10-22-2016, 07:30 PM | #2651 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
|
>Bush vs Gore
Let's also not forget that that was the eighth time in American history that the Electoral College McFucked up and the loser of the popular vote was elected.
__________________
|
10-22-2016, 10:17 PM | #2652 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Do we mention the Supreme Court case and general amount of suspicion around the events surrounding it?
Granted, it is definitely not in the same league as Trump crying that the election is rigged and he wants to hold the whole thing up longer than it should 2016 is bad enough.
__________________
|
10-23-2016, 02:56 AM | #2653 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
The really funny part of this story is where Trump says "I've been very good at predicting things.
__________________
Spoiler: show |
10-23-2016, 08:51 AM | #2654 | ||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
They're polarized, sure, and disagree frequently and publicly - but both parties are trying to do what is best for the country. Morally, ethically, financially, legally, and constitutionally. Do you think that guns should be taken away from gun owners who do not abuse their right to bear arms by hurting others? Do you think that the nation has a moral responsibility to pass laws that protect all its citizens regardless of color, sex, sexuality, or creed? Do you think that Muslims have the right to practice their religion in a manner that does not interfere with the rights of others? Quote:
Democrats seek to restrict people's abilities to abuse the rights of others. They don't "loosen restrictions," they impose restrictions that end well for disenfranchised groups of people. Ex. Obamacare succeeded in providing affordable healthcare across the country by restricting and wrangling with health care providers and insurance companies that did not meet a minimum standard of care or abused their clients, then providing tax credits to the consumers to sign up for better and now-cheaper insurance plans. It failed by forcing many people to leave health care providers who may not have met those minimum standards but who were very helpful and personal to many people - those getting specialized and individual treatment from organizations who fell short on required kinds of general care, for example. It also didn't predict that people are apparently total idiots who don't understand what "insurance" is. Republicans seek to loosen financial, social, and personal restrictions. They favor deregulation and the relaxing of restrictions. This is good in many ways because it allows citizens to live without restriction or silencing, and it's very in line with what the Constitution says about the country. However, like above, the rights granted by this philosophy come at the cost of others' rights, and it's not always the government's rights the way Republicans want it to be. If you ask a Republican about gay marriage, they'll probably say something like "I don't oppose it in general and I don't hate gay people, but I don't want my church to do it." The general feeling is that of being forced to be tolerant and compliant. Funny and not understandable to you, I know. Trust me, I know, I don't understand it perfectly either. But Republicans don't understand many things about Democrats! You're about to reference abortion rights as an example of why Republicans want to restrict social and personal freedoms. Many Democrats oppose abortion as well - you can find shitloads of them in New England. The battle between a women's right to choose and an unborn child's right to live does not fall along party lines, but instead along religious lines. It's not a Republican thing. The reason Republicans tend to oppose abortion is because religious communities tend to be Republican. This is in turn because religious communities tend to do many of the things that the government does under a Democrat system. They see the government as being too expansive and too restrictive of their right to practice their religion, and they consider many public services as the government sticking its fingers into places that they are already handling. You'd be hard pressed to find examples of Republicans doing anything but trying to lift restrictions and deregulate industries. OBVIOUSLY, as you all WELL know because you tend to be Democrats, the removal of these restrictions usually ends up in someone's rights being infringed on. Most of the time, a restriction the Republicans want gone is something that would allow them to abuse or discriminate against some kinds of groups. Does this make sense?
__________________
|
||
10-23-2016, 11:28 AM | #2655 | |
Snackin'
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
|
Quote:
Yes, Yes, and Yes. I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post because it is so condescending and makes so many unsubstantiated assumptions that I would rather not read it again. |
|
10-23-2016, 12:32 PM | #2656 |
Golden Wang of Justice
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
|
Shuckle, why do you think that Wall Street supports HRC 99% to 1%? The 'moderate' Democrats are just as in the pocket of big business as moderate Republicans. Wall St. does not want to change the status quo, whether that's Trump or Bernie.
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website. |
10-23-2016, 12:36 PM | #2657 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Rich Wall Streeters (is that a term?) and boomers near retirement don't want a change to the status quo. Because they've been paying very high prices for stocks in the status quo and don't want to watch their fortunes halve or worse.
Me? I'm allllll fine with the stock market going thermonuclear. It's a great way to make me rich!
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
10-24-2016, 05:37 AM | #2658 | |||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's pretty commonly acknowledged that the main difference between the parties is execution nowadays; Republicans don't like the way Democrats do things and vice versa. Looking at the things they generally want (ex. "responsible gun control" and "individual equal rights") is a good way to tell if the parties are truly polarized over something - ex. abortion, immigration, etc. Tbh this argument is silly, accomplishes nothing, is based on a very tenuous "fact," and goes absolutely nowhere so I vote we drop it on the grounds that there's nothing to argue. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
10-25-2016, 08:44 PM | #2659 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
__________________
|
10-26-2016, 10:03 AM | #2660 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
That actually brings up a good memory when I was in Alabama. I went to a Hardees and there was this white guy and black guy in the line ahead of me and they just started chatting it up like it was nothing.
That said though, I think the racial tension thing is a culture clash between socioeconomic status, not a matter between people of the same status. Policemen tend to not be poor, rural white men. They tend to be among the higher social status in a rural community - not the top, like the guys who become managers of some generic industry, but significantly higher. And I think that's what causes the friction.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
10-26-2016, 11:03 AM | #2661 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Where is that SNL skit where Alec Baldwin imitated Trump so I can use it to justify my world view.
__________________
|
10-26-2016, 11:34 AM | #2662 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Which one. He's been on the show now about twice as much as Larry David (playing Bernie Sanders) has been. In the last month alone, he's made no fewer than three appearances, playing Trump in SNL's roast of all three presidential debates.
__________________
|
10-26-2016, 11:51 AM | #2663 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Oh well that goes to show how much I keep up with SNL.
I mean it was more a jab at the fact that Shuckle is using an SNL skit to justify his views of BLM instead of using, well, virtually anything else that would make sense in that context: BLM speeches, rallies, opinions and views of prominent BLM activists and so on and so forth.
__________________
|
10-26-2016, 11:59 AM | #2664 |
Ducks gonna duck
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,824
|
God Tom Hanks needs to do more comedy
|
10-26-2016, 12:00 PM | #2665 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Yeah he was pretty damn good in that skit I'll admit.
__________________
|
10-26-2016, 01:52 PM | #2666 |
A New and Original Person
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
|
Black Jeopardy always delivers the laughs.
|
10-26-2016, 02:41 PM | #2667 | |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
I've talked about BLM before and that will probably never change. The mission of BLM is to end police and court injustice. This is a goal everyone can and should get behind. Full stop. Don't try to think of anything beyond that. It ends in tears and the realization that BLM was created by 3 college students after they took 1 seminar about community organization.
__________________
|
|
10-26-2016, 02:47 PM | #2668 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Don't call me babe. Please.
__________________
|
10-26-2016, 03:12 PM | #2669 | |
Golden Wang of Justice
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website. |
|
10-26-2016, 04:02 PM | #2670 | ||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
Whether you think your system should be designed that way is a separate question. >Rangeet So, short version of this; I'm not trying to equate Republicans and Democrats here. Hell I'm pretty heavily Democrat with a few exceptions. Are you familiar with the work of a psychologist (and Nobel Prize winner in Economics) Daniel Kahneman? His book Thinking, Fast and Slow popularised a viewpoint in psychology (although the idea long predates him) that essentially argues that the reasoning we give when asked why we make a particular choice actually bare little to no resemblance to the reasons we actually made that choice. A number of brain scan studies have allowed scientist to quite reliably predict what choice someone will make between two things before they're aware of having made it, and also that the areas of the brain that light up when they're asked to explain their choice are entirely different from the ones that light up when actually making it. The conclusion; the logical arguments we put forward as the reasons that we believe something have nothing to do with why we actually believe it, and we're basically incapable of admitting this to ourselves. Combine that with the idea that debating/arguing evolved as a form of exerting social dominance (and that therefore people who were more willing to change their viewpoints in light of counter evidence faced a serious evolutionary disadvantage) and you reach another conclusion; for any position we feel strongly about, the arguments we put forward for it could be - and honestly, quite probably are - complete gibberish, but we'd be almost biologically incapable of realising it. Let's take this into the realm of politics now. I could sit here waxing lyrical about the virtues of gay marriage or cannabis legalisation or socialised healthcare until the cows come home. I could produce all sorts of logical arguments and statistics in their favour. However, the psychology argues that a) I've actually picked my positions based on illogical cognitive biases, I just think I picked rationally and b) there's no reason whatsoever to assume that there's any resemblance between what feels like an objective good argument to me and actual, objective truth. The two pounds of fat sitting inside my skull is quite capable making me think I've worked out the objective right answer but equally incapable of working out an actual, objective right answer. In fact, since psychologically speaking I've picked my positions on my deeply held beliefs arbitrarily out of hundreds or thousands of possible positions chances are I'm wrong on all of them. Maybe on a grand scale or maybe only in minor detail, but wrong nonetheless. Tl;dr version; the science argues that no matter how watertight a logical argument in favour of a position you or I strongly support looks to us, it's almost certainly wrong in at least some aspect - and we'd be almost completely unable to finds its flaws or even acknowledge them if pointed out to us. It also means that no matter how strong your argument may seem to you, there's zero reason whatsoever for you to believe you're more likely to be right than someone who holds the exact opposite viewpoint to you on every single issue, so acting like your view is superior to theirs is at best ridiculous and rather unhelpful in a civilised, democratic society. So pragmatically speaking, what do we do about this? Withdrawing from the electoral system entirely by refusing to vote just cripples it, it solves nothing. The best I can come up with starts with education in an effort to make the population at large less susceptible to logical fallacies anecdotal evidence. The best we can do individually is vote based on the strongest arguments we have ans hope that any small correlation between an objective argument and our individual subjective argument tells out in sufficiently large numbers of voters - the "wisdom of crowds", as it were. Moreover, we should favor electoral systems that end up requiring compromise to pass legislation, rather than those that allow cohesive groupings to assert their view unilaterally (see also; why I'm opposed to the existence of political parties in general).
__________________
Quote:
|
||
10-26-2016, 06:39 PM | #2671 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
|
That's precisely what I mean: by a design flaw it picked the candidate that a majority of the country voted against. If that isn't a gaffe, then what is?
__________________
|
10-26-2016, 06:47 PM | #2672 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
I'm gonna be quite honest most of America's voters are dumb and the Founding Fathers kind of expected this would be the case.
Quote:
__________________
|
|
10-26-2016, 08:08 PM | #2673 | ||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
Of course this whole idea makes people very uncomfortable because we like to think of ourselves as intelligent, rational beings who've distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom in some meaningful way when in reality our entire selves is merely the product of two pounds of fat in a vat of chemicals and several hundred million years of evolutionary tinkering. Amusing/interesting side note; the results of these kind of experiments (and, relatedly, many experiments in cognitive bias) show greatly reduced results amongst people on the autistic spectrum. They're demonstrably less burdened with some of the idiocies of our evolutionary history.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 10-26-2016 at 08:15 PM. |
||
10-26-2016, 08:18 PM | #2674 | |
I make cryin' babies weep
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,243
|
Quote:
But yeah the whole system sucks because states are just so big and have so many different kinds of people, and the winner take all system of American politics just isn't practical anymore because of the diversity within states themselves.
__________________
|
|
10-26-2016, 08:47 PM | #2675 | ||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
Of course, the idea of the US federal system as almost independent nations that collaborated on specific areas kind of fell apart when their right to self determination (as represented by their right to withdraw from the union) was trampled all over in the Civil War. On balance with the alternative being slavery, this was a necessary evil. *I may have a very simplistic view of American history, not being American myself, so take what I say with a pinch of salt.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 10-26-2016 at 08:54 PM. |
||
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|