Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Asterios wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.

and companies have the right to hire and fire who they want as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, disability and religion.

but you would rather dictate what a company can and cannot do depriving them of their liberties and pursuit of happiness, neither of which is guaranteed by the Constitutional Amendments.

that is like saying serial killers should be allowed to kill since that is their right in the pursuit of happiness.

But that infringes on others rights to pursue happiness, no?

and like I said it is not protected by the Constitutional Amendments, if it was killers would be allowed to kill, rapists would be allowed to rape and so on and so on. as it goes drug testing has been taken to court and the companies won since working is not a right and working for a specific company is definitely not a right.

Reducto ad absurdum is the rebuttal you're going all in on?

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.

and companies have the right to hire and fire who they want as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, disability and religion.

but you would rather dictate what a company can and cannot do depriving them of their liberties and pursuit of happiness, neither of which is guaranteed by the Constitutional Amendments.

that is like saying serial killers should be allowed to kill since that is their right in the pursuit of happiness.

But that infringes on others rights to pursue happiness, no?

and like I said it is not protected by the Constitutional Amendments, if it was killers would be allowed to kill, rapists would be allowed to rape and so on and so on. as it goes drug testing has been taken to court and the companies won since working is not a right and working for a specific company is definitely not a right.

Reducto ad absurdum is the rebuttal you're going all in on?

you need to wake up and join the real world, if you need a job, doesn't mean the company needs you though. companies have the right to pick and choose who they want to hire based on their requirements, if they don't want drug users then they don't have to hire drug users, if you don't want to test, then you don't have to be hired.

as to some other fields it is law for them to be tested, just like Sports, are you saying athletes should not have to be tested? even though they are doing what they want on their own time? seriously wake up.

Asterios wrote:

you need to wake up and join the real world, if you need a job, doesn't mean the company needs you though. companies have the right to pick and choose who they want to hire based on their requirements, if they don't want drug users then they don't have to hire drug users, if you don't want to test, then you don't have to be hired.

as to some other fields it is law for them to be tested, just like Sports, are you saying athletes should not have to be tested? even though they are doing what they want on their own time? seriously wake up.

I'm having flashbacks to elementary school, and the spastic kid forgot his adderall again.

Allowing private corporations to dictate what their employees do on their own time in their own home is contrary to the inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness as described in the DoI. Yes or no.
No ludicrous comparisons, no wildly tangential arguments, yes or no.

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

you need to wake up and join the real world, if you need a job, doesn't mean the company needs you though. companies have the right to pick and choose who they want to hire based on their requirements, if they don't want drug users then they don't have to hire drug users, if you don't want to test, then you don't have to be hired.

as to some other fields it is law for them to be tested, just like Sports, are you saying athletes should not have to be tested? even though they are doing what they want on their own time? seriously wake up.

I'm having flashbacks to elementary school, and the spastic kid forgot his adderall again.

Allowing private corporations to dictate what their employees do on their own time in their own home is contrary to the inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness as described in the DoI. Yes or no.
No ludicrous comparisons, no wildly tangential arguments, yes or no.

No, because no one is forcing you to work said private corporation.

Are you familiar with Workman's Comp Laws? If you get injured on the job, you almost ALWAYS get tested.

It's a liability thing... not some desire to control the employer's private time.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

you need to wake up and join the real world, if you need a job, doesn't mean the company needs you though. companies have the right to pick and choose who they want to hire based on their requirements, if they don't want drug users then they don't have to hire drug users, if you don't want to test, then you don't have to be hired.

as to some other fields it is law for them to be tested, just like Sports, are you saying athletes should not have to be tested? even though they are doing what they want on their own time? seriously wake up.

I'm having flashbacks to elementary school, and the spastic kid forgot his adderall again.

Allowing private corporations to dictate what their employees do on their own time in their own home is contrary to the inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness as described in the DoI. Yes or no.
No ludicrous comparisons, no wildly tangential arguments, yes or no.

No, because no one is forcing you to work said private corporation.

Are you familiar with Workman's Comp Laws? If you get injured on the job, you almost ALWAYS get tested.

It's a liability thing... not some desire to control the employer's private time.

As far as I can see, drug tests from workplace injury wasn't mentioned, I believe it's about drug test during the hiring/interview process.

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

you need to wake up and join the real world, if you need a job, doesn't mean the company needs you though. companies have the right to pick and choose who they want to hire based on their requirements, if they don't want drug users then they don't have to hire drug users, if you don't want to test, then you don't have to be hired.

as to some other fields it is law for them to be tested, just like Sports, are you saying athletes should not have to be tested? even though they are doing what they want on their own time? seriously wake up.

I'm having flashbacks to elementary school, and the spastic kid forgot his adderall again.

Allowing private corporations to dictate what their employees do on their own time in their own home is contrary to the inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness as described in the DoI. Yes or no.
No ludicrous comparisons, no wildly tangential arguments, yes or no.

so your saying the entire sports world is violating Athletes rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?


as to your question, if it effects their company or violates their policies, you know those papers you sign when you get hired and the employees show up with drugs or drug residue in their systems, that is on company time and company property so they have every right, just like you have a right to kick anyone out of your house you want, but by your definition you do not. nobody forced you to work for the company just like nobody forced you to sign the paperwork so as to have a job jut like no one forced you to violate the law and do drugs, you did those things of your own free choice and just like free choice you have to suffer the consequences of those choices.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:


As far as I can see, drug tests from workplace injury wasn't mentioned, I believe it's about drug test during the hiring/interview process.

its about drug testing by companies period.

It's amazing that we will likely see the death of the thread that has survived a year of the dumbest arguments made in the history of Dakka, and it will be at the hand of less than a handful of posters.

The OT of the past few weeks truly explains the rise of Trump.

 d-usa wrote:
we will likely see the death of the thread that has survived a year

10/05/2016 09:21:14

It has only recently broken 1 month. Which is sadder.

On topic, now. If I see people dragging threads off topic, and believe me this is off topic, then I'm just going to give you warnings rather than constantly doing general ones for the thread. There have been more than enough chances given

So who does Dakka like, Trump or Hillary?

I should rephrase that, who do you think will win?

Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.

As someone from outside the USA it really blows my mind that of the clusterfeth of candidates available you guys went with these two...

Now would be an apt time for re-runs of South Parks "Vote or Die" episode.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.

I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.


It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.

I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.


It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.

That logic got Trudeau in office here and he is worthless.
I think Trump has a good chance, I think people will start to see how awful Hillary is, heard there was some documentaries coming out about her, media is a game changer.
We shall see.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.

I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.


It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.

That logic got Trudeau in office here and he is worthless.
I think Trump has a good chance, I think people will start to see how awful Hillary is, heard there was some documentaries coming out about her, media is a game changer.
We shall see.

It is, and I think as time goes on, it's going to show more and more of the ugly side of Trump (there's a not-ugly side?). The lack of respect he has for people's intelligence, as shown by his constant, blatant lies. The frivolous use of the legal system, that's something a lot of people get angry about. His lack of a concrete platform. The bullying, the braggadocio, the misogyny, the bigotry...the hardline supporters certainly aren't going to change their minds, but I think a lot of the more moderate Republican base would be disgusted enough to stay home or write in someone else.

Clinton's certainly not my first choice, but if it comes down to her and Trump and it looks like it might be close in my state (although I'm not expecting it to be), then she's getting my vote. And, frankly, anyone in the Republican party that gives Trump support, tacit or otherwise, isn't going to. Not that they had much chance anyway, the modern GOP being what it is, but I don't like to write off a party just because.

Is Gary Johnson showing up on enough polls to have a shot at being included in the debates (absolutely ridiculous how non 2 party candidates are kept out of the process.)

 Eldarain wrote:
Is Gary Johnson showing up on enough polls to have a shot at being included in the debates (absolutely ridiculous how non 2 party candidates are kept out of the process.)

I don't think so, no....


Who's Gary Johnson?

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.

I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.


It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.

That logic got Trudeau in office here and he is worthless.
I think Trump has a good chance, I think people will start to see how awful Hillary is, heard there was some documentaries coming out about her, media is a game changer.
We shall see.

Considering the other options were Harper(lol) and Mulcair(who decided to turn the NDP into Liberals the Worse), it wasn't like we had many options. I guess we could throw our vote away for the Green Party, or Bloc in Quebec.

Harper was one of the worst things to happen to Canada, who sugar coated himself just enough with the GST cuts to get in. That, and, with the previous Liberal leader being a turd (don't even remember his name, some professor), managed to get ten years of power.


Edit: the only chance the NDP has of ever winning is if they dig up Jack Layton and let him run the party again. His corpse has more charisma then any of the other NDP members.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Who's Gary Johnson?

He's this election's libertarian candidate.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.

I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.


It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.

I'm not sure that turnout is going to be particularly impressive so I can see it going either way. Clinton has an advantage in that her campaign seems to be better organised but she is definitely fully capable of screwing that up due to being so disconnected from what anyone actually wants. The Democratic Party busying itself with purging its left may end up biting it in the ass when it would be better to put up a united front against the mess that the Republican Party has become.

I don't foresee good times ahead.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.

I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.


It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.

I think this will be an election where more people will be voting just to block the other person, rather than voting for who they believe in. It's really that bad. I don't "believe" in Hillary, but I sure as feth will do what I can to block Trump.

By the way, I heard this, um, "political ad" on the radio yesterday and I just had to share it with you all.

Rosebuddy wrote:

I'm not sure that turnout is going to be particularly impressive so I can see it going either way. Clinton has an advantage in that her campaign seems to be better organised but she is definitely fully capable of screwing that up due to being so disconnected from what anyone actually wants. The Democratic Party busying itself with purging its left may end up biting it in the ass when it would be better to put up a united front against the mess that the Republican Party has become.

I don't foresee good times ahead.

Where is this "purging its left" narrative coming from, out of curiosity? Sanders is a deeply flawed candidate who would never have gotten through a general election without being utterly destroyed, and he lost the primary. There's no voodoo involved, he simply lost. Now he's being rather petulant about it.

Seaward wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

I'm not sure that turnout is going to be particularly impressive so I can see it going either way. Clinton has an advantage in that her campaign seems to be better organised but she is definitely fully capable of screwing that up due to being so disconnected from what anyone actually wants. The Democratic Party busying itself with purging its left may end up biting it in the ass when it would be better to put up a united front against the mess that the Republican Party has become.

I don't foresee good times ahead.

Where is this "purging its left" narrative coming from, out of curiosity? Sanders is a deeply flawed candidate who would never have gotten through a general election without being utterly destroyed, and he lost the primary. There's no voodoo involved, he simply lost. Now he's being rather petulant about it.

As are a lot of his supporters lol

Seaward wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

I'm not sure that turnout is going to be particularly impressive so I can see it going either way. Clinton has an advantage in that her campaign seems to be better organised but she is definitely fully capable of screwing that up due to being so disconnected from what anyone actually wants. The Democratic Party busying itself with purging its left may end up biting it in the ass when it would be better to put up a united front against the mess that the Republican Party has become.

I don't foresee good times ahead.

Where is this "purging its left" narrative coming from, out of curiosity? Sanders is a deeply flawed candidate who would never have gotten through a general election without being utterly destroyed, and he lost the primary. There's no voodoo involved, he simply lost. Now he's being rather petulant about it.

The Democrats do stuff like immediately drop Sanders' NJ chair from the DNC and, like you, talk gak about Sanders because he doesn't give in to the DNC-appointed heir to the throne. The issues Sanders got popular because of aren't going to go away despite what the Democratic Party likes to think.

And lol at describing Sanders as "deeply flawed" as opposed to Clinton, that gem of political perfection.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
So who does Dakka like, Trump or Hillary?

I should rephrase that, who do you think will win?

I am convinced Hillary's going to win. No matter what happens and who wins the popular vote, she will be our next president. Of course, this is based on feelings and not evidence.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson again.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.

Sorry bud. Trump doesn't have a chance.

'Tis why I'm praying for the GOP Convention to revolt and pick a 'not-Trump'.

 whembly wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.

Sorry bud. Trump doesn't have a chance.

'Tis why I'm praying for the GOP Convention to revolt and pick a 'not-Trump'.

Yeah, it's best for the GOP to implode now, and rebuild and hopefully emerge stronger for it in 2020, than to just suck it up, stand behind Trump, and have an even harder time recovering.

They will say, again, that Trump wasn't a true conservative and that they would have won if they truly doubled down on being conservative and will run someone on the right of Cruz the next time around.

 whembly wrote:

Sorry bud. Trump doesn't have a chance.

I think that's roughly the same thing you said at the beginning of the Primaries.

 whembly wrote:

'Tis why I'm praying for the GOP Convention to revolt and pick a 'not-Trump'.

Why? Trump hits all the traditional, conservative notes. Are you going with the standard GOP tactic of pretending it's 1985?

 dogma wrote:
Are you going with the standard GOP tactic of pretending it's 1985?

I have to say I'm fascinated by all the rumblings of a not-Trump convention pick. His own twitter meltdown alone would be epic.

Well, Trump has fired his campaign manager. I'm not sure why exactly. It wasn't his campaign manager who made all the stupid tweets and comments in recent weeks. It wasn't his campaign manager who refuses to try to raise money by contacting donors or hiring, you know, actual campaign staffers.