MigL

What's even more sad is the fact that in the US, a large amount of people ( approx. 60 mil according to Ten oz ) will vote Republican, even with D. Trump as the candidate for the presidency. The reason is not policy as D. Trump doesn't really have any realistic policy, domestic or foreign. It is simply because that's how their family has voted for generations. Americans tend to label themselves Democrats or Republicans, and come hell or high water ( or even D. Trump ), that's how they vote. Never mind the issues !

But we're not discussing capitalism here, John. And 'if you disbanded a practice because someone has on occasion corrupted it, all your favorite institutions would have to go away' sounds good, Swansont, but I've never heard you express that sentiment in a thread about religion. ( thanks for the correction BTW; yes, post #145 ) Note also that I'm not making Tampitump's argument for him; I'm expressing my own views. I'm not objecting to the concept.

I would define a right as free will. Everyone has it. But there are also repercussions with exercising that free will. Society, and our governments, have decided that some of those actions are detrimental to society, and so try to discourage some actions, by exercising their collective right to punish you. The fact that actions have consequences is discouragement, it is not prevention. If the bear in the stream where you're fishing exercises his right to be a bear, and mauls you, that is a consequence of your actions. It is certainly not prevention. The bear will never hold up a sign stating that you're not allowed to fish in his steam.

And I challenge you to find one of my posts where I've said that she's more dishonest and untrustworthy than other candidates. As a matter of fact, I have stated the total opposite at every occasion, Arete. But this is a thread about H. Clinton and if you want to discuss your dislike of her centre right political stance, you are more than welcome and I won't accuse you of doing a 'hatchet job' on her. That's what this thread is for. To discuss what we approve of, and what we don't, about a person who will hopefully be the next American President.

Why can't rights just be there ? Why do you think they have to be granted by someone, and if not the government then it must be God ( ?). Everyone has free will and can exercise that will. All the government, or Constitution, does, is specify which of those actions will have repercussions, and which won't. And, of course, different governments have different standards for repercussions. And no, DrmDoc and Ophiolite, no government can prevent you from committing a murder. And if they have proof that you've conspired to commit a murder, that is already a criminal offense, and punishable. But they can't prevent your thinking about it, and spontaneously carrying it out. They can only make you face the consequences of your actions

Servicing the female interns ??? ( sorry, I couldn't resist )

I have never said she wasn't qualified for the job of President. My own personal problem with her and the DNC is the underhanded way she was favored for the nomination. And the fact that B. Sanders has forgiven her and the Democrats says more about his character than hers. Other members may have different priorities, and to them, the lies, health, e-mail, Bill, or even her testosterone are valid concerns. This thread was specifically set up for voicing those concerns, and I don't think telling them their concerns are nonsense is very American. ( maybe the other thread concerning rights should be expanded to include opinions, and when/if you can have one )

But in post #45 you said the problems which Tampitump was alarmed about 'don't actually exist'. Now you concede that there could be corruption, abuse and misapplication. Why not simply say its a valid and valuable concept, but if corrupted, abused or misapplied, COULD lead to the silencing of dissenting opinions ?

You'd better re-read that Swansont. Somehow you have gotten the totally opposite meaning. Rights cannot be what is granted or protected by the government as we have many differing governments in this world. Some not so nice. Rights are NOT simply what is granted/protected by the government. Maybe the 'blinders' are preventing you from reading properly. And I suggest you and DrmDoc have a discussion. You seem to agree that rights are not granted by the government according to your post #34 ( and which I agree with ). While DrmDoc seems to think they are, and inherent rights are a 'fabrication'. edit ( added this last part after DrmDoc's post )

I don't see how it isn't, John. If nothing is preventing me from doing something, then I have the option of doing it, if I so choose. But I have to accept the consequences of my choice, which would be other people, or society, exercising their options. Maybe we have differing definitions of 'rights'. I don't think rights are granted nor protected by the government, otherwise there would be no human rights violations; only those granted by an authoritarian/dictatorial government would be considered 'rights' in an authoritarian/dictatorial country. Rights are inherent, and should be whatever you wish to do, tempered by the consequences of others' right to respond/react to your actions.

Does the government have the right to PREVENT you from killing someone ? If they think you're going to commit a murder can they preemptively incarcerate you ? It may be contorted but, nonetheless, accurate.

And if you'd bothered to read that NYT article, you would have found within it, links to several examples within academic institutions where the safe space concept has been corrupted, abused or misapplied.

Having a right doesn't absolve you of the consequences of exercising that right. Because, as I said, other people ( like his superiors ) have rights also.

To be fair Swansont, he has posted links to specific examples where it DOES exist. The question is, how prevalent is it ? Or is it just a few cases where its abused or incorrectly applied ? But Tampitump's mood swings certainly don't help his argument.

Stop taking snippets of my post in isolation. You ARE free to do whatever you want, even kill another person. Even if you're a public official, you don't lose any of your rights. But then society gets to exercise their rights, and are free to react to your behavior by imprisoning you. Everyone has rights ! Or did you nor read the line after the one you quoted ?

And I've conceded the point that she's the better candidate. As a matter of fact, I was one of her earliest supporters on this forum, over a year ago. And you may be of the opinion that those criticisms are manufacture and minor, but other members are not. And that is what we are discussing.

Look, DrmDoc, this is a thread specifically about H. Clinton. D, Trump has his own thread. This is NOT a comparison thread of the two candidates. The fact that many of us think she is the better candidate, does not absolve her of mistakes or wrong-doing. Do you believe that because she's the better candidate she should get a free pass from criticism, or that her foibles can be excused because D. Trump's are so much worse ? And you missed the whole point of my Franco/Hitler example. Taken to the extreme your stance is that F. Franco should not be criticised for his shortcomings because A. Hitler's are so much worse. ( I was NOT comparing them to our presidential candidates )

Anyone who actually targets cops for shooting is trying to incite terror, hence terrorist. Anyone protesting peacefully is exercising their legal rights, hence not a terrorist. Anyone calling for the shooting of policemen, is committing a hate crime against a particular demographic, and should be prosecuted, although not a terrorist. If some of the participants in the protest, ( allegedly ) incited or participated in the shooting, certainly they should be prosecuted for terrorism or hate crimes as the case may be. But BLM isn't itself responsible. He voiced his opinion about a ( hopefully ) peaceful protest, and was within his rights. The people who fired him were also within their rights to react to his actions.

Does anyone have a link as to what he actually said ? I can see the point of calling the shooter of the policemen a terrorist, but what is the link to BLM ?

So if we had Francisco Franco and Adolf Hitler running for the office of dictator, you guys would think any criticism of F. Franco would be unjustified because A. Hitler is so much worse ? Not that I'm comparing the two presidential candidates to those two historic gentlemen, but simply taking your argument to the extreme ( and trying to lighten things up a little ) We all know H. Clinton is the better choice, but she has made mistakes.

I don't get it CharonY. We regularly criticize the US for their gun-loving culture. If a large number of Americans were coming to Canada, you and I would have no problem identifying this aspect of American culture as one which might not mesh with Canadian values. Why is it impossible to have this discussion with people who like to 'label' themselves and others as liberals, with regard to Muslim immigration . That's the question posed in the OP, and the assumption seems to be accurate so far.

Hillary Clinton is not a black drug dealer, nor has she been frisked in a very long time. So can we get back to the OP ?

And Tampitytump is suggesting you can't stay in the safe space forever. Eventually you have to leave the security of the college/university and go out in the real world. No safe spaces out there !

Interesting article Tampitump. Safe spaces are ultimately designed to fail as everyone has a dissenting opinion about something or other. Any group will eventually reduce to one. And so no one will talk to another ????

And you're preaching to the choir Swansont. Everyone here recognizes H. Clinton's track record, and I would go so far as to state that if it was just members of this forum voting in the election, H. Clinton would defeat D. Trump with 95% of the votes. We're just questioning why some of the things she, and the DNC, have done were even considered in the first place. In today's society everything comes to light, and a lot of these bad decisions are coming to light just before the election. Just when they can do the most damage. And I might suggest, telling others what is appropriate political discourse, and what should be important ( to THEM ) ranks pretty high on the 'snobbish' scale. To some people Bill's extramarital dalliances are an indication of the future president's family values, and some people think that's important. To some people 'looks' are important, as we have a prime minister who hasn't done anything different from the previous one, yet has stratospheric approval ratings ( probably due to the large umber of 'selfies' he takes ). Similarly with memory issues that aren't really memory issues ( do you mean lies ? ) and diminish her credibility; not compared to D. Trump ( who has none ), but compared to most people's own personal scale. And drug use/crime rate should be in another thread, guys.