I don't think so. I think he understands it's quite possible that he'll lose the election and seeks to convince people that if he loses it can only be due to fraud. That's not showing "greatness of spirit" in my book. It's shows meanness of spirit, a spiteful spirit, intent on undermining not only the authority and legitimacy of the victor, but the election process itself if he's unsuccessful. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, indeed. This is what he is known for. Sore loser. After all, he gained the political spotlight years ago when he tried to undermine the authority and legitimacy of Barack Obama on dubious grounds, then persisted in doing so for years, and remains defensive, and even proud about it, to this very day.

Yes, indeed. This is what he is known for. Sore loser. After all, he gained the political spotlight years ago when he tried to undermine the authority and legitimacy of Barack Obama on dubious grounds, then persisted in doing so for years, and remains defensive, and even proud about it, to this very day. — Sapientia

What dubious grounds are these?

I don't know about that. I don't think the executive branch can actually start a trade war. — Mongrel

I don't know that much about it, to be honest. But I know that he has made it clear that he will use whatever power he has to take the stick approach, rather than the carrot approach. Especially when it comes to China. And that strikes me as concerning, in that it seems risky and potentially damaging and counterproductive.

Otherwise, Trump is isolationist. Most of the attempts of the US to be involved in the world lately have resulted in all-out grade-A catastrophe.. so maybe a little isolationism would give the world a break. — Mongrel

Yes, and that is a stance I find more agreeable.

But what I actually had in mind was the reactions of, for example, important political figures in the U.K., where I'm from. And judging by their own reactions, it is clear that they see a Trump presidency as troubling, in stark contrast to a Clinton presidency, which doesn't even get brought up. Questions like "What would you do if Trump became president?" and "Would Trump becoming president effect the special relationship?" have been frequently raised, and the answers given are quite telling.

I don't know that much about it, to be honest. But I know that he has made it clear that he will use whatever power he has to take the stick approach, rather than the carrot approach. Especially when it comes to China. And that strikes me as concerning, in that it seems risky and potentially damaging and counterproductive. — Sapientia

Yea. We'd have to invent a word for the new level of Stupid where the US provokes China while the US national debt is $19 trillion.

And judging by their own reactions, it is clear that they see a Trump presidency as troubling, in stark contrast to a Clinton presidency, which doesn't even get brought up. — Sapientia

I'm not sure what they're seeing. Maybe his attitude toward Russia? Anyway.. nobody wants to say it out loud because it might impact voter turnout, but it doesn't look like Trump has a snowball's chance.

I have to say I am working up a little emotion over voting for the first female president of my country. Really? Woo Hoo!

What dubious grounds are these? — tom

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. It's a discredited conspiracy theory, and this is a philosophy forum with standards that ought to be maintained.

Today's shocking revelations of the character of Clinton, based on a Kremlin troll's leaking of her emails:

'Take a deep dive into the more than 10,000 Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks, and here's what you'll learn: Hillary Clinton is a careful, methodical, tightly-controlled politician. Her jokes, her tweets and even her purported ad libs are often scripted by aides. She hates to apologise, even when she admits she's done something wrong, like keeping emails on a home server. She's a progressive, but not an ideologue; she yearns for "rational, moderate voices" on both sides. Above all, she's a pragmatist who's willing to compromise - and to have "both a public and a private position" if that's what it takes to make a deal.

Fainted yet?"

I have to say I am working up a little emotion over voting for the first female president of my country. Really? Woo Hoo! — Mongrel

I am also excited by the possibility of electing the first female president. It's interesting how little discussion that's merited, either because that fact has been so overshadowed by Trump's antics, or because people are just so used to Hillary that it barely registers: she's just part of the political furniture by this point.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. It's a discredited conspiracy theory, and this is a philosophy forum with standards that ought to be maintained. — Sapientia

What is the discredited conspiracy theory that Trump initiated?

I am also excited by the possibility of electing the first female president. It's interesting how little discussion that's merited, either because that fact has been so overshadowed by Trump's antics, or because people are just so used to Hillary that it barely registers: she's just part of the political furniture by this point. — Arkady

I was thinking about that. Maybe it has to slip up on us in order for it to happen at all. Next in line: President Ramirez or whoever...

I was thinking about that. Maybe it has to slip up on us in order for it to happen at all. Next in line: President Ramirez or whoever... — Mongrel

Or President Muhammad somebody.

I wouldn't say never. It's hard to picture it soon, though.

What is the discredited conspiracy theory that Trump initiated? — tom

I'm sure Sapienta can point this out as well but go back to what he wrote and try to find the verb "initiate" or any synonym of it in there.

I think your arrogance might just be matched by your naivete... which means it's a sure bet that Uncle Sam wants you. Have you checked into whether you can fast-track to citizenship with military service? — Mongrel

And I think your general incoherence may just be matched by your lack of judgement... which means it's a sure as hell bet that the closest psychiatric ward wants you. Have you checked into whether they have a free spot for you in there - because I tell you this last post of yours makes no sense at all.

OK, so the love is in the person. If the person really loves then their acts will be moral, no? So where does duty come into it? If you do something you want to do (out of love) it is not a matter of duty and it will be moral, or else the love was not genuine. — John

"If the person really loves then their acts will be moral" - no. Have I said that? I said that for morality to be the case their intention must be loving, and their action based on duty. The fact that "if the person really loves then their acts will be moral" is your thinking, not mine. You asked me on what morality is based - so I told you what it is based for me. That's my framework. Now it seems you want to question the framework, but if so, then you should make this clear instead of presupposing another framework in order to question it.

It's possible that someone is loving and yet still fails to be moral. Love is no guarantee of morality in and by itself. There's many instances of this because we live under time. Love is destroyed and replaced under time. The only thing which can keep it constant and eternal is duty. Say I love my friend today. What ensures I'll love them tomorrow as well, and my love for them will not be momentarily replaced by my love for a dog, such that I end up doing something good for the dog and bad for my friend? Duty. Duty guarantees eternity to love sub specie durationis.

Do you know what Sapientia is referring to?

Amazingly yes. Even as a non-US citizen I've been able to read the news, which I mostly do just for laughs.

first female president of my country. — Mongrel

>:O these firsts don't mean anything. Look at Obama. First black President. Did things improve for blacks? For many things haven't improved at all - they still face problems of poverty, lack of education and rampant crime. But now folks get to tell them "Why are you complaining - look you have a black President!" These firsts are just getting yourself drunk on nothing, they're actually more unhelpful than helpful.

>:O WikiLeaks isn't the Kremlin you know... Assange has published damaging information on China, US, Russia, etc. so based on what is that contention? Based on Crooked's phobia that Russia is interfering in the elections? Everytime something goes wrong she screams Russia - it's a bit of a joke, we're not living in the Cold War you know. I know you enjoyed your 60s and 70s, but still, the world has moved on. There much bigger interests out there than US and Russia - primarily trans-national economic interests that are funding Crooked, which is what WikiLeaks is exposing. Even if Russia did try to get involved in the US elections, what does that have to do with WikiLeaks and their releases?

Crooked is trying to stop WikiLeaks at the moment and shut them up - because she knows they got her. Ecuador cut Assange's internet for the release. Interesting to see you fight for the money interests.

So what is the issue? An how did Trump exploit it?

What is the discredited conspiracy theory that Trump initiated? — tom

He's referring to the birther issue - that Barrack Hussein Obama wasn't US born.

Here you go, you wanna talk about Russia Wayfarer? Fine, let's talk about Russia... Crooked will do anything to get elected or make some money - she will sell her country for nothing if that's what it takes to make herself powerful. Her screams of Russia Russia are just her attempts to get fools to support her - fools who still buy into the Cold War nonsense. The world has moved on... Russia is in fact already winning against the US. It's sad but true. Look at the Middle East. Look at Iran, look at Turkey, look at Syria - all these places the US is losing. Look at Ukraine - what the fuck is that? Is that Crooked fighting the Russians? That's why the Russians are gaining ground everywhere? Give me a break... She just wants to be powerful and make money - she doesn't want to fight the Russians, that is certainly a secondary concern for her.

Pretty much. Women don't have to do anything in particular for men to feel that way. In a society where women are not locked away, where they are free to participate in society and draw attention, care, time and resources from others, men will notice beautiful women all the time.

If we are expecting women not to be noticed by men, we are asking them to withdraw from public life, to have no interest in gaining from the wider community, to care not for their public status (e.g. job, friends, whether they are likeable to a stranger) and to cover themselves head to toe, so they aren't recognisable as an individual who draws attention. To be someone, and wanting to be someone, who is sexually desirable to others is part of existing in public life, by the mere fact of people paying attention to you, sharing their time and resources, as is part of loving in the public sphere.

Many men feel "under the spell and control of beauty" by nothing more than a woman walking down the street in jeans and t-shirt. Or the smiling waitress with a presentable casual uniform. Or the woman in a blouse and slacks working in the office. Merely by living and interacting with others, women are people who are desired. Unless women get locked away, this is something men are going to have to deal with. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You're not reading the question. Let's go over it again.

Oh so this wanting people to desire you sexually is a good and honorable desire no? It's good and honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, under the spell and control of your beauty right? — Agustino

The question isn't about the fact that by the mere fact of their existence women will attract attention, care, time and resources. It's not about the fact that by their mere living in society they will attract attention to themselves. The question is whether they should WANT that. I can attract all the attention in the world when I go in the street. It doesn't follow that I should actively seek to do that - ie want it. It can be just another fact of my existence, just like my shadow. So I'm asking you whether it's honorable to WANT to be desired sexually. Whether it's honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, and under the spell and control of your beauty?

My point was not that they were moral, but that you were equivocating a woman's appearance and behaviour with her desire to have sex. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No actually I haven't. That's what you think I was thinking. It's clearly not what I have written.

You say she wants to dominate you here, but previously your arguments were saying she wanted to have sex because of how she appeared or behaved — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope - my arguments never said she wants to have sex. Only that she wants to dominate. Having sex may or may not be part of that.

If you made a pass at that woman or even raped her, it would be justified because she really "wanted it." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not at all. I actually claimed the contrary.

You insisted the women really wanted his sexual attention (meaning, you know, he hasn't violated consent and the women haven't been abused by being acted on sexual against their will) — TheWillowOfDarkness

I insist that SOME of the women wanted his sexual attention - and even if they wanted it, they were still abused. Just wanting something or consenting to it doesn't mean you're not abused.

Because many states which register to men as "sexually desirable" are a mere fact of their existence or are somehow related to other social relations, personal expression, maintaining employment, being interesting to others, etc.,etc. It's not fucking hard, Agustino. You just have to take a moment and think about what matters to women, what she needs to do to maintain social relations, be someone who lives with others etc., etc. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm getting sick and tired of you not reading what I'm writting and asking you. Again you answered an entirely different question, an answer with which of course I agree! I doubt you'll ever find a person who doesn't agree. But my question was different. it's not whether states of women are "sexually desirable" or necessary for social relations, etc.

Then if they're not available why the hell do they want to be sexually desirable if not in order to have power and dominate? — Agustino

It's whether they WANT to be sexually desirable or not. She can be the most beautiful women and go out there normally, and attract the attention of all the men she passes by - sure. But that has nothing to do with whether she actually wants to do this. Someone can be unconcerned about whether they are sexually desirable or not. Or someone can WANT to be sexually desirable. So I'm asking you why, if she's not available, would she WANT to be sexually desirable - not why she may be sexually desirable nonetheless because of other factors that are, let's say, not up to her.

You know, I'm starting to think that democracy ain't all it's cracked up to be. — Sapientia

Now I recall our debate on Brexit and my willingness to accept any (legal) route to ignore the referendum result. ;)

Now I recall our debate on Brexit and my willingness to accept any (legal) route to ignore the referendum result. ;) — Michael

Typical progressives :P - when things don't go their way, they're willing to do anything to make them go that way. And by the way, I'm not a sympathiser of Brexit at all.

Typical progressives :P - when things don't go their way, they're willing to do anything to make them go that way. And by the way, I'm not a sympathiser of Brexit at all. — Agustino

Anything? I said any legal route.

Anything? I said any legal route. — Michael

;) What difference would that make if you were the one making the laws?

Was going to reply to your other post, but since you deleted it...

Are you referring to the contents of this email from 2008?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860

;) What difference would that make if you were the one making the laws? — Agustino

Well, none. I don't really understand what you're driving at. The whole point of a legislature is to make the laws that are believed to be best.

Regarding your interest in having Trump try to overturn laws/Supreme Court decisions on abortion, or undermine progressivism in general, isn't that just a case of "when things don't go [my] way, [I'm] willing to do anything to make them go that way".

Was going to reply to your other post, but since you deleted it... — tom

Que? I didn't delete any posts. Still waiting on your link to open btw. The proxy-server ain't responding...

EDIT: It finally opened. I fail to see the relevance.

You mean this issue:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860