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 May 16 2017 10:22 Plansix wrote: Republicans would oppose moving voting days to weekends because it would mean higher turn out.
And democrats play identity politics to get the minority vote, politics as usual
Catering to religious conservatives and people that are super into the confederate flag is just identity politics by another name. Hence the voter suppression.
So what you're saying is each party is looking out for its own interests, not for the interests of the people. Breaking news
Well one is actively trying to repress the voting rights American citizens. But if you think that is just part of the game, that's your opinion. But I think you can't bum people for calling that view a little racist.
It is part of the game, but I'm actually not convinced which is more racist, the republicans trying to suppress the black vote, or the democrats saying black people aren't capable of getting IDs. I'm not defending either, but simply stating the motives by either party are anything but pure. They are simply looking out for their own interests, the democrats found a way to call the other side racist because it is a political necessity, not out of a sense of justice in my opinion. If it just so happened that black people voted for republicans, I wouldn't be surprised if the exact opposite occured.
On May 16 2017 10:22 Plansix wrote: Republicans would oppose moving voting days to weekends because it would mean higher turn out.
And democrats play identity politics to get the minority vote, politics as usual
When a Yaley-Fratboy-Cheerleader with a NE accent learns to talk southern, put on a hat, and clear brush ... would you also consider that identity politics? See the picture below. Bush2 did identity politics better than Obama.
I'm not close minded to anything. My political values distinctly align with the political Right. When the democrats start pushing a Right-leaning agenda, then I'll consider voting for them.
So your values "distinctly align" with killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights? Because in 2017, we're way passed saying something as unnuanced as "I'm a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility". There is sooo much more to that party, and it's killing our country.
Like, excuse us Republicans, we're trying to have a society over here...
I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
He said he could never vote Democrat "for obvious reasons", and I asked him why and he said because he aligns with the political Right, and then I listed some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing and asked him if he actually aligns with those ideas, and then you came in, accusing me of dishing out Democratic talking points.
It's not partisan to point out that Republicans are actively trying to undermine the ideas I listed. They're objectively doing that by trying to replace the ACA with the AHCA, favoring charter schools over fixing public education, giving tax breaks to the rich and ignoring the middle class, and setting us back plenty on civil rights issues. All of those are facts. You accusing me of pushing these facts with the intent of pushing partisanship is only validating the idea that the Democrats are more sensible than Republicans in these areas. Your indignant "How dare you!" isnt a counterargument.
You get how these aren't exactly impartial descriptions of these situations, right? I mean I agree with your assessments ultimately, but you have to realize that those are not just facts, they're judgments based partly on your political opinions.
The educational research and data of public and charter schools don't even remotely support charter schools and the illusion of "school choice" as plausible solutions to our education system. The experts understand that, but then you have Betsy DeVos in charge instead of qualified people. It's not a casual difference of perspective or "based on my political opinions", and I think it should be repeated that one "side" is based on facts while the other "side" is not.
And on a similar note, there is plenty of data surrounding the importance of social and racial and gender equity and equality in a society, and it is absolutely not merely my political opinion that Republican leaders are finding ways to support the disenfranchisement of certain groups of people, whether it's based on voting restrictions, looking the other way when police overstep their boundaries, ignoring women's rights (not just solely an abortion issue), and treating the LGBT community like utter trash. These have long since been documented, and pointing these out is not just my political opinion.
I worry that the argument of "You have your political opinions and the other people have theirs" is an equivocation of the legitimacy that one opinion may have over the other. Not all opinions are equal or even really opinions, much like the misnomered evolution vs. creationism "debate", as if they're equally valid. (And fittingly, anti-science agendas fit neatly in the Republican domain as well, from ignoring climate change to promoting the "teach the controversy" nonsense. These are verifiable policies that some of the very socially conservative/ religious conservatives push, and calling an ignorant spade an ignorant spade might be crass but it's not automatically illegitimate.)
Where does pushing granny off a cliff factor in? Do you think Republicans hate their grandparents?
Danglars said that as a strawman to the very real problem of Republicans pushing the AHCA as a replacement of the ACA, and while the ACA isn't a perfect solution to healthcare, pretty much every medical and health organization has made statements that the AHCA would be incredibly destructive, not to mention kick millions off healthcare. Now if you want to assume that that includes grandmas, then be my guest.
It's pointing out that the language you are using is ridiculous, but now you kind of backing off after saying "it doesn't get much closer" than that. You accused someone of being closed-minded and then went on to accuse the Right of doing things like "ignoring woman's rights." Not to debate this ( abortion, again, for example) but if you think that the moral argument is closed then it seems that your political opinions go beyond "just the facts." Last time you were here it was pointed out that you seemingly don't even attempt to understand where someone else could even possibly be coming from, without attributing it to some sort of malice. That's not open-minded.
On May 16 2017 04:13 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Jesus Christ, this x1000. Given my stated positions and policy preferences, who the fuck am I supposed to vote for if not Trump? Sure as shit won't be a Democrat for obvious reasons.And which Republican should I be voting for? Most of them sucked donkey ass last time around, and I'm not holding out hope that the next crop will be much better if Trump fails.
Literally every other Republican candidate (besides Carson when he was sleepwalking) could speak in complete sentences, which is a low threshold for the President of the United States but at least disqualifies Donald Trump.
I don't understand why you're so closed-minded when it comes to politics. Why is "being a Democrat" automatic disqualification, in your opinion?
I'm not close minded to anything. My political values distinctly align with the political Right. When the democrats start pushing a Right-leaning agenda, then I'll consider voting for them.
So your values "distinctly align" with killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights? Because in 2017, we're way passed saying something as unnuanced as "I'm a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility". There is sooo much more to that party, and it's killing our country.
Like, excuse us Republicans, we're trying to have a society over here...
I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
He said he could never vote Democrat "for obvious reasons", and I asked him why and he said because he aligns with the political Right, and then I listed some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing and asked him if he actually aligns with those ideas, and then you came in, accusing me of dishing out Democratic talking points.
It's not partisan to point out that Republicans are actively trying to undermine the ideas I listed. They're objectively doing that by trying to replace the ACA with the AHCA, favoring charter schools over fixing public education, giving tax breaks to the rich and ignoring the middle class, and setting us back plenty on civil rights issues. All of those are facts. You accusing me of pushing these facts with the intent of pushing partisanship is only validating the idea that the Democrats are more sensible than Republicans in these areas. Your indignant "How dare you!" isnt a counterargument.
You get how these aren't exactly impartial descriptions of these situations, right? I mean I agree with your assessments ultimately, but you have to realize that those are not just facts, they're judgments based partly on your political opinions.
The educational research and data of public and charter schools don't even remotely support charter schools and the illusion of "school choice" as plausible solutions to our education system. The experts understand that, but then you have Betsy DeVos in charge instead of qualified people. It's not a casual difference of perspective or "based on my political opinions", and I think it should be repeated that one "side" is based on facts while the other "side" is not.
And on a similar note, there is plenty of data surrounding the importance of social and racial and gender equity and equality in a society, and it is absolutely not merely my political opinion that Republican leaders are finding ways to support the disenfranchisement of certain groups of people, whether it's based on voting restrictions, looking the other way when police overstep their boundaries, ignoring women's rights (not just solely an abortion issue), and treating the LGBT community like utter trash. These have long since been documented, and pointing these out is not just my political opinion.
I worry that the argument of "You have your political opinions and the other people have theirs" is an equivocation of the legitimacy that one opinion may have over the other. Not all opinions are equal or even really opinions, much like the misnomered evolution vs. creationism "debate", as if they're equally valid. (And fittingly, anti-science agendas fit neatly in the Republican domain as well, from ignoring climate change to promoting the "teach the controversy" nonsense. These are verifiable policies that some of the very socially conservative/ religious conservatives push, and calling an ignorant spade an ignorant spade might be crass but it's not automatically illegitimate.)
I'm not even disagreeing that the facts are on your side. But you have to understand that if you're trying to ask a conservative why they believe what they do, asking "why do you support Republicans wanting to kill healthcare" is not going to yield anything worthwhile.
Like, by every estimate I've seen, the AHCA would dramatically raise premiums for the elderly in America, to the point that many of them could not afford insurance. That's a fact. I would be interested to hear xDaunt's or Danglars' opinion on why that doesn't make the AHCA a bad idea; maybe they don't trust the estimates, or maybe they think the bill makes up for that shortcoming in other ways, or maybe they think those elderly people shouldn't necessarily be entitled to healthcare if it's too expensive and they can't afford it.
But if you come at them with "why do you want to kill healthcare" it's not going to be a fruitful discussion, because "kill healthcare" isn't a fact, it's a partisan interpretation of the facts. I get that it's quicker to write "kill healthcare" than to write "markedly increase premiums for the elderly and those with preexisting conditions such that healthcare will be prohibitively expensive in some cases." But it's even quicker to write nothing at all, and that will yield exactly as much productive discussion.
On May 16 2017 10:22 Plansix wrote: Republicans would oppose moving voting days to weekends because it would mean higher turn out.
And democrats play identity politics to get the minority vote, politics as usual
Catering to religious conservatives and people that are super into the confederate flag is just identity politics by another name. Hence the voter suppression.
So what you're saying is each party is looking out for its own interests, not for the interests of the people. Breaking news
Well one is actively trying to repress the voting rights American citizens. But if you think that is just part of the game, that's your opinion. But I think you can't bum people for calling that view a little racist.
It is part of the game, but I'm actually not convinced which is more racist, the republicans trying to suppress the black vote, or the democrats saying black people aren't capable of getting IDs. I'm not defending either, but simply stating the motives by either party are anything but pure. They are simply looking out for their own interests, the democrats found a way to call the other side racist because it is a political necessity, not out of a sense of justice in my opinion. If it just so happened that black people voted for republicans, I wouldn't be surprised if the exact opposite occured.
Until people can point to instances of Democrat-controlled swing states shutting down polling places in rural areas or closing early voting days in areas that lean R or doing documented research to suppress the vote turnout of white men, I don't think it's quite fair to think the exact opposite is happening on the other side of the fence. I mean, I don't think I've even heard that on Breitbart or Infowars.
On May 16 2017 10:22 Plansix wrote: Republicans would oppose moving voting days to weekends because it would mean higher turn out.
And democrats play identity politics to get the minority vote, politics as usual
Catering to religious conservatives and people that are super into the confederate flag is just identity politics by another name. Hence the voter suppression.
So what you're saying is each party is looking out for its own interests, not for the interests of the people. Breaking news
Well one is actively trying to repress the voting rights American citizens. But if you think that is just part of the game, that's your opinion. But I think you can't bum people for calling that view a little racist.
It is part of the game, but I'm actually not convinced which is more racist, the republicans trying to suppress the black vote, or the democrats saying black people aren't capable of getting IDs. I'm not defending either, but simply stating the motives by either party are anything but pure. They are simply looking out for their own interests, the democrats found a way to call the other side racist because it is a political necessity, not out of a sense of justice in my opinion. If it just so happened that black people voted for republicans, I wouldn't be surprised if the exact opposite occured.
The problem is that not all Republicans are racist. They are just complacent with states like NC and Wisconsin actively trying to harm democratic voters, many that happen to be black.
And long term this will not be "sides just looking out for their interest". Suppress voters enough, the find ways to speak in other ways, like riots. The GOP is playing with fire.
On May 16 2017 07:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
So your values "distinctly align" with killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights? Because in 2017, we're way passed saying something as unnuanced as "I'm a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility". There is sooo much more to that party, and it's killing our country.
Like, excuse us Republicans, we're trying to have a society over here...
I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
He said he could never vote Democrat "for obvious reasons", and I asked him why and he said because he aligns with the political Right, and then I listed some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing and asked him if he actually aligns with those ideas, and then you came in, accusing me of dishing out Democratic talking points.
It's not partisan to point out that Republicans are actively trying to undermine the ideas I listed. They're objectively doing that by trying to replace the ACA with the AHCA, favoring charter schools over fixing public education, giving tax breaks to the rich and ignoring the middle class, and setting us back plenty on civil rights issues. All of those are facts. You accusing me of pushing these facts with the intent of pushing partisanship is only validating the idea that the Democrats are more sensible than Republicans in these areas. Your indignant "How dare you!" isnt a counterargument.
You get how these aren't exactly impartial descriptions of these situations, right? I mean I agree with your assessments ultimately, but you have to realize that those are not just facts, they're judgments based partly on your political opinions.
The educational research and data of public and charter schools don't even remotely support charter schools and the illusion of "school choice" as plausible solutions to our education system. The experts understand that, but then you have Betsy DeVos in charge instead of qualified people. It's not a casual difference of perspective or "based on my political opinions", and I think it should be repeated that one "side" is based on facts while the other "side" is not.
And on a similar note, there is plenty of data surrounding the importance of social and racial and gender equity and equality in a society, and it is absolutely not merely my political opinion that Republican leaders are finding ways to support the disenfranchisement of certain groups of people, whether it's based on voting restrictions, looking the other way when police overstep their boundaries, ignoring women's rights (not just solely an abortion issue), and treating the LGBT community like utter trash. These have long since been documented, and pointing these out is not just my political opinion.
I worry that the argument of "You have your political opinions and the other people have theirs" is an equivocation of the legitimacy that one opinion may have over the other. Not all opinions are equal or even really opinions, much like the misnomered evolution vs. creationism "debate", as if they're equally valid. (And fittingly, anti-science agendas fit neatly in the Republican domain as well, from ignoring climate change to promoting the "teach the controversy" nonsense. These are verifiable policies that some of the very socially conservative/ religious conservatives push, and calling an ignorant spade an ignorant spade might be crass but it's not automatically illegitimate.)
Where does pushing granny off a cliff factor in? Do you think Republicans hate their grandparents?
Danglars said that as a strawman to the very real problem of Republicans pushing the AHCA as a replacement of the ACA, and while the ACA isn't a perfect solution to healthcare, pretty much every medical and health organization has made statements that the AHCA would be incredibly destructive, not to mention kick millions off healthcare. Now if you want to assume that that includes grandmas, then be my guest.
It's pointing out that the language you are using is ridiculous, but now you kind of backing off after saying "it doesn't get much closer" than that. You accused someone of being closed-minded and then went on to accuse the Right of doing things like "ignoring woman's rights." Not to debate this ( abortion, again, for example) but if you think that the moral argument is closed then it seems that your political opinions go beyond "just the facts." Last time you were here it was pointed out that you seemingly don't even attempt to understand where someone else could even possibly be coming from, without attributing it to some sort of malice. That's not open-minded.
Again, I think that's a defensible statement. In the same way that I gave examples to each of the previous accusations I made (push for AHCA which the experts disagree with (i.e., Republicans aren't listening), push for charter schools with the experts disagree with (i.e., Republicans aren't listening), my examples of Republicans disenfranchising groups of people, etc.) I think that by now it's pretty well-established that Republicans have not exactly been helpful towards women and feminism (small "f", the idea of gender or sexuality equality/ equity/ fairness in society). I mean, our president- the leader of the Republican party- brags about sexually harassing women, leering at teenage girls, and objectifying everything in heels, and that's supposed to portray an ally of women?
And then if you want to move away from the social reinforcements and move into women's health, you have the absolute bullshit that Republicans pull to try and defund the entirety of Planned Parenthood over the absolute strawman "argument" of abortions. And we know that argument is crap, because we can see where PP's funding goes and how PP does so much more for women's health than just abortions. And how do Republicans respond? They promote fake propaganda videos about selling baby parts and then you have Jason Chaffetz pull shit like this:
This chart is nonsense and is used by Republicans to try and argue against PP: + Show Spoiler +
So no, they're not promoting women's rights. And that's a statement that I think is well-defended. My anger over these things doesn't invalidate the actual facts that support those statements.
On May 16 2017 08:12 Danglars wrote: [quote] I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
He said he could never vote Democrat "for obvious reasons", and I asked him why and he said because he aligns with the political Right, and then I listed some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing and asked him if he actually aligns with those ideas, and then you came in, accusing me of dishing out Democratic talking points.
It's not partisan to point out that Republicans are actively trying to undermine the ideas I listed. They're objectively doing that by trying to replace the ACA with the AHCA, favoring charter schools over fixing public education, giving tax breaks to the rich and ignoring the middle class, and setting us back plenty on civil rights issues. All of those are facts. You accusing me of pushing these facts with the intent of pushing partisanship is only validating the idea that the Democrats are more sensible than Republicans in these areas. Your indignant "How dare you!" isnt a counterargument.
You get how these aren't exactly impartial descriptions of these situations, right? I mean I agree with your assessments ultimately, but you have to realize that those are not just facts, they're judgments based partly on your political opinions.
The educational research and data of public and charter schools don't even remotely support charter schools and the illusion of "school choice" as plausible solutions to our education system. The experts understand that, but then you have Betsy DeVos in charge instead of qualified people. It's not a casual difference of perspective or "based on my political opinions", and I think it should be repeated that one "side" is based on facts while the other "side" is not.
And on a similar note, there is plenty of data surrounding the importance of social and racial and gender equity and equality in a society, and it is absolutely not merely my political opinion that Republican leaders are finding ways to support the disenfranchisement of certain groups of people, whether it's based on voting restrictions, looking the other way when police overstep their boundaries, ignoring women's rights (not just solely an abortion issue), and treating the LGBT community like utter trash. These have long since been documented, and pointing these out is not just my political opinion.
I worry that the argument of "You have your political opinions and the other people have theirs" is an equivocation of the legitimacy that one opinion may have over the other. Not all opinions are equal or even really opinions, much like the misnomered evolution vs. creationism "debate", as if they're equally valid. (And fittingly, anti-science agendas fit neatly in the Republican domain as well, from ignoring climate change to promoting the "teach the controversy" nonsense. These are verifiable policies that some of the very socially conservative/ religious conservatives push, and calling an ignorant spade an ignorant spade might be crass but it's not automatically illegitimate.)
Where does pushing granny off a cliff factor in? Do you think Republicans hate their grandparents?
Danglars said that as a strawman to the very real problem of Republicans pushing the AHCA as a replacement of the ACA, and while the ACA isn't a perfect solution to healthcare, pretty much every medical and health organization has made statements that the AHCA would be incredibly destructive, not to mention kick millions off healthcare. Now if you want to assume that that includes grandmas, then be my guest.
It's pointing out that the language you are using is ridiculous, but now you kind of backing off after saying "it doesn't get much closer" than that. You accused someone of being closed-minded and then went on to accuse the Right of doing things like "ignoring woman's rights." Not to debate this ( abortion, again, for example) but if you think that the moral argument is closed then it seems that your political opinions go beyond "just the facts." Last time you were here it was pointed out that you seemingly don't even attempt to understand where someone else could even possibly be coming from, without attributing it to some sort of malice. That's not open-minded.
Again, I think that's a defensible statement. In the same way that I gave examples to each of the previous accusations I made (push for AHCA which the experts disagree with (i.e., Republicans aren't listening), push for charter schools with the experts disagree with (i.e., Republicans aren't listening), my examples of Republicans disenfranchising groups of people, etc.) I think that by now it's pretty well-established that Republicans have not exactly been helpful towards women and feminism (small "f", the idea of gender or sexuality equality/ equity/ fairness in society). I mean, our president- the leader of the Republican party- brags about sexually harassing women, leering at teenage girls, and objectifying everything in heels, and that's supposed to portray an ally of women?
And then if you want to move away from the social reinforcements and move into women's health, you have the absolute bullshit that Republicans pull to try and defund the entirety of Planned Parenthood over the absolute strawman "argument" of abortions. And we know that argument is crap, because we can see where PP's funding goes and how PP does so much more for women's health than just abortions. And how do Republicans respond? They promote fake propaganda videos about selling baby parts and then you have Jason Chaffetz pull shit like this:
So no, they're not promoting women's rights. And that's a statement that I think is well-defended. My anger over these things doesn't invalidate the actual facts that support those statements.
You should probably put the misleading chart in spoilers just so people dont get confused when they first see it. People who know the chart obviously know why its misleading nonsense (look at the actual numbers on the chart for instance and not the line) but people who look at pictures first are going to get the wrong idea.
On May 16 2017 06:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Literally every other Republican candidate (besides Carson when he was sleepwalking) could speak in complete sentences, which is a low threshold for the President of the United States but at least disqualifies Donald Trump.
I don't understand why you're so closed-minded when it comes to politics. Why is "being a Democrat" automatic disqualification, in your opinion?
I'm not close minded to anything. My political values distinctly align with the political Right. When the democrats start pushing a Right-leaning agenda, then I'll consider voting for them.
So your values "distinctly align" with killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights? Because in 2017, we're way passed saying something as unnuanced as "I'm a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility". There is sooo much more to that party, and it's killing our country.
Like, excuse us Republicans, we're trying to have a society over here...
I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
He said he could never vote Democrat "for obvious reasons", and I asked him why and he said because he aligns with the political Right, and then I listed some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing and asked him if he actually aligns with those ideas, and then you came in, accusing me of dishing out Democratic talking points.
It's not partisan to point out that Republicans are actively trying to undermine the ideas I listed. They're objectively doing that by trying to replace the ACA with the AHCA, favoring charter schools over fixing public education, giving tax breaks to the rich and ignoring the middle class, and setting us back plenty on civil rights issues. All of those are facts. You accusing me of pushing these facts with the intent of pushing partisanship is only validating the idea that the Democrats are more sensible than Republicans in these areas. Your indignant "How dare you!" isnt a counterargument.
You get how these aren't exactly impartial descriptions of these situations, right? I mean I agree with your assessments ultimately, but you have to realize that those are not just facts, they're judgments based partly on your political opinions.
The educational research and data of public and charter schools don't even remotely support charter schools and the illusion of "school choice" as plausible solutions to our education system. The experts understand that, but then you have Betsy DeVos in charge instead of qualified people. It's not a casual difference of perspective or "based on my political opinions", and I think it should be repeated that one "side" is based on facts while the other "side" is not.
And on a similar note, there is plenty of data surrounding the importance of social and racial and gender equity and equality in a society, and it is absolutely not merely my political opinion that Republican leaders are finding ways to support the disenfranchisement of certain groups of people, whether it's based on voting restrictions, looking the other way when police overstep their boundaries, ignoring women's rights (not just solely an abortion issue), and treating the LGBT community like utter trash. These have long since been documented, and pointing these out is not just my political opinion.
I worry that the argument of "You have your political opinions and the other people have theirs" is an equivocation of the legitimacy that one opinion may have over the other. Not all opinions are equal or even really opinions, much like the misnomered evolution vs. creationism "debate", as if they're equally valid. (And fittingly, anti-science agendas fit neatly in the Republican domain as well, from ignoring climate change to promoting the "teach the controversy" nonsense. These are verifiable policies that some of the very socially conservative/ religious conservatives push, and calling an ignorant spade an ignorant spade might be crass but it's not automatically illegitimate.)
I'm not even disagreeing that the facts are on your side. But you have to understand that if you're trying to ask a conservative why they believe what they do, asking "why do you support Republicans wanting to kill healthcare" is not going to yield anything worthwhile.
Like, by every estimate I've seen, the AHCA would dramatically raise premiums for the elderly in America, to the point that many of them could not afford insurance. That's a fact. I would be interested to hear xDaunt's or Danglars' opinion on why that doesn't make the AHCA a bad idea; maybe they don't trust the estimates, or maybe they think the bill makes up for that shortcoming in other ways, or maybe they think those elderly people shouldn't necessarily be entitled to healthcare if it's too expensive and they can't afford it.
But if you come at them with "why do you want to kill healthcare" it's not going to be a fruitful discussion, because "kill healthcare" isn't a fact, it's a partisan interpretation of the facts. I get that it's quicker to write "kill healthcare" than to write "markedly increase premiums for the elderly and those with preexisting conditions such that healthcare will be prohibitively expensive in some cases." But it's even quicker to write nothing at all, and that will yield exactly as much productive discussion.
That's fair, although I've done the attempts at nice and gentle dialogue for a much longer time and it doesn't get anywhere either; and bipartisanship or trying to work together is what Democrats get screwed on all the time. The Republican party may be wrong about most things, but they generally band together and aren't pussies like many of the Democrats, which is why Republicans keep getting their way. I frequently wonder just how long Democrats are going to try and take the high road as they keep losing, or if they'll eventually get loud and angry and try to play the game the way the Republicans play it... because it works for the Republicans.
On May 16 2017 08:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
He said he could never vote Democrat "for obvious reasons", and I asked him why and he said because he aligns with the political Right, and then I listed some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing and asked him if he actually aligns with those ideas, and then you came in, accusing me of dishing out Democratic talking points.
It's not partisan to point out that Republicans are actively trying to undermine the ideas I listed. They're objectively doing that by trying to replace the ACA with the AHCA, favoring charter schools over fixing public education, giving tax breaks to the rich and ignoring the middle class, and setting us back plenty on civil rights issues. All of those are facts. You accusing me of pushing these facts with the intent of pushing partisanship is only validating the idea that the Democrats are more sensible than Republicans in these areas. Your indignant "How dare you!" isnt a counterargument.
You get how these aren't exactly impartial descriptions of these situations, right? I mean I agree with your assessments ultimately, but you have to realize that those are not just facts, they're judgments based partly on your political opinions.
The educational research and data of public and charter schools don't even remotely support charter schools and the illusion of "school choice" as plausible solutions to our education system. The experts understand that, but then you have Betsy DeVos in charge instead of qualified people. It's not a casual difference of perspective or "based on my political opinions", and I think it should be repeated that one "side" is based on facts while the other "side" is not.
And on a similar note, there is plenty of data surrounding the importance of social and racial and gender equity and equality in a society, and it is absolutely not merely my political opinion that Republican leaders are finding ways to support the disenfranchisement of certain groups of people, whether it's based on voting restrictions, looking the other way when police overstep their boundaries, ignoring women's rights (not just solely an abortion issue), and treating the LGBT community like utter trash. These have long since been documented, and pointing these out is not just my political opinion.
I worry that the argument of "You have your political opinions and the other people have theirs" is an equivocation of the legitimacy that one opinion may have over the other. Not all opinions are equal or even really opinions, much like the misnomered evolution vs. creationism "debate", as if they're equally valid. (And fittingly, anti-science agendas fit neatly in the Republican domain as well, from ignoring climate change to promoting the "teach the controversy" nonsense. These are verifiable policies that some of the very socially conservative/ religious conservatives push, and calling an ignorant spade an ignorant spade might be crass but it's not automatically illegitimate.)
Where does pushing granny off a cliff factor in? Do you think Republicans hate their grandparents?
Danglars said that as a strawman to the very real problem of Republicans pushing the AHCA as a replacement of the ACA, and while the ACA isn't a perfect solution to healthcare, pretty much every medical and health organization has made statements that the AHCA would be incredibly destructive, not to mention kick millions off healthcare. Now if you want to assume that that includes grandmas, then be my guest.
It's pointing out that the language you are using is ridiculous, but now you kind of backing off after saying "it doesn't get much closer" than that. You accused someone of being closed-minded and then went on to accuse the Right of doing things like "ignoring woman's rights." Not to debate this ( abortion, again, for example) but if you think that the moral argument is closed then it seems that your political opinions go beyond "just the facts." Last time you were here it was pointed out that you seemingly don't even attempt to understand where someone else could even possibly be coming from, without attributing it to some sort of malice. That's not open-minded.
Again, I think that's a defensible statement. In the same way that I gave examples to each of the previous accusations I made (push for AHCA which the experts disagree with (i.e., Republicans aren't listening), push for charter schools with the experts disagree with (i.e., Republicans aren't listening), my examples of Republicans disenfranchising groups of people, etc.) I think that by now it's pretty well-established that Republicans have not exactly been helpful towards women and feminism (small "f", the idea of gender or sexuality equality/ equity/ fairness in society). I mean, our president- the leader of the Republican party- brags about sexually harassing women, leering at teenage girls, and objectifying everything in heels, and that's supposed to portray an ally of women?
And then if you want to move away from the social reinforcements and move into women's health, you have the absolute bullshit that Republicans pull to try and defund the entirety of Planned Parenthood over the absolute strawman "argument" of abortions. And we know that argument is crap, because we can see where PP's funding goes and how PP does so much more for women's health than just abortions. And how do Republicans respond? They promote fake propaganda videos about selling baby parts and then you have Jason Chaffetz pull shit like this:
So no, they're not promoting women's rights. And that's a statement that I think is well-defended. My anger over these things doesn't invalidate the actual facts that support those statements.
You should probably put the misleading chart in spoilers just so people dont get confused when they first see it. People who know the chart obviously know why its misleading nonsense (look at the actual numbers on the chart for instance and not the line) but people who look at pictures first are going to get the wrong idea.
Good point; I edited my post, even though obviously reading what I wrote or looking at the video preceding it makes it pretty easy to understand, even without knowing the background information.
Wouldn't be the first time this week Trump fucked over Israel.
Netanyahu denies privately urging Trump not to move embassy to JerusalemFox News reporter tweets ‘everyone’ in DC says PM told president not to do it; PM’s office calls report a ‘lie,’ releases minutes from White House talks
On May 16 2017 02:27 Velr wrote: If you voted trump and still would, yes, your the very definition of stupid partisanship.
I can get behind plenty of conservative (not religious conservative) positions because i deal with hardcore conservatives everyday (which tend to be a bit more religious here too). I don't agree with them but i see where they are comming from and thanks to my job i see the stupidity of the left daily.
The thing is: If you now still stand behind trump, you better get paid by him or your just dillusional and want your country to go down.
Ffs "not voting for someone like trump" is actually the best argument "the establishment" had against the hard right since... i don't know, i'm 34 and don't remember such a shitshow in any modern/firstworld country. Berlusconi looked better than Trump when he was at his worst.
Which is why I have to keep bringing it up. Because people don't believe there were actually two choices at play, and there's compelling arguments for repeating that vote for Trump. Oh, and by the way, this continually blasting of Trump's mistakes while recognizing none of the background arguments is called nonpartisanship or something by the left and it's frankly drop-dead hilarious. "He's objectively ..." mmhmm I'll listen in when hardcore alt-Left and regressive-Left persons make conservative positions not look unideological. You'll have to take off the horse blinders while staring gape-mouthed at Trump for maybe a couple weeks to notice the media, DNC, and leftist cultural warriors are all complicit.
Now let's all repeat together that Trump is awful and all his supporters are "delusional and want your country to go down." Because that's how you show you're above "the very definition of stupid partisanship."
Jesus Christ, this x1000. Given my stated positions and policy preferences, who the fuck am I supposed to vote for if not Trump? Sure as shit won't be a Democrat for obvious reasons.And which Republican should I be voting for? Most of them sucked donkey ass last time around, and I'm not holding out hope that the next crop will be much better if Trump fails.
Literally every other Republican candidate (besides Carson when he was sleepwalking) could speak in complete sentences, which is a low threshold for the President of the United States but at least disqualifies Donald Trump.
I don't understand why you're so closed-minded when it comes to politics. Why is "being a Democrat" automatic disqualification, in your opinion?
I'm not close minded to anything. My political values distinctly align with the political Right. When the democrats start pushing a Right-leaning agenda, then I'll consider voting for them.
So your values "distinctly align" with killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights? Because in 2017, we're way passed saying something as unnuanced as "I'm a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility". There is sooo much more to that party, and it's killing our country.
Like, excuse us Republicans, we're trying to have a society over here...
I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
He said he could never vote Democrat "for obvious reasons", and I asked him why and he said because he aligns with the political Right, and then I listed some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing and asked him if he actually aligns with those ideas, and then you came in, accusing me of dishing out Democratic talking points.
It's not partisan to point out that Republicans are actively trying to undermine the ideas I listed. They're objectively doing that by trying to replace the ACA with the AHCA, favoring charter schools over fixing public education, giving tax breaks to the rich and ignoring the middle class, and setting us back plenty on civil rights issues. All of those are facts. You accusing me of pushing these facts with the intent of pushing partisanship is only validating the idea that the Democrats are more sensible than Republicans in these areas. Your indignant "How dare you!" isn't a counterargument.
When I brought out how you characterized political beliefs as " killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights" and called it disingenuous, I wasn't seriously expecting you to claim they're "some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing." But now that I know that's as far as you're willing to go about examining what others believe, I know some very useful information in future engagements I have with you. I thank you for your honesty.
On May 16 2017 10:22 Plansix wrote: Republicans would oppose moving voting days to weekends because it would mean higher turn out.
And democrats play identity politics to get the minority vote, politics as usual
When a Yaley-Fratboy-Cheerleader with a NE accent learns to talk southern, put on a hat, and clear brush ... would you also consider that identity politics? See the picture below. Bush2 did identity politics better than Obama.
Do you know how much time bush2 spent in Texas and then owned the Rangers for a few years? People can pick up local customs and not be a carpet bagger. See obama moving from Indonesia/Hawaii to chicago.
On May 16 2017 06:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Literally every other Republican candidate (besides Carson when he was sleepwalking) could speak in complete sentences, which is a low threshold for the President of the United States but at least disqualifies Donald Trump.
I don't understand why you're so closed-minded when it comes to politics. Why is "being a Democrat" automatic disqualification, in your opinion?
I'm not close minded to anything. My political values distinctly align with the political Right. When the democrats start pushing a Right-leaning agenda, then I'll consider voting for them.
So your values "distinctly align" with killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights? Because in 2017, we're way passed saying something as unnuanced as "I'm a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility". There is sooo much more to that party, and it's killing our country.
Like, excuse us Republicans, we're trying to have a society over here...
I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
He said he could never vote Democrat "for obvious reasons", and I asked him why and he said because he aligns with the political Right, and then I listed some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing and asked him if he actually aligns with those ideas, and then you came in, accusing me of dishing out Democratic talking points.
It's not partisan to point out that Republicans are actively trying to undermine the ideas I listed. They're objectively doing that by trying to replace the ACA with the AHCA, favoring charter schools over fixing public education, giving tax breaks to the rich and ignoring the middle class, and setting us back plenty on civil rights issues. All of those are facts. You accusing me of pushing these facts with the intent of pushing partisanship is only validating the idea that the Democrats are more sensible than Republicans in these areas. Your indignant "How dare you!" isnt a counterargument.
You get how these aren't exactly impartial descriptions of these situations, right? I mean I agree with your assessments ultimately, but you have to realize that those are not just facts, they're judgments based partly on your political opinions.
The educational research and data of public and charter schools don't even remotely support charter schools and the illusion of "school choice" as plausible solutions to our education system. The experts understand that, but then you have Betsy DeVos in charge instead of qualified people. It's not a casual difference of perspective or "based on my political opinions", and I think it should be repeated that one "side" is based on facts while the other "side" is not.
And on a similar note, there is plenty of data surrounding the importance of social and racial and gender equity and equality in a society, and it is absolutely not merely my political opinion that Republican leaders are finding ways to support the disenfranchisement of certain groups of people, whether it's based on voting restrictions, looking the other way when police overstep their boundaries, ignoring women's rights (not just solely an abortion issue), and treating the LGBT community like utter trash. These have long since been documented, and pointing these out is not just my political opinion.
I worry that the argument of "You have your political opinions and the other people have theirs" is an equivocation of the legitimacy that one opinion may have over the other. Not all opinions are equal or even really opinions, much like the misnomered evolution vs. creationism "debate", as if they're equally valid. (And fittingly, anti-science agendas fit neatly in the Republican domain as well, from ignoring climate change to promoting the "teach the controversy" nonsense. These are verifiable policies that some of the very socially conservative/ religious conservatives push, and calling an ignorant spade an ignorant spade might be crass but it's not automatically illegitimate.)
I'm not even disagreeing that the facts are on your side. But you have to understand that if you're trying to ask a conservative why they believe what they do, asking "why do you support Republicans wanting to kill healthcare" is not going to yield anything worthwhile.
Like, by every estimate I've seen, the AHCA would dramatically raise premiums for the elderly in America, to the point that many of them could not afford insurance. That's a fact. I would be interested to hear xDaunt's or Danglars' opinion on why that doesn't make the AHCA a bad idea; maybe they don't trust the estimates, or maybe they think the bill makes up for that shortcoming in other ways, or maybe they think those elderly people shouldn't necessarily be entitled to healthcare if it's too expensive and they can't afford it.
But if you come at them with "why do you want to kill healthcare" it's not going to be a fruitful discussion, because "kill healthcare" isn't a fact, it's a partisan interpretation of the facts. I get that it's quicker to write "kill healthcare" than to write "markedly increase premiums for the elderly and those with preexisting conditions such that healthcare will be prohibitively expensive in some cases." But it's even quicker to write nothing at all, and that will yield exactly as much productive discussion.
Well put. Giving those with whom you disagree a political benefit of a doubt, viewing them as misguided or with different yet resonable priorities instead of straight up evil is a difficult thing.
On May 16 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote: [quote] Which is why I have to keep bringing it up. Because people don't believe there were actually two choices at play, and there's compelling arguments for repeating that vote for Trump. Oh, and by the way, this continually blasting of Trump's mistakes while recognizing none of the background arguments is called nonpartisanship or something by the left and it's frankly drop-dead hilarious. "He's objectively ..." mmhmm I'll listen in when hardcore alt-Left and regressive-Left persons make conservative positions not look unideological. You'll have to take off the horse blinders while staring gape-mouthed at Trump for maybe a couple weeks to notice the media, DNC, and leftist cultural warriors are all complicit.
Now let's all repeat together that Trump is awful and all his supporters are "delusional and want your country to go down." Because that's how you show you're above "the very definition of stupid partisanship."
Jesus Christ, this x1000. Given my stated positions and policy preferences, who the fuck am I supposed to vote for if not Trump? Sure as shit won't be a Democrat for obvious reasons.And which Republican should I be voting for? Most of them sucked donkey ass last time around, and I'm not holding out hope that the next crop will be much better if Trump fails.
Literally every other Republican candidate (besides Carson when he was sleepwalking) could speak in complete sentences, which is a low threshold for the President of the United States but at least disqualifies Donald Trump.
I don't understand why you're so closed-minded when it comes to politics. Why is "being a Democrat" automatic disqualification, in your opinion?
I'm not close minded to anything. My political values distinctly align with the political Right. When the democrats start pushing a Right-leaning agenda, then I'll consider voting for them.
So your values "distinctly align" with killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights? Because in 2017, we're way passed saying something as unnuanced as "I'm a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility". There is sooo much more to that party, and it's killing our country.
Like, excuse us Republicans, we're trying to have a society over here...
I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
He said he could never vote Democrat "for obvious reasons", and I asked him why and he said because he aligns with the political Right, and then I listed some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing and asked him if he actually aligns with those ideas, and then you came in, accusing me of dishing out Democratic talking points.
It's not partisan to point out that Republicans are actively trying to undermine the ideas I listed. They're objectively doing that by trying to replace the ACA with the AHCA, favoring charter schools over fixing public education, giving tax breaks to the rich and ignoring the middle class, and setting us back plenty on civil rights issues. All of those are facts. You accusing me of pushing these facts with the intent of pushing partisanship is only validating the idea that the Democrats are more sensible than Republicans in these areas. Your indignant "How dare you!" isn't a counterargument.
When I brought out how you characterized political beliefs as " killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights" and called it disingenuous, I wasn't seriously expecting you to claim they're "some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing." But now that I know that's as far as you're willing to go about examining what others believe, I know some very useful information in future engagements I have with you. I thank you for your honesty.
Well I hope that you don't just cherry pick one or two statements I made while ignoring all of the evidence I presented to defend those claims (to which, for the record, you haven't denied or presented research to counter those claims). For example, surely if the AHCA had a legitimate leg to stand on, it wouldn't be hard to find most experts in support of the change from the ACA. That's not the case though, and you're very quick to keep responding with the "You have some nerve making those claims" that are actually justifiable. Facts speak a lot louder to me than just trying to shame me.
On May 16 2017 08:12 Danglars wrote: [quote] I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
He said he could never vote Democrat "for obvious reasons", and I asked him why and he said because he aligns with the political Right, and then I listed some very real platforms that the Republican Party has been pushing and asked him if he actually aligns with those ideas, and then you came in, accusing me of dishing out Democratic talking points.
It's not partisan to point out that Republicans are actively trying to undermine the ideas I listed. They're objectively doing that by trying to replace the ACA with the AHCA, favoring charter schools over fixing public education, giving tax breaks to the rich and ignoring the middle class, and setting us back plenty on civil rights issues. All of those are facts. You accusing me of pushing these facts with the intent of pushing partisanship is only validating the idea that the Democrats are more sensible than Republicans in these areas. Your indignant "How dare you!" isnt a counterargument.
You get how these aren't exactly impartial descriptions of these situations, right? I mean I agree with your assessments ultimately, but you have to realize that those are not just facts, they're judgments based partly on your political opinions.
The educational research and data of public and charter schools don't even remotely support charter schools and the illusion of "school choice" as plausible solutions to our education system. The experts understand that, but then you have Betsy DeVos in charge instead of qualified people. It's not a casual difference of perspective or "based on my political opinions", and I think it should be repeated that one "side" is based on facts while the other "side" is not.
And on a similar note, there is plenty of data surrounding the importance of social and racial and gender equity and equality in a society, and it is absolutely not merely my political opinion that Republican leaders are finding ways to support the disenfranchisement of certain groups of people, whether it's based on voting restrictions, looking the other way when police overstep their boundaries, ignoring women's rights (not just solely an abortion issue), and treating the LGBT community like utter trash. These have long since been documented, and pointing these out is not just my political opinion.
I worry that the argument of "You have your political opinions and the other people have theirs" is an equivocation of the legitimacy that one opinion may have over the other. Not all opinions are equal or even really opinions, much like the misnomered evolution vs. creationism "debate", as if they're equally valid. (And fittingly, anti-science agendas fit neatly in the Republican domain as well, from ignoring climate change to promoting the "teach the controversy" nonsense. These are verifiable policies that some of the very socially conservative/ religious conservatives push, and calling an ignorant spade an ignorant spade might be crass but it's not automatically illegitimate.)
Where does pushing granny off a cliff factor in? Do you think Republicans hate their grandparents?
Danglars said that as a strawman to the very real problem of Republicans pushing the AHCA as a replacement of the ACA, and while the ACA isn't a perfect solution to healthcare, pretty much every medical and health organization has made statements that the AHCA would be incredibly destructive, not to mention kick millions off healthcare. Now if you want to assume that that includes grandmas, then be my guest.
It's pointing out that the language you are using is ridiculous, but now you kind of backing off after saying "it doesn't get much closer" than that. You accused someone of being closed-minded and then went on to accuse the Right of doing things like "ignoring woman's rights." Not to debate this ( abortion, again, for example) but if you think that the moral argument is closed then it seems that your political opinions go beyond "just the facts." Last time you were here it was pointed out that you seemingly don't even attempt to understand where someone else could even possibly be coming from, without attributing it to some sort of malice. That's not open-minded.
Again, I think that's a defensible statement. In the same way that I gave examples to each of the previous accusations I made (push for AHCA which the experts disagree with (i.e., Republicans aren't listening), push for charter schools with the experts disagree with (i.e., Republicans aren't listening), my examples of Republicans disenfranchising groups of people, etc.) I think that by now it's pretty well-established that Republicans have not exactly been helpful towards women and feminism (small "f", the idea of gender or sexuality equality/ equity/ fairness in society). I mean, our president- the leader of the Republican party- brags about sexually harassing women, leering at teenage girls, and objectifying everything in heels, and that's supposed to portray an ally of women?
And then if you want to move away from the social reinforcements and move into women's health, you have the absolute bullshit that Republicans pull to try and defund the entirety of Planned Parenthood over the absolute strawman "argument" of abortions. And we know that argument is crap, because we can see where PP's funding goes and how PP does so much more for women's health than just abortions. And how do Republicans respond? They promote fake propaganda videos about selling baby parts and then you have Jason Chaffetz pull shit like this:
This chart is nonsense and is used by Republicans to try and argue against PP: + Show Spoiler +
So no, they're not promoting women's rights. And that's a statement that I think is well-defended. My anger over these things doesn't invalidate the actual facts that support those statements.
I don't know that you responded to my post but either way it proves the point.
EPT![[image loading]](http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DEY575/us-president-george-w-bush-drives-his-pickup-truck-wearing-a-cowboy-DEY575.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4Bda4Nq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K7aSmtj.png)
