|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is.
So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone?
|
On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone?
By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me.
For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me.
It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest.
|
for what it's worth I don't mind heated back and forth and I've been posting here for years but this thread looked like more fun when there were still a bunch of more conservative Americans around, and I don't even necessarily think I said anything that was super controversial
|
On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me.
So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths?
There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities.
When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean?
We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes.
|
On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest.
You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that.
|
On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me.
It only looks easy to you because your idea of what constitutes an insult appears fairly one-dimensional. In a political thread, everyone involved comes to the table in media res, so folks will have all sorts of ideas about what is and is not an invective. I am telling you that Nyxisto’s posts can be regarded as insulting, particularly when considered against the backdrop of the political discussions taking place in the US.
All that being said, I have made my point, and will do my best to not shitpost. I also apologize to anyone whom I have offended.
|
I think it'll stick and everything is just bluster. The issue is t that they'll vote for the Democrat that'll win but they won't go out of their way and volunteer or be happy with their vote. That's what I think made a difference in 2016, that your base being happy matters.
|
On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone?
I'm not proposing anything. I'm just pointing out that the median in the thread is a long way from the median in the real-world, and it's important not to lose sight of that.
When someone closer to the real-world median comes in, they get dogpiled as if they're peddling one of RDL's hot takes. I don't think that's particularly healthy because those questions are being asked at a thousand bars and water coolers across the country, and the world, right now.
The question of whether Bernie can beat Trump really is the question, to me. This is the battle that needs to be fought to bring the moderates in, and I don't think that's the way to fight it.
|
On February 12 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths? There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities. When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean? We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes.
You're perfectly right. I also hold those beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't try to analyse the situation. If you want me to be perfectly clear, that the major part of the population in the US doesn't support a government that would help it, but hacks, is a major issue, and due to a lot of things, that look completely foreign to me, and non-understandable. However we are starting to have the same kind of gullible idiots here as well, so I can finally relate in my anger.
Again, it's still possible to be analytical and realistic in the dispositions of the voting population, notwithstanding what we both believe to be the correct way forward.
If "berniebros" are being this aggressive towards other democrats, more or less left-wing, it IS a recipe for disaster in the general election.
My priority (I can't vote of course), is booting Trump. I'd gladly vote for Bernie if I was american. But alienating your own side, by calling other candidates thieves for example (what the heck is with the dissing of Buttigieg here for the past week ?? Because he hired a company, that other candidates also hired, and that also was hired by the IDP to the result we know? This means he stole something ?) means that one is putting everything at risk, for zero potential gain. I hate that. It's self destructive, and can lead to amplifying the issues you are rightfully pointing out, for what ? Pride ? "All can burn if my best-case solution doesn't happen" ? I respectfully disagree, and that's why I'm pointing out what this thread has become. Engage with people who think differently to convert them to your opinion instead of just dissing others and reducing the chance the best (less worse) future happens.
Blind beliefs are dangerous, from all sides, keep your head on your shoulders, and discuss shortcomings and possible issues, even after the primaries. Trumpworld WILL attack whoever the nominee is, with lies and bullshit. Better be ready and prepared.
On February 12 2020 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest. You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that.
I was not during the primaries because it didn't look that crazy to me until the last few weeks before Trump actually won. I mean, I thought the worst was done with Bush's second term, Obama meant normality again, and the majority of americans couldn't be THAT dumb to do even worse. How wrong I was.
edit : welp. Three prosecutors left the Stone trial. I believe they did NOT take kindly to the presidential and DOJ intervention.
Can't career officials strike or something ? (Frenchie inside)
|
On February 12 2020 07:09 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths? There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities. When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean? We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes. You're perfectly right. I also hold those beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't try to analyse the situation. If you want me to be perfectly clear, that the major part of the population in the US doesn't support a government that would help it, but hacks, is a major issue, and due to a lot of things, that look completely foreign to me, and non-understandable. However we are starting to have the same kind of gullible idiots here as well, so I can finally relate in my anger. Again, it's still possible to be analytical and realistic in the dispositions of the voting population, notwithstanding what we both believe to be the correct way forward. If "berniebros" are being this aggressive towards other democrats, more or less left-wing, it IS a recipe for disaster in the general election. My priority (I can't vote of course), is booting Trump. I'd gladly vote for Bernie if I was american. But alienating your own side, by calling other candidates thieves for example (what the heck is with the dissing of Buttigieg here for the past week ?? Because he hired a company, that other candidates also hired, and that also was hired by the IDP to the result we know? This means he stole something ?) means that one is putting everything at risk, for zero potential gain. I hate that. It's self destructive, and can lead to amplifying the issues you are rightfully pointing out, for what ? Pride ? "All can burn if my best-case solution doesn't happen" ? I respectfully disagree, and that's why I'm pointing out what this thread has become. Engage with people who think differently to convert them to your opinion instead of just dissing others and reducing the chance the best (less worse) future happens. Blind beliefs are dangerous, from all sides, keep your head on your shoulders, and discuss shortcomings and possible issues, even after the primaries. Trumpworld WILL attack whoever the nominee is, with lies and bullshit. Better be ready and prepared. Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest. You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that. I was not during the primaries because it didn't look that crazy to me until the last few weeks before Trump actually won. I mean, I thought the worst was done with Bush's second term, Obama meant normality again, and the majority of americans couldn't be THAT dumb to do even worse. How wrong I was. edit : welp. Three prosecutors left the Stone trial. I believe they did NOT take kindly to the presidential and DOJ intervention. Can't career officials strike or something ? (Frenchie inside)
I agree that people should be entirely civil, especially on TL. That being said, it is important to keep in mind that fundamental disagreements will be very offensive to some people. If someone uses the bible as evidence they are right and I tell them their belief that the bible is factual hurts their credibility, isn't that offensive? Some disagreements are fundamentally offensive and that is ok. But you are right that we ought to be as kind to each other as we can.
***
With regards to stone, someone please explain to me why these people resign rather than force Barr to fire them. Why resign?
|
People cryin because BeRnIe BrOs were mean to them, aka are passionate about humanistic goals for our country that others and the candidates they support are blatantly trying to curb?
User was warned for this post.
|
On February 12 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 07:09 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths? There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities. When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean? We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes. You're perfectly right. I also hold those beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't try to analyse the situation. If you want me to be perfectly clear, that the major part of the population in the US doesn't support a government that would help it, but hacks, is a major issue, and due to a lot of things, that look completely foreign to me, and non-understandable. However we are starting to have the same kind of gullible idiots here as well, so I can finally relate in my anger. Again, it's still possible to be analytical and realistic in the dispositions of the voting population, notwithstanding what we both believe to be the correct way forward. If "berniebros" are being this aggressive towards other democrats, more or less left-wing, it IS a recipe for disaster in the general election. My priority (I can't vote of course), is booting Trump. I'd gladly vote for Bernie if I was american. But alienating your own side, by calling other candidates thieves for example (what the heck is with the dissing of Buttigieg here for the past week ?? Because he hired a company, that other candidates also hired, and that also was hired by the IDP to the result we know? This means he stole something ?) means that one is putting everything at risk, for zero potential gain. I hate that. It's self destructive, and can lead to amplifying the issues you are rightfully pointing out, for what ? Pride ? "All can burn if my best-case solution doesn't happen" ? I respectfully disagree, and that's why I'm pointing out what this thread has become. Engage with people who think differently to convert them to your opinion instead of just dissing others and reducing the chance the best (less worse) future happens. Blind beliefs are dangerous, from all sides, keep your head on your shoulders, and discuss shortcomings and possible issues, even after the primaries. Trumpworld WILL attack whoever the nominee is, with lies and bullshit. Better be ready and prepared. On February 12 2020 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest. You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that. I was not during the primaries because it didn't look that crazy to me until the last few weeks before Trump actually won. I mean, I thought the worst was done with Bush's second term, Obama meant normality again, and the majority of americans couldn't be THAT dumb to do even worse. How wrong I was. edit : welp. Three prosecutors left the Stone trial. I believe they did NOT take kindly to the presidential and DOJ intervention. Can't career officials strike or something ? (Frenchie inside) I agree that people should be entirely civil, especially on TL. That being said, it is important to keep in mind that fundamental disagreements will be very offensive to some people. If someone uses the bible as evidence they are right and I tell them their belief that the bible is factual hurts their credibility, isn't that offensive? Some disagreements are fundamentally offensive and that is ok. But you are right that we ought to be as kind to each other as we can. *** With regards to stone, someone please explain to me why these people resign rather than force Barr to fire them. Why resign?
Because they might be people of integrity and this is their way of protesting against undue interference ? What can they do otherwise, stay in a job where your boss is against you and publicly dissing you ?
While I don't like the consequences (more hacks hired), I can only respect the courage.
On February 12 2020 07:22 TentativePanda wrote:
People cryin because BeRnIe BrOs were mean to them, aka are passionate about humanistic goals for our country that others and the candidates they support are blatantly trying to curb?
Nobody was mean to me, thank you, I'm complaining to get civil discussion, which has been the trademark of TL since I've been here around 2006.
If you are passionate about your goal, try to reach them. That includes listening to diverging opinions, which might be held by voters, instead of dissing them. You need them to reach these goals. It won't work if the convention is won with 30% of delegates, but you antagonised every other voter on the way. Don't let pride and beliefs hide the final objective.
|
Potentially very bad news for Bernie but still early
TLDR: 65+ Vote has nearly doubled while Youngest vote has dropped 8%.
|
On February 12 2020 07:26 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 07:09 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths? There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities. When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean? We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes. You're perfectly right. I also hold those beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't try to analyse the situation. If you want me to be perfectly clear, that the major part of the population in the US doesn't support a government that would help it, but hacks, is a major issue, and due to a lot of things, that look completely foreign to me, and non-understandable. However we are starting to have the same kind of gullible idiots here as well, so I can finally relate in my anger. Again, it's still possible to be analytical and realistic in the dispositions of the voting population, notwithstanding what we both believe to be the correct way forward. If "berniebros" are being this aggressive towards other democrats, more or less left-wing, it IS a recipe for disaster in the general election. My priority (I can't vote of course), is booting Trump. I'd gladly vote for Bernie if I was american. But alienating your own side, by calling other candidates thieves for example (what the heck is with the dissing of Buttigieg here for the past week ?? Because he hired a company, that other candidates also hired, and that also was hired by the IDP to the result we know? This means he stole something ?) means that one is putting everything at risk, for zero potential gain. I hate that. It's self destructive, and can lead to amplifying the issues you are rightfully pointing out, for what ? Pride ? "All can burn if my best-case solution doesn't happen" ? I respectfully disagree, and that's why I'm pointing out what this thread has become. Engage with people who think differently to convert them to your opinion instead of just dissing others and reducing the chance the best (less worse) future happens. Blind beliefs are dangerous, from all sides, keep your head on your shoulders, and discuss shortcomings and possible issues, even after the primaries. Trumpworld WILL attack whoever the nominee is, with lies and bullshit. Better be ready and prepared. On February 12 2020 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest. You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that. I was not during the primaries because it didn't look that crazy to me until the last few weeks before Trump actually won. I mean, I thought the worst was done with Bush's second term, Obama meant normality again, and the majority of americans couldn't be THAT dumb to do even worse. How wrong I was. edit : welp. Three prosecutors left the Stone trial. I believe they did NOT take kindly to the presidential and DOJ intervention. Can't career officials strike or something ? (Frenchie inside) I agree that people should be entirely civil, especially on TL. That being said, it is important to keep in mind that fundamental disagreements will be very offensive to some people. If someone uses the bible as evidence they are right and I tell them their belief that the bible is factual hurts their credibility, isn't that offensive? Some disagreements are fundamentally offensive and that is ok. But you are right that we ought to be as kind to each other as we can. *** With regards to stone, someone please explain to me why these people resign rather than force Barr to fire them. Why resign? Because they might be people of integrity and this is their way of protesting against undue interference ? What can they do otherwise, stay in a job where your boss is against you and publicly dissing you ? While I don't like the consequences (more hacks hired), I can only respect the courage. Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 07:22 TentativePanda wrote:
People cryin because BeRnIe BrOs were mean to them, aka are passionate about humanistic goals for our country that others and the candidates they support are blatantly trying to curb? Nobody was mean to me, thank you, I'm complaining to get civil discussion, which has been the trademark of TL since I've been here around 2006. If you are passionate about your goal, try to reach them. That includes listening to diverging opinions, which might be held by voters, instead of dissing them. You need them to reach these goals. It won't work if the convention is won with 30% of delegates, but you antagonised every other voter on the way. Don't let pride and beliefs hide the final objective.
I agree with you on civil discourse but you just called people in you country with differing political beliefs “idiots” and Trump supporters “THAT dumb” rofl
Just sayin
|
On February 12 2020 07:26 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 07:09 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths? There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities. When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean? We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes. You're perfectly right. I also hold those beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't try to analyse the situation. If you want me to be perfectly clear, that the major part of the population in the US doesn't support a government that would help it, but hacks, is a major issue, and due to a lot of things, that look completely foreign to me, and non-understandable. However we are starting to have the same kind of gullible idiots here as well, so I can finally relate in my anger. Again, it's still possible to be analytical and realistic in the dispositions of the voting population, notwithstanding what we both believe to be the correct way forward. If "berniebros" are being this aggressive towards other democrats, more or less left-wing, it IS a recipe for disaster in the general election. My priority (I can't vote of course), is booting Trump. I'd gladly vote for Bernie if I was american. But alienating your own side, by calling other candidates thieves for example (what the heck is with the dissing of Buttigieg here for the past week ?? Because he hired a company, that other candidates also hired, and that also was hired by the IDP to the result we know? This means he stole something ?) means that one is putting everything at risk, for zero potential gain. I hate that. It's self destructive, and can lead to amplifying the issues you are rightfully pointing out, for what ? Pride ? "All can burn if my best-case solution doesn't happen" ? I respectfully disagree, and that's why I'm pointing out what this thread has become. Engage with people who think differently to convert them to your opinion instead of just dissing others and reducing the chance the best (less worse) future happens. Blind beliefs are dangerous, from all sides, keep your head on your shoulders, and discuss shortcomings and possible issues, even after the primaries. Trumpworld WILL attack whoever the nominee is, with lies and bullshit. Better be ready and prepared. On February 12 2020 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest. You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that. I was not during the primaries because it didn't look that crazy to me until the last few weeks before Trump actually won. I mean, I thought the worst was done with Bush's second term, Obama meant normality again, and the majority of americans couldn't be THAT dumb to do even worse. How wrong I was. edit : welp. Three prosecutors left the Stone trial. I believe they did NOT take kindly to the presidential and DOJ intervention. Can't career officials strike or something ? (Frenchie inside) I agree that people should be entirely civil, especially on TL. That being said, it is important to keep in mind that fundamental disagreements will be very offensive to some people. If someone uses the bible as evidence they are right and I tell them their belief that the bible is factual hurts their credibility, isn't that offensive? Some disagreements are fundamentally offensive and that is ok. But you are right that we ought to be as kind to each other as we can. *** With regards to stone, someone please explain to me why these people resign rather than force Barr to fire them. Why resign? Because they might be people of integrity and this is their way of protesting against undue interference ? What can they do otherwise, stay in a job where your boss is against you and publicly dissing you ?
Yes, to bring attention to the power struggle.
"Lawyer A is currently refusing Barr's demand to reduce Stone's sentence" is an important headline.
|
On February 12 2020 07:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 07:26 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 07:09 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths? There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities. When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean? We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes. You're perfectly right. I also hold those beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't try to analyse the situation. If you want me to be perfectly clear, that the major part of the population in the US doesn't support a government that would help it, but hacks, is a major issue, and due to a lot of things, that look completely foreign to me, and non-understandable. However we are starting to have the same kind of gullible idiots here as well, so I can finally relate in my anger. Again, it's still possible to be analytical and realistic in the dispositions of the voting population, notwithstanding what we both believe to be the correct way forward. If "berniebros" are being this aggressive towards other democrats, more or less left-wing, it IS a recipe for disaster in the general election. My priority (I can't vote of course), is booting Trump. I'd gladly vote for Bernie if I was american. But alienating your own side, by calling other candidates thieves for example (what the heck is with the dissing of Buttigieg here for the past week ?? Because he hired a company, that other candidates also hired, and that also was hired by the IDP to the result we know? This means he stole something ?) means that one is putting everything at risk, for zero potential gain. I hate that. It's self destructive, and can lead to amplifying the issues you are rightfully pointing out, for what ? Pride ? "All can burn if my best-case solution doesn't happen" ? I respectfully disagree, and that's why I'm pointing out what this thread has become. Engage with people who think differently to convert them to your opinion instead of just dissing others and reducing the chance the best (less worse) future happens. Blind beliefs are dangerous, from all sides, keep your head on your shoulders, and discuss shortcomings and possible issues, even after the primaries. Trumpworld WILL attack whoever the nominee is, with lies and bullshit. Better be ready and prepared. On February 12 2020 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest. You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that. I was not during the primaries because it didn't look that crazy to me until the last few weeks before Trump actually won. I mean, I thought the worst was done with Bush's second term, Obama meant normality again, and the majority of americans couldn't be THAT dumb to do even worse. How wrong I was. edit : welp. Three prosecutors left the Stone trial. I believe they did NOT take kindly to the presidential and DOJ intervention. Can't career officials strike or something ? (Frenchie inside) I agree that people should be entirely civil, especially on TL. That being said, it is important to keep in mind that fundamental disagreements will be very offensive to some people. If someone uses the bible as evidence they are right and I tell them their belief that the bible is factual hurts their credibility, isn't that offensive? Some disagreements are fundamentally offensive and that is ok. But you are right that we ought to be as kind to each other as we can. *** With regards to stone, someone please explain to me why these people resign rather than force Barr to fire them. Why resign? Because they might be people of integrity and this is their way of protesting against undue interference ? What can they do otherwise, stay in a job where your boss is against you and publicly dissing you ? Yes, to bring attention to the power struggle. "Lawyer A is currently refusing Barr's demand to reduce Stone's sentence" is an important headline.
Sadly, in this world, for approximately 30seconds.
On February 12 2020 07:32 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 07:26 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 07:09 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths? There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities. When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean? We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes. You're perfectly right. I also hold those beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't try to analyse the situation. If you want me to be perfectly clear, that the major part of the population in the US doesn't support a government that would help it, but hacks, is a major issue, and due to a lot of things, that look completely foreign to me, and non-understandable. However we are starting to have the same kind of gullible idiots here as well, so I can finally relate in my anger. Again, it's still possible to be analytical and realistic in the dispositions of the voting population, notwithstanding what we both believe to be the correct way forward. If "berniebros" are being this aggressive towards other democrats, more or less left-wing, it IS a recipe for disaster in the general election. My priority (I can't vote of course), is booting Trump. I'd gladly vote for Bernie if I was american. But alienating your own side, by calling other candidates thieves for example (what the heck is with the dissing of Buttigieg here for the past week ?? Because he hired a company, that other candidates also hired, and that also was hired by the IDP to the result we know? This means he stole something ?) means that one is putting everything at risk, for zero potential gain. I hate that. It's self destructive, and can lead to amplifying the issues you are rightfully pointing out, for what ? Pride ? "All can burn if my best-case solution doesn't happen" ? I respectfully disagree, and that's why I'm pointing out what this thread has become. Engage with people who think differently to convert them to your opinion instead of just dissing others and reducing the chance the best (less worse) future happens. Blind beliefs are dangerous, from all sides, keep your head on your shoulders, and discuss shortcomings and possible issues, even after the primaries. Trumpworld WILL attack whoever the nominee is, with lies and bullshit. Better be ready and prepared. On February 12 2020 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest. You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that. I was not during the primaries because it didn't look that crazy to me until the last few weeks before Trump actually won. I mean, I thought the worst was done with Bush's second term, Obama meant normality again, and the majority of americans couldn't be THAT dumb to do even worse. How wrong I was. edit : welp. Three prosecutors left the Stone trial. I believe they did NOT take kindly to the presidential and DOJ intervention. Can't career officials strike or something ? (Frenchie inside) I agree that people should be entirely civil, especially on TL. That being said, it is important to keep in mind that fundamental disagreements will be very offensive to some people. If someone uses the bible as evidence they are right and I tell them their belief that the bible is factual hurts their credibility, isn't that offensive? Some disagreements are fundamentally offensive and that is ok. But you are right that we ought to be as kind to each other as we can. *** With regards to stone, someone please explain to me why these people resign rather than force Barr to fire them. Why resign? Because they might be people of integrity and this is their way of protesting against undue interference ? What can they do otherwise, stay in a job where your boss is against you and publicly dissing you ? While I don't like the consequences (more hacks hired), I can only respect the courage. On February 12 2020 07:22 TentativePanda wrote:
People cryin because BeRnIe BrOs were mean to them, aka are passionate about humanistic goals for our country that others and the candidates they support are blatantly trying to curb? Nobody was mean to me, thank you, I'm complaining to get civil discussion, which has been the trademark of TL since I've been here around 2006. If you are passionate about your goal, try to reach them. That includes listening to diverging opinions, which might be held by voters, instead of dissing them. You need them to reach these goals. It won't work if the convention is won with 30% of delegates, but you antagonised every other voter on the way. Don't let pride and beliefs hide the final objective. I agree with you on civil discourse but you just called people in you country with differing political beliefs “idiots” and Trump supporters “THAT dumb” rofl Just sayin
Correct, I also have a tolerance limit, and I accept the dichotomy (is that even the correct way to use the word ? Not sure...). The people I am talking about here at home are the racists and extremists (left or right. And I am speaking real extremists, not Bernie's medium left by our standards. Anarchists and other similar stuff), and sadly they are going up, up, up, towards around 20%.
I can excuse Trump voters the first time, but I can't excuse them for sticking with the guy just to piss others off without looking at the consequences. I disagreed at the time of Bush, I found it crazy but I didn't diss anyone. With Trump however, I don't have a way around it.
I can get regular conservatives, but starting from the political plays originating since the Tea Party I've lost it. I can also get behind smart people making this choice for a reason (stacking courts, or other valid reason even if it's really egotistic, I can understand the reasoning), I can't get behind the popular class voting for a billionaire because he promised he would help them and they believe him, while he himself didn't paid his bills if he didn't like the work, or lied his way through life.
I can't bring myself to not call these guys idiots if they continue supporting him after ample proof the guy is a grifter stealing their tax money.
However, shooting your own team when you expect a favorable outcome is a self-inflicted wound, since 95% of the thread is more or less democratic.
If the guys have a political belief or express their opinions, I will not call them idiots. If they just do it because "DUH, that will piss the others off !", I will.
|
On February 12 2020 07:32 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 07:26 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 07:09 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths? There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities. When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean? We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes. You're perfectly right. I also hold those beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't try to analyse the situation. If you want me to be perfectly clear, that the major part of the population in the US doesn't support a government that would help it, but hacks, is a major issue, and due to a lot of things, that look completely foreign to me, and non-understandable. However we are starting to have the same kind of gullible idiots here as well, so I can finally relate in my anger. Again, it's still possible to be analytical and realistic in the dispositions of the voting population, notwithstanding what we both believe to be the correct way forward. If "berniebros" are being this aggressive towards other democrats, more or less left-wing, it IS a recipe for disaster in the general election. My priority (I can't vote of course), is booting Trump. I'd gladly vote for Bernie if I was american. But alienating your own side, by calling other candidates thieves for example (what the heck is with the dissing of Buttigieg here for the past week ?? Because he hired a company, that other candidates also hired, and that also was hired by the IDP to the result we know? This means he stole something ?) means that one is putting everything at risk, for zero potential gain. I hate that. It's self destructive, and can lead to amplifying the issues you are rightfully pointing out, for what ? Pride ? "All can burn if my best-case solution doesn't happen" ? I respectfully disagree, and that's why I'm pointing out what this thread has become. Engage with people who think differently to convert them to your opinion instead of just dissing others and reducing the chance the best (less worse) future happens. Blind beliefs are dangerous, from all sides, keep your head on your shoulders, and discuss shortcomings and possible issues, even after the primaries. Trumpworld WILL attack whoever the nominee is, with lies and bullshit. Better be ready and prepared. On February 12 2020 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest. You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that. I was not during the primaries because it didn't look that crazy to me until the last few weeks before Trump actually won. I mean, I thought the worst was done with Bush's second term, Obama meant normality again, and the majority of americans couldn't be THAT dumb to do even worse. How wrong I was. edit : welp. Three prosecutors left the Stone trial. I believe they did NOT take kindly to the presidential and DOJ intervention. Can't career officials strike or something ? (Frenchie inside) I agree that people should be entirely civil, especially on TL. That being said, it is important to keep in mind that fundamental disagreements will be very offensive to some people. If someone uses the bible as evidence they are right and I tell them their belief that the bible is factual hurts their credibility, isn't that offensive? Some disagreements are fundamentally offensive and that is ok. But you are right that we ought to be as kind to each other as we can. *** With regards to stone, someone please explain to me why these people resign rather than force Barr to fire them. Why resign? Because they might be people of integrity and this is their way of protesting against undue interference ? What can they do otherwise, stay in a job where your boss is against you and publicly dissing you ? While I don't like the consequences (more hacks hired), I can only respect the courage. On February 12 2020 07:22 TentativePanda wrote:
People cryin because BeRnIe BrOs were mean to them, aka are passionate about humanistic goals for our country that others and the candidates they support are blatantly trying to curb? Nobody was mean to me, thank you, I'm complaining to get civil discussion, which has been the trademark of TL since I've been here around 2006. If you are passionate about your goal, try to reach them. That includes listening to diverging opinions, which might be held by voters, instead of dissing them. You need them to reach these goals. It won't work if the convention is won with 30% of delegates, but you antagonised every other voter on the way. Don't let pride and beliefs hide the final objective. I agree with you on civil discourse but you just called people in you country with differing political beliefs “idiots” and Trump supporters “THAT dumb” rofl Just sayin
As someone who wouldn't mind using the term "gullible idiot" more often myself, it is comical the casualness with which it is used in a post about others needing to be more civil with those that disagree.
|
All four Stone prosecutors have resigned.
|
On February 12 2020 07:49 Nouar wrote:
All four Stone prosecutors have resigned. No spinning that one as something other then orders from on high.
Tho I expect a big attempt to be made regardless.
|
Northern Ireland26020 Posts
On February 12 2020 07:32 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 07:26 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 07:09 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths? There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities. When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean? We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes. You're perfectly right. I also hold those beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't try to analyse the situation. If you want me to be perfectly clear, that the major part of the population in the US doesn't support a government that would help it, but hacks, is a major issue, and due to a lot of things, that look completely foreign to me, and non-understandable. However we are starting to have the same kind of gullible idiots here as well, so I can finally relate in my anger. Again, it's still possible to be analytical and realistic in the dispositions of the voting population, notwithstanding what we both believe to be the correct way forward. If "berniebros" are being this aggressive towards other democrats, more or less left-wing, it IS a recipe for disaster in the general election. My priority (I can't vote of course), is booting Trump. I'd gladly vote for Bernie if I was american. But alienating your own side, by calling other candidates thieves for example (what the heck is with the dissing of Buttigieg here for the past week ?? Because he hired a company, that other candidates also hired, and that also was hired by the IDP to the result we know? This means he stole something ?) means that one is putting everything at risk, for zero potential gain. I hate that. It's self destructive, and can lead to amplifying the issues you are rightfully pointing out, for what ? Pride ? "All can burn if my best-case solution doesn't happen" ? I respectfully disagree, and that's why I'm pointing out what this thread has become. Engage with people who think differently to convert them to your opinion instead of just dissing others and reducing the chance the best (less worse) future happens. Blind beliefs are dangerous, from all sides, keep your head on your shoulders, and discuss shortcomings and possible issues, even after the primaries. Trumpworld WILL attack whoever the nominee is, with lies and bullshit. Better be ready and prepared. On February 12 2020 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest. You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that. I was not during the primaries because it didn't look that crazy to me until the last few weeks before Trump actually won. I mean, I thought the worst was done with Bush's second term, Obama meant normality again, and the majority of americans couldn't be THAT dumb to do even worse. How wrong I was. edit : welp. Three prosecutors left the Stone trial. I believe they did NOT take kindly to the presidential and DOJ intervention. Can't career officials strike or something ? (Frenchie inside) I agree that people should be entirely civil, especially on TL. That being said, it is important to keep in mind that fundamental disagreements will be very offensive to some people. If someone uses the bible as evidence they are right and I tell them their belief that the bible is factual hurts their credibility, isn't that offensive? Some disagreements are fundamentally offensive and that is ok. But you are right that we ought to be as kind to each other as we can. *** With regards to stone, someone please explain to me why these people resign rather than force Barr to fire them. Why resign? Because they might be people of integrity and this is their way of protesting against undue interference ? What can they do otherwise, stay in a job where your boss is against you and publicly dissing you ? While I don't like the consequences (more hacks hired), I can only respect the courage. On February 12 2020 07:22 TentativePanda wrote:
People cryin because BeRnIe BrOs were mean to them, aka are passionate about humanistic goals for our country that others and the candidates they support are blatantly trying to curb? Nobody was mean to me, thank you, I'm complaining to get civil discussion, which has been the trademark of TL since I've been here around 2006. If you are passionate about your goal, try to reach them. That includes listening to diverging opinions, which might be held by voters, instead of dissing them. You need them to reach these goals. It won't work if the convention is won with 30% of delegates, but you antagonised every other voter on the way. Don't let pride and beliefs hide the final objective. I agree with you on civil discourse but you just called people in you country with differing political beliefs “idiots” and Trump supporters “THAT dumb” rofl Just sayin
Civil discourse works across a more broad range of things than simply not calling people idiots. And sometimes that’s entirely the reasonable response.
I would consider not answering simple questions and deflecting, or applying blatantly disingenuous double standards etc not civil discourse either.
A lot of Trump supporters do not behave in such a manner but those that do just want to behave like idiots and then rail against ‘elitism’ whenever someone calls the spade a spade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
