|
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 February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol
Gotta love Manchin (R D) handing Republicans a bipartisan confirmation vote for Sessions. Now Sessions can take his total and complete ignorance about drugs and use "the laws passed by congress" to just completely mess up what little progress we've recently made.
And you already know Democrats aren't going to fight on this, at best they try to use it as a "see black and brown America, we're trying to protect you" while Manchin (who already talked about ramping up the "war on drugs" just a couple months ago) and these other "real democrats" give him bipartisan cover.
Like who would people like Kwiz, One, and Mag want in the Democratic party, Democrats like Manchin, or Independents like Bernie, because you're not going to be able to keep both (unless you correct people like Manchin for giving Republicans a vote they didn't even need against his party).
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 10 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol Gotta love Manchin ( R D) handing Republicans a bipartisan confirmation vote for Sessions. Now Sessions can take his total and complete ignorance about drugs and use "the laws passed by congress" to just completely mess up what little progress we've recently made. And you already know Democrats aren't going to fight on this, at best they try to use it as a "see black and brown America, we're trying to protect you" while Manchin (who already talked about ramping up the "war on drugs" just a couple months ago) and these other "real democrats" give him bipartisan cover.
Out of curiousity are you still on team "you have to earn my vote, you can't just be less bad than the other guy and tell me it's in my interests to vote for me to stop him"?
|
On February 10 2017 03:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard. But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)? Republican craziness is dying out as it relates to Religion. Younger people are less religious and think inflicting silly rules based on a holy book on people who may be their friends is insane. So yeah that stuff will eventually die out, but the other policies remain. No taxes, no spending, no regulations, etc don't rely on any religious text at all, those stances can remain at the absolute position of zero. The anti abortion stances get weaker certainly as its by and large driven by religion, so that will get softer as people die, but there will still be some clingers on. Democrats just need to understand they're playing vs people who make up their own rules and play accordingly. It took a while for Obama to figure it out, he thought he could play nicey nice with Republicans and maybe they'd meet him half way so they watered down a lot of stuff they didn't need to. They ain't playing ball so stop using the rule book if they ain't going to. Populism is hot hot hot right now all across the planet. Left and right, racist and not, its spreading like wildfire. I'm sure things will come back to rationality eventually but right now its thunderdome. Understand that if you don't shift you'll just get dragged further to the right just like things have for the past 35 years.
That's fair; certainly, social/ religious conservatism is fading much more than fiscal conservatism is, and I'm fine with that. When it comes to your hypothetical tug-of-war of extremist sides and why it's necessary, I see what you're saying and maybe it's a practical way to go, but I can't bring myself to agree with it. That's probably why I could never be a politician lol... I'm pretty bad at bullshitting things just to fuck over people.
|
On February 10 2017 02:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:51 a_flayer wrote:On February 10 2017 02:44 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:37 a_flayer wrote:On February 10 2017 02:20 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:13 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:04 kwizach wrote:On February 10 2017 02:01 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2017 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Are you trying to troll us with this crap? It's common knowledge that literally none of that is true, so either you're absurdly misinformed, or you're not taking this seriously. The power of Facebook news I read the Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, BBC, and the Intercept every day. I've seen the attempted refutations against the allegations of Planned Parenthood, none of them checked out in the end. Alright, can you provide evidence supporting any of the allegations you raised, then? Okay here you go: https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/114/Analysis/20161230Select_Panel_Final_Report.pdfCheck out document pg. xxv (it's 27 in the PDF). Warning, 50 MB file. Chapter IV. The Criminal Referrals
The Select Investigative Panel has made numerous criminal and regulatory referrals and
investigations are underway around the nation.
1) The Panel learned that StemExpress and certain abortion clinics may have violated the HIPAA
privacy rights of vulnerable women for the sole purpose of increasing the harvesting of fetal
tissue to make money. Referred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2) The Panel uncovered evidence showing that StemExpress may have violated federal
regulations governing Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Referred to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
3) The Panel discovered that the University of New Mexico may have been violating its state’s
Anatomical Gift Act by receiving tissue from a late-term abortion clinic (Southwestern Women’s
Options). Referred to the Attorney General of New Mexico.
4 & 5) The Panel conducted a forensic accounting analysis of StemExpress’ limited production
and determined that it may have been profiting from the sale of baby body parts. Referral sent to
El Dorado, California District Attorney, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
6) The Panel discovered that an abortion clinic in Arkansas may have violated the law when it
sent tissue to StemExpress. Referred to the Attorney General of Arkansas.
7) The Panel discovered that DV Biologics, another tissue procurement company, may have been
profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, and was not collecting California sales tax from purchasers
of the baby body parts. The Orange County District Attorney has filed a lawsuit and the Panel
sent a supplemental referral.
8) The Panel learned that Advanced Bioscience Resources appeared to have made a profit when
it sold tissue to various universities. Referred to the District Attorney for Riverside County,
California.
9) The Panel discovered that an abortion clinic in Florida, at least in part through its relationship
with StemExpress, may have violated various provisions of federal and state law by profiting
from the sale of fetal tissue. Referred to the Attorney General of Florida.
xxvi
10) The Panel learned that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast may have violated both Texas law
and U.S. law when it sold fetal tissue to the University of Texas. Referred to the Texas Attorney
General.
11 & 12) The Panel has uncovered evidence from former employees and a patient of a late-term
abortionist in Texas alleging numerous violations of federal and state law at one or more of the
practitioner’s clinics. The allegations include eyewitness accounts of the doctor killing infants
who show signs of life both when partially outside the birth canal, in violation of the PartialBirth
Abortion Ban Act, and after they are completely outside the birth canal, in violation of the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and Texas murder statutes. Referred to the Texas Attorney
General, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
13) The Panel has discovered information that StemExpress may have destroyed documents that
were the subject of congressional inquiries, document request letters, and subpoenas, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1519. Referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.
14) The Panel made a supplemental referral to the Attorney General of New Mexico based on
information produced in document productions by the University of New Mexico (UNM) and
Southwestern Women’s Options (SWWO), deposition testimony by Doctor #5, and a complaint
and affidavit with supporting documents submitted by a former patient at SWWO. It details the
alleged failure of SWWO and UNM to provide informed consent to women prior to using tissue
from abortions for research at the university.
15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received
testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned
Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. §
289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S.
Department of Justice. Which of those do you think proves your fake news stories? That is just really unnecessarily annoying and nitpicky of you Kwark. It comes as no surprise to me that an organization occasionally breaks the law in various states. There is a ridiculous amount of legislation everywhere these days. I'm sure I've broken various laws over the course of my lifetime. Hell, I broke the law a couple of times while I was in the US for three months a decade or so ago. It just depends on whether you want to be critical of an organization (or person) whether or not you choose to let it bother you, and whether you have strong beliefs (you might not care that I illegally bought & smoked pot in the US, but other people might). What just happened in this thread is you guys called someone out for believing fake news, when that fake news was not actually fake, but based on an official document. This is similar to that story about "Yemen withdraws from allowing US anti-terrorism operations" that was propagated by "an official" and posted in the New York times, and then proceeded to believe it was fact before it was retracted? Sure, the NYT only referred to "the official" who claimed this was the case, but it was still spread around, and then oh so many people believe it as fact. Maybe even you did. I can already hear the "false equivalence" claims, but it comes down to the same sort of thing. I cannot imagine you don't read things from time to time where it says "may" or "an official says" and choose to believe it as fact. Especially if it suits your own narrative. I do it, everybody does it. After that, it just comes down to luck or persistence whether you see the retraction, or whether you leave with the thought that "may" is an ambiguous sort of statement in the first place (based on how much you are invested in the subject). It was fake news! Go back and read his complaints. If you've been paying attention you can literally recall the fake scandals they came from. His first one was from the graph with no axes that was put together by an extreme pro-life group and was presented out of context by Chaffetz. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/congressman-chaffetz-misleading-graph-smear-planned-parenthoodThe second one was O'Keefe's video pretending to be a pimp. He was forced to retract it and pay out $100,000. But the stink lives on long after the flatulent individual was shamed. The fact that none of it happened doesn't seem to impact his beliefs at all. The third one was the body part scandal which was also shown to just be routine reimbursements for expenses. His explanation for why that scandal never materialized with any real issues, apparently the DoJ covered it all up. We are not dealing with an informed individual here. We are dealing with facebook forwards from your right wing uncle and I refuse to dignify it. I don't know anything about the O'Keefe stuff, nor do I care the slightest bit. I'm basing my opinion regarding your treatment of this person on the document that was linked (and the very annoying highlights of words such as "may" and "appeared"). The document is quite clear that Planned Parenthood may have violated a whole slew of state laws. If you are the kind of person who would want to be critical of Planned Parenthood, then this will matter you and you have legitimate reasons to be concerned about whether or not they are wholesome enough according to your own tastes. You and I are not critical of Planned Parenthood because of the obvious good things they do, and are willing to let these things slide. The DoJ was willing to let them slide based on whatever reasonings they used, but that does not mean everybody has to do this. You might be likely to let dubious things that HRC did within the letter of the law slide, but might be far more critical of Trumps dealings that are technically within the letter of the law. It is a matter of priorities and subjective opinion. I'll talk you through this slowly. 1) A hit video was made alleging that PP did a bunch of things, notably selling baby parts. 2) An awful lot of pro-life people shared the propaganda based upon the hit videos, exaggerating it with each retelling. They got very upset. 3) Republican legislators vowed to have a thorough investigation because that's what they do. It's just like they vowed to get to the bottom of the murder of Ben Ghazi. Whenever the uninformed half of America get upset about something the party that panders hardest to them vows to get to the bottom of it. 4) They conclude that it may have happened and ask the DoJ to look into it. 5) The DoJ conclude that the allegations were false. I dismiss it as fake news because the entire scandal was built on hit videos being shared on facebook in a shitty game of telephone. I dismiss no shortage of fake news from the opposite direction too. You don't see me demanding a two year, $200,000,000 investigation into the Trump golden shower allegations, and if one did exist and then said "honestly, we don't actually know, we should let some professionals investigate this" and then the FBI said "we found no credible evidence", that'd be sufficient to me.
I'm sorry, I just don't see the connection between what may have been in the O'Keefe videos & that silly chart versus the report that was linked (beyond the idea that that's where the requests for an investigation/report sparked from). The report seemed to be about a few very specific technically illegal things that I do not care about, but "may" have some basis in reality in terms of violating various state laws. Or are you saying that the report was based on information obtained from those videos & chart, and not actual information obtained from activities of Planned Parenthood (in which case the US government is even more pathetic than I previously believed)? Also, did the DoJ genuinely conclude that the allegations in that document were demonstrably false, or did they "decide not to prosecute" for reasons as of yet unspecified? I mean I don't really care to know, but just based on what I saw in that document it really seems to me like pro-life people have some legitimate things to be concerned about (even if I do not agree).
|
On February 10 2017 03:05 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol It takes a real effort for a man who says stupid things daily to surprise me with something stupid he says. He has found a way. I didn't even know this was on the table.
Bigger war on drugs = more minorities in jail = less support for Democrats, so I'd imagine this is always on the table politically.
Although on the other hand, I wonder how the new Trump Cocaine and Trump Heroin brands are going to fair...
|
On February 10 2017 02:52 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:52 KwarK wrote:
Putting crisis social workers into PP clinics would probably be a very good use of money. If a vulnerable group of people with few other options end up there then there should be front line help available to them there. Obviously not everyone who needs an abortion is in trouble, but having a system for immediate referrals would be pretty good. Yes, that's a good idea. But like I already noted, PP would be reluctant at best to do so because it's a monetary conflict of interest.
We seem to have come full circle.
"I'm against abortion, because PP is evil incarnate"
<discussion>
"That would solve it, but won't work because PP is evil incarnate"
You're expecting us to prove a negative. We cannot actually prove that PP is not evil incarnate. It's simply not possible. All we can do is ask you for your evidence that PP is indeed evil incarnate.
Your evidence was the document from Congress' investigation that told DoJ to investigate. So far nothing happened, but who knows, maybe under Trump the DoJ will indeed investigate PP. The problem is that this whole thing was started because of the video by the "Center for Medical Progress", which has been shown to be a hack job and completely fabricated out of thin air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy
So I am inclined to believe that there was (1) nothing much wrong and (2) if there are a case or two of people at PP clinics doing bad shit, that's because they are bad people, and not because PP is evil incarnate. Until someone actually shows that wrongdoing is systematic in the PP organization (of which there is literally no evidence at all), I see nothing much wrong with PP... and thus your hatred of it seems misplaced.
|
On February 10 2017 03:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol Gotta love Manchin ( R D) handing Republicans a bipartisan confirmation vote for Sessions. Now Sessions can take his total and complete ignorance about drugs and use "the laws passed by congress" to just completely mess up what little progress we've recently made. And you already know Democrats aren't going to fight on this, at best they try to use it as a "see black and brown America, we're trying to protect you" while Manchin (who already talked about ramping up the "war on drugs" just a couple months ago) and these other "real democrats" give him bipartisan cover. Out of curiousity are you still on team "you have to earn my vote, you can't just be less bad than the other guy and tell me it's in my interests to vote for me to stop him"?
Short answer, yes. Playing this game of "vote establishment Democrat to save yourself from the Republicans" is how we ended up with these ineffectual Democrats in the first place, why Obama's administration looks like it was moving in super slo-mo compared to Trumps (despite much stronger popular support), and a lot of the other crap we're dealing with.
|
On February 10 2017 03:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol Gotta love Manchin ( R D) handing Republicans a bipartisan confirmation vote for Sessions. Now Sessions can take his total and complete ignorance about drugs and use "the laws passed by congress" to just completely mess up what little progress we've recently made. And you already know Democrats aren't going to fight on this, at best they try to use it as a "see black and brown America, we're trying to protect you" while Manchin (who already talked about ramping up the "war on drugs" just a couple months ago) and these other "real democrats" give him bipartisan cover. Out of curiousity are you still on team "you have to earn my vote, you can't just be less bad than the other guy and tell me it's in my interests to vote for me to stop him"?
To be fair, calling out Manchin for being a flaming idiot is completely justified.
Also, the minority whip is failing pretty terribly.
|
On February 10 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's more of an electability problem.
Getting the 2nd most votes in american history, and the most votes any white person has ever gotten in american history also suggests that electability was not the problem.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 10 2017 03:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's more of an electability problem. Getting the 2nd most votes in american history, and the most votes any white person has ever gotten in american history also suggests that electability was not the problem.
I'm pretty sure that whoever wins the next time around will set a world record for most votes in their favor. And the next one, and the next after that.
|
On February 10 2017 02:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 10 2017 02:18 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:08 Nevuk wrote:
Clinton is pretty consistently pro abortion. It has been like her only consistent stance ever. The democratic party as a whole isn't, though. And PP provably prevents far more than it causes. Et tu? There is no such thing as pro-abortion. Absolutely nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody thinks having an abortion is a good thing. Lots of people think being able to have an abortion is a good thing. Clinton is indeed very firmly in that camp. she's said: I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision (late term abortion) Sourcealso: Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that SourceThen shes Been on record in favor (as opposed to "open") of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother SourceThen at the debate:
This is one of the worst possible choices that any women and her family has to make and I do not believe the government should be making it
The government has no business in the decisions that women make... I will stand up for that right
sourceSo one week she supportive of government restrictions, and then another she thinks they have no business in the decision. Whatever. I don't give a rat's ass about Hillary (and why the hell do you?). I was just assuming Nevuk was right about Hillary's position being pro -choice.
Yeah, my point was that that was the only claim of LS's that I thought was incontrovertibly true - Clinton was more pro choice than the average democrat. Her waffling around the issue is just what she does.
|
On February 10 2017 03:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard. But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)? Republican craziness is dying out as it relates to Religion. Younger people are less religious and think inflicting silly rules based on a holy book on people who may be their friends is insane. So yeah that stuff will eventually die out, but the other policies remain. No taxes, no spending, no regulations, etc don't rely on any religious text at all, those stances can remain at the absolute position of zero. The anti abortion stances get weaker certainly as its by and large driven by religion, so that will get softer as people die, but there will still be some clingers on. Democrats just need to understand they're playing vs people who make up their own rules and play accordingly. It took a while for Obama to figure it out, he thought he could play nicey nice with Republicans and maybe they'd meet him half way so they watered down a lot of stuff they didn't need to. They ain't playing ball so stop using the rule book if they ain't going to. Populism is hot hot hot right now all across the planet. Left and right, racist and not, its spreading like wildfire. I'm sure things will come back to rationality eventually but right now its thunderdome. Understand that if you don't shift you'll just get dragged further to the right just like things have for the past 35 years. That's fair; certainly, social/ religious conservatism is fading much more than fiscal conservatism is, and I'm fine with that. When it comes to your hypothetical tug-of-war of extremist sides and why it's necessary, I see what you're saying and maybe it's a practical way to go, but I can't bring myself to agree with it. That's probably why I could never be a politician lol... I'm pretty bad at bullshitting things just to fuck over people.
Nor am I, but one side refuses to take a step back and look at the what the opponent is actually doing and how it's shifting the playing field. If they refuse to understand that the field is only going to tip further and further. If you're good guy Greg and you find yourself in a street fight where your opponent is totally cool with smashing your head into the concrete till you die but you only want to submit him till he taps out with zero intent to cause harm, well you're about to lose the fight of your life I'm afraid Greg. It's shitty for sure, but if the other side isn't acting in good faith or being reasonable, you continuing to do so only loses. Both sides need to be batshit crazy or both sides need to be filled with rational actors.
|
On February 10 2017 03:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's more of an electability problem. Getting the 2nd most votes in american history, and the most votes any white person has ever gotten in american history also suggests that electability was not the problem.
Wasn't it the 3rd most, after the previous 2 elections?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Has there been a lot of violence towards us police recently? I'm a little confused by that last eo...
But I might very well have missed something?
|
On February 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's more of an electability problem. Getting the 2nd most votes in american history, and the most votes any white person has ever gotten in american history also suggests that electability was not the problem. I'm pretty sure that whoever wins the next time around will set a world record for most votes in their favor. And the next one, and the next after that.
If people all vote for X then the problems with X is not electability.
|
On February 10 2017 03:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Has there been a lot of violence towards us police recently? I'm a little confused by that last eo...
But I might very well have missed something?
Conservatives on social media are complaining that too much left wing violence is hurting businesses and cops (protests)
|
On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support.
It's not a question of support, but just resistance against the other candidate. The reason she got 3 million more votes is because of Trump. I am quickly realizing, that I voted for Trump because of my disdain for HRC and the democratic platform. Maybe I rationalized my support for trump to a great extent back then because of his stance on the economy, immigration and terrorism, and let his flaws slide. Now however, as I see his loose grip with reality I realize that I only let it slide because of HRC, and if it was a more respectable individual I might have not have been so forgiving. I imagine there were many who had similar ideas. Ironically the best way to assess support for a candidate this election might actually be rally size :-)
|
On February 10 2017 03:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Has there been a lot of violence towards us police recently? I'm a little confused by that last eo...
But I might very well have missed something?
Not particularly, but Trump has been saying for months now that police are too easy on crime and that they're unfairly targeted. He usually says this as a response to when people flip out about police brutality or racism.
|
On February 10 2017 03:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Has there been a lot of violence towards us police recently? I'm a little confused by that last eo...
But I might very well have missed something?
There was a mass shooting in Dallas last year, but I'm not really sure if the average has actually gone up. The simplistuc perception is that BLM being in the news is bad for the police and lowers their support, so get rid of BLM and the police support will go back up.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 10 2017 03:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 03:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard. But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)? Republican craziness is dying out as it relates to Religion. Younger people are less religious and think inflicting silly rules based on a holy book on people who may be their friends is insane. So yeah that stuff will eventually die out, but the other policies remain. No taxes, no spending, no regulations, etc don't rely on any religious text at all, those stances can remain at the absolute position of zero. The anti abortion stances get weaker certainly as its by and large driven by religion, so that will get softer as people die, but there will still be some clingers on. Democrats just need to understand they're playing vs people who make up their own rules and play accordingly. It took a while for Obama to figure it out, he thought he could play nicey nice with Republicans and maybe they'd meet him half way so they watered down a lot of stuff they didn't need to. They ain't playing ball so stop using the rule book if they ain't going to. Populism is hot hot hot right now all across the planet. Left and right, racist and not, its spreading like wildfire. I'm sure things will come back to rationality eventually but right now its thunderdome. Understand that if you don't shift you'll just get dragged further to the right just like things have for the past 35 years. That's fair; certainly, social/ religious conservatism is fading much more than fiscal conservatism is, and I'm fine with that. When it comes to your hypothetical tug-of-war of extremist sides and why it's necessary, I see what you're saying and maybe it's a practical way to go, but I can't bring myself to agree with it. That's probably why I could never be a politician lol... I'm pretty bad at bullshitting things just to fuck over people. Nor am I, but one side refuses to take a step back and look at the what the opponent is actually doing and how it's shifting the playing field. If they refuse to understand that the field is only going to tip further and further. If you're good guy Greg and you find yourself in a street fight where your opponent is totally cool with smashing your head into the concrete till you die but you only want to submit him till he taps out with zero intent to cause harm, well you're about to lose the fight of your life I'm afraid Greg. It's shitty for sure, but if the other side isn't acting in good faith or being reasonable, you continuing to do so only loses. Both sides need to be batshit crazy or both sides need to be filled with rational actors.
Reminds me of some (repeated) prisoners dilemma competition were the winning algorithm was one that would attempt to cooperate (dove) until faced with uncooperative opponent in which case it would play hawk from there on out with occasional low % plays of dove to avoid being stuck in a loop of hawk v hawk.
Think i might have used this example already but this thread keeps reminding me of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
