Jump to content

Swimming95

Veterans
  • Posts

    438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Events

Reborn Development Blog

Rejuvenation Development Blog

Starlight Divide Devblog

Desolation Dev Blog

Everything posted by Swimming95

  1. Not at all in the way you are trying to say though.
  2. Cool, it is what I thought it is. You are understanding the policy incorrectly then and that article is filled with misinformation. No one is forcing you to have an abortion. It is saying you can't force a person to not have an abortion. A women's right to her body has to be respected for the safety of all those involved.
  3. ? Clinton isn't campaigning on removing religious freedom. If you are referring to what I think you are, the problem is people forcing their religious ideals onto others. Having a policy of religious neutrality is not forcing that onto you.
  4. Gay marriage has not been normalized in all 50 states. There is a huge acceptance problem and still a long ways to go. Really doesn't help to promise to overturn it. also I said I'm sorry for being too harsh on the swordsman and should have phrased it more on Donald. I am totally fine with being fearful that a current presidential candidate, one of the two who will be elected has promised intolerance in his campaign. His campaign has enabled and normalized a lot of bigotry which I do consider to be harmful.
  5. Then why is he campaigning on getting rid of marriage equality? He has also made comments and campaign promises against Trans rights. And I definitely did watch both conventions as well as Thiel's recent "attempt" at making a speech supporting Donald. Trump has waffled on LGBTQ rights throughout his campaign so I recognize it can be hard to pin down a certain view for him. At least as of current date he has promised to have us return to traditional marriage. At least for other parts, he has either come out against or has wanted to leave it up to the states. That did not work well for segregation and is honestly unacceptable to try and pass off as being pro-LGBTQ especially compared with candidates who are actually being pro-LGBTQ this election. In addition, his party platform is insanely anti-LGBTQ. Surprisingly, most nominees for various forms of office do try to enact what they run on. For the women part, I think you might be underestimating how important it is to provide abortion related services or how big of a part of planned-parenthood it is. Illegal immigration as a term generally refers to outside people coming into this country illegally. As an issue, its usually referring to non-white immigrants primarily from Mexico or other South/Central American countries. I know you know that but mostly wanted to disentangle it from the other half of that comment part. The problem as Donald puts it does not exist. The way that a good amount illegal immigrants enter the country is not through the border but by overstaying visas. It is also a false statistic that they are more violent or are rapists. We do also already deport people who are here illegally. At least as of recently, we are also actually having more people emmigrate to Mexico. I also don't want to touch his proposed methods of determining if an immigrant is "good" or not. For the second part, I want to disentangle it further. The first part is that unless we go full protectionist and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, it is not fully possible to prevent businesses from staying or leaving. At least as a concept, open trade has been proven to be net positive. In addition, many of the jobs that have left were jobs that were also being automated away. While its a shame that people are unemployed due to mining businesses leaving, there is a lot of nuance left out of that statement. At least in the example of coal, that is a power source that we needed to transition away from regardless. Those jobs were going to be gone for good anyways. It is much better for the country to invest that manpower and knowledge into other sectors. It is a lot more of a movement of types of jobs than a strict loss of jobs. You didn't mention it in that last comment there but: there is a problem with your comments regarding the radicalized terrorism. Ignoring that all forms of religion have their radicalized sects for a moment, it seems that the problem is much more an Anti-West sentiment than a religious one. It is absolutely being expressed through Islam but it is not necessarily a problem with Islam if that makes sense. It is a hijacking of the muslim faith in order to commit acts of terror. Also to add to here regarding the rest of The Swordsman's reasons... I hope you realize that unless you are really upper class, death taxes won't really apply and your income tax will actually would go up more under Donald's plan. At least that's under his current plan. The judges with a strict reading of the constitution I think I've only ever heard in the context of trying to remove people's rights. With the last two, I think you might not be fully aware then of the candidates positions considering that they are both supportive of Israel and second amendment rights. At least those are my initial comments on some of these issues.
  6. Definitely agree on that second part. Can't wait for tomorrow to be here and done.
  7. You are right, I was too harsh on The Swordsman. My comment should have been strictly about Donald and I'm sorry it came out differently.
  8. ? I am saying that I am intolerant of being: racist, xenophobic, sexist, islamophobic, homophobic, or really generally bigoted Especially as a campaign platform. I am sorry then, I misspoke. You are supporting a candidate who supports those things. Not that you directly support those things.
  9. About Thiel, I am sure there were Jews who supported Hitler. As far as the rest of your comment goes, I am sorry you are so incorrect about most of those issues or Trump's position and rhetoric on those issues. I am fine drawing the line at being intolerant of intolerance without being intolerant of intolerance of intolerance. I would also like to note that I am not calling The Swordsman those things but the candidate he is voting for.
  10. I'm sorry you decided to support bigotry, ignorance and a lack of understanding about pretty much any issue.
  11. The investigation wasn't reopened. If you check his original letter, there was no mention of it being reopened. It was still a really stupid thing to do with so little information regarding the "new" emails were. In the end, it was found that they were pretty much all duplicates and that not surprisingly there was still no reason for indictment. They made an announcement to that end today. There's also a big confounding factor with the polls tightening. If you look at the cross tabs, it's very little movement away from Clinton and mostly just third party hold outs going back to their candidate. This happens every 4 years. The FBI announcement did cause a small drop for a day or two but then picked back up to normal levels. Also, I still maintain my vote against Donald. I have no interest in supporting bigotry. It deserves to be stomped out and for the score to be run up against him.
  12. 1A and 1D.... 2A I have no interest in supporting bigotry.
  13. In regards to the Podesta email you are still wrong... You are given one email. Stripped of context and surrounding discussion. In that snippet, he is concerned with the fact that since the shooter has an arab sounding name that it would play into the islamophobic, xenophobic, or other bigoted rhetoric of the Trump campaign. That is a pretty valid concern. You are welcome to think otherwise but you are definitely misinterpreting it. For the O'Keefe video, it is not proven to be true. In addition, there is no proof of inciting violence. Even if we were to somehow take O'keefe at face value (we can't) it would be about having protestors to ask hard hitting (not physically) questions. I have no doubt that the person in the video was fired for making the idiotic decision to be featured in an O'keefe video. It is not an admission of guilt. Please stop spreading conspiracies about these topics in this thread.
  14. I'm sorry you are so wrong about the Podesta emails. At least read the one about risotto, its a really good recipe. It's less about the shaky evidence O'keefe has in this set of videos (there is no proof of widespread voter fraud, at least how you initially phrased it it seemed like there was some misunderstanding of what the protestors were hired to do if they were, and its at least evident the video has been edited in some way), its that every previous video he has produced in the past has been found to be false. Cool, we do in fact have video evidence of Trump pretty much saying "yes I sexually assault women". It is that hollywood access tape. We also have people corroborating at least one of the accounts. http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/18/13320496/donald-melania-trump-sexual-assault-people-natasha-stoynoff-witnesses I posted that link previously.
  15. I mean you are spouting conspiracy theories in the form of the O'keefe videos and your wrong interpretation and misreading of the Podesta emails. Also, at least as a general thing, one needs to be careful about online polls. They are absolutely terrible for statistical analysis. And lol, I said I agreed with the dates of the subpoena and the deletions. You are just misinterpreting them as I've shown. I was trying to follow on your chains of reasoning before when you said "And would the women who actually are citizens as you somehow managed to think I was referring to, are raped by an illegal, would it have happened if we would have done our job and established a border long ago? Think." My link deals with sexual assault from immigrants as a whole and wasn't just about one specific group. Also, somehow you are counting on the video evidence of O'keefe whereas are denying the evidence of the women coming forward accusing Donald of sexual assault (your points H and C)...
  16. I included links at least to most of the email stuff previously. We can agree to disagree on how big of a mistake it was but there is no evidence for anything leading to an indictment or further charges at this time. I apologize for using vox so much, these were headlines I remembered and investigated the sources of. I also wanted to be quicker in order to respond to a lot of points. I also apologize if some of these points bleed into each other. 1) I said in my link that timing of when the emails are deleted. I'm contesting why you think they were after the subpoena. It was shown that they were only affected emails that were supposed to be already deleted. If you have distrust of the FBI,DOJ,Clinton, then that's fine but there is currently no evidence to support your claims of malicious intent. 2) It was not found that Clinton originated any confidential information. People testified there it was the non-backdated confidential emails that had incorrect confidential markings. 3) It was not found that there is any proof that her server got hacked (of course that doesn't prove it didn't but wanted to put that out there). 4) As I said, it was a systemic issue in the state department and not something with Clinton in particular. 5) I don't think you understand what the reddit user was asking about (if it was a staffer). It wasn't how to modify the emails maliciously though a lot of users tried jumping on it. It could've also been how to scrub names or other personal information (phone numbers, email addresses, etc). 6) I also don't think you understand what getting immunity means. It allows a person to talk without fear of retribution. Its not an admission of guilt or anything wrong. Similar to taking the 5th, its purely to avoid self incrimination. It is a great tenent of our laws. 7) In general you are making a lot of assumptions about the email server. I get that you don't trust her but please do not try to not pass off conspiracy theories as facts. 8) http://www.vox.com/2016/6/28/12046626/phrase-islamic-radicalism-meaningless-counterproductive Really? you think the problem is not racially profiling people? Comparing this to Nazi and extreme German is completely miscontruing the picture. It is not a war with Islam, it is a war with ISIS. While there may be overlap at the extremes, one does a much better job at describing teh situation. 9) At least with immigrants, at majority are those who overstay green cards and visas. Closing borders won't actually stop this unless we just prevent anyone from entering or leaving the country full stop. 10) The Pulse club shooting and the NY metro area bombins were domestic not foreign terror. I don't think its possible to weed out every single citizen unless you are proposing internment camps, armbands, or fun tech. 11) Its also crazy to think a test would be enough to identify terrorists. Nothing prevents them from lying about their religious views. Racial profiling in general has also been found to be unconstitutional and ineffective with stop and frisk. 12) If you want to believe a conspriacy theorist (O'keefe) go ahead. It has been proven that he alters his videos to hide the meaning and to prove his narrative. He is not a reliable source. Please look up his lawsuits about ACORN and planned parenthood. 13) They weren't claiming to be paid to attack trump supporters. The claim is that they were paid to go to protests about Trump. Not to incite violence. Asking questions and wearing provocative tshirts is hardly a shocking and trully disturbing thing. 14) There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. In the past 16 years it was found to be 35 cases out of 836,000,000 votes. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/17/13306590/trump-voter-fraud-skittles-debunked 15) I didn't realize there was a way to trademark types of sexual assault. Unless there is, it having similarities is really not a mark against the claim. Also, there have been verifiers of at least one of the other claims of sexual assault (the PEOPLE magazine one http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/18/13320496/donald-melania-trump-sexual-assault-people-natasha-stoynoff-witnesses). Let me know when all 15+ current allegations are disproven. The idea is not 100% belief but the ability to investigate as though there is. It is completely false that over half of claims are unfounded. http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/19/13326436/donald-trump-people-magazine-sexual-assault-myths-victims-natasha-stoynoff 16) Its also false that immigrants have a higher incidence of sexually assaulting citizens. Correcting for gender its actually in line or even less (referring to a study in Germany at least). http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12986886/donald-trump-jr-terrorist-skittles-wrong 17) It's amazing how wrong you are on the Podesta email and are somehow able to glean 100% context and fact from that email. You have the complete wrong interpretation about wanting it to be a white man. The only crazy thing that came out of the email leaks is his amazing risotto recipe. Everything else (for the most part) is taking things out of context and applying one's own malintent. Also slightly combined with that there is evidence that some of the leaks were doctored but that strays a lot from the point of this point and borders on other conspiracy theories. 18) So does constantly demeaning women in every other interviewer, his comments to Megyn Kelly, the 3AM tweeting, etc. not count as treating women like dogs or pigs? It seems like you are more than welcome to find fault in Clinton without FACTUAL evidence yet ignore anything with Donald without FACTUAL evidence. Though it also seems like you are bordering on conspiracy theory for other parts and would really recommend against tauting those as fact. At a certain point, there really isn't much more for me to say beyond copying what Evi said and hoping that when this is over, we can all calm down about this
  17. Lol. Way too much that's incorrect in your post. I will try to take a stab at it later when I get home but I probably won't be able to scratch the surface of all of the incorrect information. I can only hope that sometime in the future, when this is over you are able to look at this again with fresh eyes.
  18. Pretty much what mde said about everything. O'keefe is known for making false and heavily edited videos that don't reflect the full reality and are used to fit his false narrative. He had done this in the past with ACORN and planned parenthood. Until real unedited footage is provided (he has a link to "unedited" footage that still has many cuts) I take his videos with a mountain of grains of salt. As far as the email server: it was much more a systemic issue of the state department and less so only a problem with Clinton. Previous secretaries had similar enough systems. I do completely agree it is a mistake but I suppose we disagree on how much of one it is.
  19. "Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” PolitiFact compiled a helpful timeline of events relating to Clinton’s release of her emails, based on the FBI report. From their timeline: On July 23, 2014, the State Department agreed to produce records pertaining to the 2012 attacks in Libya, for the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation. In December 2014, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills told an employee of the company that managed her server to delete emails on her server unrelated to government work that were older than 60 days. On March 4, 2015, the Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over her emails relating to Libya. Three weeks later, between March 25 and March 31, the employee had an “oh s—” moment and realized he did not delete the emails that Mills requested in December 2014, he told the FBI. The employee then deleted the emails and used a program called BleachBit to delete the files." That's at least taken from the fact check from the second debate. I linked to the politifact timeline in an earlier post Also, is there a trademark on ways to sexually assault people? If not I fail to see how similar phrasing really excuses it. I'll leave it to what cyanna said regarding complaining that Obama is "girly"
  20. Without derailing too much... what is referred to as Benghazi was an attack at a US diplomatic compound in Libya when Clinton was Secretary. Since then, there has been an admitted witch hunt to try to hold her responsible for the attacks. The 11 hours of hearings found that she was not responsible. http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/28/comprehensive-guide-benghazi-myths-and-facts/211240 http://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9489389/benghazi-explained
  21. We probably won't agree, that is true. It really sounds like you are there saying that they aren't allowed to then come forward about their experiences. They reached out to the media about their stories. It's really shame on Trump if he sexually assaulted them. I will 100% say that I agree that Clinton's email decision is a mistake. However, anyone who says that she should've been indicted clearly does not understand the details of the case. I read your link. It just doesn't explain the truth. We can disagree on the level of mistake it was, but as it stands, there was no case for indictment. That is my main problem. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/comey-clinton-fbi-memo-227852 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/ https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-documents-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/what-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-private-email-server.html?_r=0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-email-story-is-out-of-control/2016/09/08/692947d0-75fc-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?utm_term=.294dc3bf40e7 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-why-james-comey-didnt-recommend-prosecution-for-hillary-clinton/
  22. I don't think they would've come forward if trump hadn't bragged about sexually assaulting women. He said that it was just "locker room talk" and they came forward to prove it wasn't just words. I don't understand how you can conflate not tolerating sexual assault and then questioning why/when they came forward. I understand that's your perspective on the email story. It also shows a lot of misunderstandings about the emails that were deleted, and the issues of the case against her.
  23. I don't think you have any idea how dealing with sexual assault can work. It can take years for survivors to come forward. Especially with such a well known assault we. They can get scared that their voices won't be heard and they will be belittled just as you are doing. Also many witnesses of at least one of the cases of assault are coming forward to corroborate the survivors story. Also, I think you might be misunderstanding the email "scandal" at least the way you phrase it. Anyone who actually looks at the case can see why it didn't go to trial and that there was no case for indictment.
  24. Everyone has a right to feel how they feel. Just questioning how much of it is based in reality vs their not quite accturate interpretation of reality.
×
×
  • Create New...