Posted by PigParty

No, I argued about the intention behind the stupid statement you made. I understood the meaning of the post, and argued about the intention behind it. Obviously you misinterpreted my post.

If you took it as me saying we shouldn't bomb them... then yeah, you misinterpreted it. But we probably shouldn't bomb them.  

Posted by Colin

Yes we do already do coordinated bombings (well not Canada anymore woo) but we still see more civilian casualties than terrorist ones, which is part of the decision to stop air strikes being sent from Canada

The solution is not as easy as just air striking, yah civilians will die regardless and it's a casualty of war we can't avoid but the civilian deaths to date greatly out rank the terrorist ones, so before they do more coordinated bombings they should fix the ones they already have in place

You need to look at it from both ends of the spectrum, trying to kill the terrorists has only made us the terrorists

I understand. We have surveillence technology that are the best in the world, that we probably aren't using, which we should. I think we should have a correlation between multiple countries, including some of the groups trying to fight ISIS in Syria. I think we would have more casualties if we only send some troops and try to fight them, than if we sent all of our troops and overwhelmed them. There's no good solution to a group of terrorists who kill anyone and everyone they come across that won't join them. They work undercover basically. We wear uniforms, they don't. There's no easy or good solution, and people will die whether we do nothing, or do everything. They have the capabilities to last many more years to come, though, and they're obly growing bigger and becoming an increasingly greater threat in America and other countries. I'm saying innocents will die, and more than we would like, but it's really a matter of "us vs. them" and we can try our best decrease the collateral damage, but it will be impossible to remove it completely. Military action in today's age is about being smart, not having the bigger gun. That's why I said it would focus on surveillence and intelligence to coordinate the military actions, and even though it's flawed, we can't wait for it to be perfect 100 years from now.

Posted by Yog

If you took it as me saying we shouldn't bomb them... then yeah, you misinterpreted it. But we probably shouldn't bomb them.

I took it as you saying we shouldn't bomb them and that what you think I'm saying is bomb everything and everywhere we think they might be, essentially "bomb their favorite colors" because it relates to them.  

Posted by PigParty

I took it as you saying we shouldn't bomb them and that what you think I'm saying is bomb everything and everywhere we think they might be, essentially "bomb their favorite colors" because it relates to them.

Focus more on the first sentence, and less on the last. Maybe then you'll see the point? Last sentence was just me making fun of your bombing fetish.  

Posted by Yog

Focus more on the first sentence, and less on the last. Maybe then you'll see the point? Last sentence was just me making fun of your bombing fetish.

We do have high-tech surveillence abilities. I don't have a bombing fetish, I just have an issue with politicians in power not doing anything about it. I know this was just an ignorant college kid who said it, but in that Watters world video I posted, some girl near the end said she thinks we should talk with ISIS and negotiate... It just seems like that's how politicians are acting too. They don't want to get their hands dirty, so they don't. As for the surveillence, we do have pretty good capabilities, and while they do hide well, we can find locations where groups from ISIS are headquartered. It's not about finding the individual leaders or anything, it's about decreasing their numbers and momentum first. There's maps you can find with their known locations, and they're pretty scattered, yet we still know generally where their big groups are.  

Posted by Yog

Focus more on the first sentence, and less on the last. Maybe then you'll see the point? Last sentence was just me making fun of your bombing fetish.

Gotta nuke em all  

Posted by 5hift

Her pathetic attempts at trying to gain the vote of millennials.
But I also get the vibe that a lot of people just voted for her because she's a woman.

Posted by PigParty

I can't stand that Clinton actually runs on the campaign that she will be the first woman president. I'm all for a woman being president, a transgender president, a gay president, an asian president. It doesn't matter what they are, it matters who they are. The fact that she tries to get votes simply by being a woman is a reason I'd never vote for her. I lost a lot of respect for her when she started doing that.

(note: in the following post, when I refer to men/women, unless clarified, I refer to the societal gender roles they have, not their capabilities or potential or a word i'm looking for but forgot)

The very fact she is a woman is an advantage that no other candidate, or President, will have. Her being President will allow a voice, a perspective for women to have in the political system. It's clear that there is a social difference to men than women - women are objectified in the media, underappreciated in the office, and earn less for their work; whereas men are idolised, promoted, and earn what it's worth. Clinton has worked her ass off to get where she is, and other women have, even I have, which is admirable because of the difficulties she has faced. From her birth, I 100% guarantee she was treated differently because she was a girl. I 100% guarantee she lives her life differently because she is a girl. It's got nothing to do with that she is biologically a woman, it's that in society's eye, she is a woman, and so she will be treated like one. Given this, she was raised as a female. As a woman, she has been exposed to experiences that men simply haven't had (because they are men). She has subconscious values and opinions that will mostly be shared by females as they were too raised as a female. Women vote for her because they can relate to her and she can relate to them.

Here is an example of why her being a woman is important. Nine debates in and Sanders and Clinton have not been asked about abortion and reproductive rights despite it being a huge issue for women. Some of the Graalians on this forum wouldn't have thought twice about these issues, as they simply don't affect them. But, you know what? This is an issue I and so, so many other women have on a practically daily basis. I don't want to effectively throw my whole life away just to have a baby I didn't even want. This sounds harsh, but it's true. We joke of 16 year old pregnant girls, yet some people want to get rid of abortion, the very thing that would prevent these jokes??????
/rant over. Back to the point! Regardless of the fact they both support abortion and reproductive rights, Clinton willingly advocated for women's rights, whereas Sanders had to be prompted. It's not his fault for not bringing the issue up, it's just that as Clinton is a woman she is more exposed to these issues. I doubt during every single sex any man has thought, "Wow, if this condom slips or she forgot to take the pill, she'll probably be impregnated and she'll have to raise a baby or get an abortion", or has ever experienced the anxiety of needing emergency contraception which doesn't even work every time.

It's similar to Obama as a black president. I'm sure minority voters identified with him as he would have dealt with the scrutiny and racism of others, and therefore he would engage in similar values and the wish to break down the barriers between capabilities and behaviours of races.

It's impossible to deny the sexism in the world today, especially in positions of power and fame, and it's incredible that she has dealt with the harsh eye of the media for so long. Has anyone in the political race, including Trump, been so condemned as Clinton? No! a study done shows that Clinton is the most negatively reported candidate. SHE BEATS DONALD TRUMP. No offense towards Trump supporters, however this certainly is a feat. It's funny, as Clinton has been a serious candidate for so long, and Trump I believe was relatively spontaneous (not to mention his interesting policies).http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/1141016...bernie-sanders

Posted by Ark

Spoiler

She's kind of a bitch actually

Is it so wrong to change your stance on things? Just as it is changing your gender, your religion, and you values, surely it should be treated the same. Also, the second radio reporter is the bitch and trying to make Clinton look bad.

Posted by PigParty

I also oppose abortion (with exceptions of health of mother, rape, and incest),

Why? With due respect, abortion rights hardly affects your life. Men can 'opt-out' of fatherhood. Yes, child support is a thing, yet the father could theoretically run into the forest and hide from it. Whereas the child in within the women for nine months, and is relied upon by the child to the point where the woman cannot give away the child. Abortion is the only way some women have the way to live their lives without needing to provide for another.

Abortion is pro-life. It is pro-quality of life, not quantity.
ok I'm going to read the last two pages or so, as it took me a bit to write this  

All I've heard from people who oppose bombing ISIS at all is criticism, and as my favorite quote goes...

Spoiler

I hear the same from politicians. Only criticism, and sometimes I hear "We need to build a coalition!" That's the most solution I hear from people who oppose US military action. Yet no action is being done. I'd honestly love to hear other solutions, but all I see is criticism, with no alternative solution that could work.

ISIS has attacked France, Belgium, and more. I realize no one wants innocents to die, but what happens when their next attack is as big as 9/11, and we have hundreds-thousands of innocents die on our own soil, or on our allies' soil? A solution needs to be made and put in place. If it came down to my family's lives, or another family's lives, I would pick my family. And sadly, because the politicians have let ISIS grow for so long, it's getting closer and closer to that decision that has to be made. They should have dealt with ISIS beforeit grew to be the problem it is today.

Posted by Platinum

(note: in the following post, when I refer to men/women, unless clarified, I refer to the societal gender roles they have, not their capabilities or potential or a word i'm looking for but forgot)

The very fact she is a woman is an advantage that no other candidate, or President, will have. Her being President will allow a voice, a perspective for women to have in the political system. It's clear that there is a social difference to men than women - women are objectified in the media, underappreciated in the office, and earn less for their work; whereas men are idolised, promoted, and earn what it's worth. Clinton has worked her ass off to get where she is, and other women have, even I have, which is admirable because of the difficulties she has faced. From her birth, I 100% guarantee she was treated differently because she was a girl. I 100% guarantee she lives her life differently because she is a girl. It's got nothing to do with that she is biologically a woman, it's that in society's eye, she is a woman, and so she will be treated like one. Given this, she was raised as a female. As a woman, she has been exposed to experiences that men simply haven't had (because they are men). She has subconscious values and opinions that will mostly be shared by females as they were too raised as a female. Women vote for her because they can relate to her and she can relate to them.

Here is an example of why her being a woman is important. Nine debates in and Sanders and Clinton have not been asked about abortion and reproductive rights despite it being a huge issue for women. Some of the Graalians on this forum wouldn't have thought twice about these issues, as they simply don't affect them. But, you know what? This is an issue I and so, so many other women have on a practically daily basis. I don't want to effectively throw my whole life away just to have a baby I didn't even want. This sounds harsh, but it's true. We joke of 16 year old pregnant girls, yet some people want to get rid of abortion, the very thing that would prevent these jokes??????
/rant over. Back to the point! Regardless of the fact they both support abortion and reproductive rights, Clinton willingly advocated for women's rights, whereas Sanders had to be prompted. It's not his fault for not bringing the issue up, it's just that as Clinton is a woman she is more exposed to these issues. I doubt during every single sex any man has thought, "Wow, if this condom slips or she forgot to take the pill, she'll probably be impregnated and she'll have to raise a baby or get an abortion", or has ever experienced the anxiety of needing emergency contraception which doesn't even work every time.

It's similar to Obama as a black president. I'm sure minority voters identified with him as he would have dealt with the scrutiny and racism of others, and therefore he would engage in similar values and the wish to break down the barriers between capabilities and behaviours of races.

It's impossible to deny the sexism in the world today, especially in positions of power and fame, and it's incredible that she has dealt with the harsh eye of the media for so long. Has anyone in the political race, including Trump, been so condemned as Clinton? No! a study done shows that Clinton is the most negatively reported candidate. SHE BEATS DONALD TRUMP. No offense towards Trump supporters, however this certainly is a feat. It's funny, as Clinton has been a serious candidate for so long, and Trump I believe was relatively spontaneous (not to mention his interesting policies).http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/1141016...bernie-sanders




Is it so wrong to change your stance on things? Just as it is changing your gender, your religion, and you values, surely it should be treated the same. Also, the second radio reporter is the bitch and trying to make Clinton look bad.

ok I'm going to read the last two pages or so, as it took me a bit to write this

I didn't read it all because I will forget what I want to say, I'll go back and edit this as I read more, just so you know incase you see the post prematurely.

I'm not trying to undermine the issues of the female-male pay gap, but it also doesn't appear to be quite as substantial as the media portrays it to be. I'd also like to point out other factors such as asking for raises, setting work hours, getting more paid leave (if you have children or something) and many other factors that play into the salary of each individual employee. I understand that there definitely is a problem, and in some situations it's much bigger than others. Here's a good CNN article about the pay gap for men and women.

Spoiler

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/12/pf/g...equal-pay-day/

Well ****. I just typed a whole paragraph and my iPad froze on me, and removed everything I said. I'm sorry but I'm going to shorten it quite a bit then... I understand she's a woman and faces challenges that males don't. However, most people face their own special challenges, but it doesn't mean they should be treated differently because of it. She should focus on her overcoming them, rather than focusing on her facing them because she's a woman. It's fine to focus on the issue, but not when she uses that issue to try to get people to vote for her simply because there's a gender issue, and she's a woman. I'm short for my age, and I face different difficulties that tall people don't face, but I shouldn't be treated differently because of that. I respect how someone overcomes the challenges, but not the fact that they simply had them.

As for abortion, it's a big issue for me too. I believe, however, that abortion should be illegal unless the health of the mother is at risk, or if it was from rape or incest. The thing is, if a male and female choose to have sex, they know what could come out of that. All actions have consequences. Even if theh wear protection and something happens and the girl still has a baby, that was one of the known consequences of their actions. Even if you believe that the baby isn't alive until it's born (or whatever stage of pregnancy you believe), you can't deny that an abortion is murdering the potential of an innocent human being. Yes, the potential is still being murdered. That baby (or its potential) has no say in whether you end its life. People only find it OK because they don't see the human being actually formed and conscious of its surroundings yet. If you stab a pregnant woman, you will be charged with the murder of her baby, but apparently having an abortion isn't killing a baby? I don't believe a child should die because 2 people went through with sex, but disliked the consequence that came from it. I also seriously believe that while the female is the one who carries the baby, it's not just her child. The father has as much rights and responsibility to the child as the mother does. I don't view this topic through my religion, but I still can't understand why people are OK with murdering a child (or its potential) because they want to have sex, but don't want to deal with the consequence of their actions.

Just to emphasize, since now I have read all of your post, I believe the father is obligated to the child just as much as the mother, and laws should be passed to require that. Not just financially (unless the mother and father agree to that).

As for Obama and race relations. I won't get too involved with that, so I'll keep it fairly short. I think Obama has only hurt race relations because when there have been incidents when a white cop kills a black person, he comes right out immediately and condemns the cop, without knowing the entire situation. For example: Ferguson. I think someone with his power and presence should be more cautious before he ruins the life and image of a cop, and the entire police force. (I couldn't help myself from getting into it more... sorry) The police are in the wrong sometimes, but it's sad because some communities have "cried wolf" so many times in situations that race has nothing to do with, that they actually undermined themselves the racial issues we have in America today. It's hard to take anyone seriously now when every time it's a white cop and a black person, they call it racism. Hell, I've even see them call racism when a black cop shot a black guy. Who knows, it may very well be racism, even then, but they undermined the whole issue that we can't take it seriously anymore. It's really sad to be honest, because it's an issue that should be worked on to get it fixed.

As for politicians or people in general changing their stances... I'm going to tell you right now that my opinion has nothing to do with the video posted about Hillary Clintom allegedly lying, or Hillary Clinton in general. I haven't even seen the video posted on this thread. My opinion on changing stances is that I don't understamd why when someone changes their stance, everyone attacks them. I actually respect people listening to other sides and forming a different opinon from that. However, politcians often change their stance to simply side with the majority of the people. When they do it for that reason, that's when it becomes an issue. We elect them to represent us, so while I understand them changing to side with the majority of the people they represent, we also elect them for who they are individually. I would respect them if they changed their stance and said it was because the majority of the people agreed with that stance, and noted that their opinion may not have changed. But they seem to generally change their stance simply to side with the people to keep their votes and popularity, which creates problems.

I think I covered everything you said Plat That was a lot...  

@PigParty I need to sleep now, so I might respond in eight hours or so if that's alright with you. Thank you for replying to my lengthy post! That awkward moment when you're more passionate for another country's politics than your own.  

Posted by Guri

Gotta nuke em all

His own citizens are starving, yet he's investing his money in nukes?

Dude has his priorities straight.

China > Japan. I'll beat you to all your wonders, and I'll kill you with my Cho-ko-nu. Won't even let Japan units get low health!!!  

Posted by Ryan

Regardless of what happens murica is fked

ya dude we're struggling so bad over here  

Posted by Thallen

Seeing as how you posted this yesterday, there should probably only be two options

All 25 of you who voted for Sanders should state who you support out of Trump and Clinton
And if the answer is "neither of them" then you're doing the country a disservice, because there's no perfect candidate and if you reserve your vote exclusively for the perfect candidate then you'll never vote

I'm not doing my country a disservice if I choose not to vote. If I don't feel represented by the two candidates, then why should I vote?

If it does happen that it's Clinton and Trump, then I won't vote. Neither of them are who I want representing the country, and my vote should reflect this.  

Posted by Areo

I'm not doing my country a disservice if I choose not to vote. If I don't feel represented by the two candidates, then why should I vote?

If it does happen that it's Clinton and Trump, then I won't vote. Neither of them are who I want representing the country, and my vote should reflect this.

Yes but if it comes to it, I'd like to at least vote for the least ****ty one. Not like not voting is going to keep them both out, might as well try to keep the worst of the two out.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/64396612.jpg (Unsupported image host)  

Posted by Areo

I'm not doing my country a disservice if I choose not to vote. If I don't feel represented by the two candidates, then why should I vote?

If it does happen that it's Clinton and Trump, then I won't vote. Neither of them are who I want representing the country, and my vote should reflect this.

In Ohio, voting adds us to the list of names for jury duty, so that alone is reason enough to vote (in my opinion). Honestly, you could vote for a different candidate like an independent and at least use your vote as a message protesting the political parties, or vote for the least bad candidate, but not voting is pointless. Although, our votes hardly matter anyways. It's not just 1 person 1 vote.  

Posted by PigParty

In Ohio, voting adds us to the list of names for jury duty, so that alone is reason enough to vote (in my opinion).

lol you'd think that would discourage people from voting.  

Posted by Coco

lol you'd think that would discourage people from voting.

My friend's parents actually don't vote because of that. I would love to get jury duty, though. Out of everyone I know, I'm the only one.