General US Politics

[Tryhard]

but you know, the uk already somewhat did that so yeah, maybe it's just following fate

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-porn-legislation-what-is-now-banned-under-new-government-laws-9898541.html

the thin skin, the hand jokes, the wanting to increase libel laws to sue people who he doesn't like, the anti-porn crackdown

trump is just a right-wing version of the 'PC outrage police' while saying he's against that

Edited August 3, 2016 by Tryhard

[tuvarkz]

Except that Trump has functionally pledged to nothing:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/trump-vows-to-crack-down-on-internet-porn/

http://enough.org/objects/EIE-prespledge-signedtrump.pdf

Pledge 4) says

4) Give serious consideration to appointing a Presidential Commission to examine the harmful public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture and the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children in the digital age

However, it doesn't say it will appoint one, it says serious consideration which could just mean Trump ends up saying 'nah, it's fine' and do nothing about specifically looking into porn as part of considering it a public health crisis. Seems fairly appropriate to block public libraries and schools from accessing porn sites, though.

EDIT: And apparently Clinton is trying to raise taxes on the middle class

https://twitter.com/SeanKD/status/760605882065485824

Oh, like trying to choke the middle class has ever gone well.

Edited August 3, 2016 by tuvarkz

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

while i am not of the middle class, they should not be choked.

more so because these days in America, being "middle class" is one mistake away from the low class area that i do live in.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Except that Trump has functionally pledged to nothing:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/trump-vows-to-crack-down-on-internet-porn/

http://enough.org/objects/EIE-prespledge-signedtrump.pdf

Pledge 4) says

4) Give serious consideration to appointing a Presidential Commission to examine the harmful public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture and the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children in the digital age

However, it doesn't say it will appoint one, it says serious consideration which could just mean Trump ends up saying 'nah, it's fine' and do nothing about specifically looking into porn as part of considering it a public health crisis. Seems fairly appropriate to block public libraries and schools from accessing porn sites, though.

EDIT: And apparently Clinton is trying to raise taxes on the middle class

https://twitter.com/SeanKD/status/760605882065485824

Oh, like trying to choke the middle class has ever gone well.

Is that not something that happens? I mean, in Australia I'm pretty sure the schools just put on a filter that prevents you from getting onto porn sites. I mean shit, my school blocked tumblr because of porn blogs and rule 34.

As for the Hillary line, I'm not sure I understand her logic. 'Cutting tax for the upper class is bad, so let's raise tax on the middle class'? Why not raise tax on the upper class if you find Trump's idea so bad? Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't see how tax cut for the rich relates to raise tax for the middle class as a social issue, aside from the fact that they both have the word tax in them.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Phillius

[Life]

Because (and I say this to every single liberal) Hillary Clintom does not care about you. She has repeatedly shown that she simply wants your vote.

Take the Khans. Hillary is fine with rolling them out to support her when she wanta more parents to sacrifice their children so that she can intervene in Syria (about 3 years too late).

Or what about her admission that her husband will continue to run the Clinton Foundation when she is President. You know, the humanitatian organization that pays for her fancy suits and her husband's prostitutes. Pretty sure that's embezzlement.

In a side note, Anderson Cooper asked her about this and Hillary's response made me cringe.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Because (and I say this to every single liberal) Hillary Clintom does not care about you. She has repeatedly shown that she simply wants your vote.

Oh no, I get that much. I'm just confused as to why she responds to 'cut tax for the rich' with 'raise tax for the middle class' when they seem (to me at least) to be completely different social issues and aren't necessarily mutually exclusive i.e. lower tax for upper class, increase tax for middle class to make up the difference.

In a side note, Anderson Cooper asked her about this and Hillary's response made me cringe.

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what was the response?

Edited August 3, 2016 by Phillius

[Life]

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what was the response?

https://youtu.be/N1Oxq98wGpo - Skip to about 4 or so minutes in. This isn't really new but it's just one of the things that doesn't fit with the media's support of Hillary because god forbid should they criticize her because she has a vagina.

[Time the Crestfallen]

- Skip to about 4 or so minutes in. This isn't really new but it's just one of the things that doesn't fit with the media's support of Hillary because god forbid should they criticize her because she has a vagina.

JFC, I will never cease to be amazed by how much of a shitshow US politics has become.

[tuvarkz]

Oh no, I get that much. I'm just confused as to why she responds to 'cut tax for the rich' with 'raise tax for the middle class' when they seem (to me at least) to be completely different social issues and aren't necessarily mutually exclusive i.e. lower tax for upper class, increase tax for middle class to make up the difference.

This is me speculating, but methinks Hillary slipped, as choking the middle class will only have one end result: Small/Middle business will die as they won't be sustainable any longer, whereas big business will manage just fine, and can handle tax increases through relocation or other means. This both kills social mobility as the tax on the middle class will mean that people will barely ever manage to get from low into middle class and will probably end up back on lower class due to the increased taxes, and there will be a functional oligopoly as big businesses provide the large majority of offer across multiple services since smaller business will be unable to stay there to provide competition.

[Tryhard]

Except that Trump has functionally pledged to nothing:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/trump-vows-to-crack-down-on-internet-porn/

http://enough.org/objects/EIE-prespledge-signedtrump.pdf

Pledge 4) says

4) Give serious consideration to appointing a Presidential Commission to examine the harmful public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture and the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children in the digital age

However, it doesn't say it will appoint one, it says serious consideration which could just mean Trump ends up saying 'nah, it's fine' and do nothing about specifically looking into porn as part of considering it a public health crisis. Seems fairly appropriate to block public libraries and schools from accessing porn sites, though.

Either way, he is being dishonest to some people. Either the group that has offered their support of him that wants tighter restrictions on porn as part of this pledge if he does decide to do nothing about this point. Or the people that believe that he isn't going to restrict the internet.

I've seen it in the UK how you can ban arbitrarily "for duh children", so don't think that would never happen.

Though Ted Cruz (and Rick Santorum IIRC) is still far worse on this point, as he actually wanted to ban porn altogether. Good luck with that.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Tryhard

[Time the Crestfallen]

Either way, he is being dishonest to some people. Either the group that has offered their support of him that wants tighter restrictions on porn as part of this pledge if he does decide to do nothing about this point. Or the people that believe that he isn't going to restrict the internet.

I've seen it in the UK how you can ban arbitrarily "for duh children", so don't think that would never happen.

Though Ted Cruz (and Rick Santorum IIRC) is still far worse on this point, as he actually wanted to ban porn altogether. Good luck with that.

How long do you reckon it'd take for him to get lynched?

[CyborgZeta]

EDIT: And apparently Clinton is trying to raise taxes on the middle class

https://twitter.com/SeanKD/status/760605882065485824

Oh, like trying to choke the middle class has ever gone well.

Wonderful.

[Augestein]

Wonderful.

Maybe I missed something, but didn't she say "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class?"

[Lord Raven]

I definitely heard "We aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class," because it literally doesn't make sense in context why she'd say that.

I'm curious what the demographics are of people who think she said "are," because she said aren't the way I would, with like a little gap between "are" and "going" where the contraction is kind of audible but it's still there. Unless we're talking about a different video.

I'm also not sure why people think Hillary "says anything to get a vote," because throughout the entire course of her political career her viewpoints have definitely evolved with the time, what with her actually adopting some of Sanders' ideas. You can say that's to gain a vote, although the difference is that not only has Hillary done this over the course of her career, she has stuck by that viewpoint until the situation around her changed, which I'm not sure why people see it as "changing her views to get a vote."

I mean, compare to Donald Trump who doesn't have any views or policy, he's just a personality who encouraged Russia to hack his political opponent.

Take the Khans. Hillary is fine with rolling them out to support her when she wanta more parents to sacrifice their children so that she can intervene in Syria (about 3 years too late).

You're acting like the Khans didn't accept the invitation. You're also acting like every single candidate would not do the same, even the RNC side who have also rolled out veterans.

Is that not something that happens? I mean, in Australia I'm pretty sure the schools just put on a filter that prevents you from getting onto porn sites. I mean shit, my school blocked tumblr because of porn blogs and rule 34.

Yes, public schools actually ban a lot of websites depending on where you are from. I couldn't go to youtube on a school computer for instance. Edited August 3, 2016 by Lord Raven

[tuvarkz]

I definitely heard "We aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class," because it literally doesn't make sense in context why she'd say that.

I'm curious what the demographics are of people who think she said "are," because she said aren't the way I would, with like a little gap between "are" and "going" where the contraction is kind of audible but it's still there. Unless we're talking about a different video.

I've always heard "aren't" ending in a hard "t" sound, not in a fadeaway tone where the "are" is clearly audible but the "n't" would be almost unperceptible.

[Augestein]

I've always heard "aren't" ending in a hard "t" sound, not in a fadeaway tone where the "are" is clearly audible but the "n't" would be almost unperceptible.

Where are you from then, because my accent definitely doesn't jam a hard "t" on that. Most people don't speak with hard "t's" at the end of a word. Like making "water" sound more like "wad - er."

[Lord Raven]

Yeah well when people are speaking english fast they don't end in a hard "t", they make the contraction somewhat audible but still there. I could probably even do the sentence on vocaroo and show you what I mean, because I say "aren't" with a barely audible contraction. It's a fairly common thing, but you can tell it's there if you do it yourself.

[tuvarkz]

Where are you from then, because my accent definitely doesn't jam a hard "t" on that. Most people don't speak with hard "t's" at the end of a word. Like making "water" sound more like "wad - er."

Not a native speaker, but got 7+ years of english classes (Last three teachers were Canadian, Australian and American), got an FCE and got a 30/30 score in the listening part of my TOEFL. I raid WoW 7.5-9 hours a week and talk via TS, plus another 6-9 weekly hours of Pathfinder, again with voice chat. I don't recall a word that ends in the "n't" contraction ever being said without a clear "n" and a hard "t"

[Lord Raven]

Then you should pay better attention, because it's pretty clear to me that Hillary is saying "aren't." It's definitely one of those things you don't pick up on unless you actually speak the language and hear someone else speak it. As it stands, if it's the first you're hearing of it, then you clearly haven't paid attention for it.

If she were saying "are" then you wouldn't hear a bit of a gap between "aren't" and "going."

Edited August 3, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Nobody]

The way she said it, it could be heard as either "aren't" or "are", but it makes literally NO sense in the context of the speech for it to be "are". Like, seriously, she released her tax plan and it didn't have tax raises on the middle class, but she totally is going to raise the taxes on the middle class because of a ambiguous word on a speech taken out of context, am i right?

This is just ridiculous.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Nobody

[Phoenix Wright]

I've always heard "aren't" ending in a hard "t" sound, not in a fadeaway tone where the "are" is clearly audible but the "n't" would be almost unperceptible.

she clearly says aren't.

seriously why do people keep responding to you i don't get it

Edited August 3, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Sunwoo]

tuvarkz, your location says you're from Italy. Unless you've actually lived in a predominantly English-speaking country for a significant amount of time, you're not going to pick up on the nuances of casual everyday speech. Like how when I was trying to quote Swedish a few days ago, I used an archaic pronoun because that was what the book had said. You sound like you're grasping, and like you're asserting that you know the English language better than actual native speakers.

[Augestein]

tuvarkz, your location says you're from Italy. Unless you've actually lived in a predominantly English-speaking country for a significant amount of time, you're not going to pick up on the nuances of casual everyday speech. Like how when I was trying to quote Swedish a few days ago, I used an archaic pronoun because that was what the book had said. You sound like you're grasping, and like you're asserting that you know the English language better than actual native speakers.

This is true, it's sort of like the phrase "no problema" that has manifested into existence despite the fact that it's not really correct in Spanish ("no hay problema" is more grammatically correct in that case), but it makes sense in English. Phrases like that only come into existence from a melting pot of cultures.

[LutzTheSuperhero]

I don't write see why everyone hates Trump, I find most his plans very reasonable, even if he does have some like the infamous wall. Hell, I just want them to improve the border situation, as I actually live in Texas. What I don't like is people being dumb about security, and in Hillary's case, I will never trust a candidate that leaked thousands of secret emails to random people. I find that just plain retarded.

[Augestein]

I don't write see why everyone hates Trump, I find most his plans very reasonable, even if he does have some like the infamous wall. Hell, I just want them to improve the border situation, as I actually live in Texas. What I don't like is people being dumb about security, and in Hillary's case, I will never trust a candidate that leaked thousands of secret emails to random people. I find that just plain retarded.

The wall was only the beginning and is cited several times because it's a prime example of Trump simply not having a good understanding of international politics and him saying things but not even having any clue how it could be accomplished. Illegal immigrants will continue to be a problem so long as corporations find it cheaper to use illegal immigrants for super cheap labor. Not defending Hilary, but Hilary's idiocy doesn't give Trump a free pass either.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Augestein