snipped for brevity
GWL, you're looking at the wrong aspect of my commentary. I wasn't talking about who controls the presidency. I was taking issue with the term "standard one term democrat". In the modern era, when people say something like that, they are referring to Jimmy Carter, since he's the only democrat in nearly 147 years to only serve one term.
A sample size of 1 is not a trend.
snipped for brevityGWL, you're looking at the wrong aspect of my commentary. I wasn't talking about who controls the presidency. I was taking issue with the term "standard one term democrat". In the modern era, when people say something like that, they are referring to Jimmy Carter, since he's the only democrat in nearly 147 years to only serve one term.
A sample size of 1 is not a trend.
It is if you use your imagination.
You lot still not worked out your elections????
As an impartial international observer all i can say is that your right royally screwed either way
Then I have a lot to question about every part of your status claim except maybe the international part.
Vote Trump is you want a chance at something actually happeningYou realize that the argument for trump you're using here would work equally well for The Zombie Apocalypse right?
So which would be qualitatively worse, BNW: the Drumpf, or the zombies?
And, doc roc, i will concede this much to BNW, Betts, thejeff, and others:
1) different =/= better
2) many people find "Better the devil you know . . . ." most persuasive
3) HRC is a case where we've got a shockingly high degree of certainty as to how things would go down
I am *not* endorsing HRC. This is merely an observation.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So which would be qualitatively worse, BNW: the Drumpf, or the zombies?
Vote Trump is you want a chance at something actually happeningYou realize that the argument for trump you're using here would work equally well for The Zombie Apocalypse right?
It is not illegal for me to murder the everliving f#!+ out of a zombie with a chainsaw.
It is not illegal for me to murder the everliving f+#$ out of a zombie with a chainsaw.
Ha! :)
At least, not yet. lol| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not illegal for me to murder the everliving f+&& out of a zombie with a chainsaw.So which would be qualitatively worse, BNW: the Drumpf, or the zombies?
Vote Trump is you want a chance at something actually happeningYou realize that the argument for trump you're using here would work equally well for The Zombie Apocalypse right?
I for one totally support Rysky's right to destroy the living dead with extreme prejudice.
Mostly because my paladin of Sarenrae says that it is a good idea.
It is not illegal for me to murder the everliving f+#$ out of a zombie with a chainsaw.Ha! :)
At least, not yet. lol
Oddly enough, I'm not sure of any case law on that. Courts make odd decisions when faced with a "case of first impression." I wouldn't rely too much on that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly enough, I'm not sure of any case law on that. Courts make odd decisions when faced with a "case of first impression." I wouldn't rely too much on that.It is not illegal for me to murder the everliving f+#$ out of a zombie with a chainsaw.Ha! :)
At least, not yet. lol
Yeah, it's illegal to go harpooning for whales in Ohio for one thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Donald Trump is evil. Supporting Trump doesn't make one evil.
It makes one complicit.
There's something messed up and I don't think 50% of Americans would vote for this guy if they didn't have faulty b&%%$~+# detectors.
Many of Trump's supporters are fully aware that he can't or won't deliver on most of his promises, many don't believe that he'll actually build his wall.
They don't care. Trump's appeal is to the vast number of people who don't feel that they're being served by the status quo of the Republican Party, and many of them are whites who feel that the Democrats sold their race up the river in the 60's and will do so again if Clinton is elected.
Many people decide their votes on feelings and emotions and are pretty resistant to appeals based on logic, reason, and above all, "authority".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump is a symptom. Let people lose hope and s~@+ like this happens. Oh, and rest assured that the US getting Trump as president is not something the rest of the world will just take in stride. Better hope his worst excesses can be neutralized somehow, the alternative is going to be extremely costly in a loss of trust, torn international agreements and loss of influence. Right now, you americans need to think carefully about how the rest of the world sees you. Of course, Russia will LURVE getting Trump elected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump is a symptom. Let people lose hope and s$+& like this happens. Oh, and rest assured that the US getting Trump as president is not something the rest of the world will just take in stride. Better hope his worst excesses can be neutralized somehow, the alternative is going to be extremely costly in a loss of trust, torn international agreements and loss of influence. Right now, you americans need to think carefully about how the rest of the world sees you. Of course, Russia will LURVE getting Trump elected.
Trump isn't just a symptom, he's a bellweather. He's the sign that we've undergone a fundamental change in the body politic. Humpty Dumpty has indeed broken, and there isn't any going back to the world Before Trump, any more than we're going back to the world before 9/11.
Trump's insurgence is the triumph of emotion over reason, and feelings over fact.
Trump's insurgence is the triumph of emotion over reason, and feelings over fact.
The triumph of Truthiness.
Trump's insurgence is the triumph of emotion over reason, and feelings over fact.The triumph of Truthiness.
As Steven Colbert has explained, Truthiness has been Trumped by Trumpiness
...is there any widespread democractic movement that not only uses but embraces willfull blindness?
Anti-2A advocates (see: Bloomberg's Everytown group and similar supporters) are pretty on-par with Republican intellectual dishonesty (or they're just intentionally uninformed, though I'm not sure which is worse) and is a largely Dem-based group. Bear in mind that's not the only example, it's just the first one that comes to mind since it's one of my bigger topics of interest and one of major relevance around me.
Anti-2A advocates (see: Bloomberg's Everytown group and similar supporters) are pretty on-par with Republican intellectual dishonesty (or they're just intentionally uninformed, though I'm not sure which is worse) and is a largely Dem-based group. Bear in mind that's not the only example, it's just the first one that comes to mind since it's one of my bigger topics of interest and one of major relevance around me.
As one of those people you would label an "anti-2A advocate", no, there's no parallel. Not remotely. Those of us who take an active interest in the subject are very well-informed.
But I encourage you to support your claim, and I'll set a very easy bar for you to meet: provide a list of examples of intellectual dishonesty displayed by Everytown for Gun Safety in the two years since it was founded that rises to the level of intellectual dishonesty displayed by Donald Trump, the de facto leader of the Republican Party, in a single speech.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So which would be qualitatively worse, BNW: the Drumpf, or the zombies?
.
Are we talking fast zombies, slow zombies, bite only infection, zombie mosquitoes...i need more specific information before answering that question.
Ugh, my own hometown idiocy
Its.. not bad by Florida standards?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anti-2A advocates (see: Bloomberg's Everytown group and similar supporters) are pretty on-par with Republican intellectual dishonesty (or they're just intentionally uninformed, though I'm not sure which is worse) and is a largely Dem-based group. Bear in mind that's not the only example, it's just the first one that comes to mind since it's one of my bigger topics of interest and one of major relevance around me.As one of those people you would label an "anti-2A advocate", no, there's no parallel. Not remotely. Those of us who take an active interest in the subject are very well-informed.
But I encourage you to support your claim, and I'll set a very easy bar for you to meet: provide a list of examples of intellectual dishonesty displayed by Everytown for Gun Safety in the two years since it was founded that rises to the level of intellectual dishonesty displayed by Donald Trump, the de facto leader of the Republican Party, in a single speech.
That's just from my cursory glance at Everytown's posted issues. If we were to look at the subject from a larger perspective, including groups such as the Brady Campaign and a plethora of legislators (Senator Feinstein would be the easiest target) I could reference gross inaccuracies and outright falsehoods for days.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And anyone who is being called a bigot repeatedly and by a range of people is almost certainly an actual bigot.
I think this is a failure of logic. The veracity of a statement is not based on the number of people who say it.
For example, there are many people who will throw out the label, anti-Semitic, if you question the US support for Israel. You will be called anti-patriotic or "against the troops" if you don't support the latest military misadventure. If you don't want to compete for jobs and services with a desperate underclass of non-citizens, you are racist. If you don't want factories moved overseas and consumer goods produced in sweatshops, your an isolationist. Bloomberg referred to protestors against the RNC in 2004 as bums, and accused us of engaging in a type of terrorism. Fairly recently, Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, said, “Young women have to support Hillary Clinton. The story is not over!” she said. “They’re going to want to push us back. Appointments to the supreme court make all the difference. It’s not done and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”Resorting to derogatory labels to smear your opponent is a classic tactic when your argument it weak. Both parties do it all the time.
I would also like to say that as a New Yorker, Trump has been around for decades, and has always been, well...Trump. I recall when he took out full page ads in the Newspaper against the falsely accused, "central park five". While we are delving into the past, the first few minutes of this video feature Trump talking about being president as far back as 35 years ago. I can't tell you what is on the rest of the video because I got nauseous and wanted to punch my monitor after about 3 minutes.
Hillary also has a history of racism from her days as a Goldwater Girl, to pushing for bringing "superpredators" to heel in support for Bill's mass incarceration policies*. She also supported welfare policies and trade policies that affect people of color in very bad ways. In more recent times, her campaign has done some shady s+!#, that she benefited from, and of course denies being a part of.
*In political speak, "gangs", "urban", "inner-city", "welfare queen" as well as anyone in jail, are often used as dog whistles for people of color.
The veracity of a statement is not based on the number of people who say it.
No, but frequency and breadth are a fine heuristic for these kinds of labels.
The veracity of a statement is not based on the number of people who say it.No, but frequency and breadth are a fine heuristic for these kinds of labels.
"When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."
Or the old Jewish proverb: "If one person calls you a donkey, ignore him. If two people call you a donkey, look in the mirror. If three people call you a donkey, ... buy a saddle!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The veracity of a statement is not based on the number of people who say it.No, but frequency and breadth are a fine heuristic for these kinds of labels.
Not really. The truth is the truth. What people say, is what people say. The two don't really have any inherent consistency.
I think that is a fundamental issue with understanding politics. Look at what politicians actually DO, and where their money comes from. Listening to what known liars say, is not a good indication of what they will do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. Again, the truth is the truth. What people say is what people say. The two don't really have any inherent consistency.The veracity of a statement is not based on the number of people who say it.No, but frequency and breadth are a fine heuristic for these kinds of labels.
Inherent consistency, no. Empirical consistency,... actually, quite a bit.
That's one reason that eyewitness testimony is accepted in court, and is considered more credible when it's corroborated. There's no guarantee that any single person wouldn't lie, and there's not even a guarantee that all four witnesses to an act aren't telling the same lie. But it's not a "failure of logic" when the jury believes the four witnesses' account and disbelieves the defendant's stout denial.
The veracity of a statement is not based on the number of people who say it.No, but frequency and breadth are a fine heuristic for these kinds of labels.Not really. The truth is the truth. What people say, is what people say. The two don't really have any inherent consistency.
I think that is a fundamental issue with understanding politics. Look at what politicians actually DO, and where their money comes from. Listening to what known liars say, is not a good indication of what they will do.
But in that case Trump is a bigot and a racist demagogue. Judging him by his behavior thus far, that's no more an untrue description than saying he's bald and wears his hair in a comb-over.
Oddly enough, I'm not sure of any case law on that. Courts make odd decisions when faced with a "case of first impression." I wouldn't rely too much on that.It is not illegal for me to murder the everliving f+#$ out of a zombie with a chainsaw.Ha! :)
At least, not yet. lol
It will be an interesting day indeed when a D.A. brings charges against a defendant that chopped up one or more bona-fide zombies with a chainsaw (or otherwise dispatched elements of the zombie apocalypse). ;)
So which would be qualitatively worse, BNW: the Drumpf, or the zombies?
.Are we talking fast zombies, slow zombies, bite only infection, zombie mosquitoes...i need more specific information before answering that question.
Fast zombies, fluid-borne pathogen transmissible only by the (formerly) human body.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fast zombies, fluid-borne pathogen transmissible only by the (formerly) human body.
I'll take the zombies. I think the CDC and national guard can put that down, and body fluid zombies are less virulent than political action committees.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
100 years ago, racism was supported by a wide variety including medial experts, and other "learned people".
Yet it was all h~%+!~#$&.
Again, the truth is the truth! The number and breadth who believe a lie does not make it true. Are people really trying to argue against this?
The headline here tries to make it seem as if there is any serious legislative push in the country to put guns in the hands of anyone and everyone, which is in no way true.
It absolutely is true - it's abundantly clear that the NRA and similar groups are engaged in a legislative effort to remove restrictions on where guns may be carried. Their end goal is to remove those restrictions entirely.
This screenshot from their website's "Act" section argues against a supposed loophole that doesn't actually exist.
Yes, it does. For those following along, the "terror gap" loophole refers to the fact that existing legislation does not prevent individuals on the FBI's terror watchlist from purchasing firearms. According to the GAO, over 2,000 people on that watchlist have obtained firearms over the last 11 years.
Claiming this gap doesn't exist is remarkable to me. This is one of the few things that both Republicans and Democrats agree on - that the "terror gap" must be addressed. The only fight is over what should be done to address it. Democrats want to prevent gun sales to anyone who has been investigated for terror in the last five years, while Republicans want a "default proceed" policy that limits the sale stop to those with more definite ties to terrorist acts.
This article against campus carry ignores the entire history of legal campus carry in the US where it has been shown to effectively cause no real issues.
You'll need to provide a credible source on that - a body of peer-reviewed, journal-published studies indicating no significant change in rates of violent crime or suicide based on the status of legal carry on the campus, for example.
When I said I encourage you to demonstrate your claim that both sides are equally intellectually dishonest, that wasn't me encouraging you to stretch the truth yourself to make your point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fast zombies, fluid-borne pathogen transmissible only by the (formerly) human body.I'll take the zombies. I think the CDC and national guard can put that down, and body fluid zombies are less virulent than political action committees.
This may be an isolated case, but i agree with the second part of your response. :)
100 years ago, racism was supported by a wide variety including medial experts, and other "learned people".
Yet it was all h$*@%!#*&.
Again, the truth is the truth! The number and breadth who believe a lie does not make it true. Are people really trying to argue against this?
We're not arguing in favor of lies. We're saying that, in those situations where you don't know or cannot know the truth, a heuristic like the number of times someone has been called racist by different groups of people provides a relatively safe way to conclude whether or not the person in question really is racist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
100 years ago, racism was supported by a wide variety including medial experts, and other "learned people".
Yet it was all h$$~%&&@~.
Again, the truth is the truth! The number and breadth who believe a lie does not make it true. Are people really trying to argue against this?
I'm not arguing against it, I'm just one of those annoying people who thinks we should say "seems to be to me," in place of "is."
The headline here tries to make it seem as if there is any serious legislative push in the country to put guns in the hands of anyone and everyone, which is in no way true.It absolutely is true - it's abundantly clear that the NRA and similar groups are engaged in a legislative effort to remove restrictions on where guns may be carried. Their end goal is to remove those restrictions entirely.
[Citation needed]
The NRA has supported a number of background checks and other policies well short of full legalization of everything. Why are you lying?
This screenshot from their website's "Act" section argues against a supposed loophole that doesn't actually exist.Yes, it does. For those following along, the "terror gap" loophole refers to the fact that existing legislation does not prevent individuals on the FBI's terror watchlist from purchasing firearms. According to the GAO, over 2,000 people on that watchlist have obtained firearms over the last 11 years.
Claiming this gap doesn't exist is remarkable to me. This is one of the few things that both Republicans and Democrats agree on - that the "terror gap" must be addressed. The only fight is over what should be done to address it. Democrats want to prevent gun sales to anyone who has been investigated for terror in the last five years, while Republicans want a "default proceed" policy that limits the sale stop to those with more definite ties to terrorist acts.
Dude, even the ACLU came out against this stuff. It takes next-to-nothing to put someone on a terror watchlist, or start an investigation on spurious grounds, and it's almost impossible to get yourself off of one of those lists. Do you really want every FBI agent with a grudge to be able to deprive anyone they want of a constitutional right with no kind of oversight?
You're using a criminally loose definition of "loophole" here. The rest of us refer to it as "due process".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're not arguing in favor of lies. We're saying that, in those situations where you don't know or cannot know the truth, a heuristic like the number of times someone has been called racist by different groups of people provides a relatively safe way to conclude whether or not the person in question really is racist.
I disagree completely.
When you don't or can't know something... just admit you don't or can't know something.It isn't that hard. People have been doing it for thousands of years.
Anything else is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.
I think there is value in taking trusted, informed, opinions into account, and forming opinions based on them, but the idea that a large number of people saying something has value is absolutely nonsense, as is the idea that there is value if these people come from different backgrounds.
This is the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq in 2003, and I feel like people should have learned something from that.
vvvv
EDIT: Sir Meh, I don't understand what point you're trying to make, or what you are talking about.
The NRA has supported a number of background checks and other policies well short of full legalization of everything. Why are you lying?
Follow along, please. We weren't discussing background checks. We were discussing restrictions based on type of venue. It's abundantly clear that the gun lobby has had state legislative efforts in motion over the last few years to remove those restrictions.
Dude, even the ACLU came out against this stuff. It takes next-to-nothing to put someone on a terror watchlist, or start an investigation on spurious grounds, and it's almost impossible to get yourself off of one of those lists.
You can absolutely disagree about whether something should be done about this. That would put you in the minority, but that's fine. The fact of the matter is that this loophole does in fact exist.
So far, literally no examples of intellectual dishonesty on the part of Everytown have been put forward. Meanwhile, Trump told 21 huge lies in one speech. But "Both sides same!" right?
We're not arguing in favor of lies. We're saying that, in those situations where you don't know or cannot know the truth, a heuristic like the number of times someone has been called racist by different groups of people provides a relatively safe way to conclude whether or not the person in question really is racist.
I disagree completely.
When you don't or can't know something... just admit you don't or can't know something.
It isn't that hard.
Anything else is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.
I think there is value in taking trusted, informed, opinions into account, and forming opinions based on them, but the idea that a large number of people saying something has value is absolutely nonsense, as is the idea that there is value if these people come from different backgrounds.This is the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq in 2003, and I feel like people should have learned something from that.
I thought it was the Bush administration doing stuff like lying about yellow cake, but if you want to quote the party line about group think, go for it.
In this specific case, I can and do know something. I've been watching Trump's behavior longer than he's been running for president (Just in the media, not in a creepy way) and he's displayed a willingness to use racism and bigotry to political ends. It's not an uninformed point of view to call that behavior demagoguery, it's just how the dictionary defines it.
When you don't or can't know something... just admit you don't or can't know something.
Or we can make educated, reasonable conclusions based on limited information, just like you do literally every day, countless times, with a tremendous degree of success.
I'm not interested in trying to appease your personal, finely-tuned sense of ethics.
This is the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq in 2003, and I feel like people should have learned something from that.
Holy god, what the hell.
Lets try to wander back onto topic...
I certainly don't mean any of my posts to be abusive to other posters on the thread. If the mods feel it necessary to remove any of my posts, I'm absolutely fine with that. However, I truly, truly believe (and yes, I know I'm digging my own grave even as I write this) calling Trump a racist demagogue isn't abusive so much as a honest evaluation of his behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the Fallacist's Fallacy, the argument that because a line of reasoning is formally fallacious, the conclusion must be false. This, of course, is a fallacy.
But more than that, in my experience, anyone who takes this line of "reasoning" is, in fact, in the wrong. Because real life is based entirely on fallacious reasoning. I assume that my car is parked on the sixth floor of the parking lot because that's where I left it this morning, but of course, that is a fallacy. in fact, if I assume that my car is not in Cleveland, Ohio this afternoon because I parked it in Boulder, Colorado this morning, that's a fallacy. But I would be a fool if I decided to look for it in Cleveland instead of Boulder, because I can't prove that it's not in Cleveland. (Especially since I can't prove that it's not in Istanbul, either....)
In the real world, you look at evidence. If there's a little bit of evidence for something, you believe it might be true. If there's a lot of evidence for something, then you believe that it's probably true. If there's overwhelming evidence for it, to the point that it would be perverse to disbelieve it, then you strongly believe that it's almost certainly true.
And when someone points out that "just because many independent witnesses have observed Trump saying and doing racist things over a long period of time doesn't meant that he has actually said or done any of them, because your car might be in Cleveland, except for the tires, which might be in Istanbul," you shake your head at the ignorance of such a fool who has nothing to rely on but the Fallacist's Fallacy.