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 November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her.
briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances.
Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity.
People tend to avoid them when they expose a weakness, lesson learned.
the whole point of the hypothetical was to expose the weakness. In reality the weakness is significantly weaker and most of them arent real, which is why we ground ourselves in reality and dont like to entertain bullshit hypotheticals. (see waah I did there)
The scenario is literally one in which one is asked "how bad does Hillary have to be that one chooses Drumpf over her) So really its more of a reflection on how bad people think Drumpf is. Mind you Hillary could be literally anyone else and it still wouldnt matter in this sort of hypothetical.
But sure take it anyway you like to compliment your heavy dose of delusion.
On November 02 2016 04:28 Danglars wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote: [quote]
let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right?
Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her.
briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances.
Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise.
See these are the kinds of leaps why bullshit hypotheticals are bad.
I get the idea that bullshit fascistic doomsday theories are fine when you're talking about The Trump, but see no double standard to calling out wackos that thought Obama was going to suspend elections. One's a rational expectation of outcomes, the other's racism. It's like Trump is an alt right puppet and only the enlightened can see it.
Obama and Trump aren't even remotely comparable. If Obama disagrees with a decision made by a judge then he says he disagrees with the decision without calling into question the system itself. If Trump disagrees then he says the judge was out to get him, the justice system is corrupt, broken, and in need of reformation in line with his vision for a better America. In one there is respect for the system itself, regardless of the partisan view on the outcome, in the other the system is an obstacle to be swept away.
If Obama had lost to Romney there was never a question of whether he would concede. Nor whether he would make accusations of rigging. Nor whether he would have mobs storm the polling booths. Nor whether "people with guns" should "stop" Romney. The idea that Trump is a victim of being judged by the things that he has voluntarily disclosed about his plans for America is absurd. Nobody is projecting anything onto him. These are the things that he chooses to say when asked. Obama said different things.
The men aren't comparable, but their most wild-eyed supporters/detractors most certainly are. No amount of generalizing about "obstacles to be swept away" will change it (and, in fact if anybody had the stomach for it, Obama's "fundamental transformation" is itself a question of visions and disrespectful to some. Same goes for Dems that claimed the 2000 election was stolen, want Bush arrested for war crimes and call him a criminal, and still do so. But if it's Trump, then it's all dangerous and unprecedented). Sorry, still a double standard for bullshit.
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy?
Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy.
On November 02 2016 06:34 LegalLord wrote: I have to say, I feel a lot worse about the ballot choices I actually made than I did when I first made them. Hillary and Congressional Democrats have only done harm to their cause with their recent conduct. It's not enough to make me change my vote but more of a "this shit sucks" visceral reaction to being put in this situation.
if its any consolation, no one would have believed that wasnt your default position even before any of the recent events that may have put you off.
Let's just say I had a little more faith in my local representatives two weeks ago.
On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote: [quote] what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy?
I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet?
then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system?
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy?
Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy.
Why would people vote more often in the system you are imagining?
On November 02 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote: [quote] what are you even saying? billionaires are evil despite being for good causes, because billionaire = plutocracy?
I've told you several times that I don't think people are evil, has that sunk in yet?
then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system?
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy?
Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy.
hmm, "We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent" so you're saying engagement was always low? and it needs to be raised?
what makes you think current voters' are insufficiently informed, and more importantly, how would you ACTUALLY do a better job of informing people; what makes you think this would actually result in systemic improvements? do you want mandatory voting? how much larger a percentage? by 1 point, 5, points, 10 points, 30 points? if not mandatory how would you get them to vote?
On November 02 2016 06:34 LegalLord wrote: I have to say, I feel a lot worse about the ballot choices I actually made than I did when I first made them. Hillary and Congressional Democrats have only done harm to their cause with their recent conduct. It's not enough to make me change my vote but more of a "this shit sucks" visceral reaction to being put in this situation.
if its any consolation, no one would have believed that wasnt your default position even before any of the recent events that may have put you off.
Let's just say I had a little more faith in my local representatives two weeks ago.
faith is easy when you don't look too closely. look too close, and most politicians look like shit. just watch c-span! care to start a new party? If I weren't so lazy (and it wasn't so actually hugely hard to start a new party), i'd start one to nominate better people to office.
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy?
Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy.
Why would people vote more often in the system you are imagining?
Because they wouldn't accurately assess that their opinion doesn't really matter, as is the case in the current system. Because they would actually be taught the value of engagement in a system where it wasn't a lie. Because they wouldn't be buried under propaganda and money
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy?
Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy.
hmm, "We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent" so you're saying engagement was always low? and it needs to be raised?
what makes you think current voters' are insufficiently informed, and more importantly, how would you ACTUALLY do a better job of informing people; what makes you think this would actually result in systemic improvements? do you want mandatory voting? how much larger a percentage? by 1 point, 5, points, 10 points, 30 points? if not mandatory how would you get them to vote?
Not "always" but basically.
Have you talked to voters? My personal example was several Hillary delegates not knowing that Hillary was for the TPP and called it a gold standard, before she was against it. But you can pick any thing people should know and a disturbing amount of voters won't know.
Not mandatory voting, but people should be ashamed of not voting more so than they are of their naked body. They should feel like they aren't living up to the most basic requirement of citizenry. This presumes that voting is practically accessible to everyone.
I don't have a specific threshold.
People like to vote, they don't vote because they perceive their votes don't matter, breaking that perception/reality means more people will participate, FOMO and all.
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy?
Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy.
hmm, "We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent" so you're saying engagement was always low? and it needs to be raised?
what makes you think current voters' are insufficiently informed, and more importantly, how would you ACTUALLY do a better job of informing people; what makes you think this would actually result in systemic improvements? do you want mandatory voting? how much larger a percentage? by 1 point, 5, points, 10 points, 30 points? if not mandatory how would you get them to vote?
The issue people have with supposed "elites" is that elites puts money into politics. However, money in politics is mainly ad campaigns. Removing money from politics simply translates into GreenHorizon wanting a lower voter turnout. Which makes sense, since his BFF Bernie Sanders mainly did well in low voter turnout states.
On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote: [quote]
briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances.
Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity.
People tend to avoid them when they expose a weakness, lesson learned.
the whole point of the hypothetical was to expose the weakness. In reality the weakness is significantly weaker and most of them arent real, which is why we ground ourselves in reality and dont like to entertain bullshit hypotheticals. (see waah I did there)
The scenario is literally one in which one is asked "how bad does Hillary have to be that one chooses Drumpf over her) So really its more of a reflection on how bad people think Drumpf is. Mind you Hillary could be literally anyone else and it still wouldnt matter in this sort of hypothetical.
But sure take it anyway you like to compliment your heavy dose of delusion.
On November 02 2016 04:28 Danglars wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her.
briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances.
Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise.
See these are the kinds of leaps why bullshit hypotheticals are bad.
I get the idea that bullshit fascistic doomsday theories are fine when you're talking about The Trump, but see no double standard to calling out wackos that thought Obama was going to suspend elections. One's a rational expectation of outcomes, the other's racism. It's like Trump is an alt right puppet and only the enlightened can see it.
Obama and Trump aren't even remotely comparable. If Obama disagrees with a decision made by a judge then he says he disagrees with the decision without calling into question the system itself. If Trump disagrees then he says the judge was out to get him, the justice system is corrupt, broken, and in need of reformation in line with his vision for a better America. In one there is respect for the system itself, regardless of the partisan view on the outcome, in the other the system is an obstacle to be swept away.
If Obama had lost to Romney there was never a question of whether he would concede. Nor whether he would make accusations of rigging. Nor whether he would have mobs storm the polling booths. Nor whether "people with guns" should "stop" Romney. The idea that Trump is a victim of being judged by the things that he has voluntarily disclosed about his plans for America is absurd. Nobody is projecting anything onto him. These are the things that he chooses to say when asked. Obama said different things.
The men aren't comparable, but their most wild-eyed supporters/detractors most certainly are.
It sounds almost like you're talking about the horseshoe theory, is that right?
On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote: [quote]
briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances.
Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity.
People tend to avoid them when they expose a weakness, lesson learned.
the whole point of the hypothetical was to expose the weakness. In reality the weakness is significantly weaker and most of them arent real, which is why we ground ourselves in reality and dont like to entertain bullshit hypotheticals. (see waah I did there)
The scenario is literally one in which one is asked "how bad does Hillary have to be that one chooses Drumpf over her) So really its more of a reflection on how bad people think Drumpf is. Mind you Hillary could be literally anyone else and it still wouldnt matter in this sort of hypothetical.
But sure take it anyway you like to compliment your heavy dose of delusion.
On November 02 2016 04:28 Danglars wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:
On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her.
briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances.
Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise.
See these are the kinds of leaps why bullshit hypotheticals are bad.
I get the idea that bullshit fascistic doomsday theories are fine when you're talking about The Trump, but see no double standard to calling out wackos that thought Obama was going to suspend elections. One's a rational expectation of outcomes, the other's racism. It's like Trump is an alt right puppet and only the enlightened can see it.
Obama and Trump aren't even remotely comparable. If Obama disagrees with a decision made by a judge then he says he disagrees with the decision without calling into question the system itself. If Trump disagrees then he says the judge was out to get him, the justice system is corrupt, broken, and in need of reformation in line with his vision for a better America. In one there is respect for the system itself, regardless of the partisan view on the outcome, in the other the system is an obstacle to be swept away.
If Obama had lost to Romney there was never a question of whether he would concede. Nor whether he would make accusations of rigging. Nor whether he would have mobs storm the polling booths. Nor whether "people with guns" should "stop" Romney. The idea that Trump is a victim of being judged by the things that he has voluntarily disclosed about his plans for America is absurd. Nobody is projecting anything onto him. These are the things that he chooses to say when asked. Obama said different things.
The men aren't comparable, but their most wild-eyed supporters/detractors most certainly are. No amount of generalizing about "obstacles to be swept away" will change it (and, in fact if anybody had the stomach for it, Obama's "fundamental transformation" is itself a question of visions and disrespectful to some. Same goes for Dems that claimed the 2000 election was stolen, want Bush arrested for war crimes and call him a criminal, and still do so. But if it's Trump, then it's all dangerous and unprecedented). Sorry, still a double standard for bullshit.
Which Democratic candidate for presidency wants Bush arrested for war crimes? Or are you trying to argue that Trump is no worse than your average crazy person on the street and therefore is totally comparable to Obama? If so, why are you trying to argue that?
It looks a lot like you just argued that 1) Trump is no worse than Obama because 2) Some people say really crazy things and 3) Trump also says really crazy things therefore 4) Trump is no worse than those people and 5) Obama is a person
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
as long as government decisions are public, you can engage in the same process as elites by making policy arguments.
elites may be better positioned to make the best arguments for their interests, but it would be foolish to disqualify someone solely based on elite status. this broad supposition that elites running the show means there is no democracy contains some suppositions about elites that you dont want to admit but it is a part of your argument.
group a supports A therefore A is bad
then you need group a is bad or group a has bad interaction with A in there for this argument to work.
On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote: [quote] then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system?
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy?
Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy.
Why would people vote more often in the system you are imagining?
Because they wouldn't accurately assess that their opinion doesn't really matter, as is the case in the current system. Because they would actually be taught the value of engagement in a system where it wasn't a lie. Because they wouldn't be buried under propaganda and money
Just to name a few.
You keep assuming that people will naturally act differently in the system you're imagining than they do now. Its kind of stupid of you to believe that.
How many people do you think feel like they are not given enough info about the candidates? How many people do you think believe there is not enough ads, commercials, or outreach about the different propositions?
People hate politics. People hate responsibility. People hate to talk about these things. The "power" elites have comes from being able to burn the money needed to shove information in front of people despite those people's harsh attempts to keep themselves uninformed. There is not a lack of information out there.
On November 02 2016 05:44 oneofthem wrote: [quote] then why do you call them plutocrats with the implication that their support = maintaining the system?
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy?
Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy.
hmm, "We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent" so you're saying engagement was always low? and it needs to be raised?
what makes you think current voters' are insufficiently informed, and more importantly, how would you ACTUALLY do a better job of informing people; what makes you think this would actually result in systemic improvements? do you want mandatory voting? how much larger a percentage? by 1 point, 5, points, 10 points, 30 points? if not mandatory how would you get them to vote?
However, money in politics is mainly ad campaigns. Removing money from politics simply translates into GreenHorizon wanting a lower voter turnout.
See, if you were honest people, you would bash Magpie for saying absurd stuff like this.
But because it's not actually a debate, and you have a side to defend, none of you will find issue with what he said here. Cause he's on your side.
It sounds like you're using it as an insult. is it your intent to use it an insult? to disparage them? it sounds like you're calling them evil. that may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming across.
If I call someone an addict, I (unlike many people of the past) am not making a judgment about whether the individual is "good" or "bad" and I don't use it as an insult. What it does indicate, is a pattern of behavior that is problematic. Doesn't mean everything an addict does is destructive, or that they are a bad/evil person, or that they can't be/aren't productive members of society.
I don't blame people for initially taking it like you describe, but specifically to oneofthem, I've explained this several times.
The addiction to wealth and power has it's own set of side effects (some positive some negative) like video games, heroin, or hording. A plutocracy is a natural outgrowth of such an addiction to wealth/power. Doesn't make the people engaged bad/evil/despicable/etc... Doesn't even mean it's inherently bad (Any elongated conversation with the voting public would leave most pondering the advantages of some form of benevolent oligarchy). It just has it's own set of side effects that have to be dealt with.
I could go on, but let it be known from this point forward that I don't "hate" Hillary, think she is "evil", nor do I think those things about even the worst of the worst elites/corporations.
Guarantee someone says I do anyway within the next 20 pages or so
well, you come off as a hater, even if you aren't. you'll have to elaborate on which plutocrats you're complaining about, why it's a problem, what your proposed systemic alternatives are. I mean, I can understand disliking systemic abuses by the rich, but it's not so clear what you're proposing as an alternative, and who you're classifying in the group "plutocrats", as there're a lot of good rich people.
It's about having a conversation about how we take real control over our democracy, which starts with a revolutionary revamp in civics education, community engagement, and mutual responsibility.
We've been contented with elites running our country so long as they were reasonably benevolent (black people would probably disagree that many met that threshold), but that's not an acceptable state of affairs imo. We have to be consistently engaged in the democratic process, not find a benevolent crew to hand the stick over to again.
the elites always run the country by definition, because whoever's in charge IS the elite. what makes you think actual engagement is any less than it was in the past? how are you measuring that? what does "real control" mean? what about the whole point of having a republic rather than direct democracy?
Economic elites (sometimes with a political elite stand-in)* I didn't suggest it was. Meaning a typical voter would be reasonably informed on that which they are voting and a much larger percentage of people would vote. I'm not suggesting direct democracy.
Why would people vote more often in the system you are imagining?
Because they wouldn't accurately assess that their opinion doesn't really matter, as is the case in the current system. Because they would actually be taught the value of engagement in a system where it wasn't a lie. Because they wouldn't be buried under propaganda and money
Just to name a few.
You keep assuming that people will naturally act differently in the system you're imagining than they do now. Its kind of stupid of you to believe that.
How many people do you think feel like they are not given enough info about the candidates? How many people do you think believe there is not enough ads, commercials, or outreach about the different propositions?
People hate politics. People hate responsibility. People hate to talk about these things. The "power" elites have comes from being able to burn the money needed to shove information in front of people despite those people's harsh attempts to keep themselves uninformed. There is not a lack of information out there.
You equate ads with information? Most of the time they are the opposite of information. Moreover, positions of politicians during election time also contain no/very little information and can be safely dismissed.
On November 02 2016 06:18 zlefin wrote: odd, the email thing shouldn't be enough to shift polling by more than it originally did long ago. is there some other effects shifting the poll numbers?
He shadowed Trump for 18 months and said he possibly go to know Trump better than anyone, since Trump allegedly doesn't see his family much. He spoke about Trump's basic personality traits. He advised Hillary for the debates, and she toyed with Trump's emotions during them. Schwartz says he is genuinely scared about the world's security in a Trump presidency. How could a man with this temperament be given commander in chief powers?
In the late 1980s, the satirical magazine Spy began to use Trump as a symbol of the gaudy decadence and ostentatious vulgarity of New York City during the era. Editor Graydon Carter noted at one point that Trump had small fingers, and the magazine—known for inventing pithy epithets for people and using them repeatedly—came to introduce Trump as a “short-fingered vulgarian.”
Even though Spy went out of publication more than a decade ago, Carter still hears from Trump about the insult. “He'll send me pictures, tear sheets from magazines—and he did it as recently as April,” Carter said earlier this year on NPR. “With a gold sharpie, he'll circle his fingers and in his handwriting say, ‘see, not so short.’”
Man, it's been parroted and witnessed over and over that Trump has the attention span of a 7 year old with ADHD. Even in the debates he had some of the most impressive, nonsensical ramblings I've ever heard. His run should be sponsored by Buzzfeed. I wonder if his supporters expect him to be able to fix all the nations problems in the 5 minutes that he'll be able sit down and focus. Or i guess that was where Kaisch was supposed to come in.
The Texas state AG commissioner blindly copy + pasted this tweet, claimed his account had been hacked, then claimed that he had retweeted something without reading it (apparently, this actually was somehow true)
The incompetence is hilarious, but the most surprising part I guess is that it really was incompetence and not maliciousness.
EPT
