|
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 September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries. while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules.
Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes.
And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe.
|
United States10053 Posts
Here's my analysis and I'm currently rewatching the debate to make sure it's as close to possible to being right:
Trump came out of the gates hard and fast. His first 30-40 minutes were fantastic and he was definitely attacking Clinton well and where it needed to be attacked. Then he slowed down to the double team of Holt and Clinton for the next 50 minutes which was where he looked weak. The bias was real, let's not pretend, Holt attacked Trump 15 times while only 2 times for Clinton.
Overall, including the bias, yes, Clinton came out intellectually on top by a bit. I gave it to Clinton 60-40. However, to the undecided voter, I'm not entirely sure how they view this debate. This debate didn't really change someone voting Trump to undecided, or voting Clinton to undecided either.
I'm now curious how Trump will come back in the next debate and how much more scripted the questions/answers can get from the Clinton side. She literally had a speech in front of her with probably pre-planned answers to the questions. Also, rewatch the debate and watch her eyes the entire time while she's speaking. Always looking down as if there was some notes or answers on a paper the entire debate. Then at the end there are pictures of a man removing papers from Clinton's podium with a ton of writing on it (definitely too much for just casual note taking during that debate). Just some food for thought.
|
On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries. while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans.
yes, and you're still wrong about several of those.
and in general, people are working to benefit america, they just have different opinions about what benefits america. In some cases, some people are right and others wrong; in other cases there's so many unknowns it's hard to say.
You don't sound like you're all that interested in discussion, but more that you have an opinion and you wish to assert its correctness.
|
On September 29 2016 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocates for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocates for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries.
Yes Trump is advocating trickle down economics. A concept that has been repeatedly proven to not work. If you cut taxes on companies they pay the CEO bigger bonuses. They don't make more jobs because the demand does not exist.
It has been proven that union strikes of people wanting to increase their wages or increase their benefit and plans in increasing taxes for the managers slows down job creation.
On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries. while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe.
In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness.
|
On September 29 2016 03:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Donald Trump deputy campaign manager David Bossie said “clearly Mr. Trump held his tongue” at Monday night’s presidential debate when Hillary Clinton raised the Manhattan billionaire’s history of derogatory remarks about women.
Towards the end of the debate Monday night, Clinton managed to squeeze in a line of attack against Trump, labeling him as “a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs.” Almost immediately following the debate, Trump insinuated that he had considered responding by raising Bill Clinton’s history of marital infidelities but opted against it because the couple’s daughter, Chelsea Clinton, was in the debate hall.
So when accused of sexism, Trump wanted to fight back with another sexist attack. This guy is a true tactical genius.
|
On September 29 2016 03:44 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
And this why I have little hope for the Democratic party long term.
And on who won the debate, yes by every scholastic measure Hillary won, but as Zel and others have pointed out, that's not what matters, what matters is how it impacted the electorate.
Someone else said "he sounds like a typical drunk blabbering at the bar" (paraphrased), well guess who's vote he was trying to get that night? Jesus Christ, is that what you actually think Trump is doing? He's catering towards the average Joe with the casual language and the simple words. Do you think, if he's chosen for POTUS that he's suddenly going to transform into superbusinessmanpresident and get it all done or some shit, slinging slick talk out of his ass like no other? I believe that everyone is misled, not by Trump, but by themselves and the people analyzing him. I just take him at face value, becasue that's what you should be doing. If he sounds like a rambling idiot, he probably is. And why do you have little hope for the Democratic party in the long term exactly? Because they go for the lesser of 2 evils? Because they use their own metrics to decide what's better than something else, may it be ever so slightly? This election cycle is a farce and the entirety of the US should be ashamed that this is the best you could come up with to represent you on the highest level. And the rest of the world is either afraid or mocking you.
I don't think it's entirely intentional? But that's who he appeals to, sure thinking people and folks who discuss politics don't get it at all, but if they talked to those people in a Pennsylvania bar like they do to each other they wouldn't finish a sentence before the bar patron ignored them. Trump talks like them, so people insulting how stupid he sounds are basically calling them stupid. Spoiler: they don't like being called stupid (even if they objectively were).
If Trump won I would expect him to try to delegate as much responsibility as possible and primarily focus on how being president could make him more wealthy and powerful.
My lack of hope for the Democratic party referenced in that post is that in order to get a right wing president under that model all the Republicans have to do is keep going right. Then neoliberals can move as far right as they want, and with the backing of the establishment, crush out the competition (we're not getting a better challenger to the status quo than Bernie was for a long time).
Not holding Democrats accountable is part of the problem. For instance, the reason we still have a drug war isn't because of Republicans (they certainly started it), it's Democrats who are keeping it going. As an example, Chelsea Clinton recently idiotically tried to tie cannabis to causing death.
This "I don't care how bad they are if they are better than the Republicans are putting up" is a recipe for disaster. The embarrassing nature of our 2 front-runners is not lost on some of us.
On September 29 2016 03:52 FlaShFTW wrote:
Here's my analysis and I'm currently rewatching the debate to make sure it's as close to possible to being right:
Trump came out of the gates hard and fast. His first 30-40 minutes were fantastic and he was definitely attacking Clinton well and where it needed to be attacked. Then he slowed down to the double team of Holt and Clinton for the next 50 minutes which was where he looked weak. The bias was real, let's not pretend, Holt attacked Trump 15 times while only 2 times for Clinton.
Overall, including the bias, yes, Clinton came out intellectually on top by a bit. I gave it to Clinton 60-40. However, to the undecided voter, I'm not entirely sure how they view this debate. This debate didn't really change someone voting Trump to undecided, or voting Clinton to undecided either.
I'm now curious how Trump will come back in the next debate and how much more scripted the questions/answers can get from the Clinton side. She literally had a speech in front of her with probably pre-planned answers to the questions. Also, rewatch the debate and watch her eyes the entire time while she's speaking. Always looking down as if there was some notes or answers on a paper the entire debate. Then at the end there are pictures of a man removing papers from Clinton's podium with a ton of writing on it (definitely too much for just casual note taking during that debate). Just some food for thought.
She did the same thing during the Dem debates. At one point she even hid them from the camera. I don't think there's any rules against having a script but I suppose people should be aware if they somehow didn't know she was using one.
|
On September 29 2016 03:52 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries. while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. yes, and you're still wrong about several of those. and in general, people are working to benefit america, they just have different opinions about what benefits america. In some cases, some people are right and others wrong; in other cases there's so many unknowns it's hard to say. You don't sound like you're all that interested in discussion, but more that you have an opinion and you wish to assert its correctness.
Welcome to RealityisKing. He isn’t here for discussion and isn’t really informed enough to have them anyways.
|
On September 29 2016 03:52 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries. while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. yes, and you're still wrong about several of those. and in general, people are working to benefit america, they just have different opinions about what benefits america. In some cases, some people are right and others wrong; in other cases there's so many unknowns it's hard to say. You don't sound like you're all that interested in discussion, but more that you have an opinion and you wish to assert its correctness.
If you want to write our your reasonings, go ahead and do it.
But currently the #1 biggest topic in America is the war in Middle East which have gotten America in debt.
If we leave the place, parties that have invested interests will flop and we will see an economical downturn until the participants can find other work to do, which we don't know when as this is tied directly to your petro companies, military, weapon corporations. All huge industries.
If we don't leave the place, we better do a damn job at securing the best possible outcome for America and do a good job at it.
|
On September 29 2016 03:55 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries. while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe. In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness.
Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
|
On September 29 2016 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries. while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe. In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness. Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
^American FP in a nutshell.
|
On September 29 2016 04:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:52 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries. while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. yes, and you're still wrong about several of those. and in general, people are working to benefit america, they just have different opinions about what benefits america. In some cases, some people are right and others wrong; in other cases there's so many unknowns it's hard to say. You don't sound like you're all that interested in discussion, but more that you have an opinion and you wish to assert its correctness. Welcome to RealityisKing. He isn’t here for discussion and isn’t really informed enough to have them anyways.
The rate where I use logic and putting egos out of the way FAR outweighs you.
Most of the time, all you do is use snark in response and offers solution of human regression rather than progression.
You are not interested at all in having logical discussions.
|
On September 29 2016 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries. while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe. In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness. Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc.
Its doing fair exchanges.
Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering.
|
On September 29 2016 03:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Senate voted Wednesday to give families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks the right to sue the Saudi Arabian government, overriding President Obama's veto for the first time.
The vote was lopsided, with 97 senators voting in favor of the override, well above the two-thirds majority needed to overcome the president's objection. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid cast the lone "no" vote. Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., did not vote.
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) would, among other things, give families of Sept. 11 victims the right to sue Saudi Arabia over claims it aided or financed the terrorism attacks.
The House is likely to consider its own veto override later today. The House initially passed the measure on a voice vote earlier this month, two days before the 15th anniversary of the deadly terrorist attacks.
The Saudi government denies any role in those attacks, and the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials were involved. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, though. And there have long been suspicions that some of the hijackers received support during their time in the U.S. from individuals with possible connections to the Saudi Kingdom.
Supporters of the veto override say those suspicions should be explored in a U.S. court of law.
The Obama administration says it's sympathetic to victims' families, but concerned that allowing such lawsuits would open the door to legal challenges against American officials in other countries. Source
So they sue SA, win in a suitably picked court then SA does nothing. The US does nothing when SA does not pay and just ignore it. How is this a good idea?
On September 29 2016 04:07 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe. In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness. Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings". And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc. Its doing fair exchanges. Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering.
This assumes they want you there. Imperialism tends to end with the occupying nation leaving since it is too expensive when people do not cooperate. Middle East is even worse since there is a history of violent anti cooperation where you build a bridge and they destroy it. You just wasted the entire profit from the region on that bridge and then brought it down in for a cost of 1/1000 of their budget for that year.
|
On September 29 2016 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.
Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.
Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries. while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe. In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness. Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
And the fact that the Middle East is a region, not a country. It is made up of a number of nations, all that would pissed for a very long time if we adopted new-imperialism. Plus China and Russia would both see it as power grab they could not ignore. This is FP by someone who plays a lot of Risk and thinks that region of the board is easy to deal with.
|
On September 29 2016 04:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe. In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness. Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings". And the fact that the Middle East is a region, not a country. It is made up of a number of nations, all that would pissed for a very long time if we adopted new-imperialism. Plus China and Russia would both see it as power grab they could not ignore. This is FP by someone who plays a lot of Risk and thinks that region of the board is easy to deal with.
Please learn to read
"We should insert a puppet government in those countries ".
|
On September 29 2016 04:07 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe. In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness. Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings". And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc. Its doing fair exchanges. Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering.
Yes because imperialism has proven to be the perfect recipe for getting these countries all those thin...... oh wait...
I cant believe this point is being debate in 2016. #realityisking
|
On September 29 2016 03:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Reminder Trump is closing in on the sixty day mark since his last press conference and Clinton has had 3 or 4 since then (depending what you call an official conference).
careful, that stat might make zeo's brain explode.
|
On September 29 2016 04:12 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Senate voted Wednesday to give families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks the right to sue the Saudi Arabian government, overriding President Obama's veto for the first time.
The vote was lopsided, with 97 senators voting in favor of the override, well above the two-thirds majority needed to overcome the president's objection. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid cast the lone "no" vote. Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., did not vote.
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) would, among other things, give families of Sept. 11 victims the right to sue Saudi Arabia over claims it aided or financed the terrorism attacks.
The House is likely to consider its own veto override later today. The House initially passed the measure on a voice vote earlier this month, two days before the 15th anniversary of the deadly terrorist attacks.
The Saudi government denies any role in those attacks, and the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials were involved. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, though. And there have long been suspicions that some of the hijackers received support during their time in the U.S. from individuals with possible connections to the Saudi Kingdom.
Supporters of the veto override say those suspicions should be explored in a U.S. court of law.
The Obama administration says it's sympathetic to victims' families, but concerned that allowing such lawsuits would open the door to legal challenges against American officials in other countries. Source So they sue SA, win in a suitably picked court then SA does nothing. The US does nothing when SA does not pay and just ignore it. How is this a good idea?
It’s unconstitutional. Our court system does not have jurisdiction over other sovereign nations and they do not have jurisdiction over the US. We are all immune to the laws of other nations that we had no part in creating because that is just common sense. Its just a populist clause in a law that will be ruled dumb by the court because its super stupid.
|
Let's dial it back a bit.
Someone was comparing tax policies. What would your ideal tax reform package look like and why?
|
On September 29 2016 04:07 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side. Y'know what we should be doing? We should get the job done in Middle East. We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us. And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will. That's what we should be doing. Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space. We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish. We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries. We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer. This is what we should be doing. some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof? what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that. I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans. Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II. Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment. You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being. But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules. Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes. And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe. In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness. Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings". And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc. Its doing fair exchanges. Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering.
LOL. How could you “offer” things that you don't even have at home?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
