EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4622
| 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. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
CobaltBlu
United States919 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2016 02:53 CobaltBlu wrote: The comment about always wanting a purple heart is really bizarre to me. To me as well. I don't see why you'd say something like that. Like, even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a joke, joking about wanting something that you have to be wounded in combat to earn in front of the original recipient seems like it's in poor taste. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 03 2016 02:40 KwarK wrote: Out of curiousity, what to you is the meaningful distinction between banning a religion in the United States and banning all the adherents to a religion from being in the United States? I know that Trump only said that no Muslims would be allowed to enter the US and not that he would ban Islam but for many people there is a big overlap between the two. I would consider 'banning a religion' something like what Mao did in China to Confucianism. Temporarily restricting immigration from a specific religion is significantly different than making the religion illegal in the state, destroying islamic mosques across the country, and burning/outlawing all islamic books and literature, which is what I would consider 'banning a religion'. He even had an Islamic speaker end one of the RNC nights in prayer. This is not 'banning islam'. It's not my preferred solution to reducing islamic terrorism in my country, but when that religion has committed a gross number of attacks in recent times it isn't that farfetched or crazy, especially if we look at it with some historical context. FDR has taken far more radical measures, namely his Japanese internment camps during WW2, and yet he's still widely praised as one of best presidents in history. That doesn't mean I think he was right to do what he did any more than Trump is right to call for an immigration restriction based on someone's religion. But unless you ascribe to a strict ethical deontology, which I highly doubt you do, it isn't that radical of a move. My point is, it's not something I like happening, but I see the motivations behind it. Addressing the problem with a subpar solution is better than ignoring it, which is what the other candidates are doing. I do think a more reasonable solution would be to temporarily restrict immigration from specific countries (Turkey, Syria, Iraq, etc). | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On August 03 2016 02:55 TheYango wrote: To me as well. I don't see why you'd say something like that. Like, even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a joke, joking about wanting something that you have to be wounded in combat to earn in front of the original recipient seems like it's in poor taste. If there's one thing Donald has, it's taste. I dunno, I don't really care about the purple heart thing. I guess if the dude wants to give it away, thank him for the kind gesture, frame it, put it in your office. If you're feeling generous maybe you invite him to dinner or something to thank him, but you keep it a private thing. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 03 2016 02:41 Doodsmack wrote: I realize it's temporary, but you really can't be that far removed from reality. EDIT: and yes I know it's only a ban on immigration/travel. No less dangerous an idea, point still stands. I'm not removed from reality. You're just exaggerating your attacks when you decided to lash out against everyone who has decided to vote differently than you, which is a vast and diverse group of people voting for a variety of different reasons, and got called out on it. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2016 02:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote: FDR has taken far more radical measures, namely his Japanese internment camps during WW2, and yet he's still widely praised as one of best presidents in history. That doesn't mean I think he was right to do what he did any more than Trump is right to call for an immigration restriction based on someone's religion. But unless you ascribe to a strict ethical deontology, which I highly doubt you do, it isn't that radical of a move. I don't think it's right to equate a decision that FDR made under a lot of pressure with a lot of regret while in the White House to one that Trump says he'll do under no such pressure and which he's actively made a selling point of his campaign. There's a difference between doing reprehensible things and doing reprehensible things while pretending they aren't reprehensible. If you have to do something ugly, do it. But I think it's wrong to try and sell it the way Trump has. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On August 03 2016 00:24 MCWhiteHaze wrote: You know what the biggest lie people fall into is? This statement right: "I have to vote for the lesser of the two evils" What? No you don't... No one holds a gun to your head and says you must vote for Hillary or Donald. That doesn't happen. You can vote for whoever you want, or not vote at all. I personally don't vote because I don't believe in how politics works and/or voting for anyone to me is a waste of time. I believe reform needs to happen on a personal social level before it will happen at the top. Just my beliefs and I catch a lot of flack for them, oh well. I get so sick of the presidential season...Family members arguing and getting mad at each other for the most ridiculous of reasons especially when we get such a jaded view and report. We end up arguing about things that aren't even true lol. Stupid. God help us all. Amen. If someone's dying on the street and there are two crappy hospitals you could take him to, do you prefer to choose the better of two goods despite you not liking either because that person's life is at stake? What if it's 300million lives, threatened by war, over taxation, under funding of social programs? People throw into squalor? What if it's 300million people who are about to get fucked regardless of your choices--would you rather let them be worse off so that you feel vindicated, or would you rather choose the better of two choices? | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On August 03 2016 02:55 TheYango wrote: To me as well. I don't see why you'd say something like that. Like, even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a joke, joking about wanting something that you have to be wounded in combat to earn in front of the original recipient seems like it's in poor taste. that's probably just an awkward "I'm really happy about this". You know, like when you get something as a kid on Christmas aside from parents and you know you have to say something "oh wow, I always wanted that. Thanks!" I do agree though that he should have politely refused the medal. That's just weird all in all | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24226 Posts
On August 03 2016 03:01 TMagpie wrote: If someone's dying on the street and there are two crappy hospitals you could take him to, do you prefer to choose the better of two goods despite you not liking either because that person's life is at stake? What if it's 300million lives, threatened by war, over taxation, under funding of social programs? People throw into squalor? What if it's 300million people who are about to get fucked regardless of your choices--would you rather let them be worse off so that you feel vindicated, or would you rather choose the better of two choices? Maybe we don't go to the hospitals that trade brown and black lives overseas to save lives here and instead we go to the doctor who left the hospital because of it's corruption and ineffectiveness. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
WASHINGTON — In his strongest denunciation of Donald J. Trump so far, President Obama on Tuesday said Mr. Trump was “unfit to serve as president” and urged the leaders of the Republican Party to withdraw their backing for his candidacy. Mr. Obama said the Republican criticisms of Mr. Trump “ring hollow” if the party’s leaders continue to support his bid for the presidency this fall, particularly in light of Republican criticisms of Mr. Trump for his attacks on the Muslim parents of an American soldier, Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq. “The question they have to ask themselves is: If you are repeatedly having to say in very strong terms that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still endorsing him?” Mr. Obama said at a news conference at the White House. Source Hahahahahahahaha. Obama just made getting off the Trump train even harder for Republicans. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On August 03 2016 02:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I'm not removed from reality. You're just exaggerating your attacks when you decided to lash out against everyone who has decided to vote differently than you, which is a vast and diverse group of people voting for a variety of different reasons, and got called out on it. Yes I used hyperbole as we all do here and then you decided to get technical only address the hyperbole. Yes you're removed from reality, because history and Japanese internment and all that don't mean it's not a radical move. We've progressed as a country, and it is a radical move, based on a tribe mentality. Your view that electing its proponent is a good idea is dangerous. And this is just one of the reasons your views are dangerous. And I trust you are also committed to vetting and monitoring mentally ill white males in the US, due to their body count over the past couple years and the danger they pose to us. Or do you not want to implement any special danger-reducing measures in response to mass killings of civilians? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24226 Posts
On August 03 2016 03:15 TheYango wrote: That doctor being a better doctor is meaningless if he doesn't have the facilities/staff/resources to provide adequate care either way. All those facilities/staff/resources are useless if the doctors are corrupt and incompetent. I'll take my chances in a strip mall office with a legit doctor over a facility that's rotten through and through. Some people would rather go to the hospital that's killing people out of incompetence and corruption than take their chances with a low rent facility with a competent doctor, that's fine for them, but let's not pretend the people who do't want to go are loons. On August 03 2016 03:15 ticklishmusic wrote: Source Hahahahahahahaha. Obama just made getting off the Trump train even harder for Republicans. That's not necessarily a good strategy. Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. -Sun Tzu | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 03 2016 03:15 ticklishmusic wrote: Source Hahahahahahahaha. Obama just made getting off the Trump train even harder for Republicans. Obama has never really be about making life easier for the folks that have been demonizing him for so long. Trump is the monster they created and Obama gives no fucks about making it easy for them. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
The only people who get the luxury of a protest vote are those who are far removed enough from the system where the difference between two bad choices doesn't matter to them. For people who are directly affected (e.g the minorities who you claim to stand up for), it matters a lot. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24226 Posts
On August 03 2016 03:26 TheYango wrote: And some people don't get the choice. If you're a cancer patient who needs chemotherapy, the competent doctor can't provide that to you as much as he would like. The only people who get the luxury of a protest are those who are far removed enough from the system where the difference between two bad choices doesn't matter to them. For people who are directly affected (e.g the minorities who you claim to stand up for), it matters a lot. Or people who would rather die fighting than to let the status quo continue to deteriorate. It's as if folks are unaware that we've seen things get worse under both parties, and that the president is only a part of the puzzle. Submitting to the two party "less evil" paradigm is not a valorous choice to save marginalized people, it's a rationalization for supporting contrary positions. If helping marginalized people was actually the goal/justification, none of you would be voting for either candidate. What many here have turned this into is a choice of damage mitigation, which realistically completely removes progress from the equation. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 03 2016 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote: All those facilities/staff/resources are useless if the doctors are corrupt and incompetent. I'll take my chances in a strip mall office with a legit doctor over a facility that's rotten through and through. Some people would rather go to the hospital that's killing people out of incompetence and corruption than take their chances with a low rent facility with a competent doctor, that's fine for them, but let's not pretend the people who do't want to go are loons. On the other hand, I think it's a pretty good idea to go to the better doctor for help and choose the hospital he refers you to rather than insisting you'll go to him after he says he can't treat you. | ||
KwarK
United States44216 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2016 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote: Or people who would rather die fighting than to let the status quo continue to deteriorate. Very few people are ideologues to that extent. The majority are still looking out for their own self-interest and only support an ideology insofar as it doesn't affect their own lives. Most people aren't so rash as to sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of their ideals, and I can't fault them for being pragmatic at the end of the day. | ||
| ||
