US Politics

[Bogie 2.0]

4 hours ago, TheMightyEthan said:

@Bogie 2.0 you keep trying to turn this around on Obama, but here's the thing: I don't like Obama that much either. I think he was better than Trump (and Bush) but that's really not saying a lot.

But I said “as an example”. You can substitute his name for Bush’s or with any other for former president name for that matter. 
 

3 hours ago, Mr. GOH! said:

Yet Robert E. Lee fought a treasonous war to support chattel slavery. It's wtat he is most known for and the central fact of his legacy.  Why is he worthy of veneration? Saying that focusing on a person's involvement in one if the most violent and transformative conflicts in US history is disingenuous and you know it.

Veneration? The statue was built with other values, mindsets and maybe reasons. Every country had those so man what would you do with Greece's or Italy’s? Learning history is what they’re there for; learning from their mistakes and admiring their achievements in their time and not hiding in fear.
 

3 hours ago, Mr. GOH! said:

Citing corrections as poetry of lying in a newspaper is also disingenuous.  Neither thing you point out is a lie, and the photo misinterpretion is clearly a mistake. 

Disingenuous? Clearly? Giving them the benefit of the doubt after all their li--I mean--misinterpretations, are you? And yes I did.

3 hours ago, Mr. GOH! said:

If you think Nigeria is only full of huts,  well,  I'm not surprised you support bigots.

No proof whatsoever he's said that. Nor did I.

 

3 hours ago, Mr. GOH! said:

But let's talk about substance;  (1) do you support the border wall, (2) deporting dreamers,  (3) trickle down economics,  (4) civil forfeiture, (5) unprecedented defense spending, outlawing abortion, (6) allowing discrimination based on  sex or sexual preference, (7) cracking down on legal marijuana states,  (8) a hearth care system like we had before Obama, and (9) protectionist trade measures,

 

(1) No – unfeasible and too Judge Dredd-y – but the US south border definitely needs increased security, patrol, etc. (2) The dreamers issue is a really complicated one and there’s no easy position to be made so I’m inclined to neither in particular still. (3) Any economics' views are a big can of worms and it would take pages and pages to discuss each one’s on any matter. (4) What are you referring to specifically? The temporary ban on certain Muslim countries? If so, seeing how well it’s affecting some European countries, a temporary ban to establish some things first in the benefit of preventing such events, then yes in that situation I’m in favor of it. (5) Did Trump outlaw abortions? Or my position on it? There will always be those and while I understand many issues many people have with it, outlawing is not a solution. (6) Any specific proven case? I don’t support discrimination, including those directed at men to fit a quota. (7) From what I know marijuana has few credible and peer-reviewed studies on its long term side-effects, so unless I’ve missed such studies, I wouldn’t think allowing one more drug into society would benefit anyone – only bigpharma so switching drug criminals for others doesn't seem that productive (but this one I dunno because of jobs, etc). (8) Same with ‘Obamacare’ but here I lean over to the other side seeing as I’ve personally experienced the immense troubles of similar ones in socialist countries. (9) Again, economics.

I’ve answered those questions out of respect but seeing as you’re getting heated and the moderators don’t seem to find your attitude reprehensible, I prefer to stop debating with you. Finally, going by the three-strikes-and-you’re-out rule I’ve learned from TheMightyEthan, I would advise you to read the definition of bigot.

2 hours ago, Thursday Next said:

I'd agree with Goh and Ethan, yeah you could pass off one or two things as a slip of the tongue, or that based on his track record that we should read the context generously, but when he is saying things that are this inflammatory, this often and when he is taking legislative action that hugely, disproportionately has a negative impact on minorities, I don't think you can, in good faith, ascribe that to his being lost in translation.

Wouldn't such a bigoted person be exposed with ease (with proof, e.g., unlike the "Nigerian huts" remark) and not being taken for granted as a bigot such for "inflammatory" wordings on already controversial issues no matter how you approach them, i.e., matters on immigration? 

[TheMightyEthan]

26 minutes ago, Bogie 2.0 said:

But I said “as an example”. You can substitute his name for Bush’s or with any other for former president name for that matter. 

 

Then yeah, the only real difference is the amount of problematic things he's done. Which is why I keep coming back to three times is enemy action.

[Mr. GOH!]

4. I am talking about civil asset forfeiture in which the law enforcement seizes a person's property and doesn't return it even when the person is not convicted of any crime.  It is unrelated to the travel ban, which was deeply stupid anyway. 

 

I have seen no credible evidence of the New York Times lying. Your cites are not lies but a minor misstake and a major failure of polling which the New York Times is not primarily responsible for. So, yes, your citation of those to support your contention that the Times lies is disingenuous. 

 

1. Whast is your evidence that the southern border requires more security? How much?

 

2. The DREAMERS issue is not morally or ethically complex; should folks we ho were brought here as minors be forced to return to the countries they were brought from regardless of how long they have been in the US? 

 

3. Ok, fine, let's get granular- you a fan of ththe 2018 tax bill?

 

5. No, but it's one of his party's major ideological tenets and they are doing everything to make it harder to get abortions.

 

6. Ok, ought a company be able to fire ad omeonned for being gay? 

 

7. There is also zero evidence of bad side effects and it is clearly less dangerous thhan legal substances. The llsck of research is due to a federal ban so that your exact argument can have plausible cover.  It's far cheaper to allow it recreationally and use tax revenue from it to combat negative effects than it is to arrest, try,  and imprison users and black market sellers. 

 

8. I've had healthcare in thed EU and here.  The EU was cheaper and faster.  I only have good healthcare now because I am fairly well off. But Obama care is only socialized medicine if you don't understand what socialized medicine means. 

 

9. Another punt. 

[Bogie 2.0]

1 hour ago, TheMightyEthan said:

 

Then yeah, the only real difference is the amount of problematic things he's done. Which is why I keep coming back to three times is enemy action.

But then you would be branding almost every president ever around the world as a bigot in my sincere view.
 

@Mr. GOH!  As I’ve shown in one of my previous posts, they’ve twisted and omitted his words to fit the narrative of racism (which wouldn’t even make sense in some cases) and they have a tendency to grab every opportunity to nitpick on Trump’s wordings to call him everything, like liar because he said he had the highest-rating show on Colbert when he had the second (after its debut) and making false and fallacious comparisons with former presidents.

As for the rest and just to clarify:  4 - Alright my bad, I must’ve misread. A barrage of questions and insinuations are at fault here I’d say; 8 - The EU isn’t a single country and I didn’t experience that, quite the opposite (it wasn't better either). Keyword you’ve missed: similar; 3-and-others: Why get granular? Not only are you moving the goalposts, I’ve already said I’m done after our last conversation if you wouldn't mind.   

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Bogie 2.0

[Mr. GOH!]

Of course the EU isn't one country; I've been to doctors in both Germany and Austria, and both experiences were better than what I have had at urgent care clinics in the US. My care in the US now, however, is top-notch, but that's because we get pretty great insurance through my wife's employer. I think it's safe to say the best care in the US is better than the average care elsewhere, but the average care in the U.S. is not nearly as good as the average care in most 1st-world countries with universal healthcare systems. 

 

I am not certain there is any country with a system similar to Obamacare, aside maybe from some very specific aspects of the German system that require certain people to buy private insurance plans. IIRC, the Swiss system may also be like Obamacare. A socialist system would be something like the UK's NHS or maybe a single-payer system like Canada's. Personally, I think a mixed system with non-profit insurers with rates negotiated by individual states (or groups of smaller states) like Germany's or France's would work best here, but that is likely to never happen. 

 

I didn't move the goalposts; you said economics is hard to talk about because it's complex and I said okay, let's talk about something specific.

 

I will never be done trying to understand what people see in Trump. 

 

But let's talk about something positive; what's your favorite thing about President Trump? How does he inspire you? 

[Bogie 2.0]

3 hours ago, Mr. GOH! said:

I didn't move the goalposts;

Yes, you did. What began with me asking specific proof from TheMightyEthan so I could understand his views, which you and others decided to join in, turned suddenly into me being x y and z because of Trump’s views which were then turned into mine, with me now having to justify my own views. This without even going into all the cherry-picking and strawmanning that keeps frustratingly happening in every thread while I give each and every one my time and attention (e.g. reading and providing specific sources, etc.) without doing any such dishonest tactics – unless I’m the target of ad hominems to which I prefer not to reply.
 

3 hours ago, Mr. GOH! said:

But let's talk about something positive; what's your favorite thing about President Trump? How does he inspire you? 

Holy… see? What does that even have to do with anything and why do you keep assuming so much?

Actually, I think I’m done here. I’ll just be on my way and I thank all who actually took the time and effort.

[toxicitizen]

No, I'm telling you, when you counter it doesn't reset your combo!

 

Wait, what thread is this?

[Mal]

Modern politics, anywhere.

[Mal]

I dunno Republicans, especially those who are in Florida... I think the teens have it right for once. It's kind of funny that some of the Republicans bring out the "paid actor" card against the teens, especially those who lived through last week's shooting. It'd be rich if the NRA funded their campaigns in any way. If growing up taught me anything, adults are no better than teens at being groomed by money. It's even worst since there's perceived high ground that comes with age, which to be fair has some merit but not as big as one would think. We adult have more experience but we're fumbling around all the same (another thing you learn growing up). So let's cut it out with the kind of bullshit a toddler can see through.

 

It has been time to talk about gun control for a while... it has been 19 years since Columbine.

 

As an aside, I don't care about the guns themselves. I believe that you can get a matchlock rifle up to and beyond an AR-15. Prove you know and can handle it then go knock yourself out. Of course recent events is proving that people to be fucking retarded so I dunno. Maybe we should just fucking ban them since a few are so incapable to handling it. Sure a majority of gun owners are responsible but if you want our society to be so militaristic then let's go all in: the fuck up of the few can affect the whole. Fucking cunts.

[Mister Jack]

I caught part of a town hall debate that had Marco Rubio and some lady from the NRA and people were absolutely livid. Several of the people in the audience were survivors and they were tearing them new assholes about gun policy. A few people even started screaming out of anger. Rubio himself said he has rethought his gun control position recently. People are PISSED.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Mister Jack

[Mal]

20 minutes ago, Mister Jack said:

Rubio himself said he has rethought his gun control position recently.

Up until campaign donations comes in then it'll be this:

I made this over five years ago and it is still relevant.

Edit: Looking at a list of shooting. I believe this was in response to the discussion about Sandy Hook in Newtown, CT. Sandy Hook was December 14th, 2012.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Mal

[CorgiShinobi]

I haven't invested a lot of time on the issue, mainly because I don't see there being a quick solution. A lot of discussion is saying there's a quick fix, either with absolute gun control or better healthcare for mental illness.  Of course, as the old adage goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. The attitude we have on mental illness in the US isn't kind still and not everyone would seek help. Take away guns, and you have what my high school went through both with knives and bomb scares. The nation and its people are going to have to change together, and not just by saying it'll work, but also making sure it works. Being proactive with the individuals who can become mass shooters; others reflecting on their hobby and what the cost of assault weapons brings.

 

Just this week I learned about the actors conspiracy and I wouldn't be surprised if this country's news media made scripted victims. To clarify, I believe most victims are not naturally interested in being interviewed and asked to relive recent trauma along with the realization that classmates and faculty are dead. That it is now reality and not a dream they can wake up from. So instead, to get more footage, News Station X gets a set of seniors to fill a narrative for footage and to bring up current politics. As far as how deep that rabbit hole goes, I can't say I even believe it's a rabbit hole, but I can't deny there's a hole in the ground.

 

Just, at the same time, I think the house that's on fire is a much more pressing matter.

[Mal]

You don't necessarily need a script for scripted actors. You can use leading questions to point the way you want people to think and speak. Almost kind of like those Russian internet propaganda farms spread memes, half-truths and full blown lies to make people think a certain way.

 

Meh. I think it's about time to just step away from the news and stuff for a while.

[Mister Jack]

 

What fucking year is it?  I can't believe the White House put out this video and actually wants us to take it seriously.  It actually kind of pisses me off, not because I'm worried about games getting banned or something because I already know they won't be, but because it's so obviously a shameless diversionary tactic to try to distract everyone from the gun control issue.  I mean they're not even trying to be subtle about their intentions here.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Mister Jack

[Mal]

Regarding arming teachers: Exactly.

[Mal]

NEXT!

[Mister Jack]

Geez, this was less than an hour away from me.

[Thursday Next]

Wondering if Ethan or Goh! have been approached by the White House to represent Trump since they seem to be getting knocked back by every single firm in DC.  

[TheMightyEthan]

Oh god...

[Mal]

In a case against the President, who pays for it? The President or us taxpayers? Specifically for Donald Trump, it may determine when and if and how much a lawyer get paid. Of course, anybody sane probably don't want to board this ship.

[TheMightyEthan]

If someone is suing the President for his official actions as President, then it's paid for by taxpayers and handled by government lawyers (or at least private lawyers hired by the government). If someone is suing the President as an individual for his actions as an individual, then he has to hire his own lawyers and pay for his own defense.

[Mr. GOH!]

As a federal civil litigator,  my professional opinion is that Trump's lawyers range from skilled but very foolish to delusional clowns. 

 

His personal attorney is not very good; the Stormy Daniels agreement is laughably bad in many respects, at least under federal and NY law. 

 

@TheMightyEthan huh? Privately funded groups sue elected and appointed government officials all the time. Taxpayers pay for civil suits when AGs or USAs or other government attorneys/subdivisions bring suit. 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Mr. GOH!

[Mister Jack]

So I take it that Trump has no grounds to sue Daniels for 20 million dollars?  I mean, I didn't think he did, but I'm no lawyer.

[TheMightyEthan]

@Mr. GOH! I meant if they sue him in his official capacity then the government pays for the defense, and if they sue him in his private capacity he pays for his own defense. I understand that in both cases the plaintiff pays their own expenses (unless they win attorney fees as part of a judgment).

[Mr. GOH!]

Oh, yes, I misunderstood Mal's question.