Jump to content

[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory


cr47t

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The issue with that is that the things that the Government can do with that much information is terrifying. Because how long before 'Stopping crimes and terrorism' turns into silencing dissenting opinions? Or use that to influence declared policy, or to manipulate stocks and the like. 

 

And that's a terrifying situation for any nation to be in. I'm not the kind of person to be paranoid of the government, but information really is power in this case. Giving the government a greater ability to silence free speech/creativity is a step towards ending democracy

 

Especially since you are doing it to stop a tiny fraction of people who pose next to no threat to your way of life. Because seriously; Terrorists are not a threat to you. Historically, they have killed a tiny tiny fraction of Americans. Both on and outside of the nation's borders. I know you have this insane 'One american life is too many' but you are letting that cloud judgment and threaten to compromise so many aspects of life for the sake of 'Security'. You will willing trade away freedom for security from a threat that isn't a danger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relevant.  If I get a warning for it, so be it.

 

This is why I love you :'D

 

 

The issue with that is that the things that the Government can do with that much information is terrifying. Because how long before 'Stopping crimes and terrorism' turns into silencing dissenting opinions? Or use that to influence declared policy, or to manipulate stocks and the like. 

 

And that's a terrifying situation for any nation to be in. I'm not the kind of person to be paranoid of the government, but information really is power in this case. Giving the government a greater ability to silence free speech/creativity is a step towards ending democracy

 

Especially since you are doing it to stop a tiny fraction of people who pose next to no threat to your way of life. Because seriously; Terrorists are not a threat to you. Historically, they have killed a tiny tiny fraction of Americans. Both on and outside of the nation's borders. I know you have this insane 'One american life is too many' but you are letting that cloud judgment and threaten to compromise so many aspects of life for the sake of 'Security'. You will willing trade away freedom for security from a threat that isn't a danger. 

LifeLiberty and the pursuit of Happiness

 

In that order Tom

 

 

Anyway, everything would be public, so government abuse would be easy to spot and fix. Everything else it the same, elections etc. It won't devolve into Stalin mate.

 

Also it wouldn't just be terrorism, everything would be seen. Tendency to criminal activity. Using certain buzzwords you could pretty accurately predict when a person is going to lose it and stop them before they commit the crime. That's a true utopia.

 

Trump is wrong in 1) Not going all the way 2) Focusing on one group alone instead of the entire population

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you forget that the right to privacy is implied by the Constitution? I sure didn't, and that's why I find your proposal utterly crazy. I defer to the others and their arguments for the rest.

>Implied

>Specifically written 1st

 

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy. Total government oversight would eliminate crime

 

That being said, a minority report type government discussion isn't for here. 

 

I apologize for derailing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Implied

>Specifically written 1st

 

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy. Total government oversight would eliminate crime

 

That being said, a minority report type government discussion isn't for here.

 

I apologize for derailing

Since when did the 1st Amendment specifically state a right to privacy? I was talking about the 4th Amendment implying it. And no, a slippery slope argument is justified. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and having that much information in the hands of a few can go very, very wrong. Anyway, truce atm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when did the 1st Amendment specifically state a right to privacy? I was talking about the 4th Amendment implying it. And no, a slippery slope argument is justified. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and having that much information in the hands of a few can go very, very wrong. Anyway, truce atm?

We never had a quarrel to need a truce my friend :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure its mainly because many Democrats already accepted Hillary as the candidate or don't really care who gets the nomination at this point. Democrats have always been bad at voting outside of GE.

 

I'd like to amend that to everyone in general.

I mean seriously, we elected bush twice. We clearly don't know what we are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its starting to sound like the Klan is trying to get free publicity. Granted they all may not be on the same page but for someone to claim Clinton has a "hidden" agenda of sorts that pertains to some Ultranationalist policies if far fetched. Plus, in the past few years they've been trying to recruit by spamming a bunch of flyers throughout neighborhoods. And since Birth of a Nation was released about a century ago they might be trying to gather momentum perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its starting to sound like the Klan is trying to get free publicity. Granted they all may not be on the same page but for someone to claim Clinton has a "hidden" agenda of sorts that pertains to some Ultranationalist policies if far fetched. Plus, in the past few years they've been trying to recruit by spamming a bunch of flyers throughout neighborhoods. And since Birth of a Nation was released about a century ago they might be trying to gather momentum perhaps?

It's the same BS Trump got tbh...why the funk should a person be treated negatively because some backwards bastards "likes" them? Hopefully she denounces quickly so sanders can't grab onto this and exploit it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This just goes to show how terrible his decision-making is.

 

An executive at a firm who tortured prisons in Abu Ghraib?

 

An inspector general in the Defense Department during the early Bush years who went to Blackwater?

 

An energy adviser who worked for Ben Carson and is involved in a neocon think tank?

 

He couldn't have picked worse advisers if he tried.  I'd trust an empty room more than these folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Trump is far from perfect. I'm terrified about Cruz though. He could actually beat Hillary based on the polls. And if Trump keeps his promise and endorses Cruz (assuming Cruz wins) then we have a major problem on our hands.

 

Tomorrow looks awful. Cruz seems like he will be able to sweep Utah and take all 40 delegates. Trump has a 13 point lead in Arizona, but Hillary had a 26 point lead in Michigan and Trump had a 10 point lead in Ohio...look how fast those eroded...I trust not the polls

 

I'm genuinely scared of what a Cruz or Sander's presidency would do to this country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cruz has already gone through the entire bible belt and is still significantly behind Trump, Utah is the last religious state on the map after which I find it unlikely he'll win another state.

He doesn't need to win, he just needs to deny trump 1237. 

 

They'll just revoke 40(b) in the convention and hand the nom to Cruz. Cruz will beat Hillary. GG.

 

The upside is that he has no chance of winning something like New York, so there's a trade off from Trump atleast

 

Edit: Montana too

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/trump-breaks-with-consensus-says-us-should-massively-scale-back-involvement-in-nato/

 

Something I'm quite passionate about TBH, I doubt it will go the way I want it to, but there's hope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The party can't go against Trump if he wins the popular vote. They simply won't win, because either a) Trump runs independant, there voting base gets split in half and Hillary wins, or b) the party fractures because people are pissed at the party ignoring there voice. 

 

Either way, it's not a risk the Republicans could take and realistically win the election from, or even survive as a political party. In the end, they'll just have tobuckle down and live with Trump (Who'll probably win the general if you look at turn-out rates). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...