Author Topic: What's really going on out in the country? Why  (Read 97733 times)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #650 on: December 30, 2016, 07:42:52 AM »
I think being lukewarm towards Clinton is being far more generous than most of the voting population felt on November 9th.

"In the final count, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was nearly three million votes. According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974."

time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/

If the popular vote were the contest (it's not), would Hillary have still won it?  How many conservatives in California and New York and similarly situated states don't even bother to vote because of their vote won't change the outcome?  Obviously liberals in conservative states (Montana), have a similar quandry, but those states are typically less populous.

Hillary lost the electoral vote (the one that matters).  Both campaigns ran to win the electoral vote and Hillary lost. 

« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 07:45:46 AM by Midwest »

MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #651 on: December 30, 2016, 11:20:42 AM »
Quote
While we very obviously have quite a few conservative and libertarian posters,

Really?  Who might they be?  And if they are still members, why don't they post in the political threads anymore?  Doesn't that prove out my point?

Me, I'm conservative, semi-libertarian. 
If you look at:
https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
I mostly agree with everything, but abortion (which I'm questionable on) and same-sex marriage (because the government shouldn't even be involved).

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #652 on: December 30, 2016, 12:10:15 PM »
Sigh, points missed again... Also again to you mindless righties, I am not a Democrat.

In my observation, internet message boards trend to the left.

As for the popular vote, if our president was chosen by popular vote, then Trump's campaign strategy would have been very different and focused to winning the popular vote.  His campaign focused on electoral votes.  Go figure.  You cannot say with any certainty that if we used the popular vote, it would have been Hillary.

Yes I'm sure making up a 3 million person deficit would have been trivially easy for Trump under that system. We just don't know! What's that? The conservative Californians would have been more likely to vote? I concede. Your logic is ironclad, good sir.

Quindnon?, even if you're not a troll, please feel free to leave us to our "hard-left" liberal ways. You clearly think you've found the truth and will not change your mind on anything for any reason, so there is nothing more for you here.

OMG, is the purpose of this thread to convert conservatives to liberal thinking?  Bwahahahahahah!!!!   Oh of course, it is the conservatives who are so clearly wrong and who must change their minds! 

I thought this thread was about understanding the rural, middle class voter's situation better. 

Bwahahahaha, you sure are good at creating your own strawmen. Also, let me remind you for the 347th time that I have been one of the more vocal supporters of the plight of the rural "middle class" in this and other threads. Amazingly, I can support those folks and oppose Trump simultaneously. ZOMG!

The point, friend, is that a categorical unwillingness to respond to or even read an argument that contradicts one's world-view makes one at best incapable of productively contributing to a conversation with multiple viewpoints (e.g. within this forum) and at worst makes one a troll. The latter is especially likely when in addition to refusing to consider alternative viewpoints, the poster in question peppers their posts with condescension and derision. I personally have changed my mind many times over the years. For a long time I was a mindless Demobot. Now I am more liberal in some ways (broad drug legalization, single payer healthcare, minimal immigration restrictions), and much less in others (staunch small government advocate and supporter of broader state's rights). Some of my views are a mix of both (eliminating most social programs and replacing with UBI).

My views have shifted because I engaged in good faith with people who disagreed with me and sometimes (gasp) was convinced by the strength of their arguments. I still don't think I have it right (this attitude is noticeably lacking in many on both ends of the spectrum), but I can damn well say that I have an open mind. Quidnon has shown none of the above in any of the threads I've seen him, despite me and others trying to directly get him to engage with our positions. His responses have almost entirely been to deflect, dismiss, or ignore while complaining how this is the most liberal online community in human history and we are all just so silly and unable to take his views seriously. Read the United States of Russia thread for a relatively short introduction to this habit. You do this sometimes as well, to be honest (not to mention offer flip, condescending responses to posts like mine), but I still think you actually try to consider other viewpoints at least some of the time. That's my current impression anyway.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2017, 12:04:13 AM by Lagom »

MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #653 on: December 30, 2016, 01:18:23 PM »
Sigh, points missed again... Also again to you mindless righties, I am not a Democrat.

In my observation, internet message boards trend to the left.

As for the popular vote, if our president was chosen by popular vote, then Trump's campaign strategy would have been very different and focused to winning the popular vote.  His campaign focused on electoral votes.  Go figure.  You cannot say with any certainty that if we used the popular vote, it would have been Hillary.

Yes I'm sure making up a 3 million person deficit would have been trivially easy for Trump under that system. We just don't know! What's that? The conservative Californians would have been more likely to vote? I concede. Your logic is ironclad, good sir.

We don't know, but it would be very difficult to make up 3million votes.  I know people on both sides who don't vote, since Alabama is so red, so I would expect a higher turnout, but I would think it's fairly split over the US.  I also know a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson who would have likely voted for Trump if it was a popular vote.  This all makes is murky, but Clinton would have likely won. 

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #654 on: January 03, 2017, 11:52:24 AM »
Sigh, points missed again... Also again to you mindless righties, I am not a Democrat.

In my observation, internet message boards trend to the left.

As for the popular vote, if our president was chosen by popular vote, then Trump's campaign strategy would have been very different and focused to winning the popular vote.  His campaign focused on electoral votes.  Go figure.  You cannot say with any certainty that if we used the popular vote, it would have been Hillary.

Yes I'm sure making up a 3 million person deficit would have been trivially easy for Trump under that system. We just don't know! What's that? The conservative Californians would have been more likely to vote? I concede. Your logic is ironclad, good sir.

We don't know, but it would be very difficult to make up 3million votes.  I know people on both sides who don't vote, since Alabama is so red, so I would expect a higher turnout, but I would think it's fairly split over the US.  I also know a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson who would have likely voted for Trump if it was a popular vote.  This all makes is murky, but Clinton would have likely won.

I voted for a fourth party (wrote in someone who wasn't even running). If it was a popular vote, I would have voted for Hillary. And I really dislike Hillary.


Gal2016

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • FIRE - 2031
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #655 on: January 03, 2017, 02:54:17 PM »
I'm just really happy that we have the electoral college.  Having the entire country run by basically 2 or 3 large metro areas would really suck for the other 48 states (because they'd tip the scale).  It might even be enough to have states consider the "union" no longer much of an advantage. Things would really go to hell. We don't live in a democracy, thank you very much, but in a representative republic.  It's kind of awesome, really.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #656 on: January 03, 2017, 04:39:29 PM »


The point, friend, is that a categorical unwillingness to respond to or even read an argument that contradicts one's world-view makes one at best incapable of productively contributing to a conversation with multiple viewpoints (e.g. within this forum) and at worst makes one a troll. The latter is especially likely when in addition to refusing to consider alternative viewpoints, the poster in question peppers their posts with condescension and derision.

Did I?  Do you mind backing up this statement with actual quotes of mine that you think qualify as condescension and derision?  Yes, I'm still paying attention.  I've mostly decided that I don't benefit from conversing with those who believe so strongly in their own virtue.

Quote
My views have shifted because I engaged in good faith with people who disagreed with me and sometimes (gasp) was convinced by the strength of their arguments. I still don't think I have it right (this attitude is noticeably lacking in many on both ends of the spectrum), but I can damn well say that I have an open mind. Quidnon has shown none of the above in any of the threads I've seen him, despite me and others trying to directly get him to engage with our positions.

You have done nothing of the sort.  Sol seems to be the greatest thinker among the lot of you that have actually "engaged" with me at all.  His greatest fault seems to be he doesn't take criticism of his expression well.  I don't really know what to make of Kris, but at least (she?) presents an honest picture.

Quote

 His responses have almost entirely been to deflect, dismiss, or ignore while complaining how this is the most liberal online community in human history and we are all just so silly and unable to take his views seriously. Read the United States of Russia thread for a relatively short introduction to this habit.

I never claimed I was anything other than a conservative.  I thought that I made that very clear up front.  I don't have the time or will to chase you down rabbit holes, in the interest of appearing unbiased or for any other reason.  I can consider the viewpoints of others, but I will admit that it will be very difficult to convince me that I'm wrong about much, because I've been a political animal for many decades; and referencing the opinions of more persuasive authors than yourself is not a game I wish to play.  I thought that the point of these threads was to understand voters like myself, not attempt to convince me that I made an irrational choice.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #657 on: January 03, 2017, 05:06:36 PM »
We don't know, but it would be very difficult to make up 3million votes.  I know people on both sides who don't vote, since Alabama is so red, so I would expect a higher turnout, but I would think it's fairly split over the US.  I also know a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson who would have likely voted for Trump if it was a popular vote.  This all makes is murky, but Clinton would have likely won.

I don't think you can presume that Clinton would have likely won a popular vote.  Trump would have worked for the popular vote and probably would have done well in New York if he had pursued it.   We just don't know what would have happened.  There is no way to know.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #658 on: January 03, 2017, 05:46:47 PM »
We don't know, but it would be very difficult to make up 3million votes.  I know people on both sides who don't vote, since Alabama is so red, so I would expect a higher turnout, but I would think it's fairly split over the US.  I also know a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson who would have likely voted for Trump if it was a popular vote.  This all makes is murky, but Clinton would have likely won.

I don't think you can presume that Clinton would have likely won a popular vote.  Trump would have worked for the popular vote and probably would have done well in New York if he had pursued it.   We just don't know what would have happened.  There is no way to know.

I don't know, New Yorkers familiar with his businesses were pretty emphatic.

Also, he eats his pizza with a knife and fork. You're never going to win New York that way.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #659 on: January 03, 2017, 06:11:06 PM »
Quidnon,

First, I apologize for calling you a troll. You are right that while I stand by calling you condescending (per the quotes below), derisive was not fair. That was overly aggressive on my part and I'm sorry for that. I know I can be quite condescending as well. One day I'll grow up on that front.

What I hope for you to understand is that it's extremely exasperating to continually try to get a reasoned response from someone who is crusading against the entire forum based on very little evidence while engaging in the exact sort of myopic and biased behavior you accuse others of embracing. That said, I will admit I was wrong in my own earlier characterization. You are just unusually partisan and set in your opinions, which is not inherently terrible, per se, but you can see why those of us who actually want to debate an issue find that unhelpful, right? I too have been a political animal for a long time and have read many authors more persuasive than you. My positions still evolve regularly and I am proud that I continue to be flexible in my thinking. But good for you for being so strong in your faith. Now back it up with some facts, please.

Second, just because you ignored many posts in which I or others professed a reasoned opinion doesn't mean those posts don't exist. There are many examples, but here is the most recent one I can recall (in which you ignore Sol, despite him apparently being the most thoughtful of us):

There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 

Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

And another where you completely ignore me:

This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
  • There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
  • Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
  • Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
  • Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
  • This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
  • Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.


To myself, this clearly looks like a point-of-view that is many ways contrary to reality, but is an honestly held belief.  I also know that I'm biased in the other direction, and wonder if my own point-of-view is as distorted from reality.

Credit to you for admitting your view might be distorted from reality, but then we both know that statement was actually just more veiled condescension.

The point is not that you disagree with us, it's that you refuse to engage with us and then accuse us of being "the most liberal site on the internet (yes, yes, that you have encountered)," which is about as hyperbolic a statement as I have ever encountered (couldn't resist). I mean, you seriously haven't noticed the strong streak of libertarians here, for example? Plenty of conservative republicans too, though they may be less obvious since you haven't been around long. I myself am quite fiscally conservative and a small government advocate, which I constantly have to bring up since people like you think disliking Trump automatically means a person is a flaming liberal. And you seriously aren't familiar with the Huffington Post, for example? If you think we are anywhere close to harder left than that extremely well-known site (which is far from the hardest left site out there), you really need to read our posts more carefully and get out of your echo chamber and explore other sources. Listening to those you don't agree with is a virtue.

You, on the other hand, have offered little to no credible evidence to back up your conservative views. We have offered reams to back up ours. That doesn't mean we are right and you are wrong, or that our sources are good ones, or that you should change your mind, but what value are you adding to the conversation when your contributions are only to completely dismiss our own? I would love for you to school us with your knowledge on the need to repeal the ACA at all costs, or why Trump's foreign policy moves have been shrewd, his cabinet picks wise, and his relationship with Russia unimportant. So far I haven't seen a single lick of evidence from you why you believe those things, which makes it pretty damn difficult to take you seriously at all.

That said, I apologize again for being rude. I get heated sometimes when I feel people are being willfully obtuse. It has nothing to do with hating conservatives. After all, I have a lot in common with many of them! I promise to think twice before posting a goading response in the future and I look forward to reading more on what has brought you to the beliefs that you hold today.

Edits to remove unnecessarily inflammatory verbiage and minor typos

« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 12:12:10 AM by Lagom »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #660 on: January 03, 2017, 06:15:17 PM »
We don't know, but it would be very difficult to make up 3million votes.  I know people on both sides who don't vote, since Alabama is so red, so I would expect a higher turnout, but I would think it's fairly split over the US.  I also know a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson who would have likely voted for Trump if it was a popular vote.  This all makes is murky, but Clinton would have likely won.

I don't think you can presume that Clinton would have likely won a popular vote.  Trump would have worked for the popular vote and probably would have done well in New York if he had pursued it.   We just don't know what would have happened.  There is no way to know.

I don't know, New Yorkers familiar with his businesses were pretty emphatic.

Also, he eats his pizza with a knife and fork. You're never going to win New York that way.

QFT

@KBecks Come on man, at least admit that Clinton's final popular vote lead was so big that in this "no way to know" hypothetical, she still almost certainly would have stood a better chance of winning than Trump, even if it was only something like 55-45 (odds, that is). I mean, in every relevant poll it's clear that Trump and his policies are not representative of the majority. Demographics being so clearly against him are partly why no one thought he could win in the first place. But just enough people in the right states decided they preferred him to Clinton and here we are.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 06:47:56 PM by Lagom »

MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #661 on: January 04, 2017, 08:14:48 AM »
We don't know, but it would be very difficult to make up 3million votes.  I know people on both sides who don't vote, since Alabama is so red, so I would expect a higher turnout, but I would think it's fairly split over the US.  I also know a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson who would have likely voted for Trump if it was a popular vote.  This all makes is murky, but Clinton would have likely won.

I don't think you can presume that Clinton would have likely won a popular vote.  Trump would have worked for the popular vote and probably would have done well in New York if he had pursued it.   We just don't know what would have happened.  There is no way to know.
There is no way to know, but there are ways to make educated guesses about what would happen, which is why I said "likely."  I even said "We don't know." 

Sure Trump would have changed his campaign tactics.  Clinton would have also changed hers.  I'm not sure how much net that would have gotten him.  I also guess that I should have specified this is my opinion.  I believe Clinton would have won.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #662 on: January 04, 2017, 08:22:14 AM »
We don't know, but it would be very difficult to make up 3million votes.  I know people on both sides who don't vote, since Alabama is so red, so I would expect a higher turnout, but I would think it's fairly split over the US.  I also know a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson who would have likely voted for Trump if it was a popular vote.  This all makes is murky, but Clinton would have likely won.

I don't think you can presume that Clinton would have likely won a popular vote.  Trump would have worked for the popular vote and probably would have done well in New York if he had pursued it.   We just don't know what would have happened.  There is no way to know.

I don't know, New Yorkers familiar with his businesses were pretty emphatic.

Also, he eats his pizza with a knife and fork. You're never going to win New York that way.

QFT

@KBecks Come on man, at least admit that Clinton's final popular vote lead was so big that in this "no way to know" hypothetical, she still almost certainly would have stood a better chance of winning than Trump, even if it was only something like 55-45 (odds, that is). I mean, in every relevant poll it's clear that Trump and his policies are not representative of the majority. Demographics being so clearly against him are partly why no one thought he could win in the first place. But just enough people in the right states decided they preferred him to Clinton and here we are.

To be fair, every single poll put her ahead in Electoral College votes as well. Most of them by large margins. I would have said she had a much better chance than Trump of winning; but she managed to mess that lead up, so I'm not sure that she would have done any better with a popular vote.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #663 on: January 04, 2017, 09:41:41 AM »
We don't know, but it would be very difficult to make up 3million votes.  I know people on both sides who don't vote, since Alabama is so red, so I would expect a higher turnout, but I would think it's fairly split over the US.  I also know a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson who would have likely voted for Trump if it was a popular vote.  This all makes is murky, but Clinton would have likely won.

I don't think you can presume that Clinton would have likely won a popular vote.  Trump would have worked for the popular vote and probably would have done well in New York if he had pursued it.   We just don't know what would have happened.  There is no way to know.

I don't know, New Yorkers familiar with his businesses were pretty emphatic.

Also, he eats his pizza with a knife and fork. You're never going to win New York that way.

QFT

@KBecks Come on man, at least admit that Clinton's final popular vote lead was so big that in this "no way to know" hypothetical, she still almost certainly would have stood a better chance of winning than Trump, even if it was only something like 55-45 (odds, that is). I mean, in every relevant poll it's clear that Trump and his policies are not representative of the majority. Demographics being so clearly against him are partly why no one thought he could win in the first place. But just enough people in the right states decided they preferred him to Clinton and here we are.

To be fair, every single poll put her ahead in Electoral College votes as well. Most of them by large margins. I would have said she had a much better chance than Trump of winning; but she managed to mess that lead up, so I'm not sure that she would have done any better with a popular vote.

The national polls were fairly accurate though, it was a few key, state-level polls that missed (and not by a lot). With the caveat that different campaign strategies would've yielded different numbers: if you take the national poll numbers leading up to the election at face value, she has a significant probability of winning the hypothetical popular vote we're talking about by a decent margin.

MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #664 on: January 04, 2017, 10:04:06 AM »

QFT

@KBecks Come on man, at least admit that Clinton's final popular vote lead was so big that in this "no way to know" hypothetical, she still almost certainly would have stood a better chance of winning than Trump, even if it was only something like 55-45 (odds, that is). I mean, in every relevant poll it's clear that Trump and his policies are not representative of the majority. Demographics being so clearly against him are partly why no one thought he could win in the first place. But just enough people in the right states decided they preferred him to Clinton and here we are.

To be fair, every single poll put her ahead in Electoral College votes as well. Most of them by large margins. I would have said she had a much better chance than Trump of winning; but she managed to mess that lead up, so I'm not sure that she would have done any better with a popular vote.

The national polls were fairly accurate though, it was a few key, state-level polls that missed (and not by a lot). With the caveat that different campaign strategies would've yielded different numbers: if you take the national poll numbers leading up to the election at face value, she has a significant probability of winning the hypothetical popular vote we're talking about by a decent margin.
Those polls would be less relevant, since they'd be campaigning differently for the previous year.  They would have known about the change in the rules more than a week before the election.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #665 on: January 04, 2017, 12:06:53 PM »
The national polls were fairly accurate though, it was a few key, state-level polls that missed (and not by a lot). With the caveat that different campaign strategies would've yielded different numbers: if you take the national poll numbers leading up to the election at face value, she has a significant probability of winning the hypothetical popular vote we're talking about by a decent margin.

Well I agree with this statement, I don't know that it matters, since national popular vote has never mattered and has no effect on presidential elections. Sure she should have won, for many reasons: but she didn't. And after the election, considering how surprising the results were, I would have to rate the probability of her winning a hypothetical race based on popular vote as much lower than I would have before the election.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #666 on: January 04, 2017, 12:29:18 PM »
The national polls were fairly accurate though, it was a few key, state-level polls that missed (and not by a lot). With the caveat that different campaign strategies would've yielded different numbers: if you take the national poll numbers leading up to the election at face value, she has a significant probability of winning the hypothetical popular vote we're talking about by a decent margin.

Well I agree with this statement, I don't know that it matters, since national popular vote has never mattered and has no effect on presidential elections. Sure she should have won, for many reasons: but she didn't. And after the election, considering how surprising the results were, I would have to rate the probability of her winning a hypothetical race based on popular vote as much lower than I would have before the election.

I'm not really making an argument about popular vote or not, just an observation based on available data. My point is that the results weren't super surprising if you look at the actual numbers, that's all. The polls that missed didn't miss by much; they were just in states that mattered a bunch vis a vis the electoral college.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #667 on: January 04, 2017, 01:55:22 PM »
Quidnon,

First, I apologize for calling you a troll. You are right that while I stand by calling you condescending (per the quotes below), derisive was not fair. That was overly aggressive on my part and I'm sorry for that. I know I can be quite condescending as well. One day I'll grow up on that front.


Accepted.  And now bygones.

Quote

What I hope for you to understand is that it's extremely exasperating to continually try to get a reasoned response from someone who is crusading against the entire forum based on very little evidence while engaging in the exact sort of myopic and biased behavior you accuse others of embracing. That said, I will admit I was wrong in my own earlier characterization. You are just unusually partisan and set in your opinions, which is not inherently terrible, per se, but you can see why those of us who actually want to debate an issue find that unhelpful, right?

I can see why you might believe that is so, but I don't think we would likely agree on the details.  It is my experience that true debates don't occur on the internet, and that it is rare that anyone who participates in political threads are there to challenge their own perspectives.  Instead, most are there to either challenge the perspectives of whomever they consider their opponents or to seek to confirm their opinions.  I was ignoring the poltical portions of the off-topic section altogether until I saw the thread asking for Trump voters.  I came to present my position, and have only been attacked since.  I don't expect to change anyone's mind.

Quote
I too have been a political animal for a long time and have read many authors more persuasive than you. My positions still evolve regularly and I am proud that I continue to be flexible in my thinking. But good for you for being so strong in your faith. Now back it up with some facts, please.


Why should I bother?  If I do the research to find the 'facts', they will be dismissed by others as false or questionable, for any number of reasons.  For the same reasons, likely, that I would question your own presentation of facts.  Because news reporting cannot be trusted anymore, because statistics are not reliable facts, because the statements of professionals are dependent upon their assumptions.  Because facts found on the internet are not always actually facts.  If I dig all the way down to the root references, and they are indisputable; my interpretations of the consequences and/or conclusions about the meaning of said facts would be doubted.  Honestly, I don't really understand why you spend the time.

Quote

Second, just because you ignored many posts in which I or others professed a reasoned opinion doesn't mean those posts don't exist. There are many examples, but here is the most recent one I can recall (in which you ignore Sol, despite him apparently being the most thoughtful of us):

There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 

Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

I highlighted the important part.  That Sol felt that such a statement was enough to reject your original presumption that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  Most Republicans do want that, but don't agree on the path taken thus far.  We don't agree on what "decent" health insurance should look like, what "affordable" is in this context, or even what "health insurance" should mean.  I can tell that Sol means well, and that you believe what you say.  But in so many ways, what you believe to be true simply isn't so, and I have no reasonable path to convince you.  It is quite like we live in different realities, and I'm so tired of having these kinds of "debates".  I've had them for decades, and no one ever seems to really change their perspectives until reality smacks them in the face.

Quote
And another where you completely ignore me:

This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
  • There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
  • Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
  • Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
  • Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
  • This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
  • Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.


To myself, this clearly looks like a point-of-view that is many ways contrary to reality, but is an honestly held belief.  I also know that I'm biased in the other direction, and wonder if my own point-of-view is as distorted from reality.

Credit to you for admitting your view might be distorted from reality, but then we both know that statement was actually just more veiled condescension.


This excerpt is a wonderful example of my point above with Sol's quote.  The statements by yourself I was responding to appear like they are from another reality altogether.  Obviously, I didn't ignore you, either.  Seems like an episode from Sliders.  I could have responded to your post point by point; but really, why?  You wouldn't believe me anyway.

Quote
I mean, you seriously haven't noticed the strong streak of libertarians here, for example?

Oh, I'm sure there are some here somewhere.  But I haven't seen much in the way of libertarian arguments.  Maybe Metric Mouse.  So whatever libertarians there are on this forum, they must have already been conditioned to ignore the political threads in the off-topic section.  Which is, in my own experience, telling in it's own way.  Because libertarians tend to be a vocal lot.  I suspect that threads about religion don't fare any better.  If nothing else, I'd expect libertarians to be commenting on why Trump will be such a bad president, from a libertarian perspective.  Haven't seen that either.

Quote


 Plenty of conservative republicans too, though they may be less obvious since you haven't been around long. I myself am quite fiscally conservative and a small government advocate, which I constantly have to bring up since people like you think disliking Trump automatically means a person is a flaming liberal. And you seriously aren't familiar with the Huffington Post, for example?
Yes, I have heard of the HuffPost.  I didn't know that they had a forum, though.  Not that I would have bothered to join it if I was aware.

Quote

 If you think we are anywhere close to harder left than that extremely well-known site (which is far from the hardest left site out there), you really need to read our posts more carefully and get out of your echo chamber and explore other sources. Listening to those you don't agree with is a virtue.


It might very well be, but you are displaying your own biases again.  You don't appear any more virtuous than myself to myself.  Even making such a statement sounds like virtue signaling to me.

Quote
You, on the other hand, have offered little to no credible evidence to back up your conservative views. We have offered reams to back up ours. That doesn't mean we are right and you are wrong, or that our sources are good ones, or that you should change your mind, but what value are you adding to the conversation when your contributions are only to completely dismiss our own?

I did not dismiss them, I've understood them far longer than I've been on this forum.  These are not new arguments to me; I've encountered them, considered them, and found them wanting long ago.  If you can present a new argument, I'll consider it; but again, you will have a hard row to hoe here.  Mostly because I've been down this road so many times that I've named the rocks beside the road.

Quote


 I would love for you to school us with your knowledge on the need to repeal the ACA at all costs, or why Trump's foreign policy moves have been shrewd, his cabinet picks wise, and his relationship with Russia unimportant. So far I haven't seen a single lick of evidence from you why you believe those things, which makes it pretty damn difficult to take you seriously at all.


My reasons for hating the ACA are detailed, and I have repeatedly expressed a willingness to go into such a detail, if you start another thread.  I don't believe that such a topic belongs here, and your unwillingness to start such a thread befuddles me.  As for Trump's foreign policy, I don't consider it wise, per se, just different; which might prove to be wise in time, or not.  About Trump's cabinet picks, I likely know less about them than you do.  My only comments about his picks so far has been about him using them to 'stir the pot' with the left.  It actually appears like he is deliberately stoking outrage with one or two people "under consideration" only to switch to whomever he really wanted as the outrage really gets started, leaving the talking heads with a "wait, what?" kind of moment.  I think it's funny.  I'm not even sure that you ever understood why I voted for Trump in the first place, even though I have stated it as well as I know how on several occasions.  I did not vote for Trump because I thought he would be a good president.  I voted for Trump because I didn't want Clinton to gain presidential immunity.  Maybe the United States will do well under Trump, maybe not.  I don't know.  Trump is unpredictable.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #668 on: January 04, 2017, 02:35:49 PM »
I voted for Trump because I didn't want Clinton to gain presidential immunity.

What is "presidential immunity" and why did you think it was important that Clinton not get it?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 02:41:21 PM by shenlong55 »

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #669 on: January 04, 2017, 03:47:13 PM »
I voted for Trump because I didn't want Clinton to gain presidential immunity.

What is "presidential immunity" and why did you think it was important that Clinton not get it?

It's a catch-all phrase for a set of privileges of the office, some of which are life long.  Sitting presidents are immune from any legal action or consequence, and enjoy limited protection from civil or criminal actions even after leaving office.  For example, Trump cannot be sued while he is in office, but can be sued afterwards, but mostly only related to his business ventures, not his actions as president.  But more important to myself; while a current or former president can be prosecuted for criminal activities, and fined or otherwise sanctioned if found guilty, they cannot (as a rule, not an absolute) face the risk of imprisonment.  I believe that the Clintons are corrupt to their core, and may also have committed real crimes in their pursuit of power; and I didn't wish to reward such activities with either the power that they seek, nor the effective immunity from consequences that the office would impart.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #670 on: January 04, 2017, 03:51:54 PM »
I voted for Trump because I didn't want Clinton to gain presidential immunity.

What is "presidential immunity" and why did you think it was important that Clinton not get it?

It's a catch-all phrase for a set of privileges of the office, some of which are life long.  Sitting presidents are immune from any legal action or consequence, and enjoy limited protection from civil or criminal actions even after leaving office.  For example, Trump cannot be sued while he is in office, but can be sued afterwards, but mostly only related to his business ventures, not his actions as president.  But more important to myself; while a current or former president can be prosecuted for criminal activities, and fined or otherwise sanctioned if found guilty, they cannot (as a rule, not an absolute) face the risk of imprisonment.  I believe that the Clintons are corrupt to their core, and may also have committed real crimes in their pursuit of power; and I didn't wish to reward such activities with either the power that they seek, nor the effective immunity from consequences that the office would impart.

Interesting. All the evidence I've seen related to Hillary (I don't care about Bill) suggests nothing of the sort. But Trump should probably be grateful for the protection.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #671 on: January 04, 2017, 04:07:13 PM »
I voted for Trump because I didn't want Clinton to gain presidential immunity.

What is "presidential immunity" and why did you think it was important that Clinton not get it?

It's a catch-all phrase for a set of privileges of the office, some of which are life long.  Sitting presidents are immune from any legal action or consequence, and enjoy limited protection from civil or criminal actions even after leaving office.  For example, Trump cannot be sued while he is in office, but can be sued afterwards, but mostly only related to his business ventures, not his actions as president.  But more important to myself; while a current or former president can be prosecuted for criminal activities, and fined or otherwise sanctioned if found guilty, they cannot (as a rule, not an absolute) face the risk of imprisonment.  I believe that the Clintons are corrupt to their core, and may also have committed real crimes in their pursuit of power; and I didn't wish to reward such activities with either the power that they seek, nor the effective immunity from consequences that the office would impart.

Interesting. All the evidence I've seen related to Hillary (I don't care about Bill) suggests nothing of the sort. But Trump should probably be grateful for the protection.

I'm sure that he is.  I'm not implying that I thought that Trump was immune from corruption, just that I'm certain that Hillary is not (and Bill is untouchable, even as First Dude).  What the Clinton campaign did to Bernie should be evidence enough for that.  Ideally, the Clinton Foundation would be very well investigated, and prosecuted under the RICO act if appropriate.  I'm not holding my breath on that one, but I've already succeeded at my primary goal in voting for Trump.  Anything else that Trump does, that is the least bit conservative in nature, is bonus.  I'm confident that a repeal of the ACA is forthcoming, but I'm not confident that congress or Trump won't muck up the replace part.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #672 on: January 04, 2017, 04:15:59 PM »
Quidnon,

I mean, I appreciate you remaining calmer than I have (truly), but I meant what I said that I am open to considering these indisputable truths that you have apparently discovered. I know I can come across as a strident ideologue sometimes but if you pay attention, what consistently gets me going is not a person's specific politics, but rather their refusal to back up their opinions and/or consider the logic behind the opinions of others, especially if they adopt a know-it-all attitude in the process. But you have given your reasons for not wanting to do so and I suppose I have to accept that as fair enough.

I will just note that the thing about tautologies is that they tend to fall apart under the microscope, which is why I am highly skeptical of your claims that it's just not worth arguing any more because no one will change their mind anyway when you tell them THE TRUTH. Such as with your absolute certainty regarding the Russia post. I mean, it is literally true that the intelligence community universally believes Russia tried to influence the election. It is literally true Trump denied this and has repeatedly praised Putin despite the majority of the government, including many GOP officials calling for investigation and sanctions. You can't just say you know some secret information that makes those facts fall apart and then not provide that information.

That is the reason you have "only been attacked" since you first posted. It's not because you stated that you voted for Trump, it's because you consistently adopted an attitude that you know THE TRUTH, while dismissing/ignoring numerous specific arguments from those who oppose Trump (behavior that was already beyond the bounds of your claim that you only posted to explain why you voted for him) and implying (stating, in my case) that anyone who disagrees with you is detached from reality. It may not be trolling but it's definitely instigating, while trying to play the victim at the same time.

Anyway, water under the bridge. If possible I always prefer to have a positive relationship with everyone in this forum, even those who I think are "detached from reality" ;)


Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #673 on: January 04, 2017, 04:28:46 PM »
I'm sure that he is.  I'm not implying that I thought that Trump was immune from corruption, just that I'm certain that Hillary is not (and Bill is untouchable, even as First Dude).  What the Clinton campaign did to Bernie should be evidence enough for that.  Ideally, the Clinton Foundation would be very well investigated, and prosecuted under the RICO act if appropriate.  I'm not holding my breath on that one, but I've already succeeded at my primary goal in voting for Trump.  Anything else that Trump does, that is the least bit conservative in nature, is bonus.  I'm confident that a repeal of the ACA is forthcoming, but I'm not confident that congress or Trump won't muck up the replace part.

I'm glad to hear you support the ACA being replaced, and not just a blanket repeal. I agree. The ACA is quite mediocre by any objective standard, though still better than what we had before. I would venture most liberals on this forum would agree with that assessment, tbh. I too am not confident congress/Trump will produce an effective replacement, alas.

So to be clear on the rest, is it fair to say you simply believe Republican policies are nearly always the best ones and thus you don't care whether Trump is objectively more corrupt than HRC because at least he is more likely to push a conservative agenda, or at least not advance a liberal one?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #674 on: January 04, 2017, 04:39:56 PM »
I voted for Trump because I didn't want Clinton to gain presidential immunity.

What is "presidential immunity" and why did you think it was important that Clinton not get it?

It's a catch-all phrase for a set of privileges of the office, some of which are life long.  Sitting presidents are immune from any legal action or consequence, and enjoy limited protection from civil or criminal actions even after leaving office.  For example, Trump cannot be sued while he is in office, but can be sued afterwards, but mostly only related to his business ventures, not his actions as president.  But more important to myself; while a current or former president can be prosecuted for criminal activities, and fined or otherwise sanctioned if found guilty, they cannot (as a rule, not an absolute) face the risk of imprisonment.  I believe that the Clintons are corrupt to their core, and may also have committed real crimes in their pursuit of power; and I didn't wish to reward such activities with either the power that they seek, nor the effective immunity from consequences that the office would impart.

May I ask why you believe they are corrupt and what real crimes you believe they have committed?

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #675 on: January 04, 2017, 05:36:17 PM »
Quidnon,

I mean, I appreciate you remaining calmer than I have (truly), but I meant what I said that I am open to considering these indisputable truths that you have apparently discovered. I know I can come across as a strident ideologue sometimes but if you pay attention, what consistently gets me going is not a person's specific politics, but rather their refusal to back up their opinions and/or consider the logic behind the opinions of others, especially if they adopt a know-it-all attitude in the process. But you have given your reasons for not wanting to do so and I suppose I have to accept that as fair enough.

My wife bought me a shirt a few years ago that said, "people who think they know it all annoy those of us who do."

Quote
I will just note that the thing about tautologies is that they tend to fall apart under the microscope, which is why I am highly skeptical of your claims that it's just not worth arguing any more because no one will change their mind anyway when you tell them THE TRUTH.

I don't know this word.

Quote
Such as with your absolute certainty regarding the Russia post.
I don't know absolutes.  I don't believe you do either.

Quote
I mean, it is literally true that the intelligence community universally believes Russia tried to influence the election.

Taken alone, this is likely true.  It's also likely true that they attempt such things every election cycle.  This universal belief of the intelligence community should not be taken as evidence of success.  According to McAfee, finding hacking markers left by Russian made hacking tools is not evidence that actual Russians were involved; and is actually evidence that the Russian Government was not, simply because the government hackers are too good to leave such evidence.  Nor is it evidence that the Wikileaks data was a result of any such hacking, and according to Assange himself, was not.

Furthermore, it's not like the US is immune from such an accusation.  The US government has been 'influencing' elections for decades.  Our own sitting president openly attempted to influence the Brexit vote.

Quote


 It is literally true Trump denied this

I don't know if he did or didn't.

Quote
and has repeatedly praised Putin despite the majority of the government, including many GOP officials calling for investigation and sanctions.

So?  Do you think Trump not capable of diplomacy?  Trump is a Putin fan, and apparently Putin is a Trump fan.  I tend to think that this is suspect, but likely a better path to pursue than drumbeats towards war.  You did know that Obama has ordered special forces into Lithuania this week, right?  Does that sound like diplomacy or escalation?  Regardless of who Obama blames for the election results, I think that is madness, particularly from the Peace President.  World War 1 started over much less.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2531054/america-special-forces-russian-border-lithuania-obama-putin/

Quote

You can't just say you know some secret information that makes those facts fall apart and then not provide that information.
I don't have any secret information, mostly an instinctive distrust of any official statements honed by decades of experience, into a perfection of the cynical ideal.  Again, we are talking about the CIA (and many other like agencies) whose primary job is propaganda, both inside and outside of the US.  There are so many examples of claims made by these agencies that have, eventually, proven to be false.  Often intentionally.  And to anyone who actually believes that these agencies are non-partisan, I simply have to ask how one could still believe such nonsense in our modern age.

Quote
That is the reason you have "only been attacked" since you first posted. It's not because you stated that you voted for Trump, it's because you consistently adopted an attitude that you know THE TRUTH, while dismissing/ignoring numerous specific arguments from those who oppose Trump (behavior that was already beyond the bounds of your claim that you only posted to explain why you voted for him) and implying (stating, in my case) that anyone who disagrees with you is detached from reality. It may not be trolling but it's definitely instigating, while trying to play the victim at the same time.
I think that you have been reading something into my posts that I never intended.  And I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is detached from reality, I reserve that for those who make statements that sound like they are detached from the reality that I see.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #676 on: January 04, 2017, 05:48:51 PM »
I'm sure that he is.  I'm not implying that I thought that Trump was immune from corruption, just that I'm certain that Hillary is not (and Bill is untouchable, even as First Dude).  What the Clinton campaign did to Bernie should be evidence enough for that.  Ideally, the Clinton Foundation would be very well investigated, and prosecuted under the RICO act if appropriate.  I'm not holding my breath on that one, but I've already succeeded at my primary goal in voting for Trump.  Anything else that Trump does, that is the least bit conservative in nature, is bonus.  I'm confident that a repeal of the ACA is forthcoming, but I'm not confident that congress or Trump won't muck up the replace part.

I'm glad to hear you support the ACA being replaced, and not just a blanket repeal. I agree. The ACA is quite mediocre by any objective standard, though still better than what we had before.
I don't agree with this.  I think that, generally speaking, the madness we had before was still better than the ACA.  Replacing it isn't actually a requirement of mine, but actually fixing the broken system we had before would be a bonus.  I just prefer less broken to more broken, generally.
Quote
I would venture most liberals on this forum would agree with that assessment, tbh. I too am not confident congress/Trump will produce an effective replacement, alas.

Oh, I'm sure of it. 
Quote

So to be clear on the rest, is it fair to say you simply believe Republican policies are nearly always the best ones and thus you don't care whether Trump is objectively more corrupt than HRC because at least he is more likely to push a conservative agenda, or at least not advance a liberal one?

No, that would not be fair to say.  I would care if Trump is
Quote
objectively more corrupt than HRC
; I just think that possibility to be remote.  She has set a high bar.  I do not support conservative agendas simply because they are conservative, and I don't agree with all of them.  However, I've yet to encounter any liberal agendas that I could support; and the list of those which I oppose on moral and/or ideological grounds is too long to write.  I could point you to one or two writers who would do a better job than I, but I don't expect you'd be able to suffer them for long no matter your intentions.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #677 on: January 04, 2017, 05:52:42 PM »
I voted for Trump because I didn't want Clinton to gain presidential immunity.

What is "presidential immunity" and why did you think it was important that Clinton not get it?

It's a catch-all phrase for a set of privileges of the office, some of which are life long.  Sitting presidents are immune from any legal action or consequence, and enjoy limited protection from civil or criminal actions even after leaving office.  For example, Trump cannot be sued while he is in office, but can be sued afterwards, but mostly only related to his business ventures, not his actions as president.  But more important to myself; while a current or former president can be prosecuted for criminal activities, and fined or otherwise sanctioned if found guilty, they cannot (as a rule, not an absolute) face the risk of imprisonment.  I believe that the Clintons are corrupt to their core, and may also have committed real crimes in their pursuit of power; and I didn't wish to reward such activities with either the power that they seek, nor the effective immunity from consequences that the office would impart.

May I ask why you believe they are corrupt and what real crimes you believe they have committed?

Obviously you may ask, since you did.  But I don't have to answer this again.  And after looking through your post history, I find how you tend to use seemingly simple questions as a foil, and I refuse to play your game, Shenlong.  Feel free to peruse my post history, if you actually want an answer; but I don't believe that this is a straight or innocent question.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #678 on: January 04, 2017, 06:06:32 PM »
Tautologies are statements that prove their own truth. I am using the word colloquially here, as a true Tautology would be something like "It will either rain tomorrow or it won't" or "It's bad to murder someone therefore murdering someone is a bad thing to do." In your case, I mostly meant that you seem to think you have divined some sort of undeniable truths that the rest of us have not. Much like a conspiracy theorist.

I'm forgetting the formal logic term, but I was additionally referring to arguments like "The CIA has a decades long record of spreading misinformation therefore it's obvious that I should trust Trump over them." This is not a sound argument.

While I'm at it, tu quoque is another one many people on both sides use way often (the "you too!" fallacy). For example, pretty much any argument defending Trump by referencing anything HRC allegedly did or would have done is inherently a bad argument. Same goes for claiming Trump will be better than Obama at foreign policy because Obama has made bad foreign policy decisions. One can (and I do) reject the former for very good reasons, even while accepting the latter.

Quote
I don't know absolutes.  I don't believe you do either.

Well that's literally what I've been saying over and over, so yeah, you're right.

Don't know what to tell you if you aren't certain Trump denied (now shifted to mere skepticism, which I guess is an improvement) the intelligence report, which included far more signatories than the CIA, by the way.

Quote
I think that you have been reading something into my posts that I never intended.  And I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is detached from reality, I reserve that for those who make statements that sound like they are detached from the reality that I see.

I may be, but I was merely explaining that whether you intended to or not, that is exactly how you came across to me. And, I can infer from the "attacks" against you by other posters that they probably held similar interpretations, but if any of them want to step in and set me straight I'm open to being wrong here.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 06:13:25 PM by Lagom »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #679 on: January 04, 2017, 07:06:47 PM »
May I ask why you believe they are corrupt and what real crimes you believe they have committed?

Obviously you may ask, since you did.  But I don't have to answer this again.  And after looking through your post history, I find how you tend to use seemingly simple questions as a foil, and I refuse to play your game, Shenlong.  Feel free to peruse my post history, if you actually want an answer; but I don't believe that this is a straight or innocent question.

Not sure what you mean by that.  You said you came here to discuss your reasons for voting for Trump.  I was trying to do just that.  Is asking questions not an essential part of learning about your perspective?  I honestly don't view the Clinton's as corrupt or criminals.  If you do, then I'd like to learn why.  I mean, your free not to engage with me if you don't like being asked questions, I'm just not sure why that would be the case.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1845
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #680 on: January 04, 2017, 07:27:10 PM »
May I ask why you believe they are corrupt and what real crimes you believe they have committed?

Obviously you may ask, since you did.  But I don't have to answer this again.  And after looking through your post history, I find how you tend to use seemingly simple questions as a foil, and I refuse to play your game, Shenlong.  Feel free to peruse my post history, if you actually want an answer; but I don't believe that this is a straight or innocent question.

Not sure what you mean by that.  You said you came here to discuss your reasons for voting for Trump.  I was trying to do just that.  Is asking questions not an essential part of learning about your perspective?  I honestly don't view the Clinton's as corrupt or criminals.  If you do, then I'd like to learn why.  I mean, your free not to engage with me if you don't like being asked questions, I'm just not sure why that would be the case.

No one likes a troll.  Joining this forum just so you can post in the "Off Topic" political threads and bait arguments pretty much qualifies you as such.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #681 on: January 04, 2017, 07:33:44 PM »
Tautologies are statements that prove their own truth. I am using the word colloquially here, as a true Tautology would be something like "It will either rain tomorrow or it won't" or "It's bad to murder someone therefore murdering someone is a bad thing to do." In your case, I mostly meant that you seem to think you have divined some sort of undeniable truths that the rest of us have not. Much like a conspiracy theorist.

I'm forgetting the formal logic term, but I was additionally referring to arguments like "The CIA has a decades long record of spreading misinformation therefore it's obvious that I should trust Trump over them." This is not a sound argument.
Nor is it an argument that I've made.  However, I would trust a used car salesman on his word before I would trust the official position of the CIA on anything.  Before the CIA had something to say about the hacking of the DNC, I was inclined to believe that Russia probably did do it, since from my own perspectives, they did have a vested interest in undermining a Clinton presidency.  After the CIA statements, however, I'm more inclined to believe the opposite.  I tend to trust nothing is true until it's been officially denied.
Quote
While I'm at it, tu quoque is another one many people on both sides use way often (the "you too!" fallacy). For example, pretty much any argument defending Trump by referencing anything HRC allegedly did or would have done is inherently a bad argument.
Maybe it makes for a bad logical argument, but when I'm presented with a binary choice, I consider voting for the lesser of two evils a rational decision.  You may not, and that is your choice.
Quote

 Same goes for claiming Trump will be better than Obama at foreign policy because Obama has made bad foreign policy decisions. One can (and I do) reject the former for very good reasons, even while accepting the latter.

I don't know if he will be better, but I can't imagine how he could be worse, unless he actually is crazy hitler.
Quote

Quote
I don't know absolutes.  I don't believe you do either.

Well that's literally what I've been saying over and over, so yeah, you're right.
"Misuse of the word "literally" drives me figuratively insane" is printed on another t-shirt I own.

Quote

Don't know what to tell you if you aren't certain Trump denied (now shifted to mere skepticism, which I guess is an improvement) the intelligence report, which included far more signatories than the CIA, by the way.
I'm both aware, and noted earlier, that there are more intelligence agencies involved in this report than just the CIA.  Idon't trust any of them.  And riddle me this, why does the US require 14 different intelligence agencies, with 14 different secret budgets and missions?  Is there any way to answer that question honestly that doesn't invoke waste, fraud or abuse?
Quote
Quote
I think that you have been reading something into my posts that I never intended.  And I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is detached from reality, I reserve that for those who make statements that sound like they are detached from the reality that I see.

I may be, but I was merely explaining that whether you intended to or not, that is exactly how you came across to me. And, I can infer from the "attacks" against you by other posters that they probably held similar interpretations, but if any of them want to step in and set me straight I'm open to being wrong here.

Perhaps this is a cultural difference?

calimom

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Location: Northern California
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #682 on: January 06, 2017, 10:51:41 PM »
We don't know, but it would be very difficult to make up 3million votes.  I know people on both sides who don't vote, since Alabama is so red, so I would expect a higher turnout, but I would think it's fairly split over the US.  I also know a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson who would have likely voted for Trump if it was a popular vote.  This all makes is murky, but Clinton would have likely won.

I don't think you can presume that Clinton would have likely won a popular vote.  Trump would have worked for the popular vote and probably would have done well in New York if he had pursued it.   We just don't know what would have happened.  There is no way to know.

Out of kindness I'm guessing that Kbecks is a senior citizen living in government supported housing. When Fox News is on (because the minimum wage staff never bothers to turn it off anyhow), everyone stands up and screams "drain the swamp!"; "build that wall"; "lock her up!". No one really knows what these things mean, but they sound good yelling it and wear themselves out. Then the slightly-better paid workers come by for with the evening medication and everyone nods off. Tomorrow is another day. MOD NOTES: Personal Attacks are not permitted. Keep arguments to the facts.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 11:38:34 AM by swick »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #683 on: January 07, 2017, 05:58:43 AM »
That's not kindness.  See how words are twisted into opposite meanings.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #684 on: January 07, 2017, 06:15:58 AM »
Perhaps we should be talking about what is happening in the cities -- like the story in Chicago, where several young adults tortured a special needs young white man, cutting his scalp, beating him and saying f-Trump, f-white people. 


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3196
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #685 on: January 07, 2017, 08:48:07 AM »
Perhaps we should be talking about what is happening in the cities -- like the story in Chicago, where several young adults tortured a special needs young white man, cutting his scalp, beating him and saying f-Trump, f-white people.

Yes. And they have been arrested, prosecuted, and it is being considered a hate crime. So justice will be served.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 08:49:52 AM by Kris »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #686 on: January 07, 2017, 10:07:03 AM »
Perhaps we should be talking about what is happening in the cities -- like the story in Chicago, where several young adults tortured a special needs young white man, cutting his scalp, beating him and saying f-Trump, f-white people.

Yes. And they have been arrested, prosecuted, and it is being considered a hate crime. So justice will be served.

You know who faced far fewer consequences? This guy:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/12/21/keller-teen-pleads-guilty-will-get-probation-assault-mentally-disabled-football-teammate

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3376
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #687 on: January 07, 2017, 11:44:10 AM »
That's not kindness.  See how words are twisted into opposite meanings.

Liberals are good at that.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #688 on: January 07, 2017, 01:12:24 PM »
Perhaps we should be talking about what is happening in the cities -- like the story in Chicago, where several young adults tortured a special needs young white man, cutting his scalp, beating him and saying f-Trump, f-white people.

Yes. And they have been arrested, prosecuted, and it is being considered a hate crime. So justice will be served.

You know who faced far fewer consequences? This guy:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/12/21/keller-teen-pleads-guilty-will-get-probation-assault-mentally-disabled-football-teammate

That's a sick crime and a weak sentence for sure.   The attackers in Chicago are all adults and their kidnap + torture + FB video evidence is going to play as more serious.  We'll see how it plays out with the courts, but perhaps with some public pressure the Chicago attackers will get a little more than probation. 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3196
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #689 on: January 07, 2017, 01:52:21 PM »
Perhaps we should be talking about what is happening in the cities -- like the story in Chicago, where several young adults tortured a special needs young white man, cutting his scalp, beating him and saying f-Trump, f-white people.

Yes. And they have been arrested, prosecuted, and it is being considered a hate crime. So justice will be served.

You know who faced far fewer consequences? This guy:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/12/21/keller-teen-pleads-guilty-will-get-probation-assault-mentally-disabled-football-teammate

That's a sick crime and a weak sentence for sure.   The attackers in Chicago are all adults and their kidnap + torture + FB video evidence is going to play as more serious.  We'll see how it plays out with the courts, but perhaps with some public pressure the Chicago attackers will get a little more than probation.

There is no way they would ever get probation. Not in a million years.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #690 on: January 07, 2017, 02:58:45 PM »
What do you think is an appropriate sentence if the accused are tried and found guilty of charges?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3196
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #691 on: January 07, 2017, 04:36:44 PM »
What do you think is an appropriate sentence if the accused are tried and found guilty of charges?

I assume there are sentencing guidelines for these crimes.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #692 on: January 09, 2017, 06:54:22 AM »
What do you think is an appropriate sentence if the accused are tried and found guilty of charges?

Off the top of my head, prison in the 15-35 year range sounds pretty reasonable, plus victim compensation.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #693 on: January 09, 2017, 01:50:57 PM »


There is no way they would ever get probation. Not in a million years.

Well, we shall see.  I would say that it should be a slam dunk case, and that they shouldn't get off easy, but these are funny things sometimes.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #694 on: January 09, 2017, 06:50:10 PM »
Quote
While we very obviously have quite a few conservative and libertarian posters,

Really?  Who might they be?  And if they are still members, why don't they post in the political threads anymore?  Doesn't that prove out my point?

Me, I'm conservative, semi-libertarian. 
If you look at:
https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
I mostly agree with everything, but abortion (which I'm questionable on) and same-sex marriage (because the government shouldn't even be involved).

What would be your thoughts on what the difference between someone who thinks government shouldn't be in the business of marriage versus someone who is for traditional marriage is?

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #695 on: January 09, 2017, 09:29:07 PM »


While I'm at it, tu quoque is another one many people on both sides use way often (the "you too!" fallacy). For example, pretty much any argument defending Trump by referencing anything HRC allegedly did or would have done is inherently a bad argument.

Well, I think some of you here are blowing this whole election hacking scandal a bit out of proportion....

Quote
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

If our own government does this stuff to other marginally democratic nations, we are more than a bit ridiculous to get bent out of shape when the Russians (or maybe the Israelis?) use our own modus operandi against us to their own favor.  This recent business with Obama making such hay of it, and openly provoking a response that could lead to open war with Russia is both stupid and dangerous.



http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

https://mishtalk.com/2017/01/09/israel-not-russia-to-blame-for-hillarys-election-loss/#more-43296

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #696 on: January 10, 2017, 08:47:57 AM »

What would be your thoughts on what the difference between someone who thinks government shouldn't be in the business of marriage versus someone who is for traditional marriage is?

Same sex marriage has been a difficult position for me too.   I currently feel the same way, that government should not be in the business of marriage.   The hard part for me has always been about the children.  How can children be protected when necessary by government, and does marriage have anything at all to do with that?  Perhaps not.   But what about divorces and things like support -- to kids who need it?   

If we follow natural law, same sex couples would not have kids.  It gets murky for me around things like surrogacy and adoption regulations.  But perhaps we could let this all be open, but also have some protection for the kids from abuse and from abandonment.

And yes, that means that people could commit to whomever they want for life.   Church marriage is in the church.   

So that's where I'm at currently, no government control of marriage, probably no marriage tax codes, etc.  Things like spousal insurance would be handled by employers and optional. 


MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #697 on: January 10, 2017, 10:19:02 AM »
Me, I'm conservative, semi-libertarian. 
If you look at:
https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
I mostly agree with everything, but abortion (which I'm questionable on) and same-sex marriage (because the government shouldn't even be involved).

What would be your thoughts on what the difference between someone who thinks government shouldn't be in the business of marriage versus someone who is for traditional marriage is?
Well, there are two types of people who think the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage.  Those who think that and believe in traditional marriage.  And those like me, who don't care that gays marry each other. 

Marriage has traditionally been a religious event.  But:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
So Congress shouldn't be able to define marriage, since that could be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  If it can't define it, then it cannot give rewards to those who are married (MFJ for example). 

The problem is that other laws give special permissions to spouses and family members that they arguably deserve (not tax benefits).  So there would still probably need to be some way to legally define your family.  But really all that needs to be defined is that this list of people have special rights with regard to their life and property.  It doesn't even have to be reciprocating, so that each person would have their legal list.  Really, there shouldn't be anything preventing two very close friends from having these benefits.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11601
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #698 on: January 10, 2017, 10:25:01 AM »
Me, I'm conservative, semi-libertarian. 
If you look at:
https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
I mostly agree with everything, but abortion (which I'm questionable on) and same-sex marriage (because the government shouldn't even be involved).

What would be your thoughts on what the difference between someone who thinks government shouldn't be in the business of marriage versus someone who is for traditional marriage is?
Well, there are two types of people who think the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage.  Those who think that and believe in traditional marriage.  And those like me, who don't care that gays marry each other. 

Marriage has traditionally been a religious event.  But:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
So Congress shouldn't be able to define marriage, since that could be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  If it can't define it, then it cannot give rewards to those who are married (MFJ for example). 

The problem is that other laws give special permissions to spouses and family members that they arguably deserve (not tax benefits).  So there would still probably need to be some way to legally define your family.  But really all that needs to be defined is that this list of people have special rights with regard to their life and property.  It doesn't even have to be reciprocating, so that each person would have their legal list.  Really, there shouldn't be anything preventing two very close friends from having these benefits.

Why should benefits be limited to just two people?

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What's really going on out in the country? Why
« Reply #699 on: January 10, 2017, 11:01:18 AM »
Here is what I have witnessed, firsthand, over the last 8 years.

-Regulation creation by federal departments(not actual laws) of mind numbing proportion. The ones that impacted me personally came from the EPA, DOE, OSHA, DHUD and the SEC. There are probably others, but basically an enormous amount of new rules and regulations around building commercial buildings. The industry has had a wave change over the last 10 years, resulting in fewer construction projects being started.
-Personally I pay more in taxes than I did 8 years ago.
-Personally I know more unemployed people than I did 8 years ago.
-Personally I know more people on welfare than I did 8 years ago.
-Personally I couldn’t get qualified for a new conventional home loan, even with stellar credit and assets in amount greater than the home is worth… This one is just absurd, and the fault of tightened home lending rules. Even though someone with less credit and income could qualify. But, he who has the gold (gov knows best), makes the rules.
-A president that received "lie of the year award" from politico.
-An IRS that abused their power and "slow walked" the applications for 503c status. Regardless of how you feel about 503c's, they are legal and should have been approved. Congressional investigations have proved the allegations to be true.