

The man continues to astonish me.

[BurnedToast]

... you definitely haven't been looking, then. Hillary may not exactly be perfect in all ways, flawless and inviolate, but as politicians go she's relatively tame as dishonesty goes. We've seen a lot worse in just the last couple decades.

Way back in the dark ages of ~10 years ago, clinton wanted to restrict the sale of video games to minors, under the pretense of "protecting the children".

I find this particularly disgusting because it means either:

1. She honestly thought video games were harmful, despite the evidence. That means she's either scientifically illiterate, or driven more by ideology than by facts.

2. She realized they were not harmful (or just didn't care at all), but was willing to ban them anyway as a political stunt to pander to voters... which means she cares more about herself and her career than about good legislation.

Furthermore, it was not about "helping parents decide" at all - it was about refusing to sell certain works of art to children, period. It was about the government deciding what ideas were acceptable for children to be exposed to... another thing I find completely disgusting.

For what it's worth - I believe #2 is the truth. Clinton is not stupid, she's just a career politician looking out for herself at all times. I think she'd say almost anything if it would get her more votes.

Anyway, it's enough that I'm not going to vote for her for any reason. Even if the devil himself ran against her for president I'd vote for mickey mouse.

[Frumple]

Hey, if it ends up such that voting for someone else is a safe bet and not likely to get one of the people that are willfully trying to kill our species in its entirety elected, I intend to. Otherwise, yeah, while I like my video games and I love my privacy and I loath my wars, there's basically not a goddamn thing clinton is likely to do that I'd find distasteful that the GOP option won't do twice as hard and thrice as fervently, and if voting for her is what it takes to keep the greater evil out, a voting I shall go. Next cycle, can try to get someone less flesh-suity elected.

[Helgoland]

You care a lot about video games, BurnedToast.

[Flying Dice]

Yeah. I mean, stricter control over what games children can buy on our own, theoretically, if she was a version of her from more than a decade ago versus Idiocracy being reclassified as a documentary? Not much choice there.

Doesn't mean I won't vote for Sanders in the primary, though.

Incidentally, the email scandal was mostly fabricated. A lot of the "classified" documents weren't at the time the emails was sent (and she did turn those over, to boot), and if you believe that she's the only politician to ever use a personal email account to discuss official work I've got a plot of land I'd like to sell to you.

[Frumple]

Hey now helg, BT's point wasn't really about the video games in themselves, just how clinton went about what she did related to them. Which, yeah, is one of those things that could have been handled better.

Though being fair (?) to clinton, I don't really expect anyone over the age of about 30 or so to be worth a damn when it comes to researching anything having to do with electronics, especially video games. I wouldn't be entirely sure if it was a research failure or lack of caring or just not having the time and/or exposure to be able to parse the information available. Considering the scope of the particular issue (i.e. incredibly minor), prioritizing other things is not exactly something that's incapable of being understood. Also not difficult to understand someone sincerely disliking it, of course. Don't exactly like it either, but it's not enough for me, personally, to not vote for clinton if it meant the devil (or, probably worse, one of the republican candidates running) would be elected instead.

[smjjames]

Hey now helg, BT's point wasn't really about the video games in themselves, just how clinton went about what she did related to them. Which, yeah, is one of those things that could have been handled better.

Though being fair (?) to clinton, I don't really expect anyone over the age of about 30 or so to be worth a damn when it comes to researching anything having to do with electronics, especially video games. I wouldn't be entirely sure if it was a research failure or lack of caring or just not having the time and/or exposure to be able to parse the information available. Considering the scope of the particular issue (i.e. incredibly minor), prioritizing other things is not exactly something that's incapable of being understood. Also not difficult to understand someone sincerely disliking it, of course. Don't exactly like it either, but it's not enough for me, personally, to not vote for clinton if it meant the devil (or, probably worse, one of the republican candidates running) would be elected instead.

Might want to raise the bar a couple years, I'm 32 and worth a damn with computers, lol.

I know what you meant though, what with the generational split.

[Helgoland]

Though being fair (?) to clinton, I don't really expect anyone over the age of about 30 or so to be worth a damn when it comes to researching anything having to do with electronics, especially video games. I wouldn't be entirely sure if it was a research failure or lack of caring or just not having the time and/or exposure to be able to parse the information available. Considering the scope of the particular issue (i.e. incredibly minor), prioritizing other things is not exactly something that's incapable of being understood. Also not difficult to understand someone sincerely disliking it, of course. Don't exactly like it either, but it's not enough for me, personally, to not vote for clinton if it meant the devil (or, probably worse, one of the republican candidates running) would be elected instead.

But these are arguments he doesn't even consider! That's why I used those italics, you know.

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, but we're in a time where people who grew up playing games are functional adults now. Ten or fifteen years ago, not so much -- you'd barely started to catch the people who had the original consoles and such. That's part of why the scapegoating has died down, there are people with votes and money who care about games where there previously weren't.

[WealthyRadish]

Personally I'm with BT here (not on the specifics of not voting for someone on the basis of video game regulation), but more because I think it's a critical flaw in US politics that people feel more or less forced to vote for people they don't even want in office, just because the alternative is potentially worse. Reform of the system is impossible when the bulk of people continue voting that way, and even if for the time being it means wasting a vote on someone you do want in office who has no chance, eventually that kind of an upset is what'll need to happen for there to be a chance at the US becoming democratic in the future. To that extent, I'd even say people voting for Trump because he appeals to them in some bizarre way is a better exercise of a vote than hedging on Hillary.

[BurnedToast]

Hey now helg, BT's point wasn't really about the video games in themselves, just how clinton went about what she did related to them. Which, yeah, is one of those things that could have been handled better.

Though being fair (?) to clinton, I don't really expect anyone over the age of about 30 or so to be worth a damn when it comes to researching anything having to do with electronics, especially video games. I wouldn't be entirely sure if it was a research failure or lack of caring or just not having the time and/or exposure to be able to parse the information available. Considering the scope of the particular issue (i.e. incredibly minor), prioritizing other things is not exactly something that's incapable of being understood. Also not difficult to understand someone sincerely disliking it, of course. Don't exactly like it either, but it's not enough for me, personally, to not vote for clinton if it meant the devil (or, probably worse, one of the republican candidates running) would be elected instead.

Yes, it's not the games themselves (at this point, enough gamers vote that it would be nearly impossible to ban them anyway), it's that it showed what kind of a person she is. Either a blind ideologue or yet another self-serving politician who cares more about being elected then they do about actually doing the job they are elected to do.

As for the "being fair" point, I don't think that makes it any better, trying to pass legislation banning something you don't even understand and apparently aren't even willing to research makes you a shitty legislator and not someone I want as president. I'd be a lot less hard on her if she's just signed the bill, but she didn't just sign it - she was the author who introduced it. You can't use "didn't have time to research it" as an excuse for an act you wrote.

And yeah the devil himself bit was probably a little too hyperbolic, but it just made it so blatant what kind of person she is and that's not a person I want representing me in any way.

[mainiac]

As for the "being fair" point, I don't think that makes it any better, trying to pass legislation banning something you don't even understand

BurnedToast, how well do you understand Libor rate collaboration?  It is a practice that has been made illegal by a politicians who know about as much about it as you (note at all).  Should the politicians have allowed the banks to engage in this practice rather then ban something they dont understand?

"Dont meddle in things you dont understand" is actually a pretty shitty principle when you think about it.  But hey, the people who made up the principle clearly didn't understand what they were talking about.

[BurnedToast]

As for the "being fair" point, I don't think that makes it any better, trying to pass legislation banning something you don't even understand

BurnedToast, how well do you understand Libor rate collaboration?  It is a practice that has been made illegal by a politicians who know about as much about it as you (note at all).  Should the politicians have allowed the banks to engage in this practice rather then ban something they dont understand?

"Dont meddle in things you dont understand" is actually a pretty shitty principle when you think about it.  But hey, the people who made up the principle clearly didn't understand what they were talking about.

I'd never heard of it until you mentioned it, and without googling it I don't know if they should have let banks engage in it or not. One thing I am sure of - they shouldn't ban it without at least doing some research on what it is.

I also have to say I disagree completely, I think it's an excellent principle. Trying to legislate things you don't even understand is a terrible way to run a government and empty-headed, self-serving legislators voting on things they have no clue about is part of the reason we have so many problems (global warming? but last winter was cold, must be a myth!!!!!).