EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8390
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On August 14 2017 03:22 farvacola wrote: Look at that folks, the full-on inversion of moral relativism is on full display via Kickboxers post. Traditionally a leftist idea given its thrust towards understanding other cultures on terms native to the culture at hand, this strategy of equivocation proves equally useful to the "family values" soldier who wants to suggest that all kinds of violence are the same when attempting to answer for the violence acts of a comrade. How this interacts with literally any of the facts underpinning the West's violent path towards world supremacy remains to be seen. Or used to write off any legitimate criticisms of Islam. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 14 2017 02:59 Kickboxer wrote: Is there a scenario where America is quietly on the verge of civil war? There are guns on both sides, both sides have some incredibly dark and twisted fringe groups sprinkled within them, dialogue is, absolutely, at an all time low, a mass of conspiracy theories are floating in the air ready to crash & cash in on the paranoia in case of a major debacle. What if there's a rally violent enough to warrant the involvement of the guard? And then Trumpo does it, and the deep state people go full retard mode and mobilize the militias and... people have talked about the spectre of it; I don't think it's there yet; it'd have to be quite a bit worse to get to civil war point; another major issue is what the sides would be and command/control issues. to have a civil war you need to have some major forces on both sides; which means you need a command structure which the forces will recognize. too many of the current splits aren't just across states, but within states; and I do'nt think most states would be willing to take sides against other states anyways. There couuld be a lot of violent unrest though; iirc what we have now is still far milder than it was ni the 1960's. The national guard iirc is often called out by the state governors rather than the President. if a situation is bad enough to warrant calling in the guard, I think it won't cause too mcuh trouble to do so. i'm not sure what you think the deep state people would do, that doesn't seem to make much sense, not sure where your ... is leading. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
On August 14 2017 03:26 Mohdoo wrote: Or used to write off any legitimate criticisms of Islam. While I would maintain that most of the "good" criticisms of Islam come from Muslims, the likes of which I don't see written off very often at all, yes, one could say that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I'm a good 85% that the quote is from JFK. But the quote sums up my feelings on the people's effort to act like a neutral observer. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On August 14 2017 03:39 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/896441648175095808 I'm a good 85% that the quote is from JFK. But the quote sums up my feelings on the people's effort to act like a neutral observer. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so cringey to read the justification. "Whoa guys, settle down. It's just that I'm so logical and neutral that I am not having my views obscured by personal bias. Can't you guys just calm down and recognize how black and white perspectives can be applied to any situation?" | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On August 14 2017 00:39 warding wrote: Trump's down to 37% approval rating. If he starts pissing off part of his base his numbers will go down even further. What I'm suggesting is that this might be precisely what's to be expected from regular politicians - not everything is necessary a case of Trump being extraordinarily deplorable. I keep seeing people talk about this, I'm just curious, are the people who say stuff like this aware that 37% approval is better than he had when he won the presidency, or has the piss poor reporting led folks to believe it's actually lower than what got him elected? On August 14 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote: It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so cringey to read the justification. "Whoa guys, settle down. It's just that I'm so logical and neutral that I am not having my views obscured by personal bias. Can't you guys just calm down and recognize how black and white perspectives can be applied to any situation?" I've never seen that quote attributed to JFK, MLK jr. yes, but not JFK (whatever...). I also like Desmond Tutu's quote on "neutrality" "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43805 Posts
On August 14 2017 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote: I keep seeing people talk about this, I'm just curious, are the people who say stuff like this aware that 37% approval is better than he had when he won the presidency, or has the piss poor reporting led folks to believe it's actually lower than what got him elected? I think most of the time, that approval rating is compared to the ratings of previous presidents at the same point in their presidency. So after 1 month, 2 months, 6 months, how does Trump's approval rating compare to Obama's or GWB's after the same length of time in their respective presidencies... things like that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On August 14 2017 04:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think most of the time, that approval rating is compared to the ratings of previous presidents at the same point in their presidency. So after 1 month, 2 months, 6 months, how does Trump's approval rating compare to Obama's or GWB's after the same length of time in their respective presidencies... things like that. Which is deceptive and rather useless when one remembers he had a record breakingly low approval rating when he got elected in the first place, and is still above it. EDIT: I haven't checked the polls recently (if there have been any) but I'm pretty sure he still has a higher favorable (and unfavorable) than anyone Democrats want to run in 2020 (except maybe Hillary). | ||
KwarK
United States42005 Posts
On August 14 2017 04:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think most of the time, that approval rating is compared to the ratings of previous presidents at the same point in their presidency. So after 1 month, 2 months, 6 months, how does Trump's approval rating compare to Obama's or GWB's after the same length of time in their respective presidencies... things like that. A lot of the time these numbers are measuring different things anyway. Likely voters vs overall approval and so forth. But either way, I will absolutely believe that Trump's approval surged among Republican voters after winning the election. And that had he lost it his approval would be single digits. People support results. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On August 14 2017 04:22 thePunGun wrote: The main problem with statistics is, you gotta have the right data. I honestly don't believe in polls, because most people will probably say "none of your f***in business" or just lie, when they're being asked. So how do they determine, which data is accurate and will actually represent a credible approval rating? They might aswell roll a D100 and it wouldn't make a difference... I probably wouldn't pay to much attention to the specific number, but I think they were accurate when they concluded that Hillary and Trump had abysmal ratings and Bernie's was remarkably better. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43805 Posts
On August 14 2017 04:22 thePunGun wrote: The main problem with statistics is, you gotta have the right data. I honestly don't believe in polls, because most people will probably say "none of your f***in business" or just lie, when they're being asked. So how do they determine, which data is accurate and will actually represent a credible approval rating? They might aswell roll a D100 and it wouldn't make a difference... ...That's why you conduct multiple polls and have large, representative sample sizes. It sounds like your skepticism would be assuaged if you took a Statistics 101 class  | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 14 2017 04:22 thePunGun wrote: The main problem with statistics is, you gotta have the right data. I honestly don't believe in polls, because most people will probably say "none of your f***in business" or just lie, when they're being asked. So how do they determine, which data is accurate and will actually represent a credible approval rating? They might aswell roll a D100 and it wouldn't make a difference... I don't suppose it would help to tell you there is an entire field of study centered around answering that question? | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On August 14 2017 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: ...That's why you conduct multiple polls and have large, representative sample sizes. It sounds like your skepticism would be assuaged if you took a Statistics 101 class I actually did, twice (involuntarily  ) and I still think it's nonsense. There's also the famous saying: "There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics." On August 14 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote: I don't suppose it would help to tell you there is an entire field of study centered around answering that question? There's also an entire field about religious studies dedicated to some imaginary guy in the sky.... I didn't say the science behind it was flawed, I simply don't trust the data... | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 14 2017 03:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Please don't compare the left and right wing extremists. Right-wing extremists want to kill blacks and Muslims. Left-wing extremists want single-payer healthcare. That, my friend, is utter bullshit. This is also something that is just being discussed in german politics and media. Remember the G20? Where left wing extremists, Antifa and consorts turned Hamburg literally into a warzone? There was no Nazis there that you could blame. Don't make the mistake and think left wing extremists are better than right wing extremists, that only means you never have actually seen a left wing extremist. They're not better. That's what germany thought for the most part and let them do how they please, until, well, some people realised that hey wait a second, they're in fact not better. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Any equivalence here is wrong. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote: I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. there's a difference between setting cars on fire or attacking the police, which I think is fucking stupid, and attacking people because you think you're part of the master-race and you want to see everybody else purged. Any equivalence here is wrong. Because of idiotic reasoning like this, we got G20. And no, in case you haven't noticed, not only is "police" also "people", but "people" got hurt too. We're also talking ambushes (literal ambushes), molotovs, fucking flamethrowers (edit: actually worse, they're fire extinguishers filled with bitumen, designed to spray someone and light him on fire with bengal torches), slingshots with steelballs, and bombs with a blast radius of 5 meters and more. Right. Didn't expect anything less of you though, because in the end, if you step into a flying molotov cocktail, it's kinda on you and has nothing to do with the fuckwit who threw it. | ||
| ||
