Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Endus]

If you are going to throw up Star Trek as a reasonable goal, then Star Trek is open to being critically analyzed if its possible or it is what it is.

We do not actually know if it is a Post-Scarcity economy. After all the Federation has mining colonies, is engaged in resource consumption and seems to always be in conflict with its neighbors. More over it does use currency when engaging with others. Is it a post-scarcity economy?

Technically, by TNG, it's not post-scarcity, but it's darned close. Replicators can replicate nearly any kind of matter, just by asking. They can punch out bars of gold or fist-sized gem-quality diamonds as easily as they can produce cups of Earl Grey, hot.

But regardless, your video flagrantly misrepresents basic facts (as much as that can be applied to a work of fiction) and takes its own wild suppositions as proven, when they aren't. It's not an argument, it's some weirdo ranting about stuff on the Internet.

[Theodarzna]

Technically, by TNG, it's not post-scarcity, but it's darned close. Replicators can replicate nearly any kind of matter, just by asking. They can punch out bars of gold or fist-sized gem-quality diamonds as easily as they can produce cups of Earl Grey, hot.

But regardless, your video flagrantly misrepresents basic facts (as much as that can be applied to a work of fiction) and takes its own wild suppositions as proven, when they aren't. It's not an argument, it's some weirdo ranting about stuff on the Internet.

I have asked you numerous times to not talk to me and yet you keep doing it.

If Star Trek is thrown up as a realistic thing that will come about in the world we live in, then we can critically ask if that world as anymore than just hocus pocus, akin to claiming there will be a 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ on Earth in a Golden City of Jerusalem after Judgement Day.

[Orbitus]

I have asked you numerous times to not talk to me and yet you keep doing it.

If Star Trek is thrown up as a realistic thing that will come about in the world we live in, then we can critically ask if that world as anymore than just hocus pocus, akin to claiming there will be a 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ on Earth in a Golden City of Jerusalem after Judgement Day.

What? You don't like being proven wrong? It's an open forum. If you don't want them to talk to you, you either have to leave, or ignore it. Or grow a fucking pair and grow up and admit when you are wrong.

[Theodarzna]

What? You don't like being proven wrong? It's an open forum. If you don't want them to talk to you, you either have to leave, or ignore it. Or grow a fucking pair and grow up and admit when you are wrong.

Endus is a special case. I've never had a good faith discussion with him, and more over a good faith discussion IMHO cannot happen when one party wields all the power and the other has little practical recourse.

[Orbitus]

Endus is a special case. I've never had a good faith discussion with him, and more over a good faith discussion IMHO cannot happen when one party wields all the power and the other has little practical recourse.

You have never had a good faith discussion, probably because it was a 1 sided discussion where he outright destroyed you intellectually and you whined about bias.

[starlord]

Yeah, the sad thing is Theo claims to be a woman with apparently zero self-respect.

yea, i am a *sailor* and i have never had to listen to such talk, nor would i tolerate it nor would anybody think it socially acceptable. if people want to be that crude, fine, but dont try to play it off as some kind of normal everyday thing.

[Theodarzna]

You have never had a good faith discussion, probably because it was a 1 sided discussion where he outright destroyed you intellectually and you whined about bias.

..... May I ask, do you swallow or spit? :3

infracted- minor spam

[Orbitus]

..... May I ask, do you swallow or spit? :3

Enjoy your time off the forums.

infracted - minor spam

[Merkava]

Enjoy your time off the forums.

You should delete that post. I was infracted for commenting on moderator action regarding another poster's infraction. They called it taunting, or trolling I forget. Of course they didn't like my to begin with, so maybe you'll be ok.

[hrugner]

Or it could be nationalism's shoddy intellectual basis that leads most academics to deride it as an emotionally charged ideology that historically has had a tendency to result in discrimination and aggrandizement. Nor am I sure where this idea that 'states without nations are very difficult to hold together' comes from unless your idea of 'history' doesn't extend past 1815; in terms of human history 'nation states' that are successful and stable are the exception, not the norm - point in fact, it's disingenuous to claim that 'states that don't have national identity are unstable' because by and large the reason why multiethnic states in recent decades have had problems is because of nationalism and its attendant social disruptions.

It's also amusing to note that you claim 'leftism' is opposed to 'nationalism'; yet the only reason this would be true is because leftist ideologies by and large tend to see inequality between humans as a bad thing.

You're being sort of sloppy here. Nationalism that isn't universal within the nation promotes discrimination, if ethnic identities are stronger than national identities, then you end up with problems. If however you're national identity is stronger than the ethnic identity, you have no outsiders. This is why ethnic nation identities end up being disruptive. It's the same problem you face with religions that have some variation on apostasy in their structure.

Your attempt at irony breaks down if you don't equivocate heterogeneity with inequality.

[Theodarzna]

You're being sort of sloppy here. Nationalism that isn't universal within the nation promotes discrimination, if ethnic identities are stronger than national identities, then you end up with problems. If however you're national identity is stronger than the ethnic identity, you have no outsiders. This is why ethnic nation identities end up being disruptive. It's the same problem you face with religions that have some variation on apostasy in their structure.

Your attempt at irony breaks down if you don't equivocate heterogeneity with inequality.

Perhaps that is peoples confusion. Nation is an idea, a concept and agreement among peoples. A nation does not need a state, states do not need nations. My over all point is that a world without Nations will be a world without humans.

A Nation is at its core a smaller unit, with group solidarity, and an agreed upon collective narrative that has a limited space. This can be anything from the Lakota Tribe, to Bretons in Brittany ect.

What the Pteradactyle is arguing is that there will be this magical future in which we are all "Just humans," not "Britons, or Russians," ect and I would say that world probably will either never happen or never last very long before falling apart. Mankind forms exclusive groups, these groups are by their nature limited. Observing that I just assume humans will always do what they have always done.

Even the EU is doing the nationalistic project. Mainly by creating a European identity. That vary identity is still nationalistic because there exists Not-Europeans.

Thus far an alternative to Nationalism IMHO just doesn't exist as Nation formation and In-Group v. Out-Group dynamics are always at play.

Finally, throwing up Star Trek as a realistic possibility is just foolish, especially when the response to me critically looking at that future is people admitting its "JUST FICTION!" if its just fiction than why is it a plausible example of the future?

[May90]

Enjoy your time off the forums.

infracted - minor spam

Sorry for discussing moderation, but... you infracted Orbitus... for this? Crissi... Bad girl! *spanks*

[Theodarzna]

Clinton says she has ‘both a public and a private position’ on Wall Street: WikiLeaks release

Hillary Clinton told top banking executives that she has “both a public and a private position” on Wall Street reform and is reliant on wealthy donors to fund her campaign, leaked excerpts of the former first lady’s speeches seem to show, fueling claims of hypocrisy on the part of Mrs. Clinton at a crucial moment in the presidential campaign.

The release by WikiLeaks, which the Clinton campaign has said it will not confirm, appears to show Mrs. Clinton discussing how she seeks to “balance” her public rhetoric on Wall Street reform with her actual positions, and with the reality that wealthy bankers and investors must partner with government to enact change. The documents also show the former secretary of state admitting that she’s out of touch with average Americans and is “kind of far removed” from the lives of the middle class.

She also claims it’s an “oversimplification” to say that the banking sector was responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown.

The bombshell revelations, which came less than 48 hours before Mrs. Clinton’s next debate against Republican Donald Trump, led top progressives to publicly call on Mrs. Clinton to redouble her vows to crack down on Wall Street. Leading liberals, including Sen. Bernard Sanders, long have called on Mrs. Clinton to release transcripts of the speeches, which she delivered after her four years as secretary of state.

The WikiLeaks dump doesn’t include full transcripts of the speeches to firms such as Goldman Sachs, but it does provide a window into the chasm between Mrs. Clinton’s public promises and private words. The excerpts seem to have been obtained through a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email.

(source)

I guess her pledge to tell them to "knock it off!" Was too rough, she will likely just let Goldman Sachs investigate itself.

[hrugner]

I see, so you're saying no matter what the political map looks like, we'll still have nations. I guess to some extent that's true, but with the internet I doubt borders will be a part of future emergent nations. That seems to be why internet censorship has become such a powerful weapon for struggling dictatorships, restricting emergent nations would greatly reduce push back against their attempt to enforce their larger nation.

[Rukh]

Clinton says she has ‘both a public and a private position’ on Wall Street: WikiLeaks release


(source)

I guess her pledge to tell them to "knock it off!" Was too rough, she will likely just let Goldman Sachs investigate itself.

"You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think — I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. "

Its funny because when you read the text of the speech the alarmist headlines are claiming to summarize, they're not that alarmist at all. Are we sure this wasn't leaked to make the righties look bad???

[Theodarzna]

I see, so you're saying no matter what the political map looks like, we'll still have nations. I guess to some extent that's true, but with the internet I doubt borders will be a part of future emergent nations. That seems to be why internet censorship has become such a powerful weapon for struggling dictatorships, restricting emergent nations would greatly reduce push back against their attempt to enforce their larger nation.

Yeah. It is not necessarily a matter of Borders, but I do think in general groups will seek to occupy physical space creating defacto borders even if we chose to not call them that. So borders of a kind may exist, these groups may collectively establish order counter to Neo-Liberalism or Free Trade.

I think the future will have Nations, we just will avoid calling them nations because Liberals have adopted a See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil mantra.

[InventiveMeasures]

What is wrong with what she said there?

Would you prefer people completely ignorant of an industry were in charge of the regulations regarding that industry?

Are there random banking experts out there that have never been affiliated with banking in their careers?

Some people on this forum are delusional lol. I didn't say anything but "Yea" and a follow up with an exact quote. Reading is fundamental.

[Theodarzna]

"You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think — I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. "

Its funny because when you read the text of the speech the alarmist headlines are claiming to summarize, they're not that alarmist at all. Are we sure this wasn't leaked to make the righties look bad???

A balance, right, I suspect that balance will not happen or the balance will be as dictated by Goldman Sachs.

If that is her opinion, why not say it to the rest of us?

[InventiveMeasures]

That's some downright Trumpian meandering.

In what way?

[Wells]

Endus is a special case. I've never had a good faith discussion with him, and more over a good faith discussion IMHO cannot happen when one party wields all the power and the other has little practical recourse.

You've never had a good faith discussion with anyone, so I don't think Endus is the common factor in that. You've on multiple occasions argued that its acceptable to assume someone's position is X because you've never seen them condemn X. That's not good faith.

Its no surprise to anyone that you're interpreting the Clinton speeches the way you do. Her honesty in your eyes is determined entirely but what will make her the biggest villain in your eyes.