|
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. |
So apparently Clinton just had to leave the 9/11 ceremony due to a "medical emergency"?
|
On September 11 2016 22:59 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 15:48 Slaughter wrote:On September 11 2016 15:17 TMagpie wrote:On September 11 2016 07:35 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 06:49 TMagpie wrote:On September 11 2016 00:27 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 00:14 TMagpie wrote:On September 10 2016 22:53 zlefin wrote:On September 10 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:On September 10 2016 09:29 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I mean exactly what I said; one focused on pragmatism and rigorous analysis, rather than ideology.
i'm not familar enough with yoru examples ot say how apt they are. How is rigorous analysis opposed to "ideology?" Do you think you are free of ideology? ideology, by definition, is about a belief system, rather than about what really works. and staunch ideologues are an observable problem. I have some ideology; but i'm quite willing to temper much of it with pragmatism. we need more pragmatism in gov't at the moment. and more rigor. I'm not an Igne fan by any stretch--but what you see as "ideological thinking" is the other guy's "pragmatic thinking" and your idea of "pragmatic thinking" is the other guy's idea of "ideological thinking" For the most part, politics happens because there is no consensus on what "pragmatism" actually means in practice. Your belief that you somehow have this objective way of thinking that is more correct than the other guy's way of thinking is the whole reason why the American political system is the way it is today--too many people who accuse the other guy of being too idea driven and not pragmatic enough--specifically because they can't agree as to what a pragmatic solution is. no, it's really not. there really is a difference between pragmatism and ideological thinking. yes, some people do use it that way, and they're just wrong. It really is quite possible to be considerably more objective than a fair number of the current politicians are. the decreased willingness to compromise is a mark of higher levels of ideologues compared to pragmatists. No, you don't get it. Telling 300 million people "why can't we all be more scientific and pragmatic" will only get the response of "we are scientific and pragmatic, gtf out troll" and no amount of you feeling superior to them with your self prescribed pragmatism will make them suddenly bow down to your insights. Do you really think walking into congress and telling them "yo dudes, why ain't you pragmatic?" Will make them change their ways? I do get it; you're the one trolling by asserting I don't get it, and making up strawmen. don't argue badly; and don't make useless comments please. you're not helping anything along or enlightening anyone; nor are you venting usefully. You're trying to make an axiom where you believe politicians are not acting pragmatically. You believe that it is possible to have a humans make decisions where their ideologies does not affect them. That is stupid, wrong, and shows a lack of awareness of how humans behave. For the most part, it is impossible to remove your biases. Impossible to have no ideals. Thats not trolling, that's calling you out that the baseline of your argument, the methods of your proposition, and the conclusions of your analysis are 100% wrong on every level. Here's a hint. Government already hires top experts on their field to make decisions and policies. That request you have to infuse more science into politics has already happened. But politics is a human and societal action, no amount of pretending to be objective will make people stop acting for their own interest. Therein lies the problem. You can find experts from all fields who ascribe to minority opinions in their field and you just use them to legitimize your own opinion. You can find PhDs in Biology who are creationists and don't think evolution is a thing. Hell even the Wakefield quack who is disgraced in the eyes of the medical community found a place. I am sure the GOP climate deniers have people with advanced degrees telling them stuff too. You can cherry pick anything and scientists are no different, which is why you should look at the body of work going on in a field instead of just accepting one expert's opinion. Half the country believes those "quacks" you are talking about. What do you think will happen when the government starts telling half the US that their experts don't count, that their academic work should be discredited just because they're going against the grain of the majority? That researchers that don't accept the already assumed truth should not be allowed to explore other ideas than the ones we already have concluded to? Do you think the public would be okay with that?
Are you trying to defend making policy decisions based on pseudoscience and quackery? That seems to be one of the main problems of populism: a lot of people are just plain ignorant, and trying to make policy based on ignorance is a recipe for disaster.
|
On September 11 2016 23:13 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 15:17 TMagpie wrote:On September 11 2016 07:35 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 06:49 TMagpie wrote:On September 11 2016 00:27 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 00:14 TMagpie wrote:On September 10 2016 22:53 zlefin wrote:On September 10 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:On September 10 2016 09:29 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I mean exactly what I said; one focused on pragmatism and rigorous analysis, rather than ideology.
i'm not familar enough with yoru examples ot say how apt they are. How is rigorous analysis opposed to "ideology?" Do you think you are free of ideology? ideology, by definition, is about a belief system, rather than about what really works. and staunch ideologues are an observable problem. I have some ideology; but i'm quite willing to temper much of it with pragmatism. we need more pragmatism in gov't at the moment. and more rigor. I'm not an Igne fan by any stretch--but what you see as "ideological thinking" is the other guy's "pragmatic thinking" and your idea of "pragmatic thinking" is the other guy's idea of "ideological thinking" For the most part, politics happens because there is no consensus on what "pragmatism" actually means in practice. Your belief that you somehow have this objective way of thinking that is more correct than the other guy's way of thinking is the whole reason why the American political system is the way it is today--too many people who accuse the other guy of being too idea driven and not pragmatic enough--specifically because they can't agree as to what a pragmatic solution is. no, it's really not. there really is a difference between pragmatism and ideological thinking. yes, some people do use it that way, and they're just wrong. It really is quite possible to be considerably more objective than a fair number of the current politicians are. the decreased willingness to compromise is a mark of higher levels of ideologues compared to pragmatists. No, you don't get it. Telling 300 million people "why can't we all be more scientific and pragmatic" will only get the response of "we are scientific and pragmatic, gtf out troll" and no amount of you feeling superior to them with your self prescribed pragmatism will make them suddenly bow down to your insights. Do you really think walking into congress and telling them "yo dudes, why ain't you pragmatic?" Will make them change their ways? I do get it; you're the one trolling by asserting I don't get it, and making up strawmen. don't argue badly; and don't make useless comments please. you're not helping anything along or enlightening anyone; nor are you venting usefully. You're trying to make an axiom where you believe politicians are not acting pragmatically. You believe that it is possible to have a humans make decisions where their ideologies does not affect them. That is stupid, wrong, and shows a lack of awareness of how humans behave. For the most part, it is impossible to remove your biases. Impossible to have no ideals. Thats not trolling, that's calling you out that the baseline of your argument, the methods of your proposition, and the conclusions of your analysis are 100% wrong on every level. Here's a hint. Government already hires top experts on their field to make decisions and policies. That request you have to infuse more science into politics has already happened. But politics is a human and societal action, no amount of pretending to be objective will make people stop acting for their own interest. you continue to troll, insult, and strawman, so I will speak to you no more; as you have nothing useful to add but lies and misrepresentations.
Be more pragmatic than that, man. Your ideological attachment to pragmatism and science uber alles flies in the face of human history, and I'd hate to find you more ideologically attached than those you criticize on that exact point.
|
On September 11 2016 23:27 jello_biafra wrote:
So apparently Clinton just had to leave the 9/11 ceremony due to a "medical emergency"?
Link your source.
|
On September 11 2016 23:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 22:59 TMagpie wrote:On September 11 2016 15:48 Slaughter wrote:On September 11 2016 15:17 TMagpie wrote:On September 11 2016 07:35 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 06:49 TMagpie wrote:On September 11 2016 00:27 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 00:14 TMagpie wrote:On September 10 2016 22:53 zlefin wrote:On September 10 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
How is rigorous analysis opposed to "ideology?" Do you think you are free of ideology? ideology, by definition, is about a belief system, rather than about what really works. and staunch ideologues are an observable problem. I have some ideology; but i'm quite willing to temper much of it with pragmatism. we need more pragmatism in gov't at the moment. and more rigor. I'm not an Igne fan by any stretch--but what you see as "ideological thinking" is the other guy's "pragmatic thinking" and your idea of "pragmatic thinking" is the other guy's idea of "ideological thinking" For the most part, politics happens because there is no consensus on what "pragmatism" actually means in practice. Your belief that you somehow have this objective way of thinking that is more correct than the other guy's way of thinking is the whole reason why the American political system is the way it is today--too many people who accuse the other guy of being too idea driven and not pragmatic enough--specifically because they can't agree as to what a pragmatic solution is. no, it's really not. there really is a difference between pragmatism and ideological thinking. yes, some people do use it that way, and they're just wrong. It really is quite possible to be considerably more objective than a fair number of the current politicians are. the decreased willingness to compromise is a mark of higher levels of ideologues compared to pragmatists. No, you don't get it. Telling 300 million people "why can't we all be more scientific and pragmatic" will only get the response of "we are scientific and pragmatic, gtf out troll" and no amount of you feeling superior to them with your self prescribed pragmatism will make them suddenly bow down to your insights. Do you really think walking into congress and telling them "yo dudes, why ain't you pragmatic?" Will make them change their ways? I do get it; you're the one trolling by asserting I don't get it, and making up strawmen. don't argue badly; and don't make useless comments please. you're not helping anything along or enlightening anyone; nor are you venting usefully. You're trying to make an axiom where you believe politicians are not acting pragmatically. You believe that it is possible to have a humans make decisions where their ideologies does not affect them. That is stupid, wrong, and shows a lack of awareness of how humans behave. For the most part, it is impossible to remove your biases. Impossible to have no ideals. Thats not trolling, that's calling you out that the baseline of your argument, the methods of your proposition, and the conclusions of your analysis are 100% wrong on every level. Here's a hint. Government already hires top experts on their field to make decisions and policies. That request you have to infuse more science into politics has already happened. But politics is a human and societal action, no amount of pretending to be objective will make people stop acting for their own interest. Therein lies the problem. You can find experts from all fields who ascribe to minority opinions in their field and you just use them to legitimize your own opinion. You can find PhDs in Biology who are creationists and don't think evolution is a thing. Hell even the Wakefield quack who is disgraced in the eyes of the medical community found a place. I am sure the GOP climate deniers have people with advanced degrees telling them stuff too. You can cherry pick anything and scientists are no different, which is why you should look at the body of work going on in a field instead of just accepting one expert's opinion. Half the country believes those "quacks" you are talking about. What do you think will happen when the government starts telling half the US that their experts don't count, that their academic work should be discredited just because they're going against the grain of the majority? That researchers that don't accept the already assumed truth should not be allowed to explore other ideas than the ones we already have concluded to? Do you think the public would be okay with that? Are you trying to defend making policy decisions based on pseudoscience and quackery? That seems to be one of the main problems of populism: a lot of people are just plain ignorant, and trying to make policy based on ignorance is a recipe for disaster.
No, I'm trying to point out that saying stuff like "why can't government be more pragmatic" is a fairly useless plan since it assumes the their side will just go along with your side of the argument.
What he really wanted to say was that we should only let people with the same ideals as him be in office, which is what we already do. It's just that half the people in this country has different beliefs than he does, so him calling them ideologues who should be barred from governmental voice is no different as macarthy shunning liberals for their communist corruption.
Politics is a human game, solutions to it are always in flux and always in negotiation.
|
On September 12 2016 00:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 23:27 jello_biafra wrote:
So apparently Clinton just had to leave the 9/11 ceremony due to a "medical emergency"? Link your source.
|
|
|
Clicked on that periscope link and the first thing I see is the guy wiping sweat out of his hair and walking into a restaurant asking for water. And he is 33.
|
Eh, looks like she walked out of the apartment. At least we now know she's is not dead.
edit: Video of her leaving the memorial:
|
I wonder if granny is in danger of having a stroke. Frankly, the Democrats should kick her to the side and let Kaine top the ticket at this point.
|
On September 12 2016 00:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 23:13 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 15:17 TMagpie wrote:On September 11 2016 07:35 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 06:49 TMagpie wrote:On September 11 2016 00:27 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 00:14 TMagpie wrote:On September 10 2016 22:53 zlefin wrote:On September 10 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:On September 10 2016 09:29 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I mean exactly what I said; one focused on pragmatism and rigorous analysis, rather than ideology.
i'm not familar enough with yoru examples ot say how apt they are. How is rigorous analysis opposed to "ideology?" Do you think you are free of ideology? ideology, by definition, is about a belief system, rather than about what really works. and staunch ideologues are an observable problem. I have some ideology; but i'm quite willing to temper much of it with pragmatism. we need more pragmatism in gov't at the moment. and more rigor. I'm not an Igne fan by any stretch--but what you see as "ideological thinking" is the other guy's "pragmatic thinking" and your idea of "pragmatic thinking" is the other guy's idea of "ideological thinking" For the most part, politics happens because there is no consensus on what "pragmatism" actually means in practice. Your belief that you somehow have this objective way of thinking that is more correct than the other guy's way of thinking is the whole reason why the American political system is the way it is today--too many people who accuse the other guy of being too idea driven and not pragmatic enough--specifically because they can't agree as to what a pragmatic solution is. no, it's really not. there really is a difference between pragmatism and ideological thinking. yes, some people do use it that way, and they're just wrong. It really is quite possible to be considerably more objective than a fair number of the current politicians are. the decreased willingness to compromise is a mark of higher levels of ideologues compared to pragmatists. No, you don't get it. Telling 300 million people "why can't we all be more scientific and pragmatic" will only get the response of "we are scientific and pragmatic, gtf out troll" and no amount of you feeling superior to them with your self prescribed pragmatism will make them suddenly bow down to your insights. Do you really think walking into congress and telling them "yo dudes, why ain't you pragmatic?" Will make them change their ways? I do get it; you're the one trolling by asserting I don't get it, and making up strawmen. don't argue badly; and don't make useless comments please. you're not helping anything along or enlightening anyone; nor are you venting usefully. You're trying to make an axiom where you believe politicians are not acting pragmatically. You believe that it is possible to have a humans make decisions where their ideologies does not affect them. That is stupid, wrong, and shows a lack of awareness of how humans behave. For the most part, it is impossible to remove your biases. Impossible to have no ideals. Thats not trolling, that's calling you out that the baseline of your argument, the methods of your proposition, and the conclusions of your analysis are 100% wrong on every level. Here's a hint. Government already hires top experts on their field to make decisions and policies. That request you have to infuse more science into politics has already happened. But politics is a human and societal action, no amount of pretending to be objective will make people stop acting for their own interest. you continue to troll, insult, and strawman, so I will speak to you no more; as you have nothing useful to add but lies and misrepresentations. Be more pragmatic than that, man. Your ideological attachment to pragmatism and science uber alles flies in the face of human history, and I'd hate to find you more ideologically attached than those you criticize on that exact point.
LOL. you're jocular point is quite amusing 
|
On September 12 2016 00:54 xDaunt wrote:
I wonder if granny is in danger of having a stroke. Frankly, the Democrats should kick her to the side and let Kaine top the ticket at this point.
Frankly, we'd be better off if all three candidates swapped places with their Veep.
|
On September 12 2016 00:54 xDaunt wrote:
I wonder if granny is in danger of having a stroke. Frankly, the Democrats should kick her to the side and let Kaine top the ticket at this point.
Kaine is pretty much a carbon copy of Hillary anyways, as far as policy and general flip-flopping on the issues goes.
|
Wow, she's a complete wreck.
Honestly wonder why she's trying to get the most stressful job in the world, she's a multimillionaire, she can retire anywhere she wants and live the easy live.
|
On September 12 2016 01:09 jello_biafra wrote:Wow, she's a complete wreck. Honestly wonder why she's trying to get the most stressful job in the world, she's a multimillionaire, she can retire anywhere she wants and live the easy live. https://twitter.com/AndreyZalgo/status/775002586906824705
This tweet asks who would replace Clinton if something happened to her. Is it still possible to nominate Sanders?
|
That doesn't look good. When the news trickled in from gossip sites and Breitbart, I didn't pay much attention, but she looks seriously unwell in that video.
Could be the heat, fatigue or something equally innocent, but if the campaign trail is doing this to her, imagine the actual job...
|
On September 12 2016 01:31 Acrofales wrote:That doesn't look good. When the news trickled in from gossip sites and Breitbart, I didn't pay much attention, but she looks seriously unwell in that video. Could be the heat, fatigue or something equally innocent, but if the campaign trail is doing this to her, imagine the actual job...
Same here, ignored the tin-foil crowd shouting sofar but they are actually having to carry her into the car. That's no good.
|
Heat came, heat saw, she collapsed.
|
Norway28918 Posts
meh
democrat favorite president of the past century was paraplegic
republican favorite president of the past century suffered from dementia. agreed that she seriously looks unwell and that she's gonna be attacked viciously for it and that perhaps some people will be swayed, but it isn't actually a big deal.
|
Again, why are we acting like it would be a bad thing if Hillary (or Trump) were having health problems? I'd be a lot more comfortable with a Pence/Kaine race. Much less exciting, much more a straight contest, but at least neither appears to be criminal or crazy. If I find out Clinton has 6 months to live, that makes me more, not less, likely to vote for her. Hell, if she drops out and lets Kaine finish the race, I'd actually volunteer for the campaign, because I'd already love to be part of beating Trump (and I'm in a swing state), but I don't want my name permanently attached to Clinton if she ends up in some watergate-level scandal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
