EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1432
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
Birtherism was started by pro-Hilary Democrats, anyway. Birtherism and Truthers don't really sway anything. No use talking about them. It's just a political reaction. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
On November 16 2014 08:24 Introvert wrote: And the Democrat party is/was the home of the 9/11 Truthers. Did that have to do with race? Birtherism was started by pro-Hilary Democrats, anyway. Birtherism and Truthers don't really sway anything. No use talking about them. It's just a political reaction. Pretty huge difference between the party lines on truthers vs birthers. Making them sound as if they are both equally partisan is beating the 'false equivalency' horse into mush. Twenty-four percent (24%) of Democrats and 29% of those not affiliated with either major political party believe the government knew about 9/11, but only 17% of Republicans agree. Roughly one-in-five adults in all three groups are undecided. Compared to Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, compared to 21% of unaffiliateds and 11% of Democrats. Just over 20% of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only seven percent (7%) of those in the president's party share that doubt. that's 5% more Dems for Trutherism and 30% more for the GOP on Birtherism. Practically the same right...? No idea how you could come to the conclusion it 'doesn't sway anything'? Over half of the GOP isn't sure that Obama is an American... That would mean any cooperation with him in their mind is/may be akin to being an accomplice in one of the greatest crimes/frauds ever committed in the history of the nation. It doesn't get talked about much but that's a pretty big problem... Hard to come to anything reasonable when one side represents a group who thinks the guy they are negotiating with should be in prison (or worse) because he tricked the whole national security apparatus into taking orders from a foreigner and nation at large (except for Donald Trump and the Birthers) into illegally electing him twice. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 16 2014 02:46 oneofthem wrote: simplistic understanding of privacy and nsa programs. The problem is not that some people have a simplistic understanding of the NSA's programs and how they function at an individual level nor is it that there are a multitude of unknown terrorist threats that necessitate those programs. The problem is that your position has a simplistic understanding of what privacy is and of its essential role in the foundations of democracy. Privacy for the apathetic indebted drone class is not threatened because it is not threatening. But the drone class has never been much bothered by the fastening of totalitarian procedures onto the state police apparatus precisely because they are drones. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
On November 16 2014 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Pretty huge difference between the party lines on truthers vs birthers. Making them sound as if they are both equally partisan is beating the 'false equivalency' horse into mush. Compared to that's 5% more Dems for Trutherism and 30% more for the GOP on Birtherism. Practically the same right...? No idea how you could come to the conclusion it 'doesn't sway anything'? Over half of the GOP isn't sure that Obama is an American... That would mean any cooperation with him in their mind is/may be akin to being an accomplice in one of the greatest crimes/frauds ever committed in the history of the nation. It doesn't get talked about much but that's a pretty big problem... Hard to come to anything reasonable when one side represents a group who thinks the guy they are negotiating with should be in prison (or worse) because he tricked the whole national security apparatus into taking orders from a foreigner and nation at large (except for Donald Trump and the Birthers) into illegally electing him twice. No, during the Bush presidency it was decidedly one-sided. It's just a reaction to current politics. I am a big fan of the arrogance though. "The only reason these people wouldn't agree to work with Obama on his agenda is that they are too stupid/racist/brain dead." They couldn't possibly oppose his policies, really. Every person who thinks fairly agrees with me! Birthers don't influence politics, really. Almost all representatives or big names on the right denounce the birther movement, which like I said, was started by Democrats in the primary cycle. It's politics. You once again extrapolate way too far from the data available to you. Those last two paragraphs simply don't follow, they seem to be born from your mind based on what already think is true. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
On November 16 2014 09:06 Introvert wrote: No, during the Bush presidency it was decidedly one-sided. It's just a reaction to current politics. I am a big fan of the arrogance though. "The only reason these people wouldn't agree to work with Obama on his agenda is that they are too stupid/racist/brain dead." They couldn't possibly oppose his policies, really. Every person who thinks fairly agrees with me! Birthers don't influence politics, really. Almost all representatives or big names on the right denounce the birther movement, which like I said, was started by Democrats in the primary cycle. It's politics. You once again extrapolate way too far from the data available to you. Those last two paragraphs simply don't follow, they seem to be born from your mind based on what already think is true. I'll give you that there is a political element to the conspiracy support. The rest is wrong. Most of the big names did little more than say something to the effect of "I take him at his word" while spending the last 6 years saying they don't trust him (doublespeak anyone?) I'd love to see who you think 'denounced' the birther movement? Whether the conspiracy is true or not, the conspiracies do influence results. And on the last two, I don't see what you don't comprehend? People who think the President isn't a citizen have to think that his being president is criminal and that therefore cooperation is akin to being an accomplice in that crime? By extension they have to think that the whole national security apparatus is in on it or incompetent. How else could they think if they think he isn't an American citizen? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
On November 16 2014 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote: I'll give you that there is a political element to the conspiracy support. The rest is wrong. Most of the big names did little more than say something to the effect of "I take him at his word" while spending the last 6 years saying they don't trust him (doublespeak anyone?) I'd love to see who you think 'denounced' the birther movement? Whether the conspiracy is true or not, the conspiracies do influence results. And on the last two, I don't see what you don't comprehend? People who think the President isn't a citizen have to think that his being president is criminal and that therefore cooperation is akin to being an accomplice in that crime? By extension they have to think that the whole national security apparatus is in on it or incompetent. How else could they think if they think he isn't an American citizen? What else were those others supposed to say? As soon as the certificate came out, then it changed to "we have proof." I'm not sure what you expect more than that. Republicans wanted it to go away entirely, not have a big fight about it. Yeah, as for that last part- you just invented it. No one says this (can you find more than you can count on a hand?), so this just has to be another one of your "they don't say it but they think it" type explanations. There are so many leaps of logic involved, I really don't need to parse them out. Besides, were it true, then their argument would be a legalistic one, not one based on race or religion. | ||
|
Vegetarian
119 Posts
On November 16 2014 03:46 WhiteDog wrote: Are there real reasons as to why people hate obama ? Or are they just bored of him ? I don't quite understand why people would vote republicans : from my perspective they already lost the ideological debate (gay mariage, healthcare, etc.). Enlight me. Most people that didn't like bush, don't like obama for the same reasons. Obama has just continued and expanded most of bush's policies. Obama has assassinated American citizens without trial. He has tried to go to war in Syria, and continued to bomb many middle eastern countries. Drone bombings have significantly increased under Obama making bush look tame by comparison. Obama has not improved healthcare, but passed a law that forces us to buy overpriced insurance policies from the insurance companies, while mandating that the policies cover so many things that the insurance companies lobbied for so that the cost has radically increased. Obama has presided over the biggest violation of privacy and our 4th amendment than any previous president with his illegal spying. Obama has presided over the most drastic militarization of police forces, by giving them tanks and military grade weapons that have no place on our streets. Obama's justice department has tried and imprisoned more journalists and whistle blowers than all of the previous presidents of the USA combined. Obama has continued the war on drugs, and violated campaign promises to not go after medical marjuana. Obama has not closed Guantanamo bay like he promised. Obama has just been a more reckless president than bush by almost every metric. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 16 2014 09:07 oneofthem wrote: not rly i dont want to go into it now but rest assured my position is far from simplistic. you guys are simply chomping at the bits out of a reaction to a simple libertarian conception of personal sphere. honestly it gets tiresome at this point to respond to the same simplistic agitations. what are you indignant about lol. have you ever worked with real dissidents from actual totalitarian countries? Hardly. The libertarian conception of privacy gets it wrong: it makes privacy into something you can sell or alienate from yoursf. Privacy is an ecological good that is part of the socisl fabric. This is something you don't seem to understand. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't know what you mean by privacy as a social fabric all that precisely. if you mean soemthing like, the govt should be a happy fish in a fish pond and not bully. yea sure, but what if you have bad fish in the tank who wants to eat the little fishies? the fabric is ruined by the imperfect reality of crime, hostile espionage and terrorism before the nsa got into it. either way the nsa is not the stasi and a distinction between the two will involve more complicated analysis than 'govt spying is bad'. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8745 Posts
On November 16 2014 10:21 oneofthem wrote: there is no other explanation for the intense special attention paid to the category of 'government' info collection emphasized throughout the snowden affair. i don't know what you mean by privacy as a social fabric all that precisely. if you mean soemthing like, the govt should be a happy fish in a fish pond and not bully. yea sure, but what if you have bad fish in the tank who wants to eat the little fishies? the fabric is ruined by the imperfect reality of crime, hostile espionage and terrorism before the nsa got into it. either way the nsa is not the stasi and a distinction between the two will involve more complicated analysis than 'govt spying is bad'. it's not the stasi. but the way to hell is paved with good intentions. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 16 2014 10:21 oneofthem wrote: there is no other explanation for the intense special attention paid to the category of 'government' info collection emphasized throughout the snowden affair. i don't know what you mean by privacy as a social fabric all that precisely. if you mean soemthing like, the govt should be a happy fish in a fish pond and not bully. yea sure, but what if you have bad fish in the tank who wants to eat the little fishies? the fabric is ruined by the imperfect reality of crime, hostile espionage and terrorism before the nsa got into it. either way the nsa is not the stasi and a distinction between the two will involve more complicated analysis than 'govt spying is bad'. Well people get mad about the government spying on them because in almost all Western Nations privacy is an inalienable right. So if someone messes with some of your most basic rights that sounds pretty bad to me. People get especially mad about the government doing the spying because they are actually funding the government and if it does the opposite of what it is supposed to do that is actually very annoying. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yes, there is a need for privacy, but this line is at least negotiable and there has to be a place for a basic government function like catching bad guys. i'm sorry if this is too complicated for those who just want to scream bloody murder. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
either way the nsa is not the stasi and a distinction between the two will involve more complicated analysis than 'govt spying is bad'. Feel free to explain though how you even get to that comparison. The StaSi is not even remotely like the NSA - it wasn't their job. Do you compare the KGB to the NSA too, or do you actually use the correct comparison there? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
On November 16 2014 09:53 Introvert wrote: What else were those others supposed to say? As soon as the certificate came out, then it changed to "we have proof." I'm not sure what you expect more than that. Republicans wanted it to go away entirely, not have a big fight about it. Yeah, as for that last part- you just invented it. No one says this (can you find more than you can count on a hand?), so this just has to be another one of your "they don't say it but they think it" type explanations. There are so many leaps of logic involved, I really don't need to parse them out. Besides, were it true, then their argument would be a legalistic one, not one based on race or religion. They were 'supposed' to say. "Obama is an American citizen, any suggestion otherwise is absurd." (especially after he was elected) Not stuff like this: She has nothing that 'needs to be reviewed'. Show me any of the future presidential nominees from the right who called birtherism what it was? You cant! Because the crazy helps them. If the crazy didn't influence results why wouldn't they just say "Obama is an American citizen, let's move on"? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
why did they do away with keyboards on phones? buttons are much more accurate than silly touch screens | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
LOS ANGELES — Within days of Californians’ overwhelming approval of an initiative that knocks low-level felonies down to misdemeanors, life behind bars is ending for hundreds of felons and felony suspects. Public defenders throughout the state kicked into overtime, working even on Veterans Day to handle thousands of cases of people awaiting verdicts or already doing time. More than 4,700 state prison inmates are eligible for resentencing and possible release under the new law, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Thousands more serving time in county jails or awaiting trial could end up with lighter sentences and walk free. Under Proposition 47, California is the first state to reduce a wide array of nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors — including drug possession, theft, possession of stolen goods, forgery, shoplifting and check or credit card fraud involving less than $950. Defendants with histories of violence or sex offenses are not eligible for more lenient charges. “After the election, those crimes are no longer felonies,” said Allen Hopper, criminal justice and drug policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California. The national ACLU contributed $3.5 million in support of Prop 47. “In many cases, prosecutors are just dismissing the charges or working out a plea. People incarcerated waiting for trial are walking out of jail with no conviction,” Hopper said. Source | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8745 Posts
On November 16 2014 10:31 oneofthem wrote: internet and electronic data is a different beast entirely, both for individual sovereignty and for the challenges facing law enforcement. it's a case of moral intuitions not catching up with a changing world. yes, there is a need for privacy, but this line is at least negotiable and there has to be a place for a basic government function like catching bad guys. i'm sorry if this is too complicated for those who just want to scream bloody murder. Making it as simple as " government needs to catch the bad guys" won't solve anything. You don't say? How the hell did they even catch one criminal before mass online surveillance? Just because it is possible to do it does not mean it is good policy. And it's not just moral intuitions. There are laws of basic human rights and constitutions protecting privacy. in the US just as in Europe - arguably stricter in Europe. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 16 2014 10:31 oneofthem wrote: internet and electronic data is a different beast entirely, both for individual sovereignty and for the challenges facing law enforcement. it's a case of moral intuitions not catching up with a changing world. yes, there is a need for privacy, but this line is at least negotiable and there has to be a place for a basic government function like catching bad guys. i'm sorry if this is too complicated for those who just want to scream bloody murder. Apart form the fact that the NSA is actually ridiculously ineffective given their size and invasion of privacy, no, the whole idea of natural/inalienable rights it that you do not compromise them no matter how nice that would be for the government, that is where their name comes from. Rights of individuals are actually not up for negotiation just because the majority or some institution would like to have it that way, especially in the US. | ||
| ||
