|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:15 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself. How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH. Edit: I love how you admit that you didn't read the post and then decided to read it after you already responded to it. I can't tell you if a Mad max apocolypse would be a better system for social justice then law and order but you don't see anyone watching that movie and going "gee that looks like a great system to follow". You have this problem with not knowing how much of a joke you are and how little people take what you say seriously. They compare Danglers favorably to you for christs sake. A rare moment of honesty for our forum's left-wing majority. I'm not sure what you're implying here, but I'd be really careful with that line of thinking. If everyone you disagree with is automatically "dishonest" or "fake news" for their opinions, you immediately exclude yourself from having any reasonable conversation. People here aren't lying for their views It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him.
We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims.
|
On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:15 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH.
Edit: I love how you admit that you didn't read the post and then decided to read it after you already responded to it.
I can't tell you if a Mad max apocolypse would be a better system for social justice then law and order but you don't see anyone watching that movie and going "gee that looks like a great system to follow".
You have this problem with not knowing how much of a joke you are and how little people take what you say seriously. They compare Danglers favorably to you for christs sake. A rare moment of honesty for our forum's left-wing majority. I'm not sure what you're implying here, but I'd be really careful with that line of thinking. If everyone you disagree with is automatically "dishonest" or "fake news" for their opinions, you immediately exclude yourself from having any reasonable conversation. People here aren't lying for their views It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims.
"50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question?
|
On March 17 2018 08:19 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:15 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
A rare moment of honesty for our forum's left-wing majority. I'm not sure what you're implying here, but I'd be really careful with that line of thinking. If everyone you disagree with is automatically "dishonest" or "fake news" for their opinions, you immediately exclude yourself from having any reasonable conversation. People here aren't lying for their views It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims. "50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question?
Kinda smelled out your game, but you're well known.
5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large
Now tell me, how do we usually quote percentage of votes received by each candidate?
This is like one last shot to establish some reasonable grounds here.
|
On March 17 2018 06:46 Plansix wrote:
I think we need an anti-capitalism thread to absorb this very broad, sweeping discussion about how political change takes place.
Why don't we enforce the controls on threads we already have on the books first and then talk about new regulations.
|
United States7681 Posts
On March 17 2018 06:46 Plansix wrote:
I think we need an anti-capitalism thread to absorb this very broad, sweeping discussion about how political change takes place.
discussions of capital have no place in politics!
|
On March 17 2018 08:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 08:19 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:15 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but I'd be really careful with that line of thinking. If everyone you disagree with is automatically "dishonest" or "fake news" for their opinions, you immediately exclude yourself from having any reasonable conversation. People here aren't lying for their views It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims. "50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question? Kinda smelled out your game, but you're well known. Show nested quote +5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large Now tell me, how do we usually quote percentage of votes received by each candidate? This is like one last shot to establish some reasonable grounds here.
Are we playing numberwang now? Just when we were done with the hermeneutics on that Rolling Stone article.
|
On March 17 2018 08:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 06:46 Plansix wrote:
I think we need an anti-capitalism thread to absorb this very broad, sweeping discussion about how political change takes place. discussions of capital have no place in politics!
Everyone knows where Washington DC is. We don’t need red to debate it.
Edit: And it begins.
|
On March 17 2018 08:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 08:19 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:15 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but I'd be really careful with that line of thinking. If everyone you disagree with is automatically "dishonest" or "fake news" for their opinions, you immediately exclude yourself from having any reasonable conversation. People here aren't lying for their views It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims. "50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question? Kinda smelled out your game, but you're well known. Show nested quote +5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large Now tell me, how do we usually quote percentage of votes received by each candidate? This is like one last shot to establish some reasonable grounds here.
"My game"? Jesus Christ. Your grudge holding has made discussing anything with you consistently a chore.
Okay, so you didn't say ~50% of the voting population. You said ~50% of the country at large, which any reasonable observer would interpret as "the whole country," not "the part of the country that voted in 2016." Here's the stupid thing, this doesn't actually matter. Your underlying point, that Trump has more support in the country as a whole than in this thread, is 100% correct.
But you said the number wrong, and somebody corrected you. Since it doesn't matter to your point, you could have just accepted the correction, but you're so combative you couldn't accept that, so you're making a fuss over wanting to use 2016 voting results instead of 2018 approval numbers for how large Trump's support is. That's a stupid statistical argument - you're trying to use data from before he was president - but again, it doesn't matter to your original point anyway.
So what the hell are we even arguing about? You could just say "I meant of voters, not of voting-age adults" and this whole stupid thing could be skipped.
|
On March 17 2018 09:10 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 08:35 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 08:19 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims. "50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question? Kinda smelled out your game, but you're well known. 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large Now tell me, how do we usually quote percentage of votes received by each candidate? This is like one last shot to establish some reasonable grounds here. "My game"? Jesus Christ. Your grudge holding has made discussing anything with you consistently a chore. Okay, so you didn't say ~50% of the voting population. You said ~50% of the country at large, which any reasonable observer would interpret as "the whole country," not "the part of the country that voted in 2016." Here's the stupid thing, this doesn't actually matter. Your underlying point, that Trump has more support in the country as a whole than in this thread, is 100% correct. But you said the number wrong, and somebody corrected you. Since it doesn't matter to your point, you could have just accepted the correction, but you're so combative you couldn't accept that, so you're making a fuss over wanting to use 2016 voting results instead of 2018 approval numbers for how large Trump's support is. That's a stupid statistical argument - you're trying to use data from before he was president - but again, it doesn't matter to your original point anyway. So what the hell are we even arguing about? You could just say "I meant of voters, not of voting-age adults" and this whole stupid thing could be skipped.
Would it be Danglars if he took the high road? Pointless, semantic, pedantic arguments are the whole reason he comes to the thread, going by his general comment pattern.
I mean, he posts something vague, and then picks on the slightest thing in a reply to focus on in order to at all times avoid a substantive discussion, and then demeans whoever replied to him in order to claim a fictitious high ground that allows him to declare that nobody is even worth responding to.
I'm kind of confused that people in general reply to him, since he literally pulls the same thing every time. In this instance it was such an egregiously dumb comment I just felt compelled.
|
On March 17 2018 09:22 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 09:10 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:35 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 08:19 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims. "50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question? Kinda smelled out your game, but you're well known. 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large Now tell me, how do we usually quote percentage of votes received by each candidate? This is like one last shot to establish some reasonable grounds here. "My game"? Jesus Christ. Your grudge holding has made discussing anything with you consistently a chore. Okay, so you didn't say ~50% of the voting population. You said ~50% of the country at large, which any reasonable observer would interpret as "the whole country," not "the part of the country that voted in 2016." Here's the stupid thing, this doesn't actually matter. Your underlying point, that Trump has more support in the country as a whole than in this thread, is 100% correct. But you said the number wrong, and somebody corrected you. Since it doesn't matter to your point, you could have just accepted the correction, but you're so combative you couldn't accept that, so you're making a fuss over wanting to use 2016 voting results instead of 2018 approval numbers for how large Trump's support is. That's a stupid statistical argument - you're trying to use data from before he was president - but again, it doesn't matter to your original point anyway. So what the hell are we even arguing about? You could just say "I meant of voters, not of voting-age adults" and this whole stupid thing could be skipped. Would it be Danglars if he took the high road? Pointless, semantic, pedantic arguments are the whole reason he comes to the thread, going by his general comment pattern. I mean, he posts something vague, and then picks on the slightest thing in a reply to focus on in order to at all times avoid a substantive discussion, and then demeans whoever replied to him in order to claim a fictitious high ground that allows him to declare that nobody is even worth responding to. I'm kind of confused that people in general reply to him, since he literally pulls the same thing every time. In this instance it was such an egregiously dumb comment I just felt compelled.
I've had good and bad discussions with Danglars (admittedly, a lot more bad ones lately). I don't want to do this kind of grudge-holding with him, particularly when otherwise, this thread is just a bunch of somewhat-liberals arguing with GH, which feels like kind of a waste of my time (more than TL already is, that is)
|
On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:15 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike. See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong. I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself. How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH. Edit: I love how you admit that you didn't read the post and then decided to read it after you already responded to it. I can't tell you if a Mad max apocolypse would be a better system for social justice then law and order but you don't see anyone watching that movie and going "gee that looks like a great system to follow". You have this problem with not knowing how much of a joke you are and how little people take what you say seriously. They compare Danglers favorably to you for christs sake. A rare moment of honesty for our forum's left-wing majority. I'm not sure what you're implying here, but I'd be really careful with that line of thinking. If everyone you disagree with is automatically "dishonest" or "fake news" for their opinions, you immediately exclude yourself from having any reasonable conversation. People here aren't lying for their views It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait.
Me and a lot of my male coworkers and friends voted/would’ve voted Trump. But we’re very silent about it because all the girls we date are liberals. Is this true for anyone else and their buds. Fyi I’m in Hawaii which is supposedly a Dem state.
|
On March 17 2018 09:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 09:22 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 09:10 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:35 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 08:19 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims. "50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question? Kinda smelled out your game, but you're well known. 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large Now tell me, how do we usually quote percentage of votes received by each candidate? This is like one last shot to establish some reasonable grounds here. "My game"? Jesus Christ. Your grudge holding has made discussing anything with you consistently a chore. Okay, so you didn't say ~50% of the voting population. You said ~50% of the country at large, which any reasonable observer would interpret as "the whole country," not "the part of the country that voted in 2016." Here's the stupid thing, this doesn't actually matter. Your underlying point, that Trump has more support in the country as a whole than in this thread, is 100% correct. But you said the number wrong, and somebody corrected you. Since it doesn't matter to your point, you could have just accepted the correction, but you're so combative you couldn't accept that, so you're making a fuss over wanting to use 2016 voting results instead of 2018 approval numbers for how large Trump's support is. That's a stupid statistical argument - you're trying to use data from before he was president - but again, it doesn't matter to your original point anyway. So what the hell are we even arguing about? You could just say "I meant of voters, not of voting-age adults" and this whole stupid thing could be skipped. Would it be Danglars if he took the high road? Pointless, semantic, pedantic arguments are the whole reason he comes to the thread, going by his general comment pattern. I mean, he posts something vague, and then picks on the slightest thing in a reply to focus on in order to at all times avoid a substantive discussion, and then demeans whoever replied to him in order to claim a fictitious high ground that allows him to declare that nobody is even worth responding to. I'm kind of confused that people in general reply to him, since he literally pulls the same thing every time. In this instance it was such an egregiously dumb comment I just felt compelled. I've had good and bad discussions with Danglars (admittedly, a lot more bad ones lately). I don't want to do this kind of grudge-holding with him, particularly when otherwise, this thread is just a bunch of somewhat-liberals arguing with GH, which feels like kind of a waste of my time (more than TL already is, that is)
This is why I have my ignore script. Sometimes a conversation sprials into a seemingly endless circle and I'd rather not read it. People just go bye bye for a bit.
|
And the lay offs begin. There is a reason we don't do this.
|
So getting back to a discussion worth having; given Trump's platform - such as it is - is all about the economy, what's his response to this? What's the right move?
|
On March 17 2018 10:29 iamthedave wrote:So getting back to a discussion worth having; given Trump's platform - such as it is - is all about the economy, what's his response to this? What's the right move?
Remove the useless protectionist tariffs that are set to hurt thousands of US workers? Its the only real plan.
|
United States7681 Posts
On March 17 2018 09:40 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:15 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:
[quote]
I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike. See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong. I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself. How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH. Edit: I love how you admit that you didn't read the post and then decided to read it after you already responded to it. I can't tell you if a Mad max apocolypse would be a better system for social justice then law and order but you don't see anyone watching that movie and going "gee that looks like a great system to follow". You have this problem with not knowing how much of a joke you are and how little people take what you say seriously. They compare Danglers favorably to you for christs sake. A rare moment of honesty for our forum's left-wing majority. I'm not sure what you're implying here, but I'd be really careful with that line of thinking. If everyone you disagree with is automatically "dishonest" or "fake news" for their opinions, you immediately exclude yourself from having any reasonable conversation. People here aren't lying for their views It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Me and a lot of my male coworkers and friends voted/would’ve voted Trump. But we’re very silent about it because all the girls we date are liberals. Is this true for anyone else and their buds. Fyi I’m in Hawaii which is supposedly a Dem state.
strong fear of castration?
|
On March 17 2018 08:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 08:35 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 08:19 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims. "50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question? Kinda smelled out your game, but you're well known. 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large Now tell me, how do we usually quote percentage of votes received by each candidate? This is like one last shot to establish some reasonable grounds here. Are we playing numberwang now? Just when we were done with the hermeneutics on that Rolling Stone article.
Somebody else got in a huff about a greater percentage of voters going Trump in the public compared to in this forum (omg 40%). It was an eyeroll moment, but I took it to the next logical step to humor him.
|
On March 17 2018 09:10 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 08:35 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 08:19 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims. "50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question? Kinda smelled out your game, but you're well known. 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large Now tell me, how do we usually quote percentage of votes received by each candidate? This is like one last shot to establish some reasonable grounds here. "My game"? Jesus Christ. Your grudge holding has made discussing anything with you consistently a chore. Okay, so you didn't say ~50% of the voting population. You said ~50% of the country at large, which any reasonable observer would interpret as "the whole country," not "the part of the country that voted in 2016." Here's the stupid thing, this doesn't actually matter. Your underlying point, that Trump has more support in the country as a whole than in this thread, is 100% correct. But you said the number wrong, and somebody corrected you. Since it doesn't matter to your point, you could have just accepted the correction, but you're so combative you couldn't accept that, so you're making a fuss over wanting to use 2016 voting results instead of 2018 approval numbers for how large Trump's support is. That's a stupid statistical argument - you're trying to use data from before he was president - but again, it doesn't matter to your original point anyway. So what the hell are we even arguing about? You could just say "I meant of voters, not of voting-age adults" and this whole stupid thing could be skipped.
Nope. It's clear from context I was talking about the proportion of Trump voters here vs Trump voters in the country. You're venturing into some pretty post-factual blind territory here. I hate to say it, but it seems the left is projecting when they call Trump voters tenuously connected to reality. You can't even let somebody point out just how much of the voting population went for Trump, compared to how poorly representative and left-wing-spin-zone this forum is.
It's nothing but waaaaaah as far as the eye can see. I quoted it, and you're still wailing
ChristianS interprets:
5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to omg what follows here cannot realistically be seen as a contrast with 5-8% of Trump voters, it must only be taken to mean the population at large, bam take that racist
|
On March 17 2018 10:29 iamthedave wrote:So getting back to a discussion worth having; given Trump's platform - such as it is - is all about the economy, what's his response to this? What's the right move?
1) pretend it's fake news and doesn't actually happen.
2) blame the company at hand
either should do fine for him.
|
On March 17 2018 09:40 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:56 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2018 06:55 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 06:15 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:
[quote]
I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike. See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong. I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself. How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH. Edit: I love how you admit that you didn't read the post and then decided to read it after you already responded to it. I can't tell you if a Mad max apocolypse would be a better system for social justice then law and order but you don't see anyone watching that movie and going "gee that looks like a great system to follow". You have this problem with not knowing how much of a joke you are and how little people take what you say seriously. They compare Danglers favorably to you for christs sake. A rare moment of honesty for our forum's left-wing majority. I'm not sure what you're implying here, but I'd be really careful with that line of thinking. If everyone you disagree with is automatically "dishonest" or "fake news" for their opinions, you immediately exclude yourself from having any reasonable conversation. People here aren't lying for their views It's just the denizens of this forum. Outside in the US, there's far less europhiles and leftwingers than you see posting here. Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large. Based on your past interactions here, I have my doubts to whether you can correctly identify reasonable conversation. ~40% http://news.gallup.com/home.aspx A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Me and a lot of my male coworkers and friends voted/would’ve voted Trump. But we’re very silent about it because all the girls we date are liberals. Is this true for anyone else and their buds. Fyi I’m in Hawaii which is supposedly a Dem state.
I know the feeling. I'm still honest about my political convictions. The girl I date is very apolitical, but her friends generally don't talk politics in mixed political company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
