|
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 December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability.
Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme.
|
On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme.
The claim that would be asserted against you then is that one side tends to peddle a lot less bullshit and/or counter factual things than the other, and that you need to be careful not to create a false equivalence under the guise of neutrality. On top of that, there is a difference in attitude between someone who disagrees with you that something is bullshit, and makes a logical argument to explain to you why he thinks that (whether he's correct or not), and someone who is just going to dismiss the entirety of your perspective because he just wants to continue to believe the things he believes.
|
On December 05 2016 04:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme. The claim that would be asserted against you then is that one side tends to peddle a lot less bullshit and/or counter factual things than the other, and that you need to be careful not to create a false equivalence under the guise of neutrality. On top of that, there is a difference in attitude between someone who disagrees with you that something is bullshit, and makes a logical argument to explain to you why he thinks that (whether he's correct or not), and someone who is just going to dismiss the entirety of your perspective because he just wants to continue to believe the things he believes.
That the right probably has a deeper web of lies than the left is not something I would contest. Yet the left does have a greater tendency to try to "label and dismiss" people by grouping them into a certain "undesirable" element simply because of disagreement.
|
When counted against the total number of votes cast for presidential candidates who qualified for Washington’s ballot this year, Libertarian Gary Johnson notched just over 5 percent.
Not only does that total put him well above all other third party candidates on the ballot this year; it alsoputs the Libertarians just past the 5 percent threshold for “major party” status in Washington state. With that status—granted to any party whose presidential candidate gets 5 percent or more of the vote—comes various state-sponsored amenities, including precinct elections, primary elections, and automatic inclusion on the state’s 2020 presidential ballot.
However, things are not that simple, and the complications surrounding the count could result in a lawsuit. Here’s why: While Johnson hit the 5 percent mark among ballots cast for official candidates, if write-in votes are counted, his tally appears to dip below the 5 percent threshold.
Dave Ammons, spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office, says state law is clear: Write-in ballots count when calculating percentages for major-party status. The official language in the code is “total votes cast,” which he says clearly indicates write-in votes. This year, perhaps as a result of the unpopularity of both major party candidates, write-ins spiked to 107,000, with another 43,000 not voting for any candidate. In 2012, only 47,000 people who turned in their ballots chose to write in a candidate or not cast a vote for any presidential candidate.
“I haven’t seen the final calculation yet, but once the 107,000 presidential write-ins are added to the tally for the seven tickets, it appears the Libertarians will drop below the 5 percent,” Ammons says.
The Libertarian Party is taking a different stance.
Michael Pickens, a former state party chairman who is still active in leadership, tells Seattle Weekly that by the party’s reading of state law, only write-in votes cast for people who filed as official write-in candidates should be considered legitimate votes. “According to their own [laws], the write-in vote should not count unless the write-in candidate filed a write-in campaign,” he says.
This is tricky territory. The state does allow people to file as an official write-in candidate. However, election offices do not bother to see how many write-in votes those “official” candidates get compared to, say, how many people wrote in Mickey Mouse, unless the total number of write-in ballots exceeds the number of ballots cast for the top on-ballot vote-getter. The logic here is that it would be a complete waste of time to go through and read every write-in vote when there is no chance it could sway the election.
Even stranger, even if the state did count the write-in ballots, it wouldn’t actually make a distinction between write-ins cast for candidates who filed with the state as write-ins and those who didn’t.
Source
|
On December 05 2016 05:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 04:54 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme. The claim that would be asserted against you then is that one side tends to peddle a lot less bullshit and/or counter factual things than the other, and that you need to be careful not to create a false equivalence under the guise of neutrality. On top of that, there is a difference in attitude between someone who disagrees with you that something is bullshit, and makes a logical argument to explain to you why he thinks that (whether he's correct or not), and someone who is just going to dismiss the entirety of your perspective because he just wants to continue to believe the things he believes. That the right probably has a deeper web of lies than the left is not something I would contest. Yet the left does have a greater tendency to try to "label and dismiss" people by grouping them into a certain "undesirable" element simply because of disagreement.
It's possible that this is true, I don't really know; "SJWs", "politically correct", "leftist / liberal" and "socialist" are also pretty commonly used to dismiss people and views. Regardless of whether it's correct or not, I think it's a rather minor point in this conversation though.
|
On December 05 2016 05:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 04:54 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme. The claim that would be asserted against you then is that one side tends to peddle a lot less bullshit and/or counter factual things than the other, and that you need to be careful not to create a false equivalence under the guise of neutrality. On top of that, there is a difference in attitude between someone who disagrees with you that something is bullshit, and makes a logical argument to explain to you why he thinks that (whether he's correct or not), and someone who is just going to dismiss the entirety of your perspective because he just wants to continue to believe the things he believes. That the right probably has a deeper web of lies than the left is not something I would contest. Yet the left does have a greater tendency to try to "label and dismiss" people by grouping them into a certain "undesirable" element simply because of disagreement.
That may very well be true.
How would you measure it though to determine if it is in fact true, or is merely an errant perception?
I certainly see plenty of people using label and dismiss from both sides.
also they're not generally put into an "undesirable" element simply because of disagreement; while that may be done some, usually there's something more pointed involved.
|
On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme.
Could you imagine if the left took credit for this? I don't expect them to lead with their undesirable factions while discussing the state of the party--no way. But when pressed, I mean cmon, acknowledge the other themes and impacts even when they reflect badly on what you and others stand for. It's disgusting the way the narrative switched from racist Trump supporters to stupid Trump supporters. If you want to call a spade a spade, call it on both sides so we know it's not just partisan rhetoric. LL nailed it, even with the much-neglected Israel issue.
|
|
|
"Oh damn, we can't abuse these veterans, better do what we should have done months ago". At least Obama realized he could punt this to Trump at minimum.
|
On December 05 2016 05:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme. Could you imagine if the left took credit for this? I don't expect them to lead with their undesirable factions while discussing the state of the party--no way. But when pressed, I mean cmon, acknowledge the other themes and impacts even when they reflect badly on what you and others stand for. It's disgusting the way the narrative switched from racist Trump supporters to stupid Trump supporters. If you want to call a spade a spade, call it on both sides so we know it's not just partisan rhetoric. LL nailed it, even with the much-neglected Israel issue.
many of the people here have admitted to these factions existing on the left.
How many of the people on the left have to admit to their existence? I ask since there ewill surely always be some who deny it. so I'd want to know at what level it's considered satisfactory for you. And what you think the level is now.
At what point are you free to disavow people from belonging to your side?
There is of course the more complicated issues of sides; not everyone on the left considers some of the loonier people to be part of "their" side. Though others who are more distant may consider them to be part of the "same" side. different assignation of sides can be a real problem.
PS to what extent do you think the right takes credit for their undesirable factions?
|
On December 05 2016 06:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 05:49 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme. Could you imagine if the left took credit for this? I don't expect them to lead with their undesirable factions while discussing the state of the party--no way. But when pressed, I mean cmon, acknowledge the other themes and impacts even when they reflect badly on what you and others stand for. It's disgusting the way the narrative switched from racist Trump supporters to stupid Trump supporters. If you want to call a spade a spade, call it on both sides so we know it's not just partisan rhetoric. LL nailed it, even with the much-neglected Israel issue. many of the people here have admitted to these factions existing on the left. How many of the people on the left have to admit to their existence? I ask since there ewill surely always be some who deny it. so I'd want to know at what level it's considered satisfactory for you. And what you think the level is now. At what point are you free to disavow people from belonging to your side? There is of course the more complicated issues of sides; not everyone on the left considers some of the loonier people to be part of "their" side. Though others who are more distant may consider them to be part of the "same" side. different assignation of sides can be a real problem. PS to what extent do you think the right takes credit for their undesirable factions?
You have opportunity here to respond to the specifics of LL's post I quoted. Otherwise, I must assume it's another of your "it may or may not be true, some have done this, many have done this other thing, generally not this but usually that" sort of engagement. I don't want to harp on you specifically, because just last page you were attacked for your tone deafness. I see no need to pile on. You can point to any number of quoted groups and their contribution to a Narrow Trump victory at your leisure instead of claiming it's been done before (diminished, denied, wholesale dismissed, and misdirected in this thread).
|
PS to what extent do you think the right takes credit for their undesirable factions?
This discussion happened a few pages ago and the answer was 0. There saved you a bunch of time.
|
On December 05 2016 06:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 06:30 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2016 05:49 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme. Could you imagine if the left took credit for this? I don't expect them to lead with their undesirable factions while discussing the state of the party--no way. But when pressed, I mean cmon, acknowledge the other themes and impacts even when they reflect badly on what you and others stand for. It's disgusting the way the narrative switched from racist Trump supporters to stupid Trump supporters. If you want to call a spade a spade, call it on both sides so we know it's not just partisan rhetoric. LL nailed it, even with the much-neglected Israel issue. many of the people here have admitted to these factions existing on the left. How many of the people on the left have to admit to their existence? I ask since there ewill surely always be some who deny it. so I'd want to know at what level it's considered satisfactory for you. And what you think the level is now. At what point are you free to disavow people from belonging to your side? There is of course the more complicated issues of sides; not everyone on the left considers some of the loonier people to be part of "their" side. Though others who are more distant may consider them to be part of the "same" side. different assignation of sides can be a real problem. PS to what extent do you think the right takes credit for their undesirable factions? You have opportunity here to respond to the specifics of LL's post I quoted. Otherwise, I must assume it's another of your "it may or may not be true, some have done this, many have done this other thing, generally not this but usually that" sort of engagement. I don't want to harp on you specifically, because just last page you were attacked for your tone deafness. I see no need to pile on. You can point to any number of quoted groups and their contribution to a Narrow Trump victory at your leisure instead of claiming it's been done before (diminished, denied, wholesale dismissed, and misdirected in this thread).
It's the way I engage because it's the truth; reality is vague and unclear; the high sort of certainty most people use is unsound and inaccurate. and actual rigorous thought often requires starting a much more basic level than most people use, without a proper foundation discussions often fall apart for lack of shared points.
I can't account for their effects on a trump victory specifically, as I'm unsure which ones had an effect on the people who actually changed their votes (either from one to another or between voting/not voting). I'd say generally it's likely some of them had an effect, though I haven't heard much to isolate any ones in this context. The X-ist one is the complaint I most heard actually cited by people, with the SJW one probably second.
At any rate, I'm disinclined to engage closely, since you didn't answer my questions either.; which is especially problematic since the answers to many of my statements are vital for the foundation of a discussion.
|
On December 05 2016 06:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 06:30 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2016 05:49 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme. Could you imagine if the left took credit for this? I don't expect them to lead with their undesirable factions while discussing the state of the party--no way. But when pressed, I mean cmon, acknowledge the other themes and impacts even when they reflect badly on what you and others stand for. It's disgusting the way the narrative switched from racist Trump supporters to stupid Trump supporters. If you want to call a spade a spade, call it on both sides so we know it's not just partisan rhetoric. LL nailed it, even with the much-neglected Israel issue. many of the people here have admitted to these factions existing on the left. How many of the people on the left have to admit to their existence? I ask since there ewill surely always be some who deny it. so I'd want to know at what level it's considered satisfactory for you. And what you think the level is now. At what point are you free to disavow people from belonging to your side? There is of course the more complicated issues of sides; not everyone on the left considers some of the loonier people to be part of "their" side. Though others who are more distant may consider them to be part of the "same" side. different assignation of sides can be a real problem. PS to what extent do you think the right takes credit for their undesirable factions? You have opportunity here to respond to the specifics of LL's post I quoted. Otherwise, I must assume it's another of your "it may or may not be true, some have done this, many have done this other thing, generally not this but usually that" sort of engagement. I don't want to harp on you specifically, because just last page you were attacked for your tone deafness. I see no need to pile on. You can point to any number of quoted groups and their contribution to a Narrow Trump victory at your leisure instead of claiming it's been done before (diminished, denied, wholesale dismissed, and misdirected in this thread).
Ceaseless equivocation is about as interesting and profound as plain Cheerios.
I think that the delusions on the left are more relevant right now than those on the right given the rather precarious position that the democrats are in following the election. Like I said before, democrats are dealing with a serious case of tone deafness when it comes to the needs and desires of the general electorate. Some introspection is long over due, but I can't say that I'm seeing any evidence of it actually occurring. Quite the opposite, in fact. The republicans and Trump have a huge opportunity to cement their gains. It will be interesting to see if they seize it.
|
Trump loses the popular vote by over 3 million and suddenly the Dems are in a crisis? Tiny shift and Clinton is president elect and as a some posters in this thread like to do, a lot of that could be seen as flaws of Clinton herself and her campaign strategy (or at least perceived flaws).
|
On December 05 2016 07:25 Slaughter wrote:
Trump loses the popular vote by over 3 million and suddenly the Dems are in a crisis? Tiny shift and Clinton is president elect and as a some posters in this thread like to do, a lot of that could be seen as flaws of Clinton herself and her campaign strategy (or at least perceived flaws).
Trump won despite facing tremendous headwinds due to a relentless negative campaign against him. Anyone else pushing substantially the same platform would have blown the opposition out. Of course, we are going to have to wait 4 years to really see the fall out, but democrats shouldn't downplay how precarious their political position is.
|
On December 05 2016 07:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 06:55 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2016 06:30 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2016 05:49 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme. Could you imagine if the left took credit for this? I don't expect them to lead with their undesirable factions while discussing the state of the party--no way. But when pressed, I mean cmon, acknowledge the other themes and impacts even when they reflect badly on what you and others stand for. It's disgusting the way the narrative switched from racist Trump supporters to stupid Trump supporters. If you want to call a spade a spade, call it on both sides so we know it's not just partisan rhetoric. LL nailed it, even with the much-neglected Israel issue. many of the people here have admitted to these factions existing on the left. How many of the people on the left have to admit to their existence? I ask since there ewill surely always be some who deny it. so I'd want to know at what level it's considered satisfactory for you. And what you think the level is now. At what point are you free to disavow people from belonging to your side? There is of course the more complicated issues of sides; not everyone on the left considers some of the loonier people to be part of "their" side. Though others who are more distant may consider them to be part of the "same" side. different assignation of sides can be a real problem. PS to what extent do you think the right takes credit for their undesirable factions? You have opportunity here to respond to the specifics of LL's post I quoted. Otherwise, I must assume it's another of your "it may or may not be true, some have done this, many have done this other thing, generally not this but usually that" sort of engagement. I don't want to harp on you specifically, because just last page you were attacked for your tone deafness. I see no need to pile on. You can point to any number of quoted groups and their contribution to a Narrow Trump victory at your leisure instead of claiming it's been done before (diminished, denied, wholesale dismissed, and misdirected in this thread). Ceaseless equivocation is about as interesting and profound as plain Cheerios. I think that the delusions on the left are more relevant right now than those on the right given the rather precarious position that the democrats are in following the election. Like I said before, democrats are dealing with a serious case of tone deafness when it comes to the needs and desires of the general electorate. Some introspection is long over due, but I can't say that I'm seeing any evidence of it actually occurring. Quite the opposite, in fact. The republicans and Trump have a huge opportunity to cement their gains. It will be interesting to see if they seize it.
I wouldn't worry too much. With how progressive the next generation is, the democrats will basically have to change their discourse in the correct direction. Politicians go where the power is, and it's pretty obvious where it'll be in ten years. They'll come around. Add to that the demographic shift that is going to make it harder and harder for a party associated with racism to win elections...
If republicans manage to become the left wing party again, they're going to be able to keep their gains. But that's a win for me, I'm not here because I want the US to be more on the side of democrats, I'm here because I want the US to be more on the side of the left. If the way there is by republicans shifting, then that'll be just as fine.
|
One thing I don't understand is the alt-right is there's this big claim over being pro-free speech, but when free speech is actually threatened with law I don't hear anything from that movement.
By unanimous consent, the Senate quietly passed the so-called Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, only two days after it was introduced by Sens. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Tim Scott, R-S.C.
A draft of the bill obtained by The Intercept encourages the Department of Education to use the State Department’s broad, widely criticized definition of anti-Semitism when investigating schools. That definition, from a 2010 memo, includes as examples of anti-Semitism “delegitimizing” Israel, “demonizing” Israel, “applying double standards” to Israel, and “focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations.”
Critics have pointed out that those are political — not racist — positions, shared by a significant number of Jews, and qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
According to the draft, the bill does not adopt the definition as a formal legal standard, it only directs the State Department to “take into consideration” the definition when investigating schools for anti-Semitic discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The memo’s definition — which is widely supported by Israeli advocacy groups — was intended for identifying anti-Semitic groups overseas. Even then, it came with caveats. Criticisms of Israel are only examples of possible anti-Semitism “taking into account the overall context,” and the memo concludes: “However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02/senate-responds-to-post-trump-anti-semitism-by-targeting-students-who-criticize-israel/
As far as I can tell this isn't picked up much on any alt-right websites (I found one mention on a despite being the very thing that many alt-right people exactly say they despise. It makes it seem like the entire stated ideology is a sham, or the group is really bad at politics.
Like this seems like a big fat free gift for that group to sit there and go, "Look we have a point! This is what we're afraid of" and yet it's all quiet.
|
On December 05 2016 07:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 07:25 Slaughter wrote:
Trump loses the popular vote by over 3 million and suddenly the Dems are in a crisis? Tiny shift and Clinton is president elect and as a some posters in this thread like to do, a lot of that could be seen as flaws of Clinton herself and her campaign strategy (or at least perceived flaws). Trump won despite facing tremendous headwinds due to a relentless negative campaign against him. Anyone else pushing substantially the same platform would have blown the opposition out. Of course, we are going to have to wait 4 years to really see the fall out, but democrats shouldn't downplay how precarious their political position is.
Being quoted is not a negative campaign.
But yes, Dems lost big because they should have won by unprecedented margins; though I maintain that doesn't speak much credit to Trump having a big win as much as a big dropping of the ball by democrats.
The extent people are listening is certainly varying; there's certainly a lot of people kicking & screaming about not changing, but there's also a lot of people who have always been pushing for change that have gained a lot of prominence since the election.
|
On December 05 2016 07:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 07:25 Slaughter wrote:
Trump loses the popular vote by over 3 million and suddenly the Dems are in a crisis? Tiny shift and Clinton is president elect and as a some posters in this thread like to do, a lot of that could be seen as flaws of Clinton herself and her campaign strategy (or at least perceived flaws). Trump won despite facing tremendous headwinds due to a relentless negative campaign against him. Anyone else pushing substantially the same platform would have blown the opposition out. Of course, we are going to have to wait 4 years to really see the fall out, but democrats shouldn't downplay how precarious their political position is.
Basically you are saying Trump was a very shitty candidate and should have lost. Gotcha.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
