Longknife

Good game is good:

Amidst all the news of Republicans endorsing Hillary, why *not* throw away your vote on a third party now? I thought the argument was that a Republican congress would choose Trump if no candidate met the electoral college count neccesary, but with all the Clinton endorsements from Senators and Representatives, seems to me people can go nuts and vote Stein and Johnson.

Is this meant to defend Hillary Clinton? This is the entire problem with her campaign: she shifts blame and points the finger. If I'm a total slob and my room has rats in it, but when you call me out on it I point out my neighbor is equally slobby, that does not change the truth of your initial accusation that I'm a slob. What's more, Hillary is not even president yet. The comparison falls a tad flat in that the people you may compare to did their damage while in office; Hillary has not reached the status of President, yet we're already comparing her as though she is...? That should speak volumes about the problem.

As I said before, at this point this election is gonna come down to Trump's mouth vs. Wikileaks emails exposing Clinton. Either Trump's own mouth will make it overwhelmingly obvious to voters he's an idiot, or Wikileaks emails are going to piece things together in a way that makes it obvious Clinton is a criminal. Both ships are sinking, it's just a question which ship is gonna sink faster, and we can't really say since none of us can predict what stupid **** Trump will say or what exactly Assange has in store for Clinton. Irrelevant. Let's say everyone in the Supreme Court is guilty of murder. Does this make it acceptable? No, it'd still be equally as alarming. What's more, if normal citizens like you and I find the concept of murder appauling, then there's a desire to "make an example" of those who get caught so as to dissuade such crimes from continuing. The only value such a question holds is in the continued investigation into congressmen, which by all means, encourage that. If we start finding dozens all guilty of crimes though, let's not excuse Hillary, but rather add those names onto politicians that should never re-enter office.

"Yeah I'd like an appointment with the dentist." "Ok, can I please get your name?" *I spell out my clearly-not-german last name for her* "And your first name?" "Spencer....like the kids show, 'Hallo, Spencer.'" *girl immediately starts laughing cause I read her mind and spells it flawlessly* Of ALL names for a kids show Germany, why that one? It's not even a very common name; look it up and you get Spencer Tracy and that's it. How the HELL did you pick that one? That's like if Russia had a kids show called "Hanging with Laquisha" or some ****. I cannot introduce myself in this country without people immediately making that connection and telling me about how it was their favorite show as a kid, and to this day I'm still unsure of how I feel about being associated with a muppet. (even if he was supposedly a hella cool muppet)

At this point the election is a game of "what does a better job of sinking a ship: Hillary's wikileaks escapades or Trump's own mouth?"

See this is why integrity of the press is so important. This news story comes from a pro-Hillary source that we have confirmation was basically taking orders from the DNC. Potentially it could be true, it which case that's super important to know. But potentially it's a lie, and given the source, we've very limited reason to believe it.

I do. ....Helps my borders extend beyond the United States though, I suppose.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change. What are your arguments then for voting Trump? That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected. If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself. Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day. Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like. When our discussion was initially about Hillary and winds up being about how I should vote third party, that speaks volumes about her. Never in the past has it been so difficult to defend the two major party candidates to the point such a discussion reliably results in someone conceding that third parties are the answer.

Yes, don't vote for the party that supports BLM. Sadly, this is a worldwide phenomenon at the moment. I'm afraid I don't know the details because I do little more than tutor english and get an elementary look at people's study works, but all sociologists I know have whispered of a rise in xenophobia worldwide. I should really bother asking what the proposed causes are, cause it's really cause for concern. It's sadly not really a case where, even if the UK and the USA dodged that bullet, the rest of the world might not and then it wouldn't matter. Add xenophobia to a general list of things that are a danger globally for the next decade or so.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change. What are your arguments then for voting Trump? That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected. If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself. Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. I'd also like to hear what her track record is for "being able to drive through things her voters want," because while I wouldn't be too surprised if she can get results, I question if she truly cares about what her voters want until it proves beneficial, AKA if 90% of the voters were homosexual she'd be all for gay rights, and the moment the population is instead conservative Christians, she's against it. And not in the "I see myself as a representative of the people and thus will follow their demands even if they contradict my own" sort of way, but a "I'm dishonest and heartless as ****" sort of way. My main issue with the rest of what you said is that if she keeps things "as they are now or mostly as they are now," this is the problem: the economy is in danger. Fact of the matter is that money does not trickle down, problems trickle up. The day the poor cannot afford a loaf of bread is the day that the dollar loses value completely, because it no longer holds any purpose or value for the vast majority of the people. The US has highly disproportionate wage increases relative to wage increases of the wealthy, and hell is not even fully proportionate to natural inflation. The US repeatedly legislates itself in a way that is inviting to big business, and I presume this is because the USA notices a net gain for the gross domestic product when they aid big business. The problem is that if that net gain for the GDP is now evenly distributed, it's more or less meaningless as it can and will collapse on itself with enough time. It feels like the current government shook hands with big business and agreed to a game of chicken where they push things to see just how long they can last before they need to start actually, yknow, addressing the economy. And through all of this, Climate change. It's still an issue, and has been for over 10 years now. We keep putting it off. Why? Because oil and gas companies want us to. Europe actually did a fantastic job of reducing carbon emissions, but our net reduction is dwarfed by anything the USA does. On both of the above issues, Hillary can be expected to keep the status quo or go where the money leads her. That's the problem: we keep getting status quo politicians, but the situation gets more and more dire with every new election. Obama was not the most memorable or spectacular president imo, and while he's not the worst, he's not the best either. 8 years ago yeah, I'll gladly take him over a president I disagree with on various matters, but today, simply hating the other guy isn't good enough. We need someone that actually does something, not someone that just does "status quo."

I would love to hear what redeemable qualities Hillary Clinton has. And no, "she's not as bad as the racist idiot" and "her hair isn't royally screwed up" aren't "redeemable qualities."

That man is old enough to vote. No wonder we're ****ed.

Even her reactions are disingenuine.

Dis gonna be good.(Vaguely recall a counter-claim saying he never said this, though that may be VERY dated and irrelevant for this case. Anyone recall?) In other news, Simpsons did it first.

Spent 20 mins on hold with health insurance company before giving up. That's a new record for me in phone hotline experiences.

Why is it so difficult for people to figure out? Snowden partook in an act of betrayal only to counter what was already an act of betrayal by the US government against the American people. That Snowden is in Russia is one of neccesity, and we have zero evidence that he's attempting to terrorize the US while adamantly working for Putin or something. I really don't know what to say to the above three posts because a lot of it is "RUSSIA BAD, BETRAYAL BAD." Look at the context, look at the circumstances. Do I like Putin? Absolutely not. Does that mean his moves are always bad? No, and he's beside the point because AGAIN, none of you have any proof he's of any relevance to this discussion, as there's both zero evidence he's involved with Assange and zero evidence Snowden is doing anything to harm the USA via Russia. If you don't trust him, you don't trust him. Everyone has their gut they follows. All the same, I find it strange that none of you can name a reason to distrust him beyond "he's in russia." Yeah, and Assange is stuck in an embassy, because he cannot go anywhere else. For Snowden, Russia is the safest place that he personally can reside.

Hilarious.Snowden actually commented and stated that if Russia were responsible, the US government would know and it wouldn't be "speculation," suggesting (big surprise) Russia isn't behind this. Trump believing the very media rigged in Hillary's favor is priceless though. An aside, but the faith in Snowden's anything is sort of funny. Please explain what reason anyone has to distrust anything said by Snowden. The man got in trouble because he showed integrity and transparency when the government did not. Well for example your example from him. Also for some, granted the scum on reddit, he is like a god when it comes to anything on security yet Scheier is a nobody. Not quite sure he has shown transparency. Mostly as what does he have to be transparent about. Whether you agree or disagree with his actions does not give cause for not trusting him at his word. You've not named an example not to trust him beyond "when he was entrusted with withholding information that the American public knew nothing of and would be upset about if they knew, he told them." That? That's a very particular type of trust that was broken, and by no means representative of a bold-faced liar. In other news, Jane Sanders gives great insight to what she and Bernie were aiming for and thinking as they endorsed Hillary.

Hilarious. Snowden actually commented and stated that if Russia were responsible, the US government would know and it wouldn't be "speculation," suggesting (big surprise) Russia isn't behind this. Trump believing the very media rigged in Hillary's favor is priceless though. An aside, but the faith in Snowden's anything is sort of funny. Please explain what reason anyone has to distrust anything said by Snowden. The man got in trouble because he showed integrity and transparency when the government did not.

And now I can leave you guys alone about trivial crap :D

Just a minor update in case anyone cares about my stupid game forum drama: was banned from that game community for "circumventing a ban by using another reddit account." Permanent. Had to message a seperate mod rather than the general moderator inbox to get a response. I don't even have another reddit account, and I find it super convenient that that's a ban reason where I can't exactly argue any context or anything. It's just something where it comes down to "he said, she said," where if a mod says "nope it's his second account" then I'm pretty much **** outta luck unless another mod actually does some digging. The community in question btw? The Sims. :D Yes, I'm one of those dudes that stuck around instead of abandoning the franchise despite how mostly women play it these days (and lets not kid ourselves, it's mostly young teen girls and crazy cat ladies), though I didn't buy 4. Basically, I enjoy the Sims franchise as a whole, but Sims 4 obviously bombed and luckily I was smart enough to see it coming. Lots of people run around the general Sims subreddit and it's like a bipolar mix of "SIMS 4 WILL BE AMAZING JUST STOP CRITICIZING IT" and "This game is awful" followed by people pledging undying loyalty for EA again when they release something new. Honestly, I'm moreso a participant of that community in hopes of Sims 5 and as a sort of guilty pleasure: LOVE following the Sims community. Following the community and reading posts...? That itself is my "game," because nowhere else on the internet can you find people getting hyped over virtual bird feeders (yes, really) or discussing Restaurant names in anticipation of an upcoming restaurant pack, and one GENIUS decides he's gonna open an Italian restaurant and name it "Noodles." (yes, that was an actual conversation) Would you eat at an Italian Restaurant named Noodles? I think not, but in the world of the Sims community, that's not remotely cringeworthy. And thus, I can spend hours browsing their communities and just reading the derpy **** people say. I love bad movies and love cringeworthy moments, and hot damn they bring on the cringe a lot. 10/10 would recommend. The discussion that I thought I got banned for is here. Usually I observe more than post, but you can read my response to him right there and see why his comment set me off, cause it's the exact kind of delusion amongst game communities that leads to a drop in quality. The conversation itself stayed pretty calm, and the only people I acted rudely towards are the ones I accused of passive aggression, because they conveniently show up any time I critique the game and say nothing of worth. (yes, from a third-person perspective I probably just look like an ass, but trust me, I recognized those usernames and hell no I'm not gonna beat around the bush and pretend they don't have a beef with me when I could just tell them to screw off) The other two communities that have banned me? One is EA's official forums back in Sims 3. TL;DR a disabled guy asked for disabled Sims for the next major title, the vast majority of users responded with disgusting crap like "I play Sims to be happy and escape from reality, why would I want depressing disabled sims in my game" or "yeah it sounds fun watching my sim take three hours just trying to sit down on the toilet." The majority of the community spoke of disabled people as though they were disgusting, boring abominations, me and one other girl flipped out and defended the guy that made that humble request, **** hit the fan in the conversation. APPARENTLY EA found it easier to ban the minority opinion, so all three of us got bans. I later found they house their bans in cookies and you can circumvent it by deleting browser history, did so, then spammed the **** out of their forums until I got perma'd. Technically, two of my bans are both from an EA community, which hell no I'm not ashamed of. The last one is Bethesda, and that one has more to do with their warning strikes never expiring. Over the course of like 5 years and 12k posts or so, 4 were deemed to have crossed the line (only one for being too hostile, though that was still upsetting because it DID hit the point where I couldn't post without 1-2 users starting something, which led to that "flaming" strike) and voila, there was my ban. Didn't say the bans or the communities before cause wanted to see what you guys said without any knowledge that might cause bias.

Neither important nor surprising, but may as well link it.

He's not smart enough to lie effectively. For Trump, it's much more fair to pit him up against Eddy from Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy, always scheming ways to swindle us out of our jawbreakers.